i2010 EUROPEAN DIGITAL LIBRARIES INITIATIVE
High Level Expert Group on Digital Libraries
Sub-group on Public Private Partnerships
Final Report on Public
Private Partnerships for the Digitisation and Online
Public private partnerships have an important role in helping achieve
the European Commission’s
strategy for digitisation, online accessibility and digital preservation
Whilst libraries, archives, museums and galleries have preserved this collective memory and have experience of resource discovery and user requirements, private partners can bring to the table funding, technology, software and expertise required for large-scale digitisation. By working together public access can be enhanced.
For public and private partners to make the most of these partnerships, case studies suggest that cultural institutions and private partners should take the following into account:
- the vision, mission and strategic objectives of all partners and the benefits for the citizen to be achieved through the project
- the need for a formal, transparent, accountable partnership, which does not establish exclusive agreements that are not time-limited
- the need to manage the partnership through a formal governance structure
- the need of the partnership to operate within the framework of applicable copyright and intellectual property law, and the need for the ownership of such rights after digitisation to be clearly stated
- the sustainability of the business model for the long-term
A check-list is provided in Annex 3.
The Sub-group also made the following recommendations:
“The sub-group recommends that legislation aimed at supporting finance of cultural heritage through the provision of fiscal benefits to private partners is more extensively
applied to digitisation projects.”
“The sub-group recommends that the guiding principle is that partnership should be
established within the framework of applicable copyright law.”
“The sub-group recommends that public domain content in the analogue world should remain in the public domain in the digital environment. If restrictions to user’s access and use are necessary in order to make the digital content available at all, these restrictions should only apply for a time-limited period.”
“The sub-group recommends that exclusive arrangements for digitising and distributing the digital assets of cultural institutions are to be avoided.”
“The sub-group recommends that cultural institutions should aim to abide by the principles of the European Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of Public Sector Information (PSI)” Governance:
“The sub-group recommends that Public Private Partnerships have formal governance arrangements enshrined in a formal contract between parties.”
2. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
3. SCOPE OF THE SUB-GROUP
5. CASE STUDIES
6. WHY PARTNER? THE OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS OF PUBLIC- PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
6.1 OBJECIVES FOR PUBLIC PARTNERS
6.2 OBJECTIVES FOR PRIVATE PARTNERS
6.3 BENEFITS FOR CITIZENS
6.4 BENEFITS FOR RIGHTS HOLDERS
6.5 ADDED VALUE TO USERS
7. BUSINESS MODELS
8. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
9. PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
10.1 EXCLUSIVITY OF PARTNERS
10.2 EXCLUSIVITY OF CONTENT
10.3 EXCLUSIVITY OF SEARCH/ACCESS
11. RE-USE OF DIGITAL COPIES
12. LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY & TIMEFRAMES
14. LANGUAGE AND MARKET-SIZE ISSUES
ANNEX 1 – MEMBERS OF THE SUB-GROUP ON PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
ANNEX 2 – CASE STUDIES
ANNEX 3 – CHECK LIST FOR CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS CONTEMPLATING PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS ANNEX 4 – CONSULTATION WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS
The European Commission has made digital
libraries a key aspect of i2010. In its
Communication “i2010: digital libraries” of 30 September 2005, it set out its strategy for digitisation, online
accessibility and digital
The third meeting of the High Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Digital Libraries, held in Brussels 18 April 2007, opened the debate on how best to promote and to make use of public-private co-operation and private sponsorship for the digitisation of Europe's cultural heritage.
The Commissioner pointed to the necessary presence of both public and private players in the digital libraries initiative to solve problems and deliver high quality services. The HLEG was asked to help by “identifying the opportunities and conditions under which PPPs become success stories for all involved parties: private actors, public authorities and citizens.” The Commissioner pointed out that “Public-private partnerships for the digitisation of content should be encouraged to make information available online, as well as the private sponsoring of digitisation projects.”
At the end of the meeting, the HLEG took the decision to appoint some members to work together as the Sub-group on Public Private Partnerships (“the sub-group”), to analyse and discuss issues relating to the use of public-private partnerships, including success factors, choice of partners, business models, IPR and exclusivity issues. The new sub- group was asked to report its findings to the plenary session of the HLEG in autumn
2007. Ms Brindley was appointed as Chair of the sub-group. The members of the sub- group are listed at Annex 1.
meeting of the sub-group took place on 11th July
2. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
The public-private partnerships (PPPs) under discussion in this report have a wide definition and are not limited to a specific definition in law. By PPPs we mean any partnership between a private-sector corporation and a public-sector body, through which the parties contribute different assets to a project and achieve complementary objectives.
Some partnerships may involve organisations in the educational sector, such as higher education institutions. These may be public or private, but for the purposes of this report they are assumed to be in the public sector. However, even if such institutions are private, they tend to act in the public interest. It is for individual institutions to apply the recommendations in this report as best fits their own circumstances.
This report is intended for use primarily by libraries, archives and museums and private- sector companies considering a partnership with one of these public-sector institutions. It should be noted that public-sector partners may have specific responsibilities, as follows:
• They often have legal deposit responsibilities, which means they are mandated by their government to collect the creative output of the country (if a library, then the published output; if a documentary archive, then the documentary output of public institutions; if a broadcast archive the radio, television and film output, and so on).
• Their remit is to provide maximum access to their specific core audience; their content represents knowledge that is of value to the nation and should be made available to citizens.
• They may also have to store and preserve content, to ensure access by future generations. The responsibility for preservation extends to ensuring all the necessary actions are taken to ensure the object’s permanence.
• They work for the long term. There is no fixed time-span for preservation; they must take all the necessary actions in order to impede physical degradation or loss of information.
• Very often, they do not own intellectual property rights in the underlying works; they have a responsibility to respect the intellectual property of rights holders; rights management issues are important and complex.
• Because of their public funding, they may be limited by government or European Union rules in commercialising their activities or the level at which they can be charged for. Priced business models therefore may be difficult to develop.
The individual responsibilities of the public-sector player depend on their activities and jurisdiction.
3. SCOPE OF THE SUB-GROUP
At its first meeting, the PPP sub-group agreed that the scope of its work should be to:
• Explain how PPPs can be used to digitise content and ensure that it is widely accessible and exploited;
• Identify elements of a public-private partnership that make it successful for all parties involved;
• Produce guidelines on terms of public-private contracts including exclusivity, business models, IPR ownership, termination clauses, etc;
• Highlight case studies of good practice and experience - both from member states, public institutions and the private sector.
The sub-group also agreed that the report should cover:
• Examples in specific media sectors based on case studies from libraries, archives, museums and audio-visual archives;
• Protection of public domain content, including both public ownership, public access and the preservation benefits of digitization;
• The balance between the interests of content creators, publishers, users, the remit of public-sector institutions and the commercial considerations of private-sector companies;
• Long term sustainability and timeframe considerations.
The report is not intended to be prescriptive, but it provides as a set of guidelines and identifies issues, to allow public and private players in Member States to draw their own conclusions as to whether public-private partnerships would benefit them. The Google representative was of the view that finding the optimal way to encourage and foster participation by governmemts, rightsholders, libraries and private companies alike was
essential for securing maximum benefits for European users and citizens. In this context, he welcomed the recommendations from the sub-group but was not in a position to fully endorse all the analysis supporting them.
The sub-group has based its findings on a number of case studies prepared by the participating organisations; the case studies are discussed in section 5 and throughout the report.
The sub-group agreed to exclude from its scope:
• A detailed discussion of the technology issues, because while they are important, they depend on the specifics of the project. This report intends to provide practical guidance in initiating and managing partnerships, rather than the theory and practice of solving technological problems;
• A detailed consideration of the legal issues, as these depend heavily upon statute and case law in the country in question, which may vary widely between Member States;
• A detailed examination of the copyright issues, as these are dealt with by the HLEG Copyright sub-group.
The work of the sub-group has taken place in consultation with key stakeholders. Feedback from these stakeholders has been incorporated into the relevant sections of the report and is detailed in full at Annex 4. The sub-group would like to thank these stakeholders for their contributions.
