[OpenGLAM] open-glam Digest, Vol 22, Issue 14

Wed Sep 11 20:49:57 UTC 2013

Beat's link led to this language which (for me) captures the problem
absolutely: "This article explores the extent to which museums have
strained the limits of copyright claims and indeed have *restructured
concepts of ownership and control* in ways that curtail the availability
and use of art images far beyond anything that may be grounded in the law".

 "museums ... have restructured concepts of ownership and control" is the
key - here is THE slippery slope!

Ed's good point that institutions "struggle just to understand how
titanically the digital landscape has changed" makes it easy to understand
how decision-making (whether sound or sloppy) occurs.

Ewan - thanks for freemium - hadn't heard that one.

+1 to Molly

and I just saw Heath's "best practices [document] for preserving public
domain status for the public good" which might be the best outcome of this
discussion so far. I'm in.

Also, I'm collecting these comments in a word doc for easier reading and I
can post later, somewhere.

Bettina

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:00 PM, <open-glam-request at lists.okfn.org> wrote:

> Send open-glam mailing list submissions to
>         open-glam at lists.okfn.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         open-glam-request at lists.okfn.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         open-glam-owner at lists.okfn.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of open-glam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Content Trafficking v.3 (Rob Myers)
>    2. Re: Content Trafficking v.3 (Rob Myers)
>    3. Re: open-glam Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10 (Laurel L. Russwurm)
>    4. Re: open-glam Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10 (todd.d.robbins at gmail.com)
>    5. Re: open-glam Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10 (Stefano Costa)
>    6. Re: open-glam Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10 (Molly O'Toole)
>    7. Re: Content Trafficking v.3 (heath rezabek)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 10:18:34 -0700
> From: Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
> Subject: Re: [OpenGLAM] Content Trafficking v.3
> To: open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> Message-ID: <5230A5EA.6070301 at robmyers.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 11/09/13 09:36 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> >
> > And I continue to stand by the concept that non-commercial licensing is
> > still not *true* free licensing. Free licensing isn't about fear.
>
> Absolutely, in fact it isn't any kind of free (or open) licensing.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:32:03 -0700
> From: Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>
> Subject: Re: [OpenGLAM] Content Trafficking v.3
> To: open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> Message-ID: <5230B723.70707 at robmyers.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 11/09/13 10:13 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> > True: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trafficking
> >
> > Revolution can begin with the reclaiming and redefining of things. But,
> > I understand if that's not appropriate in this case.
> >
> > I'm not sure if "copyright overreaching" works either, as if it's public
> > domain we're not really overreaching copyright. Hmmm
>
> I've called applying CC licenses to photographs of PD works
> "rightswashing". Others have called it "copyfraud".
>
> Just calling it "piracy" probably wouldn't work. ;-)
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:58:08 -0400
> From: "Laurel L. Russwurm" <laurel.l at russwurm.org>
> Subject: Re: [OpenGLAM] open-glam Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10
> To: open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> Message-ID: <5230BD40.7070001 at russwurm.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 11/09/13 02:59 AM, open-glam-request at lists.okfn.org wrote:
> > Content trafficking is the trade in public domain works by the host
> > >cultural heritage institution as a revenue source. Content trafficking
> is
> > >evident in many forms: gift products, reproductions, commercial and
> > >non-commercial use and licensing fees, and public paywalls.
> Historically,
> > >the host institution controls the levels of extracted income from
> "their"
> > >public domain works.
>
> How about addressing copyfraud, which many of these institutions seem to
> assume as a right:
>
> Content trafficking is the trade in public domain works by the
> hostcultural heritage institution as a revenue source. Content trafficking
> isevident in many forms: gift products, reproductions, commercial
> andnon-commercial use and licensing fees, and public paywalls, as well as
> claiming copyright on their public domain holdings. Historically,the host
> institution controls the levels of extracted income from "their"public
> domain works
>
> Also, content trafficking is not limited to cultural heritage
> institutions.  Private and public holders of public domain works very
> often make them available with copyright notices.
>
> As to using Google Docs, it seems counter productive to discuss open
> access in a closed format.
>
> Regards,
> Laurel
>
>
> And why limit this tocultural heritage institutions?  Private and
> Commercial holders of public domain works
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:19:29 -0600
> From: "todd.d.robbins at gmail.com" <todd.d.robbins at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [OpenGLAM] open-glam Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10
> To: "Laurel L. Russwurm" <laurel.l at russwurm.org>
> Cc: "open-GLAM at lists.okfn.org" <open-glam at lists.okfn.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <CAM9_6uOqSscw0eiKE29ZxCoBKacw_JJOb1kKKY0PiCQqh=
> YcuA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Laurel,
>
