The European Research Infrastructure DiSSCo (Distributed System of Scientific Collections - https://www.dissco.eu) aims to digitally unify and mobilise all European natural history assets, to ensure that collections data are easily findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR - Wilkinson et al. (2016)). This will transform a fragmented landscape of collections into an integrated knowledge base, enabling researchers to use and interconnect different collections. DiSSCo represents the largest ever formal agreement between natural history museums, botanical gardens and collection-holding research institutions and universities in the world.

The Natural History Museum is a key partner in DiSSCo, both from the European Research Infrastructure perspective and its work in promoting and establishing the DiSSCo UK node and network of UK collections (Smith et al. 2022). As part of our ongoing work, we recognise the need to share a broad range of documentation and best practice with our peers. The Museum has conducted a programme of specimen digitisation for some ten years, releasing collections data through a data portal (https://data.nhm.ac.uk/, Scott et al. (2019)).

While there are other examples of collections policies available online (e.g. Hyvärinen et al. (2020)), we are not aware of any natural science institution formally publishing their open information policy, nor any exceptions that they apply to open information release. In order to meet their objectives, both DiSSCo and DiSSCo UK need to implement policies that support the release of FAIR data, but also consider the complex needs of organisations that operate with mixed business models and legal entities.

The Natural History Museum is an exempt charity*1 regulated by the UK’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport, but also operates a separate commercial arm, The Natural History Museum Trading Company Ltd. (for shops, commercial hire etc.). This Open Information and Exceptions Policy applies to both legal entities and recognises that complexity, but establishes our commitment to ‘open by default’, as well as the reasons why we may, by exception, withhold data from open publication either wholly or for a defined period or publish data under more restrictive licensing conditions. The reasons can be complex and nuanced, but we hope by sharing our policy that it will provide a reference point to make it easier for others to adopt an ‘open by default’ approach.

The examples of information types provided under each exemption are not exhaustive and may themselves be subject to case-by-case nuances.

The sections below are Version 2.1 of the Policy, which is updated periodically - this version was approved by the Trustees of the Natural History Museum in November 2023.

Please note: this policy is for reference only and is not a substitute for professional legal advice.

The Natural History Museum aims to make information openly accessible whenever possible and appropriate. This underpins our vision of a future where people and planet thrive and our mission to create advocates for the planet; and reflects our responsibilities as a public body and our roles as a public custodian of collections of global origin and as a scientific research organisation.

The Open Information and Exceptions Policy applies to all Museum Information whether generated under the Trustees of the Natural History Museum or the Natural History Museum Trading Company – for example, data, documents, images, video, sound recordings – created and held in the course of Museum activities, whether for scientific, public engagement, development or administrative purposes.

The Open Information and Exceptions Policy translates the principle of ‘open by default’ into practice by setting out what this means for the Museum and identifying the exceptional circumstances under which Museum Information will be withheld from viewing or access by the public. This is achieved by:

• Connecting the policy to relevant legislation and best practice;

• Setting out the categories of exceptions to data release and how to consider whether they are applicable.

The scope of the Exceptions outlined in this policy is limited to access to Museum Information. When making information accessible, it is good practice to state the terms of, or any restrictions on, re-use (e.g. a copyright statement or any licence that is being applied).Re-use (sharing, repurposing, republishing) of information is subject to copyright or other intellectual property rights considerations, as well as the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2015. It is noted that the publication or provision of access to Museum Information does not automatically grant a licence for its re-use. It should be noted that some copyright exceptions cannot be overridden by contract, meaning some uses of released information cannot be prevented even if precluded by contractual terms.

The Museum’s Technology Solutions Team is committed to ensuring that underlying technology will enable the Open by Default principle to be realised, providing that there is no applicable Open Information Exception.

Legislation, including The Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), take precedence over Museum exception decisions.

Since the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) came into effect in January 2005, the Museum has been required to make information accessible when requested by the public, unless one or more of a specified list of exemptions apply. From September 2013, this has also included automatically enabling re-use of requested datasets, under licence if containing copyright material. The Museum is also required to proactively publish certain organisational information (e.g. minutes, information on contracts and expenditure, forward planning, information about the collections) according to a publication scheme as laid out by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) require environmental information that we hold to be made accessible on request, unless one or more specified exceptions apply.

The Public Records Act 1958 (with subsequent revisions) gives the public the right of access to Museum records which are more than 20 years old, unless exempt under FOI or EIR.

Part of the Museum’s core legal duty under the British Museum Act 1963 Section 3 is to make its collections available to the public and we believe we should interpret this for a digital era as regards making digital information relating to the collections openly available.

When a request for information is received under these pieces of legislation, any internal exceptions will be taken into account when considering the response. However, only specific FOI exemptions or EIR exceptions can be used to withhold information from release. It should be noted that some FOI exemptions can remain in place for a long period of time, for example, section 40 – personal information can apply for the lifetime of the individual concerned.

Potential FOI exemptions that may be considered on a case-by-case basis have been listed for each exception below, to illustrate the overlap.

Below are the Museum's list of permitted exceptions to making information available under the ‘open by default’ principle.

i. Institutional profile and brand value;

ii. Commercial value;

iii. Research competitiveness;

iv. Third party rights;

v. Sensitive collection information;

vi. Donor or funder conditions;

vii. Confidential information;

viii. Legal or regulatory compliance.

