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

[Fredric Saunderson]

To Claudia's point - yes, there is certainly some ethical dubiousness to
that. And it sounds like perhaps some legal dubiousness as well, in so far
at least as the original will always remain PD. But I don't want to
critique the particular case too much, as I do not have the facts.

I can only re-echo (if that's a thing) Ally's message. There is definitely
a lot of missed feelings and views inside GLAMs about how digitised IP
ownership is treated. In this forum I need to take a fairly impartial
approach, but I can certainly agree that the legal foundations seem like
they will not always last in their current form. I do not know which way
things (legally) might go, whether towards the US system or to a system
where IP in digitisations is reaffirmed, but i do feel that before too long
things will go one way or the other.

On 10 November 2014 15:59, Crockford, Ally <a.crockford at nls.uk> wrote:

>  Although Fred’s e-mail earlier addresses them better than I can, as
> someone who has been involved in the conversations regarding licensing of
> digitised public domain content, I wanted to weigh in on Laurel’s comments
> and, to some extent, Claudia’s (apologies for length)...
>
>
>
> This issue is one that faces pretty much all Galleries, Libraries,
> Archives, and Museums right now, particularly those in the UK where there
> has currently not been a decisive legal case regarding the application of
> ‘sweat of your brow’ copyright. As Fred mentioned, in the US there has been
> such a decision, and therefore in the US public domain content that is
> digitised is automatically placed back into the public domain, as well it
> should be.
>
>
>
> To repeat Fred again, cultural organisations can and will license
> digitised public domain content separate from the PD original, often under
> some variation of a CC license. Of course, for many of the reasons that
> Laurel mentioned, this is a situation that is not being accepted with
> complacency by members of the public – particularly those involved in the
> OK movement – NOR, I have to point out, by many members of staff at the
> organisations themselves. Hopefully in time (and many people have suggested
> that it’s inevitable) we will see ourselves in a legal situation like that
> in the US.
>
>
>
> For the time being, many OK advocates both internally (like myself) and
> externally have been working to get cultural organisations to release their
> content back into the public domain in some format, whether that be
> acknowledging their PD status or applying a CC-0 license. I do use wording
> like ‘releasing content’ because, as much as I believe myself that any
> digitised version of PD content IS in the public domain, the legal reality
> in the UK is that there is currently nothing prohibiting organisations from
> licensing digitised PD content under different licenses, so the wording is
> – unfortunately - accurate.
>
>
>
> I applaud the NLS for their more open policy and the on-going discussions
> regarding its implementation, as I have applauded other organisations who
> have made similar developments. However, I also acknowledge that this is
> not an acceptable solution in and of itself, and therefore I refuse to let
> it drop here, and I’d encourage everyone else to do the same.
>
>
>
> PS -  re: Claudia’s anecdote, that fellow could conceivably license his
> digitised copy of the PD original as he saw fit – there’s nothing legally
> prohibiting him from doing that – but the original object would remain in
> the PD, meaning, as I understand it, that nothing would prevent someone
> else from digitising it themselves and releasing it under a PD license. Yet
> another reason why most cultural organisations need to re-address their
> perspective with respect to licensing...
>
>
>
>
>
> Ally Crockford
>
> Wikimedian-In-Residence
>
> National Library of Scotland
> George IV Bridge
> Edinburgh EH1 1EW
> Scotland, UK
>
>
>
> e: a.crockford at nls.uk
>
> t: (0) 131 623 3797
>
> w: http://www.nls.uk
>
>
>
>
>
> Follow us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/natlibscot> and Facebook
> <http://www.facebook.com/NationalLibraryOfScotland>
>
>
>
> National Library of Scotland, Scottish Charity, No: SCO11086
>
> This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not
> the addressee please inform the sender and delete the email from your
> system. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of
> the author and do not necessarily reflect those of National Library of
> Scotland. This message is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 and
> Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. No liability is accepted for
> any harm that may be caused to your systems or data by this message.
>
>
>
> www.nls.uk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <https://twitter.com/fredsaunderson>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/ok-scotland/attachments/20141110/f62c5ac9/attachment-0003.html>