5. CASE STUDIES
sub-group was asked to consider and highlight examples of public-private partnerships and good practice
in libraries, museums and archives, and hence this report is based on evidence from a number
of case studies provided by the sub-group participants. The case studies are appended to the report in full at Annex
The following paragraphs summarise the case studies in terms of:
• A high-level introduction to the project
• A brief description of the partners and their contributions
• The access model provided for the user. Full details are provided in Annex 2.
5.1 Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes (Cervantes Virtual Library)
This partnership was established in 1999 to deliver a virtual library of Hispanic literature, science and culture, with the aim of creating a tool to support the expansion of Spanish and Latin American culture across the world. There are nine public sector partners including the Universidad de Alicante, the Ministerio de Cultura, the Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, the Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales, Secretaría de Estado de Cooperación Internacional, Generalitat Valenciana, Conferencia de Rectores de las Universidades Españolas, Real Academia Española and the Instituto Cervantes. There are
8 private sector partners, including Banco Santander, a major Spanish retail and commercial bank; Telefónica, the telecoms provider; Grupo PRISA, the media company; Repsol YPF, the oil company; the Fundación Marcelino Botín and Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez, both cultural and educational foundations; Federación de Gremios de Editores de España, the publishing association; and Universia, an internet portal for universities. Each of the partners has specific responsibilities, including provision of funding, content, technical expertise, access to audiences, etc. The content is rights- cleared and freely available to the user. This case study is an example of the creation of a free-to-access digital library for rights-cleared content, with wide participation and co- operation from a large number of private and public sector players. See Annex 2.1 for further details.
5.2 Bibliothèque nationale de France and Syndicat National de l’Edition (SNE), France (BnF and French Publishers) – An experiment within Gallica 2
This partnership is the evolution of a joint BnF-SNE working group on possible business models for including in-copyright content and public domain content within a common search portal. The partnership is between the BnF, publishers who are members of the Syndicat National de l’Edition (SNE), (such as Hachette, Gallimard, Editis, La Découverte, etc), and e-retailers chosen by the publishers (such as Numilog and Cairn). The BnF has included, in its Gallica 2 digital library, an experimental platform including both in-copyright and public domain material in a common index, and will work with the publishers and aggregators to agree an homogeneous price structure for accessing e- books online. The publishers will digitise their own content and clear the necessary rights with the authors. The partnership is still under development and the experimental platform, included within Gallica 2, was launched in March 2008 at the Salon du Livre, Paris.
This case study is an example of an e-books model for both in-copyright and out-of- copyright content. See Annex 2.2 for further details.
5. 3 British Library and Cengage Gale
The partnership established between the British Library and Cengage Gale needed to provide a long-term web-based platform for the delivery of digitised historical newspapers into the core customer groups served by the British Library.
The British Library contributed curatorial expertise, project management, digitised content, and additional editorial material such as essays,
as well as collaboration in the development of the web service.
Cengage Gale provided the web-based
platform, the sales force, technical
expertise, customer support and editorial development. A significant part of the digitisation was funded by JISC in the
2008 and will involve some level of pay-per-view access, of which the details are yet to be decided.
This case study provides an example of free-to-access and priced business models via the same platform, to ensure sustainability for further digitisation. See Annex 2.3 for further details.
Google and the
This partnership was established in 2004 to digitise certain collections in the
In parallel, Google is developing a number of partnerships with publishers willing to make their books searchable and accessible through Google Book Search.
case study is an example of a mass-digitisation project for in-copyright and out-of- copyright books. There are divergences of opinion between
the members of the sub-
group as to whether making a digital copy of the work and providing
access to an excerpt of the digital copy for in-copyright
or author’s copyright. This specific part of the
Google Book Search programme is the subject of on- going litigation in
See Annex 2.4 for further details.
5.5 Institut National de l’Audiovisuel, France (INA)
INA is one of the world’s largest audio-visual archives. The organisation collects, safeguards, digitises, restores and distributes French television and radio archives, with holdings of over 3 million hours of content, and is the legal deposit repository for French broadcast material. In 2000, INA launched a major digitisation and preservation project for its archives, which involved transferring the original analogue contents to digital media, developing a search system, digitising the metadata (such as content creators and production rights) to allow commercial exploitation, and developing a commercial sales and rights management team. A full commercial service to the professional broadcast sector has been available since 2003 which, through a series of partnerships, has evolved to broking and commercial distribution on behalf of external content holders.
This case study provides an example of a priced business-to-business model for archives. See Annex 2.5 for further details.
5.6 Library & Archives Canada, Open Text Corporation and the University of
The Canada Project is in its early stages and the details of the project are under negotiation. However, the principles
of the project are clear. The project aims
This case study provides an example of a large-scale partnership involving many public and private stakeholders to digitise, provide access to, and preserve, a major part of a country’s heritage. See Annex 2.6 for further details.
The Open Content Alliance was established in 2005 and brings together more than 50 partners of three types:
• Libraries, archives and other cultural institutions willing to make their collections freely available over the internet
• Search engines willing to promote open search and who wish to improve the user experience
• Open repositories to facilitate sharing and replication of content.
Content owners contribute their collections and part-fund the digitisation; search engines contribute their indexing technology and some funding; Internet Archive and other open digital repositories provide their infrastructure for storage, access and processing of digital content. Public access to public domain content is free; solutions are under consideration for sustainable business models for in-copyright content. 200,000 books had been digitised as at October 2007.
This case study provides an example of an open-standard digitisation project for in- copyright and out-of-copyright content, primarily books. See Annex 2.7 for further details.
5.8 The National Archives (TNA) – Find My Past Limited partnership for
Outbound Passenger Lists (Licensed Internet Associateship)
partnership has made possible free public
access to Crown copyright archival materials
at the TNA,
TNA would not be able to digitise these materials without this partnership. It uses an existing model, Licensed Internet Associateship, to specify terms and conditions. As there are other LIA partnerships involving the digitisation of name-rich genealogical materials it is important to specify a similar user experience for all these partnerships.
This case study shows how royalty payments from a charged service can be earned by the public partner – this revenue is ploughed back into other digitisation projects. See Annex
2.8 for further details.
5.9 Bibliothèque nationale de France – France Telecom
This partnership will allow the partners to explore ‘geolocalization’, the identification of place names in a full-text context to be combined with geographic co-ordinates. Other research and development work is under discussion.
It will allow the BnF to provide innovative search modes for their online services. For France Telecom the large digital collection of BnF offers a testbed for new services to their customers.
See Annex 2.9 for further details.
6. WHY PARTNER? OBJECTIVES AND BENEFITS OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
6.1. OBJECTIVES FOR PUBLIC PARTNERS
The primary objective of public-private partnerships for the public institution is access to funding to digitise their collections. In all of the case studies considered, private sector funding which would not be possible from the cultural institution alone is a critical component.
However, private sector partners play a much wider role in partnerships than simply providing funding for digitisation. They also provide access to technology for digitisation, such as scanning systems, optical character recognition technology, software to “clean” digitised images and resource discovery platforms technological expertise, which may not be the core competence of cultural institutions. For example, in the Canada Project, the Open Text Corporation will provide software and technical support free of charge. Cengage Gale provides the British Library with a resource discovery solution which the British Library would not have been able to develop on its own, at least without significant investment. The technology solutions employed by partners in our case studies include scanning, optical character recognition (required to convert images to text), access platforms, search and retrieval, rights control and content management.
Providing enhanced access to resources is also important for the public sector. Digitisation has become a necessity for libraries, as younger users are very comfortable with digital resources and tend to make more use of digital material, although evidence points to growing familiarity with digital material across all age groups. Digitisation is therefore emerging as a key enabler of wider access in cultural institutions, particularly libraries and archives, and provides a much richer experience for the user, particularly in search and delivery. In this context the private sector has a crucial role to play in providing its expertise and experience in addressing new users’ needs and expectations.
For public partners, digitisation may also have the objective of providing important preservation benefits; particularly for sound and broadcast archives where digital is an accepted preservation medium.
