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

Fri Feb 8 09:09:41 UTC 2013

Thanks Jess,

Look forward to your comments later.

This guidance document is heavily referenced. Unfortunately it doesn't provide the solid legal framework that is required (lots of good examples tho :-)

Best

A
On 08/02/13 09:01, Jessica Ogden wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/e6630667/attachment.html>