It’s Open Access Week 2016. Open Access Week is an annual week-long event that highlights the importance of sharing scientific and scholarly research and data. The goal is to educate people on the benefits of open publishing, advocate for changes to policy and practice, and build a community to collaborate on these issues. This year’s theme is open in action.

Today marks the conclusion of another productive, informative Open Access Week. There were dozens of in-person workshops, online webinars, blog posts, and other actions from institutions and individuals all over the world aiming to educate and advocate for a more open system of producing and sharing research.

On Monday we took a look at the increasing drumbeat around improving access to publicly funded research. On Tuesday we published an interview with Robert Kiley of the Wellcome Trust, exploring the perspective of philanthropy in supporting open access publishing. Wednesday we launched a beta version of our Termination of Transfer Tool, a project that empowers authors to learn about whether and when they can regain rights from publishers in order to share their works on an open access basis. We also published an interview with scientist and advocate Erin McKiernan about her work for open science. On Thursday we hosted a Twitter chat with members of the library and scientific community to talk about some of the problems with the current scholarly publishing system, and what we can do about it.

It’s clear that our work and advocacy in open access can’t end today if we expect positive change in support of improved access to scientific and scholarly research.

As Creative Commons CEO Ryan Merkley wrote in WIRED:

If it wasn’t so well-established, the traditional model of academic publishing would be considered scandalous. Every year, hundreds of billions in research and data are funded, in whole or in part, with public dollars. We do this because we believe that knowledge is for the public good, but the public gets very little access to the fruits of its investment.

It’s a shame that our movement needs to argue with policymakers that the public should get access to research that it pays for. It’s a shame that instead of experimenting with an “open by default” approach to sharing scientific information, in much of policy and practice the status quo remains closed.

The work of open access needs to keep in clear view the ultimate goals of science and scholarship—a fundamental search for knowledge—that is now supercharged for sharing and collaboration to solve the world’s toughest scientific and social problems.

But open access is not just about working to flip the default from closed to open.

There are increasing threats to access to information, education, and freedom of expression. Just last week in Uruguay, 14 people were convicted and sentenced to prison for the crime of making copies of educational resources for noncommercial use. In Colombia, student Diego Gomez is being prosecuted for the crime of sharing a research paper online. A copyright “reform” proposal has been introduced by the European Commission, but many of its provisions do little to improve the rights of users and the public. Instead, much of the proposal reinforces protectionist measures for incumbent rights holders, while providing only limited benefits for researchers, teachers, internet users, and consumers.

The open access movement should cooperate and collaborate with related communities of action, including the important work to rebalance the underlying systems of copyright to benefit creativity, innovation, and access to knowledge.

We’d like to thank SPARC for leading this week’s activities, Authors Alliance for their partnership on the Termination of Transfer tool, and the countless libraries, universities, advocacy organizations, and individuals who participated in Open Access Week.

The post ‘Open In Action’ Requires Continuity and Solidarity with Fundamental Copyright Reform appeared first on Creative Commons.

According to Uruguayan copyright law 9.739, all copying of works under copyright—even if there is no profit-seeking motive—are criminal offenses. Therefore, anyone who makes copies for study or to access culture can be indicted with a single complaint.

Following the copy shop raid in 2013, the Uruguayan Student Federation presented a draft bill on educational and library exceptions to copyright. The proposed text would remove the criminal penalties for infringements that are not commercial in nature. The bill has been preliminary approved by the Parliament, but still needs to be finalized. As expected, collecting societies and the Uruguay Publishers Association oppose the bill, arguing that copyright exceptions will destroy creators.

Creative Commons Uruguay, along with a large group of social organizations, are urging legislators to give early approval to the copyright reform bill, before more people like students, librarians, and internet users are convicted of making non-commercial copies of educational resources.

Jorge Gemetto is co-director of Ártica and team member of Creative Commons Uruguay. 

The post In Uruguay, 14 people convicted for making copies of educational resources appeared first on Creative Commons.

In an ideal world, the Directive would have provided for progressive policy changes to serve the goals of a unified digital marketplace across Europe. It would have jumpstarted economic activity, championed innovative digital technologies and services, and protected consumers and access to information. It would have expanded opportunities for European businesses, cultural heritage institutions, educators, and the research community.

The Commission’s plan does little to advance these goals, instead making the European copyright framework more complex and unfit for the digital age. With the proposal from the Commission on the table, the legislative focus shifts to the EU Member States, the European Parliament, and the Council of the European Union. Several Member States are currently engaged in brief national-level public consultations in response to the Commission’s proposition.

