Copyright – Page 28 – DigitalKoans

Google and Publishers Settle Seven-Year-Old Copyright Lawsuit over Google Library Project

Google and the Association of American Publishers have settled the copyright lawsuit over Google Library Project. The related Authors Guild lawsuit has not been settled.

Here's an excerpt from the Google press release:

The agreement settles a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Google on October 19, 2005 by five AAP member publishers. As the settlement is between the parties to the litigation, the court is not required to approve its terms.

The settlement acknowledges the rights and interests of copyright-holders. US publishers can choose to make available or choose to remove their books and journals digitized by Google for its Library Project. Those deciding not to remove their works will have the option to receive a digital copy for their use.

Apart from the settlement, US publishers can continue to make individual agreements with Google for use of their other digitally-scanned works. . . .

Google Books allows users to browse up to 20% of books and then purchase digital versions through Google Play. Under the agreement, books scanned by Google in the Library Project can now be included by publishers.

"The Greatest Book You Will Never Read: Public Access Rights and the Orphan Works Dilemma"

Libby Greismann has published "The Greatest Book You Will Never Read: Public Access Rights and the Orphan Works Dilemma" in the Duke Law & Technology Review.

Here's an excerpt:

Copyright law aims to promote the dual goals of incentivizing production of literary and artistic works, and promoting public access and free speech. To achieve these goals, Congress has implemented a policy that acknowledges the rights of both the copyright holder and the public, which vest with the fixation of the work. However, as Congressional action has strengthened copyright protection, the rights of the public have been narrowed. Orphan works—works to which the copyright owner cannot be located or identified—present a unique problem, in that achieving free access and use of the works is often impossible. This note argues that the public has a recognizable right in both gaining access to and using orphan works—a right which emanates from, but is tangential to, the First Amendment right to free speech.

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog | Digital Scholarship |

"Understanding and Making Use of Academic Authors’ Open Access Rights"

David R. Hansen has published "Understanding and Making Use of Academic Authors' Open Access Rights" in the latest issue of the Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication.

Here's an excerpt:

METHODS To understand the scope of author-retained rights (including the right to purchase hybrid or other open access options) at some sample universities, author-rights data through the SHERPA/RoMEO API was combined with individual article citations (from Thomson Reuters' Web of Science) for works published over a one-year period (2011) and authored by individuals affiliated with five major U.S. research universities. RESULTS Authors retain significant rights in the articles that they create. Of the 29,322 unique articles authored over the one year period at the five universities, 28.83 percent could be archived in final PDF form and 87.95 percent could be archived as the post-print version. Nearly 43.47 percent also provided authors the choice of purchasing a hybrid paid open access option. DISCUSSION A significant percentage of current published output could be archived with little or no author intervention. With prior approval through an open access policy or otherwise, article manuscripts or final PDFs can be obtained and archived by library staff, and hybrid paid-OA options could be negotiated and exploited by library administrators.

| Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

European Parliament Passes Orphan Works Bill

The European Parliament has passed an orphan works bill.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Under the new rules, a work would be deemed to be "orphan" if a "diligent" search made in good faith failed to identify or locate the copyright holder. The legislation lays down criteria for carrying out such searches.

Works granted orphan status would be then be made public, for non-profit purposes only, through digitisation. A work deemed to be "orphan" in any one Member State would then qualify as "orphan" throughout the EU. This would apply to any audiovisual or printed material, including a photograph or an illustration embedded in a book, published or broadcast in any EU country.

MEPs agreed that the right holder should be entitled to put an end to the orphan status of a work at any time and claim appropriate compensation for the use made of it.

They nonetheless inserted a provision to protect public institutions from the risk of having to pay large sums to authors who show up later.

| Digital Scholarship's Digital/Print Books | Digital Scholarship |

Publishers Appeal Georgia State E-reserves Case

Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and Sage Publications have filed an appeal in the Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al. case.

Here's an excerpt from the press release announcing the publishers' intent to appeal:

This case had the potential to mark a significant first step toward addressing the need for clarity around issues of copyright in the context of higher education, where current practices around fair use in a digital environment vary widely and could benefit from sound judicial guidance. Our hope was that the District Court would provide that guidance.

Instead, the Court's rulings, culminating in the August injunction decision, shift radically from long-accepted fair use principles and introduce, among other errors, unsustainable policies regarding the proportion of a work not readily available for digital licensing that can be digitally copied without restriction. We have no alternative but to appeal, to protect our authors' copyrights and advocate for a balanced and workable solution.

Read more about it at "Publishers Appeal Ruling in GSU E-Reserves Case."

