Author Archives: camillefrancoise

Get ready to start 2021 with #1Lib1Ref!

While 2020 is winding down, libraries and librarians around the world are already busy preparing for the 2021 edition of the Wikimedia Foundation’s #1Lib1Ref campaign.

Divided into two sessions, the #1Lib1Ref Campaign will take place from  15 January to 5 February 2021 and from 15 May to 5 June 2021.

The Wikimedia Foundation aims to gather and share knowledge in a simple, reliable way. In many ways, its missions can be considered as complementary to those of libraries: to provide access to information to all, foster freedom of speech, support communities, and reduce digital literacy gaps.

The #1Lib1Ref Campaign (one librarian, one reference) involves libraries and the librarian community, and focuses on ensuring that there are sources for all information included in Wikipedia. In this way, it creates an opportunity for all libraries and citizens to ensure the availability of reliable information online.

Why #1Lib1Ref continues to be a key area of engagement?

At a time that fact-checking and identifying reliable sources of information are a challenge for many, #1Lib1Ref is an opportunity for libraries to address these issues with their communities. This will contribute to providing better and more reliable information to all.

Libraries have an incredible amount of resources gathered in their collections, offering unique possibilities to provide insights on a huge variety of subjects. These resources can be key elements in structuring information on Wikipedia, yet they are not always fully used.

This matters because Wikipedia articles are sometimes the first point of entry to an unknown subject. Profiling resources on a specific topic ensures that this entry point offers a higher quality experience for readers who are looking for more information.

While some sources can be found online, many specialist articles and publications require access to broad resources, such as printed copies or e-resources, that are only available inside the libraries’ walls. This will be particularly true in the case of national and specialist libraries which hold unique collections – especially of cultural heritage – which are not available to access online.

Involving citizens and library users can also build capacities in information literacy. And, of course, given that the amount of information provided without reliable sources is so extensive, we can only hope to tackle it meaningfully with the involvement of all library users and citizens.

Where to start with #1Lib1Ref?

First of all, it is easy to participate in #1Lib1Ref, either online or in your library. Among the different possibilities, here are just a couple:

Option 1: Engage your colleagues and other libraries

First of all, you can engage librarians in your library themselves to contribute one source per day through the duration of the event. It is easy for libraries to get involved and encourage staff to edit Wikipedia (or even Wikidata, for the braver ones).

Simple instructions can be found on the #1Lib1Ref website.

Option 2: Engage with your library community

If you want to go further, you can create an event within your library! This event can be integrated into a specific theme in your cultural programming, based on your field, or a general topic.

in this case, you can communicate with your communities to invite them to join via social media, through your newsletter, or via information boards in your library or online.

Take a look at the resources on the website to find out more, and think about how you can engage your community, provide support or invite colleagues that might lead your event!

Let us know about our plans in the comments below!

European Commission releases key proposals: Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act

On the 15th of December 2020, the European Commission launched its long-awaited reform on the regulation of major online platforms, the Digital Services Act (DSA). This comes alongside a proposal named the Digital Markets Act (DMA) which aims to address concerns about competition (or a lack thereof) in the technology sector and its impacts.

At the beginning of its mandate, the European Commission made a commitment to reform several aspects of the European market with regards to illegal online content and issues of competitiveness of major platforms online.

As part of this process, in June and September 2020, IFLA submitted suggestions and recommendations on the Digital Services Act to underline the interests of libraries as users of online services and to address their needs and expectations regarding the continuity of their core missions: provide an effective access to information and foster freedom of expression.

Initially combined within a single reform, the European Commission has finally decided to tackle these subjects independently. After several months of waiting, the European Commission launches its reform with two documents: the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act.

The Digital Services Act: regulation of illegal content

The Digital Services Act reform aims to improve the single market within the European Union by developing a more coordinated response to illegal contents online. In doing so, it sets out the goals of maintaining the balance between tackling such content with protection of the fundamental rights of users, and facilitating the development of a competitive single market online.

20 years after the e-Commerce directive which established, among other things, the concept of exemption from liability of intermediary service providers, the new regulation proposes to maintain this key concept.

Online service providers will, if the proposal remains as it is, remain exempt from accountability in order to maintain and support citizens’ ability to express themselves and access information online.

This appears welcome.