Creative Commons published a letter that outlines the primary areas of concern, discusses potential policy solutions, and offers continued support to Member States as they solicit public input that will inform the forthcoming legislative proceedings.

Over 30 of our international affiliate teams and associated organizations are signatories to the letter. We are working with CC affiliates across Europe to provide feedback and ideas to the ongoing consultations.

Let’s work together to improve the Commission’s disappointing proposal. Now is the time for Europe to redouble its efforts to make positive changes to copyright that will benefit all stakeholders, including creators, users, and the public interest.

Creative Commons Letter to European Member States on Commission Copyright Proposal [PDF]

Screwdriver And Wrench by To Uyen, CC BY 3.0 US
Copyright by Marek Polakovic, CC BY 3.0 US

The post EU Member States Should Push To Improve Commission’s Disappointing Copyright Proposal appeared first on Creative Commons.

Photo by Saša Krajnc, CC BY 4.0.

Last week at the Creative Commons Europe Meeting in Lisbon, COMMUNIA organised a “School of Rock(ing) Copyright” workshop. Creative Commons affiliates from Poland, the Netherlands, and Portugal joined efforts in sharing knowledge about the current European copyright reform. We examined the political process for updating the copyright rules, and asked for help from other CC Europe affiliates in advocating for positive copyright changes. We were pleased to have around 15 participants from as many EU countries attend the session. Since we’re at a crucial stage within the European legislative process, we were eager to discuss the ins and outs on how we can create a better copyright for Europe.

Why does the CC community care about copyright reform? We all stand for creativity, innovation, access to knowledge, and development. Copyright can both boost or limit these goals, so we are actively involved to make progressive changes to copyright to benefit users, education, and the commons.

What we presented at the workshop

At the ‘school’ we focused on four different areas that people need to know about when engaging in advocacy for copyright reform in Europe. First, we provided a quick overview on ‘Brussels’ and how the different institutions such as the European Commission and Parliament interact. Second, we explained how the legislative process works. The Commission proposal is out, but it’s far from the end of the process! Third, we shared tactics and tips for getting involved in advocacy activities. These often seem obvious, but are very important when interacting with politicians. For example: never ask for anything people can’t give you, and come to the table with clear, concise suggestions. Few politicians have the time to read a 200 page research report, no matter how riveting we think it is! The fourth and last part of our workshop dug into a few key topics within the current copyright reform proposal, including areas such as cultural heritage, education, and research.

Photo by Saša Krajnc, CC BY 4.0.

What’s in Commission’s proposed Directive on copyright?

You can read the entire proposal here, and read COMMUNIA’s high level analysis about it here.

In short, the Commission’s copyright proposal fails to meet the needs of citizens, educators, and researchers across Europe. Instead of strengthening the information economy, the proposal preserves a status quo defined in the analog age. In the process, it hinders education, research, and cultural expression.

The Commission’s proposal focuses on a wholly different goal: to minimize the impact of the fundamental changes brought about by digital technologies and the internet on legacy business models. Publishers get an ancillary copyright that already has proven itself worthless in practice. Access to most audio-visual content will continue to be hampered by geo-blocking (which the Commission had earlier committed to end), and online platforms might be forced to collaborate with rights holders on censoring content that is shared by users on these platforms. The whole package lacks forward-looking, innovation-friendly measures that embrace digitization as an opportunity for users, creators, businesses, and public institutions in Europe.

During our workshop, we explored three aspects of the proposal in greater detail: 1) text and data mining (with a limited exception that limits research to official institutions), 2) cultural heritage (which does not solve the problem heritage institutions have with making their collections available online), and 3) education (where the proposal overcomplicates the situation, making it even harder for teachers to focus on providing excellent education.

We need more advocates to push for positive change

Creative Commons is committed to advocating for a better copyright across the globe, including Europe. Several affiliates at the School of Rock(ing) Copyright event stepped forward to help advocate for positive change. We need to engage in a variety of tactics, including educating MEPs about what’s at stake, responding to consultations on the copyright reform, and organising events and actions to raise public awareness. We look forward to collaborating even more with our fellow affiliates to make sure we get a copyright reform for Europe that’s fit for the digital age.

What you can do now!