Other significant benefits include access to private sector competencies such as product development, sales and marketing; enhancing methods and the availability of content for scholarly research; engaging new audiences, particularly young people; and promoting knowledge transfer across disciplines and sectors. Private partners may also provide weight to lobbying efforts to increase government funding.
6.2. OBJECTIVES FOR PRIVATE PARTNERS
The objectives for private partners are much more varied and depend on the specific project and partner, but they fall broadly into two groups: commercial objectives; or demonstrating corporate social responsibility.
Commercial objectives include access to new markets or customer groups, association with strong public brands, and access to out-of-copyright content, (some of which may be rare or unique), all of which may be monetised through commercial revenue streams. For example, BnF and the French publishers, aggregators and online book retailers aim to create a common search portal that will provide free access to public domain content and priced access to in-copyright material, mainly books. The publishers and book retailers aim to increase their exposure to the potential market, and therefore grow their revenues by offering their content online.
The commercial objectives may benefit the public sector partner financially through direct fees from the user of the service, or through royalties or revenue share agreements. Examples are INA, which receives 40% of its total income from commercial activities which in turn fund further digitisation projects to increase access, and the British Library, which will receive a royalty from commercial revenues earned by Gale through its partnership to digitise historical newspapers.
Demonstrating corporate social responsibility and benefits for the
“greater good” are
also key outcomes for many
private companies. For example, the Cervantes Virtual Library has two key private sector partners which have charitable foundations. The
Fundacion Telefónica “carries out important
work in the field of art and culture.
Within this framework, all of the projects promoted by the Foundation are designed
Universities, has established a unique co-operation model with universities
Private sector partners in the Cervantes Virtual Library can deduct their charitable contributions against profits to reduce their corporation tax liability, as established by Spanish taxation laws.
Other EU countries, such as
A distinction is often operated between the concept of donation (the private partner provides support without receiving any direct benefit) and the case of sponsorship (where the private partner receives a benefit in terms of branding/ advertising). Fiscal benefits for enterprises are normally higher in the case of donations, in order to increase the attractiveness of such schemes.
6.3. BENEFITS FOR CITIZENS
The primary benefit for citizens is increased, generally free online access to an unrivalled wealth of digital resources that previously may not even have been accessible in physical form, or only by physically visiting a cultural institution or local book store. Digitisation of these resources democratises knowledge and unlocks the heritage of great cultural institutions for everyone to enjoy and benefit from. Blind and partially-sighted and other print-disabled citizens can benefit from increased and better access to text when it is digitised as text. New creative endeavours can be inspired or result from access to digitised cultural heritage materials, whilst learning and tourism can also benefit.
Some public-private partnerships have ambitious
goals for citizens; for example the
Similarly, the Open Content Alliance was launched in 2005 with the goal of encouraging the greatest possible access to and re-use of collections, while respecting the rights of content owners. With more than 50 participating institutions, it currently holds more than 200,000 books from the public domain that can be read online or
downloaded. They also are available to any search engine for indexing and therefore can benefit all citizens regardless of the tool they use to find content online.
6.4. BENEFITS FOR RIGHTSHOLDERS
The main benefit for rights holders is to increase significantly the visibility of their work and potentially the revenue that they can expect from it. This implies that users make some payment to access the works. Rightsholders may not be explicit partners in a PPP, although as content owners their co-operation is required.
This larger visibility and discoverability can be particularly important for works with a smaller target audience, and therefore less traditional exposure. Works which target niche audiences can benefit from the new discovery possibilities that digitisation and indexing offer; this is one of the key economic benefits of the internet. This ability to discover niche works can be hampered by exclusivity on accessing or indexing the digitised copy (see section 10.3 below).
For example, the partnership between the BnF and French publishers is intended to extend the traditional market for books to new audiences and therefore increase the market opportunity for publishers and authors.
There are significant differences
of opinion between members of the sub-group as to
whether the Google-University of
6.5 ADDED VALUE TO USERS
Each case study demonstrates that digitisation projects can bring significant additional benefits to the user compared to access to analogue content only. These might include enhancement of the user experience through advanced search capabilities, especially if the content has been processed using optical character recognition software, allowing full-text search by name, date, keyword and thus extending resource discovery from monograph or journal level to chapter, article or paragraph. The user can view (subject to copyright restrictions) content from their own desktop, without having to visit physically a library, museum or archive within its opening hours. Libraries, collections and items that have been dispersed over time can be virtually reunited and different states of objects, geographically separated, can be compared at the desktop. Different media – film and sound as well as books and manuscripts – can be brought together. Curatorial comment can be accessed easily at the same time and with Web 2.0 group curation becomes possible. Mass digitisation also creates a critical mass of materials that opens up the possibilities for new research using text-mining etc.
For example, the Cervantes Virtual Library includes content carefully selected by an expert team of academics. It is accessible by a unique platform and is organised in the same way as a typical library – in sections, by authors etc. There are linguistic tools to facilitate searching. Some of the multimedia content is signed to facilitate access by the deaf.
Gallica 2 (BnF and French publishers) gives access to in-copyright and out-of-copyright material via an integrated interface.
The case studies in Annex 2 of this report include further examples of the added-value to the user.
7. BUSINESS MODELS
The business models employed in the case study partnerships are varied and depend on the specifics of the project. They provide interesting examples of what works for the parties involved, and therefore provide a useful source of experience for cultural institutions in Member States to draw from.
• BnF and French publishers – this is a business-to-consumer (B2C) business model.
Access to public domain content will be free to the user; access to in-copyright material will be in the form of short extracts, with the specific agreement of the rights holder. Specialised sites will provide online browsing and full access to a protected document according to terms agreed by rights holders.
Publishers will bear the digitisation costs and in most cases will digitise their own content, although the BnF could act as a digitisation service provider for small publishers. Public subsidy may be granted to publishers to digitise their books should the content meet the digitisation strategy of the BnF. e-retailers will have contracts with publishers which will define the prices to the user for online access to in- copyright e-books.
The partnership will generate revenues for authors, publishers, content aggregators and e-book retailers through sales of e-books. The business model is under consideration, but the BnF and the French publishers have considered a range of possible business models as outlined in annex 2 of the case study (Annex 2.2). The BnF and the French publishers commissioned a study of the range of business models available for e-books, from those applied by e-book retailer to digital library models. The BnF and the French publishers recommend that an e-book retailer model would be the best suited to access of full text content for a large potential customer base and a growing catalogue of titles. This could include access to the full text of a single title, a “pay per view” model for access to single chapters or pages, or a subscription model enabling access to packages of e-books, organised by subject or author.
The BnF and the French publishers also recommend that the model could be tailored by the publisher and aggregator, but that each publisher chooses only one single aggregator.
• The British Library-Cengage Gale partnership will deliver access
to approximately three million pages of digitised newspaper content via the Cengage Gale platform
via both business-to-business (B2B) and B2C models.
Because some of the content
digitisation was funded by JISC, access to this content
by users in the
offering to other markets, for example in the
• The funding, costs and financial incentives to the partners within the Canada Project have not been finalised. Therefore there is no formal written agreement in place at this time. It is expected that a mix of government and private funding will drive the project; access to content will be free. However, the stakeholders recognise that funding, although critical, is only one aspect of the partnership. This is another B2C model.
• Funding of the Cervantes Virtual Library is mainly provided by the private and public institutions that sit on the organisation’s Board. A framework agreement was set up with each of the founding sponsors, and once the Cervantes Virtual Library Foundation was established as a legal entity, similar agreements were established with the additional sponsors. The only financial incentive available to private partners is that they can reduce their corporation tax liability by deducting charitable contributions from their profits, according to Spanish law. Users can access the service for free via a B2C model.
• The B2C business
model agreed between Google and the
digitised works to use for its own purposes. It bears costs associated with the selection of material and internal project management. There is no payback for the University such as a royalty or revenue share. Google has pledged to make both search and a display of the search results free to the end-user.
