On the one hand, we have various declarations and manifestos, that define for themselves what open access is. Whether one signs the Berlin or Budapest declaration, or both or yet some other manifesto, is a matter of personal taste. These position papers are fine, inasmuch as they express the desire of various communities to have a certain type of access.
On the other hand, we have what open access has become, irrespective of any declaration. First and foremost, open access is an international movement, so while the Berlin declaration does mention cultural materials, that reveals its mild Europhilic tendencies. Not a bad thing, and probably inevitable. However, in international practice, the term is used nearly exclusively to describe immediate and unfettered access to the research output of scientific institutions, including universities. Hence the profusion of document servers all over the globe, and the very encouraging developments in the world of open access journal models.
What I found somewhat questionable was the use of "open access" as almost a trump card when discussing, in this case, editions of Goethe, reducing it to a simple good vs. evil dichotomy (i.e.- only a curmudgeon can be against open access, so I'll make this an open access issue); moreover, wielding it as a sword to pick on DFG-funded digitizers, as if they were neglecting their solemn duties to spread the word of Goethe. If one defines cultural materials only as those out of copyright, that's a pretty narrow view of cultural materials, which, incidentally, perpetuates a rather canonical way of viewing cultural materials, but that's another discussion. I simply meant to posit that perhaps we should have a different vocabulary, a different set of tools and tactics, when it comes to the noble work of making cultural materials easily accessible.
That is my objection. Dale Klaus Graf wrote:
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:00:35 -0600 Dale Askey <daskey@xxxxxxx> wrote:Ich behaupte nicht, daß Kulturgüter nicht wichtig sind, sondern nur, daß sie--wegen Urheberrecht--ganz anders behandelt werden müssen. Deswegen ist open access vielleicht nicht nur der falsche Begriff, sondern evtl. auch die falsche Methode, denn die Urheber kreativer Werke, die i.d.R. ohne öffentliche Trägerschaft zustande kommen, haben doch ihre eigenen Rechte.Schoen, Sie behaupten das (ohne Begruendung). Die Berliner Erklaerung und ich behaupten etwas ganz anderes und beziehen sich dabei vor allem auf gemeinfreie (urheberrechtlich nicht geschuetzte = Public Domain) Kulturgueter, die in Archiven, Bibliotheken und Museen verwahrt werden. Goethe, der Ausgangspunkt der Diskusion, IST gemeinfrei, also verstehe ich beim besten Willen nicht, was Ihre Einwaende sollen. Klaus Graf Klaus Graf
-- Dale Askey Web Development Librarian KSU Libraries 118 Hale Library Manhattan, KS 66506 (785) 532-7672