[open-heritage] PSI directive & GLAM

Thu Nov 15 13:02:36 UTC 2012

Hi all, and thanks for those who have answered the doodle.
It seems that today 17:00 (Paris time) could be a good time, so let's take
it - otherwise we'll never get this started  ;) For those who did not
answer the doodle, if you can make it at that time, please let me know your
skype handle,
Talk to you soon !
Primavera

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Primavera De Filippi <pdefilippi at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hi all,
> I have created a doodle to set up a skype call to plan the drafting:
> http://whenisgood.net/pacbqm5
> please fill it up as soon as you can  :)
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Primavera De Filippi <
> pdefilippi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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/20121115/325f3a3a/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/20121115/325f3a3a/attachment-0001.jpg>