Authors Dr. Charalampos Bratsas Dr. Marinos Papadopoulos
License CC-BY
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
European
Public
Sector
Information
Platform
Topic
Report
No.
2015
/
06
Openness/Open
Access
for
Public
Sector
information
and
works
—
the
Creative
Commons
licensing
model
Authors:
Dr.
Marinos
Papadopoulos;
Dr.
Charalampos
Bratsas
Published:
June
2015
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
1
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
Table
of
Contents
Keywords
......................................................................................................................................
3
Abstract/
Executive
Summary
.......................................................................................................
3
1
Openness/Open
Access
..........................................................................................................
4
2
Directive
2003/98/EC
as
amended
by
Directive
2013/37/EU
&
the
Creative
Commons
licensing
model
(Copyleft
licensing)
............................................................................................
14
3
Conclusions
...........................................................................................................................
29
References
..................................................................................................................................
31
About
the
Authors
......................................................................................................................
35
Copyright
information
.................................................................................................................
37
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
2
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
Keywords
Copyright,
Copyleft,
Creative
Commons,
Open
Knowledge
Foundation,
Public
Sector
organizations,
PSI
Directive,
Directive
2003/98/EC,
Directive
2013/37/EU,
Greek
Law
3448/2006,
Greek
Law
4305/2014,
Presidential
Decree
28/2015,
Open
access
and
reuse
of
documents,
data
and
public
sector
information,
Openness,
Open
Access
Abstract/
Executive
Summary
This
paper
focuses
on
the
issue
of
Openness/Open
Access
implemented
through
Copyleft
licensing
such
as
the
Creative
Commons
licensing
model
for
information,
data,
and
works
produced
by
Public
Sector
organizations.
The
analysis
provided
herewith
describes
the
CC
licensing
option
seen
under
the
prism
of
Directive
2003/98/EC
as
amended
by
Directive
2013/37/EU
implemented
in
Greece
through
Laws
3448/2006,
4305/2014,
and
Presidential
Decree
28/2015.
The
authors
conclude
that
CC
licensing
fits
in
the
provisions
of
the
legal
framework
that
transposes
into
national
law
the
provisions
of
Directives
2003/98/EC
and
2013/37/EU.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
3
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
1 Openness/Open
Access
Openness
has
been
high
in
the
agenda
of
Copyright
reform
during
the
last
years.
Copyright
applies
to
all
literary,
artistic
and
scientific
works
including,
of
course,
the
works
produced
in
Public
Sector
organization;
thus,
there
is
Copyright
in
all
kind
of
copyrightable
works
either
they
are
produced
in
the
Public
or
in
the
Private
sectors
and
either
they
are
produced
by
individuals
or
group
of
natural
or
legal
persons,
such
as
newspapers,
reports,
books,
blogs
and
content
produced
online,
music,
dance,
paintings,
sculptures,
movies,
scientific
articles
and
computer
software.
Copyright
restricts
the
ability
of
third
parties
to
use
copyrighted
works
without
securing
permission
from
the
copyright
holder.
Copyright
does
not
provide
any
ownership
over
facts,
ideas
and
news,
although
a
unique
expression
of
such
material
would
enjoy
protection
from
copying
of
its
unique
expressive
elements.
Because
a
copyright
may
be
bought
and
sold,
the
copyright
holder
may
be
a
party
other
than
the
original
author,
such
as
a
publisher.
Copyright
protection
is
thus
fundamental
to
the
system
of
licensing
and
payment
for
access
to
creative
works
that
drive
various
cultural
industries.
Openness
implemented
through
the
Creative
Commons
licensing
model
makes
it
suitable
especially
for
the
public
sector
information;
both
the
Creative
Commons
licensing
model
and
the
public
sector
information
meet
the
following
access
characteristics
(Eechoud,
van
M.,
and
Wal,
van
der
B.,
2008):1
1. Public
access
is
the
chief
principle
because
the
public
sector
information
is
subject
to
specific
regulation,
and
2. Access
is
not
granted
under
cost
recovery
model,
i.e.
going
beyond
charges
for
the
cost
of
dissemination.
Both
prerequisites
are
characteristics
of
the
Creative
Commons
model
which
is
based
on
non-‐
discriminatory
access
and
does
not
allow
royalties
to
be
charged
for
the
dissemination
of
licensed
works.
Openness
is
about
the
right
and
the
ability
to
modify,
repackage,
and
add
value
to
a
resource
(Organisation
for
Economic
Cooperation
&
Development,
(2007),
ibid,
pp.32-‐36;
Rens,
A.
J.,
1
Eechoud, van M., and Wal, van der B., (2008), Creative commons licensing for public sector information—
Opportunities and pitfalls, IVir, p.3, available at http://learn.creativecommons.org/wp-
content/uploads/2008/03/cc_publicsectorinformation_report_v3.pdf , p.III [last check, April 5, 2015].
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
4
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
and
Kahn,
R.,
2009;
Rens,
A.
J.,
and
Kahn,
R.,
(2009). 2
This
kind
of
openness
blurs
the
traditional
distinction
between
the
consumer
and
the
producer
of
resources.
The
term
“user-‐
producer”
is
sometimes
used
to
highlight
this
blurring
of
roles
(Rossini,
C.A.A.,
2010).3
In
that
sense,
Openness
leveraging
upon
open
data
or
open
access
licensed
works
produced
by
legal
entities
or
natural
persons
operating
or
working
in
the
Public
Sector
should
make
possible
the
following
three
freedoms
(Centivany,
A.,
and
Glushko,
B.,
2010):4
1. The
freedom
to
study
a
work
and
apply
knowledge
offered
from
it.
2. The
freedom
to
redistribute
copies,
in
whole
or
in
part,
of
a
work.
3. The
freedom
to
make
improvements
or
other
changes,
i.e.
to
make
adaptations,
to
the
content
of
a
work,
and
to
release
modified
copies
of
it.
These
freedoms
are
based
on
principles
and
definitions
on
the
substance
of
open
source,
open
knowledge
(Rufus,
P.,
and
Jo,
W.,
2008)5
and
open
source/free
software
(The
Debian
Free
Software
Guidelines)6
as
they
have
been
shaped
by
Openness
movements.
The
term
Openness
was
coined
to
typify
the
open
access
to
information
or
material
resources
needed
for
projects;
openness
to
contributions
from
a
diverse
range
of
users,
producers,
contributors,
flat
hierarchies,
and
a
fluid
organisational
structure.
In
the
context
of
the
Budapest
Open
Access
Initiative,
(Chan,
L.,
et
al
2002) 7
Openness
in
the
sense
of
Open
Access
means
the
free
availability
of
literature
and
works
of
authorship,
audiovisual
works
etc.
on
the
public
Internet,
permitting
any
users
to
read,
download,
copy,
distribute,
print,
search,
or
link
to
the
full
texts
2
Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development, (2007), Giving Knowledge for Free: The Emergence of
Open Educational Resources, available at
http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/givingknowledgeforfreetheemergenceofopeneducationalresources.htm, pp.32-36; Rens,
A. J., and Kahn, R., (2009), Access to Knowledge in South Africa: Country Study Version 2.0, available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1455623 [last check, April 5, 2015].
3
Rossini, C.A.A., (2010), Green-Paper: The State and Challenges of OER in Brazil: From Readers to Writers? ,
Berkman Center Research Publication No.2010-01, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1549922 [last check, April
5, 2015].
4
Centivany, A., and Glushko, B., (2010), Open Educational Resources and the University: Law, Technology, and
Magical Thinking, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1680562 [last check, April 5, 2015].
5
Rufus, P., and Jo, W., (2008), Open Knowledge: Promises and Challenges, Communia Workshop 2008, available
at http://www.communia-
project.eu/communiafiles/ws01p_Open%20Knowledge%20Promises%20and%20Challenges.pdf [last check, April 5,
2015].
6
The Debian Free Software Guidelines, http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines [last check, April 5,
2015], part of the Debian Social Contract available at http://www.debian.org/social_contract [last check, April 5,
2015] provided for the Open Source Definition and the criteria that a software license must fulfil in order to be
considered as free: it must allow free redistribution and modification, ensure availability of source code, not
discriminate against persons, groups or fields of endeavour (e.g. it must not prohibit use of the software for genetic
research), it must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software, and it
must present technological neutrality as well as independence from a specific product.
7
Chan, L., Cuplinskas, D., Eisen, M., Friend, F., Genova, Y., Guedon, J-C., Hagemann, M., Harnad, S., Johnson, R.,
Kupryte, R., Manna, M., Rev, I., Segbert, M., Souza, S., Suber, P., Velterop, J., (2002), The Budapest Open Access
Initiative, available at http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml [last check, April 5, 2015].
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
5
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
of
these
articles,
crawl
them
for
indexing,
pass
them
as
data
to
software,
or
use
them
for
any
other
lawful
purpose,
without
financial
(Suber,
P.,
2012), 8
9
legal
(Suber,
P.,
2012), 10
11
or
technical
barriers
(Suber,
P.,
2012)12
other
than
those
inseparable
from
gaining
access
to
the
Internet
itself
(Suber,
P.,
2012).13
The
only
constraint
on
reproduction
and
distribution,
and
the
only
role
for
Copyright
in
this
domain,
is
claimed
to
be
to
give
authors
control
over
the
integrity
of
their
work
and
the
right
to
be
properly
acknowledged
and
cited.
The
Budapest
Open
Access
Initiative
(Chan,
L.,
et
al
2002) 14
set
Open
Access
to
peer-‐reviewed
journal
literature
as
its
goal;
it
was
mainly
focused
on
scientific
literature
and
the
public
good
that
it
may
crop
up
as
a
consequence
of
Open
Access
and
Openness
in
scientific
literature
(Suber,
P.,
2012).15
In
the
context
of
said
initiative,
self-‐archiving16
and
a
new
generation
of
open-‐access
8
Suber, P., (2012), Open Access, MIT Press, available at
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262517638_Open_Access_PDF_Version.pdf, p.4,
regarding financial restrains, namely price tags for literature accessible online. A price tag is a significant access
barrier. Most works with price tags are individually affordable. But when a scholar needs to read or consult
hundreds of works for one research project, or when a library must provide access for thousands of faculty and
students working on tens of thousands of topics, and when the volume of new work grows explosively every year,
price barriers become insurmountable. The resulting access gaps harm authors by limiting their audience and
impact, harm readers by limiting what they can retrieve and read, and thereby harm research from both directions.
OA removes price barriers.
9
Open Access publishing that removes only financial barriers is called ‘Gratis Open Access’. Gratis Open Access
removes price barriers but not permission—legal—barriers. ‘Libre Open Access’ is the most liberal version of Open
Access which removes almost all barriers for re-use of works, thus allows re-use in ways over and above simply
reading the work; while ‘Gratis Open Access’ allows only free reading but does not permit further types of re-use.
10
Suber, P., (2012), ibid, p.5 regarding legal barriers, namely Copyright; Copyright can also be a significant access
barrier. If you have access to a work for reading but want to translate it into another language, distribute copies to
colleagues, copy the text for mining with sophisticated software, or reformat it for reading with new technology, then
you generally need the permission of the copyright holder. That makes sense when the author wants to sell the work
and when the use you have in mind could undermine sales. But for research articles we’re generally talking about
authors from the special tribe who want to share their work as widely as possible. Even these authors, however, tend
to transfer their copyrights to intermediaries—publishers—who want to sell their work. As a result, users may be
hampered in their research by barriers erected to serve intermediaries rather than authors. In addition, replacing
user freedom with permission-seeking harms research authors by limiting the usefulness of their work, harms
research readers by limiting the uses they may make of works even when they have access, and thereby harms
research from both directions. OA removes these permission barriers.
11
Open Access publishing that removes financial as well as some permission—legal—barriers is called ‘Libre Open
Access’.
12
For Suber, Open Access is about bringing access to everyone with an internet connection who wants access,
regardless of their professions or purposes. There’s no doubt that Open Access isn’t universal access. Even when
we succeed at removing price and permission barriers, four other kinds of access barrier might remain in place: 1)
Filtering and censorship barriers: Many schools, employers, ISPs, and governments want to limit what users can
see. 2) Language barriers: Most online literature is in English, or another single language, and machine translation
is still very weak. 3) Handicap access barriers: Most websites are not yet as accessible to handicapped users as they
should be. 4) Connectivity barriers: The digital divide keeps billions of people offline, including millions of
scholars, and impedes millions of others with slow, flaky, or low-bandwidth internet connections. See, Suber, P.,
(2012), ibid, pp.26-27.
13
Suber refers to Open Access literature as ‘barrier-free’ access; however he acknowledges that said reference risks
being conceived as an emphasis to the negative rather than positive aspects of Open Access. See, Suber, P., (2012),
ibid, p.5 et sec.
14
Chan, L., et al (2002), ibid.
15
For the Budapest Open Access Initiative “An old tradition and a new technology have con- verged to make possible
an unprecedented public good. The old tradition is the willingness of scientists and scholars to publish the fruits of
their research in scholarly journals without payment. . . . The new technology is the internet.” See Suber, P., (2012),
ibid, p.19.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
6
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
journals17
are
the
ways
to
attain
the
goal
of
peer-‐reviewed
journal
literature
and
Openness
through
it.
For
the
Budapest
Open
Access
Initiative
self-‐archiving
and
open-‐access
journals
are
not
only
direct
and
effective
means
to
this
end,
they
are
within
the
reach
of
scholars
themselves,
immediately,
and
need
not
wait
on
changes
brought
about
by
markets
or
legislation.
The
Bethesda
Statement
on
Open
Access
(Brown,
P.,
et
al
2003)18
and
the
Berlin
Declaration
on
Open
Access
to
Knowledge
in
the
Sciences
and
Humanities
(Gruss,
P.,
2003)19
seem
to
agree
that
for
a
work
to
be
considered
for
Open
Access,
the
Copyright
holder
must
consent
in
advance
to
let
users
copy,
use,
distribute,
transmit
and
display
the
work
publicly
and
to
make
and
distribute
derivative
works,
in
any
digital
medium
for
any
responsible
purpose,
subject
to
proper
attribution
of
authorship.
