Abstract
The aim of this report is to compare the situation regarding rights on metadata and objects / data in EUROPEANA and DANS. It reviews these various rights and the different contexts in which these rights came into existence.
As a conclusion it contains recommendations on how the observed mismatch between these two different rights systems could be overcome. These recommendations are presented here. There are two ways to increase the number of objects / data which could be “used” better by those who are looking for them in the EUROPEANA portal.
EUROPEANA should consider how to present the objects / data DANS is holding. These indeed may contain copyright, but are, after registration, nonetheless often available. The label “No re-use” is then too strong. Despite the fact that copy- or database-rights might remain reserved, personal use and limited citation of the content is mostly possible. Only (re-)distribution or remixing remain excluded. However, and in addition to this, permission can always be requested for doing the latter. One could say that, by labelling too strict, EUROPEANA restricts too strongly, and unnecessarily, the (re-)use of some of the objects it refers to in its portal. EUROPEANA could enlarge its use scope certainly by changing the labels in these cases.
•DANS, on the other hand, should try to increase the number of objects / data under the CC0 Waiver. On the one hand this would be acceptable to a considerable number of rights holders and on the other hand it would make it easier for EUROPEANA to refer to these objects / data in an unambiguous way. In the future DANS could even contemplate introducing the CC-BY licence. This would make it also easier for EUROPEANA when referring to these objects / data.
As a conclusion it contains recommendations on how the observed mismatch between these two different rights systems could be overcome. These recommendations are presented here. There are two ways to increase the number of objects / data which could be “used” better by those who are looking for them in the EUROPEANA portal.
EUROPEANA should consider how to present the objects / data DANS is holding. These indeed may contain copyright, but are, after registration, nonetheless often available. The label “No re-use” is then too strong. Despite the fact that copy- or database-rights might remain reserved, personal use and limited citation of the content is mostly possible. Only (re-)distribution or remixing remain excluded. However, and in addition to this, permission can always be requested for doing the latter. One could say that, by labelling too strict, EUROPEANA restricts too strongly, and unnecessarily, the (re-)use of some of the objects it refers to in its portal. EUROPEANA could enlarge its use scope certainly by changing the labels in these cases.
•DANS, on the other hand, should try to increase the number of objects / data under the CC0 Waiver. On the one hand this would be acceptable to a considerable number of rights holders and on the other hand it would make it easier for EUROPEANA to refer to these objects / data in an unambiguous way. In the future DANS could even contemplate introducing the CC-BY licence. This would make it also easier for EUROPEANA when referring to these objects / data.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Place of Publication | Den Haag |
| Publisher | Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Publication status | Published - Nov 2016 |
Keywords
- Copyright
- Database Rights
- Europeana
- Creative Commons
- Licences