• INA receives 60% of its income from the French government and earns the remaining
40% through commercial activities for professionals (a B2B model). As explained in the section 3 of this report, in 2000 it launched a major digitisation and preservation programme for its broadcast archives. This was financed initially through internal budgets. The government then made a significant financial contribution in order to accelerate the project and complete it by 2015. Professional users can search and select through www.inamediapro.com for contents hosted by INA. Since 2005 INA has launched broking and distribution agreements with more than 20 partners. Through INA’s commercial broking services, the contents are available on INA’s portal; INA receives a commission on transactions through the portal, but the responsibility for invoicing, rights management and content delivery remains with the external archive.
External archives can also deposit their assets with INA for commercial exploitation, effectively a distribution agreement. The distribution services provided range from complete management of the content from preservation to digital exploitation, to simpler forms such as storage and commercialisation only. INA is responsible for clearing rights, invoicing and content delivery. The revenues earned by INA are much more substantial and depend on the commercial agreement with the distribution partner. Public access to a selection of the content is available through www.ina.fr/archivespourtous.
• The Open Content Alliance
has a B2C business model but there is no revenue stream to publishers or rights holders
because it focuses on
out-of-copyright material and orphan works.
However, financial benefits are important due
to the lowering
of digitisation costs and free distribution of content. This is achieved
through pooling of existing resources and competencies, particularly with respect
to technology innovation. Funding has
been provided by
charitable foundations and
through research grants, by organisations such as the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Mellon Foundation and
the State of
• The TNA – Find My Past Limited partnership combines B2B and B2C models. Both partners secure revenue from micro-payments, whilst the public can purchase copies and downloads, though there is free public access onsite at TNA
8. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
This section is meant to provide basic information to help partners in a PPP agreement to make an informed decision concerning the digitisation of works and their making available through online access within the framework of PPP agreements.
1.Existing works to be digitised.
At the outset, the partners need to consider whether the work
has fallen into the public domain or, alternatively, is still protected
by copyright or
by related rights (including “typefaces”, as far as the
While the duration of copyright protection in the European Union is as a rule 70 years post mortem auctoris, it may differ depending on the type of rightsholders and works. E.g. typefaces are protected for 25 years after publication, even in connection with works otherwise in the public domain.
If the work was created by a single author who died more than 70 years ago, then the digitisation and making available of the work can generally be undertaken without asking permission of the former right-holders. If on the contrary the author of the work died less than 70 years ago, the PPP partners have to consider the applicable national copyright legislation, including recent amendments deriving from a set of copyright Directives (mainly the Term Directive, the Database Directive and the Copyright in the Information Society Directive) in the European Union.
Digitisation taking place in the context of PPP involves the exclusive right of reproduction (Article 2 of the Copyright in the Information Society Directive). This exclusive right is subject to copyright exceptions. One example of such exceptions is Article 5.2.c of the Information Society Directive, which permits cultural establishments (publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums, or archives, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage) to make specific acts of reproduction.
Under current EU legislation, providing online access to copyright protected works that have been digitised, involves the exclusive right of communication to the public, including the making available right. This exclusive right may be subject to exceptions. For example, the exception in Article 5.3.n of the Information Society Directive permits cultural establishments to provide access within their premises.
Article 5.3. of the Information Society Directive includes a number of other exceptions to the right of reproduction and of communication/making available which might be applicable.
As earlier indicated, different legal regimes would be applicable to PPP agreements outside of the European Union, which may have different rights and exceptions.
All the exceptions referred to above apply to the extent provided by national laws. Under the three-step test under the Berne Convention, incorporated by Article 5.5 of the Information Society Directive, the relevant exceptions “shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject- matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right-holder”.
Therefore if partners to a PPP agreement want to provide online access to copyright protected works, they first need to find out about the status of the work.
Where the rightsholder can be found and use of the work requires a licence, that licence needs to be negotiated with the right-holder. This can be particularly complex with audio- visual materials where multi-territoriality issues may arise.
2. Orphan Works, Out of Print Works. According to the solutions considered in the Report on Key Principles on Orphan Works and Out of Print Works, if the work still is in copyright and if the rightsholders cannot be identified or are untraceable after conducting a diligent search, then the work is considered as “orphan” and solutions are being considered which are to be deployed at national level.
According to the solutions proposed in the Report, if the work still is in copyright and is no longer being commercialised – whether offline or online –, rightsholders and libraries
as one option may resort to this model licence attached to the Report and intended contractually to enable the provision of access to the work.
3. New rights. New rights may arise in connection with the process of digitisation. Digital reproduction itself may in certain circumstances generate an additional layer of copyright protection, e.g. the insertion of the tags, tokens and mark-ups which classify the semantic role of pre-existing strings of words. Creative components of indexation, e.g. the underlying algorithms, might also attract specific IP protection independent of any digitised work, such as protection under trade secret law. Database law may also come into play.
Similar issues may arise in connection with metadata, meaning information about individual items subject to digitisation. In certain jurisdictions, the metadata classifying information concerning the origin of a given work, its status, its content, the place where the original is available, etc. may attract independent copyright protection. Even the templates into which uniform metadata are inserted may in certain cases be considered copyrightable works.
In the context of PPP, partners should consider who owns the rights that may be created in connection with digitisation and with the creation of corresponding metadata (if any) and under which conditions these new rights may be exploited, within the PPP project and beyond it. They should notably consider IP rights in material created on their behalf by third parties, including employees and contractors.
Ideally, new rights should neither restrict the freedom to use works already in the public domain nor decrease the degree of freedom enjoyed by copyright protected works. To make sure that this goal is reached, prior contractual arrangements between the PPP parties as well as between each parties and its employees and contractors is advisable. The partners may also wish to make sure that the solutions they adopt are interoperable, technologically and legally, with the other initiatives.
studies. Several of the case studies involve a mixture of in- and out-
of copyright materials. The
Similarly, the partnership established between the BnF and French publishers (as part of Gallica 2) combines public domain and in-copyright content. The publishers will retain control of the use of content for which they have acquired IP rights from authors. The explicit agreement of the rightsholders will be required to retrieve their content via the portal.
the Google-University of
The partnership between the BnF and France Telecom may lead to software development: intellectual property rights in this need to be addressed to enable the results to be integrated into BnF online services.
The sub-group recommends that the guiding principle is that partnership should be established within the framework of applicable copyright law.
9. PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
Public domain information refers to out-of-copyright works. It is essential that public domain information digitised in the context of PPPs remains accessible for all.
As for in-copyright material, the simple making of a digital copy of a work in the public domain, does not change its public domain status, both in the analogue and in the digital environment.
While public-private partnerships can be enormously successful and may offer major benefits to partners and citizens, they are not right for every cultural institution. Some public sector institutions see it as their mission to protect state ownership of the cultural assets of the nation and do not allow them to be exploited for commercial gain. They may view partnerships with the private sector, particularly if paid-for access is involved and re-use rights are granted on an exclusive basis, as enabling the privatisation of public knowledge.
Other cultural institutions view digitisation projects as providing an additional service, which would not have been available to users without private-sector funding. They may believe a fee to help cover the costs of digitisation is both justified and necessary. They point out that the underlying content remains in the public domain.
An example of this is the British Library-Cengage Gale partnership, through which
Cengage Gale has a licence to commercialise out-of-copyright digitised content to certain market sectors, for a limited period. Following this period the licence expires and the rights to exploit the digital content revert to the British Library. Access to the digitised
19-century newspaper content would not have been possible without the investment and access platform provided by Cengage Gale as British Library funds for digitisation are limited by the available government funding.
There is a great deal of sensitivity regarding commercialisation of public domain content through digitisation, and widely opposing views. The law in some Member States may not allow commercialisation of public sector assets. Some governments may offer significant investment for digitisation projects, so there may be no need for commercial business models to fund the project. It is for cultural institutions to decide their own opinions on this point and act accordingly, while respecting a number of basic principles outlined in this report.
The sub-group recommends that public domain content in the analogue world should remain in the public domain in the digital environment. If restrictions to user’s access and use are necessary in order to make the digital content available at all, these restrictions should only apply for a time-limited period.
The sub-group has identified three levels of exclusivity in PPPs: exclusivity of partners, content and search/ access.
The sub-group recommends that exclusive arrangements for digitising and distributing the digital assets of cultural institutions are to be avoided.
