This essay accompanies the slides for my talk at 'Sharing is Caring: Right to Remix' held in Copenhagen on 2 October 2015: http://www.slideshare.net/evpassel/sharing-is-caring-2015-eva-van-passel The talk has also been filmed, and is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHjJPcGi0mw . http://sharecare.nu/category/sic-2015/

1. 1
How
open
is
open
enough?
A
philosophy
of
cultural
commons
for
the
cultural
heritage
sector.
Eva
Van
Passel
(Researcher
at
iMinds-­‐SMIT,
Vrije
Universiteit
Brussel)
This
essay
is
based
on
my
keynote
talk
at
the
seminar
“Sharing
is
Caring:
Right
to
Remix?”,
which
was
held
in
Copenhagen
on
2
October
2015.
The
essay
has
been
adapted
somewhat,
mainly
to
enable
it
to
be
read
outside
of
the
direct
context
of
the
seminar.
The
reader
is
advised
to
keep
in
mind
that
the
talk
this
essay
is
based
on
addressed
the
cultural
sector
as
its
main
audience.
As
such,
the
essay
is
not
intended
to
be
an
academic
research
article.
However,
references
to
more
detailed
academic
accounts
of
some
of
the
issues
discussed
have
been
included,
and
the
author
can
be
contacted
at
eva.van.passel@vub.ac.be
or
at
https://www.linkedin.com/in/evavanpassel.
Introduction
Cultural
heritage
institutions
are
redefining
their
roles
in
a
context
of
digital
access
to
culture.
They
are
finding
themselves
in
a
world
where
they
don’t
just
have
visitors;
they
have
users,
learners,
makers,
and
online
experience
seekers.
Digital
engagement
is
such
an
important
part
of
many
of
these
users’
lives.
A
key
question
many
institutions
in
the
GLAM
sector
are
dealing
with
is:
how
can
we,
as
a
cultural
sector,
get
involved
in
this
all,
and
do
this
in
a
meaningful
manner?
The
challenge
will
be
to
ensure
that
the
mission
of
the
cultural
sector
as
a
whole
includes
room
for
engagement,
interaction
and
co-­‐creation.
In
this
essay,
I
do
not
wish
to
expand
on
this
context
further,
though
I
have
done
so
in
previous
articles.1
Instead,
I
would
mainly
wish
to
focus
on
some
insights
and
thoughts
on
strategies
cultural
institutions
might
like
to
consider
within
this
context,
based
on
my
experiences
as
a
researcher,
and
my
collaborations
with
practitioners
and
policy
makers
from
the
sectors
of
cultural
heritage
and
the
arts.
I
started
as
a
researcher
at
iMinds-­‐SMIT
at
the
Vrije
Universiteit
Brussel
in
2007,
and
I
have
worked
with
the
cultural
sector
for
many
years
now.
My
first
encounters
with
arts
and
heritage
institutions
were
all
within
Flanders
(Belgium).
I
have
been
involved
in
a
few
consecutive
research
projects
on
the
topic
of
joint
digitisation
of
collections
of
a
variety
of
institutions,
including
a
focus
on
financing
models,
the
issue
of
long-­‐term
preservation,
and
crucially
the
challenges
related
to
making
those
digitised
collections
available
to
a
variety
of
audiences.
My
focus
was
never
on
the
technical
or
the
legal
(copyright)
aspects,
but
on
the
strategic
and
policy
challenges
that
these
evolutions
create
for
institutions
and
the
people
working
within
them.
From
that
Flemish
context,
I
then
moved
on
to
a
wider
European
context.
iMinds-­‐SMIT
was
involved
in
one
of
the
projects
aggregating
content
for
Europeana,
of
which
there
have
been
many
over
the
years.
Again,
I
focused
on
‘the
strategic
stuff’
within
this
project,
and
the
requirements
of
institutions.
In
parallel
with
this,
I
also
worked
on
a
small-­‐scale
research
project
with
a
contemporary
artist.
This
paragraph
is
not
merely
intended
as
a
biographical
note,
but
as
a
sketch
of
the
context
in
which
my
views
on
the
challenges
facing
the
sector
have
taken
shape.
The
first
section
of
this
essay
will
elaborate
further
on
these
research
experiences.