1. Keep up-to-date with the European Copyright Reform process. Follow along with the COMMUNIA blog and twitter, and CC blog and twitter.
2. Take part in the national consultations now being held in many Member States. Check to see the consultation deadline of your national ministry responsible for copyright. Do your best to motivate other organisations to take part in the consultation.
3. Talk to your representatives within your national government, your European Parliament Representatives, and fellow advocates at other organisations. And remember, the most important is to make your voice heard about why this matters to you.
4. Share information with others. Let’s keep each other in the loop about our advocacy activities, meetings, and best arguments. You can also become a member of COMMUNIA (highly recommended!) Let us know.
5. Engage with your local communities. Inform your friends and social groups about what’s at stake. Organise debate nights, salons, and share interesting resources.
6. Think about how you want to engage: for the topics that you love, create a factsheet, organise a meeting, write happy (or angry) tweets to Commissioners.

Making your voice heard is fundamental, the way you do it is up to you. Let us know how we can help!

The post ‘School of Rock(ing) Copyright’ at the CC Europe meeting appeared first on Creative Commons.

We believe that this is a timely opportunity to introduce positive changes to copyright that will support users and the public, such as adopting a flexible use exception like fair use. Our community looks forward to providing ideas and feedback during the reform process.

Letter of support for balanced Colombian copyright law reform [English]
Carta para apoyar una reforma equilibrada al derecho de autor en Colombia [Spanish]

The signatories below are writing to you regarding the proposed updates to copyright law in Colombia that will be introduced in order to implement the U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement. We are concerned that these changes will only further tip the balance of copyright toward the interests of rights holders, while ignoring necessary protections for the public domain, as well as for users, consumers, and the general public.

We understand that the proposed changes would include increasing copyright terms  for some types of rights holders, and adopting an instrument to mirror the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. We urge the Congress to take this opportunity to provide for crucial balances to copyright that protect the rights of users. In the fast-changing digital and online environment, the Congress should consider introducing a flexible exception to copyright that echoes the regulation of countries that have adopted “fair use” or “fair dealing” exceptions.

It has been our experience that to ensure the maximum benefits to both culture and the economy in this digital age, the scope and shape of copyright law need to be reviewed. Now is the time for the Congress to ensure that appropriate and necessary exceptions and limitations are updated in order to protect and support users, access to information, and creativity.

Creative Commons Colombia
Creative Commons
Fundación Karisma
COMMUNIA International Association on the Public Domain
Centrum Cyfrowe
Creative Commons Peru
Creative Commons Uruguay
Kennisland
Creative Commons Netherlands
Creative Commons Ireland
Creative Commons Ukraine
Creative Commons Indonesia
Creative Commons Portugal
Creative Commons UK
Australian Digital Alliance
Creative Commons Chile
Creative Commons Australia
Creative Commons Nigeria
Creative Commons Belarus

Screwdriver And Wrench by To Uyen, CC BY 3.0 US
Copyright by Marek Polakovic, CC BY 3.0 US

The post Copyright reform in Colombia should focus on supporting users’ rights appeared first on Creative Commons.

Copyright policy should benefit everyone, not just legacy rightsholders

Today the European Commission released its legislative proposal for changes to EU copyright law. The proposal has been introduced as a Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market.

The Directive fails to deliver on the promise for a modern copyright law in Europe.

In an ideal world, the Directive would have provided for progressive policy changes to serve the goals of a unified digital marketplace across Europe. It would have jumpstarted economic activity, championed innovative digital technologies and services, and protected consumers and access to information. It would have expanded opportunities for European businesses, cultural heritage institutions, educators, and the research community.

This is not the world presented to us by the Commission. Instead, the copyright proposal introduces protectionist measures for incumbent rightsholders while providing only lip service to Internet users, teachers, new businesses, and consumers. The proposal contains the same problems we saw in the leaked impact assessment and draft directive, including:

• An ancillary copyright (aka “link tax”) for press publishers to extract fees from search engines for incorporating short snippets of—or even linking to—their content. This would undermine the intention of authors who wish to share without additional strings attached, including Creative Commons licenses.

• A copyright exception for education covering digital content that Member States can ignore if there’s a content licensing option available for the educational materials.

• A limited exception for text and data mining available only to nonprofit research institutions. This will restrict the potential for text and data mining discoveries and innovation because it specifically excludes the private sector.

• A copyright exception for cultural heritage institutions to digitize their collections, but not put them online.

