[pd-discuss] Communia position paper on digitization agreements

[Javier Ruiz]

Excellent points,  thanks  a lot. I agree we could detail more the no new
rights section. We should also deal with the alleged database rights on
digitisation projects. The recent case in France is worrying.
On Mar 16, 2013 8:47 PM, "Peter B. Hirtle" <pbh6 at cornell.edu> wrote:

>  As an interested outside observer of Communia’s activities, I applaud
> its interest in digitization agreements.  This policy paper will be
> something that repositories around the world will be able to use as part of
> their planning for digitization projects.  I hope you don’t mind,
> therefore, if I share with you my quick reactions to the document.****
>
> ** **
>
> **1.       **On the one hand, it states categorically that your
> recommendation is that *“Use of works in the public domain should not be
> limited by any means, either legal or technical.” * Similarly, you say
> later that there should be no access restrictions on public domain
> material.  This would mean that  a commercial vendor, for example, could
> not control the use of digitized public domain items through contracts and
> license terms.  Yet later you acknowledge that there are times when
> repositories will work with vendors.  You may wish to make it clearer that
> while your preference is that material is freely released under CC0/PDM
> terms, there are times when a commercial partnership is needed.  In those
> cases, the terms you suggest later in the document should apply.****
>
> **2.       **It is not clear to me what you think needs to be improved in
> the public-private partnerships you provide as examples.  Google’s 15 years
> of exclusive commercial use of the digitized scans it creates in Italy, for
> example, is much better than the perpetual commercial ownership of the
> scans created by Google partnerships in the US.  ****
>
> **3.       **One element not discussed in the statement is the desire of
> some repositories to generate an ongoing revenue stream from the digitized
> public domain.  I have not seen, for example, any indication that the
> British Library is ever going to make its public domain newspapers freely
> available, but prefers to get royalties from Gale Cengage.  In the US,
> libraries such as the American Antiquarian Society and the New York
> Historical Society are generating large income streams from their
> partnerships with commercial entities.  The very interesting article from
> the KB that you recently brought to the attention of the list stressed the
> responsibilities of public/government organizations to make their holdings
> freely available. Would you say that the same principles (and your
> guidelines) should apply to private institutions as well?  (FYI, I have
> argued this, but it has met with resistance.)  Or are your guidelines
> intended just for public institutions?****
>
> **4.       **You state that no one should claim copyright over copies of
> digitized public domain materials, but it is unclear to me whether this is
> because you think that no copyright exists in the material (i.e., no
> originality), or if it is a matter of principle.****
>
> **5.       **I am surprised that your statement is silent on the 25 years
> of copyright that is granted in the EU to the first publisher of an
> unpublished public domain item.  Isn’t this conversion of material from the
> public domain one of the biggest threats?  Similarly, there is no mention
> of the French law giving libraries and archives control over reproductions
> of public domain items in their collections.****
>
> **6.       **Lastly, one of my favorite clauses in the ARL guidelines on
> digitization agreements is the requirement that commercial partners protect
> the privacy of users of the digitized material. Perhaps you do not need it
> because European data protection and privacy is so much stronger than in
> the US, but it might be worth mentioning.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> Peter****
>
> ** **
>
> *Peter B. Hirtle*, FSAA****
>
> Senior Policy Advisor ****
>
> Digital Scholarship and Preservation Services ****
>
> Cornell University Library****
>
> 2B53 Kroch Library
> Ithaca, NY  14853
> peter.hirtle at cornell.edu
> t.  607.255-4033
> f.  607.255-9524****
>
> http://vivo.cornell.edu/individual/vivo/individual23436****
>
> *Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization for
> U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums:*****
>
> *http://hdl.handle.net/1813/14142*
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* pd-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org [mailto:
> pd-discuss-bounces at lists.okfn.org] *On Behalf Of *Primavera De Filippi
> *Sent:* Friday, March 15, 2013 12:43 PM
> *To:* Public Domain discuss list
> *Subject:* [pd-discuss] Communia position paper on digitization agreements
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear all,
> The Communia association has completed the preliminary draft of the
> position paper on digitization agreements, we would be grateful if you
> could comment up it.
> The paper is available as a google-doc here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xA0zPxp9kOQOg79gkc6WcZ_7kCs1XYNeVZ1NcY8mVwU/edit
> Please feel free to comment / edit / suggest / or contribute in anyway you
> like   :)
> Cheers,
> Primavera ****
>
> _______________________________________________
> pd-discuss mailing list
> pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/pd-discuss
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/pd-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/pd-discuss/attachments/20130318/a6c22eab/attachment.html>