Victoria endorses open access to government information

The Victorian Government has endorsed open access to public sector information (PSI), while acknowledging that third party copyright will be a key factor in restricted access to some types of PSI.

The Victorian Government has endorsed open access to public sector information (PSI), while acknowledging that third party copyright will be a key factor in restricted access to some types of PSI.

The Government flagged this two-tiered approach to licensing PSI in its response to the Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee’s final report on Improving Access to Victorian Public Sector Information and Data.

The Government's response is available at http://www.diird.vic.gov.au/diird-projects/access-to-public-sector-information.

Victoria’s response is an important precursor to developments at the national level, with the Commonwealth Government yet to respond to the recommendations of the Government 2.0 Taskforce report, released in December 2009. Movement at both state and national level is part of wider international trend toward using the power of the internet to make government information and data more accessible.

The Victorian Government’s response is relevant to copyright in a number of areas including the following:

Key Victorian Government Findings

• Endorsement of open access principles for Public Sector Information (PSI);

• Acknowledgement that the scope of PSI must be clearly defined;

• Recognition of the difference in potential for re-use of government 'data' versus 'information' – whilst both are types of PSI, machine-readable raw data has greater scope for reuse whereas 'information' (prepared for a particular purpose) may have more limited scope;

• Recognition that there are different types of PSI, which will require different approaches to licensing and release;

• Recognition that one of the key contexts for defining PSI will be consideration of materials held by cultural institutions, archives and other public collections containing works in which the government does not hold copyright;

• Endorsement of creative commons as the default license for PSI (estimated to refer to, potentially, 85% of PSI);

• Endorsement of separate tailored licensing for restricted PSI not falling into the above category;

• Commitment to the development of a whole-of-government Information Management Framework (IMF) that will:

• define the scope of PSI;

• identify government data and information to be released;

• identify PSI subject to restrictions (in particular, for contractual, copyright, or security reasons);

• obtain legal advice as to licensing schemes and potential liability issues;

• release PSI under creative commons licence as a default, and under customised licences where PSI is identified as restricted;

While there are many overall similarities on open access principles, the Victorian Government has taken a more nuanced approach on licensing of PSI than the Government 2.0 Taskforce set up to advise the Commonwealth Government on similar issues (see the Taskforce’s report, Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0, December 2009).

Unlike the Commonwealth Taskforce, the Victorian Government calls for a clear definition of PSI, and recognises the role that copyright of third parties will have in determining the type of licensing suitable for different types of PSI. The Commonwealth Government has yet to comment on the Taskforce’s recommendations and the Victorian Government’s position sets an interesting precedent.