[pd-discuss] Communia position paper on digitization agreements

Wed Sep 11 11:10:19 UTC 2013

ok for next Tuesday, let's say we meet at the Berkman around 10am and see
what we can do?
I'm really happy you are here too, and I hope we will be able to do great
things together  :)
Cheers,
Primavera

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Peter B. Hirtle <pbh6 at cornell.edu> wrote:

>  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> 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> 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
>>
>>
>   _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130911/60e26f95/attachment.html>