This should be balanced with the need for the PPP to provide the level of incentive for private partners to engage in digitisation and making available the assets of cultural institutions.
10.1 EXCLUSIVITY OF PARTNERS
All the partnerships considered through the case studies in this report are non- exclusive in that partnering with one organisation does not preclude the parties partnering with another.
For example, the British Library-Cengage Gale partnership is non-exclusive in that the British Library can establish partnerships with other players to digitise newspaper content. The partnership was established through an open tender process according to EU procurement rules.
case studies involve collaborative
arrangements with a broad range of
different public and private sector players. For example, the
However, the BnF-French publishers' partnership does involve a level of exclusivity as publishers are supposed to choose only one aggregator to work with, for practical reasons. This relates to in-copyright material.
10.2 EXCLUSIVITY OF CONTENT
Some PPPs may involve a level of exclusivity regarding the content that is being digitised – that the partnership prevents the public-sector institution digitising its copies of the content with another private-sector provider. Timing is important and exclusivity may be necessary for a limited period of time, notably when otherwise the content would not be available to the public. This exclusivity provides a commercial advantage to private-sector players, as there would be a disincentive to private partners to invest when they have limited prospects of realising a commercial return. Cultural institutions need to bear in mind that private sector organisations generally have to demonstrate the added-value of new services for users and the subsequent creation of value for shareholders through a cash-flow stream.
An example of this is the British Library-Cengage Gale partnership through which Cengage Gale has an exclusive licence to use the digitised newspaper content via its platform for a limited period of time, and therefore create a commercial opportunity (subject to restrictions based on the digitisation agreements with other stakeholders).
Cultural institutions can consider the use of a creative commons licence if they wish to allow digitised content to be available for re-use.
10.3 EXCLUSIVITY OF SEARCH/ ACCESS
The third level of exclusivity which may be established through partnerships is that of search/ access. PPPs involving search engines financing digitisation of content may limit search on the resulting digitised copies to specific search services to prevent them from being indexable by other search engines. Making digitised copies of content searchable through a search portal increases the added value of the service for users, thereby increasing the incentive needed for private partners to engage in digitisation of content. (Note that access to the content itself depends on its copyright status).
the Google-Michigan partnership, the
The stance taken by the Open Content Alliance is to establish non-exclusivity of search and access. Search engines participating in the project must be willing to provide open search of the digitised content. Development of new search tools and indexing techniques can happen therefore independently of partner search engines.
The European Digital Library has stated as an objective that it will make content searchable through any search engine so as not to distort or limit access. Again it is for cultural institutions to decide which approach is the best one for them to take to provide maximum benefits to users and citizens.
11. RE-USE OF DIGITAL COPIES
Directive 2003/98/EC sets out specific rules for the re-use of public sector information which applies to digitised content, and came into force on 1st July 2005. Re-use is defined in the 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”. The Directive notes that “public sector information is an important primary material for digital content products and services”. Re-use therefore includes the use of public domain digitised content in products and services such as search, research tools, incorporation into third party products and services, and so on.
The Directive states that:
• Member States shall ensure that public sector documents shall be re-usable for commercial or non-commercial purposes (subject to copyright of third parties and data protection laws)
• Where charges are made for re-use, the total income from supplying and allowing re- use shall not exceed the cost, together with a reasonable return on investment
• That if a licence is required for re-use of the document, the licence shall be open and transparent
• The re-use of documents shall be open to all potential players in the market; contracts between the public sector body holding the documents and third parties shall not grant generally exclusive rights.
• However, where an exclusive right is necessary for the provision of a service in the public interest, the validity of the reason for granting this right shall be subject to regular review, at a minimum of every three years. Moreover, the agreement should be transparent and made public.
At the time of writing, the Directive specifically excluded documents held by educational and research establishments, and documents held by cultural institutions, such as libraries, museums and archives. However, the sub-group recommends that cultural institutions should aim to abide by the Directive.
12. LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY & TIMEFRAMES
In order for digitisation projects to provide ongoing benefits for all the parties involved, the sub-group agrees that they should be sustainable in the long-term. In all of the case studies we considered, the parties considered sustainability to be either an explicit or implicit objective; and the partnerships were envisaged for the long-term.
For example, the British Library has achieved sustainability of its newspaper digitisation project by allowing its partner Cengage-Gale to charge a pay-per-use or subscription fee to certain markets, with a royalty payment back to the British Library. Any income to the British Library will be ploughed back into further newspaper digitisation, ensuring that product can be expanded and developed over time. The partnership is renewable after a certain period of time.
In addition, sustainability generally also applies to the need to preserve digital material for the long-term, and to support long-term access. The sub-group recommends that partners should consider the full lifecycle costs of digital content when establishing digitisation partnerships. Costs may arise through collection, description, production and dissemination, as well as long-term storage and preservation.
As another example, The Canada Project intends to digitise all of Canada’s extensive published and scientific heritage, with a guiding principle that content should be created and maintained “according to standards that support preservation and very long-term access”. The case study notes that in terms of the length of the anticipated partnership, “five years may not suffice”.
With the Cervantes Virtual Library, partnership agreements are generally signed for a period of 4 years, but the life of the project is seen as being much longer.
Formal governance is necessary for PPPs because the objectives of the partners – shareholders, rightsholders and public – may create tensions. The PPPs illustrated by the case studies annexed to this report make use of, in most cases, formal governance arrangements enshrined in a formal contract between the parties. These contracts should set out formally the key terms of agreements between the parties on the issues illustrated in this report - for example, exclusivity, the exact contribution of the parties and the term of the agreement. An area for attention is branding: public partners often do not communicate their brand in many PPPs in the same way as private partners. A contractual framework allows their brand to be protected and communicated in the way that both partners want.
Formal contractual arrangements may be necessary to ensure that participants are clear on their rights and obligations in digitisation projects.
The management of digitisation projects should be set out in clear and transparent governance arrangements so that ongoing issues can be resolved and managed on a timely basis.
The ‘Cooperative agreement’ between Google and the University of Michigan covers the purposes of the agreement, definitions, responsibilities, costs borne by the partners, ownership and use of digital copies and services, access, authorization and support, confidentiality, marketing, terms and termination, warranties and disclaimer, indemnification and liability.
The standard Licensed Internet Associateship (The National Archives) agreement in addition has specific schedules for acknowledgements, provision of hyperlinks, deliverables and milestones timetables, service specifications and reporting, service level agreement and trade mark licence.
The sub-group recommends that PPPs have formal governance arrangements enshrined in a formal contract between parties.
14. LANGUAGE AND MARKET SIZE ISSUES
All of the PPPs researched through case studies deal with major global languages: English, French and Spanish. At present, the sub-group has been unable to find examples of successful PPPs for digitisation in member states with languages spoken by a much smaller number of people. There are a number of potential reasons for the lack of PPPs in these countries:
• In order to recoup a satisfactory return on investment, private sector firms need to be able to reach a minimum number of users, which limits commercial business models to large geographic areas or languages spoken by large volumes of people
• Public sector organisations tend to be less encumbered by regulations preventing private investment in countries which have embraced de-regulated markets and open competition
• Cultural institutions tend to attract
government funding for digitisation in smaller countries with lower volumes of legacy content
to be digitised, such as the new EU member states in Central and
• Moreover, in the new EU member states, the generally smaller size of private firms compared to those in established member states may mean that private firms have reduced access to capital.
There are certain to be exceptions to these generalisations, and the sub-group welcomes case studies outside these major language groups for inclusion in this report.
Although the research into case studies by the sub-group has not been
exhaustive, it is clear that PPPs are not widespread within the cultural sector in
Most of the partnerships we have investigated are still in their preliminary stages of development, and therefore it is too early to make general conclusions as to the key elements of success. However, in conclusion the sub-group makes a number of recommendations as to critical success factors, as follows:
• Partners clearly state their strategic objectives and the benefits for the citizen to be achieved through the project
• The partnership fully utilises the experience and expertise of the partners, and brings complementary contributions
• The partnership maximises public access and takes into account long-term preservation and sustainability issues
• The partnership operates within the framework of applicable copyright and intellectual property law
• The partnership does not establish exclusive agreements. Where exclusive agreements are necessary to provide a service in the public interest, that such exclusive arrangements are time-limited, regularly reviewed and transparent.