To do so, they will need to make efforts to address illegal content, including efforts to prevent its reappearance. This includes violent and/or discriminatory contents relating to race, gender, age, religion.

For example, the DSA establishes due diligence obligations for flagging illegal content for all intermediary services with regards to the size and type of platforms.

The DSA also mentions that contents will not be controlled prior to publication, thus respecting the right of users to express themselves online. However, this leaves open many questions about the technical aspects that the implementation of this reform will take.

Regarding the process of takedown notices, the support of the Commission for a balanced judicial process is welcome. IFLA has strongly underlined the importance of respecting fundamental rights in the process of moderation of content, to let citizens benefit from their rights equally online and offline. Linked to this topic, the call for transparent and independent processes is also welcome.

The proposals evoke the possibility of national action in addition to European. While some issues will be developed at EU level, Member States are invited to develop national regulatory authorities for the digital space, with the power to order intermediaries to take content offline, and impose financial penalties.

Overall, the European Commission’s proposals seem welcome, given that they recall the importance of the protection of fundamental rights (e.g freedom of expression and freedom of access to information), the concept of online anonymity, and the importance of “transparency, information obligations and accountability of online service providers”.

The Digital Markets Act: competition regulation of “core platform services”

The Digital Markets Act mainly concerns major online platforms, also called “systemic stakeholders” that act as an intermediary between businesses and users, with the aim of limiting anti-competitive practices.

These include online intermediation services such as:
search engines
social networking
video sharing platforms services
number-independent interpersonal electronic communication services
operating systems
cloud services
and advertising services.

The objective is simple: to foster the emergence of new companies by addressing the harmful effects of monopolistic behaviour by major players online through measures that promote competition.

These proposed measures differentiate between two aspects of major platforms’ positions: the first one as a provider of a service to another business (for example one selling its products through an online marketplace) and the second as the provider of a service potentially in in competition with the same business , potentially enjoying an unfair advantage thanks to the data it gathers through its role as a service provider.

The views of the European Commission regarding proportionality, promoting “innovation, high quality of digital products and services, fair and competitive prices, and free choice for users in the digital sector” are welcome. A greater variety of platforms and offers of information and other services is likely to facilitate the work of libraries.

The concept of interoperability is also recognised as important and small and medium sized enterprises must be able to migrate to competing services. Nevertheless, little is said about individual users.

Good perspectives but a long way to go before a definitive document

IFLA continues to study these documents and remains aware that a deeper analysis is necessary in order to provide helpful solutions to next steps.

With the retention of the concept of exemption from the liability principle of global platforms and targeted recommendations to address a balanced EU response between user rights, respect for fundamental rights, and concepts of competitiveness, this is a welcome proposal.

We encourage the European Commission to consider in depth interoperability issues which impact on individual citizens. Libraries deeply support fundamental rights, including the ability of citizens to choose freely themselves, including online.

However, the devil always lies in the details and reflection on the technical aspects of such suggestions to achieve these objectives does not mean effective practical realisation.

Read more about it:  here, here and here, here, here

Building Capacity in Copyright: Gathering existing resources

In 2019, IFLA’s Advisory Committee on Copyright and other Legal Matters (CLM) and the Information Literacy Section represented by its former chair Lisa Hinchliffe, are exploring the theme of copyright literacy education in library associations. The presentation of the research carried out by Lisa Hinchliffe, Kaylen Dwyer and Jayde Rose is available here.

Building on this work, and in line with its mission to support its Members, IFLA continues to engage in the subject of copyright literacy and is putting together a collection of educational resources on this topic. We welcome submissions and suggestions.

Copyright, a legal area that remains crucial in libraries.

Whether this is about reproductions of collections in heritage libraries, scholarly communication in university libraries, controlled digital lending, or eBook licenses, many major issues in the field of libraries are linked to copyright.

Therefore, there is a necessity to continue supporting libraries in building copyright capacities on a regional, national and international scale, and to ensure that libraries are well-represented in these discussions.

The topic of copyright for library associations generally requires a national approach, given that the legal framework for copyright is primarily defined by national regulations.

Nonetheless, it is possible to look to the international level for materials to help understand copyright trends. Furthermore, IFLA and others’ work to advance exceptions and limitations to copyright internationally aims to provide leverage in discussions, but in turn, relies on the implication of libraries nationally.