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010: "SEP [Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography] is compiled with utter professionalism. It reminds me of the work of the best artisans who know not only every item that leaves their workshops, but each component used to create them—providing the ideal quality control." — Péter Jacsó ONLINE 27, no. 3 (2003): 73-76. | Digital Scholarship |

"Copyright and the Harvard Open Access Mandate"

Eric Priest has self-archived "Copyright and the Harvard Open Access Mandate" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

This Article argues that permission mandates can create legally enforceable, durable nonexclusive licenses. First, it argues that although there are important justifications, including academic freedom concerns, for recognizing the controversial “teacher exception” to the work for hire rules for scholarly articles, such an exception may be unnecessary because a strong argument also exists that much scholarship is produced outside the scope of employment for work for hire purposes. Second, it argues that permission mandates provide sufficient evidence of the grantor's intent and the rights granted to create effective nonexclusive licenses. Third, permission mandates satisfy the requirements of § 205(e) and establish the license's priority over the subsequent transfer of copyright ownership largely because they fulfill the underlying purposes of § 205(e) by providing sufficient evidence and notice of the license to potential copyright transferees (typically academic publishers).

| Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography: "This work gives an outstanding overview of scholarship relating to the growing Open Access movement." — George Machovec, The Charleston Advisor 12, no. 2 (2010): 3. | Digital Scholarship |

"Digital Copyright, ‘Fair Access’ and the Problem of DRM Misuse"

Nicolo Zingales has published "Digital Copyright, 'Fair Access' and the Problem of DRM Misuse" in the Intellectual Property & Technology Forum & Journal at Boston College Law School.

Here's an excerpt:

This article points out one of the ways the development of these new technologies has altered the boundaries of copyright, specifically by enabling copyright holders to strategically expand the scope of protection through the strategic use of Digital Rights Management (hereinafter, DRM). After a brief overview of these technologies and their contribution to the development of online markets for copyrighted works, the article discusses the risks of using DRM as a means of stretching the legal protection conferred by Intellectual Property law.

As a potential solution to such problem, the article looks at the role of the courts and the approach embraced vis a vis specific cases of abuse of DRM in the copyright context. . . . The article then concludes recommending a two-fold approach to the assessment of the legality of such practices, where antitrust analysis and IP principles are intermingled, proposing a legal test to facilitate this complex assessment.

| Reviews of Digital Scholarship Publications | Digital Scholarship |

Copyright and the Digital Economy

The Australian Law Reform Commission has released Copyright and the Digital Economy.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

This Issues Paper is the first formal publication of the Inquiry, intended to help frame discussion and encourage public consultation at an early stage. It provides background information about copyright in the digital environment, highlights the issues so far identified in preliminary research and consultations, and outlines the principles that will shape the ALRC's proposals for reform. It asks more than 50 questions about how the current copyright framework is affecting both commercial and creative enterprise and how current exceptions and statutory licences are working in the digital environment.

| Digital Scholarship Overview | Digital Scholarship |

"Modern Technology, Leaky Copyrights and Claims of Harm: Insights from the Curious History of Photocopying"

Diane Leenheer Zimmerman has self-archived "Modern Technology, Leaky Copyrights and Claims of Harm: Insights from the Curious History of Photocopying" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

The core problem this paper attempts to address what should count as "economic harm" in determining whether particular kinds of copying are appropriately treated as copyright infringement. . . . The argument that copying without permission, especially on the internet, is per se harmful has led to a variety of increasingly stringent self-help and legislative measures designed to prevent and to punish the activity, although often without evidence of success. But researchers who study such things continue to find evidence of the damage, at least from noncommercial activity, elusive. The reasons this might be so, and the inferences to be drawn from it are an interesting subject for copyright theorists to consider, but so far, very little serious attention has been paid to examining the phenomenon. This paper is an effort to begin filling in that blank by setting out a case study of a rampant form of copying technology that long pre-dates the internet: photocopying. In many ways, the photocopying story is a microcosm of what happens when a new technology bursts onto the copyright scene, and as such, it is a possible source of learning about how copyright should treat the issue of noncommercial copying generally, whether it happens compliments of Xerox, or compliments of your regional ISP.

| Digital Scholarship |

Copyright: "Adverse Possession of Orphan Works"

Katherine M. Meeks, has self-archived "Adverse Possession of Orphan Works" in SelectedWorks.

