Public Sector Information in Cultural Heritage Institutions

Download Public Sector Information in Cultural Heritage Institutions

Post on 13-Oct-2015

569 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

The latest ePSI platform topic report explores Public Sector Information in Cultural Heritage Institutions within Europe. Written by Joris Pekel, Julia Fallon & Lyubomir Kamenov, the report examines the efforts made from those within the cultural heritage sector and by legislators to increase the amount of publicly held information, works and content that are openly available online. It reviews the development of a legal framework and highlights the amendments made to the PSI directive that extends its scope to include libraries, museums and archives.

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p>PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION IN CULTURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTIONS </p><p>1 </p><p>ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2014 / 06 , June 2014 </p><p>European Public Sector Information Platform </p><p>Topic Report No. 2014 / 06 </p><p>Public Sector Information in Cultural </p><p>Heritage Institutions </p><p>Authors: Joris Pekel, Julia Fallon &amp; Lyubomir Kamenov </p><p>Published: June 2014 </p></li><li><p>PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION IN CULTURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTIONS </p><p>2 </p><p>ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2014 / 06 , June 2014 </p><p>Table of Contents </p><p>Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 2 </p><p>Keywords: ..................................................................................................................................... 3 </p><p>Abstract/ Executive Summary:...................................................................................................... 4 </p><p>1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6 </p><p>2. Scope of the report ................................................................................................................. 7 </p><p>3. The challenges of enabling Open Access ............................................................................... 8 </p><p>4. Escalating costs of digitisation ............................................................................................ 10 </p><p>5. Requirements for sharing ..................................................................................................... 11 </p><p>6. Sharing metadata without any restrictions ........................................................................... 12 </p><p>7. Changes to the legislative landscape.................................................................................... 13 </p><p>8. The amendments to the Directive ........................................................................................ 14 </p><p>9. State of implementation by Member States ......................................................................... 16 </p><p>10. 2014: a gap between ambition and reality? ........................................................................ 18 </p><p>11. Negotiating permissions for re-use .................................................................................... 19 </p><p>12. Identifying Orphan Works for the public interest .............................................................. 21 </p><p>13. Respecting the Public Domain ........................................................................................... 22 </p><p>14. Public Private Partnerships ................................................................................................ 24 </p><p>15. Open licenses for public data ............................................................................................. 26 </p><p>16. Enabling re-use of data ...................................................................................................... 28 </p><p>17. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 29 </p><p>About the Authors ................................................................................................................... 30 </p><p>Annex 1: Current state of implementation per country ........................................................... 31 </p><p>Copyright information ............................................................................................................. 32 </p></li><li><p>PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION IN CULTURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTIONS </p><p>3 </p><p>ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2014 / 06 , June 2014 </p><p>Keywords: </p><p>Open Data, Cultural Heritage, Public Sector, PSI, PSI Directive, Culture, re-use, Digitisation, </p><p>Orphan Works, Public Domain, Culture Institutions, Libraries, Archives, Museums </p></li><li><p>PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION IN CULTURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTIONS </p><p>4 </p><p>ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2014 / 06 , June 2014 </p><p>Abstract/ Executive Summary: </p><p>This topic report is about Public Sector Information in the European cultural heritage sector </p><p>and the efforts made by this community as well as the legislators to increase the amount of </p><p>publicly held information, works and content that are openly available online. </p><p>The report discusses relevant research undertaken over the last few years regarding the </p><p>challenges and benefits of making digital cultural heritage information available for re-use. </p><p>It reviews the development of the legal framework and highlights the amendments made to </p><p>the PSI Directive1 that extend the scope of the Directive to include libraries, museums and </p><p>archives. These amendments were accepted by the European Parliament in June 2013 and at </p><p>the time of writing Members States are in the process of implementing the amendments into </p><p>national legislation. </p><p>In this report the implementation process is reviewed and, research on what these </p><p>amendments mean for the cultural sector is presented. </p><p>This report is also a follow up on the 2012 topic report on the same topic and new trends and </p><p>topics such as content re-use, the public domain and data quality are discussed. The report </p><p>aims to have a look at these discussions from multiple viewpoints and various opinions and </p><p>recommendations are presented. </p><p>In the last decade, the European cultural heritage sector has taken some great steps forward to </p><p>make their collections available and relevant on the web. Incredible amounts of material have </p><p>been digitised and a lot of thought has been put into how this material can be made available. </p><p>At the moment users, researchers, students, creatives and art lovers have access to an almost </p><p>unlimited amount of cultural material on the web. At the same time incredible amounts of </p><p>material are still waiting to be digitised and the quality of the data is not always good enough </p><p>for the demands of todays user. This is a long and costly process and in the current climate of </p><p>budget cuts it is not an easy task. </p><p>The recent amendments to the PSI Directive have the potential to greatly influence the amount </p><p>of data that is made available without restrictions from the cultural sector. Unfortunately one </p><p>1 http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/european-legislation-reuse-public-sector-information </p></li><li><p>PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION IN CULTURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTIONS </p><p>5 </p><p>ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2014 / 06 , June 2014 </p><p>year after the approval, most Member States have not yet started implementing the Directive. </p><p>It is therefore too early to say what the effects will be in one year from now. However it is </p><p>mandatory that all Member States have not only implemented it, but have done so in a </p><p>consistent manner throughout their domestic legal systems, with as little divergence as </p><p>possible. </p><p>The inclusion of libraries, archives and museums seems like a big step, but it is in fact in line </p><p>with the fact that many institutions were already publishing their metadata without any </p><p>restriction using the CC0 waiver. Neelie Kroes specifically mentioned this in her speech2 when </p><p>the new text was presented, saying: </p><p>[T]o make a real difference you need a few things. You need prices for the data to be </p><p>reasonable if not free given that the marginal cost of your using the data is pretty low. You </p><p>need to be able to not just use the data: but re-use it, without dealing with complex conditions </p><p>[...] We are giving you new rights for how you can access their public data for re-use, but also </p><p>extending rules to include museums and galleries. That could open up whole new areas of </p><p>cultural content, with applications from education to tourism. Indeed, Europeana3 already has </p><p>over 25 million cultural items digitised and available for all to see with metadata under an </p><p>open, CC0 licence. </p><p>The fact that digitisation and preservation is costly is one of the main reasons that there is </p><p>currently so much debate about making digitised cultural objects available without any </p><p>restrictions as Public Sector Information. Cultural budgets around Europe are being cut and </p><p>more and more institutions are expected to become less dependant on public funding and find </p><p>new ways of making profit. Image sales is one potential source of income which institutions are </p><p>hesitant to give up. This results in a constant tension between the public task of the institution </p><p>to increase access to its material as widely as possible and the requirement to generate income </p><p>to compensate for tight budgets. </p><p> 2 http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/blog/open-data-agreement </p><p>3 http://europeana.eu </p></li><li><p>PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION IN CULTURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTIONS </p><p>6 </p><p>ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2014 / 06 , June 2014 </p><p>1. Introduction </p><p>Rapid progress in computer technology and the increased importance of the Internet as a </p><p>medium of access to information are forcing the cultural heritage sector to think about how </p><p>they want to be represented on the web and how to deal with digital representations of </p><p>analogue works. It is only five years ago since Europeana, Europes largest cultural heritage </p><p>database was launched. In these five years both connection speed and screen resolution have </p><p>improved significantly and with the general acceptance of smartphones the public now has </p><p>access to a world of knowledge at any given moment. Cultural institutions are working hard to </p><p>keep up with these advancements and they find themselves in limbo between the search for a </p><p>viable business model and the pressure of the public to have access to high quality material at </p><p>any moment. </p><p>The PSI Directive aims to benefit the public by providing them with a right to access to the </p><p>information produced free of charge. But it also raises questions for institutions how to deal </p><p>with the demand while at the same time cultural budgets are being cut around Europe. In this </p><p>report an overview of the most