The report makes several recommendations that could be explored to support the continued development and adoption of AI in the UK, including improving access to data, training experts, and increasing demand for AI applications. Of particular interest to us are two specific recommendations:

“To improve the availability of data for developing AI systems, Government should ensure that public funding for research explicitly ensures publication of underlying data in machine-readable formats with clear rights information, and open wherever possible.

[and]

“To support text and data mining as a standard and essential tool for research, the UK should move towards establishing by default that for published research the right to read is also the right to mine data, where that does not result in products that substitute for the original works. Government should include potential uses of data for AI when assessing how to support for text and data mining.

It is clearly beneficial that governments require that the outputs of publicly funded research and data be made widely available in open technical formats that are consumable by computers. If the data is not made available in machine-readable formats, it will be impossible to efficiently conduct text and data mining across a large corpus of works. It’s also good that the report recommends that the UK push for an environment where “the right to read is the right to mine”—meaning that legal access to the underlying text or data should be sufficient for the user to conduct any further research techniques (such as TDM) and that no additional legal permissions or licenses should be  required in order to do so.

Text and Data Mining should not be dependent on (open) licenses.

But even though the recommendations mentioned above are on the whole encouraging, we should consider a few details that could make them even stronger in order to support a permissive legal environment with regard to artificial intelligence applications. For example, the first recommendation advocates that “clear rights information, and open wherever possible” should be attached to publicly funded research and data. This point is reasonable enough: if public sector bodies want to maximize the impact of the research they fund, it is wise to require that clear rights statements (such as permissive Creative Commons licenses or public domain dedications) are appended to these works.

This way, other scientists, AI researchers, and anyone else knows exactly how they may legally reuse the work for purposes related to artificial intelligence research. At the same time, when we view this recommendation in light of the following one, might they be somewhat at odds with each other?

Let me explain. The second recommendation calls for a liberal legal environment where no additional permissions should be required in order to use a work for research techniques related to artificial intelligence. By arguing that the right to read is the right to mine, a researcher wouldn’t need the underlying text or dataset to be made available under an open license, because by definition they would be granted those rights above and beyond whatever a CC (or similar) license says, typically through the adoption of a permissive limitation or exception to copyright.

This is exactly what TDM advocates are pushing in the current review of the EU copyright rules. In the proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, the Commission proposed a TDM exception would be available only to research organisations that operate on a not-for-profit basis or pursuant to a public interest mission as recognised by a Member State. The practical effect of this limitation means that the private sector will be excluded from the benefits of the exception. [Sidenote: this is essentially similar to the existing situation in the UK, where the national-level copyright exception for TDM only applies for noncommercial use].

EU copyright reform proposal would limit Text and Data Mining in the EU

Second, the Commission limited the purposes for which the TDM exception would apply. Their original proposal limited the scope of the TDM activity to “purposes of scientific research.” We noted that this constraint would decrease the potential impact of novel TDM uses, such as for journalism-related investigations, market research, or other types of activities not strictly considered “scientific research”.

We recommended that the Directive should be amended to ensure that they achieve the goal of facilitating research and innovation across all parts of society by permitting anyone to engage in text and data mining. This means removing the limitation on research organisations as the sole beneficiaries of the proposed exception. We also urged that the exception should allow text and data mining for any purpose. This means removing the limitation on scientific research as the only purpose allowed for under the proposed exception.

So where does this leave us? We agree with the report that publicly funded research and data should be shared as open data under permissive open licenses (such as CC BY, or even put into the worldwide public domain using a tool like the CC0 Public Domain Dedication). The public sector should do this not because it is legally required in order to conduct text and data mining or other techniques related to artificial intelligence, but more generally in order to ensure an open, communicative, and generative environment where the public gets the access they deserve and need in order to be informed on current scientific research, learn about promising medical innovations, and collaborate to solve problems. And at the same time, we need to continue to advocate for a permissive legal system that protects and expands fundamental user rights, such as a broad copyright exception for text and data mining that applies to any user, for any purpose.

The UK independent report is a step in the right direction because it surfaces important issues and recommendations that could foster a sensible yet progressive environment for artificial intelligence research. But as explained above, there are some details that should be worked out in order to truly support a legal environment that, from a copyright perspective, best enables these interesting and innovative research methods and technologies.  

The post UK government report: The right to read should be the right to mine appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

Today Open Knowledge and the Open Definition Advisory Council announced the release of version 2.0 of the Open Definition. The Definition “sets out principles that define openness in relation to data and content,” and is the baseline from which various public licenses are measured. Any content released under an Open Definition-conformant license means that anyone can “freely access, use, modify, and share that content, for any purpose, subject, at most, to requirements that preserve provenance and openness.” The CC BY and CC BY-SA 4.0 licenses are conformant with the Open Definition, as are all previous versions of these licenses (1.0 – 3.0, including jurisdiction ports). The CC0 Public Domain Dedication is also aligned with the Open Definition.

The Open Definition is an important standard that communicates the fundamental legal conditions that make content and data open. One of the most notable updates to version 2.0 is that it separates and clarifies the requirements under which an individual work will be considered open from the conditions under which a license will be considered conformant with the Definition.

