Annex Empirical Survey: Objectives, Design and Methodology I. Objectives The survey was carried out with the objective of eliciting quantitative and qualitative information on the following aspects of the digitisation of rare public domain textual materials in Europe. – The reasons for digitisation from the perspective of the memory institution (i.e., their interests and priorities). – The challenges faced by the memory institution in the digitisation of their collections of rare public domain textual material. – The way in which memory institutions view the final digitised product (e.g., as a commercially exploitable resource or as the common heritage of humankind) and particularly, their views regarding the ownership of the digitised product. II. Design In accordance with the above objectives, the following survey design was adopted. a. Main Sample: Memory Institutions A sample of 14 memory institutions was drawn from the following EU Member States. © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019 273 S. Mendis, A Copyright Gambit, Munich Studies on Innovation and Competition 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-59454-4 274 Annex – The United Kingdom – France – Germany – Spain – Italy These Member States were selected based on the high quantum and qualitative richness of rare public domain textual materials held by them, and the diverse copyright law traditions represented by them (i.e., the British common law tradition and the monistic and dualistic models of the Continental civil law tradition). A stratified purposeful sample of memory institutions was formulated, primarily based on information that was gathered on the digitisation initiatives of different memory institutions through an Internet search. The following factors were given especial consideration in the construction of the sample. • Sample should be representative of memory institutions that operate under different ownership models (i.e., institutions belonging to the public, semi-public and private sectors). • Sample should represent different-sized collections of rare public domain textual materials (i.e., small, medium and large). • Sample should represent memory institutions that pursue different objectives and reflect a diversity of mission statements (e.g., libraries, archives and museums; institutions that function for public benefit; institutions that exist for the primary benefit of a closed group of persons but may be accessible to the public for limited purposes). • Sample should represent the variety of business models that are currently employed in the digitisation of rare public domain textual material (e.g., self- funded, funded by a private sector non-profit entity, funded by a private sector for-profit entity etc.) The response from memory institutions to the invitation to participate in the survey was very encouraging. The final sample was composed of the following memory institutions. Memory institution Country Date completed Resource person/s 1. Bayerische Munich, November 15, 2012 Confidential Staatsbibliothek Germany 2. Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid, April 04, 2013 Confidential España Spain 3. Bibliothèque Sainte- Paris, February 04, 2014 Confidential Geneviève France 4. Biblioteca nazionale Rome, Italy May 28, 2014 Confidential centrale di Roma 5. Bodleian Libraries Oxford, UK September 02, 2013 Mr. Michael Popham— Head of Digital Initia- tives, and Dr. Christine Madsen— Manager, Infrastructure and Innovation (continued) Annex 275 Memory institution Country Date completed Resource person/s 6. British Library London, February 14, 2014 Confidential UK 7. Deutsches Literaturarchiv Marbach, April 09, 2013 Confidential Germany 8. Middle Temple Library London, April 02, 2013 Ms. Renae Satterley— UK Senior Librarian 9. Musée des Lettres et Paris, April 02, 2014 Mr. Jean-Pierre Manuscrits France Guéno—Director of Culture 10. Museo Galileo Florence, February 01, 2014 Mr. Stefano Casati— Italy Digital Library 11. The National Archives Richmond, April 03, 2013 Confidential (UK) UK 12. Universitäts- und Cologne, January 28, 2014 Mr. André Welters— Stadtbibliothek Köln. Germany Member 13. University of Salamanca Salamanca, April 25, 2013 Ms. Margarita Becedas Library Spain González—Director, Biblioteca General Histórica, and Ms. Tránsito Ferreras— Technical Co-ordinator, GREDOS Repository (Digital Library) 14. ‘One of the Largest France May 07, 2014 Confidential French Libraries with a rare public domain works collection.’ (Name Withheld) Apart from this, an effort was made to obtain information from several private and public sector stakeholders involved in the digitisation process. It was hoped that this information would serve to complement the information obtained from memory institutions and assist in obtaining a more balanced view of the interests of producers and distributors of digitised versions of rare public domain textual material. The response from these stakeholders was not encouraging. The following institutions participated in the survey. Institution Category Date completed Resource person 1. The Public Domain Review Private non-profit June 28, 2013 Confidential 2. ProQuest LLC Private for-profit February 06, 2014 Confidential 3. Europeana Public non-profit August 09, 2014 Confidential 276 Annex b. Data Collection The selected institutions were sent an invitation to participate in the survey, which included a brief outline of the objectives of the survey, as well as the particular aspects of digitisation on which the survey would focus. Accordingly, each institution was requested to nominate a resource person/s who would represent the institution in the survey. With regard to the main sample of memory institutions, the survey was designed to proceed in two stages. Stage 1: Questionnaire (sent via post or email). Stage 2: Interview (carried out via email, telephone or in person). The questionnaire and interviews were in English, although in several instances, translations of the questionnaire were provided in the national languages of the resource person/s. It is noted with much appreciation that few resource persons even provided themselves with interpreters during the interview to ensure the accuracy of their responses. Timeframe The timeline of the survey was flexible and was capable of being adjusted to suit the needs of the individual resource persons. Thus, the period of the survey lasted from November 2012 to August 2014 (21 months). It is felt that the flexibility of the timeframe helped in securing a higher response rate. III. Methodology Main Sample: Memory Institutions Stage 1: Questionnaire The questionnaire was employed to gather both quantitative (i.e., facts and figures), as well as qualitative data (e.g., attitudes and perceptions). The formulation of each questionnaire was carried out following an online research on the memory institution and the digitisation projects it has undertaken. Thus, each questionnaire contained a set of questions that were specific to the particular memory institution, as well as a set of general questions that were put forward to every participant in common. The questions were drafted in multiple choice format (closed form), but the participants were always provided with the opportunity to indicate any response or opinion that was not included in the multiple choice options provided in the questionnaire. They were also encouraged to provide general comments and to elaborate upon their ideas and opinions in relation to the issues raised by the questionnaire. Altogether, 14 completed questionnaires were collected. Annex 277 Stage 2: Interview Following the completion of the questionnaire, an interview was held with the resource person/s with the objective of following up on the responses provided in the questionnaire and with a view to discuss certain aspects of the digitisation projects in greater detail. Interviews were held with thirteen participants (one participant was not available for an interview), usually over the telephone, while some interviews were carried out via email or in person. An average interview had a length of 30–40 minutes. a. Secondary Sample: Stakeholders These institutions were directly invited to participate in an interview (without being provided with a questionnaire). All interviews were conducted via email. Bibliography Books and Articles Abramowicz, Michael. 2012. ‘Privatizing the Public Domain.’ In Perspectives on Commercializing Innovation, edited by F. Scott Kieff and Troy A. Paredes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arezzo, Emanuela. 2014. ‘Hyperlinks and Making Available Right in the European Union-What Future for the Internet After Svensson.’ IIC 45: 524. Arrow, Kenneth. 1962. ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention.’ In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, edited by Committee on Economic Growth of the Social Science Research Council, Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Balganesh, Shyamkrishna. 2009. ‘Debunking Blackstonian Copyright (Reviewing Neil Weinstock Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox (2008)).’ Yale Law Journal 118: 1126. Barbieri, C., A. Omizzolo and F. Rampazzi. 2003. ‘Digitisation of the Archive of Plates of the Asiago Observatory and of the Specola Vaticana.’ Memorie della Società Astronomica Italiana 74: 430. Bechtold, S. 2004. ‘Digital Rights Management in the United States and Europe.’ The American Journal of Comparative Law 52: 323. Becker, Lawrence. 1993. ‘Deserving to Own Intellectual Property.’ Chicago-Kent Law Review