[open-heritage] PSI directive & GLAM

Erik Josefsson erik.hjalmar.josefsson at gmail.com
Thu Sep 27 13:25:56 UTC 2012 

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
>>>> @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/20120927/0b2f027d/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the open-glam mailing list