[open-heritage] PSI directive & GLAM

Wed Nov 21 12:03:05 UTC 2012

also, if all of those who are available for that call could communicate
your skype handle to me before then, that would be wonderful  :)

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Primavera De Filippi
<pdefilippi at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/f3a5d95f/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/f3a5d95f/attachment-0001.jpg>