1 Seminar Digitisation of cultural material Digital Libraries and Copyright Madrid, 12 April Co-funded by the Community programme econtentplus
2 Origins of the project Inclusion of copyrighted works in the digitisation programme Conclusions of the Copyright Subgroup of the High Level Expert Group formed by the European Commission Challenges in Orphan works and Out of print works Need for searching rightholders Digital publishing is now! ebooks market growing fast in USA and now in Europe Innovative joint initiatives: Libreka in Germany; Gallica 2 in France; ebog.dk in Denmark; Enclave in Spain, etc. In the digital market consumers do not buy digital objects, but rights for digital use of content (i.e. works) Rights to access, download, duplicate, distribute, print, integrate in other content, transform, etc. Need for Rights information infrastructure, based on standards
3 The Arrow purpose To facilitate search for rightholders We don t look for orphans, we look for their parents! Orphans are the (sad) result of a failure All data converge in estimating that (in the book sector) orphans are few: To deal with the large majority of books is much more important than to deal with orphans We are creating tools to facilitate dealing with rights Neutral in respect to business model and user purposes Neutral in respect to legal framework
4 Who we are: 30 Partners and associates in 13 countries The European Digital Library, 8 National libraries and 1 University library Austria; Finland; France; Germany; The Netherlands, Norway; Slovenia; Spain; UK The Federation of European Publishers and 8 rightholder organisations Publishers associations in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and UK Authors associations in The Netherland and UK IFRRO and 8 Reproduction Right Organisations Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, UK, Norway, Slovenia, and Spain 2 Technology developers in Italy and France Many standard organisations ISBN agencies, the European DOI agency, ISTC consortium members, Editeur members, etc.
5 A distributed system Based on quality controlled information sources Matching records Clustering editions VIAF connector VIAF 1st data collection BiP connector BiP TEL TEL connector Library interface 3rd data collection 2nd data collection Matching records Matching records RRO connector RRO Library ROW
6 The current stage of the project We developed the first release of the system and started piloting in Germany Pilots in France, Spain and UK are coming soon (all by June 2010) Other countries will join afterwords
7 Isn t there any easier way? 1. Technical approach Can a single registry of right information solve the problem? Yes, and it would be easier, but It is much more expensive (the scale is around 1:10) It creates a monopolistic power in the emerging market
8 Isn t there any easier way? 2. Legal framework Matching and clustering data coming from different sources is 90% of the work This is necessary regardless the legal framework Two different examples confirm the point: When the Google/AAP/AG Settlement agreement was issued, they created something very similar to ARROW in the US, the Book Right Registry If you have an Extended Collective Management (ECM) system, you still need to deal with individual data If you want to have broad licences you need to select books (e.g.: out of print / in print) The Norwegian Bookshelf project does not, and so limits uses (e.g. only view on screen) and users (only for Norwegians)
9 The value we offer (short term) The library submit a file with a number of records and a request for certain uses (e.g. scanning and making available online) For every book we provide information to determine the right status, which includes If the work is in public domain or not if the work (not just the book) is in print / out of print if any RRO (or similar) has the mandate to licence the required use we possibly provide complete information about the licence if the license is denied by the rightholder if the relevant rightholder(s) is (are) known sometime the RRO cannot pass the data for privacy reason, but can forward the request if we had no information about that work ( candidate orphan)
10 This is to facilitate, not substitute search We expect to provide: For x% of the books a final answer For y% of the books some elements to be further analysed For z% of the books no information at all (x+y+z = 100) The three parameters will depend on the book data infrastructure of the country Which is not homogeneous in Europe It is up to national decision makers to decide if our reply will be sufficient to determine a book as an orphan!
11 Long term impact of the distributed approach The system is based on data discovery in different domains and can be integrated with manual data processing All the new data will enrich the databases within the network In medium long term the higher value is for countries with poorer book information infrastructures We have requests (and plans) to involve countries of this type to foster the improvement of book data (not only right information) infrastructure
12 What s next As planned, we just launched our piloting in March, and we ll have a validated system by February 2011 Europe is leader in this: The US counterpart, the BRR, is currently inhibited by the long process of the Google lawsuit Other Regions in the world are very interested in adopting the European approach E.g. in Latin America there is a strong interest by the Cerlalc
13 Arrow is an ambitious project Therefore we don t promise too much We will not Solve all the problems related to orphan works Create a registry with all the right information Create data that currently do not exist and many other things We will Help people and organisations for all these purposes While remaining an open network And we want to maintain our promises
14 Thank you very much for your attention FURTHER INFORMATION Piero Attanasio AIE Associazione Italiana Editori Corso di Porta Romana Milano Italy Co-funded by the Community programme econtentplus