• The partnership is transparent, accountable, and managed through a formal governance structure
• The partnership is formally established through a memorandum of understanding or contract.
• Public domain content in the analogue world should remain in the public domain in the digital environment. If restrictions to user’s access and use are necessary in order to make the content available at all, these restrictions should only apply for a time- limited period.
The sub-group recognises that PPPs can deliver major benefits for the partners, citizens and rights holders. The sub-group recommends that public institutions actively engage with private institutions as an option to achieve mass digitisation projects; however partners must fully consider their own unique objectives and circumstances before doing so. A full check list of the potential issues to consider is included at Annex 3; this draws on the case studies and the experience of the sub-group members.
The sub-group would like to thank all the organisations who submitted case studies, the stakeholders consulted, and the European Commission for their help in the preparation of this report.
ANNEX 1 – MEMBERS OF THE SUB-GROUP ON PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
Dame Lynne Brindley, Chief Executive, British Library (Chair) Anne Bergman-Tahon, Director, Federation of European Publishers Lucie Burgess, Head of Strategy and Planning, British Library
Stephen Bury, Head of European and American Collections, British Library
Julien Masanès, Director, European Archive
Patricia Moll, European Policy Manager (substituted by Antoine Aubert), Google
Daria Nałęcz, Prof.
Elisabeth Niggemann, Director General, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Luis Rodríguez, Institutional Relations Director, Fundación Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes
Lucien Scotti, Director for European and International Affairs, Bibliothèque nationale de
Daniel Teruggi, Head of Research, Institut National de l'Audiovisuel
Stéphanie Van Duin, Director of Business Development, Hachette Livre
Secretariat: Luca Martinelli, Principal Administrator and Policy Officer, European
ANNEX 2 – CASE STUDIES
ANNEX 2.1 Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes (Cervantes Virtual Library)
ANNEX 2.2 Bibliothèque nationale de France and Syndicat National de l’Edition,
France (BnF and French Publishers) (An experiment within Gallica 2)
ANNEX 2.3 British Library and Thomson Gale (British Library and Gale)
ANNEX 2.4 Google and the
ANNEX 2.5 Institut National de l’Audiovisuel, France (INA)
ANNEX 2.6 Library & Archives Canada, Open Text Corporation and the
ANNEX 2.7 The
ANNEX 2.8 The National Archives (TNA) and Find My Past Limited (Licensed
ANNEX 2.9 Bibliothèque nationale de France – France Telecom
Biblioteca Virtual Miguel de Cervantes
1. Key players
• Please include here a brief explanation of the players involved in the partnership and overview of their role and key activities:
According to its founding statutes, the main support of the Foundation structure is the Patronato (Board of Trustees or Sponsors). This Board is composed of diverse institutions and corporations, from both the public and private sectors. Amongst these, we can highlight the original sponsors: Banco de Santander, Fundación Marcelino Botín and Universidad de Alicante. The Board is the responsible entity in charge of the fulfilment of the goals of the Foundation. The list of the patrons is as follows:
de Alicante (
Ministerio de Cultura (Ministery of Cultura)
Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (Ministery for Education and Science) Ministerio de Trabajo y Asuntos Sociales (Ministery for Labor and Social Affairs) Secretaría de Estado de Cooperación Internacional (Secretary of State for
Valenciana (Regional Governement of
Conferencia de Rectores de las Universidades Españolas (Conference of Deans of
Real Academia Española (
Instituto Cervantes (Cervantes Institute)
Fundación Marcelino Botín
Grupo PRISA (Media) Repsol YPF
Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez
Federación de Gremios Editores de España (Spanish Editors' Association) Universia (internet portal for Universities)
There is also a different entity – the Scientific Committee – with several functions related to the contents of the Virtual Library. Specifically, this committee is responsible for the design and conceptual definition of the Library itself, leading and supervising content programming, and thus ensuring a high scientific quality of content within the Library.
The Scientific Committee is an advisory committee comprising 12 members, all of whom are experts in different areas concerning the works of the Virtual Library: philology, librarians, internet technology, linguistic, literature, history etc.
• How was the partnership established – e.g. did a formal selection of the partner take place or was the partnership a natural evolution of an existing relationship?
The original sponsors were responsible for defining the profile of members who would progressively become members of the Board. The main criterion used during the selection process was the degree of affinity of each member with the goals and scope of the project, namely the development of the Miguel de Cervantes Virtual Library.
Accordingly, different institutions were identified and were invited to be members through a formal approach process. Once decided, the institutions/ corporation, etc. are represented at the highest level.
• Was the partnership exclusive or non-exclusive?
In no case whatsoever are the collaborative relationships established between the Foundation and its partners of an exclusive nature. In our understanding, the magnitude and scope of this kind of project is improved and bettered by a participation that is as open and collaborative as possible. In fact, the notability and renown of the institutions that are part of the Foundation has been achieved through their participation and experience in widely diverse cultural projects of high relevance.
• What did the partnership aim to achieve?
The common goal of the Foundation members is set by the Foundation statutes, namely the “continued development of the Miguel de Cervantes Virtual Library so that it can be used as an optimal tool to support the expansion of Spanish and Latin American culture across the world, through the use and application of the most advanced technological means to the most relevant works of the Hispanic literature, science and culture”.
In some cases, part of the funds provided by the sponsor is dedicated to a specific activity; for instance, Telefonica has sponsored the Abbey of Montserrat for several years. This Abbey, located in Cataluña, is very well renowned for its library which contains a huge amount of old documents and books, very much appreciated by researchers. Among the three institutions (Telefonica, the Abbey and the Virtual Library), we agreed to allocate part of the funds from Telefonica for digitising a number of books from the Abbey.
• What were the strategic objectives of the partners and how closely did they align?
The goal of the Foundation (thus shared by the Library) was to create a web space to enable the spreading of Hispanic cultures. The continued membership, involvement and continuity of both professionals and institutions who collaborate in the Virtual Library is the best possible way to express the achievement of our goals, for our partners and the Foundation alike.
As a part of its corporate social responsibility, Telefonica has its own Foundation which “carries out important work in the field of art and culture. Within this framework, all of the projects promoted by the Foundation are designed with educational and pedagogical characteristics” (source: Fundacion Telefonica Annual Report).
Another case: “the Fundacion Marcelino Botin (Marcelino Botin Foundation) is developing innovative projects –the Responsible Education, Technological Transfer and Heritage and Land Programmes- in three areas of strategic action: Education, Science and Sustainable Development. Additionally, it collaborates in the development of initiatives planned and managed by other specialized institutions with social, health and cultural objectives, such as the Miguel de Cervantes Virtual Library” (source: Annual Report).
the case of Banco Santander it must be stressed that “the Santander Universities Global Division, has established a
unique cooperation model
with universities in
3. Contribution of the parties
• What did each of the parties contribute to the partnership?
From an operating point of view, each member of the Board and the Scientific Committee has an active participation (scientifically or institutionally), as was defined in the first section of this document. However, it must be noted that the economic resources necessary for the development of the Library are mainly provided by the institutions and key corporations that belong to the Board.
For an example, also see nbr. 2 above (Objectives, 1st question).
Were there any other key stakeholders in the project or programme, and if so, what was their contribution?
The Foundation is responsible for fund-raising activities. To this end, it is in charge of developing projects which are then presented to public and private, cultural and non- cultural organizations which sponsor financial aids and subventions. This ensures a certain income that is added to its yearly resources. However, this extra income is neither predictable nor continuous and is normally used in specific projects for the improvement of the Library.
According to their relationship with the Foundation, we can include our partner entities in one out of three collaboration categories (see list of partners in nbr. 1 Key Players):
- Cultural entities which provide financial aid.
- (Mainly) Private corporations which are economically involved in the development of the Library.
- Partnerships with other cultural institutions which see www.cervantesvirtual.com as an excellent support for cultural communication and diffusion, and that have similar goals and user profiles.
• What were the key benefits to the cultural institution and private sector player?