With
Open
Access
individuals
can
take
projects
in
their
own
direction
without
necessarily
hindering
the
progress
of
others.
The
Bethesda
Statement
reinforces
the
emphasis
on
barrier-‐free
dissemination
of
scientific
works
and
expressly
details
the
types
of
re-‐use
that
Open
Access
permits,
including
the
making
of
derivative
works,
and
the
rights/licensing
conditions
that
apply.
The
Bethesda
Statement
specifies
what
an
Open
Access
publication
is
and
which
rights
the
owners
or
creators
of
the
work
grant
to
users
through
the
attachment
of
particular
licences.
For
the
Bethesda
Statement
on
Open
Access
an
open
access
publication
is
one
that
meets
the
following
two
requirements:
First,
the
author(s)
and
copyright
holder(s)
grant(s)
to
all
users
a
free,
irrevocable,
worldwide,
perpetual
right
of
access
to,
and
a
license
to
copy,
use,
distribute,
transmit
and
display
the
work
publicly
and
to
make
and
distribute
derivative
works,
in
any
digital
medium
for
any
16
For the Budapest Open Access Initiative Self-Archiving is a means for scholars to deposit their refereed journal
articles in open electronic archives. When self-archiving archives conform to standards created by the Open Archives
Initiative, then search engines and other tools can treat the separate archives as one. Users then need not know which
archives exist or where they are located in order to find and make use of their contents.
17
For the Budapest Open Access Initiative Open-Access Journals is a means for scholars to launch a new generation
of journals committed to open access, and to help existing journals that elect to make the transition to open access.
Because journal articles should be disseminated as widely as possible, these new journals will no longer invoke
copyright to restrict access to and use of the material they publish. Instead they will use copyright and other tools to
ensure permanent open access to all the articles they publish. Because price is a barrier to access, these new journals
will not charge subscription or access fees, and will turn to other methods for covering their expenses. There are
many alternative sources of funds for this purpose, including the foundations and governments that fund research, the
universities and laboratories that employ researchers, endowments set up by discipline or institution, friends of the
cause of open access, profits from the sale of add-ons to the basic texts, funds freed up by the demise or cancellation
of journals charging traditional subscription or access fees, or even contributions from the researchers themselves.
There is no need to favor one of these solutions over the others for all disciplines or nations, and no need to stop
looking for other, creative alternatives.
18
Brown, P., Cabell, D., Chakravarti, A., Cohen, B., Delamoth, T., Eisen, M., Grivell, L., Guedon, J-C., Hawley, S.,
Johnson, R., Kirschner, M., Lipman, D., Lutzker, A., Marincola, E., Roberts, R., Rubin, G., Schloegl, R., Siegel, V.,
So, A., Suber, P., Varmus, H., Velterop, J., Walport, M., Watson, L., (2003), The Bethesda Statement on Open
Access, available at http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm [last check, April 5, 2015].
19
Gruss, P., (2003), The Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, The
Max Planck Society, available at http://oa.mpg.de/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/ [last check, April 5, 2015].
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
7
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
responsible
purpose,
subject
to
proper
attribution
of
authorship,
as
well
as
the
right
to
make
small
numbers
of
printed
copies
for
their
personal
use.
And
second,
a
complete
version
of
the
work
and
all
supplemental
materials,
including
a
copy
of
the
permission
as
stated
above,
in
a
suitable
standard
electronic
format
is
deposited
immediately
upon
initial
publication
in
at
least
one
online
repository
that
is
supported
by
an
academic
institution,
scholarly
society,
government
agency,
or
other
well-‐established
organization
that
seeks
to
enable
open
access,
unrestricted
distribution,
interoperability,
and
long-‐term
archiving.
The
Berlin
Declaration
on
Open
Access
to
Knowledge
in
the
Sciences
and
Humanities
is
essentially
the
same
as
the
Bethesda
Statement
on
Open
Access
but
it
includes
an
additional
recommendation
for
research
institutions:
it
requires
for
researchers
to
deposit
a
copy
of
all
their
published
articles
in
an
Open
Access
repository
and
it
encourages
researchers
to
publish
their
research
articles
in
open
access
journals
where
a
suitable
journal
exists
(and
provides
the
support
to
enable
that
to
happen).20
All
three
definitions
of
Open
Access
given
by
the
Budapest,
the
Bethesda,
and
the
Berlin
statements—also
known
as
the
BBB
definition
on
Open
Access—upon
it
allow
at
least
one
limit
on
user
freedom:
an
obligation
to
attribute
the
work
to
the
author.
The
purpose
of
Open
Access
is
to
remove
barriers
to
all
legitimate
scholarly
uses
for
scholarly
literature,
but
there’s
no
legitimate
scholarly
purpose
in
suppressing
attribution
to
the
texts
subject
to
Open
Access
publication
and
use
(Suber,
P.,
2012).21
The
Bethesda
Statement
on
Open
Access 22
and
the
Berlin
Declaration
on
Open
Access
to
Knowledge
in
the
Sciences
and
Humanities23
seem
to
agree
that
for
a
work
to
be
considered
for
Open
Access,
the
copyright
holder
must
consent
in
advance
to
let
users
copy,
use,
distribute,
transmit
and
display
the
work
publicly
and
to
make
and
distribute
derivative
works,
in
any
digital
medium
for
any
responsible
purpose,
subject
to
proper
attribution
of
authorship.
With
Open
Access
individuals
can
take
projects
in
their
own
direction
without
necessarily
hindering
the
progress
of
others.
Openness
is
being
put
forward
to
facilitate
the
growth
of
the
open
20
Although there have been attempts to define Open Access after the Budapest, Bethesda, and Berlin declaration
about it, these three (Budapest, Bethesda and Berlin declarations), usually used together and referred to as the BBB
definition of Open Access, have become established as the working definition for Open Access.
21
See Suber, P., (2012), ibid, p.8.
22
See the Bethesda Statement on Open Access at http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm [last check,
April 5, 2015].
23
See the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities at
http://openaccess.mpg.de/ [last check, April 5, 2015].
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
8
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
source
and
free
software
programming
communities,
and
may
involve
the
consumption
and
production
of
free
content.24
The
appeal
of
Openness
has
become
so
great
that
it
is
sometimes
difficult
to
recognize
that
limits
on
Openness
are
not
only
necessary
but
desirable.
The
virtues
of
an
open
environment
are
undeniable;
what
is
more
difficult
is
negotiating
the
proper
levels
of
Openness
for
a
given
realm
of
online
life
(Bollier,
2008).25
The
sense
for
movement
of
Openness
was
first
understood
according
to
Professor
Yochai
Benkler,
at
a
conference
at
Yale
University
that
Professor
James
Boyle
(Boyle,
J.,
1997)26
organized
in
April
1999,
which
was
already
planned
as
a
movement-‐building
event.
That
conference,
“Private
Censorship/Perfect
Choice”
(Yale
Bulletin
&
Calendar,
1999 )
27
looked
at
the
threats
to
free
speech
on
the
Web
and
how
the
public
might
resist.
It
took
inspiration
from
John
Perry
Barlow’s
1996
manifesto
“A
Declaration
of
the
Independence
of
Cyberspace”
(Barlow,
J.
P.).28
The
stirrings
of
a
movement
were
evident
in
May
2000,
when
Yochai
Benkler
convened
a
small
conference
of
influential
intellectual
property
scholars
at
New
York
University
Law
School
on
“A
Free
Information
Ecology
in
the
Digital
Environment”.
This
was
followed
in
November
2001
by
a
large
gathering
at
Duke
Law
School,
the
“Conference
on
the
Public
Domain,”
the
first
major
conference
ever
held
on
the
public
domain
(Duke
Law
School,
2001).29
It
attracted
several
hundred
people
and
permanently
rescued
the
public
domain
from
the
netherworld
of
“non-‐property.”
People
from
diverse
corners
of
legal
scholarship,
activism,
journalism,
and
philanthropy
found
each
other
and
began
to
re-‐envision
their
work
in
a
larger,
shared
framework
(Bollier,
2008).30
The
Openness/Open
Access
movement
cropped
up
as
a
reaction
of
academia
in
the
increasingly
rising
pricing
of
scientific
publications
and
subscriptions
controlled
by
publishers
and
distributors
that
intervene
in
the
process
of
scientific
knowledge
dissemination
and
stifle
24
See Wikipedia, Openness, available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness [last check, April 5, 2015].
25
Bollier, D., (2008), Viral Spiral: How the Commoners Built a Digital Republic of their Own, The New York
Press, p.40, available at URL: http://www.viralspiral.cc/download-book [last check, April 5, 2015].
26
See Boyle, J., (1997), A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism For the Net? available at
http://law.duke.edu/boylesite/intprop.htm [last check, April 5, 2015], was an influential piece that James Boyle wrote
in 1997, calling for the equivalent of an environmental movement to protect the openness and freedom of the Internet.
27
See Yale Bulletin & Calendar, Private Censorship and Perfect Choice Conference to explore Speech and
Regulation on the Net, April 5-12, 1999 Volume 27, Number 27 available at http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-
ybc/v27.n27/story3.html [last check, April 5, 2015].
28
Barlow, J. P., A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, available at
https://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html [last check, April 5, 2015].
29
See Duke Law School supported by the Center for the Public Domain, Conference on the Public Domain,
November 9—11, 2001, available at http://law.duke.edu/pd/ [last check, April 5, 2015].
30
Bollier, D., (2008), ibid, p.67.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
9
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
competition
in
scientific
publishing
and
distribution
(Lessig,
L.,
2012).31
By
the
time
(Suber,
2009)32
Open
Access
started
to
be
a
central
point
of
discussion
in
the
agenda
of
academic
institutions,
prices
had
risen
many
times
faster
than
inflation
since
1986
(Suber,
2007;
Kyrillidou
and
Young,
2002;
the
same,
2003;
the
same,
2005).33
Fortuitously,
just
as
journal
prices
were
becoming
unbearable,
the
Internet
emerged
to
offer
an
alternative.
The
Internet
has
played
a
catalytic
role
in
the
evolution
of
the
Openness/Open
Access
movement
because
of
the
radical
changes
it
has
imposed
in
the
process
of
authoring,
publishing,
distributing,
and
pricing
content
via
the
Internet
networked
public
sphere.
The
evolution
of
the
Web
into
Web
2.0 34
and
Web
3.0 35
has
enabled
more
interaction
and
participation
among
users
and
empowered
them
to
undertake
action
both
as
readers
and
authors,
publishers
and
distributors,
in
the
process
of
production
and
consumption
of
knowledge.
Since
the
beginning
of
the
Internet
era,
Openness
of
scientific
knowledge,
art,
and
culture
has
been
fostered
and
cultivated
in
way
that
indicates
that
Openness
or
Open
Access
is
somewhat
intrinsically
connected
to
the
hierarchical
anarchy
of
the
Net.
While
Open
Access
was
born
because
of
the
need
to
remove
price
barriers
(subscriptions,
licensing
fees,
pay-‐per-‐
view
fees),
it
was
soon
realized
that
its
survivability
was
subject
to
the
need
to
remove
31
Lessig, L., (2012), Answers to Written Questions. The Senate Judiciary Committee, “The Microsoft Settlement: A
Look to the Future”, available at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/lessig_testimony_12_12_01.pdf
[last check, April 5, 2015].
32
See Suber, P., (2009), Timeline of the Open Access Movement, revised February 9, 2009, available at
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm [last check, April 5, 2015].
33
See Suber, S. (2007), Open Access Overview, Focusing on open access to peer-reviewed research articles and
their preprints, revised June 19, 2007, available at http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm [last check,
April 5, 2015]. See also Kyrillidou, M., and Young, M., (2002), ARL Statistics 2001-2002, Association of Research
Libraries; the same, (2003), ARL Statistics 2002-03, Association of Research Libraries; the same, (2005), ARL
Statistics 2004-05, Association of Research Libraries, available through http://www.arl.org/publications-
resources/search-publications/search/summary [last check, April 5, 2015].
34
Web 2.0 is associated with web applications that facilitate participatory information sharing, interoperability, user-
centred design, and collaboration on the World Wide Web. A Web 2.0 site allows users to interact and collaborate
with each other in a social media dialogue as creators (prosumers, i.e. producers + consumers) of user-generated
content in a virtual community, in contrast to websites where users (consumers) are limited to the passive viewing
of content that was created for them. The term ‘prosumers’ was coined in 1980 by Alvin Toffler to describe the dual
role of a producer-consumers, i.e. generating content online as producer and at the same time consume content that
other have produced. Examples of Web 2.0 include social networking sites, blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, hosted
services, web applications, mashups and folksonomies. See Toffler, A., (1980), The Third Wave, New York, bantam
Books; see, also, Tapscott, D., and Williams A., D., (2006), Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes
Everything, Porfolio, who coined the related term ‘prosumption’, i.e. production + consumption, to refer to the
creation of products and services by the same people who will ultimately use them.
35
Web 3.0 is associated with the Semantic Web. The Semantic Web is a collaborative movement led by the
international standards content in web pages, the Semantic Web aims at converting the current web body, the World
Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The standard promotes common data formats on the World Wide Web. By
encouraging the inclusion of semantic dominated by unstructured and semi-structured documents into a “web of
data”. The Semantic Web stack builds on the W3C’s Resource Description Framework (RDF). The Semantic Web
provides a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and
community boundaries. The term “Semantic Web” was coined by Tim Berners-Lee for a web of data that can be
processed by machines.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
10
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
permission
barriers
as
well
(most
copyright
and
licensing
restrictions).
