Monthly Archives: May 2020

Introducing… the 10-Minute International Librarian

IFLA From Home: Introducing the 10-Minute International LibrarianWith a fundamental mission to serve their communities at a time of unprecedented social, technological and economic change, libraries are busy places!

Ensuring access to information and technology, providing support and skills development, managing diverse and every-growing resources, and preserving our heritage against decay and loss – there’s a lot to do.

Our mission at IFLA is to help you do this by inspiring, engaging, enabling and connecting the global library field, and so to deliver on the IFLA Strategy 2019-24.

To do this, we rely heavily on the work of our Professional Units – the biggest brains trust in the library field – a group of committed volunteers giving their time and energy for the sake of libraries globally.

But we know that it’s not always easy to set aside so much time, or to find the resources to attend WLIC every year.

Maybe you can only spare a few minutes a week, beside professional, family and other commitments.

Fortunately, there are so many other ways to engage, and to contribute to the global library field!

In our new series – the 10-Minute International Librarian – we’ll be identifying great ideas for how you can do this.

Each week, we’ll publish a new post, and explain how this relates to the IFLA Strategy.

See you next week!

 

As we publish more ideas, you will be able to view these using the #10MinuteInternationalLibrarian tag on this blog, and of course on IFLA’s Ideas Store! Do also share your ideas in the comments box.

New Challenges and Opportunities: COVID and Memory

On International Museum Day, memory institutions, collection-holders, and visitors alike are called to reflect on the power of cultural materials and the stories they tell. The International Council of Museums (ICOM) is calling on its network to rally around this year’s theme: “Museums for Equality: Diversity and Inclusion”, celebrating the diversity of perspectives that make up all aspects of museums. Please visit their dedicated website to International Museum Day to see more of this year’s celebrations.

For memory institutions (galleries, libraries, archives, museums), there is a longstanding conversation on the power of cultural heritage as a means to promote cultural exchange, mutual understanding and peace. This conservation is more important than ever this year, as COVID-19 has brought radical changes to all sectors of society.

Let’s take the opportunity of International Museums Day to touch on several points of discussion regarding the effects of COVID-19 on the heritage sector, and what they could mean for libraries and the heritage professionals working therein.

 

Creating Tomorrow’s Heritage

In an earlier blog post, we’ve touched on the importance of primary sources in providing historical context and lessons-learned when facing difficult times. Looking to the past can help people understand how medical, social, and political response at the time mirrors and differs from what they are currently experiencing.

During the American Great Depression of the 1930’s, the government-sanctioned Farm Security Administration hired 10 photographers to go out and document the country during this period of extreme poverty. The goal was to

show people in cities back East what the Great Depression looked like for the rural poor – to give it a human face. The resulting photographs are still today among the most iconic of both this era and of American history as a whole.

Migrant Mother Photograph

“Migrant Mother” by Dorothea Lange

To me, this story is one that perfectly encapsulates the power of documentation. Not only in the act of supporting the artists and photographers to create material, but in the way this material is used and shared – in this case raising support for relief programmes and legislation.

To pass along the opportunity for future generations to connect to our current experience, there is a need to document the response to COVID-19 now, in as many voices and perspectives as possible.

Libraries are helping record their communities’ responses to COVID-19 and their experiences living with the measures their governments are taking to stop the spread. Libraries in the United States, Australia, Great Britain, Spain and beyond are providing opportunities for their communities to directly share stores, photos, and other primary sources recording their experience.

A child's drawing depicting COVID-19

The Municipal Libraries of Huesca asked children to respond to COVID through art.

For born-digital material relating to COVID-19, the International Internet Preservation Consortium (IIPC) has launched a call to record web archiving efforts related to the COVID-19 outbreak. You can contribute on behalf of your institution here: Mapping COVID-19 web archive collections.

This work promises not only to help researchers to develop insights to inform future policies, but also societies as a whole to come to terms with what has happened.

Prioritising Digitisation and Access

With the closure of most cultural institutions worldwide, culture is existing on digital platforms more than ever before. In ICCROM’s recent lecture series, Protecting People and the Heritage in Times of COVID, this phenomenon was discussed in terms of ways digital engagement can bring about a paradigm shift in society’s access to and enjoyment of cultural heritage.

An example that was shared by Shubha Chaudhuri of the American Institute of Indian Studies was that of intangible cultural heritage (ICH) knowledge-bearers, who may be losing their ability to sell goods and performances with the closure of marketplaces and collapse of global tourism.

Libraries and museums can play a role in preserving the core value of ICH as social practice – not just as goods to sell – by providing access to diverse cultural expressions through providing a space for them, preserving materials, and promoting digital access.

Moreover, this period of raised awareness of and participation in culture on digital platforms can be an opportunity to promote the importance of digitisation and access to documentary heritage. More than ever before, there is a sense of urgency to implement the policy of digitisation recommended by UNESCO in the 2015 Recommendation for the Preservation and Access to Documentary Heritage, including in Digital Form.

By tapping into this, libraries can promote digitalisation of collections, secure storage and access to a wide audience who may be more receptive than they were pre-COVID.

 

Multi-hazards: facing new threats

Unfortunately, the disruption caused by COVID-19 compounds pre-existing threats in many of the most vulnerable places in the world. International bodies including UNESCO and Interpol have reported an increase in looting at sites and of illicit trafficking of cultural goods on the international art market.

During ICCROM’s lecture, Abdelhamid Saleh of the Egyptian Heritage Rescue Foundation, which is actively working with museums in Yemen, reports that Yemeni museums are struggling with the interface of disaster, armed conflict and COVID-19. We have heard similar feedback from partners working in Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere in the MENA region.

Capacity building in multi-hazard approaches to disaster risk reduction and recovery are necessary. This should include immediate intervention in favour of digitisation and secure storage. In the example from Yemen, museum workers are being trained on security and digital storage, with positive enhancements such as digitised collections beginning to be stored in multiple locations.

Considering that important pieces of documentary heritage are often held in private family collections in the MENA region and elsewhere, addressing these multiple threats are even more dire. There is a need to reach beyond the institution to secure all expressions of cultural heritage.

More than anything, there is a need for international cooperation. Regional practitioners with local knowledge and connections must be backed by a multilateral international effort in order to face these multiple hazards. IFLA is seeking out participation in such partnerships, to ensure libraries and documentary heritage are adequately considered in future interventions.

****************

In this blog, I’ve identified three areas where the COVID-19 pandemic has affected thinking about how libraries fulfill their mission as memory institutions – archiving the present, digitization and digital access, and developing comprehensive approaches to dealing with risk.

None are new, but in each case, the current situation has helped underline the importance of libraries’ work, and the urgency of action.

But the list is not exhaustive. We would like to hear from you.

What changes to your preservation and conservation practice do you predict for the future?

What new opportunities and challenges will the heritage profession and memory institutions face in the post-COVID world?

We continue to take part in a global conversation with partners in libraries and partner NGOs to help our community face these challenges and take these opportunities to continue preserving and telling our stories.

 

#1Lib1Ref from the 15th May to the 5th of June

From 15th May to 5th June, IFLA continues its support of the #1Lib1Ref campaign (1 Librarian, 1 Reference)

What is #1Lib1Ref?
#1Lib1Ref is an event launched by the Wikimedia Foundation and which aims to invite librarians around the world to add sources to Wikipedia! IFLA is delighted to promote and support libraries’ efforts to get involved in this campaign.

Why add sources to Wikipedia?

Wikipedia is one of the most popular educational and information sites worldwide. People use Wikipedia to find information, whether it is the general public, students, researchers or librarians. As a free resource, it can be, for many, a vital – or even the only – reference they have on an issue.

Improving the quality of articles on Wikipedia means both fighting false information, detecting and structuring information, and promoting knowledge of important sources in relevant fields.

Why do libraries around the world have a role to play?

Wikipedia has a very precise policy on the reliability of sources! Each piece of information added in Wikipedia should be backed up by secondary sources, either a book or two articles.
Libraries collectively hold a wealth of documents which can be extremely valuable documentary sources for Wikipedia. Each book and article ever published is a potential goldmine of references.
Several themes dear to libraries are at the core of this project: combating misinformation; access to information and knowledge; and the development of resources and spaces for learning that complement the work of libraries themselves.

In addition, it is valuable for libraries to engage in each country because each nation, each community has its history, its perspective on its history and the sources attached to it.

In order to have a better representation on Wikipedia, it is necessary to bring together different visions and sources so that citizens can build a balanced opinion.

How to participate?

#1Lib1Ref is an initiative which aims to invite librarians to contribute to Wikipedia, and provide an opportunity to think about how to integrate this as a new way of delivering on the mission of libraries to provide equitable and universal access to information.

Everyone can adapt this initiative according to what they consider relevant.

There are libraries contributing to the addition of references on Wikidata rather than on Wikipedia. Some libraries organise national contests between library institutions to find out who will contribute the most and others hold workshops with their audiences to teach them how to contribute and add sources on Wikipedia.

If you want more information, you can check this page: here.

Rights and Restrictions: Are Library Values Being Respected During COVID-19?

The COVID-19 pandemic is having a huge impact on our lives, societies and economies. Millions have fallen ill, and billions have faced restrictions on their movements, with early evidence indicating serious economic consequences.

The next months will reveal more about how quickly it will be safe to lift the controls in place, and what the ‘new normal’ will look like. Beyond the measures based on scientific evidence, there will be crucial, more political, decisions to be made about the sort of world we want to build.

A key focus will be around the protection – and guarantees – offered for the political, economic, social and cultural rights of individuals and groups.

IFLA’s own statements on library values – the Public Library Manifesto, the Position on Intellectual Freedom, on Privacy in the Library Environment, on Net Neutrality, on Internet Shutdowns, on Public Legal Information in the Digital Age, on Fake News, and on Censorship – highlight not only libraries’ broader commitment to human rights and equality, but also a specific focus on access to information and education, the right to a private life and participation in political, economic, social and cultural life.

As this blog will set out, the COVID-19 pandemic has led governments to implement – or fail to implement – measures which raise serious concerns, in particular in fields where libraries are focused. It has also highlighted areas where certain groups are hit harder than others, violating the principle of equality. Finally, it has thrown light on subjects where it is necessary to find a balance between rights.

 

Direct Violations

A first category of issues is those where there is a clear violation of rights and library values at play, affecting everyone.

A crucial area where we have seen rights risk being unjustifiably undermined concerns privacy. With many people more reliant on the internet than ever, the need for those providing services need to respect private lives. For libraries, this is particularly true when it comes to providing access to digital services, including remote access to collections, eLearning, as well as more broadly for enforcing academic freedom.

Crucial to this is to give users a real choice over what data they do hand over, and under what conditions. Users need to be able to trust what they are told by companies, and need to have the opportunity to enforce privacy when they want. Where this is not the case, something is wrong.

For young people in particular, who may have fewer chances to choose, it cannot be acceptable to gather data by default during learning – a point also highlighted by UNICEF – while efforts to prevent cheating in exams should not be implemented without proper consideration of ethics. A similar point of course goes for checking up on employees working from home.

In the above cases, violations will primarily be committed by private actors. The role of government is to enforce rules that prevent these. However, there are also instances of direct violations by those in power.

An obvious example is in the steps that some have made to limit the rule of law. Detention without trial, closure of courts (or restriction of access), unjustified surveillance and refusal to allow for any democratic influence over when emergency powers are lifted are clearly all deeply troubling.

Emergency powers too, clearly, should not provide an excuse to take other decisions which are not urgent, or not related to the pandemic, without scrutiny or discussion – a point which can also apply to any organisation.

Similarly, it is unacceptable to fail to keep records of the decisions made during this period, which will be essential for future evaluation and accountability, as set out in the International Council on Archives’ statement. With libraries too having a key role in collecting, preserving and giving access to laws, this is a crucial point.

Finally, and also of high relevance to libraries is the impact of the crisis on the rights of access to education, research and culture. The shift to remote working has exposed the weakness of many copyright laws, which allow rightholders to impose restrictions on how digital works are used, overriding copyright exceptions set out in law.

While there have been many welcome efforts to change practices to allow for distance uses, it should not be the case that key rights – to education, to participate in cultural life, to benefit from scientific progress, and to access to information – should depend on private goodwill. As the Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization has set out, extraordinary times can justify targeted adjustments to copyright laws in order to allow access to continue, a point also highlighted by Communia.

When governments or private actors take steps that affect the rights of whole populations, libraries and their users are inevitably affected. They are particularly hard-hit by failures to ensure that laws allow them to continue to fulfil their missions.

 

Unequal Treatment

A second category of issues where fundamental rights come into play is round unequal treatment. The pandemic has both triggered new forms of prejudice, and has shone a light on pre-existing inequalities in our societies. Here too, there is a pressing need for action.

A clear example are attacks on foreigners – or people of foreign descent – who risk being seen as somehow responsible for the disease. This form of open discrimination is clearly counter to the values of libraries, which act to serve people everywhere regardless of background or other factors.

While – fortunately – many governments have not sought to encourage such feelings, there is still a pressing need to act to promote tolerance. Clearly where governments are encouraging such sentiments – for example through the expulsion of journalists of certain nationalities – this should stop.

Secondly, plenty has already been written about the evidence that certain groups are more at risk than others of catching or dying from the disease itself. Those who are older, have specific conditions, or are in prison, as well as those for whom it simply isn’t possible to practice hygiene or social distancing, need help.

The impacts of restrictions imposed in response to the pandemic has also been uneven. People in insecure or informal work have often been among the first to lose their livelihoods, as well as those in sectors most badly affected. While some are lucky to live in countries where the government can step in to help, this is not the case for all.

Given libraries’ commitment to equality and equity, any situation where some groups end up worse off than others is troubling. Libraries have of course been working hard, around the world, to continue to support all parts of the communities they serve, even under current circumstances.

However, this has certainly been harder where digital solutions do not provide a response. Globally, nearly half of the world’s population is still not online. Some of these are subject to politically-motivated internet shutdowns. Of those who are, many still lack the speed of connectivity, or hardware, to make full use of the internet, leaving them on the wrong side of the digital divide.

As a result, due to the slow progress of efforts to ensure universal connectivity, some are less able to enjoy their right to education, research and culture than others. For example, statistics from Los Angeles County in the United States underline that 25% of students are not in a position to benefit from distance learning.

Libraries have of course been active in trying to address this. Efforts to boost connectivity have come through providing long-range WiFi, or lending hotspots and hardware. Programmes for developing digital skills are being rolled out. Physical deliveries of books and other materials – with maximum precautions taken for hygiene – are helping those who cannot come to the library continue to benefit from services.

Libraries are also active in promoting participation in exercises like the census in the United States, which has a key impact on the funding different areas receive in order to carry out pro-equality policies. Delay to these – or incomplete answers – risk making it harder to address challenges like universal internet access in future.

As institutions with a mandate to provide universal service and to promote equity, the inequalities exposed by the pandemic will be a clear sign for libraries of the need for stronger laws and more effective support for solutions.

 

Finding the Balance

A final category of issues is those where different rights risk coming into conflict. This is foreseen in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose Article 29(2) underlines:

“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society”.

In the case of COVID-19, it is clear that action to protect health is a priority (the right to health is set out indeed in Article 25), and so may provide a justification to limit rights. However, when this happens, it is crucial to find a balance. Limitations need to be proportionate, going no further than necessary, be implemented in a transparent and accountable way, and be lifted as soon as possible.

In this respect, the privacy implications of contact-tracing apps – effectively surveillance of individuals through their phones – have received particular attention in media discussions. Clearly, the question of how to identify people who may have been exposed to the virus and recommend quarantine was already raising privacy questions before talk of apps.

Stories of the publication of names of people who had caught the disease are worrying. So too is the tracing of specific mobile phones, for example by nationality. These steps are, arguably, disproportionate to the goal pursued, with alternative approaches available.

As for contact-tracing apps themselves, there are ongoing discussions about whether this can be done effectively without the collection of extensive personal data, and challenges to technology companies to prove that their apps are worth the intrusion.

Already, some argue that apps can work without collecting geolocation data – for example – by working only with relative data (i.e. who have you been close to, rather than where have you been). Nonetheless, this can also reveal private lifestyle information. It may be possible, some have claimed, to limit risks by only holding data on phones – rather than centrally – but there are also worries about how quickly this may drain batteries.

Finally, there is concern about making the downloading of apps obligatory, while others worry that insufficient take-up of apps will make them ineffective in the effort to contain the disease.

Another area where there is need for care is in finding the balance between freedom of speech and steps to stop the spread of misinformation that can damage efforts to tackle the pandemic.

This is not a new issue, but the sense of urgency in removing misleading reports and stories has led to the rapid introduction of new measures, not always with full debate. There is clearly a need for action, not least to avoid a desire for clicks and attention incentivising the creation and sharing of false facts.

Nonetheless, this needs to be done while still prioritising the promotion of media freedom and quality journalism. While the blocking of demonstrably false and malicious content may sometimes be justified, banning opinion pieces and preventing access to information, as well as imposing fines or jail terms for supposed offences are likely to have a major chilling effect.

The situation has been made more difficult still by the fact that people employed to moderate content are often forced to stay at home, increasing reliance on filters powered by artificial intelligence which remain deeply flawed.

For libraries, the importance of both privacy, and freedom of expression and access to information needs to be recognised fully in all decisions taken. As set out at the beginning of this section, any restrictions need to be proportionate – i.e. they should not to go any further than necessary, and there should not be any less intrusive alternatives – and need to be carried out transparently, and not apply for any longer than necessary.

In this context, libraries have a logical role in advocating for less intrusive approaches to contact-tracing and efforts to counter ‘fake news’. Instead, they can use their expertise and networks to promote media literacy and a better understanding of the privacy implications of the choices they make.

 

The COVID-19 Pandemic certainly represents an extraordinary moment, and one which certainly calls for extraordinary measures. Nonetheless, there remain constants, not least the importance of protecting and guaranteeing the fundamental rights of all, which must be at the heart of the societies we build post-COVID-19.

As this blog sets out, there is an immediate need for action to put an end to unjustified violations of rights of all sorts, whether they affect whole populations or only particular groups. There is also a need for close and careful monitoring of any measures that seek to balance different rights.

Thanks to their values and their skills, libraries are well placed to take actions to help ensure that rights are not violated as a result of measures imposed during the pandemic. However, a truly rights-based, equal society in future will need actions from all.

Library Stat of the Week #18: Societies with more public librarians tend to have higher social mobility

In the last two Library Stat of the Week posts (#16 and #17), we’ve looked at the relationship between the numbers of public and community libraries and librarians per 100 000 people, and a key indicator of inequality, the Gini Coefficient.

Drawing on data from the Library Map of the World and the World Bank, it has been possible to show that there is an association between these. Both having more libraries, and more librarians tends to be linked to lower levels of inequality.

Indeed, as highlighted last week, even when controlling for the number of libraries in a country, having more librarians per library is also correlated with higher levels of equality.

A next step is to look at equality over time, or social mobility. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development does this by looking at the level of change – or ‘elasticity’ of wages between fathers and sons.

This makes it possible to show how far someone from a poor background has a chance of finding a well-paid job or other opportunity, or whether poverty is likely to continue across generations.

This is an important indicator, not least for social cohesion and wellbeing, given that people are likely to be more optimistic about the future when the chances of improving their lives, and those of their children, are higher.

As set out in the previous blogs, libraries – and in particular public and community libraries – have a core mission to promote equity. Indeed, at the heart of the Public Library Manifesto is the idea that everyone should have access to education in order to improve their situation.

As a result, arguably, public libraries are social mobility institutions, giving everyone the chance to build better lives.

To test the connection, we can therefore compare the data already used from the Library Map of the World for the numbers of public and community libraries and librarians (numbers per 100 000 people), and the OECD’s data on social mobility (primarily available for its members – developed countries, and measured from 0-1 with 1 being the highest level of mobility), as in the below graph., with each dot representing a country for which data is available.

Graph comparing the level of social mobility in countries with the numbers of public and community libraries and librarians

This tells two contrasting tales, with seemingly relatively little link between the number of libraries per 100 000 and social mobility, but a relatively strong one between the number of librarians and mobility.

Indeed, of the top four countries for social mobility, three are also the top-performers for numbers of librarians per 100 000 people (Denmark, Finland and Norway). The only high performer on social mobility with a low number of librarians was Canada, while Hungary and France stand out for having a relatively high number of librarians, but still have lower social mobility.

As ever, correlation does not mean causality. It is true that investment in librarians is likely to be a sign of a society that cares about giving everyone an opportunity to do better. Similarly, librarianship can also be the sort of profession that allows people to be socially mobile.

It does remain a powerful message, however, that socially mobile societies tend to be those with more public and community librarians. As governments look to build more inclusive, equitable societies post-COVID-19, this is a valuable point to make.

 

Find out more on the Library Map of the World, where you can download key library data in order to carry out your own analysis! See our other Library Stats of the Week! We are happy to share the data that supported this analysis on request.

23 recommendations on creators’ rights: What are the issues and impacts and how can libraries continue supporting them?

Lionel Maurel, librarian and lawyer in France, works at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) on open science. For many years, he has been defending the interests of libraries on his blog S.I.LEX by offering legal analysis to librarians concerning e-lending, copyright reforms and the public domain. This article presents his reflections from the Racine report on the impacts of the current copyright system on the rights of artists and creators and the link with libraries. (French version below)

Here are the Racine Report recommendations. The 23 recommendations translated in English.
Could you explain to us what the Racine report is and the context of its production?
This is a report submitted to the Ministry of Culture in January 2020. Entitled “The author and the act of creation“, it was prepared by Bruno Racine, adviser at the Court of Accounts, who directed the National Library of France from 2007 to 2016. It contains 23 recommendations aimed at improving the situation of authors and creators (henceforce ‘artists-authors’) by adapting the regulatory framework to the new realities of the creative professions.
The origin of this report is to be found in the strong mobilization of authors in France, which has lasted for several years, in reaction to a continuous deterioration of their living conditions. In 2017, a tax reform took place, which further weakened a large share of authors who were already fighting against insecurity. To cope, artist-authors have chosen to act by relying on unions, which is fairly new in France. Traditionally, the interests of authors are in fact rather represented by collecting societies.
The Racine report commission intervened to try to resolve an increasingly explosive situation, with calls from professional writers to boycott large bookfairs to draw attention to their situation. Drawn up after extensive consultation, the Racine report was eagerly awaited and it paints a grim picture of the situation of authors in France. In certain sectors such as comics and graphic novels, despite its economic growth, almost a third of authors live below the poverty line and the rate rises to 50% for women. France is often presented as “the country of copyright”, but this reputation hides a deep crisis situation for creators.
What analysis can be made of the recommendations in this report?
The greatest contribution of this report is to show that the authors’ livelihood does not depend solely on copyright, but on a much more complex institutional arrangement, where questions of taxation and social protection play a decisive role. It also shows that artist-authors do not have a real professional status, as if their activity did not constitute a profession in their own right. To remedy this shortcoming, the Racine report proposes to create such a statute, in particular to facilitate access by authors to the benefit of social rights (health insurance, training, retirement, etc.).
Furthermore, the Racine report defends the idea that artist-authors should not depend solely on the exploitation of their works by the cultural industries, but also be paid directly for their work. He proposes for this the establishment of an “order contract” which would oblige intermediaries, such as publishers or producers, to pay for the creative work in addition to the payment of copyright royalties.
This would be a profound change in France, as since the time of Beaumarchais and the French Revolution, the law considers the author as an owner deriving his income from the exploitation of his work. This system certainly allows the author theoretically to benefit from remuneration, but we have arrived today at the paradox that the work is better protected than the author, and it is the former that constitutes the true centre of gravity of intellectual property.
Samantha Bailly, an author particularly involved in the unions of artist-authors who mobilized around the Racine report, thus sums up that the change of perspective that this text proposes to operate: “the improvement of our social rights is linked to the recognition of artist-authors both as owners of works, but also as workers. We are many individuals, not just works – we have bodies, we eat, we hurt, we get sick, etc. It is this paradigm shift proposed by Bruno Racine’s report. “
Another essential point concerns the mechanisms of author representation. The report highlights many dysfunctions in the way the interests of artist-authors are defended. Generally, collecting societies are heard a lot in public debates around creation, especially when copyright is concerned. But the report shows that these companies and the authors do not have quite the same interests and it requests that part of the sums collected by the former be used to finance the unions of authors. He also calls for these unions to be more widely involved in the definition of cultural policies, in particular through the various commissions set up by the Ministry of Culture. These proposals were very badly received by the collecting societies which vigorously opposed them, which tends to show that the Racine report is rather right to underline a divergence of interests!
Copyright discussions would likely be different if creators could make their voices heard more directly. In 2018, a case took place in France which proved to be very instructive. A publishing rights firm tried to charge for public library readings, including story times for children. This sparked strong opposition from librarians, but also from some of the authors themselves who, through unions, have indicated that they want these library uses to remain free. Thanks to this direct intervention of the authors in the debate, the publishers’ project was abandoned.
 
What are the main challenges of this report for libraries?
At first glance, this report seems quite distant from the activity of libraries, but they should pay close attention to it, because its recommendations could profoundly change the landscape of creation.
For more than 20 years, libraries have been mobilized to change copyright regulations, in particular by recognizing new exceptions adapted to the internet and digital uses. Whether global or international, these debates are very difficult and progress remains slow, as libraries face opposition, led mostly by collecting societies or government officials, who argue that these exceptions would threaten authors in their ability to live from creation.
However, the Racine report very clearly demonstrates that the real problems of the authors lie elsewhere: they mainly reside in the imbalance of the balance of power with intermediaries such as publishers or producers, which leads to an inequitable distribution of value within cultural sectors. The precariousness of the authors also stems from the fact that their work is not well recognized, and therefore not well remunerated, because it is “invisible” in a way by the intellectual property on which the laws focus.
At no time did the Racine report point to the issue of pirating works on the internet as the cause of the impoverishment of authors, nor did it indicate that exceptions to copyright would weaken their situation. On the other hand, he criticizes the functioning of collecting societies, for example pointing to the excessive salaries of their managers or the fact that they redistribute the money collected to too few authors.
These findings are of direct interest to libraries, as they open the way for further discussions on systemic reform. It is significant that none of the points discussed in the Racine report were really discussed during the drafting of the new copyright directive adopted in 2019 by the European Parliament. The debates once again focused on strengthening intellectual property and criticizing new exceptions to copyright. But it is not this text that will rebalance the relations between the authors and the intermediaries, as requested by the Racine report …
There is one point in the report which illustrates very well the false questions into which copyright disputes often fall. In France, the idea of ​​establishing a “paid-for public domain” regularly returns to public debate, the goal being to create a sort of tax on the commercial uses of works belonging to the public domain. The public domain is a mechanism that primarily benefits libraries and their users, in particular through the digitization of heritage collections. However, the Racine report unequivocally dismisses this idea of ​​the paying public domain, by showing that it would yield very little to the authors while restricting the uses and dissemination of culture. On the other hand, the report points to the fact that too small a share of aid for creation paid by the Ministry of Culture or collecting societies directly benefits artist-authors. This is just one example among many showing how false debates often hide the real questions …
What are the first steps for libraries to support these principles nationally and internationally?
It is quite striking that libraries are absent from the Racine report, even though they also constitute a source of income for authors. Through the acquisition of media, subscriptions to digital resources, but also with the sums paid under the lending right, the libraries contribute to the remuneration of creators. In France, there is even a direct link between lending in the library and the social rights of authors, because part of the sums paid by libraries under the lending right is used to finance the retirement of writers.
It is a pity – but also very significant – that the Racine report did not take this link into account, because it reveals a certain form of invisibility of libraries in the creation economy. Too often, libraries are accused of weakening the culture market by “cannibalizing sales”, when no serious economic study has ever demonstrated such a phenomenon. On the contrary, libraries could contribute more widely to the funding of creation if they were better integrated into the remuneration systems. For example, eBooks are a growing part of the work of libraries, but on legally fragile bases, since the legislation on the lending of the paper book does not apply and the system had to be reorganized around contractual negotiations with the publishers. As a result, the supply for libraries remains incomplete, but above all, the legal system of lending rights is put aside, which does not help to finance the social rights of authors …
One could imagine an overhaul of the system, so that libraries can more easily make content available to their users, as proposed, for example, by the library treaty defended by IFLA with WIPO. In return, new remuneration would logically be paid to the beneficiaries. But if we follow the Racine report, we should be very careful that these sums go to the authors and that a part is used to finance their social rights.
This report actually opens the way for further discussions between authors and libraries. To do this, it would be necessary to raise awareness of the role that libraries already play in supporting creation and to reflect on new ways in which library activities could directly help creators to exercise and make the most of their rights. Too often, the rights of authors and users have been pitted against each other as if they are incompatible. Now is the time to find synergies that will strengthen each other.
French version
Lionel Maurel, bibliothécaire et juriste en France, travaille au Centre national de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) sur la science ouverte. Depuis de nombreuses années, il défend les intérêts des bibliothèques sur son blog S.I.LEX en proposant aux bibliothécaires des analyses juridiques concernant le prêt numérique, les réformes du droit d’auteur et le domaine public. Cet article présente ses réflexions issues du rapport Racine sur les impacts du système actuel de droits d’auteur sur les droits des artistes et des créateurs et le lien avec les bibliothèques.
 
Pourriez-vous nous exliquer ce qu’est le rapport Racine et le contexte de sa production? 
Il s’agit d’un rapport remis au Ministère de la Culture en janvier 2020. Intitulé « L’auteur et l’acte de création », il a été préparé par Bruno Racine, conseiller à la Cour des Comptes, qui a dirigé la Bibliothèque nationale de France de 2007 à 2016. Il comporte 23 recommandations visant à améliorer la situation des artistes-auteurs en adaptant le cadre réglementaire aux nouvelles réalités des métiers de la création.
L’origine de ce rapport est à chercher du côté d’une forte mobilisation des auteurs en France, qui dure depuis plusieurs années, en réaction à une dégradation continue de leurs conditions d’existence. En 2017, une réforme fiscale est intervenue, qui a encore fragilisé une large partie des auteurs luttant déjà contre la précarité. Pour faire face, les artistes-auteurs ont choisi d’agir en s’appuyant sur des syndicats, ce qui est assez nouveau en France. Traditionnellement, les intérêts des auteurs sont en effet plutôt représentés par des sociétés de gestion collective des droits. 
La commande du rapport Racine est intervenue pour essayer de dénouer une situation qui devenait de plus en plus explosive, avec des appels des auteurs professionnels à boycotter de grands salons pour attirer l’attention sur leur situation. Elaboré au terme d’une large consultation, le rapport Racine était très attendu et il dresse un tableau sombre de la situation des auteurs en France. Dans certains secteurs comme la bande dessinée, pourtant économiquement en progression, près d’un tiers des auteurs vivent en dessous du seuil de pauvreté et le taux grimpe à 50% pour les femmes. La France est souvent présentée comme « le pays du droit d’auteur », mais cette réputation dissimule une situation de crise profonde pour les créateurs. 
Quelle analyse peut-on faire des recommendations de ce rapport? 
Le plus grand apport de ce rapport est de montrer que la subsistance des auteurs ne dépend pas uniquement du seul droit d’auteur, mais d’un dispositif institutionnel beaucoup plus complexe, où les questions de fiscalité et de protection sociale jouent un rôle déterminant. Il montre aussi que les artistes-auteurs ne disposent pas d’un véritable statut professionnel, comme si leur activité ne constituait pas un métier à part entière. Pour remédier à cette lacune, Le rapport Racine propose de créer un tel statut, notamment pour faciliter l’accès des auteurs au bénéfice de droits sociaux (assurance-maladie, formation, retraite, etc.). 
Plus encore, le rapport Racine défend l’idée que les artistes-auteurs ne devraient pas dépendre pour vivre uniquement de l’exploitation de leurs œuvres par les industries culturelles, mais aussi être rémunérés directement pour leur travail. Il propose pour cela la mise en place d’un « contrat de commande » qui obligerait les intermédiaires, comme les éditeurs ou les producteurs, à payer le travail de création en plus du versement de droits d’auteur. 
Cela constituerait un changement profond en France, car depuis l’époque de Beaumarchais et la Révolution française, la loi considère l’auteur comme un propriétaire tirant ses revenus de l’exploitation de son œuvre. Ce système permet certes théoriquement à l’auteur de bénéficier d’une rémunération, mais on est arrivé aujourd’hui au paradoxe que l’œuvre est mieux protégée que l’auteur et c’est elle qui constitue le véritable centre de gravité de la propriété intellectuelle…
Samantha Bailly, une autrice particulièrement impliquée dans les syndicats d’artistes-auteurs qui se sont mobilisés autour du rapport Racine, résume ainsi que le changement de perspective que ce texte propose d’opérer : « l’amélioration de nos droits sociaux est liée à la reconnaissance des artistes-auteurs à la fois comme des propriétaires d’œuvres, mais aussi comme des travailleurs. Nous sommes bien des individus, et pas seulement des œuvres — nous avons des corps, nous mangeons, nous nous blessons, tombons malades, etc. C’est ce changement de paradigme que propose le rapport de Bruno Racine. » 
Un autre point essentiel concerne les mécanismes de représentation des auteurs. Le rapport souligne de nombreux dysfonctionnements dans la manière dont les intérêts des artistes-auteurs sont défendus. Généralement, ce sont des sociétés de gestion collective que l’on entend beaucoup dans les débats publics autour de la création, notamment lorsque le droit d’auteur est concerné. Mais le rapport démontre que ces sociétés et les auteurs n’ont pas tout à fait les mêmes intérêts et il demande qu’une partie des sommes collectées par les premières servent à financer les syndicats d’auteurs. Il plaide également pour que ces syndicats soient plus largement associés à la définition des politiques culturelles, notamment à travers les différentes commissions mises en place par le Ministère de la Culture. Ces propositions ont été très mal reçues par les sociétés de gestion collective qui s’y sont vigoureusement opposées, ce qui tend à montrer que le rapport Racine a plutôt raison de souligner une divergence d’intérêts ! 
Les discussions sur le droit d’auteur seraient sans doute différentes si les créateurs pouvaient faire entendre leur voix plus directement. En 2018, une affaire a eu lieu en France s’est révélée très instructive. Une société de droits dans le domaine de l’édition a essayé de faire payer les lectures publiques en bibliothèque, y compris les Heures du Conte à destination des enfants. Cela a déclenché une forte opposition des bibliothécaires, mais aussi d’une partie des auteurs eux-mêmes qui, par le biais de syndicats, ont fait savoir qu’ils souhaitaient que ces usages en bibliothèque restent gratuits. Grâce à cette intervention directe des auteurs dans le débat, le projet des éditeurs a été abandonné. 
Quelles sont les principaux enjeux de ce rapport pour les bibliotheques? 
A première vue, ce rapport paraît assez éloigné de l’activité des bibliothèques, mais celles-ci devraient s’y intéresser de près, car ses recommandations pourraient modifier en profondeur le paysage de la création. 
Depuis plus de 20 ans, les bibliothèques sont mobilisées pour faire évoluer la règlementation sur le droit d’auteur, notamment par la reconnaissance de nouvelles exceptions adaptées à Internet et aux usages numériques. Que ce soit au niveau mondial ou international, ces débats sont très difficiles et les progrès restent lents, car les bibliothèques se heurtent à une opposition, menée surtout par des sociétés de gestion collective ou des représentants de gouvernement, qui soutiennent que ces exceptions menaceraient les auteurs dans leur capacité à vivre de la création.
Or le rapport Racine démontre de manière très claire que les vrais problèmes des auteurs sont ailleurs : ils résident surtout dans le déséquilibre du rapport de force avec des intermédiaires comme les éditeurs ou les producteurs, qui conduit à une répartition inéquitable de la valeur au sein même des filières culturelles. La précarité des auteurs découle aussi du fait que leur travail n’est pas bien reconnu, et donc pas bien rémunéré, car il est « invisibilisé » d’une certaine manière par la propriété intellectuelle sur laquelle les lois se focalisent. 
A aucun moment le rapport Racine ne pointe la question du piratage des œuvres sur Internet comme la cause de la paupérisation des auteurs, pas plus qu’il n’indique que les exceptions au droit d’auteur fragiliserait leur situation. En revanche, il adresse des critiques au fonctionnement des sociétés de gestion collective, en pointant par exemple les salaires trop élevés de leurs dirigeants ou le fait qu’elles redistribuent l’argent collecté à un trop petit nombre d’auteurs. 
Ces conclusions intéressent en réalité directement les bibliothèques, car elles ouvrent la voie à de nouvelles discussions sur la réforme du système. Il est significatif qu’aucun des points discutés dans le rapport Racine n’ait réellement été débattu lors de l’élaboration de la nouvelle directive sur le droit d’auteur adoptée en 2019 par le Parlement européen. Les débats se sont encore une fois focalisés sur le renforcement de la propriété intellectuelle et sur la critique des nouvelles exceptions au droit d’auteur. Mais ce n’est pas ce texte qui permettra de rééquilibrer les relations entre les auteurs et les intermédiaires, comme le demande le rapport Racine…
Un point figure dans le rapport qui illustre très bien les fausses questions dans lesquelles les débats sur le droit d’auteur tombent souvent. En France, revient régulièrement dans le débat public l’idée d’instaurer un « domaine public payant » pour instituer une sorte de taxe sur les utilisations commerciales des œuvres appartenant au domaine public. Le domaine public est un mécanisme qui bénéficie au premier chef aux bibliothèques et à leurs usagers, notamment à travers la numérisation des collections patrimoniales. Or le rapport Racine écarte sans ambiguïté cette idée du domaine public payant, en montrant qu’il rapporterait très peu aux auteurs tout en restreignant les usages et la diffusion de la culture. En revanche, le rapport pointe le fait qu’une part trop faible des aides à la création versées par le Ministère de la Culture ou les sociétés de gestion collective bénéficient directement aux artistes-auteurs. Ce n’est qu’un exemple parmi d’autres montrant comment de faux débats cachent souvent les vraies questions… 
Quelles sont les premieres etapes pour les bibliotheques pour soutenir ces principes au niveau national et international? 
 
Il est assez frappant de constater que les bibliothèques sont absentes du rapport Racine, alors pourtant qu’elles constituent aussi une source de revenus pour les auteurs. A travers les acquisitions de supports, les abonnements à des ressources numériques, mais aussi avec les sommes versées au titre du droit de prêt, les bibliothèques contribuent à la rémunération des créateurs. En France, il existe même un lien direct entre le prêt en bibliothèque et les droits sociaux des auteurs, car une partie des sommes versées par les bibliothèques au titre du droit de prêt sert à financer la retraite des auteurs de l’écrit. 
Il est dommage – mais aussi très significatif – que le rapport Racine n’ait pas pris en compte ce lien, car cela révèle une certaine forme d’invisibilité des bibliothèques dans l’économie de la création. Trop souvent, les bibliothèques sont accusées de fragiliser le marché de la Culture en « cannibalisant les ventes », alors qu’aucune étude économique sérieuse n’a jamais démontré un tel phénomène. Bien au contraire, les bibliothèques pourraient contribuer plus largement au financement de la création si elles étaient mieux intégrées dans les systèmes de rémunération. Par exemple, le livre numérique se développe aujourd’hui de plus en plus en bibliothèque, mais sur des bases juridiquement fragiles, puisque la législation sur le prêt du livre papier ne s’applique pas et il a fallu réorganiser le système autour de négociations contractuelles avec les éditeurs. Du coup, l’offre à destination des bibliothèques reste lacunaire, mais surtout, système légal du droit de prêt est mis de côté, ce qui ne permet pas de contribuer à financer les droits sociaux des auteurs…
On pourrait imaginer une refonte du système, de manière à ce que les bibliothèques puissent mettre à disposition plus facilement des contenus pour leurs utilisateurs, comme le propose par exemple le traité sur les bibliothèques défendu par l’IFLA auprès de l’OMPI. En contrepartie, de nouvelles rémunérations seraient logiquement versées aux ayants droit. Mais si l’on suit le rapport Racine, il faudrait être très attentif à ce que ces sommes aillent bien aux auteurs et qu’une partie soit utilisée pour financer leurs droits sociaux. 
Ce rapport ouvre en réalité la voie à de nouvelles discussions entre les auteurs et les bibliothèques. Pour cela, il faudrait mieux faire connaître le rôle que les bibliothèques jouent déjà pour soutenir la création et réfléchir à de nouvelles manières dont les activités des bibliothèques pourraient directement soutenir les créateurs dans l’exercice de leurs droits. On a trop souvent opposé les droits des auteurs et ceux des utilisateurs, comme s’ils étaient incompatibles. Le temps est venu à présent de trouver des articulations qui permettront de les renforcer mutuellement. 

Core Public Service, Corporate Social Responsibility? Supporting Libraries, Now and in the Future

Libraries and their users around the world are facing complexity and uncertainty, both in maintaining operations today, and in their future planning.

Clearly a main area of concern is how to reopen and resume services safely for users and staff, given that our understanding of COVID-19 is still developing. Library associations and authorities are working hard to collect and present the latest evidence in order to inform their members.

Two further areas of doubt are around funding, and legal guarantees for library activities and values. With some libraries already having to furlough or lose staff, and a strong likelihood of cuts in future, there will almost certainly be the need to engage in discussions about how – and how much – library services are paid for.

Meanwhile, with the pandemic forcing libraries alongside many others to switch to digital service provision, the legal basis on which libraries can provide access to information, education, research and culture online has become a major topic.

In both cases, there is an underlying question – to what extent is it advisable for libraries to rely on choices made by private actors – companies, philanthropists, others – in order to carry out their work?

This blog looks at the issues.

 

Complement, don’t Compete: Funding

The most obvious area where the balance between the public and private comes up is in funding. The Public Library Manifesto makes it clear that this should come from local and national governments.

This reflects the point made in the Manifesto that public libraries are there to deliver on a range of public interest goals. Yet the same goes for other types of library – national libraries which safeguard the historical record, academic libraries that enable research, school libraries that support literacy and education and as well as many special libraries.

Part of this is down to the sense that public funding should – ordinarily – be more stable. It is rare – although not unknown – for governments to ‘fail’. It is also the case that when there is a proposal to amend library funding, this should be subject to due process, with opportunities for review and influence.

The focus on public funding is also, arguably, linked to the mandate of many libraries to serve all members of the community without discrimination, just as other public services are expected to do.

In contrast, private actors can face situations that would force them to stop providing support, or simply can change their minds without such strong obligations to explain themselves. Especially when services are offered on a market basis, they can also often be little direct incentive to serve the poorest and most vulnerable.

This is clearly not to exclude the possibility of private funding. Libraries globally have benefitted from engagement with the private sector in order to invest in capital – both buildings and equipment, where local laws allow for this.

Partnerships can enable the provision of new services, either through corporate social responsibility, or an understanding that investing now – for example by offering internet connectivity or coding classes – can build demand later on. Sometimes, even, private funding allows for pilot projects which are then taken over and scaled up with public funding when they show their worth.

This is welcome, and we can be grateful to library benefactors for all they do. What is clear, however, is that this support should be additional. It should complement existing public (or institutional, in the case of academic libraries for example) funding, rather than replacing it, in order to ensure that libraries retain their universal, public service focus.

 

Guarantees, not just Goodwill: Laws

The second area where the relationship between the public and private comes up is in law, and in particular, how much legal certainty libraries and their users have in what they do.

A key function of the law is to step in when there is a risk that, otherwise, people’s rights may not be respected. This can happen when one actor is stronger than another – because they are bigger, richer, have more information, or indeed have been granted monopoly powers by other laws.

Key laws for libraries include copyright and privacy. In the case of copyright, most countries – and indeed international law – recognise that there is a need to guarantee the possibility to carry out certain activities – such as quotation, preservation or education – as exceptions to the monopoly rights offered to rightholders.

Yet due to the concept of freedom of contract – i.e. that the terms of contracts override what may exist elsewhere in the law – these exceptions frequently do not apply in the case of digital content (usually acquired or accessed under a contract (or licence)). While some countries – including those in the European Union – have moved to limit the possibility for contracts to override exceptions, his is far from universal.

The impact of this has been clear during the COVID-19 Pandemic, with contract terms limiting the possibility for libraries to give remote access to works that could have been accessed on-site.

While there have been welcome initiatives from many publishers and rightholders to provide access, it seems contrary to the objective of exceptions in the first place to need to rely on goodwill, rather than legal guarantees in order to be able to support, education, research and access to culture. At least ensuring that the law offers a back-stop, where voluntary action is not taken, seems necessary.

Privacy too is a major concern. With many services collecting data from users – either in place of, or in addition to, fees – there is a particular need for effective laws that protect against unauthorised and/or unethical retention and use.

With a much greater share of teaching, research and simple communication needing to take place online currently – in particular outside of campus networks – the risks of tracking usage and behaviours, as well as vulnerability to cybercrime, grow.

There is therefore a pressing need for companies to be held to high standards, with the law providing a guarantee for privacy. It should not be the case that users need to rely on the goodwill of private actors not to gather private data without full and meaningful consent.

 

Attitudes towards reliance on private funding and goodwill to support libraries will vary from culture to culture, and depend very much on the prevalent political philosophy.

Nonetheless, as highlighted at least the Public Library Manifesto, there should not be any question of excluding public funding. As a result, it is more a case of finding the right balance.

The COVID-19 pandemic – and its aftermath – is likely to force reflection on this balance. It will be important to ensure that we can make the case a situation where libraries can offer a stable, public-focused universal service, and can rely on the law in order to fulfil their missions.