The common benefits, both for our institution and for our sponsors/partners, are related to the participation in an international cultural project such as the Miguel de Cervantes Virtual Library, which has become the cultural reference on the Web for teachers, students, researchers, philologists and the Spanish-speaking community in general.
The renown, magnitude, image, preminence and national and global positioning achieved are highly beneficial values to those private entities members of the Foundation, and also to those that develop commercial exchange activities or institutional relationships.
• What were the public good aspects of the partnership, and benefits to the citizen?
The general benefits to citizens could be summarized as “universalization of education and culture” and “socialization of knowledge in an interactive way, within a multicultural international environment”.
It must be stressed that the Virtual Library provides free access: no fee is charged in any case.
• How were these benefits articulated and communicated to key stakeholders?
The Foundation is permanently involved in communication initiatives.
On one hand, two bulletins are distributed. One of them, directed to the end-user, is adapted to his/her areas of interest and is composed and delivered online in digital format. The second one is sent to the sponsors, members of the Board and the Scientific Committee and other people of interest and relevance to the Foundation (mainly related to the educational and cultural sectors), in written format.
On the other, the Foundation carries out information and communication campaigns in newspapers, websites and cultural fora.
5. Business model
• What were the key constituents of the revenue and cost model?
Both the Foundation and its development are made possible, mainly, thanks to the financial support provided by some of the 17 institutions members of the Board. This is the configuration of their contributions (monetary). All the contributions are included in the formal (written) agreement established with each partner.
- Four of the sponsors provide annual contributions, (these being the original sponsors who provide the larger part of the contributions for developing the Virtual Library), always according to the collaboration agreements that were established with each particular institution.
- Three other public sponsors collaborate too, via public funding, which differ in periodicity, character and time scope. These resources are normally used to improve the contents programme, for promotion activities, etc.
The three sponsors taken as an example contribute annually with an amount of money, included in the terms of agreement.
• How did the private sector partner monetise the project or activity?
Private corporations and, members of the Board can deduct their contributions from
Corporate Tax, as established by current tax laws.
On occasion, especially in projects developed with public funding, the donating (public) organisms require the private partner to share intellectual property for the project deliverables, and also for the public funding agent to mention explicitly all actions carried out as a result of the granted funds.
All the contracts have specific terms depending on the partner and so they are not publicly available.
• Was there an equivalent pay back for the public institution such as a royalty payment or revenue share?
• Which costs did each party bear?
There is not a split of costs allocated to each institution of the Board.
• Were there any financial incentives or penalties included in the partnership, and what form did these take?
Participation and support are regulated in the agreements, but the only financial incentive is the above-mentioned tax deduction.
• Was the business model clearly stated in a written agreement, and if so, what were the key terms?
Initially, when the Library was started up, there existed a framework agreement with the founding sponsors. In this agreement, it was established how each entity would be involved in the Library project. In a later stage, once the Foundation was legally established (to provide institutional, legal and management support to the Library), similar agreements were established with the additional Sponsors.
6. Ownership of intellectual property
• N.B. This section is again intended to be descriptive and should be disclosed only with reference to commercial sensitivities and without breach of confidentiality
• What were the key intellectual property issues, and how were they dealt with?
Most of the digitized documents are in the public domain. Some others with intellectual property rights have been bestowed to the Foundation from their authors or rights holders, via written statements according to the current Intellectual Property Rights Laws.
• What were the key copyright constraints, and how were the appropriate permissions obtained from rights holders?
In general, and except in very few cases, the contents are bestowed upon us to be used exclusively for online distribution via www.cervantesvirtual.com, always with non- restricted access.
• N.B. This section is again intended to be descriptive and should be disclosed only with reference to commercial sensitivities and without breach of confidentiality
• How was the partnership governed and how were the relationships managed to ensure that the partnership fulfilled its aims and objectives?
The management team is responsible of the daily operations. The strategic decisions must be approved by the Board of Trustees. There is also a sub-group of Patrons that meets every three months for supervising the work of the management team.
• What was the form of the partnership, e.g. informal, formal, licence-based, joint venture, commercial agreement, etc?
Written agreements are set up with each sponsor with the specific conditions of the collaboration.
• Were the principles of the partnership clearly stated in a written agreement, such as a contract or memorandum of understanding? If so, how was this structured and what were the key terms?
Written agreements usually include:
- general description of the collaboration.
- specific details referring to the economic or scientific contribution, duration, non-disclosure, intellectual property rights…
• What was the mechanism for dispute resolution?
A follow-up committee is considered in the written agreements for the daily follow up of the partnership and, if necessary, for dispute resolution (up to date, never has been utilized).
8. Termination and exit
• What was the length of term of the partnership, and the mechanism for terminating once the project or programme was complete?
As a general rule, four years is the duration of the agreement. Although in some specific cases, only an annual renewal is possible.
9. Critical success factors
• How was success defined and measured?
From the beginning, different quantitative and qualitative criteria have been used. Quantitative:
- Number of users, number of pages downloaded, nbr. of susbcribers to the news bulletin,
- Corporate: nbr. and value of subventions from public institutions, nbr. of links, nbr. of collaboration proposals received.
- Nbr. of books, documents, etc. digitized. Qualitative:
- Communication about and positioning of the Virtual Library in different fora of the cultural, educational and library sectors.
- Seminars, Congresses, at national and international levels, in which the
There are no specific critical success factors for each partner. As it has been explained, for the three sponsors taken as an example, their collaboration is a consequence of their corporate social responsibility policy.
• Was the partnership successful, and if so, what were the key factors that contributed to this success? Examples could include an alignment with strategic objectives, a good personal relationship between the parties, strong financial incentives
The most obvious proof is the loyalty of both the users and the institutions.
- Board of Trustees: extended collaboration for years.
- Collaborators: constantly offering help for new projects.
- Excellent positioning before the civil society.
10. Risks and issues
• What were the key risks to the parties and the success of the partnership, and how were these managed and mitigated?
As the Foundation is a nonprofit organization, all the developments with economic impact are, in the yearly plan, strictly linked to the expected forecast of the year.
• Were there any conflicts between the activities of the partnership and the hosts, and how were these conflicts overcome?
Bibliothèque nationale de France – French publishers partnership
The partnership is between :
- the Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF) ;
- publishers willing to participate in the experience (see list in annex 1) ;
- e-retailers (Numilog, Cyberlibris, Tite-Live, La Documentation française, Cairn, Gallimard, Editis, i-kiosque, Sofedis, Minitelorama/Edilivre, HDS Digital) chosen by the publishers ;
- and, in the future, e-booksellers (general or specialised).
The partnership was established as the evolution of an existing relationship, i.e. a joint BnF-SNE working group on possible business models for including copyrighted material in a common search portal combining public domain documents and copyrighted material.
The BnF has issued an indicative documentary policy document for the future common platform, covering both public domain and copyrighted works. It has also prepared technical specifications for the e-retailers (OAI compliance and repositories, metadata for book indexing, etc.). Lastly but not least, it has developed an experimental platform within its Gallica2 digital library including a search engine able to search both public domain and copyrighted works in a common index as well as functionalities for providing first access to those documents.
For public domain material, the users will be able to access and download the full text, whereas for the copyrighted material, the users will have free access to cover pages 1 and 4, to the table of contents and, in some cases, a summary (depending on the publishers’ agreement). If the users wish to have access to the full content, they will be redirected to the e-retailers websites.
The publishers will select the books (under copyright) they want to include in the platform and will digitise them. Digitisation according to technical specifications is delivered to the BnF directly by the publishers.
A set of e-retailers has been selected based on technical specifications and presence on the market. A working group including IT people from the BnF and the e-retailers has been set up to guarantee the efficiency of the service and to set up the adequate interfaces. The e-retailers will have contracts with the publishers by which they define together the fees for accessing the copyrighted documents put online in case a user is interested in purchasing the electronic version of the book, using secure DRM
The partnership is non-exclusive in the sense that any publisher/distributor is free to join other search platforms.
The partnership aims at setting up a single and common platform, combining public domain documents and copyrighted material, designed to test the business model proposed in the study ordered jointly by the BnF and the SNE (see annex 2).
