[open-archaeology] Open Data Licences and the Heritage Lottery Fund (great guidance but recommend the NC clause) - lobbying activity

Fri Feb 8 09:01:25 UTC 2013

Hi all -

Really quickly as I'm in a meeting all day - this is all looking good, and
really great to see as this has been something that has concerned me for a
while as well.

In Jan. OKFN posted on this topic, and as far as I remember some a
German-based group put together and translated a guidance document on the
risks of NC license models found here:
http://blog.okfn.org/2013/01/08/consequences-risks-and-side-effects-of-the-license-module-non-commercial-use-only-2/

I think it's relevant here, and could really use some additional guidance
(of this sort) of the specific ramifications for cultural heritage
applications as well.

Sorry for the quick response - wil read thoroughly and add more later as I
get more time to look it over! Thanks all..

Best,
Jess

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Anthony Beck <A.R.Beck at leeds.ac.uk> wrote:

>  Thanks Leif,
>
> Comments inline
>
> Best
>
> Ant
>
> On 08/02/13 08:07, Leif Isaksen wrote:
>
> Thanks Ant (and Lorna)
>
>  There's been a lot of interesting development (good and bad) in this
> area recently and I've been very keen to respond but simply out of time to
> do it properly. However, the big shift appears to have been that 'NC-ND is
> the new Closed', i.e. pretty much everyone says they support Open Access
> but, for the reasons you suggest, many organisations are urging NC-ND
> clauses for reasons which are not necessarily well thought out (that's a
> generalisation of course - there are time when such a clause might be
> appropriate). See for example the announcement from the Royal Historical
> Society, section i):
> http://www.royalhistoricalsociety.org/RHSPresidentE-letterJanuary2013.pdf
>
> Thanks
>
>
>  As such I'd be very keen if possible to generalise such a workshop a
> little bit to produce a document that can be used beyond the HLF.
>
> Agree - this should be a platform for long-term traction
>
>  Ideally it should make clear the likely consequences of such clauses, so
> that any given organisation can make its own decision as to how far they
> align with its goals.
>
> Agree. It shouldn't be a mandate but should raise awareness of the
> implications of any decision.
>
>  Can I also propose that we consult someone with strong legal expertise
> in this area (possibly from OKFN, ODI or CC?) so that we have a rock-solid
> foundation for any claims we make?
>
> Agree completely. This must be solid. I hope the OKF can provide this
> (Steko: can you pursue this?)
>
>   There is also a question of whether we have time to wait until the HLF
> get back to us - are there other venues that might be available in order to
> make this happen quickly. This shift has happened very recently and it is
> important to respond quickly before NC-ND becomes established orthodoxy.
>
> I know Bob Bewley personally (one of the directors of HLF). I could
> approach him informally on this issue to test the waters and get feedback
> on what are the best ways to formally submit this.
>
> Alternatively we could get an organisation with more grunt to champion
> this (ADS?, Southampton (Web Science Centre)?)
>
>
>  Lastly, I'd prefer it if the document were signed personally, only
> insofar as OKFN is an open forum and there is no established mechanism in
> place to gauge either how many people are in fact being consulted, or what
> ratio of them are actually in support. A claim of 'tacit' agreement by
> known contributors would be both unfair on them and weaken the status of
> the document.
>
> Fair point. The text can be easily changed to directly represent the
> signatories. Best to do this once we've decided where else to circulate
> (Antiquist/ADS others) - Broader distribution obviously has time
> implications
>
>  Naturally I would personally be happy to sign any such document however
> (in addition to a petition to the HLF) and would encourage others to do so
> as well.
>
> Thanks. See above point
>
>
>  One last thing - I tried to add my name to the doc but it appears to be
> view-only?
>
> Fixed
>
>
>  Cheers
>
>  L.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Ant Beck <ant.beck at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> TL/DR: We would like to influence the Heritage Lottery Fund to change
>> their data licence from CC-BY-NC to CC-BY to stop data fragmentation. Do
>> you support this?
>>
>> I've been in communication with Lorna Richardson over the past few months
>> about the Heritage Lottery Fund guidance entitled “Using digital
>> technologies in heritage projects”. This is a truly wonderful and
>> forwarding looking piece of work which IMHO opinion has a substantial flaw;
