[open-heritage] PSI directive & GLAM

Thu Nov 15 14:01:20 UTC 2012

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bct2NT5qt7NeXt2HkIVcthbrJUoCFlC5S3q8_QCo0DY/edit

I set up a Google doc with some information gathered throughout the thread,
please dont hesitate to add any point that you might think is relevant !

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Primavera De Filippi
<pdefilippi at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/20121115/87c27fa7/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/20121115/87c27fa7/attachment-0001.jpg>