Major
Openness
or
Open
Access
opinion-‐leading
organizations
include
the
Free
Software
Foundation36
and
the
Open
Source
Initiative37
that
have
set
the
terms
of
“Free/Libre
and
Open
Source
Software”
(Stallman,
R.)38,
as
well
as
the
definitions
of
“Free
Cultural
Works”39
and
“Open
Knowledge” 40
which
are
a
source
of
inspiration
toward
the
definition
of
Openness
principles
in
the
Creative
Commons
licenses
(Haughey,
M.,
2003).41
There’s
also
the
Open
Knowledge
Foundation 42
which
stressed
the
importance
for
the
adoption
of
the
Panton
Principles
for
Open
Data
in
Science43
as
well
as
the
Open
Knowledge
Foundation’s
Principles
on
36
The Free Software Definition contains four essential freedoms and provides interpretations of what they include
and do not include; see more at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [last check, April 5, 2015]; see, also, at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html [last check, April 5, 2015].
37
See the Open Source Definition criteria available at http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd [last check, April 5,
2015] and a commented version available at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php [last check, April 5,
2015].
38
Supporters of free software regard the idea of free/libre software as part of their ethical and social ideas of
respecting other people’s freedom and the principle of solidarity. As of 1998, supporters of open source software
have been riding on the free/libre software ideology with the intention of improving the business chances of free
software. See more at Stallman, R., (not dated), Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software, available at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html [last check, April 5, 2015]; the same, (non-dated),
Why Free Software is better than Open Source, available at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-
freedom.html [last check, April 5, 2015]; see, also, Jaeger T., Metzger, A., (2006), Open Source Software, Beck
Juristischer Verlag, p.20.
39
See the definition of Free Cultural Works available at http://freedomdefined.org/Definition [last check, April 5,
2015]. The definition was created by a group of people that was initiated by Erik Möller, a free software developer,
author and long-time Wikimedian, and joined by Hill, Mia Garlick, General Counsel of Creative Commons, and
Angela Beesley, elected trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation. The original draft of the definition received input by
Richard Stallman and Lawrence Lessig and it was released for open editing in May 2006.
40
See the Open Knowledge Definition, addressing not only works but also data and government information,
available at http://opendefinition.org/ [last check, April 5, 2015]. The scope of the definition is content such as music,
films, books, data be it scientific, historical, geographic or otherwise, and government and other administrative
information. Software is excluded because it is already adequately addressed by previous work of other organizations.
The definition of Open Knowledge closely follows that of the Open Source Definition. The first license for open
content other than software was developed by David Wiley in 1998. By that time Wiley, while a graduate student in
educational technology at Brigham Young University developed the first free license specifically for content closely
following the model of the GPL GNU license. He coined the term open content and founded the Open Content
Project; see Open Content Project at http://opencontent.org/ [last check, April 5, 2015], and the definition of open in
Open Content at http://opencontent.org/definition/ [last check, April 5, 2015]. See, also, The Three Meanings of
Open by the Open Knowledge Foundation, available at http://okfn.org/three_meanings_of_open/ [last check, April 5,
2015], as well as the Open Software Service definition available at http://opendefinition.org/software-service/ [last
check, April 5, 2015] which pertains to online services which might be open like Wikipedia, or not like Google Maps.
41
In June 2003 in a Creative Commons press release David Wiley declared: When I saw the Creative Commons team,
and all their expertise, I saw that they ‘got it.’ I slowly came to the somewhat painful realization that the best thing I
could do for the community was to close the Open Content project and encourage people to adopt the Creative
Commons licenses. See Haughey, M., (2003), Creative Commons Welcomes David Wiley as Educational Use
License Project Lead, Press Release June 23, 2003, available at http://creativecommons.org/press-
releases/entry/3733 [last check, April 5, 2015]. Wiley also announced that Open Content Project is officially closed.
Wiley opted for closing Open Content because he was confident that Creative Commons is doing a better job of
providing licensing options which will stand up in court. He announced that the Open Content License and Open
Publication License would remain online for archival purposes in their current locations. However, no future
development would occur on the licenses themselves.
42
Open Knowledge Foundation Greece (OKF GRE) is the official Chapter of Open Knowledge Foundation—Open
Knowledge in Greece. See OKF GRE at http://okfn.gr/ [last check, April 5, 2015].
43
See the Panton Principles for Open Data in Science available at http://pantonprinciples.org/ [last check, April 5,
2015].
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
11
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
Open
Bibliographic
Data 44
which
are
leveraged
upon
in
the
creation
of
Open
Knowledge
Foundation’s
Open
Database
License
(ODbL) 45
which
are
all
of
great
usefulness
to
works
produced
either
by
legal
entities
or
natural
persons
no
matter
whether
they
are
operating
and
producing
in
the
private
or
in
the
public
sectors.
ODbL
was
included
in
the
set
of
Open
Data
Commons
licenses
and
dedications
developed
by
Open
Knowledge
Foundation
with
the
aim
to
create
a
licensing
suit
focused
on
the
protection
of
databases
in
the
EU
legal
environment.
The
Open
Data
Commons
licensing
suit
includes
the
Open
Data
Commons
Attribution
license
(ODC-‐By)
which
allows
licensees
to
copy,
distribute
and
use
the
database,
to
produce
works
from
it
and
to
modify,
transform
and
build
upon
it
for
any
purpose.46
If
content
is
generated
from
the
data
that
content
should
include
or
accompany
a
notice
explaining
that
the
database
was
used
in
its
creation.
If
the
database
is
used
substantially
to
create
a
new
database
or
collection
of
databases,
the
licence
URL
or
text
and
copyright/database
right
notices
must
be
distributed
with
the
new
database
or
collection.
The
ODC-‐By
is
a
simplified
version
of
the
ODbL.
It
grants
the
same
rights,
and
contains
most
of
the
same
restrictions,
with
the
exception
that
it
does
contain
neither
the
share-‐alike
requirement
nor
the
prohibition
against
including
the
database
with
technological
protection
measures.
This
makes
it
a
very
open
license,
and
as
long
as
the
notices
are
kept
intact,
it
is
very
easy
to
comply
with.
The
project
for
the
creation
of
ODbL
was
started
as
an
independent
work
by
Jordan
Hatcher
and
Prof.
Charlotte
Waelde
in
2007
and
was
funded
by
the
software
company
Talis
in
an
effort
to
create
the
successor
to
the
Talis
Community
License.
The
development
of
ODbL
finally
replaced
the
Talis
Community
License.47
This
first
effort
produced
the
ODbL.
The
spark
for
the
ODbL
creation
was
the
realization
that
the
Creative
Commons
licensing
suit,
at
least
until
version
3.0
of
CC
licenses,
was
not
covering
the
database
right
specifically
which
the
ODbL
creators
believed
left
some
institutions
in
Europe
at
potential
risk
due
to
market
failure
as
they
could
license
only
their
Copyright
and
not
the
database
sui
generis
right.
It
was
therefore
felt
44
See Open Knowledge Foundation’s Principles on Open Bibliographic Data available at
http://openbiblio.net/files/2011/01/POBD.pdf [last check, April 5, 2015]. See, also, Discovery Open Metadata
Principles promoted by the Joint Information Systems Committee in the UK, available at
http://discovery.ac.uk/files/pdf/Discovery_Open_Metadata_Principles.pdf [last check, April 5, 2015].
45
See ODC ODbL v.1.0 Greek version available at http://opendatacommons.gr/ [last check, April 5, 2015] created
by Marinos Papadopoulos, legal lead & creator, Petros Tanos, creator, and Charalampos Bratsas, project lead for the
Open Knowledge Foundation Greece.
46
See the ODC Attribution license available at http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/ [last check, April 5, 2015].
47
See Talis Community License at http://web.archive.org/web/20130923083859/http://tdnarchive.capita-
libraries.co.uk/tcl [last check, April 5, 2015]; for the replacement of Talis Community License by ODbL see
http://opendefinition.org/licenses/tcl/ [last check, April 5, 2015].
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
12
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
that
a
database
specific
license
was
needed
(Guadamuz,
A.,
Cabell,
D.,
non-‐dated).48
The
ODbL
license
grants
the
following
rights:
1. Extraction
and
re-‐utilization
of
the
whole
or
a
substantial
part
of
the
contents.
2. Creation
of
a
derivative
database;
e.g.
this
includes
any
translation,
adaptation,
arrangement,
modification,
or
any
other
alteration
of
the
database
or
of
a
substantial
part
of
the
contents.
3. Inclusion
of
the
database
in
unmodified
form
as
part
of
a
collection
of
independent
databases.
4. Creation
of
temporary
or
permanent
reproductions
by
any
means
and
in
any
form,
in
whole
or
in
part.
5. Distribution,
communication,
display,
lending,
making
available,
or
performance
to
the
public
by
any
means
and
in
any
form.
In
exchange,
the
user
must
fulfil
several
conditions.
These
include
the
obligation
to
keep
copyright
and
database
notices
intact,
and
this
being
a
share-‐alike
license,
the
user
must
release
any
derivatives
under
the
terms
of
the
ODbL.
The
user
is
also
forbidden
from
releasing
derivatives
imposing
any
form
of
technological
protection
measure.
Most
of
the
other
provisions
in
the
license
are
similar
to
those
found
in
CC
licenses.
48
Guadamuz, A., Cabell, D., (non-dated), Data mining White Paper: Analysis of UK/EU law on data mining in
higher education institutions, pp.18-19, available at http://www.technollama.co.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2013/04/Data-Mining-Paper.pdf [last check, April 5, 2015].
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
13
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
2 Directive
2003/98/EC
as
amended
by
Directive
2013/37/EU
&
the
Creative
Commons
licensing
model
(Copyleft
licensing)
The
issue
of
implementation
of
Openness/Open
Access
in
the
works
or
data
produced
by
the
Public
Sector
organizations
or
individuals
producing
copyrighted
works
in
the
framework
of
their
duties
and
professional
life
in
the
Public
Sector
is
relevant
to
the
provisions
of
the
so
called
PSI
Directive
as
it
was
first
passed
in
2003
and
later
amended
in
2013.
Directive
2003/98/EC
on
the
re-‐use
of
Public
Sector
Information
known
as
the
PSI
Directive 49
harmonises
the
rules
and
practices
relating
to
the
exploitation
of
public
sector
information.
According
to
the
Preamble
9
of
said
Directive,50
“public
sector
bodies
should
be
encouraged
to
make
available
for
re-‐use
any
documents
held
by
them.”
However,
the
decision
whether
or
not
to
authorize
re-‐use
remains
with
the
EU
Member
States
or
the
public
sector
body
concerned.51
As
of
June
2013
a
revision
of
Directive
2003/98/EC
has
been
adopted
by
the
European
legislator
through
Directive
2013/37/EU
of
June
26,
2013. 52
This
amendment
of
the
PSI
Directive
through
Directive
2013/37/EU
has
made
permitting
re-‐use
of
existing
and
generally
accessible
documents
that
public
sector
bodies
create,
collect
or
hold
as
mandatory
in
most
cases.53
Directive
2013/37/EU
has
introduced
the
principle
that
all
public
information,
i.e.
all
information
held
by
the
public
sector
bodies,
which
is
publicly
accessible
under
national
law
is
49
Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of
public sector information, OJ 2003 L345, available at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:345:0090:0096:EN:PDF [last check, April 5, 2015]; see
also, Kalfin, I., (2012), Amendment of Directive 2003/98/EC on re-use of public sector information, Proposal for a
directive COM(2011)0877-C7-0502/2011-2011/0430(COD), available at
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-
496.525%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN [last check, April 5, 2015]; the same, (2012), Draft Report on
the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending directive 2003/98/EC on
re-use of publc sector information (COM(2011)0877-C7-0502/2011-2011/0430(COD)), available at
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-
492.922%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN [last check, April 5, 2015].
50
The PSI Directive has been implemented in Greece through Law 3448/2006 on the re-use of public sector
information and the regulation of issues within the competency of the Ministry of Interior, Public Administration and
Decentralisation. Law 3448/2006 has been amended with article 11 of Law 3613/2007.
51
See Recital 7 of Directive 2013/37/EU.
52
See Directive 2013/37/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 26, 2013, amending Directive
2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information available at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:175:0001:0008:EN:PDF [last check, July 1, 2015] which
has been implemented in the Greek legal system through law 4305/2014 titled Open access and reuse of documents,
data and public sector information, amendment of law 3448/2006 (A’ 57), adapting national legislation to the
provisions of Directive 2013/37/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, further strengthening of
transparency, regulation of matters related to Introductory Examination of ESDDA, and other provisions.
53
See article 2 of Law 4305/2014 which amended article 2 of Law 3448/2006 implementing Directive
2013/37/EU article 3(1); see article 6§1 of Presidential Decree 28/2015 on Codification of provisions
on access to public documents and records.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
14
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
reusable
for
both
commercial
and
non-‐commercial
purposes.54
Exceptions
from
the
scope
of
the
amended
PSI
Directive
apply
in
certain
cases,
including
on
grounds
of
data
protection55
and
copyright
law.56
57
Additionally,
the
amended
PSI
Directive
extends
the
PSI
Directive’s
scope
to
cover
public
sector
information
held
by
public
sector
museums,
libraries
(including
university
libraries)
and
archives
where
they
allow
their
information
to
be
made
available
for
re-‐use.
It
also
introduces
the
principle
that
charges
for
re-‐use
should
be
set
at
marginal
cost,
with
exceptions
in
certain
circumstances. 58
And
finally,
the
amended
PSI
Directive
introduces
a
means
of
redress
operated
by
an
impartial
review
body
with
the
power
to
make
binding
decisions
on
public
sector
bodies.59
The
PSI
Directive
on
the
re-‐use
of
public
sector
information
is
inspired
by
the
U.S.
legal
framework
for
re-‐use
of
federal
government
information
(European
Commission,
1998).60
The
U.S.
legal
framework
combines
an
absence
of
Copyright
in
federal
information
and
an
active
dissemination
policy,
encouraging
the
private
sector
to
exploit
public
sector
information
commercially.
