French National Library Privatizes Public Domain Materials
from the deep-betrayal dept
Copyright is sometimes described as a bargain between two parties: creators and their public. In return for receiving a government-backed monopoly on making copies, creators promise to place their works in the public domain at the end of the copyright term. The problem with that narrative is that time and again, the public is cheated out of what it is due.
For example, copyright terms can be extended retrospectively, which means that material will be locked up for longer than originally promised in the "deal". Or there can be a privatization of public domain materials, using contracts, as reported here by Communia:
Last week the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) concluded two new agreements with private companies to digitize over 70.000 old books, 200.000 sound recordings and other documents belonging (either partially or as a whole) to the public domain. While these public private partnerships enable the digitization of these works they also contain 10-year exclusive agreements allowing the private companies carrying out the digitization to commercialize the digitized documents. During this period only a limited number of these works may be offered online by the BnF.
Communia points out:
The value of the public domain lies in the free dissemination of knowledge and the ability for everyone to access and create new works based on previous works. Yet, instead of taking advantage of the opportunities offered by digitization, the exclusivity of these agreements will force public bodies, such as research institutions or university libraries, to purchase digital content that belongs to the common cultural heritage.
These kind of initiatives are typically justified on the grounds that there's no other way to digitize books and recordings. But that's clearly not true: money could be taken from other projects to pay for such work. It's really a question of priorities. These "public-private" partnerships come about because institutions like the Bibliothèque nationale de France have given up fighting for the public domain, despite being its guardians, and have acquiesced in its privatization.
As such, these partnerships constitute a commodification of the public domain by contractual means.
It's a sad sign of the extent to which once-great libraries and galleries have been assimilated by the copyright industry and its culture of owning rather than sharing that they can't see why their complicity in this kind of enclosure of the knowledge commons is a deep betrayal of their origins and primary mission.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: culture, france, french national library, privatization, public domain
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I may be missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I may be missing the point
There are differences of opinion on this subject. In the US, the case law is explicit that scans of public domain works are in the public domain themselves as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
That, more or less, is the question at issue here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I may be missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I may be missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I may be missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I may be missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I may be missing the point
What the private companies did is making a private contract to digitize public domain works (which process cost something to the companies). This contract forbid the library the online distribution of the works, which is similar to copyright, but not the same, since depends on a mutually signed contract.
You are still free to take a book, digitize it on your own cost, and publish it for free, just for the lulz
That's another good question is that why the library got into a contract with conditions like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I may be missing the point
That is what I was referring to - the right to exclude other uses of the work. The basis of that kind of right is copyright. So without copyright, how can they transfer the right to exclude? I don't understand how it was a valid transaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I may be missing the point
You're still free to use, copy and distribute the original work, or make your own digital copy and distribute it all you like.
It would surely piss off the company but who cares? It's legal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I may be missing the point
So then what stops you just from copying the digital copy made by the company? There's no privity/contractual obligation between you and either the BnF or the company, (contracts can't create obligations for persons who aren't parties to them), so you're not in breach of their agreement.
Conceivably, they could have an EULA to access the digitized documents, but even if that were effective for people directly accessing the documents, anyone they provide the copies to would not be subject to its terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I may be missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I may be missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I may be missing the point
Hold on there a sec Poindexter .... this pov has been tried and failed. What is different this time, or is it simply a matter of who is making the claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
I bet 1000+ years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why?
Copyright, by preventing the reuse, and copying of culture to keep it refreshed will cause works to be forgotten. Some films and music has already rotted away in company vaults.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This means that copyright terms can ALSO be shortened retrospectively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In France, It all started with a Statue...
It used to be a work of art to appreciate and enjoy as a gift, that was given to the people of the US to take care of.
But it was closed 5+ years, and opened up for a period of two weeks before Hurricane Sandy hit. Now it's closed again.
There are somethings that might be haunted and cursed, and one of those things seems to be that France Statue Gift. Besides being the corporate logo of an insurance company whose company policy is responsbility and golf games requiring a fleet of 5 jet aircraft (as reported in the Boston Globe Newspaper- See the recent article titled "Your Premiums, His Premium Office" I believe France has the right to be a little concerned about how gifts and items in the public domain are taken care of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure what you're talking about here. What "other projects" are you planning on taking money from to fund this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What? Who do you think are creating all these ridiculous laws? So now you want to create a new government department to replace the old ones that weren't doing a good job?
Here's a solution. Get governments out of the business of business. Reduce regulations and anti-market laws. We will never find the right angels to protect us, so lets stop trying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crowdsourcing
The main problem seems to providing the servers for the archive, which could be based at a university, which also be the best environment for dealing with tricky digitisation problems. Solving such a problem is an expense for a private company, but a valuable research project for a university.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourcing
The argument that "there's no other way to digitize books and recordings" is belied by the fact that they need exclusivity in the first place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourcing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No way to pay for digitization, huh?
HAVE A FUCKING BAKE SALE!
Just like everyone else does that has a project they need funding for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No way to pay for digitization, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazingly Disgusting
Sad to see France heading off in the opposite direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't it already commonplace?
Furthermore, if you want a copy of our state laws, or even our city laws, you have to purchase a copy from the 1 approved publisher. You can find most of them online, but several laws are redacted (even in our city of 8,000 people), so that you have to buy the book to find out what they are. It's wrong, but it's how they do it. Isn't it how all the government entities do it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but, but, but...
Sounds like the BnF wants to be a bookstore, not a library.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but, but, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are French
We are French. We like to do things our own way. That typically involves screwing over everyone, then getting booted from office when people realize we're fucking idiots.
The French
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who'll pay for the service in the meantime ?
So essentially, this is a direct syphoning of the taxes money to the private company, with a "for yet" time limited exclusivity...
Bad deal for everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all about greed my friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]