We’re open! — Thoughts on building a new home for SMK’s online collection

“It’s alive. After months (ok years) of discussion, iteration, and intense testing we’ve now opened the digital door to SMK’s new online collection. We are truly thrilled to be able to contribute to SMK [Statens Museum for Kunst]— and openglam — goals of making cultural heritage easily available in friendly, open formats….”

SMK Open | SMK – National Gallery of Denmark in Copenhagen (Statens Museum for Kunst)SMK – National Gallery of Denmark in Copenhagen (Statens Museum for Kunst)

“SMK [Statens Museum for Kunst] in Sølvgade in Copenhagen is an excellent frame for the art collection of the Danish people. But not everybody has easy acces to the physical museum and when you visit the building – and if you see all the artworks on display – you’ll only have experienced 0.7% of the entire collection.

This means there’s an enormous potential in digitizing and making available the collection in digital form. The digital versions obviously can’t replace the original artworks but they can

Be accessed independently of time and space
Be re-used for new work
Be studied in minute details
Be shared
Be inserted in everything from books to research articles to school papers
Be printed on anything from posters to couch cushions

With support from Nordea-fonden the SMK Open project (2016-2020) aims to make the country’s art collection available for free use. Everyone should have the opportunity to explore the world of art on their own terms and draw information from SMK’s large collection of knowledge and additional material. With SMK Open, we’re turning the collection into a giant tool-box full of freely usable building blocks.

The project builds on a vision of making art available and relevant for far more Danes by turning it into a resource and tool that one may bring into one’s own life and use on one’s own terms….”

FOAA Board recommendations for the implementation of Plan S

[Undated]

“ii. Define a clear transition path for hybrid journals to (Gold) OA. We suggest, in line with Stephan Kuster’s comment at the LERU meeting of October 2018, that to be compliant, the journal would need to be able to demonstrate it is transitioning within a 3-4 year period to fully gold OA by reporting on progress every year. iii. Provide clarity if and how green Open Access (OA) will be compliant. Green OA repositories seem to be endorsed only for preservation, not for OA itself. However, if compliant green OA is explicitly defined as unembargoed libre green OA, this is just as satisfactory as unembargoed libre gold OA, and this might incentivize publishers to hasten the transition of their journals to full gold OA. In this way, the value of repositories for OA itself can be acknowledged, not just for preservation and editorial innovation. iv. We strongly recommend that support for OA promised in Plan S infrastructure be public and open infrastructure, that is, platforms running on open-source software, under open standards, with open APIs for interoperability, owned or hosted by non-profit organizations. This should avoid infrastructure being acquired by large commercial publishers, which is a deliberate approach being taken to increase ownership of the whole scholarly communication ecosystem ….”

FOAA Board recommendations for the implementation of Plan S

[Undated]

“ii. Define a clear transition path for hybrid journals to (Gold) OA. We suggest, in line with Stephan Kuster’s comment at the LERU meeting of October 2018, that to be compliant, the journal would need to be able to demonstrate it is transitioning within a 3-4 year period to fully gold OA by reporting on progress every year. iii. Provide clarity if and how green Open Access (OA) will be compliant. Green OA repositories seem to be endorsed only for preservation, not for OA itself. However, if compliant green OA is explicitly defined as unembargoed libre green OA, this is just as satisfactory as unembargoed libre gold OA, and this might incentivize publishers to hasten the transition of their journals to full gold OA. In this way, the value of repositories for OA itself can be acknowledged, not just for preservation and editorial innovation. iv. We strongly recommend that support for OA promised in Plan S infrastructure be public and open infrastructure, that is, platforms running on open-source software, under open standards, with open APIs for interoperability, owned or hosted by non-profit organizations. This should avoid infrastructure being acquired by large commercial publishers, which is a deliberate approach being taken to increase ownership of the whole scholarly communication ecosystem ….”

?New transformative agreement with Elsevier enables unlimited open access to Swedish research – Kungliga biblioteket – Sveriges nationalbibliotek – kb.se

“The Bibsam Consortium is signing a Read & Publish agreement with the scientific publisher Elsevier. This means that Swedish researchers will have access to the publisher’s 2000 journals once more. In addition, all Swedish research articles will be published open access….

The previous agreement with Elsevier was terminated in 2018, as Bibsam and Elsevier were unable to reach a solution that met both parties’ requirements for sustainable prices and open access. But after negotiations, a new agreement is now in place that meets Bibsam’s requirements and reflects fair value for both sides….

The key elements of the new agreement are:

Unlimited open access publishing in Elsevier hybrid and fully gold titles, society journals, and fully gold Cell Press and The Lancet titles
A unique pilot centred around open access publishing of 100 articles per year in Cell Press hybrid journals, which covers the entire consortium’s publication output in these journals
Reading rights to the Science Direct Freedom Collection (approximately 2,000 journals) from 1995, and as an additional option Cell Press (14 journals)
Publishing with CC-BY license (or another open license, according to the author’s wishes)….”

 

The Neues Museum is claiming copyright over 3D-printing files of the Nefertiti bust.

“The museum never quite clarified its relation to the scans. But earlier this week, Wenman released the files he received from the museum online for anyone to download. The 3D digital version is a perfect replica of the original 3,000-year-old bust, with one exception. The Neues Museum etched a cop..yright license into the bottom of the bust itself, claiming the authority to restrict how people might use the file. The museum was trying to pretend that it owned a copyright in the scan of a 3,000-year-old sculpture created 3,000 miles away….

While the copyright status of 3D scans of public domain works is currently more complex in the EU, Article 14 of the recently passed Copyright Directive is explicitly designed to clarify that digital versions of public domain works cannot be protected by copyright. …

The most important part is that adding these restrictions runs counter to the entire mission of museums. Museums do not hold our shared cultural heritage so that they can become gatekeepers. They hold our shared cultural heritage as stewards in order to make sure we have access to our collective history. Etching scary legal words in the bottom of a work in your collection in the hopes of scaring people away from engaging with it is the opposite of that.”

Reproductions of Public Domain Works Should Remain in the Public Domain

It has come to the attention of Creative Commons that there is an increased use of CC licenses by cultural heritage institutions on photographic reproductions and 3D scans of objects such as sculptures, busts, engravings, and inscriptions, among others, that are indisputably in the public domain worldwide. A recent example is the 3000-year-old Nefertiti bust … Read More “Reproductions of Public Domain Works Should Remain in the Public Domain”

The post Reproductions of Public Domain Works Should Remain in the Public Domain appeared first on Creative Commons.

On ZTC, OER, and a More Expansive View

“Regardless of whether you feel a stronger affinity with the ZTC [zero textbook cost] camp or the OER camp, there is something we should all strive to remember. Our primary priority should neither be minimizing cost nor maximizing pedagogical flexibility. Our primary priority should be increasing student learning, and our efforts to reduce costs and increase pedagogical flexibility must always be subservient to that end. When we fail to put student learning first, we can become zealots who confuse the means with the ends. This makes it possible for us to pursue cost reduction at any price to student learning. It also makes it possible for us to pursue pedagogical flexibility regardless of the cost to student learning….”