[pd-discuss] BL and google digitise books

Thu Jun 23 12:02:14 UTC 2011

On 22 Jun 2011, at 18:53, Javier Ruiz wrote:

> 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.

if you frame it as an objection against the perpetual character of these restrictions then i think this is something that should be addressed (because it is clearly insane that these restrictions last longer than the time limited rights of the original authors). But i guess that would require getting a better understanding of the agreement (if they really imply perpetual restrictions). Isnt that information obtainable via a FOI request (plus i always thought that google was asking for 15 or 25 years in these kind of contracts, which is still way too long)

> 
> 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.

maybe this is something where communia can get involved. i could imagine compiling a yearly list of questionable practices across europe or somthing similar...
best, paul 

> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pd-discuss mailing list
> pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/pd-discuss