>> they mandate that any content they fund must be made available under a
>> CC-BY-NC licence. I'm loving it until the Non-Commercial clause.
>>
>> I believe they have done this with the best of intentions but do not
>> quite see the potential negative implications the NC clause this may have
>> over the medium to long term.
>> I have spoken to one of their managers and they are somewhat perplexed as
>> to why NC might be a problem. I said I would get in touch with a number of
>> organisations, get a concensus and then get back to them (although likely
>> to be informally through Bob Bewley in the first instance). This is the
>> first step in this process.
>>
>> Together with Lorna we have created a document which outlines the impact
>> of NC as we see it and have set forward some recommendations to try to
>> influence HLF to change this clause (at least for the data elements - I do
>> have sympathy with their arguments that the data creators should be in the
>> best position to financially exploit the resources they generate
>> particularly if this is images, video or books (but not data (I don't
>> consider raw photos to be data per-se))). The recommendation is to organise
>> a workshop (under the auspices of OKF or ADS??) with key stakeholders in
>> place. The outputs can be used to catalyse an immediate re-draft or inform
>> a future re-draft (depending on how they take the recommendations!).
>>
>> You can find the document here:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nw8kwSYdcLgf_QFo5sugRgrwtDtYZomeJ4Sh9T-T46Y/edit?usp=sharing
>>
>> It is open to edits and comments: please feel free.
>>
>> Please be aware this is primarily of UK interest. However, the
>> implications are global.
>>
>> I would like to find out if:
>> this document reflects the views of the members of this forum (i.e. can I
>> sign it off as representative of this forum).
>> how we can get OKF to provide support for this activity (someone with
>> decent debating skills at the workshop with a rounded legal knowledge of
>> the CC licences and their impact on the data landscape)
>> which other forums/stakeholders to canvas (Antiquist/ADS, etc.)
>> Views on stakeholders to invite
>> Views on funding (HLF may not fund this activity)
>> and obviously critique of the document itself.
>>
>> I've pasted the executive summary below.
>>
>> Thanks for reading this far :-)
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Ant
>>
>> Executive Summary
>>
>> The HLF have produced a guidance document entitled 'Using digital
>> technologies in heritage projects'. This document establishes a 21st
>> century agenda for funding agencies by recognising the long-term role that
>> project content play in science and social agendas. The Open Data in
>> Archaeology working group strongly endorses this document and believes that
>> improving long-term access to project content will have immense impact
>> across domains and have particular benefits for engagement.
>>
>> However, the Open Data in Archaeology working group has some concerns
>> about the use of the Creative Commons by attribution non-commercial
>> (CC-BY-NC) licence for all project content. Whilst we see the benefit for
>> many project resources we would question the benefit of this licence for
>> resources described as 'preservation technologies'. We feel that whilst
>> CC-BY-NC may provide some short-term benefits it has the potential to
>> produce license incompatibilities which may introduce profound problems in
>> the medium to long term. It has the potential to fragment the data
>> landscape creating pockets of knowledge which are rarely used in mainstream
>> analysis, research or policy making. This will be further exacerbated when
>> automated data aggregation and analysis systems become the norm. We believe
>> that such fragmentation goes against the intent of the HLF document which
>> is clearly focused on accessibility, engagement and enjoyment by all.
>>
>> We would like to engage in further discussion with the HLF on these
>> issues and propose that a workshop is established to bring together the
>> major re-use stakeholders under the umbrella of the Open Knowledge
>> Foundation (who will provide legal, technical and practical advice on
>> licence issues).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-archaeology mailing list
>> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
>> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology
>> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-archaeology
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-archaeology mailing list
> open-archaeology at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-archaeology
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-archaeology
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-archaeology/attachments/20130208/f6061ec4/attachment.html>