---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 10:32:22 -0400
From: David Cobb <[log in to unmask]>
To: Maps and Air Photo Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Map Copying Guidelines (fwd)


Colleagues -

Ahh, copying, the bane of our existence as curators of map collections!! If
I had my preference, every map we collected would be 8.5 x 11 (that's
inches!) and would be dated after 1995! Unfortunately, few collections have
either of those luxuries and the first question after you have found the
perfect map to answer your patrons query is: "Can I get a copy of this?"

Our policy at a small school in New England has gone from one of "No
Copying - No Way!" to one approaching generous flexibility addressed by Ron
below with a mix of a little in between. Our collection, like so many
others, includes materials which are considered rare and those we might
even consider expendable and a range of sizes from 2 inches square to 6
feet square and even larger. Copying is as much of a service as access is.
Most patrons understand when they are looking at a sixteenth century atlas
that they cannot take it down the hall and "flop it on the xerox" -
although you would be surprised at some people's reactions. For most small
current materials we do let our patrons take them down the hall and flop it
on the xerox. As the materials increase in size and, shall we say, mature
in age toward the early 20th century, we begin to impose greater
restrictions. Medium sized materials can be copied by Map Collection staff
at 11 x 17 size. Larger materials can be sent out to a commercial copying
firm (that picks up and delivers) and we "hand carry" rarer materials -
that we temporarily encapsulate - to the copying firm, wait for the copies,
and bring them back. Similar policies exist for books and atlases: current
ones are allowed to be copied down the hall while rarer materials can only
be copied in our Imaging Services Lab. All of these varying costs are
passed on to the user and it ranges from a mere 0.50 to $100.

This long explanation leads to the obvious conundrum: map collections that
do large amounts of copying should do their own in house. Unfortunately,
this requires staff time and, as technical solutions become more
sophisticated, it becomes more expensive. Because of the demand on our
collection we are seriously evaluating the acquisition of a large format
scanner so that we might offer greyscale and color scans of a significant
portion of our collection. Although scanners are not inexpensive (ca. $10K
or more) it may be a viable option for larger collections that have a high
demand for copies and with reasonable charges (ca. $5 greyscale and $10 for
color) costs could be recouped in 3-4 years. For example, we average ca.
15-20 oversized copies/week over the year. If we were to charge $10/copy,
and copy 15/week for 40 weeks that would be ca. $6K. Staff time could be
saved by "batching" copies to MWF afternoons also. This also assumes one
other small piece of equipment: a plotter! Fortunately, we have one already
but many libraries will have to invest in one soon in order to print many
of the maps from the 2000 Census.

These options may be realizable for only the larger research libraries but
I believe that many libraries can improve their copying services with
reasonable investments and reasonable charge backs. Until then, I admire
and value my 8.5 x 11 CIA maps!

David Cobb

At 02:35 PM 8/8/00 -0400, you wrote:
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 11:53:43 -0600
>From: Ronald Whistance-Smith <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Maps and Air Photo Systems Forum <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re:      Re: Map Copying Guidelines (fwd)
>
>I've always been a big fan of flexibility when it comes to dealing with
>clients in the map collection.  We have both a need to protect the materials
>in the collection, and to serve those who use the collection.  Balancing
>these two is always a problem.
>
>Gerry Strey's solution below goes only part way in providing that balance.
>Here in Edmonton, the Provincial Archives of Alberta has tackled things in a
>different way, one which I think goes too far in the direction of protecting
>the materials.  They now allow no copying of maps in the archives building.
>If you want a copy of a map or portion thereof, no matter how large, it is
>sent out to a commercial copy company and you pay commercial rates.  This
>takes us back to the days before photo-copiers when copies were done
>photographically.
>
>Some blending of these two is probably the right way to go with anything
>larger than the dimensions given by Gerry, as what must go to a commercial
>copy house.
>
>Ron
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Johnnie Sutherland" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 6:32 AM
>Subject: Re: Map Copying Guidelines (fwd)
>
>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 13:18:37 -0500
>> From: Gerry Strey <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Map Copying Guidelines (fwd)
>>
>> I haven't followed this thread, so I apologize if I end up repeating
>advice already posted.  Size is the main criterion for dertermining which
>maps and atlases we allow to be photocopied.  The largest map we allow is
>20x30 and the largest atlase (when closed) is aobu 15x24 inches.  On the
>table next  to the photocopier we've used tape to mark the two sizes--if the
>map or altas doesn't fit inside the appropriate rectangle, no copying.
>>
>> It never ceases to amaze me what patrons are prepared to do to a map in
>order to get a copy.  And so many will say in an injured tone, as they
>produce a huge map, "But I only want this little part!"
>>
>> Gerry Strey
>> Map Collection
>> State Historical Society of Wisconsin
>>
>