Annexes to SEC(2009)1124 - Staff Working Paper

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier SEC(2009)1124 - Staff Working Paper.
document SEC(2009)1124 EN
date August 28, 2009
agreements on digitisation and dissemination of in-copyright material? Which legal or practical barriers to this cross-border access need to be addressed?

Question 8

How can the difference in the level playing field for digitising and making accessible older works between the US and Europe (in particular the 1923 cut-off date in the US, that places all material from before 1923 in the public domain) be addressed in a pragmatic way (e.g. better databases of orphan and out-of-print works, a cut-off point that imposes lower requirements for diligent search in relation to orphan works)?

Question 9

What policies should be adopted to avoid that the process of digitisation itself creates new types of sui generis copyright that, in turn, could create barriers to the dissemination of digitised public domain material?

Question 10

What measures can be taken to ensure that cultural institutions make their digitised public domain material accessible and usable in the widest possible way on the Internet? Should there be minimum requirements for the way in which digitised public domain content is made available through Europeana?

Financing and governance

Question 11

Which financing model would reflect a fair distribution between Community funding, Member States' funding and private funding, taking into account that the aim of Europeana is to give the widest possible access to Europe's cultural heritage at pan-European level? Could Europeana be financed solely by national cultural institutions or by private funding?

Question 12

Is sustained European Union funding for the basic operations of Europeana necessary and justified for the period after 2013? What type of European funding instrument could best be used?

Question 13

Which governance structure for Europeana would best fit the preferred financing model (as indicated under question 11)? Should there be a role in the governance structure for organisations other than content providers?

Question 14

How can private involvement in Europeana best take shape (e.g. through sponsoring, through technological partnerships, through links from Europeana to the sites of publishers and other rightholders where the user can buy in-copyright content, or through another type of partnership)?

Question 15

How can private sponsorship of Europeana best be stimulated? Are commercial communications on the Europeana site acceptable, and, if so, what type of commercial communications (e.g. logos of sponsors, promotion of specific products)?

Question 16

Should there be a contribution (financial or other) in exchange for the links from Europeana to sites with content for which the user has to pay? Can a model such as that of Gallica 2, providing links from the site of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France to the content on the sites of French publishers, be transposed to Europeana?

PART II

Overview of the contribution of Member States to Europeana in % of the total number of objects (situation end July 2009).

EU countries
France47%
Germany15.4%
Netherlands8%
United Kingdom7.9%
Sweden5.2%
Finland4%
Greece1.6%
Italy1.2%
Belgium1.1%
Slovenia0.7%
Spain0.6%
Estonia0.4%
Luxembourg0.4%
Poland0.3%
Romania0.3%
Austria0.2%
Portugal0.2%
Hungary0.1%
Latvia<0.1%
Cyprus<0.1%
Bulgaria<0.1%
Czech Republic<0.1%
Denmark<0.1%
Ireland<0.1%
Lithuania<0.1%
Malta<0.1%
Slovakia<0.1%

Non EU countries
Norway4.3%
Switzerland0.4%


EN EN