[open-heritage] PSI directive & GLAM

Tue Oct 16 07:25:27 UTC 2012

Which document are you referring to ?
I think we should act soon, but I'd like to incorporate the graphical
representation we have made into the document to be endorsed.

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Javier Ruiz <javier at openrightsgroup.org>wrote:

>  maybe the quickest thing would be to get paul's document signed, it does
> not cover the broadcasters, but I don't think we have time for much more
>
> --
> Javier Ruiz
> javier at openrightsgroup.org
> +44(0)7877 911 412
> @javierruiz
>
> On Monday, 8 October 2012 at 07:44, Amelia Andersdotter wrote:
>
>  we are having an exchange of views on the amendments in ITRE tomorrow.
> if there could be a statement to be sent to ITRE MEPs about your positions
> on the amendments that would be helpful.
>
> please support inclusion of public broadcasters because i'm trying to get
> the parliament to do that.
>
> On 07.10.2012 12:37, Primavera De Filippi wrote:
>
> 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 ?
>
>
>
>  On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Erik Josefsson <
> erik.hjalmar.josefsson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Sorry Amelia, of course I know you are! :-)
>
> The negotiations in JURI did not result in a compromise. Our amendment to
> re-use the Orphan Works formula will be voted separately. Here's the OWD
> article:
>
> Article 6 - Permitted uses of orphan works
>
> [...]
>  2.  The organisations referred to in Article 1(1) shall use an orphan work
> in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article only in order to achieve
> aims related to their public-interest missions, in particular the
> preservation of, the restoration of, and the provision of cultural and
> educational access to, works and phonograms contained in their collection. The
> organisations may generate revenues in the course of such uses, *for the
> exclusive purpose of covering their costs of digitising orphan works and
> making them available to the public.*
>
> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2012-349
>
> Please note (again) that this is an amendment to JURI's Opinion (not the
> real thing in ITRE):
>
> Amendment   2
>
> *Christian Engström, Eva Lichtenberger*
>
> on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
> *Proposal for a directive*
>
> *Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 6 – point 1*
>
> Directive 2003/98/EC
>
> Article 6 – paragraph 2
>
>
>    *Text proposed by the Commission*
>
> *Amendment*
>
> 2. *In exceptional cases, in particular* where public sector bodies
> generate a substantial part of their operating costs relating to the
> performance of their public service tasks from the exploitation of their
> intellectual property rights, public sector bodies may be allowed to charge
> for the re-use of documents over and above the marginal costs, according to
> objective, transparent and verifiable criteria, provided this is in the
> public interest and subject to the approval of the *independent*authority referred to in Article 4(4), and without prejudice to paragraphs
> 3 and 4 of this Article.
>
> 2. *Where* public sector bodies generate a substantial part of their
> operating costs relating to the performance of their public service tasks
> from the exploitation of their intellectual property rights, public sector
> bodies may be allowed to charge for the re-use of documents over and above
> the marginal costs, according to objective, transparent and verifiable
> criteria *for the exclusive purpose of covering their costs of digitising
> documents and making them available to the public*, provided this is in
> the public interest and subject to the approval of the authority referred
> to in Article 4(4), and without prejudice to paragraphs 3 and 4 of this
> Article.
>
>   *Justification*
>
> *Analogous to Article 6.2 in the Orphan Works Directive as adopted
> Thursday, 13 September 2012 (provisional edition P7_TA-PROV(2012)0349).*
>
>
> Best regards.
>
> //Erik
>
>
> On 26/09/12 22:46, Amelia Andersdotter wrote:
>
> you do know i'm mep and that i'm in the recipient list?
>
> Pe 26.09.2012 07:41, Erik Josefsson a scris:
>
> It is my understanding that there will be a majority on one of our
> amendments in JURI on Europeana style metadata licensing.
>
> The sticky point seems to be what the public bodies
> hosting/holding/producing the data are supposed to do with the money they
> need/generate. As far as I can see this is a traditional left-right issue,
> i.e. how is a "public body" supposed to be financed in the first place, and
> also, what should they do? (if there are private players who can do it
> better, why have a public body at all?)
>
> In JURI, we have tabled an amendment re-cycling the principle laid down in
> the Orphan Works Directive.
>
> I expect negotiations on that issue, but the risk for MS competence
> carve-out is huge (art. 1.5 ODW style).
>
>
> The chart on http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/PSI_Directive is
> awesome but please don't show it to MEPs! :-)
>
> (if they knew, they will be expecting staff to deliver all reports in that
> format...)
>
>
> Best regards.
>
> //Erik
>
>
> On 25/09/12 10:13, Daniel Dietrich wrote:
>
> I am in drafting this.
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> On 24 Sep 2012, at 16:27, Primavera De Filippi wrote:
>
> Hi all, and thank you Javier for the wiki !
> I think we should start drafting a document (1 or 2 pages) based on that
> schema so as to precisely express what we think is wrong about the current
> proposal for the PSI.
> I'm happy to work on it if anyone else volunteers to do it with me   :)
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Javier Ruiz<javier at openrightsgroup.org>
> wrote:
> http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/PSI_Directive
>
> --
> Javier Ruiz
> javier at openrightsgroup.org
> +44(0)7877 911 412 <%2B44%280%297877%20911%20412>
> @javierruiz
>
> On Monday, 24 September 2012 at 10:27, Alek Tarkowski wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Maybe we could collect all this information (links, documents, comments)
> in one place - on some pad or wiki? Any ideas where we could host this?
>
> best,
>
> Alek
>
> On 21/09/12 12:59 , Primavera De Filippi wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> after the workshop last wednesday, we started to work on identifying
> the issues of the proposed PSI directive as regards GLAM institutions.
> Find attached the schematic representation of our preliminary analysis
> based on the danish compromise version (attached). We would love to
> hear comments or feedback about how to improve it.
>
> We have set up a little task-force of people interested in drafting a
> document (rather short) describing the identified problems, we would
> like to know if anyone is willing to join us.
> The goal would be that Communia would then take action into
> influencing the amendment process for the directive.
>
> Also, if you are in contact with local MEPs or national negotiating
> teams in the Council, please let us know if you would be able to help
> circulate the document.
>
> We also need to know the deadlines to send comments - Erik and Amelia
> have been really helpful at providing information concerning the
> process, but we need the exact timelines to coordinate our actions.
>
> Useful links:
>
> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/actions_eu/policy_actions/index_en.htm
>
> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/cult/ad/912/912049/912049en.pdf
>
> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/juri/pa/909/909674/909674en.pdf
>
> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/com/com_com(2011)0877_/com_com(2011)0877_en.pdf
> <
> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/com/com_com%282011%290877_/com_com%282011%290877_en.pdf>
>
>
>
> --
> dr Alek Tarkowski
> koordynator / public lead
> Creative Commons Polska / Poland
> www: http://creativecommons.pl
> identica: http://identi.ca/alek
> twitter: http://twitter.com/atarkowski
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-glam mailing list
> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-glam mailing list
> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20121016/14966bbf/attachment-0001.html>