The development of educational resources: key learning materials

There is an uneven distribution of expertise around the library field concerning copyright laws and ways of initiating changes with policy-makers.

To address this, many institutions and professionals continue to engage in learning activities on these issues. It seems helpful to encourage these initiatives and to continue to connect these professionals in order to build an active network.

IFLA is therefore looking at how best to support the development of educational resources on copyright in the field of libraries, and to facilitate training and strengthen the advocacy capacities of libraries.

Gathering educational resources on copyright

IFLA, therefore, encourages members to share existing educational resources on copyright, such as:

– Manuals and textbooks
– Documents and resources
– Courses
– Games
– Practical tools
– Videos and podcasts

We will gather them per country and languages to facilitate to identify resources in your country!

If you know of any copyright education resources in your country and would like to share them, contact camille.francoise[at]ifla.org

Z. Blace & Kristian Benić: building Wikiprojects at the Rijeka City Library (Croatia)

The Rijeka City Library started to engage in Wikimedia activities within the library led by  Z. Blace and Kristian Benić. IFLA is delighted to travel to Croatia to have a dive in this project.

1. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview, could you please tell us more about yourself and your collaborators?

Z: Z. Blace (~Zblace) – artist and cultural worker, active in advocating open and free digital commons with communities and institutions, cross-pollinating queer/commoning

Z. Blace, Telekomunmunist International satellite event of Transmediale in Berlin, 2016/02/26 photo by Alp Klanten

perspectives and embodied experiences across different networks and contexts… and now first Wikimedian in Residence in Croatia.

K: Kristian Benić, head of marketing and projects at Rijeka City Library, which includes all sort of activities, but most importantly for this context being the editor of our two online media projects Magazin GKR https://gkr.hr/Magazin and Brickzine https://brickzine.hr that also have printed editions periodically, as a magazine for children and parents.

2. Could you explain to us how and why this position was born within the Rijeka City Library (Croatia)?

K: Rijeka City Library is for many years seen in Croatia as one of the most progressive, innovative and fast membership growing, although at the same time it has huge infrastructural challenges. This was the first library in Croatia that established a maker-space with 3D printers GKR Lab https://gkr.hr/Lab, has one of the most effective digital communication strategies online, newsletter and generally openness to ordinary people who can write about books and more. We really want to be in the first row of the big everyday changes and at the same time empower communities that we serve. Library is not just a service, it is an active community stakeholder and can serve as a platform for progressive ideas.

Z: I was interested in GKR work before (was interviewed by their Magazine for doing an exhibition a few years ago) and also in the city as a super interesting non-capital and ofte

Photo of Kristian Benić lecture about history of geek culture in Yugoslavia, by Lucija Jančec, CC BY-SA 4.0

n border-case city that is the 2020 European Capital of Culture. I suggested that we try doing something and for them to test the format of having artist-in-residence as a wikimedian and organizer. In the pandemic they remained flexible enough to test this, though it was hard to operate so we submitted this as a rapid grant proposal to Wikimedia Foundation. We are remote, but learning things online on the fly and it is an interesting challenge to navigate the Wikimedia world where (almost) nothing is hidden/deleted, but many things are non-obvious.

3. Have you heard of a similar job in the library or GLAM sector in Croatia before? If not, what do you think about the creation of such a position could mean?

K : I am also not aware of activities with Wikimedia in Croatia. That is a little bit strange because concepts like one Wikipedia develops is perfect for all sorts of librarian activities. Wikipedia changed the role and meaning of printed encyclopedias which used to be one of the most important parts of traditional libraries.

Z: In short this is an exception and first step. I reached out to WMF to ask and indeed it seems that this is a first WiR position in Croatia, so fairly late, but also not too surprising considering the terrible reputation Croatian instance of Wikipedia has for about a decade. GLAM sector in Croatia is not really univocal or even coordinated around policies like digital commons, so I hope to advance that in both the city of Rijeka, Croatia and the region. Think my experience as a new media practitioner and cultural networker is good for a start as WiR now on the smallest WMF experimental grant, but in future different types, scales, resources, plans and capacities should be developed once basic understanding exists.

4. What is the development strategy on Wikimedia projects within your institution? Or do you have to create your roadmap?