2. 2
Fictional
institutions
and
institutional
frictions
The
project
Europeana
Inside
was
a
Best
Practice
Network
committed
to
reducing
and
removing
barriers
to
participation
in
Europeana
at
several
levels,
organisational,
legal,
technical
and
financial.2
However,
the
open
licensing
of
metadata
was
not
really
seen
as
a
barrier
in
the
early
stages
of
the
project.
During
one
of
the
early
meetings,
the
project
manager
in
fact
pointed
out
that
all
the
institutions
that
had
joined
the
project
had
fully
committed
to
open
data.
This
was
presumed
to
be
the
case,
as
Europeana’s
Data
Exchange
Agreement
(DEA)
implied
that
providers
have
to
authorise
the
publication
of
all
metadata
under
the
Creative
Commons
Universal
Public
Domain
Dedication
(CC0).
All
institutions
present
at
the
meeting
had
indeed
signed
up
to
the
project
and
as
such
to
the
principle
of
making
content
and
metadata
available
through
Europeana.
However,
when
they
were
being
confronted
with
the
implications
in
practice,
it
turned
out
some
of
them
were
suddenly
starting
to
reconsider
this
commitment
to
open
data,
and
to
think
carefully
about
what
they
wanted
to
share.
For
example,
many
museums
didn’t
want
to
share
the
full
scientific
descriptions
their
curators
wrote
about
certain
works
under
the
specific
CC0
conditions
of
the
DEA.3
So
while
from
Europeana’s
point
of
view,
it
made
a
lot
of
sense
to
try
and
streamline
the
metadata
they
aggregate
as
much
as
possible,
the
project
illustrated
that
a
one
size
fits
all
approach
can
be
scary
for
many,
and
that
needs
of
diverse
institutions
can
differ
widely.
I
am
glad
to
say
that
Europeana
was
always
available
to
listen
to
our
concerns,
and
by
means
of
their
recent
publishing
framework,
they
are
offering
a
lot
of
flexibility
and
guidance
when
it
comes
to
different
licensing
options
to
share
collection
items.4
The
reluctance
noted
in
Europeana
Inside
did
not
necessarily
mean
that
the
participating
institutions
were
not
willing
to
share
and
open
up.
In
many
cases,
they
were
very
positive
towards
the
idea,
but
they
were
simply
not
ready
to
do
so
to
the
extent
that
the
license
required.
In
parallel
to
Europeana
Inside,
I
also
started
working
with
the
filmmaker
and
contemporary
artist
called
Jasper
Rigole
on
a
small
research
project,
within
the
context
of
the
Art&D
programme
of
iMinds.5
Jasper
collects
8mm
films
that
he
finds
at
flea
markets,
so
mostly
home
movies,
and
remixes
and
reimagines
them
to
his
own
beautiful
and
often
nostalgic
works
of
art.
He
has
been
collecting
these
found
reels
of
tape
for
many
years,
and
based
on
this
collection,
he
has
founded
his
own
fictional
cultural
institute,
the
International
Institute
for
the
Conservation,
Archiving
and
Distribution
of
other
People’s
Memories
(IICADOM).
As
you
can
perhaps
tell
by
the
name,
it
was
started
somewhat
ironically,
and
it
involved
criticism
on
some
memory
institutions’
more
archaic
and
bureaucratic
tendencies.
However,
over
the
years
it
has
grown
to
the
extent
that
it
has
surpassed
fiction
and
has
become
a
veritable
archive.
Together
with
Jasper,
I
wrote
an
article
about
the
lessons
real
institutions
can
learn
from
this
example
from
fiction
–
the
title
of
this
section
of
the
essay,
‘fictional
institutions
and
institutional
frictions’,
was
also
part
of
this
article’s
title.
6

3. 3
A
big
distinctive
factor
of
IICADOM
is
of
course
that
as
a
‘fake’
or
‘fictional’
institution,
it
is
not
accountable
to
the
government,
to
its
users
or
to
an
authentic
preservation
of
the
past.
This
offers
some
opportunities,
but
it
also
means
Jasper’s
work
doesn’t
fall
under
a
lot
of
the
exceptions
to
copyright
that
cultural
institutions
can
benefit
from.
In
a
sense,
he
is
therefore
confronted
with
less
risk
–
due
to
the
lack
of
accountability
–
as
well
as
more
risk
–
due
to
the
lack
of
protective
exceptions.
His
collection
is
by
default
all
found
footage,
so
it’s
a
collection
of
only
orphaned
works.
There
is
no
easy
way
to
even
start
doing
a
diligent
search
for
rights
holders
of
reels
of
films
you
find
at
flea
markets,
so
there
is
still
some
risk
attached
to
using
the
footage.
Jasper
made
a
large
selection
of
footage
available
to
download
through
the
platform
https://archive.org/
under
a
Creative
Commons
license.
As
these
are
orphan
works
and
he
is
not
actually
the
rightsholder,
this
entails
a
certain
level
of
risk.
For
cultural
institutions,
lessons
can
perhaps
be
learned
on
attitudes
to
risk.
It
is
not
a
risk
free
approach,
but
I
believe
it
to
be
a
low
risk
strategy.
It
might
be
an
interesting
thought
exercise
to
just
consider
what
is
possible
at
a
low
risk
level.
Another
lesson
to
be
learned
is
that,
as
can
be
noted
from
the
example
of
archive.org,
IICADOM
interacts
with
existing
external
platforms.
This
remains
a
solid
recommendation
as
a
way
forward
to
memory
institutions
as
well:
find
the
users
where
they
are,
don’t
just
expect
them
to
come
and
find
you.
This
is
definitely
something
that
even
a
portal
the
size
of
Europeana
has
started
to
focus
on
more
and
more
over
the
years,
and
it
is
worth
repeating.
Finally,
on
his
own
website,
Jasper
also
wanted
to
create
mechanisms
for
creative
reuse
of
the
footage.
His
idea
was
to
set
up
a
section
on
the
website
where
users
could
adopt
memories,
interact
with
them,
base
new
works
on
them,
and
truly
make
them
their
own.
So
IICADOM
is
not
only
about
allowing
creative
reuse,
via
downloads
on
archive.org,
but
also
about
fostering
and
encouraging
it.
In
the
paper
we
wrote,
all
of
these
lessons
were
then
contrasted
with
some
of
the
more
reluctant
and
risk-­‐averse
attitudes
to
openness
that
I
have
encountered
at
a
lot
of
cultural
institutions
during
my
research,
certainly
not
only
within
Europeana
Inside,
but
also
notably
in
the
local
context
of
Flanders,
Belgium.
Towards
a
philosophy
of
cultural
commons
In
the
previous
section
of
this
essay,
I
explained
some
of
my
research
findings
from
the
last
few
years,
and
the
perspectives
I
gained
on
what
is
going
on
in
the
sector.
This
is
not
just
for
the
sake
of
talking
about
the
research,
but
it
illustrates,
in
my
view,
why
we
might
need
more
of
a
framework
to
deal
with
all
of
these
challenges,
this
philosophy
of
cultural
commons.
My
main
feeling
is
that
there
are
so
many
ad
hoc
challenges
crossing
the
path
of
cultural
institutions.
They
all
have
to
focus
on
the
latest
thing
or
the
newest
trend
–
sometimes
it’s
open
metadata,
openly
licensed
content,
APIs,
or
it
might
be
ideas
such
as
‘we
must
be
on
Pinterest’,
‘we
need
to
be
on
Instagram’,
‘Tumblr
is
where
it’s
at
right
now’.
With
all
of
these
trends
that
institutions
are
faced
with,
for
which
they
have
to
come
up
with
an
approach
on
the
spot,
it’s
hard
to
know
where
to
start.
There
has
to
be
a
better
way.

4. 4
This
is
why
we
considered
it
would
be
useful
to
move
towards
a
framework,
a
philosophy
that
takes
more
of
an
overarching
view,
and
as
such
can
be
much
more
about
the
missions
of
institutions
than
about
just
dealing
with
the
latest
trend.
To
stress
this
point
even
further,
I
would
like
to
show
this
wonderful
chart
made
by
Andrea
Wallace,
who
works
at
CREATe
Research
Centre
in
the
UK.
It
shows
a
number
of
institutions
in
the
UK
(each
row
is
one
institution),
and
what
they
allow,
or
do
not
allow,
their
visitors
or
users
to
do,
both
during
a
visit
or
with
content
they
might
find
on
the
website
(each
column
is
something
which
users
might
like
to
do).
It
immediately
and
very
visually
shows
that
institutions
often
take
different
approaches
to
opening
up.
She
used
this
chart
in
a
recent
presentation
on
surrogate
rights
many
institutions
create
for
themselves,
when
they
decide
to
make
available
works
that
are
in
the
public
domain.
In
my
view,
this
idea
of
surrogate
rights
illustrates
very
well
why
we
might
want
to
consider
a
wider
framework
for
sharing
and
opening
up,
and
why
cultural
commons
may
be
such
a
useful
approach.
I’ve
been
working
on
this
idea
together
with
two
colleagues
from
the
field
of
cultural
policy
in
Flanders,
not
within
a
research
project,
but
for
the
purposes
of
a
paper
we
wrote
together
for
a
conference.
This
paper
was
mostly
based
on
all
of
our
experiences
with
the
sector,
and
on
a
thought
exercise
to
try
and
make
sense
of
it
all
(van
der
Linden,
Van
Passel
&
Driesen,
2014).7
We
hope
to
be
able
to
build
on
this
further
in
research,
policy
and
practice
in
the
future.
We
are
by
no
means
the
first
to
consider
cultural
commons
as
an
option
for
the
cultural
heritage
sector.
We
wanted
to
further
our
thoughts
on
the
approach,
with
the

5. 5
aim
of
coming
up
with
something
that
might
be
useful
for
policy
as
well
as
practice.
For
this,
and
in
the
paper
we
wrote,
we
looked
at
the
model
of
constructed
cultural
commons,
as
it
was
developed
by
Michael
Madison,
Brett
Frischmann
&
Katherine
Strandburg
(2010).
First,
it’s
worth
pointing
out
some
of
the
guiding
principles
behind
our
thoughts,
which
are
cultural
principles
at
heart
–
principles
I
believe
the
cultural
sector
can
get
behind,
and
which
should
underpin
a
cultural
commons
approach.8
Culture,
also
in
digital
form,
has
intrinsic
value.
Users
should
therefore
have
the
right
to
sustainable
access
to
these
valuable
assets
–
now
as
well
as
in
the
future
–
and
the
offer
needs
to
be
varied
and
inclusive.
The
latter,
inclusiveness,
in
the
context
of
this
essay
certainly
implies
that
focusing
only
on
public
domain
content
is
not
enough.
Openness
and
opening
up
is
really
not
only
a
principle
in
itself,
but
also
a
way
to
make
sure
the
other
guiding
principles
are
supported.
Madison
and
his
colleagues
break
the
approach
of
constructed
cultural
commons
down
into
some
key
factors.
In
my
talk
at
Sharing
is
Caring,
and
also
in
this
essay,
I
tried
to
steer
away
form
a
heavily
theoretical
approach.
A
crucial
thing
to
point
out
is
that
the
model
was
built
as
a
framework
to
analyse
cultural
commons,
but
that
we
tried
to
look
at
the
cultural
commons
framework
not
only
as
a
tool
for
research,
but
also
as
an
underlying
philosophy
for
cultural
policy
and
governance.
In
looking
at
cultural
commons,
Madison
et
al.
(2010,
pp.
688-­‐704)
propose
to
analyse
4
main
factors:
resources
and
community;
goals
and
objectives;
degrees
of
openness;
and
governance.
What
we
tried
to
do
is
look
at
these
factors
as
key
points
that
the
cultural
sector,
even
on
an
institutional
level,
can
think
about
to
build
a
cultural
commons.
Again,
the
paper
we
wrote
does
this
in
a
lot
more
detail
and
with
a
lot
more
references
than
I
want
to
burden
you
with
in
this
essay.
First,
it
might
be
fruitful
to
simply
take
a
moment
to
consider
what
our
resources
are,
and
who
our
community
is.
Of
course,
if
we
look
at
the
sector
as
a
whole,
this
is
almost
endless,
but
you
can
also
look
at
this
from
your
own
institution’s
point
of
view
as
well.
Who
are
your
users,
what
are
their
expectations,
and
what
can
you
offer
them
in
terms
of
cultural
resources?
The
goals
and
objectives
then,
in
a
simplified
and
general
manner,
might
simply
be
to
give
access
to
culture
to
as
many
people
as
possible.
In
an
age
of
(re)users
and
makers,
this
should
include
to
be
as
open
as
possible,
including
towards
reuse
and
remix
practices.
How
open
this
is,
however,
might
change
depending
on
specific
user
communities,
and
it
can
also
be
different
depending
on
the
content
being
shared.
This
is
where
the
model
really
shines:
it
allows
and
expects
different
degrees
of
openness.