> Good point about Google Docs. Doh!
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Laurel L. Russwurm
> <laurel.l at russwurm.org>wrote:
>
> > On 11/09/13 02:59 AM, open-glam-request at lists.okfn.**org<
> open-glam-request at lists.okfn.org>wrote:
> >
> >> Content trafficking is the trade in public domain works by the host
> >> >cultural heritage institution as a revenue source. Content trafficking
> is
> >> >evident in many forms: gift products, reproductions, commercial and
> >> >non-commercial use and licensing fees, and public paywalls.
> Historically,
> >> >the host institution controls the levels of extracted income from
> "their"
> >> >public domain works.
> >>
> >
> > How about addressing copyfraud, which many of these institutions seem to
> > assume as a right:
> >
> > Content trafficking is the trade in public domain works by the
> > hostcultural heritage institution as a revenue source. Content
> trafficking
> > isevident in many forms: gift products, reproductions, commercial
> > andnon-commercial use and licensing fees, and public paywalls, as well as
> > claiming copyright on their public domain holdings. Historically,the host
> > institution controls the levels of extracted income from "their"public
> > domain works
> >
> > Also, content trafficking is not limited to cultural heritage
> > institutions.  Private and public holders of public domain works very
> often
> > make them available with copyright notices.
> >
> > As to using Google Docs, it seems counter productive to discuss open
> > access in a closed format.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Laurel
> >
> >
> > And why limit this tocultural heritage institutions?  Private and
> > Commercial holders of public domain works
> >
> >
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > open-glam mailing list
> > open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> > http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**listinfo/open-glam<
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam>
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/**options/open-glam<
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Tod Robbins
> Digital Asset Manager, MLIS
> todrobbins.com | @todrobbins <http://www.twitter.com/#!/todrobbins>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20130911/e4cd5d0c/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:27:18 +0200
> From: Stefano Costa <steko at iosa.it>
> Subject: Re: [OpenGLAM] open-glam Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10
> To: open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> Message-ID: <5230C416.3020105 at iosa.it>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I think it is primarily because the goal of a CHI is almost always to
> promote and foster knowledge of cultural heritage to the public and to
> work for the public good, and the approach described here as
> "trafficking" (though I don't really like the wording) is directly in
> opposition to their supposed purpose. Commercial holders are, well,
> commercial. Their purpose is profit.
>
> My 2 ?
> -steko
>
> Il 11/09/2013 20:58, Laurel L. Russwurm ha scritto:
> >
> > And why limit this tocultural heritage institutions?  Private and
> > Commercial holders of public domain works
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 15:42:35 -0400
> From: Molly O'Toole <mollyotoole at me.com>
> Subject: Re: [OpenGLAM] open-glam Digest, Vol 22, Issue 10
> To: "open-glam at lists.okfn.org" <open-glam at lists.okfn.org>
> Message-ID: <91220764-3B68-41F2-BD10-DE6B038C95F3 at me.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Apologies for interjecting but I wonder if something more simple and less
> detailed might work better as it will have to apply across a variety of
> scenarios, some of which may not even exist yet. It strikes me that abuse
> of power is at the heart of this, and so the description should address
> that primarily. How exactly that abuse manifests will change over time.
>
> rights abuse (or "xxxxxx") is the usurping of public domain works by a
> host institution or official steward for monetary gain, wherein the entity
> entrusted with the works engages in unfairly restricting public use or
> access in favor of self-interest.
>
> Best,
> Molly O'Toole
>
>
>
> On Sep 11, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Laurel L. Russwurm <laurel.l at russwurm.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On 11/09/13 02:59 AM, open-glam-request at lists.okfn.org wrote:
> >> Content trafficking is the trade in public domain works by the host
> >> >cultural heritage institution as a revenue source. Content trafficking
> is
> >> >evident in many forms: gift products, reproductions, commercial and
> >> >non-commercial use and licensing fees, and public paywalls.
> Historically,
> >> >the host institution controls the levels of extracted income from
> "their"
> >> >public domain works.
> >
> > How about addressing copyfraud, which many of these institutions seem to
> assume as a right:
> >
> > Content trafficking is the trade in public domain works by the
> hostcultural heritage institution as a revenue source. Content trafficking
> isevident in many forms: gift products, reproductions, commercial
> andnon-commercial use and licensing fees, and public paywalls, as well as
> claiming copyright on their public domain holdings. Historically,the host
> institution controls the levels of extracted income from "their"public
> domain works
> >
> > Also, content trafficking is not limited to cultural heritage
> institutions.  Private and public holders of public domain works very often
> make them available with copyright notices.
> >
> > As to using Google Docs, it seems counter productive to discuss open
> access in a closed format.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Laurel
> >
> >
> > And why limit this tocultural heritage institutions?  Private and
> Commercial holders of public domain works
