Original Record: The first copy or archetype of a record; that from which another instrument is transcribed, copied, or initiated. [Government]
"The InterPARES 2 Project Dictionary." Def. 1. InterPARES Project. N.p., 27 June 2016. Web. 27 June 2016. <interpares.org>.
It’s always interesting to me the ways in which people use the term “original” when referring to their records and documents. The majority of time the term is used to denote something that exists in a physical format with wet signatures, seals, stamps, or other identifying marks. Although I understand how and why people have this perception as it relates to physical documents, what I can’t understand is why the term “original” and its meaning often doesn’t translate into the digital world.
Somehow the idea persists that physical = original. Anything electronic is considered to be a copy, a soft copy, an electronic version, or something other than an original. I always find this slightly perplexing given the way many documents are still created, received, used, and maintained. For example, it is quite common to receive documents electronically that require a signature. Often the recipient will print the documents, sign them, and then scan them to return to the sender. Sometimes this happens with agreements, when multiple parties are required to sign the documents. Even though agreements are one of the few document types that produce a true multiple original, with this type of signature method, nobody ends up with a “true” original. Instead every party has the documents that they signed, plus an electronic version, or maybe a printout, of everybody else’s signatory pages. So which one is the “original’? Does it make the agreement any less valid that everybody signed from different places or to have it available in an electronic format?
I recently opened up a business bank account. I was shocked when the banker printed out several dozen sheets of paper (all single sided!) containing the client agreement. I dutifully signed all the right places before asking the banker what was going to happen with the paper. Every evening he scanned in all the signed contracts to be sent to the document-processing centre before shredding the paper. As a RIM professional, I would consider the scanned version to be the “original” because that’s the one the bank is going to use, provided that the conversion happened in accordance with established guidelines and standards. However, I think a lot of people in the work place would disagree with me on this point due to the persistent perception that an original is a physical document with wet signatures.
These days the vast majority of documents and records are created, received, used, and maintained electronically. In fact, some records only exist in an electronic format and that is their native, original state. And even then it can be difficult to discern which one is the “original”, according to the definition above. For example, all social media can only truly be original in an electronic format due to the way it’s used, how interactions occur, and for the metadata fields behind the scenes. Most of these critical components are lost when social media is “saved” through screen caps and printouts. These are not the originals, but rather copies of what existed in an electronic environment. Unlike some other documents that can exist as an original in either format, social media can only accomplish this state electronically. But would other people see it that way too?
Or maybe, because electronic documents/records are so easy to replicate and access, it changes our perception and concept of what it means to be an original.