Here's an excerpt:

This paper proposes that Congress could adapt the real property doctrine of adverse possession to clear the muddy rights to these orphan works. Adverse possession is a mechanism for resolving competing claims to land that arise where an owner has failed to assert his rights for many years, allowing a hostile trespasser to assume control of the land as if it were his own. . . Although Congress would need to modify the black letter test before it could be applied to intangible property, the policy rationale behind adverse possession applies with equal or greater force in the orphan works context. Where the holder of a copyright has failed both to exploit his product and to register his whereabouts with the Copyright Office, such that others might seek permission to use his creative expression, his intellectual property rights should not shackle libraries, museums, or other institutions that perceive a scholarly or commercial demand for the work.

| Google Books Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

"Do Bad Things Happen When Works Enter the Public Domain?: Empirical Tests of Copyright Term Extension"

Christopher J. Buccafusco and Paul J. Heald have self-archived "Do Bad Things Happen When Works Enter the Public Domain?: Empirical Tests of Copyright Term Extension" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

The international debate over copyright term extension for existing works turns on the validity of three empirical assertions about what happens to works when they fall into the public domain. Our study of the market for audio books and a related human subjects experiment suggest that all three assertions are suspect. We demonstrate that audio books made from public domain bestsellers (1913-22) are significantly more available than those made from copyrighted bestsellers (1923-32). We also demonstrate that recordings of public domain and copyrighted books are of equal quality.

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 | Digital Scholarship |

Publisher Plaintiffs Issue Statement on Order in Georgia State University E-Reserves Copyright Case

The publisher plaintiffs have issued a statement on Judge Orinda Evans' order in the Georgia State University e-reserves copyright case.

Here's an excerpt:

The District Court's decision is marred by a number of serious legal errors. The fair use exception cannot be stretched beyond recognition simply because course materials are delivered in a digital format by an educational institution. The ruling excuses copyright violations by GSU and endorses unauthorized copying and distribution of academic works well beyond what the law allows and what universities across the country consider reasonable. The decision devalues academic scholarship by treating such work as 'factual' compilations. . . .

As with the initial decision to bring suit, the decision regarding an appeal will be based on a considered assessment that takes into account the extent to which this ruling, which we believe to be legally vulnerable on multiple grounds, endangers the creation and dissemination of high-quality academic work

Georgia State University has also issued a statement about the order.

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog | Digital Scholarship |

Wiley Open Access Program Adopts Creative Commons Attribution Licence

Effective immediately, journals in the Wiley Open Access program will use the Creative Commons Attribution Licence for articles.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Rachel Burley, Vice President and Director, Open Access, commented, "Wiley is committed to meeting the evolving needs of the authors who wish to provide open access to the published articles that convey the results of their research."

Burley continued, "Our announcement today concerns Wiley’s fully open access journals. We are also reviewing the licensing arrangements for our hybrid program OnlineOpen, our open access option for individual articles published in subscription journals. In consultation with our publishing partners, we aim to continue to develop and deliver sustainable open access products providing author choice and high levels of service."

In the first instance, the journals moving to the CC-BY licence are Brain and Behavior, Ecology and Evolution, MicrobiologyOpen, Cancer Medicine, Food Science & Nutrition, Evolutionary Applications, Geoscience Data Journal and EMBO Molecular Medicine.

| Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

Judge Issues Order in Georgia State University E-Reserves Copyright Case: GSU’s Defense Costs to Be Paid by Plaintiffs

Judge Orinda Evans has issued an order in the Georgia State University e-reserves copyright case that says, in part, that the defendants's attorney's fees and other defense costs will be paid by plaintiffs.

Here's an excerpt from the order:

In this litigation, the Court limited Plaintiffs to claims arising in three semesters in 2009 but did not require Plaintiffs to pursue all claims. When the trial began, Plaintiffs chose to pursue 99 claims out of 126. They then dropped 25 claims (and added one) during the trial. As to the remaining 75 claims, no prima facie case was proven in 26 instances. Digital permissions were unavailable in 33 instances. Neither digital nor hard copy permissions were available in 18 cases. Although the Court does not doubt Plaintiffs' good faith in bringing this suit, and there was no controlling authority governing fair use in a nonprofit educational setting, Plaintiffs' failure to narrow their individual infringement claims significantly increased the cost of defending the suit.

For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to award to Defendants their reasonable attorneys' fees. Other costs will also be taxed in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs to the extent permitted by statute.

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 | Digital Scholarship |

"It Was Never a Universal Library: Three Years of the Google Book Settlement"

Walt Crawford has published "It Was Never a Universal Library: Three Years of the Google Book Settlement" in Cites & Insights: Crawford at Large.