• A mechanism that would require Internet platforms to proactively monitor user uploaded content in order to identify and remove copyright infringing content.

The Commission’s proposal does not represent the interests of the public or the recommendations from tens of thousands of internet users, consumers, teachers, startups, and activists. It’s now up to the Parliament and the Council to reshape this flawed copyright proposal in a way that benefits everyone.

Photo by Paul Green via Unsplash, CC0
Copyright symbol by Marek Polakovic, CC BY 3.0 US
European Union stars by anbileru adaleru, CC BY 3.0 US

The post European Commission Copyright Proposal Leaves Users In The Dark appeared first on Creative Commons.

Creative Commons has been actively engaged in efforts to support copyright reforms aligned with the commons and the public interest, including the copyright reform consultations in the European Union. Via the Communia Association, CC Europe affiliates are at the center of this debate, providing education and advocacy for forward-thinking reforms to the copyright framework. We know the CC vision will not be realized through licensing alone, and our experience has reinforced our belief that to ensure the maximum benefits to both culture and the economy in this digital age, the scope and shape of copyright law need to be reviewed.

This is why we’re disappointed in the leaked draft of the Commission’s “impact assessment” of the proposed changes to EU copyright law. The document confirms some of our worst fears about the forthcoming copyright proposal: it introduces few and mostly superficial changes to copyright in support of users and the public interest, while doubling down on policy interventions benefiting rights holders and incumbent industries.

Here’s just a few of the problematic policy options contained in the report.

The impact assessment shows that the Commission is planning on introducing a new copyright-like right for news publishers despite the wide opposition. These types of rights would permit publishers to try to extract fees from search engines for incorporating short snippets of—or even linking to—news articles. The link tax doesn’t work. It would create additional burdens on researchers and educational institutions, it undermines the intention of authors who wish to share without additional strings attached (such as creators who want to share under Creative Commons licenses), and it would have a negative impact on access to information online. This Commission should decide against pursing this policy option.

Regarding access to copyrighted content for teachers, the impact assessment recommends that there be a “mandatory exception with a cross-border effect covering digital and online uses in the context of illustration for teaching, with the option for [Member States] to make it (partially or totally) subject to the availability of licences.” The policy option will cover a broad spectrum of works in the service of teaching and learning, but  it’s disappointing that the proposal would permit member states to continue to push for a licensing approach. This would be in opposition to the intention of the exception—which is to facilitate improved access to education and research materials. Licensing can’t solve all problems—especially when licensing limits what can be done with the content—or when it would impose high access and use fees. It’s also troubling that the exception would only benefit formal educational establishments, and only cover the sharing of copyright-protected works within closed online networks (such as a school’s learning management system). The exception that should be introduced would allow anyone in the service of teaching and learning to use and share content online for educational purposes (at least non-commercially), without the additional burden of having to acquire a license to use it.

The impact assessment describes the possibility of introducing an exception that would enable the practice of text and data mining (TDM) for both noncommercial and commercial activities. However, the policy option described here would only be available to “public interest research organisations”. This would artificially restrict the incredible potential for TDM discoveries and innovation by excluding the private sector. In addition, the recommendation limits the scope of the TDM activity to only “scientific research purposes”. This constraint would decrease the potential impact of novel TDM uses, such as for  journalism-related investigations, market research, or other types of activities not strictly considered scientific research. The exception that should be introduced would allow anyone to undertake text and data mining of all lawfully accessible materials for any purpose.

In addition to the policy options mentioned above, there are several other proposed interventions that would benefit large rights holders over the public. It’s also telling what is not discussed in the impact assessment. For example, the issue of freedom of panorama is not addressed in a similar fashion as the other possible changes. This is a relevant policy area in which the Commission asked for feedback, and the public responded with a resounding call to protect the sharing of photos taken in public places. We support the inclusion of a broad right for freedom of panorama, and it should apply to both commercial and noncommercial uses of images of architecture, sculpture, and other objects in public spaces. The exception should be mandatory across the EU, and should cover both online and offline uses.

The leaked impact assessment clearly shows the Commission’s preference to prop up the rent-seeking interests of entrenched rights holders peddling fading business models. We’re disappointed in the impact assessment—both the anemic policy recommendations as well as the opaque process that has apparently disregarded most of the feedback from the public. It’s not too late for the Commission to include policy proposals that would truly empower users in the digital age. It’s high time the Commission start engaging in transparent, consultative policy making that champions the broad interests of the many instead of the narrow demands of the powerful few.

