EnDOW Enhancing access to 20th Century Cultural Heritage through Distributed Orphan Works Clearance A project jointly funded by HERITAGE PLUS and the European Commission PARTICIPANTS: CIPPM, Bournemouth University CREATe, University of Glasgow IViR, University of Amsterdam ASK, Bocconi University, Milan

The problem with orphan works clearance Introducing EnDOW

A work in which copyright exists, but where the copyright owner is either unknown or cannot be located. “A work or a phonogram shall be considered an orphan work if none of the rightholders in that work or phonogram is identified or, even if one or more of them is identified, none is located despite a diligent search for the rightholders having been carried out and recorded in accordance with Article 3.” Directive 2012/28/EU, Art. 2(1) Orphan works

Expensive and time-consuming (est. £ 47 to £ 126 per item for books; 3.¼ to 6.5 hours per hour of TV/radio broadcasting material* – other costs? Fair compensation, Art. 6(5)?) It can be outsourced (Rec. 13: “MS should be permitted to provide that such diligent search may be carried out by organisations referred to in this Directive or by other organisations.”) CHI are ultimately responsible for DS on items in their collections (Art. 3(1): “…the organization … shall ensure that a diligent search is carried out in good faith … by consulting the appropriate sources…etc.”) * UKIPO, Orphan Works Impact Assessment, Diligent search

“Online, distributed problem-solving and production model that leverages the collective intelligence of online communities to serve specific organizational goals” (Brabham, 2013) Successfully experimented for ‘information gathering’ tasks (e.g. ‘Peer-to-patent’ project) (Noveck 2006)Peer-to-patent’ project CHI are well positioned to encourage public participation in projects related to their mission (e.g. Europeana , untold stories & official stories of WWI; Mechanical Curator project of British Library)Europeana Mechanical Curator project Problem: information coming from the crowd might be inaccurate, incomplete or mistaken Crowdsourcing

The infrastructure Summary flowchart of the operations Online publicly accessible platform that enables end users to perform “guided diligent searches” on items contained in CHI collections

The user searching a specific resource online is unable to access the content (legally); Link to DOW platform to perform a diligent search; The result of the search is passed on to the CHI that possess the item Examples… Scenario 1 - ‘Bottom-up’ use of the platform

CHI to issue a list of works to be cleared and solicit contribution by communities of users (incentives?) Registered users to submit results of their searches to the CHI for validation Scenario 2 - ‘Top-down’ use

Institutional users engaged in small-scale digitization projects (e.g. small- and medium-size CHI, public authorities or educational establishments operating research and scientific libraries/archives, …) Use of the platform to clear rights on items in their own collections Scenario 3 – CHI use

Open issues Legal responsibility for false or inaccurate information Bad faith use of the platform Use of digitized items for indexing and search (but not making available – Google Books model) – permitted in the US, but in EU? Beneficiaries of the Directive: small-scale CHI – how small? Educational institutions? Private collections? …

KEY OBJECTIVES of EnDOW  To analyse the legal requirement of “diligent search” across the orphan works legislation of the 15 countries members of Heritage Plus  To investigate best practices of orphan works clearance across cultural heritage sectors (libraries, archives and museums);  (Based on this knowledge:) to design, implement and optimize an online platform for crowd-sourced diligent searching on works contained in the collections of European cultural institutions;  To study the potential applications and challenges of the crowd- based search method for texts, images, films, works of visual art and born-digital cultural heritage works.

KEY MILESTONES  September 2015 : EnDOW website  January 2016 : Preliminary analysis of diligent search requirements  July 2016 : Flowchart of the platform  December 2016 : Final analysis of diligent search requirements  September 2016 : Platform ready for internal testing  July 2017 : Beta version of platform online  January 2018 : Platform completed

WORK PLAN WP0 - CIPPM: Coordination, Administration, liaising with funding body, reports WP1 - ASK/CIPPM: Identify legal requirements for Diligent Search in Heritage Plus Countries WP2 – IViR/CIPPM: Design the EnDOW Platform WP3 - CREATe: Testing and evaluation of the ENDOW Platform WP4 - ALL: Dissemination and continuation

WORK PACKAGE N. 0 (CIPPM) Management and Coordination -To ensure the achievement of the proposed objectives in the time frame and budget established in the project -To ensure the smooth cooperation between partners and the European Commission / JPI-HP National Agencies to achieve the project results -To monitor the progress of the project according to the established milestones and the correct reporting to the EC / JPI- HP National Agencies

