[open-heritage] PSI directive & GLAM

Fri Nov 23 13:40:15 UTC 2012

Hi all, after the call, we decided not to write a full position paper but
to only focus on the proposed amendments in order to speed up the process.
We will have a second call on tuesday (starting from 1pm), during which we
will actually work on the real-time drafting of our document.
Anyone interested is free to join (as usual, please inform me and provide
me your skype handle if you havent done so yet).
Thanks everyone for contributing to this !

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/20121123/33795332/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/20121123/33795332/attachment-0001.jpg>