[open-heritage] PSI directive & GLAM

Mon Nov 19 13:50:08 UTC 2012

Hi all, the last week didn't work out, I updated the doodle, please
complete it again (sorry)
http://whenisgood.net/pacbqm5
Thanks !

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Primavera De Filippi
<pdefilippi at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> 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/20121119/8e197cb9/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/20121119/8e197cb9/attachment-0001.jpg>