GR Semicolon EN

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author
Kylintirea, Maria
en
dc.date.accessioned
2016-05-12T09:58:29Z
dc.date.available
2016-05-14T00:00:21Z
dc.date.issued
2016-05-12
dc.identifier.uri
https://repository.ihu.edu.gr//xmlui/handle/11544/14530
dc.rights
Default License
dc.subject
copyright law
en
dc.subject
cultural heritage
en
dc.subject
digitisation
en
dc.title
Copyright issues pertaining to the digitisation of cultural heritage
en
heal.type
masterThesis
el
heal.creatorID.email
maria.kylintirea@gmail.com
heal.generalDescription
After the recent revision of the Directive on the re-use of public sector information (Directive 2003/98/EC, the 'PSI Directive') Directive 2013/37/EU (entered into force on 17 July 2013), the issue of digitisation of public cultural heritage and its re-use is entered as a new obligation in the perspective of providing new resources to the private sector. On the other hand, private sector cultural institutions often opt for the digitisation of part of their collections. At the same time, international legal instruments call for digitisation for preservation, safeguarding and information reasons. In the digitisation process, copyright protection is relevant, as it prevents any interference with the protected works. IP rights clearance and identification of the right holders are essential for the completion of the work. Besides, current national and EU law facilitates digitisation on the basis of the existing limitations and exceptions (orphan works, out of commerce works, etc). Furthermore copyright also dictates the ways of exploitation of the digitised works. Accordingly, a legal debate about the existence of copyrights on the digitised work has arisen. While jurisprudence has not decided yet, contractual licensing, either by tailor-made or by standard form licences, could offer a viable solution and setting the boundaries for further dissemination of the digitised works.
en
heal.classification
copyright law
en
heal.classification
cultural heritage
en
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Copyright
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Copyright--Art
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Cultural property--Digitization.
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Cultural property--Protection
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Law and culture
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Cultural property--Protection--Data processing.
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Cultural property--Protection--Law and legislation.
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Cultural property--Protection (International law)
heal.language
en
el
heal.access
free
el
heal.license
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
el
heal.references
Read the Budapest Open Access Initiative . (2002, February). Retrieved March 14, 2016, from Budapest Open Access Initiative: ht tp://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/ Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. (2003, October 22). Retrieved March 14, 2016, from Open Access - Max Planck Gesellschaft: http://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin - Declaration Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing. (2003, June 20). Retrieved March 14, 2016, from Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing: http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm Axhamn, J., & Guibault, L. (2012, February 8). Cross - Border Exten ded Collective Licensing: A Solution to Online Dissemination of Europe’s Cultural Heritage. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2001347 Chant, I. (2014, April 16). Authors Guild Appeals Dismissal of Googl e Books Lawsuit. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from Library Journal: http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2014/04/litigation/authors - guild - appeals - dismissal - of - google - books - lawsuit/ 69 (Kuhlen, 2013) 70 (Prat, 2014) Commission, E. (2007, May 10). COM(2007) 242 - European Agenda for Culture in a Global izing World. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from European Commission: http://eur - lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0242:FIN:EN:PDF Commission, E. (2009, October 22). Report from the Commission - Annual Report on Research and Technological Deve lopment Activities of the European Union in 2008. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from Eur - Lex: http://eur - lex.europa.eu/legal - content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52009DC0558 Commission, E. (2011, September 20). Memorandum of Understanding - Key Principles on the Digiti zation and Making Available of Out - of - Commerce Works. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from European Commission/Press Release Database: http://europa.eu/rapid/press - release_MEMO - 11 - 619_en.htm Commons, C. (n.d.). About . Retrieved March 14, 2016, from Creative Comm ons: https://creativecommons.org/about/ Council, E. (2008, May 2008). 7652/1/08 REV 1 - Presidency Conclusiions. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from European Council / Council of the European Union: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%207652%2 02008%20REV%201 Fallon, J. (2015, May 23). European Parliament Demands Copyright Rules that Allow Cultural Heritage Institutions to Share Collections Online . Retrieved March 14, 2016, from Europeana Pro: http://pro.europeana.eu/blogpost/eu - parliament - in - f avour - of - copyright - rules - better - fit - for - a - digital - age Geiger, C., & Schoenherr, F. (2014). The Information Society Directive. In EU Copyright Law - A Commentary (pp. 395 - 527). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Guibault, L. (2014). Collective Rights Management Directive. In L. Guibault, I. Stamatoudi, & P. Torremans (Eds.), EU Copyright Law - A Commentary (pp. 696 - 795). Cheltenham, UK: Edwar Elgar Publishing Limited. Jokilehto, J. (2005, Jan). Definition of Cultural Heritage. (J. Jokilehto, Ed .) Rome, Italy: ICCROM Working Group "Heritage and Society". Josef Drexl, S. N. (2012). Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Coll ective Management of Copyright and Related Rights and Multi - territorial Licencing of Ri. Munich: Mac Planck Institute. Klass, N., & Rupp, H. (2014). Europeana, Arrow and Orphan Works: Bringing Europe's Cultural Heritage Online. In I. Stamatoudi, & P. Torre mans (Eds.), EU Copyright Law - A Commentary (pp. 946 - 987). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Koumantos, G., & Stamatoudi, I. (2014). Greek Copyright Law. Athens : Sakkoulas Publications. Krazit, T. (2009, October 22). European Laws Present Challenges for Google Books. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from CNet: http://www.cnet.com/news/european - laws - present - challenges - for - google - books/ Kuhlen, R. (2013). Copyright Issues in the European Union - Towards a Science - and Education - friendly Copyright. R etrieved March 14, 2016, from KOPS - The Institutional Repository of the University of Konstanz: http://kops.uni - konstanz.de/handle/123456789/27083 Liang, L. (2004). Guide to Open Content Licenses v1.2. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from Creative Commons: http: //www.theartgalleryofknoxville.com/ocl_v1.2.pdf PLOS. (n.d.). The Case of Open Access . Retrieved March 14, 2016, from Plos: https://www.plos.org/open - access/ Potocnik, J. (2007, April 26). The EU's Fifth Freedom:Creating Free Movement of Knowledge. Retriev ed March 14, 2016, from Europa.eu: europa.eu/rapid/press - release_SPEECH - 07 - 257_en.pdf Prat, M. M. (2014). The Future of Copyright in Europe. The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts (38), 29 - 47. Rosati, E. (2014, July). Copyright Issues Facing Early Stages of Digitization Projects. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from Digital Humanities Network/Mobile Collections Project: http://www.digitalhumanities.cam.ac.uk/mobilecollections Sotirova, K., Peneva, J., Ivanov, S., Doneva, R., & Dobreva, M. (2012). New Bulgarian Uni versity. In J. Peneva, Access to Digital Cultural Heritage: Innovative Applications of Automated Metadata Generation (pp. 25 - 67). Plodvid: Plovdiv University Publishing House "Paisii Hilendarski". Stamatoudi, I. A. (2011). Cultural Property Law and Restitu tion. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Suber, P. (2012). Open Access. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Suthersanen, U., & Frabboni, M. M. (2014). The Orphan Works Directive. In Irini Stamatoudi, & P. Torremans (Eds.), E U Copyright Law - A Commentary (pp. 653 - 695). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Vuopala, A. (2010). Assessment of the Orphan works issue and Costs for Rights Clearance. Brussels: European Commission - DG Information Society and Media - Unit E 4 Access to Information
el
heal.recordProvider
School of Economics, Business Administration and Legal Studies, MA in Art, Law and Economy
el
heal.publicationDate
2016-05
heal.abstract
After the recent revision of the Directive on the re-use of public sector information (Directive 2003/98/EC, the 'PSI Directive') Directive 2013/37/EU (entered into force on 17 July 2013), the issue of digitisation of public cultural heritage and its re-use is entered as a new obligation in the perspective of providing new resources to the private sector. On the other hand, private sector cultural institutions often opt for the digitisation of part of their collections. At the same time, international legal instruments call for digitisation for preservation, safeguarding and information reasons. In the digitisation process, copyright protection is relevant, as it prevents any interference with the protected works. IP rights clearance and identification of the right holders are essential for the completion of the work. Besides, current national and EU law facilitates digitisation on the basis of the existing limitations and exceptions (orphan works, out of commerce works, etc). Furthermore copyright also dictates the ways of exploitation of the digitised works. Accordingly, a legal debate about the existence of copyrights on the digitised work has arisen. While jurisprudence has not decided yet, contractual licensing, either by tailor-made or by standard form licences, could offer a viable solution and setting the boundaries for further dissemination of the digitised works.
en
heal.tableOfContents
I. Introduction II. Definition of Cultural Heritage III. How copyright is relevant 1. Absolute and exclusive rights to content 2. Rights in databases 3. Reproduction and distribution or communication to the public limitations IV. European legal regime in respect of digitisation 1. The Information Society Directive a. Reproduction by libraries and archives b. Reproduction by libraries and archives 2. The Orphan Works Directive 3. Collective Management Directive 4. Evaluation of the current legal Framework a. Legal Uncertainty b. Use of Orphan and Out of commerce works V. Examples of digitisation of cultural heritage 1. Pandektis 2. Google Books 3. Europeana VI. Other relevant issues 1. Public Sector Information Reuse 2. Creative Commons 3. Open Access VII. Conclusions VIII. Works Cited
en
heal.advisorName
Stamatoudi, Irini "Dr"
en
heal.committeeMemberName
Komnios, Komninos "Dr."
en
heal.committeeMemberName
Kaissis, Athanasios "Dr." "em"
en
heal.committeeMemberName
Stamatoudi, Irini "Dr"
en
heal.academicPublisher
IHU
en
heal.academicPublisherID
ihu
el
heal.numberOfPages
24
el


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Related Items