[OpenGLAM] Content Trafficking v.3

Wed Sep 11 15:54:55 UTC 2013

Hi Bettina, hi all,

Some practices you are describing, have been termed < copyright overreaching > :
http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/2011/06/27/copyright-museums-and-licensing-of-art-images/

Other practices are probably better described as "withholding" public domain works from the public.

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".

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.

What I find revolting, however, are GLAMs withholding public domain works or attaching CC-non commercial licenses to two-dimensional scans without actually recouping a significant part of the production costs. They often have their digitization programs financed by public funds, but still hamper the access to the public domain works. These cases are quite common, and I think it would be worthwhile focusing on them first, before we attack any other practices which are not ideal either, but might fall into some grey zone and might also have some good arguments in their favor.

Kind regards,

Beat

From: open-glam-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:open-glam-bounces at lists.okfn.org] On Behalf Of Bettina Cousineau
Sent: Mittwoch, 11. September 2013 16:49
To: open-glam at lists.okfn.org
Subject: [OpenGLAM] Content Trafficking v.3

Folding in Maarten's comments, v.3 looks like this:
"Content trafficking is the practice of restricting access to public domain works, and determining the work's use/re-use through permission and/or licensing fees.
A host institution controls the use/re-use outcomes and the levels of income from extracted "their" public domain works."
According to comments submitted, it seems that as long as the chi (cultural heritage institution) allows third parties/individuals the same rights to use/re-use as they themselves exercise, a fee structure is acceptable.
As I suspected, it is not only cultural heritage institutions that practice this - I have just confirmed that individuals "re-copyright" known public domain images and exploit them under (US) copyright law as their own. Urgh.
Bettina
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20130911/4738c818/attachment-0001.html>