[OpenGLAM] Content Trafficking v.3

Wed Sep 11 17:10:11 UTC 2013

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
> organizations, a power that I find particularly disturbing.
>
> And I continue to stand by the concept that non-commercial licensing is
> still not *true* free licensing. Free licensing isn't about fear.
>
>
>> **
>>
>> 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.****
>>
>> **
>>
>
> In the United States, a large portion of the digitization projects are
> funded from private foundations, with a small portion of funding coming
> from public funds (which could even be defined a bit differently than EU
> public funds, so to say). These private foundations often dictate the type
> of content to be digitized. One example - in the federal government, when
> you receive private foundation funding you have to (95% of the time) hire
> contractors to handle the digitization. I could elaborate on the issues
> with that, but, I won't right now. And of course, most of the museums in
> the United States (and archives/galleries) are privately ran non-profits,
> with libraries being state or county ran (with little to no money) or
> privately ran (university). So we have a whole hot mess on our hands here,
> which I know people tend to forget.
>
> I just have to continue to stress that there are some differences in the
> United States versus EU, just like many other countries.
>
> -Sarah
>
> --
> --
> *Sarah Stierch*
> *Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
> *www.sarahstierch.com*
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Ed Rodley
Associate Director of Integrated Media
*Peabody Essex Museum
*East India Square
Salem, MA 01970
Office 978 542 1849
@erodley
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20130911/a02bae34/attachment-0001.html>