K: For our library all of this is really new. With Z. we are actually learning about potentials and searching for the best options in the future. But the general idea is to form some kind of local community which is interested in creating high quality content for Wikipedia/Wikimedia and to empower a few librarians for educational activities, try some new event formats…

Z: We are in the learning, roadmap building phase so hope to have the first version of ‘strategy’ by the end of this harsh year (that will include reflecting on #Rijeka2020 and 20 years Wikipedia anniversary). We try to establish basis for Croatian GLAM coordination with Multimedia Institute that did pioneering work on CreativeCommons, but also establish new actions like our crossover of established #WikiLovesLibraries and #WikiLovesMonuments with ~OkGsG and ~GK_Ivan_Vidali remote libraries that operate as cultural centers). We also did #femWikiRAINBOW as an intervention into CEE Spring translation event, than few small local workshops (#1, #2, #3), presentations and follow-up with education, outreach and networking to individuals, groups, NGOs, institutions before the end of 2020.
All this only makes sense if there are ripple and multiplier effects that go in directions of different communities and stakeholders. Only in sinergy significant changes can happen.

 

Wikimedia workshop in Rijeka with Z Blace, Kristian Benić, CC BY 4.0

5. How do you think Wikimedia projects support the work and objectives of libraries?

K: As I said, Wikimedia projects seem perfect for libraries and librarians because they have skills and approaches that can be really useful in the post-factual world. At the same time libraries are some kind of open spaces which have a role to empower communities, they are used by all sorts of different groups so they can be really helpful in removing some fog around Wikimedia.

 

Z: Libraries are super important as cultural (infra)structures that both preserve and bring coherence in the super complex and problematic times. Kristian used the post-factual world example, but I would also add post-social (here post-socialist and pseudo-capitalist). Much of the shared ‘norms’ have either collapsed (like a sense of communal good and responsibility) or have been reducing (like middle-class life quality and public services).

We live in “a small country for a great vacation” that from soft-socialism fell into most wild privatization and corruption of (post)war mess. WikiMedia as a site of participative co-editing and co-curating, sometimes even co-production that can help re-socialize knowledge work.

It is not easy to judge for the moment as Wikimedia projects are so many and it is not super easy to get an overview and even more to be clear how to make the most of them and where to focus (they have different internal dynamics or state of adoption and even dormancy)…
Taking part in Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network – WREN  makes it a bit easier as I know who to ask for advice (at least when I can formulate questions). Hope that young librarians in Croatia will have use Wikimedia support to work with both as WiRs in 2021.

 

Open Access Week 2020: Libraries continue to support equity and inclusion

From 19th to 25th of October 2020, Open Access Week focuses on taking action to build structural equity and inclusion. These principles, a core value of the library field, need to be supported by policies and capacity-building efforts in order to become reality.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, libraries have faced restrictions due to the closure of their facilities, preventing access to legally accessed and paid-for resources such as scientific articles, books, newspapers, textbooks, and additional educational resources to their users. Due to an inadequate copyright framework, libraries in many countries are prevented from, or faced with legal uncertainty in, giving digital access to copies of legally acquired books or legal uncertainties.

This situation reinforces structural inequalities which disadvantage citizens who are not in a position to buy a book to pursue their studies.

This is however not a situation limited to the time of the pandemic. Library facilities are not equally accessible to all citizens. Users can struggle because of the lack of libraries infrastructure in their district, in their city or because they need to access a specific resource which is in a specialized library in another city, another region or another country.

The knowledge is out there but not always accessible to them.

How can libraries continue to support an access to information and to scientific resources to support their users to benefit from all scientific articles in their field notwithstanding their locations and means?

How can libraries continue to provide access to educational contents (e.g. textbooks, articles) to all their students and users without financial barriers, and give students with lower incomes with the best possible resources and environment?

Clearly one response to this is meaningful copyright reform. However, a parallel approach is to ensure that the restrictions often associated with copyright do not apply in the first place.
Open Access and Open Science approaches more broadly do this, and in doing so aim at providing a better access to resources no matter where you are or your means to access them. They are based on the idea that no research should be dependent on funds to access relevant scientific articles. Users should not be asked to travel to access resources physically, or via a monitor on-site as this creates financial and time barriers for all researchers at a time where research funding is largely diminished.