The expectation is that information will be released, but these possible exceptions will be considered and applied where good reason is demonstrated.

i. Institutional profile and brand value

ii. Commercial value

iii. Research competitiveness

iv. Third party rights

v. Sensitive collection information

vi. Donor or funder conditions

vii. Confidential information

viii. Legal or regulatory compliance

If Information is considered to fall within any of these exceptions, one or more of four basic actions will occur:

1. No release (e.g. for sensitive/confidential information);
2. Time-delayed release (i.e. embargo, with an agreed time limit and process for review for extension or subsequent release);
3. Release without licence for re-use (‘All Rights Reserved’). It should be noted that information released or otherwise published without an associated licence permitting its re-use, may still be legally reproduced by third parties to the extent that the re-use is legally permitted under a relevant copyright exception;
4. Release with conditions:

a) Release under a relevant licence from the Museum;

b) Release with third party conditions;

c) Release according to legal/regulatory conditions.

Within all of these actions, consideration should be given to the granularity and types of information being released – for example, rather than applying an exception to a whole dataset, certain fields or items might be redacted under this policy for later release or no release, enabling the rest of the information to be made available.

When an exception is declared, a record of the decision-making should be retained within the business area.

The Museum follows the Government Security Classifications policy for its information assets. The policy applies to all information that the Museum collects, stores, processes, generates or shares to deliver services and conduct business, including information received from or exchanged with external partners. All Museum staff have a duty to respect the confidentiality and integrity of any Museum information and data that they access and are personally accountable for safeguarding assets according to their classification.

All routine business, operations and services should be treated as OFFICIAL. This information does not have to be explicitly marked, but all staff have a duty of care to ensure that it is handled and shared responsibly and only accessed by authorised individuals for legitimate business reasons.

As per the Museum’s Information Assurance Framework, OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE (formerly PROTECT) should be applied to information assets:

a) containing confidential personal information, or

b) designated as ‘Museum sensitive’, that is, containing information that the Museum would not wish to be made known to the public, at least without a controlled release process.

This should be marked in the header (of documents) and file name and, if held in SharePoint or Exchange, should be labelled using the Microsoft Office 365 Security labels.

The OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE marking indicates that particular care should be taken when handling a document and it should only be shared, securely, on a ‘need-to-know’ basis. The marking does not automatically exempt the document from release under FOI, but will be taken into consideration if a request for it is received.

For practical purposes, information covered by most of the Open Information exceptions should be treated as OFFICIAL, so no marking up is required.

However, the OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE classification will generally apply to documents covered by the following exceptions:

• Institutional profile and brand value;
• Confidential information;

and potentially:

• Sensitive collections information;
• Legal or regulatory compliance.

Wherever possible, the OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE classification should also be marked up in the metadata of relevant assets in the CMS and MAM. For the other exceptions, it is possible that related documentation, for example, contracts or agreements, should be considered and marked as OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE, but the information itself (e.g. images or datasets) can be managed as OFFICIAL.

If any exception is applied to information, consider whether related documentation should be marked as OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE.

For further advice on Government Security Classifications, contact the Records Manager.

‘Access’ means ability to view Information, whether because it has been proactively published or is released to an enquirer upon request.

‘Information’ means all recorded information including (without limitation) written and textual works, data, databases, photographic and digital images, film footage, sound recordings, publications, reports, research, designs and artwork.

‘Information owner’ refers to the person who is responsible for the information and its publication, for example, a collections manager or an Engagement Group staff member who has commissioned photography or a scientist who has created a dataset. Information owners are not solely responsible for decisions about the release or non-release of information, but will be required to advise Museum stakeholders on the application of any exceptions.

‘Enabled for public access’ refers to sharing or publishing content to the public.

‘Exception’ refers to an exception to the open by default principle. Exceptions are identified and pre-agreed circumstances in which the Museum will not allow access to its Information.

CMS refers to the Museum’s Collections Management System.

MAM refers to the Museum’s Media Asset Management system.

‘Open by default’ means the inherent assumption that the public will be permitted to access/view Information created by the Museum.

‘Re-use’ means using Information in ways that involve repurposing, sharing or republishing it.

The authors would like to thank the members of the Museum's Information Management Group for providing feedback on this policy and supporting its publication.

Author contributions are documented using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT https://credit.niso.org/):

• Ruth Benny: Writing - original draft (original policy), Writing - review and editing (original policy and updates).
• Esme Chapman: Writing - review and editing (policy updates).
• Nancy Chillingworth: Writing - original draft (original policy), Writing - review and editing (original policy and updates).
• Helen Hardy: Supervision, Conceptualization (policy updates), Writing - original draft (policy updates), Writing - review and editing (policy updates).
• Laurence Livermore: Supervision, Conceptualization (policy updates), Writing - original draft (policy updates), Writing - review and editing (policy updates).
• Polly Parry: Conceptualization (original policy), Writing - original draft (original policy), Writing - Review and editing (original policy).
• Ben Scott: Writing - Review and editing (original policy).
• Vincent Smith: Supervision, Conceptualization (original policy), Writing - original draft (original policy), Writing - review and editing (original policy and updates).
• Matt Woodburn: Conceptualization (original policy); Writing - original draft (original policy), Writing - review and editing (original policy).

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.