[pd-discuss] Communia position paper on digitization agreements

Tue Sep 10 22:46:26 UTC 2013

This week is bad. I am in Ann Arbor until Friday.

I am planning on coming in next Tuesday for the seminar. Should we meet before or after?

And I am so glad that you are here this year. I am sure there is a lot I can learn from you.

>From the plane...

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 9, 2013, at 9:31 PM, "Primavera De Filippi" <primavera.defilippi at okfn.org<mailto:primavera.defilippi at okfn.org>> wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto:peter.hirtle at cornell.edu>
t.  607.255-4033<tel:607.255-4033>
f.  607.255-9524<tel: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> [mailto: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<mailto:pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org>
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/pd-discuss
Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/pd-discuss

_______________________________________________
pd-discuss mailing list
pd-discuss at lists.okfn.org<mailto: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/a0de368d/attachment.html>