In
1989
the
European
Commission
published
“Guidelines
for
improving
the
synergy
between
the
public
and
private
sectors
in
the
information
market”
(Commission
of
the
European
Communities,
1989).61
These
aimed
at
improving
access
to
public
sector
data
for
commercial
re-‐use:
public
sector
bodies
should
regularly
review
which
of
their
data
are
suitable
for
re-‐use,
publicize
their
availability,
and
as
far
as
possible
develop
harmonized
licenses
and
pricing
regimes
(Commission
of
the
European
Communities,
1989).62
The
general
idea
of
these
guidelines
has
been
taken
forward
in
the
PSI
Directive
as
of
2003
and
enhanced
54
See Directive 2013/37/EU article 3(1).
55
See Recital 11 of Directive 2013/37/EU; see article 3§5 of Law 4305/2014 which amended article 3§2 of Law
3448/2006.
56
See Recital 12 of Directive 2013/37/EU; the provisions of PSI Directive should be without prejudice to the rights,
including economic and moral rights that employees of public sector bodies may enjoy under national rules. See,
also, Recital 34 of Directive 2013/37/EU according to which This Directive respects the fundamental rights and
observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
including the protection of personal data (Article 8) and the right to property (Article 17). Nothing in this Directive
should be interpreted or implemented in a manner that is inconsistent with the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
57
See article 7 of Presidential Decree 28/2015.
58
See Recitals 22, 23, and 25; see also amended article 6(1) of Directive 2013/37/EU.
59
See Recital 28, and amended article 4(3)(4) of Directive 2013/37/EU.
60
See the European Commission, (1998), Public Sector Information: A key resource for Europe, Green Paper on
Public Sector Information in the Information Society, COM (1998)585, available at
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/econtent/docs/gp_en.pdf [last check, April 5, 2015]; Dulong de Rosnay, M., (2010),
ibid, pp.59-69.
61
Commission of the European Communities, (1989), Guidelines for improving the synergy between the public and
private sectors in the information market, Directorate-General for Telecommunications, Information Industries and
Innovation, available at
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/docs/pdfs/brochure/1989_public_sector_guidelines_en.pdf [last
check, April 5, 2015].
62
Commission of the European Communities, (1989), ibid, pp.10-12.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
15
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
through
the
amendment
of
Directive
2013/37/EU.
The
2003
PSI
Directive
establishes
only
minimum
standards,
that
is
to
say
Member
States
may
opt
for
a
more
liberal
re-‐use
regime
(Commission
Decision
of
December
12,
2011).63
An
important
aim
of
the
2003
PSI
Directive
is
to
help
create
a
level
playing
field
in
situation
where
public
sector
bodies
compete,
e.g.
through
commercial
branches,
with
private
sector
actors
on
the
basis
of
information
produced
in
the
context
of
public
tasks
(Directive
2003/98/EC).64
At
the
same
time,
the
aim
of
the
2003
PSI
Directive
and
of
all
EC
documents
issued
as
a
consequence
of
it
regarding
public
sector
information
is
to
stimulate
content
markets
(European
Commission,
2011;
Uhlir,
P.,
2010)65
within
the
EU
by
making
public
sector
information
available
on
transparent,
effective
and
non-‐
discriminatory
terms
(Commission
Decision
of
December
12,
2011).66
The
2003
PSI
Directive
and
it
amendment
through
Directive
2013/37/EU
apply
to
‘documents’
held
by
public
sector
bodies
only
(Directive
2003/98/EC) 67
(Greek
Law
3448/2006). 68 A
document
is
any
part
of
content
whatever
its
medium,
e.g.
written
on
paper
or
stored
in
electronic
form
or
as
a
sound,
visual
or
audiovisual
recording
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
Commission
Decision
of
December
12,
2011) 69
(Greek
Law
3448/2006 70
and
Presidential
63
Commission Decision of December 12, 2011, 2011/833/EU, on the reuse of Commission documents, L.330/39,
Preamble 6, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:330:0039:0042:EN:PDF
[last check, April 5, 2015].
64
See Preambles 5, 6 of the PSI Directive.
65
See European Commission, (2011), Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council,
Amending Directive 2003/98/EC on re-use of public sector information, COM(2011)877 Final, p.3, available at
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/docs/pdfs/directive_proposal/2012/en.pdf [last check, April 5,
2015], according to which A recent study estimates the total market for public sector information in 2008 at € 28
billion across the Union. The same study indicates that the overall economic gains from further opening up public
sector information by allowing easy access are around € 40 billion a year for the EU27. The total direct and indirect
economic gains from PSI applications and use across the whole EU27 economy would be in the order of € 140 billion
annually. See, also, Uhlir, P., (2010), Measuring the Economic and Social Benefits and Costs of Public Sector
Information Online: A Review of the Literature and Future, First Communia Conference, available in audio at
http://www.communia-project.eu/communiafiles/conf2008_Paul%20Uhlir.mp3 [last check, April 5, 2015].
66
See Commission Decision of December 12, 2011, ibid, Preamble 3.
67
See Preamble 10 of the 2003 PSI Directive according to which the definitions of ‘public sector body’ and ‘body
governed by public law’ are taken from the public procurement Directives 92/50/EEC OJL 209, 24.7.1992, p.1.,
Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC OJL 285, 29.10.2001, p.1, 93/36/EEC OJL 199,
9.8.1993, p.1, Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC, and 93/37/EEC OJL 199, 9.8.1993,
p.54, Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC, and 98/4/EC OJL 101, 1.4.1998, p.1. Public
undertakings are not covered by these definitions.
68
For the meaning of ‘Public Sector Bodies’ in the implementing instrument of PSI Directive in Greece see article
4§1 of L.3448/2006 according to which Public sector bodies means the state, central or local authorities, first and
second tier local authorities, other legal entities governed by public law in accordance with paragraph 2 of this
Article and associations formed by one or several such bodies governed by public law. And in §2 of the same article
the law posits that Body governed by public law means any body: a) established for the specific purpose of meeting needs in
the general interest, not having and industrial or commercial character. b) having legal personality, and c) financed, for the
most part, by the State, regional or local authorities (O.T.A.) or other bodies governed by public law, or subject to
management supervision by those bodies or having an administrative, managerial or supervisory organ, more than half of
whose members are appointed by the State, regional and local authorities (O.T.A.) or by other bodies governed by public law.
69
See article 3(a) & (b) of the 2003 PSI Directive; see article 3§1(a) & (b) of Commission Decision of December 12,
2011, ibid.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
16
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
Decree
28/201571).
Documents
in
which
third
parties
own
intellectual
property
are
outside
the
scope
of
the
Directive
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
Commission
Decision
of
December
12,
2011;
Greek
Law
3448/2006).72
Otherwise,
the
2003
PSI
Directive
applies
to
content
regardless
of
its
status
under
Copyright
or
other
intellectual
property.
The
2003
PSI
Directive
does
not
affect
the
existence
or
ownership
of
those
rights
of
public
sector
bodies.
Nor
does
it
limit
the
exercise
of
these
rights,
that
is,
beyond
the
express
provisions
on
licensing
of
said
Directive
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
Greek
Law
3448/2006).73
Considering
the
broad
scope
of
Copyright
and
database
protection,
prior
permission
will
be
required
for
the
re-‐use
of
much
public
sector
information
(Commission
Decision
of
December
12,
2011).74
According
to
the
Preamble
of
the
2003
PSI
Directive,
public
sector
bodies
should
exercise
their
Copyright
in
a
way
that
facilitates
re-‐use
(Directive
2003/98/EC).75
One
could
argue
that
to
act
within
the
spirit
of
the
2003
PSI
Directive
and
its
amendment
through
the
2013
PSI
Directive
public
authorities
should
not
invoke
their
Copyright
to
prevent
access
(just
as
they
should
not
invoke
Copyright
to
refuse
access
under
freedom
of
information
law)
(Dulong
de
Rosnay,
M.,
2010).76
But
this
issue,
as
a
matter
of
principle,
the
2003
PSI
Directive
leaves
it
to
the
EU
70
For the meaning of ‘Documents for re-use’ in the implementing instrument of 2003 PSI Directive in Greece see
article 4§3 of L.3448/2006 according to which Document for re-use” means any document which is issued or held by
public sector bodies, especially surveys, minutes, statistical data, circulars, replies by administrative authorities,
opinions, decisions, reports, whatever the medium (i.e. written on paper, stored in electronic form or as a sound,
visual or audiovisual recording), as well as any part of such document. For the implementation of the provisions of
this law, “documents” also means private documents which are held in public sector bodies’ records and were used
or taken into consideration so as to define their administrative purpose. See, also, for the meaning of ‘reuse’ article
3§2 of Commission Decision of December 12, 2011, ibid, according to which reuse means the use of documents by
persons or legal entities of documents, for commercial or non-commercial purposes other than the initial purpose for
which the documents were produced. The exchange of documents between the Commission and other public sector
bodies which use these documents purely in the pursuit of their public tasks does not constitute reuse.
71
See article 8§3 of Presidential Decree 28/2015 which describes the provisions of article 4 of L.4305/2014 that
amended article 4 of L.3448/2006.
72
See article 2(b) of the 2003 PSI Directive; see Preamble 22 of the 2003 PSI Directive; see article 2(b) of
Commission Decision of December 12, 2011, ibid. See article 3§1(b) of L.3448/2006. See, also, European
Commission, (2011), ibid, COM(2011)877 Final, Preamble 7.
73
See Preamble 22 of the PSI Directive. See article 3 of L.3448/2006.
74
See article 4 of Commission Decision of December 12, 2011, ibid, according to which for the reuse of Commission
documents, all said documents shall be available without the need to make individual application for said reuse,
unless it is provided otherwise in accordance with article 7 of Commission Decision of December 12, 2011, ibid.
Article 7§1 of said Commission Decision posits that Where an individual application for reuse is necessary, the
Commission services shall clearly indicate this in the relevant document or notice pointing to it and provide an
address to which the application is to be submitted. Also, article 7§4 rules that Where an application for reuse of a
document is refused, the Commission service or the Publications Office shall inform the applicant of the right to
bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union or to lodge a complaint with the European
Ombudsman, under the conditions laid down in Articles 263 and 228, respectively, of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the European Union. And in case the refusal to make available a Commission document is based on reason which
is beyond the scope of Commission’s Decision 2011/833/EU, then article 7§5 posits that the reply to the applicant
shall include a reference to the natural or legal person who is the rightholder, where known, or alternatively to the
licensor from which the Commission has obtained the relevant material, where known.
75
See Preamble 22 of the 2003 PSI Directive.
76
Dulong de Rosnay, M., (2010), Creative Commons Licenses Legal Pitfalls: Incompatibilities and Solutions,
IViR, available at http://www.creativecommons.nl/downloads/101220cc_incompatibilityfinal.pdf , p.68. See article
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
17
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
Member
States
themselves
to
determine
which
information
is
made
accessible
(Directive
2003/98/EC).77
The
amended
in
2013
PSI
Directive
removed
many
barriers
to
the
re-‐use
of
public
sector
information
across
the
European
Union.
Directive
2013/37/EU
enhances
Directive
2003/98/EC
with
clarity
of
any
charges
to
be
made
for
re-‐use
(with
an
explanation
of
basis
of
the
charge
being
available
on
request)
and
with
total
income
not
to
exceed
the
cost
of
collection,
production,
reproduction
and
dissemination,
together
with
a
reasonable
return
on
investment;78
it
also
makes
provisions
for
allowing
re-‐use
of
documents
in
a
timely,
open
and
transparent
manner;
it
provides
for
application
of
fair,
consistent
and
non-‐discriminatory
processes;
it
considers
for
transparency
of
terms,
conditions
and
licences
for
the
re-‐use
of
public
sector
information;79
it
provides
for
the
ready
identification
of
public
sector
information
that
is
available
for
reuse;80
it
includes
provisions
for
the
prohibition
of
exclusive
licences
except
in
exceptional
cases.81
Re-‐use
is
defined
in
article
2§4
of
the
2003
PSI
Directive
as:
“the
use
by
persons
or
legal
entities
of
documents
held
by
public
sector
bodies,
for
commercial
or
non-‐commercial
purposes
other
than
the
initial
purpose
within
the
public
task
for
which
the
documents
were
produced.
Exchange
of
documents
between
public
sector
bodies
purely
in
pursuit
of
their
public
tasks
does
not
constitute
re-‐use”
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
Greek
Law
3448/2006).82
A
broad
array
of
public
sector
bodies
is
subject
to
the
re-‐use
regime.
The
definition
of
public
sector
body
is
borrowed
from
the
Directives
on
public
procurement
(Directive
2003/98/EC):83
“the
State,
regional
or
local
authorities,
bodies
governed
by
public
law
and
associations
formed
by
one
or
several
such
authorities
or
one
or
several
such
bodies
governed
by
public
law”
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
Greek
Law
3448/2006).84
A
‘body
governed
by
public
law’
is
anybody
that
meets
three
cumulative
criteria:
“1)
to
be
established
for
the
5§3(b) of L.3448/2006 regarding denial of re-using documents including public sector information due to third
parties’ copyright or industrial property rights.
77
See Preambles 15, 17, 23, 25, and articles 1, 2(a) of the 2003 PSI Directive.
78
See article 6(1) of Directive 2013/37/EU according to which Where charges are made for the re-use of documents,
those charges shall be limited to the marginal costs incurred for their reproduction, provision and dissemination.
79
See article 7 of Directive 2013/37/EU.
80
See Preamble 21 and article 2(2) of Directive 2013/37/EU.
81
See Preamble 32 and amended article 11(b)2a, 11(c), and 11(d) of Directive 2013/37/EU.
82
See article 4§4 of L.3448/2006 according to which Re-use means the use, by persons or legal entities, of documents
held by public sector bodies, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, other than the initial purpose within the
public task for which the documents were produced. Exchange of documents between public sector bodies purely in
pursuit of their public tasks does not constitute re-use.
