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

Fri Feb 8 09:32:37 UTC 2013

I think that is a fair assessment ;-)

Best,
Jess

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Anthony Beck <A.R.Beck at leeds.ac.uk> wrote:

>  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> 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/cf0e05e8/attachment.html>