[ok-scotland] Open Licensing at the National Library of Scotland

Mon Nov 10 14:38:33 UTC 2014

Hi folks. Excuse me for wading in here but I think the copyright issue is worthy of some new research in its own right, assuming the 'interesting discussions' Lorna flags have not already triggered this. From a purely anecdotal perspective, I met a guy at a party a couple of years ago who seemed to be land grabbing pretty much every historical image he could lay his hands on (not public domain) and said that by simply reproducing them digitally he could copyright them and thus effectively transfer ownership to himself. It seemed somewhat unethical to me at the time and has bothered me ever since. 
Claudia

Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Nov 2014, at 23:34, Lorna M Campbell <lorna.m.campbell at icloud.com> wrote:
> 
> Morning Fredric! nI did wonder :}  Good response never the less.
> 
> Incidentally I've had some interesting discussions with colleagues in the US about copyright of digital images of public domain resources, for the very reasons you mention. 
> 
> Cheers
> Lorna
> 
>> On 10 Nov 2014, at 09:06, Fredric Saunderson wrote:
>> 
>> Apologies! My last reply here was in response to the below email, not to Lorna's message that i replied to above. Sincere apologies - the woes of trying to do too much before Monday morning coffee!
>> 
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>>  
>> From: "Laurel L. Russwurm" <laurel.l at russwurm.org>
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [OpenGLAM] Open Licensing at the National Library of Scotland
>> 
>> Date: 3 November 2014 13:17:06 GMT
>> 
>> To: open-glam at lists.okfn.org
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Ewan:
>> 
>> This sounds great, but I am just a little curious.  Does:
>> 
>> "1,000 digital images have been released into the Public Domain"
>> mean that 1,000 images entitled to copyright protection under Scots law have been released into the Public Domain?
>> 
>> Or does this mean The National Library of Scotland is just now withdrawing its own claims of Intellectual Property ownership of Public Domain works among its holdings?  If the latter, it is not the same thing as Nina Paley's dedication of her own original work, "Sita Sings the Blues," [http://sitasingstheblues.com/] (and indeed all of her own original work) into the Public Domain.  
>> 
>> I don't think you can release works into the Public Domain that are already in the Public Domain.  
>> 
>> And while I understand it is a good idea to praise GLAMS for doing "the right thing,"  if the works are already in the Public Domain, using this wording implies that NOT recognizing the legitimacy of the Public Domain is a reasonable alternative.   It is not.  
>> 
>> Under law, owning a work does not confer copyright ownership.  If someone else owns the copyright, claiming copyright, even on a physical work that you own without also owning the copyright is legally defined as copyright infringement.    Although modern copyright law does not appear to make even the slightest effort to actually protect the Public Domain, I think it is important to insist that such protection should be inferred, even if not explicitly stated.   
>> 
>> The Intellectual Property of works in the Public Domain are owned by the Public.  (Before the institution of copyright law, all Intellectual property was owned by the public... that is what the Public Domain used to be.  So If the Public owns the copyright, claiming copyright, even on a Public Domain physical work that you own should be legally defined as copyfraud.  If what they are doing is recognizing the legitimacy of the public domain, if what they are doing is choosing to NOT commit copyfraud.
>> 
>> I think the word "copyfraud" was deliberately coined to be contentious, as a means to raise awareness of a common practice that is eroding the Public Domain.  And I realize it is not productive to accuse GLAMs of copyfraud if there is a possibility that their policy can be changed, and especially if they are in the process of changing their thinking, if for no other reason than that both people and institutions get defensive when treated in an adversarial manner.  
>> 
>> So if the works in question are in fact already in the Public Domain, it would be far better to present this as a case where The National Library is making its Public Domain holdings available to the public.  This is, after all, praiseworthy, because they are well within their rights to keep such works locked away in a vault. 
>> 
>> Of course, if the works in question are not in the Public Domain, the original wording is fine.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> Laurel
>> 
>>> On 10 November 2014 08:42, Fredric Saunderson <fredsaunderson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Lorna,
>>> 
