16bis. Applauds the success of the Europeana project in that it demonstrates the viability of the European approach combining respect for copyright with better access for users to creative content online; notes that Europeana, predicated as it is on partnership and ongoing dialogue extending to all stakeholders, enables works to be preserved unimpaired, as well as making for a high standard of legal digitisation; points out in addition that [European] Community copyright legislation stipulates that protected works may not be digitised and made accessible, even in extract form, unless authorisation has been obtained from the rightholders; stresses that this principle is a cornerstone of Europeana; ...
19. Takes the view that digitisation of works should take account of copyright and neighbouring rights and must not conflict with normal exploitation of the works on the internet, particularly as regards revenue earned by virtue of the right of making available to the public; ...
21. Takes the view that the creation of online digital libraries on the basis of large-scale digitisation projects must be carried out entirely in agreement with holders of copyright and neighbouring rights on the basis of voluntarily negotiated agreements; ...
24. Wishes the scientific community and researchers to enter into voluntary licence-issuing schemes with publishers in order to improve access to works for purposes of teaching and research; however, takes particular note of the value of learned journals, which play a key role in the peer review process of validating the results of academic research, and the financial viability of which is dependent on paid subscriptions; ...
Bernard Lang calls attention to the report, with alarm. Fred Friend also comments:
Like Bernard Lang, I have very severe concerns about the direction the European Parliament is taking in looking at revisions to the 2001 Directive. A group of us from European academic and cultural organisations met Manuel Medina Ortega MEP last October. It was a rushed meeting and although we sent a follow-up paper outlining the need to take account of user interests, the points we made have been totally ignored. The continued emphasis upon licensing is a sign that users' interests are not being taken seriously. Licensing has its place but not as a substitute for strong Exceptions, which will not damage the financial viability of journals. ...
European readers of this list are encouraged to make their local MEPs aware of these issues before it is too late. ...
Comments.
The recent revisions seem overall to support even more strongly expansive copyright and publisher's interests. The section on Europeana, which is new, has some pro-access language, but also points out that "protected works may not be digitised and made accessible, even in extract form, unless authorisation has been obtained from the rightholders" (emphasis added), a seeming swipe at Google Book Search.
Update. For additional background, see this post by Anne-Catherine Lorrain.
Posted by
Gavin Baker at 2/02/2009 11:43:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