As librarians, we continue strengthening our capacity by training our teams and colleagues to address these access issues, support the development of training and tools for our users (students, researchers, lecturers and teachers) to retain their copyright, encourage them to publish their works in open access with scholarships, to create open educational resources to support all students wherever they are.

Strong and consistent policies have been developed to support these actions such as SDG’s UN Agenda 2030, Unesco’s 2019 OER Recommendation and the principles related to plan S, supporting the implementation of these objectives within our institutions.

We continue to move forward to facilitate these steps by advocating and raising awareness of the importance of this work throughout the chain of stakeholders involved, from the creators of resources and articles, to the users (students and teachers), policy-makers, head of libraries and universities to provide support and means.

We encourage you to check the #OAweek or #OpenAccessWeek to discover all tools and articles related to this topic!

Restitution with a Catch? The Copyright Perspective on the Sarr-Savoy Report

The Sarr-Savoy report on the restitution of African cultural heritage, published in November 2018, proposes to recontextualise the presence of African artefacts in French heritage collections.

The objective of this report is to develop, in view of the role of the French state in colonisation, recommendations to update relevant laws around restitutions, as well as to encourage bilateral agreements with countries following requests for restitution.

Among its recommendations, the report suggests that collections which are returned should be subject to digitisation beforehand, with the digitised files then made available for use under free and open access to everyone.

This recommendation is easy to miss in the report, as the paragraphs which concern it are discreet. Nonetheless, it raises questions on two essential questions:

Who owns the physical and digital collections and who has the right to choose the policy of digitisation and openness of these artefacts?

This blog looks at the report’s approach, and presents some of the concerns expressed by this, in particular through a letter drafted by Mathilde Parvis and Andrea Wallace.

First of all, the suggestion to digitise and make collections accessible may seem an interesting initiative in the context of outreach by heritage institutions. For a number of years now, it has been clear that giving access to digital collections is a key mission for cultural institutions, as the report mentions briefly.

However, there are questions about whether this should be subject to the decision of the French state, or be a pre-condition for restitution. The term ‘restitution’, as defined in the report, is strongly connected to the question of legitimate ownership of the object. This cannot be brushed aside when it comes to digital collections.

Arguably, the legitimate ownership by African governments of returned items should give them the right to take decisions regarding the appropriate policy to be put in place on digital collections. Can it be appropriate for the government of a former colonial power to set out such demands in a restitution agreement when talking about heritage that arguably should never have been in its possession in the first place?

Indeed, as Mathilde Parvis and Andrea Wallace’s response perfectly underlines: it should rather be up to the communities to make decisions concerning the artefacts of their heritage. Indeed, suggesting or imposing in bilateral agreements a policy of digitisation and open access to collections appears to be at odds with the principle of recognition of spoliation.

Moreover, the report’s proposals concerning free and open access to and use of images does not seem to match the policy around images in French collections. Indeed, French policy on openGLAM is not based on a centralized ministerial incentive but on the will of cities and organisations independently of each other (whereas German GLAM institutions are far more organised and supported).

The request made to African governments regarding the opening of access to digital collections of collections seems, therefore, to be antithetical with the policy it applies to the digital collections of France’s own institutions.

Clearly, openness is to be welcomed in general as the best way of giving the biggest number of people possible the opportunity to engage with heritage, where other concerns (privacy or indigenous rights for example) do not stand in the way. Nonetheless, in these conditions, it risks being seen as an imposition, not a virtue.

Therefore, Parvis and Wallace’s reply defines several ways to reframe the recommendations of the Sarr-Savoy report, such as:

– Clearly define the scope of Open Access – commercial, non-commercial, public domain, possibility of reuse.
– Clearly define who owns the digital image reproductions.
– Carry out research on the conformity of these recommendations concerning the laws of African countries.
– Do not separate digital reproductions from returned objects because the reproductions are also subject to cultural appropriation.

With plans now underway to reform France’s Heritage Code, we will follow closely how this debate is reflected in any proposed amendments.

“What is in the public domain should stay in the public domain!” – Article 14 of the EU-DSM Directive

by Timotej Kotnik Jesih, Intellectual Property Institute, www.ipi.si and Dr. Maja Bogataj Jančič, Intellectual Property Institute (IPI), www.ipi.si

The new Digital Single Market Directive (hereinafter the DSM Directive)[1] addresses works of visual art in the public domain in its Article 14, which reads “Member States shall provide that, when the term of protection of a work of visual art has expired, any material resulting from an act of reproduction of that work is not subject to copyright or related rights, unless the material resulting from that act of reproduction is original in the sense that it is the author’s own intellectual creation.”