important discussions are presented including a variety of </p><p>views from the sector, Member States and related associations. </p><p>In the original PSI Directive from 2003, these institutions were not included. In the years after </p><p>it has been debated if this should be the case. In June 2013 it was made official4 that </p><p>information produced by these cultural institutions would also be considered public sector </p><p>information and therefore would fall under the Directive. However, the amendment5 describes </p><p>some preconditions and exceptions for cultural institutions and many EU member states are </p><p>still in the process of implementing it. The results of this will influence the outcomes of the </p><p>amendment heavily. In this report the new amendments to the Directive are reviewed and </p><p>various arguments will be discussed. A wider overview of the European cultural heritage sector </p><p>and various topical discussion are presented. </p><p> 4 http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/en/blog/open-data-agreement </p><p>5 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:175:0001:0008:EN:PDF </p></li><li><p>PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION IN CULTURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTIONS </p><p>7 </p><p>ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2014 / 06 , June 2014 </p><p>2. Scope of the report </p><p>Within this topic report, we refer to cultural heritage and any information or digital object </p><p>being produced or created by European Libraries, Archives and Museums. This includes </p><p>tangible culture (such as buildings, monuments, landscapes, books, works of art, and </p><p>artefacts), intangible culture (such as folklore, traditions, language, and knowledge), and </p><p>natural heritage (including culturally-significant landscapes, and biodiversity). Private </p><p>institutions are not considered here, although there are cases where they do have a public task </p><p>or mission. </p><p>When talking about the information produced by the cultural heritage sector it is important to </p><p>differentiate between the different types of information that is produced, namely metadata </p><p>and content. In particular, we refer to the definitions from the Europeana Glossary6, where; </p><p>Metadata is The textual information and hyperlinks that serve to identify, discover, interpret </p><p>and/or manage Content. </p><p>Content is A physical or Digital Object that is part of Europe's cultural and/or scientific </p><p>heritage, typically held by a Data Provider. </p><p>6 http://pro.europeana.eu/glossary </p></li><li><p>PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION IN CULTURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTIONS </p><p>8 </p><p>ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2014 / 06 , June 2014 </p><p>3. The challenges of enabling Open Access </p><p>The majority of cultural heritage institutions have a public mission, or task, to both collect and </p><p>preserve as well as provide the public with access to cultural heritage objects, artefacts, data </p><p>and knowledge. In the context of the PSI Directive, we refer to the digitised versions of these </p><p>objects (content) and the descriptive or contextual information (metadata) that is used to </p><p>describe the digital object. With the advent of the digital revolution, this mission is ever more </p><p>demanding where there is an expectation that cultural heritage institutions extend their reach </p><p>from the physical domain into the virtual. </p><p>Cultural Heritage Institutions want to ensure that the benefits of digitalisation outweigh the </p><p>costs. Although there have been several studies into the value of digitising content and the </p><p>new possibilities that could bring a fear still remains that the costs incurred during the process </p><p>will never be recovered. These issues result in a desire to open up collections online, but a </p><p>large gap between ambition and reality. This is demonstrated in an ENUMERATE7 report about </p><p>the state of digitisation in Europe. </p><p>Fig. 1: Taken from the ENUMERATE survey. (CC-BY-SA)8 </p><p>Europeana, providing access to the largest collection of Cultural Heritage data throughout </p><p>Europe, now references more than 30 million digitised objects. This is a lot, but the recently </p><p> 7 http://www.enumerate.eu/ </p><p>8 http://www.enumerate.eu/fileadmin/ENUMERATE/documents/ENUMERATE-Digitisation-Survey-2014.pdf </p></li><li><p>PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION IN CULTURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTIONS </p><p>9 </p><p>ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2014 / 06 , June 2014 </p><p>published ENUMERATE study shows that this is only a small percentage of what is actually </p><p>digitised. Europeanas 30 million is about 10% of the 300 million objects that are currently </p><p>digitised. According to the ENUMERATE study institutions have digitised on average 17% of </p><p>their physical collection and 52% still needs to be digitised. If we do the maths, this means that </p><p>about 1 billion cultural heritage objects are still waiting to be digitised. </p></li><li><p>PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION IN CULTURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTIONS </p><p>10 </p><p>ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2014 / 06 , June 2014 </p><p>4. Escalating costs of digitisation </p><p>Digitisation is a costly process, taking into account that the actual digitisation is just one part in </p><p>a chain of selection, conservation, movement, meta-description, rights clearance, preparation, </p><p>delivery, use and preservation. The result o...</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >