Overview presentation to kick off the Cultural Commons track at the OK fest on the 19th of September 2012 in Helsinki, Finland

1. Defining
the
Cultural
Commons
Paul
Keller,
OK
fest
Helsinki,
19
September
2012

6. 1. where
do
we
come
from?
2. where
are
we
now?
3. what
is
to
be
done?

7. 1. where
do
we
come
from?
2. where
are
we
now?
3. what
is
to
be
done?

8. project gutenberg

9. Bundesarchief wikimedia commons

10. NA joins flickr

12. RCE

13. open images

14. opencultuurdata / rijksmuseum

15. What
have
we
learned
from
this?
Cultural
heritage
is
a
surprisingly
difficult
domain
for
building
a
commons.
The
works
are
concentrated
in
the
hands
of
institutions
that
generally
do
not
control
the
rights
in
these
works.
This
has
a
number
of
consequences:
• Cultural
heritage
institutions
often
feel
trapped
by
copyright.
Many
of
the
look
at
open
content
licenses
as
the
solution
to
their
problems
(and
are
disappointed
when
they
figure
out
that
they
aren’t)
• Where
institutions
do
have
the
rights
in
works
in
their
collections
they
are
often
very
conservative
about
access
&
reuse.

16. What
have
we
learned
from
this?
• For
the
same
reason
many
cultural
heritage
institutions
have
a
almost
schizophrenic
relationship
with
the
public
domain:
They
value
the
fact
that
there
are
no
restrictions
on
works
in
the
public
domain
and
at
the
same
time
they
have
the
desire
to
exercise
control
over
such
works
(for
example
by
applying
CC
licenses).
• Open
content
projects
like
the
ones
presented
here
often
have
the
function
to
be
able
‘to
do
something’
and,
as
a
result,
they
often
distract
from
addressing
the
underlying
problems.

17. 1. where
do
we
come
from?
2. where
are
we
now?
3. what
is
to
be
done?

18. Norm
setting
With
regards
to
norm
setting
we
have
actually
made
some
pretty
good
progress
in
the
last
couple
of
years.
Norm
setting
is
possible
in
those
areas
of
the
commons
where
the
cultural
heritage
institutions
themselves
control
the
rights
or
where
the
rights
have
expired:
• Public
Domain
works
• Metadata
(and
‘secondary
works’)
• Works
where
the
copyright
is
with
the
institutions

19. Norms:
Public
Domain
(1)
The
general
principle
that
‘what
is
in
the
public
domain
in
analogue
form
should
be
in
the
public
domain
in
digital
form’
is
gaining
ground:
• (COMMUNIA)
public
domain
manifesto
2010
• Europeana
Public
Domain
Charter
2010
• Committee
des
Sages
report
‘the
new
renaissance’
2011
• EC
Commission
recommendation
on
digitization
2011
• LoC
request
for
information
on
private
digitization
2012
• Europeana
Data
Exchange
Agreement
2012

20. Norms:
Public
Domain
(2)
The
main
challenge
for
this
principle
is
the
need
of
institutions
to
generate
revenue/pay
for
digitization:
• Google
contracts
with
Libraries
grant
Google
a
15
year
period
of
‘preferred
commercial
exploitation’
(PSI
directive
might
reduce
this
to
7
years)
• LoC
request
for
information
asks
for
maximum
of
3
year
exclusivity.
On
the
other
hand
first
experiences
of
the
Rijksmuseum
show
that
free
availability
doesn’t
hurt
revenue
generation.

21. Norms:
metadata
The
general
trend
with
(simple)
descriptive
metadata
points
into
the
direction
of
free
(no
restrictions/
conditions)
availability.
Metadata
is
widely
understood
as
a
tool
to
improve
the
discoverability
of
collections.
• Various
Libraries
have
release
their
bibliographical
records
under
CC
zero
(Harvard
Library
System
alone
12M
records)
• Europeana
has
released
more
than
20M
records
from
all
types
of
institutions
under
CC
zero
last
week.

22. metadata objects
public
domain
own own
copyright
copyright
third
party
copyright

23. public
domain
own
copyrights

24. 1. where
do
we
come
from?
2. where
are
we
now?
3. what
is
to
be
done?

25. Third
party
copyrights
(1)
Central
question
is
how
do
we
deal
with
material
that
is
under
third
party
copyright?
This
is
the
majority
of
20th
century
culture
(including
virtually
all
moving
images).
How
do
we
envisage
bringing
these
works
into
the
cultural
commons?
Suggested
strategies
include:
• lobbying
for
exceptions
that
would
allow
heritage
institutions
to
make
use
of
such
works
(and
possibly
individual
end-­‐users
too)

26. Third
party
copyrights
(2)
• Licensing
rights
(via
collective
rights
management
organizations).
Generally
this
does
not
create
anything
resembling
a
commons.
• Working
with
institutions
to
develop
strategies
to
ensure
that
new
acquisitions
can
be
made
available.
• Getting
in
touch
with
rights
holders
to
obtain
permission
to
publish
works
under
open
licenses
(does
not
scale
very
well).

27. Rights
holders
tend
to
be
much
less
conservative
than
we
generally
assume
(example
below)
Artists
contacted 429
Choices
made 267
CC-­‐BY-­‐NC-­‐ND 54
CC-­‐BY-­‐SA 64
Permission
to
use 145
No
permission 3
Special
contract 1

28. What
is
to
be
done?
(1)
If
we
are
serious
about
creating
a
true
cultural
commons
(that
does
not
only
consist
of
the
leftovers)
we
need
to
work
on
the
issue
of
third
party
rights:
• lobby
for
exceptions
that
allow
institutions
to
make
available
works
in
their
collections
online
(free?
renumeration?
how
to
differentiate
between
works
in
commercial
circulation
and
those
that
are
not?)
• lobby
for
exceptions
that
allow
private
individuals
(and
non-­‐profits?)
to
re-­‐use
works
from
those
institutions.

29. What
is
to
be
done?
(2)
This
probably
includes
a
different
perspective
on
the
PSI
directive.
There
is
a
lot
of
resistance
among
cultural
heritage
institutions
to
be
included,
because
they
feel
that
this
limits
their
options.
I
would
argue
that
if
institutions
are
serious
to
be
part
of
a
cultural
commons
they
should
embrace
the
special
position
created
by
the
PSI
directive
and
position
itself
as
part
of
the
public
sector
(which
will
make
it
easier
to
claim
special
status
in
the
context
of
copyright).