2.1. You should provide metadata in order to enhance discoverability of your resources.
See the following sources for a discussion on the merits of using metadata in your repository:
- Kemp, J., Dean, C., and Chodacki, J. (2018) Can Richer Metadata Rescue Research? The Serials Librarian, 74: 1-4, 207-2011
- Knoth, Petr (2013). From open access metadata to open access content: two principles for increased visibility of open access content. Open Repositories 2013, 8-12 Jul 2013, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada.
Creative Commons provide technical guidance on how to implement metadata via HTML, as well as providing a generation tool for embedding metadata within files:
- Creative Commons (2014) Marking Works Technical. (last accesssed: 3 July 2018)
- Creative Commons (2015) XMP. (last accessed: 4 July 2018)
- Creative Commons (2018) Creative Commons Integration, from A to Z. (last accessed: 3 July 2018), see “License metadata”
Application of a CC0 license for metadata is increasingly recognised as a community standard in the following institutions:
- DPLA (date unknown) Elements of the DPLA. (last accessed: 3 July 2018), see “Metadata”
- Europeana Collections (date unknown) Usage Guidelines for Metadata. (last accessed: 4 July 2018)
- World Bank Open Knowledge Repository (date unknown) About The World Bank Open Knowledge Repository. (last accessed: 12 September 2018)
2.1.1. Providing machine-readable bibliographic metadata is a requirement for projects which are funded under Horizon 2020.
See H2020 Framework Programme Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014 - 2020) (OJ 347, 20.12.2013, p. 104) for legal basis, and more specifically article 29.2 of the H2020 Programme: AGA - Annotated Model Grant Agreement (2018). (last accessed 1 October 2018)
The requirement for machine-readable bibliographic metadata is detailed by the European Commission in the following sources:
- European Commission (date unknown) “Open Access”. (last accessed 13 July 2018), see “Step 2 - Providing open access to publications”
2.2. Metadata often are not protected as such because they are factual information, thus not original or not substantial.
However, in certain cases, complex and elaborate metadata could perhaps be protected. For the avoidance of doubt, apply a CC0 to your metadata. In this way, in those cases when a right exists, you are waiving it and allowing other people to reuse the metadata information.
CC BY should be avoided unless you know exactly what it entails.
Applying a CC BY license may result in “copyfraud” in countries where metadata is not eligible for copyright protection (as in this case the application of a CC BY license imposes more restrictive conditions than what the metadata is actually entitled to). Confirmed in:
- Kreutzer, T. (date unknown) Validity of the Creative Commons Zero 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication and its usability for bibliographic metadata from the perspective of German Copyright Law. (last accessed: 5 July 2018) at p10
Currently, 61% of the open access academic repositories listed on OpenDOAR have no clear metadata policy, as detailed in:
- Guadamuz, A. and Cabell, D. (2014) Data Mining in UK Higher Education Institutions: Law and Policy. Queen Mary Intellectual Property Review 4:1 pp. 3-29
2.2.1. In those few cases when metadata can be considered original works, thus protected by copyright, they will enjoy both economic and moral rights.
Moral rights are recognised in most countries (but with important exceptions, such as the US), and may be unwaivable.
This should not represent an issue in the case of CC0, as the waiver clarifies that it only waives the rights as long as this is permitted under applicable law. So if you enjoy unwaivable moral rights, CC0 will not affect your moral rights.
For an example of a jurisdiction with unwaivable moral rights, see Kreutzer’s discussion of the German position, and why the application of a CC0 license in this situation is still valid:
- Kreutzer, T. (date unknown) Validity of the Creative Commons Zero 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication and its usability for bibliographic metadata from the perspective of German Copyright Law. (last accessed: 5 July 2018)
- Cox, K.L. (2017) Metadata and Copyright: Should Institutions License Their Data about Scholarship? Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. 59. See section “Recommendation”
2.3. For metadata to be used meaningfully, it must be standardised to optimise machine-reading (a requirement of H2020 projects). A commonly used format in libraries and cultural heritage institutions is Dublin Core.
The following source details issues which arise from using inconsistent metadata practices:
- Knoth, Petr (2013). From open access metadata to open access content: two principles for increased visibility of open access content. Open Repositories 2013, 8-12 Jul 2013, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada. (online resource available here: http://oro.open.ac.uk/37824/, last accessed: 4 July 2018)
RIOXX provide a tool which tests repositories metadata compliance with open access standards:
- RIOXX (date unknown) The RIOXX Metadata Profile and Guidelines http://rioxx.net/ (last accessed: 4 July 2018)
For details on the formatting and implementation of Dublin Core bibliographic metadata, see:
- Dublin Core (date unknown) Dublin Core Metadata Initiative http://dublincore.org/ (last accessed: 3 September 2018)