Screwdriver And Wrench by To Uyen, CC BY 3.0 US
Copyright by Marek Polakovic, CC BY 3.0 US

The post Leaked European Commission Copyright Plans Ignore the Public Interest appeared first on Creative Commons.

Front of California State Capitol, by David Fulmer, CC BY 2.0

Unencumbered access to public sector information is central to a well-functioning democratic system. And if our government entities believe that transparency, collaboration, and public participation are civic goals worth supporting, then the public should be able to enjoy free and open access to taxpayer-funded government resources.

In February, California introduced a bill that would permit state and local government agencies “to own, license, and, if it deems it appropriate, formally register intellectual property it creates or otherwise acquires.” The law would control access to public sector information developed in California. The bill, called AB 2880, is currently moving through the state assembly. Its origin rests partly in a trademark dispute between the U.S. federal government and a third-party contractor at Yosemite National Park. AB 2880 was introduced to clarify the intellectual property rights held by the state of California.

Most of the intellectual property developed as a result of public funding in the state of California is in the public domain due to the state’s progressive copyright policy. This means that anyone may share and re-use the work of government agencies without having to ask permission or worry about infringing anyone’s copyright.

In its policy analysis of the proposed law, the state attempts to dismiss criticism by pointing out that AB 2880 wouldn’t interfere with individuals accessing information through a California Public Records Act request. While freedom of information requests are an important mechanism to ensure the public’s right to access government records, it’s not a viable or efficient technique for sharing a vast majority of the information the public should have access to by default. And, according to EFF, asking citizens to rely on records requests for access to publicly sector information is not a solution because California would still be able to regulate downstream uses of those materials:

“by explicitly reserving all of the exclusive rights given to a copyright holder, the state and local governments keeps extraordinary powers to restrain the ability for a citizen to distribute documents they obtain through a CPRA request.”

With changes in law and funding requirements, public sector bodies are switching the default from closed to open. Efforts such as Project Open Data, the agency-wide U.S. Department of Labor open licensing policy, the EU’s Horizon 2020 research program, and national level open licensing frameworks for public sector information in Australia and New Zealand are only a few examples.

In its own summary of the bill, the state specifically acknowledged the concern that “allowing state ownership of intellectual property might restrict the dissemination of information.” California should remove this bill from the legislative docket, or amend it in such a way that guarantees that the public is granted free and open access to government funded works.

If you’re a California resident, act now! Send a message to your state representatives telling them to uphold free, open access to California government works. 

The post Don’t let California lock down public access to government works appeared first on Creative Commons.

The original writings of The Diary of Anne Frank should have entered the public domain on January 1, 2016. They should have become freely accessible to everyone who wants to read and experience this important cultural work. Instead, the texts remain clogged in the pipes of EU copyright law. In some countries like Poland, the texts are in the public domain. In others, such as the Netherlands, the original writings are protected under copyright until 2037. As a result, millions of people are unable to access and read the online versions of the original works. (The situation is even worse in the U.S., where those writings will remain under copyright until 2042.)

Centrum Cyfrowe, Kennisland, and COMMUNIA are highlighting the strange legal situation around The Diary of Anne Frank with the campaign #ReadAnneDiary.

Today, the Polish digital education organization Centrum Cyfrowe published the original, Dutch-language version of The Diary of Anne Frank online at annefrank.centrumcyfrowe.pl. This is the first time internet users will able to read the original writings of Anne Frank online. But unless you’re in Poland, you won’t be able to access it. Why? Because as of today, the primary texts are still protected by copyright in most member states of the European Union.

COMMUNIA explains the copyright confusion surrounding the diary:

First, the Anne Frank Foundation announced their plans to list Otto (Anne Frank’s father) as a co-author, which would extend the protection period of the published diary until 2050. Next, due to a transitional rule in Dutch law it became clear that Anne Frank’s original writings would not enter the public domain in 2016 in the Netherlands (and many other EU countries with similar rules). Finally, in early February the Wikimedia Foundation (the organization that hosts Wikipedia and related projects) decided to remove the Dutch-language text of the diary from Wikisource.

