[OpenGLAM] Content Trafficking v.3

Wed Sep 11 17:13:19 UTC 2013

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 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
>

-- 
-- 
*Sarah Stierch*
*Museumist, open culture advocate, and Wikimedian*
*www.sarahstierch.com*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20130911/2de73bc0/attachment-0001.html>