First and preliminarily, if feasible, I would suggest to perform these actions outside of EEA territory, preferably in a country not party to the Berne Convention, perhaps in the USA. Alternatively, see the analysis below. 1. Digitization of the collection: Save where another exception (InfoSoc Directive?) may apply, I would argue that it is difficult to argue that all acts digitization fulfill the requirements of "purposes of preservation" and proportionality for all works of authorship in the collection. Exceptio est strictissimae interpretationis, and it is questionable whether "preservation" is the (sole) purpose at hand. A case-by-case analysis of the works would have to be made, whereby regard would additionally be due to 2 requirements of the three-steps test. In answering the follow-up questions, I will nonetheless start from the premises that the act of digitization is permitted. 2. Text mining: 2.a. Text mining of the digitized collection: I would be inclined to argue that the critera in Art 3 DSM Directive are met. 2.b. Text mining of the website: Despite the contractdual terms, I would be inclined to argue that the criteria in Art 3 DSM Directive are met. In this respect, the fact that there is outsourcing seems less relevant against the rationales of the lawmaker. Hence, my advise is positive in relation to all of the text and data mining. 3. Retaining of copies of the results: Both in case 2.a as in case 2.b, the DSM Directive seems to oppose any solution where people at BLA are entitled to retain copies of the results of the data mining process. Hence, my advise would be not to allow this.