It’s a mess. But it doesn’t have to be this way. COMMUNIA underscores the need for a modern, progressive copyright framework in Europe:

Currently, the rules for establishing the duration of the term of protection are so complex that we need the support of legal experts from different European countries just to determine whether an individual work is still protected by copyright or neighboring rights. In particular, the lack of effective harmonisation of the duration of copyright across the EU hampers efforts of organisations and entrepreneurs, who want to offer online products and services. Only an intervention at the European level can be remedy this situation. As we have repeatedly argued, the term of copyright protection should be reduced and fully harmonized and unified throughout the EU. If we want to fully unlock the potential of our rich cultural heritage we need clear rules that allow anyone to determine whether a work is still protected by copyright. This also includes making it clear that digitization of public domain works does not create new rights.

The #ReadAnneDiary campaign corresponds with this year’s World Intellectual Property Day. Copyright and other intellectual property rights can be used to promote creativity, sharing, and innovation. Creative Commons licensing allows authors to publish their creative works on more flexible terms than the default all rights reserved regime. Creators of all types are leveraging open copyright licensing and the public domain to collaborate and share a wealth of content—including digital educational resources, scientific research findings, and rich cultural and artistic works.

At the same time, it’s crucial that the public has the right to access important historical works like original versions of The Diary of Anne Frank. It should be available online—in the public domain—for anyone to access, read, and appreciate.

The post The long arm of copyright: Millions blocked from reading original versions of The Diary of Anne Frank appeared first on Creative Commons.

On Monday, January 25th COMMUNIA organized a Public Domain Day celebration at the European Parliament. COMMUNIA advocates for policies that expand the public domain and increase access to and reuse of culture and knowledge, and consists of many organisations including Creative Commons, Kennisland and Centrum Cyfrowe. The event, which focused on showcasing creators who have chosen to donate their output to the public domain, was hosted by MEP Julia Reda.

Julia Reda at the Public Domain Day Celebration by Sebastiaan ter Burg; CC0

Highlighting creators sharing in the public domain

COMMUNIA invited creators such as Kenney Vleugels, who makes game assets available to other game developers under the the CC0 Public Domain Dedication, Alastair Parvin of WikiHouse.cc, who is developing an open source approach to sustainable housing, Femke Snelting of Constant, who is publishing public domain magazines, Eric Schrijver, who is writing a sharing guide for artists, and Thomas Lommee from Open Structures, a standardised open design system. The lunch discussions focused on the artistic and design practices of these creators and the challenges they run into. A recurring theme was the legal uncertainty created by overly complex copyright laws, and the excessive length of copyright protection.

The public domain is traditionally seen as a body of works that are no longer under copyright because the terms of protection have expired. Public Domain Day celebrates this very moment, when the period of copyright protection ends for works of certain authors. But the public domain is not simply a dusty collection of old works. During the event COMMUNIA highlighted the fact that the public domain is a modern phenomenon—it is alive. We celebrate the practice of authors contributing to the public domain long before their copyright expires. From this perspective, the ongoing policy debate on European copyright will structure the shape and scope of our collective public domain for years to come.

Public Domain Day Celebration at the European Parliament by Sebastiaan ter Burg; CC0

Copyright debate in Europe should support the public domain

The European Commission is in the process of proposing changes to the copyright rules in the EU. It laid out some of its ideas through a Communication in December 2015, and will present concrete legislative proposals in June 2016. In 2016 and beyond COMMUNIA will advocate for specific points, including the three below. You can read more here.

1. Ensure that the mere digitisation of public domain works does not create new rights over them. Some member states would like to allow anyone who digitized a public domain work to claim new exclusive rights. This creates legal uncertainty and undermines the concept of the public domain.
2. Introduce a mandatory and strong exception to copyright for educational use. We need to ensure that education is not burdened by copyright-related barriers. To ensure this, we need a broad, harmonised exception. It should cover all types of uses, including digital and online activities, both inside and outside of the classroom.
3. Allow cultural heritage institutions to make out-of-commerce works available online. Vibrant and diverse cultural heritage institutions are one of the defining features of our European culture. In order to remain relevant, they need to show their collections online. A new exception should allow these institutions to make available online the out-of-commerce works in their collections.

COMMUNIA is following the events in Brussels closely, and is sharing the advantages of a strong public domain and a flexible copyright to policy makers. You can see photos from the Public Domain event here (all CC0, created by Sebastiaan ter Burg). If you want to stay informed on the changes in European copyright, you can follow the developments on the COMMUNIA blog. If you are interested in the area where copyright and education clash, please have a look at our Medium series on it: Copyright Untangled.

The post COMMUNIA hosts public domain celebration in the European Parliament appeared first on Creative Commons.