W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > June 2009

Re: data.gov.* memo

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:02:23 +0200
Cc: Steven Clift <clift@e-democracy.org>, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray@okfn.org>, "Novak, Kevin" <KevinNovak@aia.org>, "Acar, Suzanne" <Suzanne.Acar@ic.fbi.gov>, public-egov-ig@w3.org, John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk
Message-Id: <C9E8BD18-C154-4A5C-A783-D0CDCFD04FC5@w3.org>
To: Daniel Bennett <daniel@citizencontact.com>
For the purposes of the memo alone, I think Jonathan original comment  
still applies:
"...copyright status and terms and conditions of re-use should be made
explicit - so that it is clear what can (and/or can't) be done with
the material..."

Discussion is really interesting but I think this copyright/licensing/ 
regulation should be probably taken separately since it goes beyond  
the purpose of the memo as a simple introductory document to create  
awareness on what basic things should be done and how. Likely a  
separate related document of the collection we should produce in Year  
2...

-- Jose


El 17/06/2009, a las 0:55, Daniel Bennett escribió:

> The interesting aspect of all this is one of the most important  
> things I've heard from government publishers recently is making sure  
> that data and documents are being perceived as authentic. For  
> example the GPO includes a digital signature/seal on some of the  
> documents they post to avoid potential copiers to do mischief by  
> altering a copied document. Using technology to enforce what is  
> often part of the rights of the copyright holder has even tracked  
> into law (DCMA wikipedia note). We should take into account these  
> non-commercial aspects of law and convention when considering this  
> issue. And we should find out if governments have laws regulating  
> the use of their data and documents, separate from copyright. Also  
> some government data may include commercially copyrighted material  
> (e.g. the Congressional Record with a news article) or a web page  
> that used licensed stock photos.
>
> I see embedding or separately, but clearly providing metadata that  
> cites relevant laws into government data such that using government  
> data does not create more hazards than it helps. Part of all of this  
> is providing clearly cited data and clearly cited laws. If the data  
> can be cited, then an external document can be referenced that tells  
> how the data can be used and/or embedded Dublin Core that include  
> the creator and rights metadata information such that both humans  
> and software can ascertain the rules on copying the data.
>
> Daniel Bennett
>
>
>
>
>
> Steven Clift wrote:
>>
>> The public domain requirement only applies to federal agencies and
>> (unfortunately) not the other 30,000 state and local governments in
>> the U.S..
>>
>> In MN we did a big study on this with Government Information Access
>> Council in 1996. In summary the tourism agency wants to control their
>> photos, the parks want to sell books without someone copying their
>> work, and the Universities (which are justified in being exempt) were
>> generally freaked out by anyone even exploring this issue in state
>> government.
>>
>> Steven Clift
>>
>> On 6/16/09, Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray@okfn.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with you Kevin! The situation certainly seems to be more
>>> complicated with public cultural heritage organisations, and with
>>> anything else where material is being contributed by a third party -
>>> such as scientific research.
>>>
>>> I propose we add a general statement about making the legal status  
>>> of
>>> data (and content) explicit - and preferably explicitly open (as in
>>> opendefinition.org) where appropriate.
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Novak, Kevin<KevinNovak@aia.org>  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a complex issue even for US government. Not so much for the  
>>>> general
>>>> agencies given Suzanne’s comments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Library of Congress, Smithsonian, NEH, National Gallery of Art,
>>>> National
>>>> Park Service and a few others have “collections” of material that  
>>>> have
>>>> been
>>>> digitized and made available on the web. Many resulting from  
>>>> agreements
>>>> with
>>>> trustees and custodians that have donated the materials to the
>>>> institutions
>>>> for some level of access. The challenge was and is ensuring that  
>>>> the
>>>> materials are rights protected and it is made clear that they do  
>>>> not fall
>>>> under the normal regulations. Negotiating these agreements is  
>>>> quite an
>>>> experience and always challenging when you don’t have a good  
>>>> policy basis
>>>> to
>>>> start with. Although this isn’t specifically a “data” issue under  
>>>> the
>>>> current data.gov and UK efforts, it is indeed a growing issue for  
>>>> agencies
>>>> dealing with culturally significant materials that aren’t  
