Dear Ariadna,
Thank you for the link. Via Communia, I have been aware of the case and I am happy that both WM(FR) and Communia are active here.
I always understood the Rodin case as a freedom of information case and in that case, the PSI Directive would not be relevant in the first place (there is a provision in the Directive concerning limiting the scope of the infamous EU database directive which might or might not help in other cases). It might become relevant later when it comes about re-use (in case such data is seen as protected by copyright protection) and in that case, the PSI Directive has several exemptions regarding cultural institutions concerning scope and fees.
Coming back to the PSI Directive, I would like to remind everyone that this Directive has the broadest possible definition of document in Article 2 (6):
(6) ‘document’ means: (a) any content whatever its medium (paper or electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording); or (b) any part of such content;
I have been trying to come up with anything falling outside of this definition and I am left with "thoughts before being written down". It is - by design - the broadest possible term that covers documents, videos, files with raw data, charts, scans, measurements etc.
Mathias
On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 9:49 AM Ariadna Matas ariadna.matas@europeana.eu wrote:
Hi Matthias,
You are probably aware of this, but just in case you're not, the case between Cosmo Wenman and the Musée Rodin is really interesting from the perspective of the PSI Directive. I read that they're now going to the Supreme Court (the Museum keeps refusing to hand in the 3D copies that Wenman requests, even though tye are considered public sector information and they are free from copyright held by third parties).
https://cosmowenman.com/bmamuseerodinthinker3dscan/
Best,
Ariadna
On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 at 13:39, Mathias Schindler < mathias.schindler@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone.
Some might remember the 2019 recast of the EU PSI Directive (which is now also called Open Data Directive) which has a nice round number EU/2019/1024 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1024/oj). As a directive, it has been transposed in EU member states and is also transposed/about to be transposed into the EFTA states.
I was involved in the 2019 recast as a member of the staff of MEP Felix Reda who wrote the opinion in the IMCO committee of the European Parliament (the leading committee was ITRE: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0438_EN.html#_section... )
The Directive has both a general principle on the reuse of content but also paragraph about how to process requests for re-use.
Germany transposed the PSI-OD-Directive into the "Datennutzungsgesetz" in 2021 but left out the processing part for requests for re-use. I spoke to a civil servant in the responsible ministry who was involved in the drafting process and she stated that this was by design. Since the "general principle" on re-use applies, there would be no use for requests any more. This idea has been rejected by academic literature which still claims that the possibility for requests remain embedded in the law
Long story short: After reading the literature, the directive and the law, I believe that Germany has introduced a law that would allow liberating content for re-use under license terms compatible with Wikimedia projects.
For a few weeks now, I have put this theory to the test and I have applied for usage rights for various government documents, pictures etc. This has been largely successful, but not without hickups. People in the administration are usually confused by these requests and it takes them a while to process them.
I would be interested to learn if anyone else in any other EU/EFTA state has ever used the PSI-OD-Directive (and the transposed law) to force government entities to release content under a free license.
This was the most concise way of describing this for me. I left out many details in order to not turn this into a long paper. I am happy to elaborate on details if requested.
Mathias
(there are some exceptions in the directive. GLAM institutions are not fully within the scope of all parts of the directive and it is not as simple to simply go to a museum or a library and tell them to give you a license for stuff they own. Public broadcasting it also out of scope) _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list -- publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to publicpolicy-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Ariadna Matas [she/her] | Policy Advisor | E: ariadna.matas@europeana.eu | Twitter: @ariamatas https://twitter.com/ariamatas Be part of Europe's online cultural movement - join the Europeana Network Association: Sign up for the Association https://pro.europeana.eu/network-association/sign-up | #AllezCulture| @Europeanaeu https://twitter.com/Europeanaeu | Europeana Pro website https://pro.europeana.eu/
Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system. _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list -- publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to publicpolicy-leave@lists.wikimedia.org