I followed the developments loosely over the years, partly with CC Germany hat on. There were quite some controversies around the project, but it was overall seen as something that makes it easier for institutions to make stuff available.
The most problematic part indeed seems to be "no copyright but X restrictions". The rationale for this is that some standardised indicators are needed for all those digitisation projects that are sponsored by Google or other private entities, and that leave the partaking insitutions little choice but flag contractual sponsorship restrictions when pushing stuff to Europeana. The bad part about how it is implemented right now is: People might get the idea that such third-partly contractual restrictions bind anybody regardless of context, like an absolute right would do such as copyright – while in fact these restrictions often enough only apply inter partes, i.e. only if some kind of contractual relationship or ToS agreement with the end user is present. In all cases / jurisdictions where no ancillary rights arise from automatic scanning for example, the digital copies of GLAM artefacts don't carry any absolute protection right whatsoever. And if the end user got access to the content via an API or other method likely to not give rise to contractial relationships, no restriction applies regardless of what the institution has to adhere to. Best John 2017-11-21 16:28 GMT+01:00 James Heald <[email protected]>: > I was wondering, have people on this list had any contact with, or have > any thoughts about rightsstatements.org (http://rightsstatements.org) ? > > I was in a twitter chat earlier with a digital librarian at University > College Dublin (re whether or not a copyright they were asserting for > Ordnance Survey Ireland re digitisation of some old maps had any basis in > reality), and, in passing, she proudly mentioned that they were going to > start adding rightsstatements.org standard descriptions of copyright > status to all content. > > I had a look at the site, and my first take was it must have been an > initiative from some of the major publishers, so loaded did it seem to be > towards promoting different options for *preventing* people doing things > with one's content. > > I was quite surprised to find that actually it seems to be a 100% GLAM > initiative, initiated by DPLA and Europeana, with strong input from > Creative Commons, and Kennisland's Paul Keller as one of the chairs. (And I > see that our own Alex Stinson and Federico Leva even contributed some > thoughts in the development phase) > > Yet to me (I don't know if others agree), the lead document at > http://rightsstatements.org/page/1.0/?language=en > seems rather hostile to the widest access, openness, and re-use. > > Yes, Creative Commons licences /are/ in fact mentioned as the 1st-best > option in the body text, if one reads closely. But I have to admit I > missed that completely the first time I skimmed the page -- because it is > only the restrictions that get the big graphics and the emphasis. > > My worry would be that if organisations like UCD make it a policy to mark > their material up with a rightsstatements.org indicator wherever > possible, this will (subtly or not-so-subtly) lead them away from PD or CC0 > choices; or away from "attribution" requirements (which are not on the > page) towards "non-commercial" restrictions (which are). > > (Any NC statement of course also opens up a huge can of worms as to just > what activities and by whom are or are not "non-commercial" -- something > the page does not flag up, and which the site offers no clarification > about, as to what might or might not be the intended meaning). > > I am also quite concerned about the apparent endorsement given to the > "contractual restrictions" option, and indeed its prominence on the page -- > placed as the first option for non-copyright material, almost as if to > encourage institutions to see this as the appropriate default status. > > "Contractual restrictions" seems a particularly nasty way to try to fence > in the public domain. It's also questionable in its effectiveness. The > long-term folk wisdom on Commons has been that if a museum has a sign up > saying "no photography" or "personal photography only", but somebody takes > a photograph and someone uploads it to Commons, that any claim would stop > (at most) with the photographer -- Commons has no contract with the museum, > so is not a party to any restrictions. That may be a slightly rose-tinted > and self-serving view, but it seems a little odd to see this option so > blandly endorsed, and indeed promoted, without any qualification. > > It seems odd, given who they are, that the people behind > rightsstatements.org would produce a site that seems calculated to march > people *away* from the maximum openness, access, and impact. > > Yet - I don't know if the list would agree - but to me that seems to be > exactly what the current presentation does, leading people away from > sharing and freedom, and instead normalising closure and restriction, even > for PD materials. > > I'd like to know whether the list agrees with me on this; or whether I'm > being over-sensitive and perhaps just encountered the site in the wrong > frame of mind. But, since between us I think we have a lot of contacts > with the people involved with this project, if others see something in > these concerns, perhaps it might be worth a quiet word to see if the > presentation could perhaps be re-balanced a bit, to more even-handedly > present more open options? > > -- James. > > PS. Going back to the point of my initial discussion with UCD, if > copyrights /are/ being asserted on apparently well-published archival > material, it seems to me that it would be useful if the site encouraged as > standard best practice a statement of /why/ it was asserted that there was > copyright in the material -- eg whether there had genuinely been a > copyrightable expression of creativity or judgment involved. This would > lend such claims extra weight, in a world where there is so much copyfraud > around that such assertions otherwise might get casually dismissed. > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy > -- Referent für Politik und Recht Legal and Policy Advisor Wikimedia Deutschland e. V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 (0)30 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei! http://spenden.wikimedia.de/ Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
