[pd-discuss] BL and google digitise books

[Javier Ruiz]

Hi Paul

we have been told by BL that the agreement follows 90% the University of
Michigan agreement. This sets restrictions on what the UoM can do with the
copies they are provided with by Google (section 4)

http://www.lib.umich.edu/mdp/um-google-cooperative-agreement.pdf
http://www.lib.umich.edu/files/services/mdp/Amendment-to-Cooperative-Agreement.pdf

Our main concern is that the agreement seems to imply that these
restrictions are perpetual. Meaning that the British Library would have to
always place restrictions on digital copies of public domain works. This may
not be unlawful but it is wrong.

The costs of digitisation are a very real problem, and the involvement of
the private sector cannot be opposed in a maximalist way, even if you push
for public funding. However, the end result must be that after cost recovery
and profits, etc. the digital copies are not restricted. The EU recommends 7
years for PPP, but we would argue this should be a max cap and each case
should have specific cost recovery negotiations.

I think we should have public funding, PPP and participatory/crowdsourcing
all combined.

We are currently discussing an adapted version of the Communia
recommendations as a UK Policy pack, but adding more on PPP and volunteers.

However, without taking on specific situations for campaigns,
our experience is that abstract policy debates do not generate pressure on
politicians and institutions to change.

We want to start pushing these issues but we need a broader network to help
define the priorities.

Javier





On 21 June 2011 12:11, 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/20110622/c3e348f6/attachment.html>