[pd-discuss] BL and google digitise books

Tue Jun 21 12:51:49 UTC 2011

A comment and a question.
Comment: In Chile, there is a provision that punishes with criminal
sanctions those who claim exclusive rights on public domain works. It was
introduced just last year to prevent such a copy-fraud. Previously, you
could sue who claim exclusive rights in order to force him to sue you; if he
did not sue you in a given term (usually 15 days to one month), he could not
argue exclusive rights in the future. This is call a action of jactitation
(acción de jactancia). It seems that that action is also available in common
law system <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jactitation>.
Question: Is there any similar mechanim to enforce public domain in a case
like the British Library or analogous cases?
A.

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Paul Keller <pk at kl.nl> wrote:

> not sure if this is a worthy battle. obviously this is a situation which is
> far from optimal (but not special: this seems to be similar to the deals
> google has with all other participating libraries in europe) but the
> question is if it is realistic to expect that a campaign could change this.
>
> Google is not doing anything that is wrong per-se (this is public domain
> material so they can do whatever they want with it, that is if you want the
> beauty of it).
> With regards to the BL there might be more of an issue since they are a
> publicly funded organization that should be more accountable to principles
> like open and equal access. however, i think in in times where public money
> for digitization seems to be on the retreat and these PPPs become one of the
> only ways to get large amounts of material online i do not think that a
> campaign has the potential to result in anything productive.
>
> The core of the issue comes down to the simple question do we want a proper
> public digital infrastructure (that would require public funding) or are we
> willing to live with the trade-offs that result from these PPPs. If we
> really want to push for the public scenario then that means that we also
> need to push for the funding required to get this implemented.... /paul
>
>
>
> On 21 Jun 2011, at 10:57, Jonathan Gray wrote:
>
> > Javier: I would definitely ask Paul Keller (in cc) and other folks at
> > Communia for their opinion on the value of this. They know the sector,
> > and the probable/possible impact of campaigns in this area, much
> > better than I do!
> >
> > J.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Javier Ruiz
> > <javier at openrightsgroup.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately even after the calculation is done and material is PD,
> >>> it is not clear that digital copies will be open as in
> >>> opendefinition.org (and hence free for anyone to use without
> >>> restriction).
> >>>
> >>> E.g. I understand the material from BL is unfortunately still rights
> >>> encumbered [1], possibly due to contractual obligations (with
> >>> Google?).
> >>
> >>
> >> Would the access conditions here be a worthy battle?
> >> Open Rights Groups is meant to campaign on this sort of thing, but
> taking on
> >> Google and BL would require a supportive effort from our wider networks,
> >> even if other organisations do not have campaigning mandate.
> >> Javier
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> pd-discuss mailing list
> >> pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> >> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/pd-discuss
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jonathan Gray
> >
> > Community Coordinator
> > The Open Knowledge Foundation
> > http://blog.okfn.org
> >
> > http://twitter.com/jwyg
> > http://identi.ca/jwyg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pd-discuss mailing list
> pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/pd-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/pd-discuss/attachments/20110621/b7639d9b/attachment.html>