WORK PACKAGE N 1 (ASK+CIPPM+IViR): Legal and regulatory framework for DOW clearance system OBJECTIVES: To analyse the legal requirement of “diligent search” within the orphan works legislation of the members countries of Heritage Plus. To specify the conditions under which third parties (e.g. internet users) can contribute to perform a legally binding diligent search of rightholders on behalf of cultural institutions. To define the scope of permissible uses of orphan works in mass digitisation projects, in particular in projects involving private-public partnerships.

Diligent Search: what steps? For example:  Database search (what database?)  Publication on national press (yes or no)?  Extent: how long wait NO response before using the work (1, 2, 3, 6 months)?  Use: what use of the work can be made after the diligent search (commercial? No-profit?) Country-specific instructions

Part One (CIPPM, ASK and IViR by Country) Method: Comparative Legal Studies LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK: Overview of Regulatory requirements for Diligent Search in Heritage Plus Countries NON-LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK: Best practices and soft-law solutions (e.g. agreements) for Orphan Rights clearance in Heritage Plus Countries

Part Two (ASK) Method: Qualitative Social Science ( q uestionnaires distributed to local legal experts) Q will determine: W hat are the requirements established for diligent searches for copyright holders, in particular: authoritative sources and databases to be consulted, nature and extent of the search, specific criteria to be applied (e.g. formal approval by authority); W ho is entitled to participate in a diligent search and under which conditions; W here the search has to be conducted, depending on the first publication or broadcast of the work; W hat is the scope of permissible uses of orphans in mass digitization projects, in particular in projects involving private-public partnerships. Did EU countries implement the OW Directive? How? What is the law in place in non-EU countries?

WORK PACKAGE N 1: OUTCOMES Users Instructions (for WP4) Four Reports (Delivered in Four parts: 2 preliminary reports and two final reports) on Legal Requirements on Diligetn Search in Cultural Heritage Countries (18 to date) Two Journal Articles to be submitted to peer- reviewed international journals

WORK PACKAGE N 2 (IViR + CIPPM): Design of ENDOW Platform CIPPM: compilation of a detailed flowchart of the operations to be performed. In the initial phase, the platform will be limited to the three countries represented in the project (UK, Italy and the Netherlands) IViR: definition of the technical requirement for the implementation of the DOW platform Implementation and optimization of the DOW platform. Integration of automated and semi-automated systems of right clearance (e.g. “public domain calculators”) in the DOW clearance process.

WP2 Outcome: the DOW Platform

WORK PACKAGE N 3 (CREATe): Testing/Assessment EnDOW -To evaluate the platform in connection with collections of items possessed by the associate stakeholders. -To evaluate the process of crowdsourced diligent search as an organisational practice and critically refine methods. -To study the potential applications and evaluate effectiveness of the DOW clearance method for images, film and born-digital cultural heritage works in a variety of European cultural institutions and contexts.

WORK PACKAGE N 3: OUTCOMES Three studies on images, film and born- digital works Two right clearance simulations on Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks Two Journal Articles to be submitted to peer- reviewed international journals

WORK PACKAGE N 4 (ALL): Dissemination and Continuation Project dissemination and exploitation plan (CIPPM) Design of project logo, image and website (CIPPM, CREATe) Redaction of instructions on the DOW platform for general users (IViR) Redaction of instructions on DOW platform for cultural institutions (IViR) Organization of workshop directed at institutional users (IViR) Launch of DOW clearance platform (CIPPM) Organization of final conference for cultural institutions and users (ASK) Action plan for continuation of DOW clearance platform (CIPPM, ASK in collaboration with Associate Partner CCLFR) Four Blog Posts to be published on the CREATe Blog page (months 6,18, 23 and 35 (All PIs)

WORK PACKAGE N 4: OUTCOMES Instructions on the EnDOW platform for general users (month 30) Instructions on the EnDOW platform for cultural institutions (month 34) Workshop with institutional users (month 12) Launch Event for the DOW clearance platform (month 24) Final conference (month 36) Business plan for continuation of DOW clearance platform

31/05/2018 END OF THE PROJECT Tromp l'oeil Pompeii Floor Mosaic