Here's an excerpt:

Remember the Google Books settlement? It was going to settle a four-year-old pair of lawsuits (four years old then, eight years old now) against Google (by the Association of American Publishers, AAP, and the Authors Guild, AG) asserting that Google was infringing on copyright through its two-line snippets from in-copyright books scanned in the Google Library Project—and by the scanning itself. Later, a third group representing media photographers also sued Google for the same actions. . . .

This is a long set of notes and comments (cites & insights). It strikes me that the topic and complexity deserve that length—but note that I'm offering much briefer excerpts and comments on most items than I normally would in this sort of roundup.

After two sets of general notes and overviews (one before the settlement was rejected, one after) I'm breaking the discussion down by topics rather than chronologically.

| Google Books Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

"Taking Stock of the Creative Commons Experiment: Monitoring the Use of Creative Commons Licenses and Evaluating Its Implications for the Future of Creative Commons and for Copyright Law"

Giorgos Cheliotis, Warren Chik, Ankit Guglani, and Giri Kumar Tayi have self-archived "Taking Stock of the Creative Commons Experiment: Monitoring the Use of Creative Commons Licenses and Evaluating Its Implications for the Future of Creative Commons and for Copyright Law" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

We provide data demonstrating the popularity of CC, examine which specific license types within the CC framework are most popular, and then identify contributing factors for the relative popularity of some of the license types. This includes individual author incentives, the consistency and aims of the online communities which adopt CC as a licensing model, the underlying medium (text, photography, audio, video or interactive
content), the intended use of the work, as well as the sociopolitical, legal and economic background of the jurisdictions where the works are being produced. We show that the spread of the licenses is global and encompasses both developed and developing nations with varied cultural and historical backgrounds, which we claim is indicative of a general social shift towards more open collaboration and the rise of a new global consciousness of sharing and participation across national borders. . . . In conclusion we examine to what extent copyright law and policy should be informed by the needs and choices of this new generation of authors adopting CC licenses, also taking into consideration the changing interests of society in the digital age.

| Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

"Copyright Law in the Digital Environment: Private Ordering and the Regulation of Digital Works"

Primavera De Filippi has self-archived "Copyright Law in the Digital Environment: Private Ordering and the Regulation of Digital Works" in HAL.

Here's an excerpt:

The book begins with an analysis of copyright law as it applies to the physical and the digital world. The challenges that the law has to face in the digital environment are specifically addressed by illustrating how the self-regulating features of the copyright regime have been jeopardized with the advent of Internet and digital technologies. The book subsequently analyses the role of private ordering in the regulation of information and presents the various mechanisms of self-help that have been developed so far to address the challenges of the digital world. The contrast is between the use of end-user licensing agreements and technological measures of protection (e.g. DRM) intended to restrict the consumption of digital works beyond the scope of the copyright regime, and the use of Open Content licenses (e.g. Creative Commons) intended to support a greater dissemination and broader availability of works, amidst other goals. The book finally investigates the corresponding advantages and drawbacks of these two divergent approaches, and concludes by addressing the justifications for governmental intervention in regulating the operations of private ordering.

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog | Digital Scholarship |

"The New Prohibition: A Look at the Copyright Wars through the Lens of Alcohol Prohibition"

Donald P. Harris has self-archived "The New Prohibition: A Look at the Copyright Wars through the Lens of Alcohol Prohibition" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

This Article argues that legislators, commentators, and the copyright industry must entertain laws that embrace filesharing, and seek other ways to incentivize artists and other creators. The Article traces Alcohol Prohibition of the 1920s and 1930s as an historical example of laws that were inconsistent with the vast majority of society's morals and norms. Looking back, one can see many similarities between the Alcohol and Filesharing Prohibitions. The Article suggests, then, that lessons learned from the failed "noble experiment" of Alcohol Prohibition should be applied to the current filesharing controversy. Doing so, the Article advocates legalizing certain noncommercial filesharing. A scheme along these lines will comport with societal norms and will force new business models to replace outdated and ineffective business models.

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 | Digital Scholarship |

"How Fair Use Can Help Solve the Orphan Works Problem"

Jennifer M. Urban has self-archived "How Fair Use Can Help Solve the Orphan Works Problem" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

This Article argues that legislation is not necessary to enable some uses of orphan works by nonprofit libraries and archives. Instead, the fair use doctrine in United States copyright law provides a partial solution. The Article addresses three basic questions: first, does fair use provide a viable basis on which libraries might digitize orphans? Second, does fair use provide a viable basis on which to make these orphans available to patrons or the public? Third, more generally, can or should fair use do any additional work in infringement analysis where the copyrighted work in question is an orphan?

| Google Books Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

"What is Transformative? An Explanatory Synthesis of the Convergence of Transformation and Predominant Purpose in Copyright Fair Use Law"

Michael D. Murray has self-archived "What is Transformative? An Explanatory Synthesis of the Convergence of Transformation and Predominant Purpose in Copyright Fair Use Law."

