[open-heritage] PSI directive & GLAM

Sun Nov 11 09:58:10 UTC 2012

Thanks Javier !
I think we should proceed with the drafting of this position paper, what
about next week?  ;)
Please let me know who is interested / available to contribute to the
draft,
so that we can set up a short skype call next week to coordinate our
actions..
Thanks !

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Javier Ruiz <javier at openrightsgroup.org>wrote:

>  This is not great in general, although there are some good aspects.
>
> The newer version does continue the general weakening of provisions
> through open-ended exceptions for "providing a service in the public
> interest" and "not to hinder the normal running of the public body" that
> mean the status quo will probably not change at all for the public data
> monopoly recalcitrants such as UK Ordnance Survey in terms of charging and
> exclusive deals
>
> Regulatory powers for PSI authority are out, but some processes for
> charging (transparent and verifiable criteria) are reintroduced.
>
> Open Licensing appears in the directive, though via a non-binding
> recommendation.
>
> A positive note from ORG's perspective is including reference to the Data
> Protection framework, after the slap on the wrist by the EDPS.
>
> For the cultural sector there are some changes.
>
> Digitisation deals should be as short as possible but can last up to 10
> years instead of 7. As we don't have any requirements for transparency in
> the calculations, challenging this can be difficult.
>
> There is a paragraph which has a good reference to our efforts:
>
>  *Therefore, where an exclusive right relates to digitisation of cultural
> resources, a certain period in time might be necessary for this exclusive
> right in order to give the private partner the possibility to recoup its
> investment. This period should, however, be limited in time and as short as
> possible, in order to respect the principle that public domain material
> should stay in the public domain once it is digitised.*
>
> But unfortunately, it gets muddled a couple of lines below:
>
>  *In addition, any public private partnership for digitisation of
> cultural resources should grant the partner cultural institution full
> rights with respect to the post-termination use of digitised objects.*
>
> While we can understand the aim to ensure that institutions are not
> limited by commercial companies, it may not be phrased in the best way.
>
> It potentially conflates IP rights with ownership of the digital objects
> and defeats the purpose of protecting the public domain.
>
> For example, the Google Books agreement reads:
>
> "Neither Library nor Google shall have any ownership or license rights to
> the content digitized thought this agreement.. except where the Library
> already has such rights. (...) "
>
> This contract keeps parallel tracks, where both Google and the institution
> have the right to do what they wish with their respective digital
> copies after the contract finishes. Will now Google have to ask for
> permission to data-mine their "digital objects"?
>
> The other problem that this clause does not address is that GLAMs may sit
> on the materials after the contract. This is what is happening with 250k
> books digitised by Microsoft for the British Library, out of contract
> restrictions for 18 months now and still locked in a basement waiting for
> someone to come up with a business model.
>
> I think the directive should read:
>
> *In addition, any public private partnership for digitisation of cultural
> resources should not place conditions on the partner cultural institution
> with respect to the post-termination use of digitised objects. Digitised
> public domain materials held by the partner cultural institution should be
> made available and reusable at the end of the agreement.*
>
>
>
>
> *
> *
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Javier Ruiz
> javier at openrightsgroup.org
> +44(0)7877 911 412
> @javierruiz
>
> On Friday, 26 October 2012 at 06:30, Alek Tarkowski wrote:
>
>  Dear all, I've received a copy of the latest version of the PSI
> directive, dated Oct 23rd. Some of you probably have seen it already.
> Please find it enclosed.
>
> Best,
>
> Alek
>
>   Primavera De Filippi <pdefilippi at gmail.com>
>  October 25, 2012 15:36
> Hi Paul (and others), do any of you have an editable version of the
> document ?
> I'd like to start an online document with it.
> Thanks,
> Primavera
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-glam mailing list
> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
> Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam/atarkowski%40centrumcyfrowe.pl
>   Primavera De Filippi <pdefilippi at gmail.com>
>  October 7, 2012 12:37
> Hi all,
> as regards the drafting of the short paper to be endorsed by
> Communia, maybe we could schedule a skype meeting sometimes next week to
> discuss the next steps ?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-glam mailing list
> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
>
>
> --
> dyrektor, Centrum Cyfrowe Projekt: Polska
> www: centrumcyfrowe.pl
> identi.ca / twitter: @atarkowski, @centrumcyfrowe
>
> polecam: otwartezabytki.pl, conasuwiera.pl
>
> Attachments:
>  - ST15065 EN12_re_use.doc
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20121111/a2394648/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: compose-unknown-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 770 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20121111/a2394648/attachment-0001.jpg>