83
See Preamble 10 of the 2003 PSI Directive.
84
See article 2§1 of the 2003 PSI Directive. See, also, article 4§§1, 2 of L.3448/2006.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
18
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
specific
purpose
of
meeting
needs
in
the
general
interest
not
having
an
industrial
or
commercial
character,
2)
to
possess
legal
personality
and
3)
to
be
closely
dependent–as
regards
financing,
management
or
supervision–on
the
State,
regional
or
local
authorities
or
other
bodies
governed
by
public
law”
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
Dulong
de
Rosnay,
M.,
2010).85
From
the
re-‐use
regime
are
exempted
universities
and
schools,
public
broadcasting
companies,
libraries
and
museums
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
Greek
Law
3448/2006;
Greek
Law
4305/2014).86
The
2003
PSI
Directive
does
not
apply
to
them,
because
“their
function
in
society
as
carriers
of
culture
and
knowledge
give
them
a
particular
position”
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
Commission
of
the
European
Communities,
2002)87
(Greek
Law
3448/2006)88
However,
the
2011
proposal
for
an
amendment
of
the
PSI
Directive
considers
that
the
scope
of
application
of
the
PSI
Directive
must
be
extended
to
libraries
(including
university
libraries),
museums
and
archives.89
And
85
See article 2§2 of the PSI Directive; for the European Court of Justice’s interpretation for the definition of ‘public
sector body’, see inter alia Case C-360/96 BFI Holding [1998] ECR I-6821; Case C-44/96 Mannesmann v. Strohal
[1998] ECR I-73; Case C-214/00 Commission v. Spain [2003] ECR I-4667; Case C-373/00 Adolf Truley [2003]
ECR I-1931, Case C-283/00 Commission v. Spain, [2003] ECR I-1697 and Case C-18/01 Korhonen [2003] ECR I-
5321. See, also, Dulong de Rosnay, M., (2010), ibid, p.68.
86
This exemption is also applicable in the implementation of the 2003 PSI Directive in Greece through article 3§1(e)
of L.3448/2006. The amendment of art.3§1(e) L.3448/2006 through art.4 of L.4305/2014 does not include in the
exemption of the application of said law documents, information or data which are available through the libraries of
universities, cultural foundations, museums and archives. . See Recital 15 of Directive 2013/37/EU according to
which One of the principal aims of the establishment of the internal market is the creation of conditions conducive to
the development of Union-wide services. Libraries, museums and archives hold a significant amount of valuable
public sector information resources, in particular since digitization projects have multiplied the amount of digital
public domain material. These cultural heritage collections and related metadata are a potential base for digital
content products and services and have a huge potential for innovative re-use in sectors such as learning and
tourism. Wider possibilities for re-using public cultural material should, inter alia, allow Union companies to exploit
its potential and contribute to economic growth and job creation.
87
See article 1§2(d), (e), and (f) of the 2003 PSI Directive; see, also, Commission of the European Communities,
(2002), Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive on the re-use and commercial exploitation of
public sector documents, (COM (2002) 207), available at http://www.ec-
gis.org/docs/F12293/PUBLIC_SECTOR_PROPOSAL_FOR_DIRECTIVE_EN.PDF [last check, April 5, 2015].
88
See article 3§1(e) of L.3448/2006 according to which Documents under cases (d), i.e. documents held by
broadcasters and their subsidiaries or by other bodies and their subsidiaries, aimed at fulfilling a public mission in the form of
sound and television broadcasting, and (e), i.e. documents held by educational, research and cultural establishments, such
as schools, Higher Education Institutes (AEI), Technological Educational Institutes (TEI), archives, libraries, museums,
orchestras, operas, theatres as well as research establishments or other organizations established for the record-keeping
of research results, may be supplied for re-use, only in the case that this laid down in the general provisions or the
provisions governing the body concerned.
89
See Preamble 17 of Directive 2013/37/EU according to which Since the differences in national rules and practices
or the absence of clarity hinder the smooth functioning of the internal market and the proper development of the
information society in the Union, minimum harmonisation of national rules and practices on the re-use of public
cultural material in libraries, museums and archives should be undertaken. See, also, Preamble 18 of the aforesaid
Directive, according to which The extension of the scope of Directive 2003/98/EC should be limited to three types of
cultural establishments – libraries, including university libraries, museums and archives, because their collections
are and will increasingly become a valuable material for reuse in many products such as mobile applications. Other
types of cultural establishments (such as orchestras, operas, ballets and theatres), including the archives that are
part of those establishments, should remain outside the scope because of their ‘performing arts’ specificity. Since
almost all of their material is covered by third party intellectual property rights and would therefore remain outside
the scope of that Directive, including them within the scope would have little effect. Additionally, see Preamble 30 of
said Directive according to which Following the extension of the scope of Directive 2003/98/EC to libraries,
including university libraries, museums and archives, it is appropriate to take into account current divergences in the
Member States with regard to digitisation of cultural resources, which could not be effectively accommodated by the
current rules of that Directive on exclusive arrangements. There are numerous cooperation arrangements between
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
19
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
indeed,
Directive
2013/37/EU
makes
provisions
for
its
application
on
documents
held
by
libraries,
museums
and
archives.90
The
Directive
must
not
apply
to
other
cultural
institutions,
such
as
operas,
ballets
or
theatres,
including
the
archives
that
are
part
of
these
institutions
(European
Commission,
2011). 91
Therefore,
the
proposal
for
an
amendment
of
Directive
2003/98/EC
in
article
1,
as
it
was
implemented
through
the
amending
2013
PSI
Directive,
amends
the
subject
matter
related
to
its
application
upon
documents
held
by
universities
and
schools,
public
broadcasting
companies,
libraries
and
museums,
i.e.
article
1§2
of
PSI
Directive
titled
‘Subject
matter
and
scope’
as
follows:
[The
Directive
shall
not
apply
to]
documents
held
by
educational
and
research
establishments,
such
as
research
facilities,
including,
where
relevant,
organisations
established
for
the
transfer
of
research
results,
schools
and
universities
(except
university
libraries
in
respect
of
documents
other
than
research
documents
protected
by
third
party
intellectual
property
rights)
(European
Commission,
2011).92
This
means
that
the
PSI
Directive
was
proposed—and
actually
managed—to
become
applicable
to
university
libraries
in
respect
of
documents
other
than
research
documents
protected
by
third
party
intellectual
property
rights.
For
documents
for
which
libraries
(including
university
libraries),
museums
and
archives
have
intellectual
property
rights,
Member
States
shall
ensure
that,
where
the
re-‐use
of
documents
is
allowed,
these
documents
shall
be
re-‐usable
for
commercial
or
non-‐commercial
purposes
in
accordance
with
the
conditions
set
out
in
Chapters
III
and
IV
of
the
PSI
Directive
(European
Commission,
2011;
Directive
2003/98/EC).93
The
2003
PSI
Directive
contains
instructions
on
the
form
in
which
permissions
are
given
and
content
is
to
be
provided
(Directive
2003/98/EC).94
It
instructs
public
sector
bodies
to
process
requests
for
re-‐use
and
make
the
content
available,
using
electronic
means
where
possible
and
libraries, including university libraries, museums, archives and private partners which involve digitisation of cultural
resources granting exclusive rights to private partners. Practice has shown that such public-private partnerships can
facilitate worthwhile use of cultural collections and at the same time accelerate access to the cultural heritage for
members of the public.
90
See the amended article 1(2)f of Directive 2013/37/EU.
91
See European Commission, (2011), ibid, COM(2011)877 Final, Preamble 10.
92
See European Commission, (2011), ibid, COM(2011)877 Final, article 1§1(2): See, also, Directive 2013/37/EC
art.1§2(iv) & (v) according to which the PSI Directive as amended shall not apply to documents held by educational
and research establishments, including organizations established for the transfer of research results, schools and
universities, except university libraries and’; documents held by cultural establishments other than libraries,
museums and archives.
93
See European Commission, (2011), ibid, COM(2011)877 Final, article 3§2. See article 3§2 of Directive
2013/37/EC which posits that For documents in which libraries, including university libraries, museums and archives
hold intellectual property rights, Member States shall ensure that, where the re-use of such documents is allowed,
these documents shall be re-usable for commercial or non-commercial purposes in accordance with the conditions
set out in Chapters III and IV.’.
94
See articles 4 and 5 of the 2003 PSI Directive.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
20
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
appropriate
(Directive
2003/98/EC).95
As
to
the
format,
the
content
must
be
supplied
in
any
pre-‐existing
format
or
language
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
Greek
Law
3448/2006).96
In
the
text
of
the
2003
PSI
Directive
public
sector
bodies
did
not
have
to
create
or
adapt
documents
in
order
to
comply
with
a
request;
this
requirement
has
been
changed
through
the
2013
PSI
Directive,
though
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
Greek
Law
3448/2006;
Directive
2013/37/EU).97
98
These
obligations
mandated
by
the
2003
PSI
Directive
as
it
was
amended
by
the
2013
PSI
Directive
are
compatible
with
the
Creative
Commons
licensing
process
and
the
online
tools
developed
by
the
Creative
Commons
organization.
The
clause
on
formats
in
the
amended
PSI
Directive
is
consistent
with
the
‘as-‐is’
clause
in
the
Creative
Commons
licenses.
The
use
of
standard
licenses
is
regulated
in
article
8
of
the
2003
PSI
Directive
which
provides
that
member
states
must
develop
“standard
electronic
licences,
which
can
be
adapted
to
meet
particular
licence
applications”
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
Greek
Law
3448/2006). 99
Public
sector
bodies
must
“be
encouraged
to
use
the
standard
licences”
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
Directive
2013/37/EU)100
(Greek
Law
3448/2006101
and
Presidential
Decree
28/2015102).
The
amended
PSI
Directive’s
preferences
for
making
content
available
online
and
licensing
it
online
through
the
use
of
standardized
licensing
obviously
fits
well
with
the
way
the
Creative
Commons
model
95
See article 4§1 of the 2003 PSI Directive.
96
See article 6§1 of L.3448/2006.
97
See article 5§1 of the 2003 PSI Directive. See article 6§1 of L.3448/2006. See article 5 of Directive 2013/37/EU
which has amended article 5 of the PSI Directive as follows: Public sector bodies shall make their documents
available in any pre-existing format or language, and, where possible and appropriate, in open and machine-
readable format together with their metadata. Both the format and the metadata should, in so far as possible, comply
with formal open standards. Paragraph 1 shall not imply an obligation for public sector bodies to create or adapt
documents or provide extracts in order to comply with that paragraph where this would involve disproportionate
effort, going beyond a simple operation. On the basis of this Directive, public sector bodies cannot be required to
continue the production and storage of a certain type of documents with a view to the re-use of such documents by a
private or public sector organization.’.
98
See, also, article 10 of Presidential Decree 28/2015 describing the provisions of article 6 of L.4305/2006 which
amended article 6 of L.3448/2006.
99
See, also, article 7§1 of L.3448/2006 according to which Public sector bodies may authorize the unconditional re-
use of documents or may impose conditions through granting a licence or by other means, including the imposition of a
charge. The conditions of the previous paragraph are determined by the competent Minister, as the case may be.
100
See also article 7 of the 2003 PSI Directive which provides that any applicable conditions and standard charges
for the re-use of documents held by public sector bodies must be pre-established and published, preferably
electronically. See, also, the amended article 7§§1, 2 of the 2003 PSI Directive through Directive 2013/37/EC
according to which In the case of standard charges for the re-use of documents held by public sector bodies, any
applicable conditions and the actual amount of those charges, including the calculation basis for such charges, shall
be pre-established and published, through electronic means where possible and appropriate. In the case of charges
for the re-use other than those referred to in paragraph 1, the public sector body in question shall indicate at the
outset which factors are taken into account in the calculation of those charges. Upon request, the public sector body
in question shall also indicate the way in which such charges have been calculated in relation to the specific re-use
request.
101
See, also, article 7§2 of L.3448/2006 according to which Where licenses are required for the re-use of
documents, public sector bodies shall ensure, where possible, that standard licenses are available in digital format
and can be processed electronically. These licenses may be adapted to meet particular license applications.
102
See article 11 of Presidential Decree 28/2015 which describes the provisions of article 7 of L.4305/2014 that
amended article 7 of L.3448/2006.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
21
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
works
(Dulong
de
Rosnay,
M.,
2010).103
The
license
conditions
should
not
unnecessarily
restrict
possibilities
for
re-‐use,
or
be
used
to
restrict
competition
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
Greek
Law
3448/2006;
Directive
2013/37/EU). 104
Alternatively,
the
re-‐use
may
take
place
without
a
licence
being
agreed
in
cases
where
the
information
is
in
the
public
domain;
in
such
cases
no
standard
licenses
need
to
be
used
(Dulong
de
Rosnay,
M.,
2010).105
Article
8(1)
of
Directive
2013/37/EU
provides
that
public
sector
bodies
may
allow
for
re-‐use
of
documents
without
conditions
or
may
impose
conditions,
where
appropriate
through
a
licence.
These
conditions
shall
not
unnecessarily
restrict
possibilities
for
re-‐use
and
shall
not
be
used
to
restrict
competition.
Recital
26
of
Directive
2013/37/EU
lists
two
such
acceptable
conditions
by
way
of
illustration:
acknowledgment
of
source
and
acknowledgment
of
any
modifications
to
the
document.
It
also
stipulates
that
licences,
whenever
used,
should
in
any
event
place
as
few
restrictions
on
re-‐use
as
possible,
e.g.
limiting
them
to
an
indication
of
source.
The
aforesaid
2013
Directive
also
encourages
the
use
of
standard
licences,
which
must
be
available
in
digital
format
and
be
processed
electronically
(Article
8(2)).
Recital
26106
of
the
amending
Directive
encourages
the
use
of
open
licences,
which
should
eventually
become
common
practice
across
the
Union.
