[pd-discuss] Communia position paper on digitization agreements

[Primavera De Filippi]

Hi peter, it was a pleasure meeting you today,
as I mentioned to you, with Communia we would like to public the 2
documents on digitization of public domain works: one policy paper and one
guidelines for cultural institutions, both are available at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xA0zPxp9kOQOg79gkc6WcZ_7kCs1XYNeVZ1NcY8mVwU/edit
I was wondering whether you would be available sometimes this week to meet
up and figure out together how to best finalize them !
let me know,
Primavera



On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 9:28 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/20130910/08d8d0de/attachment.html>