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)
Unfortunately, the Swedish tranposition made it explicit that unless the data was already free thanks to other laws, this law can not be used to make it so. (§2)
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningss...
Jan Ainali https://aina.li https://govdirectory.org
Den lör 22 juni 2024 kl 13:38 skrev Mathias Schindler < mathias.schindler@gmail.com>:
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
In Poland, this Directive was used to change the status of all of the data already available on the CC-BY license to the CC-BY-NC-ND 🙃
According to the Polish authorities, the CC-BY-NC-ND license is also a "free license".
Sad cheers,
sob., 22 cze 2024 o 15:50 Jan Ainali ainali.jan@gmail.com napisał(a):
Unfortunately, the Swedish tranposition made it explicit that unless the data was already free thanks to other laws, this law can not be used to make it so. (§2)
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningss...
Jan Ainali https://aina.li https://govdirectory.org
Den lör 22 juni 2024 kl 13:38 skrev Mathias Schindler < mathias.schindler@gmail.com>:
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
Publicpolicy mailing list -- publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to publicpolicy-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Cheers, --
Maciej Artur Nadzikiewicz (He/him)
Wikimania 2024 Poland – Team Lead
Wikimedia Europe Board Member
Wikipedia Administrator
User:Nadzik https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nadzik
Dear Maciej, thank you for this (a bit surprising) information. The directive is clear in the direction that cc-by-nc-nd is not good enough given the definition of reuse (including for commercial purposes) and the requirements for any conditions.
Would you happen to have an example for a file, document or piece of data that is now released under such a restrictive license?
Mathias
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 4:19 PM Wikipedysta Nadzik < pl.wikipedia.nadzik@gmail.com> wrote:
In Poland, this Directive was used to change the status of all of the data already available on the CC-BY license to the CC-BY-NC-ND 🙃
According to the Polish authorities, the CC-BY-NC-ND license is also a "free license".
Sad cheers,
sob., 22 cze 2024 o 15:50 Jan Ainali ainali.jan@gmail.com napisał(a):
Unfortunately, the Swedish tranposition made it explicit that unless the data was already free thanks to other laws, this law can not be used to make it so. (§2)
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningss...
Jan Ainali https://aina.li https://govdirectory.org
Den lör 22 juni 2024 kl 13:38 skrev Mathias Schindler < mathias.schindler@gmail.com>:
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
Publicpolicy mailing list -- publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to publicpolicy-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Cheers,
Maciej Artur Nadzikiewicz (He/him)
Wikimania 2024 Poland – Team Lead
Wikimedia Europe Board Member
Wikipedia Administrator
User:Nadzik https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nadzik _______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list -- publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to publicpolicy-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear Jan,
this has been a source of confusion in Germany as well. The PSI-OD-Directive states that the Directive does not create new rights of access and relies on existing (member state laws) on access.
However, this is a bit missing the point as the Directive is not about access but about reuse. At least in Germany, getting access to documents did not mean that you could re-use them. When combining an access law with this PSI-OD-Directive, you take the existing access law with the right to re-use.
Mathias
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 3:50 PM Jan Ainali ainali.jan@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, the Swedish tranposition made it explicit that unless the data was already free thanks to other laws, this law can not be used to make it so. (§2)
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningss...
Jan Ainali https://aina.li https://govdirectory.org
Den lör 22 juni 2024 kl 13:38 skrev Mathias Schindler < mathias.schindler@gmail.com>:
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
Publicpolicy mailing list -- publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to publicpolicy-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Ah, I see what you mean now. Well, on the positive side the law states (2 ch. 5§) that unless there is a specific public interest, no restrictions can be made. Basically saying it is similar to CC0. I don't think this has been put to the test yet.
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024, 17:06 Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Jan,
this has been a source of confusion in Germany as well. The PSI-OD-Directive states that the Directive does not create new rights of access and relies on existing (member state laws) on access.
However, this is a bit missing the point as the Directive is not about access but about reuse. At least in Germany, getting access to documents did not mean that you could re-use them. When combining an access law with this PSI-OD-Directive, you take the existing access law with the right to re-use.
Mathias
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 3:50 PM Jan Ainali ainali.jan@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, the Swedish tranposition made it explicit that unless the data was already free thanks to other laws, this law can not be used to make it so. (§2)
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningss...
Jan Ainali https://aina.li https://govdirectory.org
Den lör 22 juni 2024 kl 13:38 skrev Mathias Schindler < mathias.schindler@gmail.com>:
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
Publicpolicy mailing list -- publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to publicpolicy-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Publicpolicy mailing list -- publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to publicpolicy-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
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
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
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org