As the definition of accessibility of cultural heritage changes under the impact of new technologies, public and private actors seek new ways to enhance digital access. The digitisation of 20th Century cultural heritage, however, is severely restricted by the potential subsistence of copyright and related rights. Different solutions have been considered to deal with this problem and, in particular: the adoption of a specific exception to copyright for libraries and other institutions with similar purposes (as in the United Kingdom and Germany); the use of the mechanism of extended collective licensing (as in Nordic countries); the creation of collecting societies responsible for the licensing of orphan works; the introduction of a public body in charge of licensing in a system of compulsory licenses (as in Canada); the limitation on remedy rule (as in the United States); or, finally, the adoption of national laws that provide for the automatic recognition and accessibility of orphan works as indicated in the other Member States. The EU’s own response has decidedly bet on the introduction of a copyright exception, through the Orphan Works Directive (2012/28/EU, hereinafter the “Directive”), which is thought of as an instrument to allow libraries, museums and other cultural institutions to digitise their collections of 19th and 20th century works. The Directive could potentially allow to lawfully digitise and make available a large number of works also with uncertain copyright status. Pursuant to the Directive, a work can be considered an orphan if, after a diligent search, its legitimate right-holders cannot be identified or located. Then, the EU pursued the scope to facilitate the digitisation and, consequently, the dissemination of works qualified as orphans, after a consultation of a large number of sources. Despite the emphasis which has surrounded its adoption, preliminary evidence shows that cultural institutions do not consider the scheme introduced by the Directive as scalable; in other words, they do not plan to use it as basis for mass digitisation projects. On the one side, the diligent search requirement is considered too onerous; on the other side, little attention is devoted to the underlying business models that would encourage digitisation. The involvement of private actors appears indeed limited to non-for-profit interventions, which explicitly rules out the main and principal digitiser on the global scale – the Google Books project. In this paper, we analyse the impact of the permitted uses on the digitization process of cultural heritage that can be carried out by those cultural institution benefitting from the exception. We will focus on the activity of making available (section 2) and reproduction for the purposes of digitization, making available, indexing, cataloguing, preservation and restoration (section 3). The division at hand is useful because the orphan work issue asks for different treatment depending on the type of use that would be made of the concerned works. On this background, we move to analyse the interaction between private and public sector in the field. In particular, we firstly analyse the ways into which the current framework envisages the funding of digitization processes and its limits (section 4). Within this context we assess the impact of public-private partnerships (section 5) to conclude by highlighting the weaknesses of the current EU framework for orphan works and its difficulties in achieving the goal of contributing to the creation of a European digital cultural heritage (section 6).

中文翻译：

---

打造“孤儿”：欧盟的文化遗产数字化

随着文化遗产无障碍获取的定义在新技术的影响下发生变化，公共和私人行为者都在寻求新的途径来增强数字获取。然而，版权和相关权的潜在生存空间严重限制了20世纪文化遗产的数字化。已经考虑了不同的解决方案来解决该问题，尤其是：为具有类似目的的图书馆和其他机构（例如在英国和德国）对版权采用特定的例外；使用扩展的集体许可机制（如北欧国家）；建立负责对孤儿作品进行许可的收藏团体；在强制性许可制度中引入负责许可的公共机构（如加拿大）；救济规则的限制（如美国）；最后，还是通过了其他成员国所规定的国家法律，该法律规定了对孤儿作品的自动识别和获取。欧盟自己的回应已明确地通过《孤儿作品指令》（2012/28 / EU，以下简称“指令”）押注引入版权例外，该条例被认为是允许图书馆，博物馆和其他文化机构使用的工具数字化他们的19世纪和20世纪作品的收藏。该指令可能允许合法数字化并提供大量版权状态不确定的作品。根据指令，如果经过艰苦的搜查，无法确定或找到其合法权利人，则该作品可被视为孤儿。然后，欧盟在征询大量消息来源之后，寻求推动数字化的范围，并因此推广了有资格成为孤儿的作品。尽管围绕着它的采用受到了重视，但初步证据表明，文化机构并不认为该指令引入的方案具有可扩展性；换句话说，他们不打算将其用作大规模数字化项目的基础。一方面，勤奋的搜索要求被认为过于繁重；另一方面，很少关注会鼓励数字化的基本业务模型。私人行为者的参与确实确实仅限于非营利性干预措施，该措施明确排除了全球范围内主要和主要的数字化仪-Google图书项目。在本文中，我们分析了许可使用对文化遗产数字化过程的影响，这些文化遗产可以从受益于例外的文化机构进行。我们将专注于为数字化，提供，索引，编目，保存和恢复（第3节）而提供（第2节）和复制的活动。现有的划分很有用，因为孤儿作品问题要求根据相关作品的使用类型进行不同的处理。在此背景下，我们开始分析该领域中私营部门与公共部门之间的相互作用。特别是，我们首先分析当前框架设想的数字化过程资金及其限制的方式（第4节）。