>>> The policy described how the Library will approach licensing the digital photographs that we make of works. It would be copyfraud for us to claim intellectual property in original items where the copyright has lapsed and the work’s IP passed into the public domain. We do not claim intellectual property ownership in original items that are in the public domain. What we do, as is common in the UK, is claim a new copyright in digitisations. This is copyright in the photograph, as a new intellectual work involving a certain level of skill and effort, and is no claim on the IP in the original. As you allude, it is public domain items that we are digitising. Our new policy moves us towards a more open licensing approach to our new photographic works. The practice of claiming copyright in digitisations is an interesting and complex one, which is often debated. For example, it is not possible to claim a new copyright ownership in digitisations in United States law. This was laid down in the Bridgeman Art library v. Corel Corp. case in 1999. However, in the UK this is a common and legally established approach.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Fred
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 3 November 2014 10:30, Lorna M Campbell <lorna.m.campbell at icloud.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Euan, 
>>>> 
>>>> Many thanks for highlighting these initiatives. These are hugely positive developments both in terms of sharing CC0 metadata and increasing access to open licensed cultural heritage resources, both of which have significant relevance to open education.  Congratulations to all those at the National Library involved in these initiatives.  
>>>> 
>>>> Best Wishes
>>>> Lorna
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2 Nov 2014, at 14:22, Ewan Klein wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi everyone
>>>>> 
>>>>> The National Library of Scotland is working on procedures and guidance to support a new and developing Metadata and Digital Content Licensing policy. As part of this work the Library has released collection metadata associated with the First World War Official Photographs under a CC0 license to The European Library (TEL) for inclusion in both its portal and in Europeana. The Library will continue to release further CC0 licensed metadata to TEL and Europeana over the coming months.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The policy development is also being informed by a limited release of digital content to the WikiCommons project.  More than 1,000 digital images have been released into the Public Domain, including photographs of the construction of the Forth Bridge and The Tay Bridge Disaster enquiry; images from the historic book Scotia Depicta; nineteenth century posters and photographs from Edinburgh theatres; and images from Walter Blaikie’s collection of Jacobite broadsides.
>>>>> 
>>>>> See more at: http://scot.okfn.org/2014/10/27/open-licensing-at-the-national-library-of-scotland
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ewan
>>>>> 
>>>>> -------------
>>>>> Ewan Klein
>>>>> Open Knowledge Ambassador for Scotland
>>>>> Skype:  ewan.h.klein |  @ewanhklein
>>>>> http://scot.okfn.org/  |  @okfnscot
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ok-scotland mailing list
>>>>> ok-scotland at lists.okfn.org
>>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ok-scotland
>>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ok-scotland
>>>> 
>>>> -- Lorna M Campbell --
>>>> Assistant Director, Cetis
>>>> Web: www.cetis.ac.uk
>>>> Blog: lornamcampbell.wordpress.com
>>>> Mail: lorna.m.campbell at icloud.com
>>>> Twitter: LornaMCampbell
>>>> Skype: lorna120768
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ok-scotland mailing list
>>>> ok-scotland at lists.okfn.org
>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ok-scotland
>>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ok-scotland
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Fredric Saunderson
>>> saunderson.me | @fredsaunderson
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Fredric Saunderson
>> saunderson.me | @fredsaunderson
>> _______________________________________________
>> ok-scotland mailing list
>> ok-scotland at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ok-scotland
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ok-scotland
> 
> -- Lorna M Campbell --
> Assistant Director, Cetis
> Web: www.cetis.ac.uk
> Blog: lornamcampbell.wordpress.com
> Mail: lorna.m.campbell at icloud.com
> Twitter: LornaMCampbell
> Skype: lorna120768
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ok-scotland mailing list
> ok-scotland at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ok-scotland
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/ok-scotland
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/ok-scotland/attachments/20141110/87d94516/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/ok-scotland/attachments/20141110/87d94516/attachment-0003.ksh>