Yes, Wikimedia Chapters (especially the Dutch - where they are based, and the Swedish - who have a joint project with them) are working with Europeana in a variety of ways. One example is how Wikimedia groups have hosted hackathons using their open datasets and API and (independently) won a prize for a Commons batch upload proof of concept http://version1.europeana.eu/web/api/hackathon-prototypes#feeds Amongst the people involved in "GLAM" activities there are also other interesting projects including, but not limited to, an attempt to build a "Usage guideline for Public Domain works<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Usage_guidelines_for_pub… on Commons, based on the Europeana guidelines. http://www.europeana.eu/portal/pd-usage-guide.html (which are related to, but separate from the PD Charter you refer to). That said, I don't believe Wikimedia Chapters or individual Wikimedians were involved in the writing of the original charter itself. With regards to the implied point of the fact that one of Europeana's conent providers does not follow all the principles of respecting the Public Domain like both Wikimedia and Europeana would like them to... that's hardly our (or their) fault. There's only so many ways we can tell different cultural institutions what our principles and policies are without annoying them so much that they don't talk to us again. Also note that In the wikiverse we have the luxury that if any (or even all) the museums or archives don't want to talk to us, that won't make us disappear. It would be very sad, but we do not NEED them to like us. Europeana is in a diferent situation because the European Commission has given it the task to aggregate lots of different cultural institutions' metadata and images (to make them searchable, findable, interoperable...) which means that it NEEDS to get all of those institutions to understand the value and importance of sharing, structured metadata and the freedoms of the Public Domain. On the other hand, Europeana NEEDS to make sure that those cultural institutions feel happy in sharing their precious content otherwise there will be nothing in its system and then it will fail in its task. So... from my perspective, there are very few organisations out there (in the cultural sector) that deeply understand the value of the Public Domain and share our values in that regard. Europeana is one of them. Just because one of the organisations that they are working with doesn't follow everything that Europeana (or we) says is not a reason for them (or us) not to work with them. Quite the contrary - it is a reason for both of us to work all the more in promoting the value of sharable, reusable content and "strong" Public Domain rights with those organisations, but to do this in a constructive rather than destructive way. That's basically what we in the GLAM-Wiki side of the community do every day! In fact, we've recently been discussing whether it's possible to get a bunch of GLAMs to co-write and sign a public letter/declaration supporting the principle that faithful reproductions of 2D works does not create a new copyright. We've been unsuccessfully trying to make this point to different cultural institutions for years using legal arguments, perhaps we will be more successful using the "peer pressure" technique! :-) I hope this answers your question, -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata On 25 October 2011 10:30, emijrp &lt;emijrp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

emijrp, 25/10/2011 12:30: Yes, it's pretty old. Somehow. They worked on it with COMMUNIA (led by NEXA Center for Internet & Society at Politecnico di Torino), a friend organization which made several initiatives such as the Public Domain Manifesto (you can see several chapters on http://publicdomainmanifesto.org/node/8/signatures ) and the http://publicdomainday.org/ which was celebrated by some chapters (I remember Italy and Poland). Nemo