What were the strategic objectives of the partners and how closely did they align ?
For the BnF, the objective is to increase the number and type of documents put online on a digital library ; for the publishers, it is to increase the visibility of their products while testing new distribution models by offering copyrighted material online.
Contribution of the parties
What did each of the parties contribute to the partnership ? (see above)
The key benefits to the cultural institution and private sector players are the following :
- for the BnF : to complement the online offer of public domain material with copyrighted documents according to a pre-established documentary policy ;
- for the publishers : to promote their books, to increase their visibility, to make profitable the access to full texts, to retain control on their collections ;
- for all parties : to include all the actors of the book chain (authors, publishers, booksellers, e-retailers, libraries, readers, etc.)
The way the project has been designed is fully respectful of intellectual property and copyright laws. The public good aspects of the partnership, and benefits to the citizen are an increase of the online offer of titles, with due respect to the intellectual property rights.
These benefits are articulated and communicated to key stakeholders through the joint working group.
The project aims precisely at experimenting a viable and sustainable business model.
Is there an equivalent pay back for the public institution such as a royalty payment or revenue share ?
Which costs does each party bear ?
See above ("contribution of the parties")
Are there any financial incentives or penalties included in the partnership, and what form did these take ?
Is the business model clearly stated in a written agreement, and if so, what were the key terms ?
No. The project aims precisely at experimenting a viable and sustainable business model.
Ownership of intellectual property
The prerequisite for putting online material protected by IP and copyright law, is the transfer, by the authors to the publishers, of the reproduction and representation rights attached to their works.
Through the publishing contract, the authors transfer to the publishers the right to create copies of the works, the publishers being in charge of their publication and distribution.
However, publishing contracts, particularly the older ones, do not foresee in a systematic way the transfer of rights for a digital exploitation of published works. In this case, amendments to the initial contracts are necessary in order to authorize the publishers to exploit the works in this new way.
These amendments determine the basis and the rate of the authors’ remuneration due to this new exploitation. It also allows for the possible use of technical means for total or partial protection of the works, in accordance with French copyright law.
This contractual framework allows the publishers to have the works distributed through e-retailers according to a chosen business model. The publishers determine the format, the presentation, the price, the date of publication and the conditions for accessing the works. The publishers will exploit the works in full respect of the authors’ moral rights.
The e-retailers will then authorize the BnF to index the works in the Gallica2 portal. The BnF doesn’t request exclusivity: the works can be distributed and indexed by other websites or portals.
The indexing is made by the BnF through the inclusion of the descriptive metadata in its own servers and the display of these metadata in the results list provided by the Gallica2 search engine.
The BnF will also be able to index the full content of a work if the publisher authorizes the e-retailer to do so and if the e-retailer provides the content to the BnF. In this case, a short excerpt of the content is displayed so that the user receives information about the context of the result of the search.
The e-retailer is also requested to authorize the BnF to establish a link towards the retailer’s website, accompanied with its name and logo.
In addition to the author(s)/publisher(s) contract(s) and the publisher(s)/ e-retailer(s) contract(s) (see above IP section), the BnF has a formal licence agreement with the e- retailers, which authorizes the BnF to include, in its own servers, the descriptive metadata which will be displayed in the results lists, or the full content (if the author and the publisher have given permission), to make and store safeguard copies of the metadata (or of the full content, if authorized).
The e-retailers commit to give access to the works under copyright in a digital form (the price of which is determined by the publisher) and to allow free browsing of the works.
The procedure for dispute resolution will be a judicial one, according to French law.
Termination and exit
The experiment will have a one-year duration (starting March 2008) and the contracts between the BnF and the e-retailers are on an annual (renewable) basis.
A global balance of the experiment will be made after one year.
Critical success factors
The success will be defined and measured through the number of books available through the platform, the number of publishers joining the project, as well as technical factors such as the efficiency (speed, relevance of results, etc.) of the search engine.
Risks and issues
Some of the key issues are :
- the extent of the transfer of contents from the publishers to the common index (the richer the transfer – i.e. full text as opposed to simple metadata - the better the search) ; This issue has already been solved.
- the implementation of standards for the exchange of metadata ;
- the sustainability of the project in relation to the "big" search engines (Google, Yahoo, MS, etc.) since the platform will use the libraries classification principles, which are more efficient than the ones used by the "big" search engines and which provide more relevant results.
No conflicts between the activities of the partnership and the hosts are foreseen, since everything is done on an experimental and voluntary basis.
This is a typical public/private project where each partner retains its role and identity (public service provided by the public institution ; commercial services handled by the e- retailers and the publishers).
Other relevant information
Please see hereafter (in annex) the executive summary of the Numilog report " Study for the Elaboration of a Business Model for the Participation of Publishers in the European Digital Library Project", which explains the projected business model.
See also the BnF website : (http://www.bnf.fr/pages/zNavigat/frame/version_anglaise.htm?ancre=english.htm)
List of publishers taking part in the experiment of a digital offer including copyrighted documents (as of March. 7th, 2008).
10/18, Actes Sud, AFNOR, Agone, Albin Michel, Archange Minotaure, Argus
Valentines, Atelier du Gué, Belin, Chan-Ok, Climats, CréaPassions,
Dalloz, Diateino, Duno, Du Puits Fleuri, Edilivre,
Ediscience, Editions Alpen, Editions
Amphora, Editions Artémis, Editions Bayard, Editions Charles Corlet,
Editions T.J. Sanz, Editions Vagabonde, Editions Viviane Hamy, Editions Zinedi, Editions Zulma, EDP Sciences, Elina, EMS Editions, E-theque, L'Etudiant, Express
editions, Eyrolles, Fayard, Flammarion, Fleuve noir, Gallimard, Gremese
International, Gualino Editeur, Hermès
Sciences, INSEP Consulting Editions, La Découverte, La Documentation française, Lavoisier,
Montchrestien, Editions Motus,
Editions Passage du Nord-Ouest, Editions Payot et Rivages, Editions Romain Pages,
Study for the Elaboration of a Business Model for the Participation of Publishers in the European Digital Library Project : Executive Summary
The “Bibliothèque nationale de France (BnF)” (French national Library) has been given the responsibility of the French contribution to the European digital library, a project which proposed label is Europeana. It is using its experience with the Gallica project, which already offers more than 80.000 works free of copyright online and downloadable for free. A prototype website of Europeana has been launched in march, 2007 with
BnF strategy for Europeana is to display out of copyright books on this library as well as more recent under copyright books. In order to achieve this goal, the BnF and the French Association of Publishers (SNE) have delegated the responsibility of elaborating a possible business model to Numilog.com (Numilog), an ebooks’ specialist. This business model must take into account the different players that have different interests, as well as the economic, functional, technical and legal constraints for works under copyright. The method used has been to identify the possible business models that would combine the constraints of the BnF under the Europeana guidelines and specifications, as well as the objectives and constraints of the publishers who will participate by contributing works for which they hold the rights. Other constraints include the technical viability of the proposed models, and more importantly the reliability of the protection and remuneration of the copyright holders, the integration of the different players of the book industry, an awareness of domestic and foreign experiences with the existing economic models and the potential costs.
The main results of the study are summarized below:
1 A. ANALYSES OF THE EBOOK INDUSTRY AND POSSIBLE ECONOMIC MODELS
Use of ebooks is justified by lots of advantages, e.g.: immediate worldwide availability, easiness of transport for large collection of ebooks, and the interactive functionalities like full-text search engines within a book or a catalogue of books, adaptability of the size of the text to each personal viewing preferences, hypertext links, rich media add-ons or use of vocal synthesis software’s for visually impaired people. Access to ebooks can be offered on line or off line after download, on various kinds of electronic devices: computers, PDAs, Smartphones or the new electronic ink based readers with a paper-like rendering for reading.
A new ebook industry can be identified, with some analogies with the traditional book industry, where several major players are interacting:
- Writers and publishers, who create the books and are the right holders ;
- Hosting platforms for ebooks files and associated metadatas;
- On line search portals, which propose full-text search engines to search inside