Thus,
by
stressing
the
need
to
avoid
unnecessarily
restricting
re-‐use
and
supporting
the
adoption
of
common
practice
across
the
Union,
the
2013
PSI
Directive
urges
Member
States
in
their
licensing
policies
to
deliver
openness
and
interoperability.
The
Open
Knowledge
Foundation
has
provided
the
principles
and
the
definition
of
openness
in
consideration
of
which
open
licenses
could
be
formed
with
the
aim
to
be
used
in
the
framework
of
the
provisions
of
the
amended
PSI
Directive.107
Licenses
formed
in
consideration
of
this
definition
and
principles
supporting
it
promote
unrestricted
re-‐use
of
online
content
and
are
available
on
the
web.
Such
licenses
have
been
translated
into
many
languages,
centrally
updated
and
already
used
extensively
worldwide.
Open
standard
licences
include
the
most
recent
Creative
103
Dulong de Rosnay, M., (2010), ibid, p.71.
104
See article 8 of the 2003 PSI Directive. See, also, article 7§1 of L.3448/2006. See article 8§1 of Directive
2013/37/EC according to which Public sector bodies may allow re-use without conditions or may impose conditions,
where appropriate through a license. These conditions shall not unnecessarily restrict possibilities for re-use and
shall not be used to restrict competition’.
105
Dulong de Rosnay, M., (2010), ibid, p.70.
106
According to Recital 26 of Directive 2013/26/EU In relation to any re-use that is made of the document, public
sector bodies may impose conditions, where appropriate through a licence, such as acknowledgment of source and
acknowledgment of whether the document has been modified by the re-user in any way. Any licences for the re-use of
public sector information should in any event place as few restrictions on re-use as possible, for example limiting
them to an indication of source. Open licences available online, which grant wider re-use rights without
technological, financial or geographical limitations and relying on open data formats, should play an important role
in this respect. Therefore, Member States should encourage the use of open licences that should eventually become
common practice across the Union.
107
See the Open Definition of Open Knowledge Foundation available at http://opendefinition.org [last check, July 1,
2015].
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
22
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
Commons
(CC)
licences
(version
4.0)
which
could
allow
the
re-‐use
of
public
sector
information
without
the
need
to
develop
and
update
custom-‐made
licences
at
national
or
sub-‐national
level.
Specific
provisioning
for
leveraging
on
the
existence
of
such
open
licensing
tools
may
be
found
in
national
law
and
are
depicting
nationally
the
need
to
leverage
on
pre-‐formatted
licensing
texts
with
the
aim
to
implement
smoothly
the
amended
PSI
Directive.108
It
is
recommended
(European
Commission,
2014)109
that
open
licensing
used
in
the
framework
of
the
amended
PSI
Directive
should
define
the
temporal
and
geographical
scope
of
the
rights
covered
by
the
licensing
agreement,
the
types
of
rights
granted
and
the
range
of
re-‐use
allowed.
In
order
to
proactively
promote
the
re-‐use
of
the
licensed
material,
it
is
advisable
that
the
licensor
grants
worldwide
(to
the
extent
allowed
under
national
law),
perpetual,
royalty-‐
free,
irrevocable
(to
the
extent
allowed
under
national
law)
and
non-‐exclusive
rights
to
use
the
information
covered
by
the
license.
It
is
advisable
that
rights
not
covered
by
the
license
be
set
out
explicitly
and
the
types
of
right
granted
(copyright,
database
right,
and
related
rights)
be
defined
broadly.
Finally,
the
broadest
possible
wording
could
be
used
to
refer
to
what
can
be
done
with
the
data
covered
by
the
license
(terms
such
as:
use,
re-‐use,
share
can
be
further
described
by
an
indicative
list
of
examples).
Where
licenses
are
required
by
law
and
cannot
be
replaced
by
simple
notices,
it
is
advisable
that
they
cover
attribution
requirements
only,
as
any
other
obligations
may
limit
licensees’
creativity
or
economic
activity,
thereby
affecting
the
re-‐
use
potential
of
the
documents
in
question.
The
aim
of
attribution
requirements
is
to
oblige
the
re-‐user
to
acknowledge
the
source
of
the
documents
in
a
manner
specified
by
the
licensor
(public
sector
body).
It
is
recommended
that
(depending
on
the
law
applicable)
the
obligations
be
kept
to
a
minimum,
requiring
at
most:
a)
a
statement
identifying
the
source
of
the
documents;
and
b)
a
link
to
relevant
licensing
information
(where
practicable).
The
primary
objective
of
the
amended
PSI
Directive
stimulating
re-‐use
to
encourage
economic
activity
means
that
public
sector
bodies
are
encouraged
to
make
content
available
for
free
or
at
charges
that
do
not
exceed
the
marginal
costs
for
reproducing
and
disseminating
it
(European
Commission,
2011). 110
Charging
for
a
maximum
of
dissemination
costs
seems
compatible
with
the
‘royalty-‐free’
provision
in
all
Creative
Commons
licenses,
since
such
fees
do
not
relate
to
the
use
of
the
content.
However,
the
amended
PSI
Directive
allows
public
108
See article 11§2 of Presidential Decree 28/2015.
109
See European Commission, (2014), Information from European Union Institutions, Bodies, Offices and Agencies,
Commission Notice, Guidelines on recommended standard licenses, datasets, and charging for the reuse of
documents (2014/C 240/01).
110
See European Commission, (2011), ibid, COM(2011)877 Final, article 6§1 according to which Where charges are
made for the re-use of documents, the total amount charged by public sector bodies shall be limited to the marginal
costs incurred for their reproduction and dissemination.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
23
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
sector
bodies
to
charge
more
(Directive
2013/37/EU)111
–within
the
limits
of
laws
that
govern
their
activity,
of
course–
up
to
the
total
costs
of
collecting,
producing,
reproducing
and
disseminating
information,
topped
with
a
reasonable
return
on
investment
(Greek
Law
3448/2006;112
Presidential
Decree
28/2015113).
The
charges
must
be
calculated
in
line
with
the
accounting
principles
applicable
to
the
public
sector
bodies
involved,
and
should
be
cost-‐
oriented
over
the
appropriate
accounting
period
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
European
Commission,
2011;
Directive
2013/37/EU).114
In
the
case
of
university
libraries,
museums
and
archives,
the
amended
PSI
Directive
leaves
room
for
charges
that
exceed
the
marginal
costs
for
the
re-‐use
of
documents
that
they
hold
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
European
Commission,
2011;
Directive
2013/37/EU).115
111
See article 6 of Directive 2013/37/EC according to which 1. Where charges are made for the re-use of documents,
those charges shall be limited to the marginal costs incurred for their reproduction, provision and dissemination.
2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the following: (a) public sector bodies that are required to generate revenue to
cover a substantial part of their costs relating to the performance of their public tasks; (b) by way of exception,
documents for which the public sector body concerned is required to generate sufficient revenue to cover a
substantial part of the costs relating to their collection, production, reproduction and dissemination. Those
requirements shall be defined by law or by other binding rules in the Member State. In the absence of such rules, the
requirements shall be defined in accordance with common administrative practice in the Member State; (c) libraries,
including university libraries, museums and archives. 3. In the cases referred to in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 2,
the public sector bodies concerned shall calculate the total charges according to objective, transparent and verifiable
criteria to be laid down by the Member States. The total income of those bodies from supplying and allowing re-use
of documents over the appropriate accounting period shall not exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction
and dissemination, together with a reasonable return on investment. Charges shall be calculated in line with the
accounting principles applicable to the public sector bodies involved. 4. Where charges are made by the public sector
bodies referred to in point (c) of paragraph 2, the total income from supplying and allowing re-use of documents over
the appropriate accounting period shall not exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction, dissemination,
preservation and rights clearance, together with a reasonable return on investment. Charges shall be calculated in
line with the accounting principles applicable to the public sector bodies involved.’
112
See, also, article 8 of L.3448/2006, according to which Where charges are made, either in accordance with the
provisions of this law or the provisions currently in force, the total income from the licence for the re-use of
documents may not exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction and dissemination, together with a
reasonable return on investment in which the public body concerned has entered, taking into consideration a
potential cost for further processing, in accordance with Article 3(2) of this law. Charges should be cost-oriented
over the appropriate accounting period and calculated in line with the accounting principles applicable to the public
sector bodies involved. And in §2 it says that Where the public sector body issues or holds documents which include
information and uses this information within the scope of its economic activities, it shall not impose higher charges
that the ones provided for in the previous paragraph.
113
See article 12 of Presidential Decree 28/2015 which describes the provisions of article 8 of Law 4305/2014 that
amended article 8 of Law 3448/2006.
114
See article 6 of the 2003 PSI Directive as well as article 6 of the 2013 PSI Directive. See, also, European
Commission, (2011), ibid, COM(2011)877 Final, article 6§2 according to which In exceptional cases, in particular
where public sector bodies generate a substantial part of their operating costs relating to the performance of their
public service tasks from the exploitation of their intellectual property rights, public sector bodies may be allowed to
charge for the re-use of documents over and above the marginal costs, according to objective, transparent and
verifiable criteria, provided this is in the public interest and subject to the approval of the independent authority
referred to in Article 4(4), and without prejudice to paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article.’
115
See European Commission, (2011), ibid, COM(2011)877 Final, article 6§3. See article 6§2(c) of Directive
2013/37/EU according to which Paragraph 1 of article 6 which posits that where charges are made for the re-use of
documents, those charges shall be limited to the marginal costs incurred for their reproduction, provision and
dissemination shall not apply to the following: … libraries, including university libraries, museums and archives ; see
also article 6§4 of the same according to which Where charges are made by the public sector bodies referred to in
point (c) of paragraph 2, the total income from supplying and allowing re-use of documents over the appropriate
accounting period shall not exceed the cost of collection, production, reproduction, dissemination, preservation and
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
24
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
Practice
has
shown
that
in
the
context
of
the
re-‐use
of
public
sector
information,
the
three
main
cost
categories
relate
to:
(a)
data
production
(including
collection
and
maintenance);
(b)
data
distribution;
and
(c)
sales
and
marketing
or
the
provision
of
value-‐added
services.
When
these
categories
are
compared
with
what
could
be
considered
as
marginal
costs
according
to
the
amended
PSI
Directive,
it
is
clear
that
(a)
and
(c)
go
beyond
reproduction,
provision
and
dissemination.
Instead,
the
principle
of
marginal
cost
charging
fits
best
within
the
broad
category
of
‘data
distribution’,
which
in
the
context
of
data
re-‐use
could
be
defined
as
costs
directly
relating
to,
and
necessitated
by,
the
reproduction
of
an
additional
copy
of
a
document
and
making
it
available
to
the
re-‐users.
In
calculating
charges,
costs
which
could
be
regarded
as
eligible
may
include:
1)
infrastructure:
cost
of
development,
software
maintenance,
hardware
maintenance,
connectivity,
within
the
limits
of
what
is
necessary
to
make
documents
available
for
access
and
re-‐use;
2)
duplication:
cost
of
additional
copy
of
a
DVD,
USB
key,
SD
card,
etc.;
3)
handling:
packaging
material,
preparation
of
the
order;
4)
consultation:
phone
and
e-‐mail
exchanges
with
re-‐users,
costs
of
client
service;
5)
delivery:
postage
costs,
including
standard
postage
or
express
carriers;
and
6)
special
requests:
costs
of
preparing
and
formatting
data
on
request.116
The
Directive
stipulates
that
total
income
from
supplying
and
allowing
re-‐use
cannot
exceed
the
cost
of
collection,
production,
reproduction
and
dissemination,
together
with
a
reasonable
return
on
investment.
Practice
has
shown
that
the
following
direct
costs
may
be
regarded
as
eligible:117
A)
Costs
relating
to
the
creation
of
data,
which
may
include
costs
on
1)
production:
generation
of
data
and
metadata,
quality-‐checking,
encoding;
2)
costs
on
collection:
gathering
and
sorting
of
data;
3)
costs
on
anonymisation:
deletion,
obfuscation,
impoverishment
of
databases;
B)
Costs
relating
broadly
to
‘distribution’
which
may
include
1)
costs
on
infrastructure:
development,
software
maintenance,
hardware
maintenance,
media;
2)
costs
on
duplication:
cost
of
additional
copy
of
a
DVD,
USB
key,
SD
card,
etc.;
3)
costs
on
handling:
packaging
material,
preparation
of
the
order;
4)
costs
on
consultation:
phone
and
e-‐mail
exchanges
with
re-‐users,
costs
of
client
service;
5)
costs
on
delivery:
postage
costs,
including
standard
postage
or
express
carriers;
C)
Costs
specific
to
libraries
(including
university
libraries),
museums
and
archives
which
may
include
1)
costs
on
preservation:
data
curation
and
storage
costs;
2)
costs
on
rights
clearance:
time/effort
spent
identifying
and
obtaining
permission
from
rights clearance, together with a reasonable return on investment. Charges shall be calculated in line with the
accounting principles applicable to the public sector bodies involved.’
116
See European Commission, (2014), ibid, (2014/C 240/01).
117
See European Commission, (2014), ibid, (2014/C 240/01).
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
25
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
rights-‐holders.
Regarding
the
overhead
costs,
only
those
strictly
related
to
the
above
categories
may
be
eligible.
The
Creative
Commons
licensing
model
makes
possible
licensing
of
content
either
for
commercial
or
for
non-‐commercial
use.
Through
the
CC
licenses
one
cannot
simultaneously
license
the
same
work
under
different
Creative
Commons
licenses
to
different
groups.
However,
the
amended
PSI
Directive
allows
simultaneous
of
differential
licensing
(Directive
2003/98/EC).118
This
means
that
in
cases
of
works
where
differential
licensing
is
preferred,
the
use
of
the
Creative
Commons
licenses
may
have
limited
advantages
for
the
public
sector
bodies.
