Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Final whitepapers for establishing international and interope...

13 Oct 2015

CNE, NKC, NoC-OKLR, NoC-CR, OOC-NC, InC-NC, InC-EDU, InC-RUU, InC-OW-EU, InC… PhEW !
Hi Willi, others,
I attended the first workshop (at the launch of DPLA in Boston) which also launched the work that has resulted in this document. I really admire DPLA for their principled stance on how our digital cultural heritage should be free from encumbrances. And, perhaps the subtleties of law, ownership and rights are really very nuanced when it comes to cultural works. But please, please, we don’t need 50 shades of rights when it comes to scientific/research works. When people ask me why I use CC0 and why I recommend it, I say that I simply choose to opt out of this nonsense. I want to focus on science. I don’t want a decision tree trying to decide what I can or cannot do with the data I have acquired, or making others go into similar mental contortions when thinking of reusing my data.
Certainly we should refer to this work, but if anything, then as an example of how confusing things can become if we let our minds get away with it.
Please, please let’s strive for simplicity. I say this as a scientist, as a data analyst, and as an advocate of open science. We do not want our scientists and researchers spending time thinking about this any more than absolutely necessary.

  • Donat Agosti's picture

    Author: Donat Agosti

    Date: 13 Oct, 2015

    I would second Puneet. I would also argue, that science has a different business model whereby billions of dollars are spent by the public to create research results that are the bases for creation of wellfare of our nations. Thus funds are spent upfront (a priori) to create results or a product/work. This is the oppisit to usual business including a lot of culture where the work is the basus to generate revenues (a posteriori).
    It is then the publisher who insists on copyright by selling a product (specifically the content, research results) that has been by a third party. In our vision of interopreable data we thus have to replace this impediment. As Puneet points out, adding ever more licences is not the solution, our goal is not to maintain structures that are anachronistic but be as innovative in creating a new science sommunication infrastructure as we are in our main domain, research.
    Donat
    Sent from Samsung Mobile.
    -------- Original message --------
    From: punkish
    Date:13/10/2015 08:35 (GMT+01:00)
    To: Willi Egloff , RDA/CODATA Legal Interoperability IG
    Subject: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Re: [rda-legalinterop-ig] Final whitepapers for establishing international and interope...
    CNE, NKC, NoC-OKLR, NoC-CR, OOC-NC, InC-NC, InC-EDU, InC-RUU, InC-OW-EU, InC… PhEW !
    Hi Willi, others,
    I attended the first workshop (at the launch of DPLA in Boston) which also launched the work that has resulted in this document. I really admire DPLA for their principled stance on how our digital cultural heritage should be free from encumbrances. And, perhaps the subtleties of law, ownership and rights are really very nuanced when it comes to cultural works. But please, please, we don’t need 50 shades of rights when it comes to scientific/research works. When people ask me why I use CC0 and why I recommend it, I say that I simply choose to opt out of this nonsense. I want to focus on science. I don’t want a decision tree trying to decide what I can or cannot do with the data I have acquired, or making others go into similar mental contortions when thinking of reusing my data.
    Certainly we should refer to this work, but if anything, then as an example of how confusing things can become if we let our minds get away with it.
    Please, please let’s strive for simplicity. I say this as a scientist, as a data analyst, and as an advocate of open science. We do not want our scientists and researchers spending time thinking about this any more than absolutely necessary.
    --
    Full post:
    https://rd-alliance.org/group/rdacodata-legal-interoperability-ig/post/r...
    Manage my subscriptions: https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist
    Stop emails for this post:
    https://rd-alliance.org/mailinglist/unsubscribe/50209

  • Melissa Levine's picture

    Author: Melissa Levine

    Date: 13 Oct, 2015

    Dear all,
    I have kept a general eye on your work from afar and have worked with Gail
    in the past. I have great respect and enthusiasm for your efforts and am
    working in my library to think through many of the issues you are tackling.
    I participated in the working group that produced the DPLA/Europeana rights
    papers. I want to clarify a few things. We struggled with some of the
    themes you are raising. First, these are NOT licenses. They are
    descriptions of the status of rights so that a museum, library, or archives
    can describe the legal status to the best of their ability. That in turn
    can be used in the aggregation process. In most cases, 'LAM' do not own the
    copyrights and may be subject to conditions aside from copyright. We needed
    a way to 'describe' rights realizing we needed a framework in addition to
    Creative Commons licenses. Why? Because most LAM will not have the legal
    authority to apply a license - but they can describe the rights as best
    they can. We did our best to model the conceptual framework of Creative
    Commons licenses as well as the descriptions we've used in HathiTrust and
    the Copyright Review Management System (a project to explore copyright
    determination and identify books in the public domain in HathiTrust
    supported by the IMLS).
    This is typically going to be relevant for legacy material. It is
    necessarily complex because we are dealing with an existing framework. For
    new material, we can address rights cleanly up front and with CC licenses.
    In the scientific data arena, you/we have the opportunity to do so much
    better. You can keep things cleaner and simpler from the start; you seem
    well on your way to that kind of framework. You might note as a contrast
    the inherited complexity of the DPLA/Europeana work (I hope in a
    complimentary - and complementary - way) to make the point that science
    requires complete rigour and clarity to be reliable and authentic. The
    point made about the scale of government funding in scientific research
    underscores the importance of that research for civil society - the data it
    generates should be as open as possible, as fluidly as possible. Your
    principles are right on track.
    With warm regards,
    Melissa Levine

submit a comment