14,00 14,15 h. harald von hielmcrone


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

14,00 14,15 h. harald von hielmcrone

  1. 1. Copyright and Financial Models to bring Europe’s Cultural Heritage online? Large scale digitization and collective licensing schemes for libraries Harald von Hielmcrone
  2. 2. <ul><li>The Google Book search project </li></ul><ul><ul><li>starting signal for the i2010 Digital Library Initiative and EUROPEANA in 2005 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The goal Is to make the European Cultural Heritage available in digital form via the EUROPEANA portal </li></ul>
  3. 3. <ul><li>This requires large investments and the clearing of rights regarding copyright protected works </li></ul><ul><li>Today we will focus both on the copyright and the financial issues </li></ul>
  4. 4. Copyright <ul><li>The i2010 Digital Library Initiative should be realized within the existing European copyright legislation </li></ul><ul><li>Since then the Commission and copyright experts in the Member States have worked on finding a solution </li></ul><ul><li>It is now obvious that these projects are not possible with the existing copyright legislation </li></ul>
  5. 5. <ul><li>If EUROPEANA shall be able to give access to works for which the term of protection has not yet expired this requires either </li></ul><ul><ul><li>an exception allowing the digitisation and making available to the public of the works, or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>a license agreement with the authors and other rights holders, or collecting societies, representing these rights holders </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. <ul><li>European copyright legislation permits libraries to digitise works for specific purposes </li></ul><ul><li>But they are not allowed to make the digital copies available to the public from places outside the library without permission from the right holders </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, collective license agreements are needed </li></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>In the majority of EU Member States, collecting societies can only enter licence agreements on behalf of their members </li></ul><ul><li>How is it possible to clear the rights of works of authors and other rights holders </li></ul><ul><ul><li>who are not members of a colleting society and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>cannot be identified or located? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>That is the Orphan Works problem </li></ul>
  8. 8. Extended collective licensing <ul><li>In the Nordic countries a collecting society may </li></ul><ul><ul><li>have a legal mandate to engage in collective license agreements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>which may also be binding for rights owners who are not members of the organization </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. <ul><li>If the rights are cleared on the basis of an extended collective licensing agreement, the licence agreement covers all works of the type of works specified in the agreement </li></ul><ul><li>Whether some of these may be orphan, is not relevant </li></ul>
  10. 10. <ul><li>Whether the rights owners are identifiable and locatable first becomes an issue when the collecting society shall redistribute revenue to the rights holders </li></ul><ul><li>Under extended collective licensing, the orphan works problem boils down to an issue of redistribution of revenue by collecting societies </li></ul>
  11. 11. Orphan Works Exception <ul><li>Another solution may be an Orphan Works Exception allowing libraries to digitize and make available to the public works which have been deemed to be “orphan” </li></ul><ul><li>This solution requires that the following steps are undertaken: </li></ul>
  12. 12. <ul><li>The institution must identify those works which may be orphan </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This would require that searches are conducted in order to satisfy the criteria for the work to be classified as orphan </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If the criteria are met, the work may be used as permitted by the law </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. <ul><li>The in-copyright works which are not orphan must be divided into two groups: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Those works whose authors are members of the collecting society may be cleared by collective licensing agreements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Those works whose authors are not members of the collecting society must be cleared by individual agreements with the individual rights owner </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. <ul><li>The transaction costs involved in </li></ul><ul><ul><li>identifying the orphan works and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>clearing the rights of the rest, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>will be prohibitive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>except for well defined collections, which may be defined en bloc as being orphan </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. <ul><li>It has been a mistake to define the problems of clearing rights in large scale digitisation projects as primarily being an Orphan Works issue </li></ul><ul><li>The focus on orphan works has misdirected the search for solutions by obscuring a much larger problem: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The huge number of rights holders whose consent must be obtained </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The real issue is how to clear the rights for large numbers of works of a certain category </li></ul>
  16. 16. The Stakeholder Dialogue <ul><li>Digitisation projects usually concern large scale digitisation of works which are no longer commercially available </li></ul><ul><li>The Stakeholder Dialogue starts with this fact </li></ul>
  17. 17. <ul><li>If it is possible to make collective licensing agreements for Out of Commerce Works, the Orphan Works Problem may disappear </li></ul><ul><ul><li>because Orphan Works are a subgroup of Out of Commerce Works </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. <ul><li>The dialogue centres around three main issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The definition of Out of Commerce Works </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The extension of the agreement to cover also those authors or right holders who are not members of the Collecting Society </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The cross border access to digital libraries within the European Union </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. <ul><li>The main idea is to provide a framework but leave it to the contracting parties to negotiate the agreement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It is always easier to find concrete solutions to specific problems than to try to solve them in terms of general rules and principles </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. <ul><li>Basic to these agreements are </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the possibility for rights holders to opt out if they so wish, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>that rights holders are entitled to remuneration </li></ul></ul><ul><li>These two principles were not contested by any of the parties in the dialogue </li></ul>
  21. 21. <ul><li>Basic agreement on the text regarding the </li></ul><ul><ul><li>definition of Out of Commerce Works, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the extension of the agreement to cover also those authors or right holders who are not members of the Collecting Society </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. <ul><li>The main problem is whether </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the extension of the agreements and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the cross border access to digital libraries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>presupposes community legislation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>followed up by legislation in Member States </li></ul></ul><ul><li>and whether such legislation is forthcoming </li></ul>
  23. 23. <ul><li>Legislation allowing for the extension of agreements to non-represented rights holders </li></ul><ul><ul><li>is in place in the Nordic countries and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>is being prepared in Germany and France </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But these solutions are only valid within the territory of the Member State </li></ul>
  24. 24. <ul><li>In many Member States the idea of extending license agreements to non-represented rights holders is a very controversial idea </li></ul><ul><ul><li>which may meet strong protests from rights holders </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. <ul><li>Agreements allowing cross border access to digital libraries within the European Union probably requires community legislation </li></ul><ul><li>This is difficult because copyright is in essence based on territoriality </li></ul><ul><li>The Commission has not yet been able to come up with a solution </li></ul>
  26. 26. <ul><li>It will probably take some years before the necessary legislation is in place </li></ul><ul><li>This does not imply that libraries and rights holder’s organisations should not start negotiations for licence agreements, </li></ul><ul><ul><li>but depending on the national legal situation, these agreements may be of limited scope if the subject matter is still protected by copyright </li></ul></ul>
  27. 27. <ul><li>We will now hear presentation of three different digitisation projects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A Scandinavian model: The Bookshelf (Bokhyllano) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Austrian Books Online The Austrian National Library’s Public Private Partnership with Google </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>  The Spanish BNE project with Telefónica </li></ul></ul><ul><li>After these presentations there will be a panel discussion with the audience </li></ul>