In the pre-digital days, there was a tangible expense associated with copying a color transparency or printing a black-and-white negative. Analog films and black-and-white prints were rented to the client, and, if they were returned at all, scratches frequently marred their delicate surfaces. Thus, the rationale for charging clients an asset fee was direct cost recovery for film that was more often than not damaged beyond reuse.
Some museums also seek to be reimbursed for picture research necessary to identify the object(s) that would fill the order, and for handling and shipping the film. Today, however, external clients are frequently able to identify the specific image required by searching a museum’s online collections database, thereby obviating the need for picture research by the rights and licensing staff. The high-resolution digital file can easily be copied, thereby eliminating the time and money for printing black-and-white negatives or sending color transparency masters out for duplication. Depending on the number and size of the images, the order can be instantly “delivered” as an email attachment or by posting the digital files to an FTP server. As more existing transparencies are scanned and new photography created by direct digital capture, many of the actual costs of supplying images have thus been eliminated, leaving staff salaries to form the major expenditure in rights and licensing services.1