An
approach
like
this
is
very
much
present
in
a
tool
such
as
the
Creative
Commons
licenses,
which
you
can
really
pick
and
choose
from
with
the
goal
of
being
more
or
less
open.
These
degrees
of
openness
are
part
of
the
reason
why
cultural
commons
need
governance.
This
is
not
only
to
be
understood
in
a
restrictive
way,
as
in
rules
that
tell
us
who
can
do
what,
but
especially
also
in
terms
of
guidance,
in
terms
of
making
sure
the
community
understands
what
they
can
do
with
the
resources
made
available
to
them.

6. 6
And
in
practice?
Concluding
remarks
on
opening
up
I’d
like
to
end
with
what
this
can
mean
in
practice,
though
I
should
repeat
that
these
ideas
should
ideally
be
further
developed
in
research,
policy
and
practice.
This
is
nothing
earth-­‐shattering,
nothing
too
complicated,
nothing
perhaps
altogether
new,
but
these
are
things
that
merit
repeating.
The
first
point
is,
please
beware
of
the
black
hole
of
the
20th
century.
Public
domain
stuff
is
the
easiest
stuff,
at
least
from
a
licensing
point
of
view.
Newly
created
stuff
can
sometimes
be
given
more
internet-­‐appropriate
licensing,
for
example
through
Creative
Commons,
or
at
least
the
contracts
institutions
sign
now
with
rights
holders
can
take
the
digital
realm
into
account.
But
all
the
stuff
in-­‐between
is
hard
work.
However,
that
really
shouldn’t
mean
it
should
just
be
ignored.
Orphan
works
legislation
might
make
some
of
it
easier,
and
there
I’d
like
to
recall
the
idea
of
attitudes
to
risk.
But
it
can
also
be
possible
to
clear
rights,
and
clear
them
for
reuse
–
even
if
it
is
for
example
only
educational,
it’s
a
start.
If
you
know
of
a
20th
century
artist
with
a
very
approachable
estate,
I
would
encourage
you
to
approach
them.
In
order
to
continue
to
be
relevant
in
the
digital
age,
it’s
important
to
start
filling
at
least
some
of
this
black
hole.
I’d
like
to
remind
you
of
Michael
Peter
Edson’s
wonderful
tagline
‘Think
big,
start
small,
move
fast’.9
Even
if
you
can
only
make
a
small
showcase
selection
of
works
available
right
now,
it
really
can
be
a
great
place
to
start.
So,
simply
put,
open
up
what
you
can,
as
soon
as
you
can,
to
the
audiences
you
can
open
it
up
to,
as
openly
as
you
can.
Just
like
Michael,
I
would
encourage
institutions
not
to
be
too
daunted
or
put
off
by
the
fact
that
they
cannot
fully
dedicate
everything
to
the
public
domain.
Look
at
what
is
possible,
and
open
up
in
a
layered
manner,
bit
by
bit.
It
is
far
better
than
simply
doing
nothing.
In
the
anthology
that
was
published
after
previous
Sharing
is
Caring
seminars,
Jill
Cousins
wrote
about
building
a
commons
for
digital
cultural
heritage.10
As
director
of
Europeana,
she
made
the
scope
of
her
essay
mostly
about
the
role
of
Europeana
within
a
cultural
commons,
but
she
also
stresses
the
responsibility
of
all
of
us.
I
would
like
to
believe
that
it
is
possible
to
move
towards
such
a
model,
and
I
hope
this
essay
has
encouraged
the
reader
to
think
about
what
this
may
mean.
Initiatives
such
as
Europeana
can
play
a
crucial
role,
but
aside
from
that,
every
small-­‐scale
initiative
–
every
single
time
something
is
made
available
for
reuse
to
someone
–
can
help
to
build
and
maintain
these
wonderful
resources
we
all
benefit
from.
Everything
that
is
made
and
created
from
our
commons
can
become
part
of
the
commons
as
well.
I
ended
my
talk
with
showing
a
photograph
I
took
on
holiday,
of
a
beautiful
wooden
walkway
through
the
dunes
towards
a
beach.
I
believe
there
are
no
monsters
at
the
end
of
the
tempting
path
that
lies
ahead
of
cultural
institutions,
and
I
would
encourage
you
all
to
consider
taking
it.

