BHLE_WP2_BPG_Feedback

printer friendly
BHL-Europe | WP1 | WP2 | WP3 | WP4 | WP5
Best Practice Guide

---

Feedback Upload BPG D2.9

Spee

Midi

Mini

---

BPG Discussion - NEW

Here you can post your ideas, concerns,... and discuss the further development of the BPG D2.9!

---

Hierschläger, Michaela 23.03.2011: The BPG is detailed, still a few things need to be included like proper technical description (concerning everything in chapter 6 Perparation of data for BHL-Europe). There might be the need of a shorten version of the BPG.

Hierschläger, Michaela 11.04.2011: Our (M. Malicky + M.Birthälmer + me) plan: We really do want to shorten the BPG. Within one document D2.9 there shall be 3 versions in different lengths.

1. version (mini): 2-3 pages with a simple outline of the working steps (chronological order of chapters according to the practical workflow)
2. version (midi): 15 - 20 pages with a rough outline, main point descriptions to each chapter (working step); chapters are again ordered to follow the practical workflow
3. version (spee - special extended edition): will be mainly D2.6 but as you all know we still lack proper decisions on the technical IT stuff! These shall be of course included in full manner as well as practical, worked examples where appropriate and of course content amendment where necessary!!

These three version shall meet the demands of the readers, a very short version (1.version) to get an overview of what there is to come, a middle length version (2.version) with which you can already work and a long detailed version (3.version) where everything is explained in detail and one can follow step by step what there is to do to provide the downloadable item in the portal. Worked examples to the chapters (working steps) will faciliate a better understanding of how it can be done.
- h-scholz May 5, 2011 The idea with the three version sounds great. Actually one of them (probably midi) can be designed to fit the needs of the public and illustrated BPG book we have to publish out of WP5.

Welter-Schultes Francisco 5.5.2011: the BPG does not explain how things work in practice; no working portal, yes there is the prototype but no finished portal; IPR section is more a legaslative text then a practical working handbook; example someone gave us a taxonomic journal already digitised - is the tool ready where journals which are already digitised but still not in BHL-Europe can be signed in?

Hierschläger Michaela 5.5.2011: The tool you mean is the GRIB. - Well should be ready for use soon. Boris is the contact person in this matter.

- h-scholz May 5, 2011 If Francisco means an IPR tool, then this would be D4.1. If rights holder are also content provider they sign our MoU. If they provide the content through a partner then an agreement with the rights holder based on what D4.1 is suggesting should be sufficient. The CC license applied to the content will then also tells us what we can do with the material.

- fwelter May 5, 2011 I meant if 3rd parties (not consortium members) like to provide digitised content.They might look for a useful guide what to do.
IPR: what Nancy provided was absolutely correct information. The BPG copied the main relevant statements of D4.1, for example the chapter in risk management. Both documents contain basically the same information. The problem is that this absolutely correct information is not always useful for the potential content provider, particularly if they do not have the special law study skills to read Nancy's statements appropriately. For these purposes we might need a more practical guide and not something that is absolutely correct but the interested persons who seek advice cannot actually use it.
I have been confronted with such an example of practical life: an organisation had received 19 volumes of a mid-1900s journal by an old editor who asked them to digitise the volumes for the public use. Soon after the old man died. The organisation digitised the volumes and was me asking if BHL-E would be interested (actually they asked me to tell BHL-E to mark the work as "already digitised"). My first question to them concerned the legal situation. Well, this was a bioscientific journal and the old editor had died. There is no really useful guide in the BPG or D4.1 how to proceed in such a situation. Of course there are no written documents, and the old man did not know anything about licence rights. And who is the rightholder in such a case? The authors as contributors to the journal have not died before 1939. But how can you know under wich legal backgrounds the articles were published? In practical life this was a bioscientific journal and it was self-understood in these times that the published articles were meant to be published for the public use. Editors of such semi-professional journals (in terms of IPR awareness) were not aware of IPR rights, they thought that it was self-understood that the editor would have to right to decide about the form how to publish the submitted contents. They would have been surprised if they were told that each author would keep the rights on their own article unless written permission was granted to the editor. It is logical that the old man gave only the 19 volumes to the institution - and not in addition a complete set of 150 signed contracts by authors assigning the correct license agreements. Many likewise journals are maintained in the same way today. I frequently publish in such "semiprofessional" journals (I am a taxonomist myself) and still today my articles are published without anyone asking me for a licence agreement. It is self-understood that I submit a paper under the condition that they can publish it in whichever form they like. Only Elsevier and other big publishers ask for such contracts.
The BPG does not even tell about who will be in charge of controlling the legal background. Does BHL or BHL-E provide an effective control on IPR, or is this in the responsibility of each content provider and BHL-E receives the content in good faith? Such questions could be answered in such a guide.
My second question concerned the possible way how to proceed for actually uploading content to BHL-E. This, of course, is not at all addressed in the BPG, which is logical because there are no systems actually working yet, as Michaela already said. These practical questions would need to be addressed in a BPG at a later stage, so that the term "practice" in the acronym would come to life. At the current stage the document is less important.

- michaela_hierschlaeger: 7.10.2011
Dear Francisco, a passage from the yet not officially published Collection Policy might clear your questions:
"The Question of IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) should be carefully considered when digitising literature.
For content submitted to BHL-Europe it is the responsibility of the content provider to obtain permissions from rights holders to scan texts still covered by copyright, and arrange for copyright holders to license their texts. BHL-Europe does not assume any responsibility at an organisational level for copyright clearance or licensing.
When considering copyright it is the responsibility of the content provider to operate in accordance with the copyright legislation of their nation state.
Content from Google Books is not to be included as it is not open access. Once content is in BHL-Europe it is free for access, download, use and reuse.
In addition, it should be taken care to secure IPR clearance for the inclusion of illustrations (photographs, scientific drawings, map, etc.) where applicable. On occasion, the question of rights has also to be cleared for illustrations, etc. independent of the text.
Another related issue is when one document includes different rights: for instance, many biodiversity publications allow free use of their content except photographs.
For more information please see chapter 4.2.3IPR issues and how to tackle them."

---

BPG Feedback Upload for D2.6 This first version of the BPG is already finished!!

Feedback Upload is closed now!
Upload the BPG with your feedback here by using the "Edit This Page" button!
Example:
Hierschlaeger (2.3.2011): BHL-E_D2pt6_BPG_hierschlaeger.doc

Ng (14.03.2011): BHL-E_D2pt6_BPG_LesaNg.doc
Smirnova (15.03.2011): Smirnova-BHL-E_D2pt6_BPG.doc
Hardy (15.02.2011): BHL-E_D2pt6_Best Practice Guide_Graham Hardy.doc
Hoffmann (16.03.2011): chapter 0-3 BHL-E_D2pt6_BPG_JH.doc

Cécile Duteille (16.03.2011) : BHL-E_D2pt6_BPG_cecileduteille.doc