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20130911/1e7a6e5e/attachment-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 15:00:04 -0500
> From: heath rezabek <heath.rezabek at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [OpenGLAM] Content Trafficking v.3
> To: Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch at gmail.com>
> Cc: "open-glam at lists.okfn.org" <open-glam at lists.okfn.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAJUDfHJmAgVWQQFZpKxYe1cmtDDs9tGdXstog6TMDWQPgt817g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> I think it's worth asking ourselves what the desired outcome is. Knowing
> that will clarify the likelihood that the language we use will aid that
> cause or simply cauterize the debate.
>
> I also tend to believe that divisionary language is bound to result mainly
> in sharper divisions.  Additionally, if any work whatsoever was done on the
> material, that work cost the institution money.  Institutions can't
> always afford to reorient whole workflows to free up content which they've
> spent funding in order to provide some kind of access to, without at least
> some suggestion of an alternate workflow that would allow them to vent
> their derivative PD works as purely PD.
>
> I'm not articulating very well; it just seems to me that offering a 'best
> practices for preserving public domain status for the public good' document
> would be a better strategy than branding institutions who may not have
> workflows in place to do so.
>
> But again, it all depends on the desired outcome.
>
> Curmudgeonly,
>
> - Heath
>   Tx Ambassador for the OKFN
>
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2013, Sarah Stierch wrote:
>
> > True: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trafficking
> >
> > Revolution can begin with the reclaiming and redefining of things. But, I
> > understand if that's not appropriate in this case.
> >
> > I'm not sure if "copyright overreaching" works either, as if it's public
> > domain we're not really overreaching copyright. Hmmm
> >
> > -S
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Ed Rodley <ed_rodley at pem.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'd have to agree with Beat.  Every other kind of trafficking I can think
> > of is a straight-up crime. One could make the case that some of the ways
> > institutions try to monetize PD content are fraudulent, but they're not
> in
> > the same league as arms, narcotics and human trafficking. Trying to
> declare
> > it as such seems overly shrill. Also, traffickers know that what they do
> is
> > illegal and they organize to circumvent the law. That is not the case
> with
> > many institutions, which struggle just to undersand how titanically the
> > digital landscape has changed.  "Content trafficking" isn't just
> > polarizing, it has *only* pejorative connotations. I can't see how we'd
> > hope have any constructive dialogue with institutions we'd branded thus.
> > Terms like copyright overreaching seem much more accurate.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch at gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Estermann Beat <beat.estermann at bfh.ch
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> > Personally, I?m not very happy with the term ?content trafficking? as it
> > seems unnecessarily polarizing to me. And I wonder whether the kind of
> > black-and-white thinking implied by the term ?content trafficking? and
> the
> > definition that you suggest, will lead to the best possible results in
> > terms of ?content liberation?.
> >
> >
> > The word "trafficking" is polarizing in general in this day and age
> > ("human trafficking" being the most notable example), though it does
> > successfully add urgency to the matter, and in a day and age (again)
> where
> > laws and ideas of openness are evolving quickly, perhaps that urgency is
> > needed.
> >
> >
> > ****
> >
> > ** **
> >
> > I don?t find it particularly revolting if institutions partly withhold
> > public domain works from the public domain if this is necessary to
> recoup a
> > significant part of the costs related to digitization and enhancement of
> > metadata. Some of the Google Digitization Partnerships would probably
> fall
> > into this category: Public domain works are made available under some
> sort
> > of a non-commercial use-agreement during 10-12 years; after that the GLAM
> > institution is free to make the original scans available as real ?public
> > domain? works. Being able to full-text-search and consult the documents
> > online now with some usage restrictions might be preferable to waiting
> for
> > another 10-20 years, before the GLAM institutions actually is able to
> raise
> > funds from other sources to finance the digitization of the works.****
> >
> > **
> >
> >
> > I *do* find it rather revolting. I've worked at institutions who have
> paid
> > for employee positions based on the selling of public domain works. It
> just
> > shows that there is a lack of funding on the donor side for digitization
> > programs. If donors were giving money to digitize, and provide free
> access
> > to PD collections maybe this wouldn't be a problem. But, development
> > departments are generally clueless (at least in the United States) about
> > copyright discussions and most donors are as well. It's going to take a
> > special type of donor to destroy the power that Google has over these
> > organizati
> >
> >
>
> --
> Heath Rezabek // labs.vessel.cc
> Long Now Foundation (Intern) // Manual for Civilization Project //
> longnow.org
> Icarus Interstellar // FarMaker Team // icarusinterstellar.org
> Open Knowledge Foundation // Texas Ambassador for the OKFn // okfn.org
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20130911/0b134aea/attachment.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-glam mailing list
> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/optionss/open-glam
>
>
> End of open-glam Digest, Vol 22, Issue 14
> *****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20130911/14cee213/attachment.html>