7. 7
Notes
1. For
example,
in
Van
Passel
&
Rigole
(2014),
we
included
a
brief
section
on
the
participation
paradigm
and
the
movement
towards
open
GLAMs
as
a
recent
incarnation
of
the
changing
institutional
paradigm.
2. The
project
ran
from
April
2012
to
September
2014.
The
project’s
website
is
still
available
at
http://www.europeana-­‐inside.eu/home/index.html.
Europeana
Inside
was
coordinated
by
Collections
Trust
and
co-­‐funded
by
the
European
Union
under
the
ICT
Policy
Support
Programme
part
of
the
Competitiveness
and
Innovation
Framework
Programme
[grant
number
297292].
3. Europeana
Inside
is
not
the
first
project
in
which
this
reluctance
was
noted.
In
the
projects
Athena
and
Linked
Heritage,
for
example,
the
DEA
introduction
already
had
a
large
impact,
as
many
museums
did
not
agree
with
being
required
to
allow
commercial
reuse
through
this
CC0
license
(Vassallo
and
Piccininno
2012).
4. Harry
Verwayen,
deputy
director
of
Europeana
and
moderator
at
Sharing
is
Caring,
showed
a
video
that
clearly
illustrates
the
licensing
choices
and
their
implications:
https://vimeo.com/138177046.
5. The
interdisciplinary
artistic
research
project,
Addenda,
took
place
within
the
Art&D
framework,
co-­‐funded
by
iMinds,
a
research
institute
founded
by
the
Flemish
Government.
Its
project
partners
were
the
artist
Jasper
Rigole,
iMinds
(iLab.o
and
iMinds-­‐SMIT,
Vrije
Universiteit
Brussel),
and
Rekall
Design.
6. For
a
full
and
detailed
account
of
these
lessons
learned,
I’d
like
to
refer
you
to
the
paper
itself
(Van
Passel
&
Rigole,
2014).
7. This
paper
(van
der
Linden,
Van
Passel
&
Driesen,
2014)
forms
the
basis
of
a
big
part
of
this
essay,
but
is
much
more
theoretical
in
scope.
It
can
be
found
at
http://iasckc.nyuengelberg.org/s/Hans-­‐van-­‐der-­‐Linden-­‐Eva-­‐Van-­‐Passel-­‐Leen-­‐Driesen.pdf
8. With
regards
to
these
principles,
we
addressed
the
fact
that a
lot
of
initiatives
encouraging
institutions
to
open
up
emerge
more
from
a
context
of
EU
innovation
policy,
with
economic
and
competitive
connotations,
and
have
perhaps
for
this
reason
engendered
certain
controversies
in
the
cultural
sector.
This
essay
does
not
dwell
on
that
distinction,
but
in
this
endnote,
I’d
like
to
paraphrase
some
of
the
discussion
as
we
described
in
in
our
paper
(van
der
Linden,
Van
Passel
&
Driesen,
2014).
The
‘economic
innovation
flavour’
is
applicable
to
some
extent
to
the
DEA,
which
takes
a
creative
industries
approach
towards
creative
industries,
but
it
is
certainly
seen
to
be
the
case
with
regards
to
the
implementation
of
the
new
version
of
the
Public
Sector
Information
Directive
(Directive
2013/37/EU).
Bottom-­‐up
OpenGLAM
tendencies
may
be
similar
in
approach,
but
they
may
very
well
be
based
on
very
different
motivations
and
principles.
Choosing
which
angle
to
take
in
the
long-­‐
standing
debate
on
the
balance
between
cultural
principles
and
economic
principles,
on
public
and
cultural
value
as
opposed
to
mere
economic
value
(see
e.g.
Holden,
2004;
Throsby,
2011)
may
well
impact
institutional
willingness
to
open
up.
The
principles
behind
a
cultural
commons
approach
are
only
very
briefly
discussed
in
this
essay,
but
in
the
paper
I
refer
to,
we
explored
to
which
extent
more
‘intrinsically
cultural’
basis
could
be
used
to
motivate
the
commons.
We
looked
for
example
at
the
Framework
Convention
on
the
Value
of
Cultural
Heritage
for
Society
(the
FARO-­‐Convention;
Council
of
Europe,
2005),
UNESCO’s
Vancouver
Declaration
(2012)
and
the
UNESCO
Convention
on
the
Protection
and
Promotion
of
the
Diversity
of
Cultural
Expressions
(2005).