Public sector bodies, GLAM institutions, and open data initiatives around the world are looking for recommendation and advice on the best licenses for their policies and projects. It’s helpful to be able to point policymakers and data publishers to a neutral, community-supported definition with a list of approved licenses for sharing content and data (and of course, we think that CC BY, CC BY-SA, and CC0 are some of the best, especially for publicly funded materials). And while we still see that some governments and other institutions are attempting to create their own custom licenses, hopefully the Open Definition 2.0 will help guide these groups into understanding of the benefits to using an existing OD-compliant license. The more that content and data providers use one of these licenses, the more they’ll add to a huge pool of legally reusable and interoperable content for anyone to use and repurpose.

To the extent that new licenses continue to be developed, the Open Definition Advisory Council has been honing a process to assist in evaluating whether licenses meet the Open Definition. Version 2.0 continues to urge potential license stewards to think carefully before attempting to develop their own license, and requires that they understand the common conditions and restrictions that should (or should not) be contained in a new license in order to promote interoperability with existing licenses.

Open Definition version 2.0 was collaboratively and transparently developed with input from experts involved in open access, open culture, open data, open education, open government, open source and wiki communities. Congratulations to Open Knowledge and the Open Definition Advisory Council on this important improvement.

The post Open Definition 2.0 released appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

Open access to publication and research data as either in the public domain or under an open license aligned with the Open Definition would help work towards the goals of Science 2.0. Such a policy would be especially important when public funds are expended for scientific research and publications. COMMUNIA policy recommendation #12 states, “all publicly funded research output and educational resources must be made available as open access materials.” Interest in text and data mining is increasing, and traditional gatekeepers of science scholarship (namely commercial publishers) are attempting to restrict this activity through the adoption of custom licenses and/or contractual terms. We think that text and data mining should be considered as outside of the scope of copyright protection, and instead should be considered as an extension of the right to read (see “Right to Read is the Right to Mine”). Text and data mining should not be treated with a contractual approach which would try to license for a fee this usage in addition to the right of access. Terms of use prohibiting the lawful right to perform data mining on a content accessed legitimately should be considered an abuse of exclusive rights.

Here’s our responses to the questionnaire. The Commission’s background paper on the Science 2.0 consultation is here.

The post Communia response to Science 2.0 consultation appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

• libraries, museums, and archives are now be covered under the directive

• all legally public documents are subject to reuse under the directive

• any charges are be limited to marginal costs of reproduction, provision and dissemination

• documents and metadata are to be made available for reuse under open standards and using machine readable formats

European Commission Vice-President Neelie Kroes praised the adoption of the new rules on open data:

[T]o make a real difference you need a few things. You need prices for the data to be reasonable if not free – given that the marginal cost of your using the data is pretty low. You need to be able to not just use the data: but re-use it, without dealing with complex conditions […] We are giving you new rights for how you can access their public data for re-use, but also extending rules to include museums and galleries. That could open up whole new areas of cultural content, with applications from education to tourism. Indeed, Europeana already has over 25 million cultural items digitised and available for all to see – with metadata under an open, CC0 licence.

The Communia Association has been keenly interested and involved in seeing public sector data freed for widespread use by making it broadly available in the public domain. In January 2012 we released a policy paper with suggested changes to the PSI directive. Communia is pleased to see that cultural heritage institutions are included under the scope of the amended directive. Another positive aspect of the new reuse directive is the narrowing of the language around acceptable licensing for public sector information through the removal of text encouraging the development of additional open government licenses. At the same time, the Commission has not clarified what should be considered a “standard license,” thus there is an ongoing concern potential for Member states to create diverging and potentially incompatible license implementations. And, the EU lawmakers chose not to address the Communia recommendation of explicitly including public domain content held by libraries, museums and archives under the reuse obligation of the amended directive. But all in all, the updated directive is a step in the right direction.

The new directive will be implemented by Member states over the next two years. In the interim, the Commission will be looking for guidance on licensing issues (among other things) from EU-funded projects such as LAPSI 2.0. Communia is an active member in the LAPSI group. LAPSI will be developing PSI licensing guidelines and good practices as a deliverable to the Commission.

The post European Parliament Approves Updated PSI Directive appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

Dear Neelie Kroes,

We sincerely admire the courage and innovacion [sic] spirit shown by the European Commission in the revision of the ReUse of Public Sector Information Directive. However, as a member of the Opendata community I think the new Directive will be incomplete without the definition of an Opendata Licence shared by all the Member States Public Administration.

We encourage the European Commission to propose the Member States an Opendata Licence, badly needed to create a ReUse of PSI single market. The alternative to a shared opendata licence in the European Union would be a fragmented market similar to the current intellectual property rights landscape in Europe.

Let’s build a single opendata market with a single opendata licence.

Of course a open data space with fragmented licensing conditions cannot never be as bad as the overall intellectual property rights landscape in Europe, but the overall argument is very solid. If the Commission wants to unlock the potential of open data for all of Europe then the best instrument to do so is a single, standardized open data license for all of Europe.

The post Petition in support of a single European Data License appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

The post OKCon 2011 appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.