Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • HK circulated current R&R procedure and agreement prior to meeting. Should be discussed in more detail later.
  • Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/ : Standard way to license works so that rights are human-readable and machine-readable, with the legalese behind to back it. This is built into Hydra, along with All Rights Reserved and Public Domain.
  • New task-force between Europeana and DPLA, in consultation with Creative Commons, recommending new guidelines. White paper still in draft: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x10JsIfi8Y74pgJJEAqMtyO5iYp0p6DO5DrOZK-5umY/edit#heading=h.c2yvhrd7pznp Highlights: Aggregation tool found over 86,000 rights statements in use across collections and they tried to distill it down to 11 options (ranging from in copyright, public domain, to rights unkown or orphan works). Another discovery is that faithful reproductions of digital surrogates should have the same rights as physical items (can no longer claim copyright on a rare book image you scanned – not enough creativity involved.) May be slightly different for 3D objects in museum. 
  • Group agreed they'd like to use Europeana/DPLA model in the future. MD to give updates on progress. These will be machine and human readable. 
  • Group would to add a free-text "Credit" line field to the metadata template. Future discussion must include an approved tag-line for all collections. RB and EM agreed to something like "Courtesy of CHF Collections" as blanket for all collections. Also, "Credit line" versus "citation" being a bit different.
  • Website should also include an argument for Fair Use to protect ourselves and language that suggests we only "believe" the work is in copyright if we're not absolutely certain. Can have a note inviting users to contact us to take it down if they believe they are the copyright holder.
  • CHF needs documentation on risk assessment for copyright and what constitutes "due diligence" here. Staff would be more willing to priorities access if they knew they had support from upper administration and documented policy.
  • Future discussions need to involve Communications staff and Wikipedia since they may be applying a Creative Commons license to items for which we don't hold the copyright. Also need standardization across online access points and need to revisit agreements with places like Science Photo Library as we move to more open access.

...