[open-heritage] PSI directive & GLAM

Wed Nov 21 12:02:30 UTC 2012

Ok, most of you seem to be available on friday at 14:00, so let's make it
official  !
talk to you soon  :)

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Primavera De Filippi
<pdefilippi at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/20121121/76f420e9/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/20121121/76f420e9/attachment-0001.jpg>