Here's an excerpt:

The lessons of the transformative test for those engaged in creative, artistic, or literary pursuits may be summed up in the following: if you copy an original work, use it for a different purpose than the purpose for which the original work was created. Modify the contents, function, and meaning of the original work through alteration of the original expression or the addition of significant new expression.

| Digital Scholarship |

"Copyright Risk Management: Principles and Strategies for Large-Scale Digitization Projects in Special Collections"

The Association of Research Libraries has released a pre-publication version of "Copyright Risk Management: Principles and Strategies for Large-Scale Digitization Projects in Special Collections."

Here's an excerpt:

Copyright law often seems unmanageably complex, leading librarians to focus too much on a single aspect of a project and, when that aspect proves inapplicable, to give up the proposed digitization. But the multifaceted nature of the law, especially its variety of limitations and exceptions, should really be seen as an invitation to a holistic evaluation that focuses on risk and considers how each facet can contribute to a risk reduction strategy. If this is done consistently as digitization projects are undertaken, the risk of infringement litigation will usually be seen to be much more manageable, and a great deal of unnecessary self-censorship will be avoided.

See also the pre-publication version of "Digitization of Special Collections and Archives: Legal and Contractual Issues."

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 | Digital Scholarship |

The Digital Public Domain: Foundations for an Open Culture

Open Book Publishers has released The Digital Public Domain: Foundations for an Open Culture.

Here's an excerpt:

The public domain is the sovereign space of all citizens of the world. Like the air we breathe, it is free for all people to use, without restriction, no rights reserved. Our public ownership of this domain of knowledge should be understood as a fundamental human right to access our shared knowledge, the use of which is not the result of a grant by any specific government.

In this book, the members of Communia not only articulates this positive conception of our public domain, but also seek to make the European public domain actionable. The book defines the public domain of the European nations and studies the environment in which it operates. Most importantly, it recommends a set of actions to build and make use of that domain as an environment of shared intellectual property and multifaceted cultural heritage.

| Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography| Digital Scholarship |

Free a Book: Unglue.it Launches

Unglue.it has launched.

Here's an excerpt from the Frequently Asked Questions:

Unglue.it is a place for individuals and institutions to join together to give their favorite ebooks to the world. We work with rights holders to decide on fair compensation for releasing a free, legal edition of their already-published books, under Creative Commons licensing. Then everyone pledges toward that sum. When the threshold is reached (and not before), we collect the pledged funds and we pay the rights holders. They issue an unglued digital edition; you're free to read and share it, with everyone, on the device of your choice, worldwide.

| Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography| Digital Scholarship |

Association of American Publishers Issues Statement on Georgia State University E-Reserves Copyright Case Ruling

The Association of American Publishers has issued a statement on the Georgia State University e-reserves copyright case ruling.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

At the same time, we are disappointed with aspects of the Court's decision. Most importantly, the Court failed to examine the copying activities at GSU in their full context. Many faculty members have provided students with electronic anthologies of copyrighted course materials which are not different in kind from copyrighted print materials. In addition, the Court's analysis of fair use principles was legally incorrect in some places and its application of those principles mistaken. As a result, instances of infringing activity were incorrectly held to constitute fair use. . . .

The Court's ruling has important implications for the ongoing vitality of academic publishing as well as the educational mission of colleges and universities. Contrary to the findings of the Court, if institutions such as GSU are allowed to offer substantial amounts of copyrighted content for free, publishers cannot sustain the creation of works of scholarship. The resources available to educators will be fundamentally impaired.

| E-science and Academic Libraries Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

"Issue Brief: GSU Fair Use Decision Recap and Implications"

ARL has released "Issue Brief: GSU Fair Use Decision Recap and Implications."

Here's an excerpt:

Although the decision is certainly not perfect (the use of bright line rules for appropriate amount under factor 3 is particularly troubling), Judge Evans has written a thorough and thoughtful analysis of the issues, and her opinion represents an overwhelming victory for Georgia State individually, a major defeat for the plaintiff publishers and for the AAP and CCC, and overall a positive development for libraries generally. The substance of the opinion is not ideal, but it is far more generous than the publishers have sought, it establishes a very comfortable safe harbor for fair use of books on e-reserve, and libraries remain free to take more progressive steps.

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog | Digital Scholarship |