>>>> necessarily
>>>> government produced and the desire to have the materials located on
>>>> government websites.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Kevin Novak
>>>>
>>>> Vice President, Integrated Web Strategy and Technology
>>>>
>>>> The American Institute of Architects
>>>>
>>>> 1735 New York Avenue, NW
>>>>
>>>> Washington, DC 20006
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Voice:   202-626-7303
>>>>
>>>> Cell:       202-731-0037
>>>>
>>>> Twitter: @novakkevin
>>>>
>>>> Fax:        202-639-7606
>>>>
>>>> Email:    kevinnovak@aia.org
>>>>
>>>> Website: www.aia.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> AIA NAMED BEST ASSOCIATIONS WEBSITE FOR THE 12th ANNUAL WEBBY  
>>>> AWARDS!
>>>>
>>>> America's Favorite Architecture Tops the Shortlist for  
>>>> International Honor
>>>> for the Web
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The American Institute of Architects is the voice of the  
>>>> architectural
>>>> profession and the resource for its members in service to society.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Acar, Suzanne [mailto:Suzanne.Acar@ic.fbi.gov]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:44 AM
>>>> To: 'daniel@citizencontact.com'; 'jonathan.gray@okfn.org'
>>>> Cc: 'josema@w3.org'; 'public-egov-ig@w3.org';
>>>> 'John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk'; Novak, Kevin
>>>> Subject: Re: data.gov.* memo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very interesting, Daniel. Will take a closer look.
>>>> Also, thank you Jonathan for the clarifiacation on your statement.
>>>>
>>>> Cheer
>>>> Suzanne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> From: Daniel Bennett <daniel@citizencontact.com>
>>>> To: Jonathan Gray <jonathan.gray@okfn.org>
>>>> Cc: Acar, Suzanne; josema@w3.org <josema@w3.org>; public-egov-ig@w3.org
>>>> <public-egov-ig@w3.org>; John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk
>>>> <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk>; kevinnovak@aia.org
>>>> <kevinnovak@aia.org>
>>>> Sent: Tue Jun 16 08:44:28 2009
>>>> Subject: Re: data.gov.* memo
>>>>
>>>> Awhile ago, when some of the bills were starting to be introduced  
>>>> in XML,
>>>> the Congress decided to add in some Dublin Core metadata so that  
>>>> issues
>>>> such
>>>> as rights would be made clear. See below.
>>>>
>>>> And then there is the presumption that anyone or organization that
>>>> publishes
>>>> raw data in an open and without real applications is intending  
>>>> for the
>>>> data
>>>> to be either used in place or copied. This is like having an RSS  
>>>> newsfeed
>>>> and then claiming that the RSS newsfeed itself is copyrighted.
>>>>
>>>> And then there is the issue of how data is used on the Internet  
>>>> with
>>>> search
>>>> engines essentially having a complete copy of almost everything  
>>>> internally
>>>> in order to allow for search.   Hmmmmmm.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <metadata xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
>>>>
>>>> <dublinCore>
>>>>
>>>> <dc:title>111 HR 11 IH: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of
>>>>
>>>> </dc:title>
>>>>
>>>> <dc:publisher>U.S. House of Representatives</dc:publisher>
>>>>
>>>> <dc:date>2009-01-06</dc:date>
>>>>
>>>> <dc:format>text/xml</dc:format>
>>>>
>>>> <dc:language>EN</dc:language>
>>>>
>>>> <dc:rights>Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States  
>>>> Code,
>>>> this
>>>> file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public
>>>> domain.</dc:rights>
>>>>
>>>> </dublinCore>
>>>>
>>>> </metadata>
>>>>
>>>>  Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan Gray wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Acar, Suzanne<Suzanne.Acar@ic.fbi.gov 
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> US data.gov published a policy statement on the site.  Copyright  
>>>> statement
>>>> was not needed because government data once released for sharing  
>>>> is public
>>>> domain.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While this is true for US Federal government material - this is
>>>>
>>>> unfortunately not so clear outside the US.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my experience of looking at the situation with data across  
>>>> Europe,
>>>>
>>>> many government sites do not explicitly state what can and can't be
>>>>
>>>> re-used. The EU PSI Directive broadly encourages member states to  
>>>> make
>>>>
>>>> material available for re-use - but this is still being  
>>>> implemented,
>>>>
>>>> and some feel there is ambiguity about its scope and strength. Also
>>>>
>>>> its always helpful to know where rights are held by third parties!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jonathan Gray
>>>
>>> Community Coordinator
>>> The Open Knowledge Foundation
>>> http://www.okfn.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> <daniel.vcf>
Received on Sunday, 21 June 2009 21:03:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 21 June 2009 21:03:12 GMT