If
a
public
sector
body
licenses
under
the
Creative
Commons
license
Attribution+Non-‐
Commercial
(BY-‐NC)
for
example,
because
it
does
not
want
to
charge
for
non-‐commercial
use,
it
will
still
need
its
own
standard
licenses
that
allow
for
commercial
use
(Dulong
de
Rosnay,
M.,
2010;
Queensland
Spatial
Information
Office,
Office
of
Economic
and
Statistical
Research,
Queensland
Treasury,
2006).119
The
non-‐discriminatory
character
of
the
Creative
Commons
licenses
is
compatible
with
the
re-‐use
framework
of
the
PSI
Directive
as
it
was
amended,
even
though
differential
treatment
is
not
possible
within
the
Creative
Commons
licensing
model.
The
public
sector
body
has
to
choose
one
and
only
one
Creative
Commons
license
from
the
suite
and
anyone
can
use
the
information
under
those
licensing
terms.
Where
differential
treatment
is
needed,
the
less
liberal
of
the
Creative
Commons
licenses
such
as
the
Attribution+Non-‐Commercial+No-‐Derivatives
(BY-‐NC-‐ND)
could
be
combined
with
the
licensing
of
commercial
uses
under
terms
specified
by
a
public
sector
body
individually.
Said
combination
requires
meticulous
consideration
upon
the
true
sense
of
the
provisions
of
PSI
legislation.
Actually,
the
less
liberal
of
the
Creative
Commons
licenses
seem
to
distant
themselves
from
the
Mertonian
reasoning
that
rests
with
the
amended
PSI
Directive
and
the
availability
of
public
sector
information
to
its
users.
As
in
the
Mertonian
ethics, 120
the
amended
PSI
118
See Preamble 19 of the 2003 PSI Directive according to which Conditions for re-use should be non-discriminatory
for comparable categories of re-use. This should, for example, not prevent the exchange of information between
public sector bodies free of charge for the exercise of public tasks, whilst other parties are charged for the re-use of
the same documents. Neither should it prevent the adoption of a differentiated charging policy for commercial and
non-commercial re-use.
119
Dulong de Rosnay, M., (2010), ibid, pp.72-73; see, also, Queensland Spatial Information Office, Office of
Economic and Statistical Research, Queensland Treasury, (2006), Government Information and Open Content
Licensing: An Access and Use Strategy, Stage 2 Report, October 2006, available at
http://www.gilf.gov.au/files/file/Resources/Stage%202%20Final%20Report%20-%20PDF%20Format.pdf [last
check, April 5, 2015].
120
Robert Merton, a sociologist of science, in his work The Normative Structure of Science, (1942), introduced the
Merton Thesis explaining some of the causes of the scientific revolution and providing the Mertonian norms of
science often referred to by the acronym of CUDOS. These Mertonian norms include: 1) Communalism, i.e. the
common ownership of scientific discoveries, according to which scientists give up intellectual property in exchange
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
26
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
Directive’s
core
provisions—probably
with
the
exception
of
the
principle
that
charges
for
re-‐
use
should
be
set
at
marginal
costs—cater
only
for
a
minimum
attribution
to
authors
of
public
sector
information
that
has
been
produced
by
funding
coming
directly
or
indirectly
through
the
tax-‐payers’
contribution.
In
the
Mertonian
sense,
the
substantive
findings
of
any
public
sector
information
are
a
product
of
social
collaboration
and
should
thus
be
assigned
to
the
community. 121
They
constitute
a
common
heritage
in
which
the
equity
of
the
individual
producer
is
severely
limited.
The
creation
of
new
works
necessarily
builds
on
prior
works
such
as
public
sector
information
and
works
produced
based
or
leveraging
on
them.
Every
author
is
therefore
both
interested
in
protection
for
her
own
works
and
in
access
to
and
re-‐use
of
existing
works.
Thus,
property
rights
in
public
sector
information
should
be
whittled
down
to
a
bare
minimum
by
the
rationale
of
the
scientific
ethic.122
For
Merton,
the
scientist’s
claim
to
‘his’
or
‘her’
intellectual
‘property’
should
be
limited
to
that
of
recognition
and
esteem.
In
consideration
of
the
provisions
of
the
amended
PSI
Directive,
a
major
drawback
of
the
non-‐
commercial
clause
of
the
Creative
Commons
licenses
has
to
do
with
the
fact
that
it
severely
restricts
not
only
the
type
of
uses
that
may
be
made,
but
also
excludes
all
users
that
are
not
an
individual
or
a
non-‐profit
organisation
from
becoming
licensees.
This
makes
the
use
of
a
non-‐
commercial
license
inconsistent
with
the
re-‐use
framework
of
the
PSI
Directive,
at
least
if
the
Creative
Commons
license
is
the
only
license
applied
(Dulong
de
Rosnay,
M.,
2010).123
Also,
for
those
public
sector
bodies
that
have
to
supply
information
under
some
form
of
cost
recovery
regime,
the
Creative
Commons
licensing
model
may
only
have
a
complementary
role
to
play.
This
is
for
two
reasons:
first,
because
where
anything
more
than
the
cost
of
dissemination
must
be
recovered,
fees
tend
to
be
charged
that
include
a
royalty;
and
second,
because
public
sector
bodies
will
normally
attain
their
recovery
targets
by
differentiating
for recognition and esteem; 2) Universalism, according to which claims to truth are evaluated in terms of universal or
impersonal criteria, and not on the basis of race, class, gender, religion, or nationality; 3) Disinterestedness, according
to which scientists are rewarded for acting in ways that outwardly appear to be selfless; 4) Organized scepticism, i.e.
all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny. Actually, Merton based the ethos
of science on communism and supported that the substantive findings of science are a product of social collaboration
and are assigned to the community leaving room for intellectual property only to the point of attribution, recognition
and self-esteem for the author. What’s very interesting in the case of Robert Merton is the fact that he expressed the
Mertonian norms founding the ethos of science on communism only a few years before the McCarthyism in the U.S.
And yet, Merton survived McCarthyism and received multiple awards and distinctions for his contribution to science
and sociology.
121
For the demise of Copyright in the academic environment, see Shavell, S., (2010), Should Copyright of Academic
Works be Abolished?, 2 Journal of Legal Analysis, 1, pp.301-358, available at
http://jla.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/1/301 [last check, Jul.1, 2015].
122
See, also, Hugenholtz, P.B., (2001), Owning Science: Intellectual Property Rights as Impediments to
Knowledge Sharing, speech delivered in second Communia Conference in Turin, available in audio at
http://www.communia-project.eu/communiafiles/Conf%202009_%20Au_KS_Hugenholt.ogg [last check, Jul.1,
2015].
123
Dulong de Rosnay, M., (2010), ibid, p.74.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
27
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
licenses
(re-‐selling
versus
value
adding,
commercial
versus
non-‐commercial
uses,
single
use
versus
repeated
use,
etc.)
which
is
not
compatible
with
the
Creative
Commons
licensing
model
(Dulong
de
Rosnay,
M.,
2010).124
The
amended
PSI
Directive
asks
Member
States
to
encourage
the
creation
of
online
indices
of
available
content
(Directive
2003/98/EC;
Greek
Law
3448/2006).125
The
Creative
Commons
licensing
system
enables
licensors
to
tag
licensed
content,
and
provides
the
means
for
general
purpose
search
engines
to
identify
such
content.
In
effect
it
combines
the
identification
of
available
content,
determination
of
licensing
terms,
and
supply
of
the
information
itself
(Dulong
de
Rosnay,
M.,
2010). 126
The
Creative
Commons
licensing
model
can
be
used
in
combination
with
online
indices
in
a
number
of
ways:
a
prospective
re-‐user
identifies
which
information
he
or
she
wants
to
re-‐use
on
the
basis
of
online
indices,
files
a
request
for
re-‐use,
and
the
content
is
made
available
with
an
appropriate
Creative
Commons
license.
Alternatively,
the
indices
could
not
only
specify
which
content
is
available
under
Creative
Commons,
but
also
link
to
the
place
where
the
content
is
actually
made
available.
124
Dulong de Rosnay, M., (2010), ibid, pp.75-76.
125
See Preamble 15 of the 2003 PSI Directive, according to which Member States should encourage the creation of
indices accessible online, where appropriate, of available documents so as to promote and facilitate requests for re-
use. See, also, article 10 of L.3448/2006, according to which Public sector bodies ensure that the necessary measures
are taken in helping re-users search for documents for re-use, such as the creation and availability of lists of main
documents, accessible online, as well as the creation of websites linked to decentralized lists.
126
Dulong de Rosnay, M., (2010), ibid, pp.71, 73.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
28
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
3 Conclusions
Openness
in
the
Public
Sector
implemented
through
Open
Access
licensing
has
emerged
as
another
essential
copyright
tool
for
works
produced
by
public
sector
organizations
i.e.
State,
regional
or
local
authorities,
bodies
governed
by
public
law
and
associations
formed
by
one
or
several
such
authorities
or
one
or
several
such
bodies
governed
by
public
law
for
expanding
cultural
and
scientific
participation
either
of
the
tax-‐payers
or
others
in
the
copyrighted
output
of
public
sector
organizations.
Open
Access
licenses,
Copyleft
licensing
as
is
widely
known
(Free
Software
Foundation,
1996)127
is
a
means
for
licensing
copyrighted
works
that
does
not
replace
Copyright,
but
rather
is
based
upon
it.
In
that
contractual
practice,
authors
or
other
rights
holders
agree
to
waive
many
of
the
exclusive
rights
they
hold
under
Copyright
law,
enabling
others
to
use
the
work
more
freely.
Contracts
replace
the
traditional
in
Copyright
Law
“all
rights
reserved”
by
the
legally
founded
notion
of
the
“some
rights
reserved”
approach,
employing
standardized
licenses
where
no
or
minimum
compensation
is
sought
by
the
Copyright
holder.
The
result
is
an
agile,
low-‐overhead
copyright-‐management,
and
technologically
savvy
regime
benefiting
both
Copyright
holders
and
users
of
copyrighted
works
licensed
with
Copyleft
licensing,
i.e.
both
licensors
and
licensees.
The
Creative
Commons
licensing
much
like
other
similar
licensing
options
such
as
the
ODbL
of
Open
Knowledge
is
suitable
for
the
Copyleft
licensing
approach
in
the
Public
Sector
organizations’
copyrighted
output.
There
is
a
variety
of
ways
in
which
Public
Sector
bodies
regulate
the
use
of
their
information
and
copyrighted
works.
Other
Public
Sector
bodies
may
supply
information
with
‘standard
terms’
that
are
not
tailored
for
public
access
and
re-‐use
purposes.
Others
may
refrain
from
making
a
Copyright
reservation
completely.
Many
Public
Sector
bodies
may
state
their
Copyright
reservations
in
consideration
of
traditional
Copyright
law.
More
common,
though,
are
specific
reservations
made
in
publications,
on
websites,
etc.
The
use
of
the
Creative
Commons
licensing
model
has
various
advantages
over
such
modes
of
regulating
use
and
over
the
use
of
separate
licensing
schemes
by
each
public
sector
body,
127
Copyleft is a way of using of the Copyright e.g. on a software program. It is a general method for making a
program (or other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well. It
doesn’t mean abandoning the Copyright; in fact, doing so would make Copyleft impossible. To copyleft a program,
the creators first state that it is copyrighted; then they add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives
everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program’s code or any program derived from it but only if the
distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable. See more at Free
Software Foundation, (1996), What is Copyleft?, available at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.en.html [last
check, April 5, 2015].
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
29
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
because
(Dulong
de
Rosnay,
M.,
2010):128
1. Creative
Commons
licenses
are
‘ready
to
use’,
automated
and
standardized;
public
sector
bodies
do
not
need
to
draw
up
their
own
licenses
but
can
benefit
from
the
expertise
brought
together
in
the
Creative
Commons
licensing
mode.
2. Use
of
the
Creative
Commons
licenses,
nationally
and
internationally,
is
expanding
quickly,
aiding
recognition
and
acceptance.
3. The
Creative
Commons
licenses
are
standardized
which
adds
to
transparency
for
the
user;
at
the
same
time
however
the
licensor
still
has
a
fair
amount
of
flexibility
because
the
optional
conditions
of
use,
enables
a
public
sector
body
to
choose
the
license
most
suited
to
its
information
policy
for
particular
data/content.
4. The
icons
and
the
human
readable
Commons
Deed
are
user
friendly
and
give
citizens
(including
businesses,
interest
groups)
a
much
clearer
indication
of
which
rights
are
reserved
and
to
what
extent,
and
what
kind
of
use
is
allowed.
5. The
licensing
information
is
linked
to
the
content,
in
the
metadata
of
the
website,
its
pages
or
individual
files
providing
stable
clarification
of
which
documents
(or
works)
fall
under
the
license
and
which
do
not.
6. The
Creative
Commons
and
the
iCommons
organizations
offer
community
based
development
of
free
tools
to
improve
the
infrastructure
for
licenses
and
standards,
allowing
public
sector
bodies
to
share
knowledge
and
benefit
from
the
work
of
others.
7. The
technical
implementation
of
the
Creative
Commons
licenses
makes
it
easier
to
search
for
re-‐usable
works.
8. The
Creative
Commons
licensing
model
stimulates
interoperability
of
its
licenses
with
other
open
information
licenses.
128
Dulong de Rosnay, M., (2010), ibid, pp.80-81.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
30
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
References
Barlow,
J.