This article was introduced by the European Parliament as an amendment during the legislative process with the intention of enhancing cultural heritage preservation by relying on the legal concept of public domain. Its aim is to ensure that works of visual art that are in the public domain in analogue form remain in the public domain also in digital form, by not granting copyright protection to faithful reproductions of such works. Reproduction of visual works in the public domain can, pursuant to Article 14 DSM Directive, be granted copyright protection only when they fulfil the originality threshold themselves. The rationale for this provision is explained in the DSM Directive’s Recital 53, as “[t]he expiry of the term of protection of work entails the entry of that work into the public domain” and “the circulation of faithful reproductions of works in the public domain contributes to the access to and promotion of culture, and the access to cultural heritage“, whereas in the digital environment, “the protection of such reproductions through copyright or related rights is inconsistent with the expiry of the copyright protection of works“.

Article 14 DSM Directive increases the level of legal security for libraries and other cultural heritage institutions (CHIs) when they use public domain works of visual art in cultural heritage preservation activities, as faithful reproductions of such works sometimes otherwise enjoy protection by related rights, even if they do not meet the copyright-required originality threshold. Article 14 enables libraries to be able to make visual works from their collections (that are in the public domain) available online and in a digital format, without the fear of such works having to be taken down. With the good implementation in national legal systems, Article 14 will hopefully provide the tool for libraries to expand and facilitate the access to works in the public domain and improve cultural heritage preservation across the whole of EU.

Despite Article 14 being one of the most unambiguous provisions in the DSM Directive, there is still some leeway for libraries and CHIs to try and ensure the best possible implementation of this provision.[2] While Article 14 explicitly applies only to works of visual arts, there is nothing preventing the member states from implementing a broader provision, covering any type of works. Such implementation would further improve cultural heritage preservation, as the issue of appropriation of public domain works and protecting non-original reproductions is certainly not limited only to visual works.

In Slovenia, the DSM Directive implementation process started in March 2020 when the Ministry of Economic Development and Technology (hereinafter the Ministry) invited interested stakeholders to convene and conduct a public debate. After the COVID-19 pandemic prevented any in-person consultations, the Ministry called upon interested stakeholders to provide written submissions on how to best implement the DSM Directive in Slovenian legal order by April 30, 2020, which were then published online and all stakeholders were invited to submit a second round of comments by 30 June 2020. We are now waiting for the publication of second-round comments and publication of the first draft of the legislative proposal.

Many public interest institutions in Slovenia participated in this process: research institutions, educational institutions, NGOs and CHIs. Several libraries and CHIs across Slovenia submitted their comments addressing also the Article 14.[3] In their submissions, they emphasised Art 14’s importance as a public domain safeguard and called for implementation that encompasses all types of works, not only those of visual art, and that would ensure that copyright protection is not granted to faithful reproductions notwithstanding whether they were made before or after the original work was already in public domain.

Stakeholders have not disputed such position on Article 14 implementation so far, which may showcases that in Slovenia there is a high level of awareness of importance of public domain works for cultural heritage preservation and that broad implementation of Article 14 is desirable and necessary in order for libraries and other CHIs to perform their cultural heritage preservation functions adequately. While it remains to be seen which route the Slovenian legislator, which usually provides for an expansive and strong protection of stakeholders, will take when implementing Article 14 CDSM Directive, the early signs are encouraging for libraries and other CHIs, and they can reasonably expect to be able to rely on works in public domain in a broadest possible way.

[1] Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj; last visite July 2020;

[2] see also Communia Guidelines: https://www.notion.so/Article-14-Works-of-visual-art-in-the-public-domain-eb1d5900a10e4bf4b99d7e91b4649c86 and Transposing the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: A Guide for Libraries and Library Associations (LIBER): https://zenodo.org/record/3552203#.Xx_hjy2B3OR, last visited July 2020

[3] Positions of stakeholders are available here (in Slovenian)https://www.gov.si/novice/2020-06-05-prenos-direktiv-s-podrocja-avtorskega-prava/, last visited in July 2020;