[open-heritage] PSI directive & GLAM

Fri Nov 23 13:55:31 UTC 2012

Precision: 13:00 UK time
:)

On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Primavera De Filippi
<pdefilippi at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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/20121123/1e037057/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/20121123/1e037057/attachment-0001.jpg>