P.,
A
Declaration
of
the
Independence
of
Cyberspace,
available
at
https://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-‐Final.html
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Bollier,
D.,
(2008),
Viral
Spiral:
How
the
Commoners
Built
a
Digital
Republic
of
their
Own,
The
New
York
Press,
available
at
URL:
http://www.viralspiral.cc/download-‐book
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Brown,
P.,
Cabell,
D.,
Chakravarti,
A.,
Cohen,
B.,
Delamoth,
T.,
Eisen,
M.,
Grivell,
L.,
Guedon,
J-‐C.,
Hawley,
S.,
Johnson,
R.,
Kirschner,
M.,
Lipman,
D.,
Lutzker,
A.,
Marincola,
E.,
Roberts,
R.,
Rubin,
G.,
Schloegl,
R.,
Siegel,
V.,
So,
A.,
Suber,
P.,
Varmus,
H.,
Velterop,
J.,
Walport,
M.,
Watson,
L.,
(2003),
The
Bethesda
Statement
on
Open
Access,
available
at
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Centivany,
A.,
and
Glushko,
B.,
(2010),
Open
Educational
Resources
and
the
University:
Law,
Technology,
and
Magical
Thinking,
available
at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1680562
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Chan,
L.,
Cuplinskas,
D.,
Eisen,
M.,
Friend,
F.,
Genova,
Y.,
Guedon,
J-‐C.,
Hagemann,
M.,
Harnad,
S.,
Johnson,
R.,
Kupryte,
R.,
Manna,
M.,
Rev,
I.,
Segbert,
M.,
Souza,
S.,
Suber,
P.,
Velterop,
J.,
(2002),
The
Budapest
Open
Access
Initiative,
available
at
http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Commission
of
the
European
Communities,
(1989),
Guidelines
for
improving
the
synergy
between
the
public
and
private
sectors
in
the
information
market,
Directorate-‐General
for
Telecommunications,
Information
Industries
and
Innovation,
available
at
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/docs/pdfs/brochure/1989_public_sect
or_guidelines_en.pdf
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Commission
Decision
of
December
12,
2011,
2011/833/EU,
on
the
reuse
of
Commission
documents,
L.330/39,
Preamble
6,
available
at
http://eur-‐
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:330:0039:0042:EN:PDF
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Commission
of
the
European
Communities,
(2002),
Proposal
for
a
European
Parliament
and
Council
Directive
on
the
re-‐use
and
commercial
exploitation
of
public
sector
documents,
(COM
(2002)
207),
available
at
http://www.ec-‐
gis.org/docs/F12293/PUBLIC_SECTOR_PROPOSAL_FOR_DIRECTIVE_EN.PDF
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Directive
2003/98/EC
of
the
European
Parliament
and
of
the
Council
of
17
November
2003
on
the
re-‐use
of
public
sector
information,
OJ
2003
L345,
available
at
http://eur-‐
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2003:345:0090:0096:EN:PDF
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Directive
2013/37/EU
of
the
European
Parliament
and
of
the
Council
of
June
26,
2013,
amending
Directive
2003/98/EC
on
the
re-‐use
of
public
sector
information
available
at
http://eur-‐lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:175:0001:0008:EN:PDF
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Duke
Law
School
supported
by
the
Center
for
the
Public
Domain,
Conference
on
the
Public
Domain,
November
9—11,
2001,
available
at
http://law.duke.edu/pd/
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
31
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
Dulong
de
Rosnay,
M.,
(2010),
Creative
Commons
Licenses
Legal
Pitfalls:
Incompatibilities
and
Solutions,
IViR,
available
at
http://www.creativecommons.nl/downloads/101220cc_incompatibilityfinal.pdf,
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Eechoud,
van
M.,
and
Wal,
van
der
B.,
(2008),
Creative
commons
licensing
for
public
sector
information—Opportunities
and
pitfalls,
IVir,
available
at
http://learn.creativecommons.org/wp-‐
content/uploads/2008/03/cc_publicsectorinformation_report_v3.pdf
,
p.III
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
European
Commission,
(1998),
Public
Sector
Information:
A
key
resource
for
Europe,
Green
Paper
on
Public
Sector
Information
in
the
Information
Society,
COM
(1998)585,
available
at
ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/econtent/docs/gp_en.pdf
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
European
Commission,
(2011),
Proposal
for
a
Directive
of
the
European
Parliament
and
the
Council,
Amending
Directive
2003/98/EC
on
re-‐use
of
public
sector
information,
COM(2011)877
Final,
available
at
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/psi/docs/pdfs/directive_proposal/2012/e
n.pdf
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Free
Software
Foundation,
(1996),
What
is
Copyleft?,
available
at
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.en.html
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Gruss,
P.,
(2003),
The
Berlin
Declaration
on
Open
Access
to
Knowledge
in
the
Sciences
and
Humanities,
The
Max
Planck
Society,
available
at
http://oa.mpg.de/berlin-‐
prozess/berliner-‐erklarung/
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Guadamuz,
A.,
Cabell,
D.,
(non-‐dated),
Data
mining
White
Paper:
Analysis
of
UK/EU
law
on
data
mining
in
higher
education
institutions,
available
at
http://www.technollama.co.uk/wp-‐content/uploads/2013/04/Data-‐Mining-‐Paper.pdf
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Haughey,
M.,
(2003),
Creative
Commons
Welcomes
David
Wiley
as
Educational
Use
License
Project
Lead,
Press
Release
June
23,
2003,
available
at
http://creativecommons.org/press-‐releases/entry/3733
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Jaeger
T.,
Metzger,
A.,
(2006),
Open
Source
Software,
Beck
Juristischer
Verlag.
Kalfin,
I.,
(2012),
Amendment
of
Directive
2003/98/EC
on
re-‐use
of
public
sector
information,
Proposal
for
a
directive
COM(2011)0877-‐C7-‐0502/2011-‐2011/0430(COD),
available
at
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-‐
%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-‐
496.525%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN
[last
check,
April
5,
2015];
Kalfin,
I.,
(2012),
Draft
Report
on
the
proposal
for
a
directive
of
the
European
Parliament
and
of
the
Council
on
amending
directive
2003/98/EC
on
re-‐use
of
publc
sector
information
(COM(2011)0877-‐C7-‐0502/2011-‐2011/0430(COD)),
available
at
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-‐
%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-‐
492.922%2b01%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Kyrillidou,
M.,
and
Young,
M.,
(2002),
ARL
Statistics
2001-‐2002,
Association
of
Research
Libraries.
Kyrillidou,
M.,
and
Young,
M.,
(2003),
ARL
Statistics
2002-‐03,
Association
of
Research
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
32
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
Libraries.
Kyrillidou,
M.,
and
Young,
M.,
(2005),
ARL
Statistics
2004-‐05,
Association
of
Research
Libraries.
Lessig,
L.,
(2012),
Answers
to
Written
Questions.
The
Senate
Judiciary
Committee,
“The
Microsoft
Settlement:
A
Look
to
the
Future”,
available
at
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/lessig_testimony_12_12_01.pdf
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Organisation
for
Economic
Cooperation
&
Development,
(2007),
Giving
Knowledge
for
Free:
The
Emergence
of
Open
Educational
Resources,
available
at
http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/givingknowledgeforfreetheemergenceofopeneducationalre
sources.htm
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Queensland
Spatial
Information
Office,
Office
of
Economic
and
Statistical
Research,
Queensland
Treasury,
(2006),
Government
Information
and
Open
Content
Licensing:
An
Access
and
Use
Strategy,
Stage
2
Report,
October
2006,
available
at
http://www.gilf.gov.au/files/file/Resources/Stage%202%20Final%20Report%20-‐
%20PDF%20Format.pdf
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Rens,
A.
J.,
and
Kahn,
R.,
(2009),
Access
to
Knowledge
in
South
Africa:
Country
Study
Version
2.0,
available
at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1455623
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Rossini,
C.A.A.,
(2010),
Green-‐Paper:
The
State
and
Challenges
of
OER
in
Brazil:
From
Readers
to
Writers?
,
Berkman
Center
Research
Publication
No.2010-‐01,
available
at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1549922
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Rufus,
P.,
and
Jo,
W.,
(2008),
Open
Knowledge:
Promises
and
Challenges,
Communia
Workshop
2008,
available
at
http://www.communia-‐
project.eu/communiafiles/ws01p_Open%20Knowledge%20Promises%20and%20Challenge
s.pdf
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Stallman,
R.,
(non-‐dated),
Why
Open
Source
Misses
the
Point
of
Free
Software,
available
at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-‐source-‐misses-‐the-‐point.html
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Stallman,
R.,
(non-‐dated),
Why
Free
Software
is
better
than
Open
Source,
available
at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-‐software-‐for-‐freedom.html
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Suber,
P.,
(2012),
Open
Access,
MIT
Press,
available
at
http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262517638_Open_Access_
PDF_Version.pdf[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Suber,
P.,
(2009),
Timeline
of
the
Open
Access
Movement,
revised
February
9,
2009,
available
at
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Tapscott,
D.,
and
Williams
A.,
D.,
(2006),
Wikinomics:
How
Mass
Collaboration
Changes
Everything,
Porfolio.
The
Debian
Free
Software
Guidelines,
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
[last
check,
April
5,
2015],
part
of
the
Debian
Social
Contract
available
at
http://www.debian.org/social_contract
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Toffler,
A.,
(1980),
The
Third
Wave,
New
York,
bantam
Books.
Uhlir,
P.,
(2010),
Measuring
the
Economic
and
Social
Benefits
and
Costs
of
Public
Sector
Information
Online:
A
Review
of
the
Literature
and
Future,
First
Communia
Conference,
available
in
audio
at
http://www.communia-‐
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
33
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
project.eu/communiafiles/conf2008_Paul%20Uhlir.mp3
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
Yale
Bulletin
&
Calendar,
Private
Censorship
and
Perfect
Choice
Conference
to
explore
Speech
and
Regulation
on
the
Net,
April
5-‐12,
1999 Volume
27,
Number
27
available
at
http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-‐ybc/v27.n27/story3.html
[last
check,
April
5,
2015].
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
34
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
About
the
Authors
Dr.
Marinos
Papadopoulos
is
an
Attorney-‐at-‐Law
registered
at
the
Athens
Bar
Association
since
1996.
He
is
a
PhD/JSD
holder
acquired
from
Athens
Law
School
of
the
National
&
Kapodistrian
University
of
Athens
in
the
subject
of
Copyright
on
the
Internet
with
a
focus
on
Openness
(PhD/JSD
title:
Copyright
in
Digital
Era:
Openness
in
Greek
and
American
Law).
He
holds
a
degree
from
Athens
Law
School
(JD)
and
a
Master
of
Science
(MSc)
from
Boston
University
in
the
discipline
of
Corporate
Communication
&
Corporate
Public
Relations.
He
also
has
graduate
studies
at
Harvard
University
in
the
discipline
of
Internet
Law
as
well
as
the
George
Washington
University
in
the
discipline
of
Management.
Marinos
Papadopoulos
is
an
active
participant
in
international
fora
related
to
Internet
Law
(Information
Technology
and
Law),
Information
Society,
and
Digital
Strategy,
and
has
rich
professional
experience
in
Information
Law
cases
(Criminal,
Civil,
and
Business
Law)
of
clients
from
Greece
and
abroad.
He
has
been
the
Legal
Lead
and
the
creator
of
the
Creative
Commons
licenses
v.
2.5
&
v.
3.0
in
Greece;
he
is
a
founding
member
and
member
of
the
Board
of
Directors
of
Open
Knowledge
Foundation
Greece
and
the
creator
of
the
Greek
Open
Data
Commons
(ODC)
Open
Database
License
(ODbL)
of
Open
Knowledge
Foundation.
He
also
has
extensive
experience
as
specialized
scientist
and
legal
advisor
in
innovation
projects
funded
by
the
European
Commission
and
implemented
in
Greece
and
abroad
(Turkey,
Lithuania,
Azerbaijan,
French,
United
Kingdom,
Italy,
et.al.).
His
authorship
includes
many
scientific
papers
and
articles
as
well
as
academic
and
science
publications
in
Greece,
USA,
UK
and
India.
Dr.
Charalampos
Bratsas
is
the
founder
of
the
Greek
Chapter
of
the
Open
Knowledge
Foundation
and
the
President
of
its
Administration
Board,
and
he
is
a
special
member
of
the
teaching
staff
in
the
School
of
Mathematics
of
the
Aristotle
University
of
Thessaloniki.
He
teaches
in
the
Departments
of
Mathematics,
Journalism,
Biology
and
Geology
and
on
the
MSc
of
Complex
Systems
in
AUTH.
He
has
extensive
experience
in
Semantic
Web
with
a
focus
on
Linked
Open
Data
Internationalization
and
Ontology
engineering.
Additionally
he
has
been
involved
in
ten
EU
research
projects;
his
research
interests
include
Data
Mining
algorithms,
Semantic
Web,
Social
Semantic
Web,
Internationalization
of
Linked
Data,
he
is
coordinator
of
Greek
DBPedia,
Applications
of
Statistical
Knowledge,
Data
Journalism,
as
well
as
Neuroinformatics.
He
is
the
author
of
two
theses,
six
chapters
in
books,
eleven
articles
in
journals,
and
more
than
thirty
of
his
articles
have
been
published
in
International
conference
proceedings.
He
has
served
as
a
programme
committee
member
for
more
than
fifteen
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
35
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
conferences
and
acted
as
a
reviewer
for
international
journals.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
36
OPENNESS/OPEN
ACCESS
FOR
PSI
AND
WORKS
–
THE
CC
LICENSING
MODEL
Copyright
information
©
2015
European
PSI
Platform
–
This
document
and
all
material
therein
has
been
compiled
with
great
care.
However,
the
author,
editor
and/or
publisher
and/or
any
party
within
the
European
PSI
Platform
or
its
predecessor
projects
the
ePSIplus
Network
project
or
ePSINet
consortium
cannot
be
held
liable
in
any
way
for
the
consequences
of
using
the
content
of
this
document
and/or
any
material
referenced
therein.
This
report
has
been
published
under
the
auspices
of
the
European
Public
Sector
information
Platform.
The
report
may
be
reproduced
providing
acknowledgement
is
made
to
the
European
Public
Sector
Information
(PSI)
Platform.
ePSIplatform Topic Report No. 2015 / 06 , June 2015
37