9. A
great
summary
of
what
this
means
can
be
found
here:
http://dysartjones.com/2012/03/think-­‐big-­‐start-­‐small-­‐move-­‐fast/
Michael
Peter
Edson
has
also
contributed
an
energising
essay
–
simply
entitled
‘Boom’
–
to
the
Sharing
is
Caring
anthology
(Edson,
2014).
10. The
principles
outlined
in
this
essay
for
a
cultural
commons
are
slightly
different
than
the
ones
we’ve
put
forward
in
our
own
paper
(Cousins,
2014).

8. 8
References
Council
of
Europe
(2005).
Framework
Convention
on
the
Value
of
Cultural
Heritage
for
Society.
Faro,
27.X.2005
Cousins,
J.
(2014).
Building
a
commons
for
digital
cultural
heritage.
In
M.
Sanderhoff
(Ed.),
Sharing
is
Caring,
Openness
and
sharing
in
the
cultural
heritage
sector
(pp.
132-­‐140).
Copenhagen:
Statens
Museum
for
Kunst.
Edson,
M.
P.
(2014).
Boom.
In
M.
Sanderhoff
(Ed.),
Sharing
is
Caring,
Openness
and
sharing
in
the
cultural
heritage
sector
(pp.
12-­‐19).
Copenhagen:
Statens
Museum
for
Kunst.
Holden,
J.
(2004).
Capturing
Cultural
Value.
London:
Demos.
Madison,
M.
J.,
Frischmann,
B.
M.,
Strandburg,
K.
J.
(2010).
Constructing
Commons
in
the
Cultural
Environment.
Cornell
Law
Review,
95
(4),
657-­‐709.
Throsby,
D.
(2001).
Economics
and
Culture.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
UNESCO
(2005).
Convention
on
the
Protection
and
Promotion
of
the
Diversity
of
Cultural
Expressions.
20
October
2005.
Paris:
UNESCO.
UNESCO
(2012).
Vancouver
declaration.
The
Memory
of
the
World
in
the
Digital
Age:
Digitization
and
Preservation.
26
to
28
December
2012.
Vancouver:
UNESCO.
van
der
Linden,
H.,
Van
Passel,
E.,
&
Driesen,
L.
(2014).
Towards
a
Cultural
Commons
Approach
as
a
Framework
for
Cultural
Policy
and
Practice
in
a
Network
Society.
Paper
presented
at
the
2nd
Thematic
Conference
on
Knowledge
Commons,
5-­‐6
September
2014,
New
York,
USA.
Van
Passel,
E.,
&
Rigole,
J.
(2014).
Fictional
Institutions
and
Institutional
Frictions:
Creative
Approaches
to
Open
GLAMs.
Digital
Creativity,
25
(3),
203-­‐211.
DOI:
10.1080/14626268.2014.904363
Vassallo,
V.,
&
Piccininno,
M.
2012.
“Aggregating
Content
for
Europeana:
A
Workflow
to
Support
Content
Providers.”
In
TPDL
2012.
LNCS,
vol.
7489,
edited
by
P.
Zaphiris,
G.
Buchanan,
E.
Rasmussen,
and
F.
Loizides,
445–454.
Heidelberg:
Springer.
Biography
Eva
Van
Passel
has
been
a
researcher
at
iMinds-­‐
SMIT,
Vrije
Universiteit
Brussel,
since
2007.
Broadly
speaking,
Eva’s
research
interests
include
the
many
challenges
and
opportunities
for
arts
and
heritage
in
a
networked
society,
but
her
research
mainly
focuses
on
the
changing
roles
of
cultural
(heritage)
institutions
in
the
context
of
digitisation,
digital
preservation,
and
distribution
and
sustainable
digital
access.
Topics
under
scrutiny
over
the
years
have
included
strategic
challenges
for
cultural
institutions,
digital
cultural
policy,
audience
strategies,
business
models,
the
European
digital
library
Europeana,
open
cultural
data
and
open
GLAM
initiatives,
and
financing
models
for
digital
cultural
heritage.
Eva
holds
Masters
degrees
in
Communication
and
Media
Studies
and
in
Film
Studies
and
Visual
Culture.
Suggested
reference
Van
Passel,
E.
(2015).
‘How
open
is
open
enough?
A
philosophy
of
cultural
commons
for
the
cultural
heritage
sector.’
Essay
written
for
“Sharing
is
Caring:
Right
to
Remix?”,
Copenhagen,
2
October
2015.