[Puneet Kishor]

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.

Discussion

[Donat Agosti]

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]

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

[Author]

Replies