Category: Copyright

Google and University of Michigan Sign Expanded Digitization Agreement

Google and the University of Michigan have signed an expanded digitization agreement that incorporates the terms of the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Specifically, the agreement:

Expands the scope of Google and University of Michigan's partnership:
The University of Michigan continues its tradition of leadership in library digitization by being the first library to expand its partnership with Google under the terms of Google's settlement agreement with a broad class of authors and publishers. The principles underlying the new agreement are to ensure access to our collection, to provide a solid foundation for future research and study, and to provide the greatest public good for patrons of libraries around the US.

Broadens public access to University of Michigan's collections:
Once the settlement is approved by the court, readers and students throughout the US will enjoy the benefits of University of Michigan's collections, including free previews, the ability to buy access to University of Michigan's books online, and institutional subscriptions.

Supports shared services with other libraries:
The agreement empowers University of Michigan to broaden public access to its collection by using digital files of books that Google scans to strengthen and support initiatives like HathiTrust.

Provides greater digital access to University of Michigan's collections for students and faculty:
University of Michigan will get a digital copy of every book held in their collection, whether it's scanned from Michigan or at another library.

Broadens access to public domain books from University of Michigan's collection:
The University of Michigan will be able to share digital copies of public domain works Google has digitized from its collection with fellow academic institutions, libraries, and other organizations for non-commercial purposes. These provisions enable Michigan to share its digital library collection with students, scholars, and other library users around the world.

Subsidizes University of Michigan's Institutional Subscription:
If approved by the court, Google's agreement with authors and publishers allows it to make millions of digitized books available to colleges and universities via a subscription. Under our new agreement, Google will subsidize the cost of Michigan's subscription based on the number of books scanned from Michigan. In practice, this means that Google will subsidize the entire cost of Michigan's institutional subscription–so that Michigan's students and staff will be able to access and read almost every book Google has digitized from 29 libraries around the world, for free.

Expands access for students, faculty, and patrons with disabilities:
Google will make public domain works digitized from Michigan's print library collection accessible to users with print disabilities in the same ways as in-copyright books covered under the settlement agreement.

Safeguards the public's access to knowledge:
Michigan's agreement includes collective terms Google has committed to that can be enjoyed by any of Google's other partner libraries. Michigan is the first university to sign on to these terms, which give libraries new ways to help safeguard the public's access to these books.

Establishes a mechanism to review prices:
Our agreement gives Michigan and other participating libraries the power to review the pricing of Institutional Subscriptions to make sure that they are priced for "broad penetration," as required by the settlement agreement. That means that the reviewer will evaluate whether subscriptions are affordable enough to allow universities, libraries, and other institutions across the country to take advantage of them.

If they determine that prices are too high, University of Michigan and other participating libraries who sign these collective terms can challenge the prices through arbitration, and Google will be required to work with the Registry to adjust the pricing accordingly.

Ensures access to millions of books for generations to come:
Google has committed to make the books it has scanned publicly available for free search, consumer purchase, institutional subscriptions, and other services established by the settlement agreement. Our agreement ensures that libraries and their patrons can continue to use digital copies of the millions of books Google has scanned well into the future, even if Google goes away.

Also see the press release.

Technological Accommodation of Conflicts between Freedom of Expression and DRM: The First Empirical Assessment

Patricia Akester's Technological Accommodation of Conflicts between Freedom of Expression and DRM: The First Empirical Assessment is available in the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law repository.

Here's an excerpt from the abstract:

When technological measures were under consideration in the mid 1990s two stark scenarios presented themselves: on the one hand, an ideal world where copyright owners could use DRM to make their works available under a host of different conditions in a way that responded to the diversity of consumer demand; on the other, a more bleak environment where all users of copyright material (and much non-copyright material) would be forced to obtain permission and pay to access material that previously would have been available to all. . . . Patricia Akester examines how these issues are working out in practice. Based on a series of interviews with key organisations and individuals, involved in the use of copyright material and the development and deployment of DRM, she provides a sober assessment of the current state of affairs.

Digital Video: Remix Culture: Fair Use is Your Friend

The Center for Social Media at American University has released Remix Culture: Fair Use is Your Friend.

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Last summer the release of the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video nearly crashed our servers with people downloading the document. Based on this demand, we created Remix Culture: Fair Use Is Your Friend is a collaboration with the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property—a program of AU's Washington College of Law—along with Stanford Law School's Fair Use Project. The video was funded by Google.

See also the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video.

Digital Library Federation Spring Forum 2009 Presentations

Presentations from the Digital Library Federation Spring Forum 2009 are now available.

Here's a quick selection:

Ph.D. Scholarship in Digital Rights and Digital Scholarship

EPrints Services is sponsoring a Ph.D. scholarship in Digital Rights and Digital Scholarship at the EPSRC Web Science Doctoral Training Centre at the University of Southampton.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The Web has had a huge impact on society and on the scientific and scholarly communications process. As more attention is paid to new e-research and e-learning methodologies it is time to stand back and investigate how rights and responsibilities are understood when "copying", "publishing" and "syndicating" are fundamental activities of the interconnected digital world.

Applicants with a technical background (a good Bachelors degree in Computer Science, Information Science, Information Technology or similar) are invited for this 4-year research programme, which begins in October 2009 with a 1-year taught MSc in Web Science and is followed by a three year PhD supervised jointly by the School of Law and the School of Electronics and Computer Science. The full four-year scholarships (including stipend) is available to UK residents.

Ed Felten Proposes “Three Strikes” Copyright Law for Print

Ed Felten has proposed "three strikes" copyright law for print.

Here's an excerpt from "A Modest Proposal: Three-Strikes for Print":

My proposed system is simplicity itself. The government sets up a registry of accused infringers. Anybody can send a complaint to the registry, asserting that someone is infringing their copyright in the print medium. If the government registry receives three complaints about a person, that person is banned for a year from using print.

As in the Internet case, the ban applies to both reading and writing, and to all uses of print, including informal ones. In short, a banned person may not write or read anything for a year.

Read more about it at "3 Strikes for Print: A Modest Proposal From Ed Felten."

Jonathan Band’s Testimony on the DMCA Film Clip Compilation Exemption

ARL has released Jonathan Band's testimony on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act film clip compilation exemption.

Here's an excerpt:

Finally, putting aside the question of quality and alternatives, we have to ask ourselves why the rightsholders are opposing the modest expansion we seek. Why are they so reflexively confrontational? They know that the uses we seek will not harm their market in any way. They know that whether the exemption is granted or rejected will have absolutely no impact on the level of infringement. They should welcome our use of their content in our classrooms. They should make our legal use as easy as possible. We shouldn’t even have to apply for the exemption. They should proactively declare that they won’t bring DMCA actions against high ed institutions for assembling film compilations. Instead, they insult us by treating us as potential infringers who can’t be trusted to use a technology any 12-year old can download from the Internet. The Librarian of Congress should disregard the frivolous arguments raised by the rightsholders and allow circumvention for film clip compilations for high ed class classes in all disciplines.

Read more about it at "Big Content's 'Theater of the Absurd' at DMCA Hearings."

France Passes “Three-Strikes” Copyright Bill

The French National Assembly has passed the Création et Internet bill, a "three-strikes" copyright bill intended to curb illegal file sharing on the Internet by disconnecting offenders from the network on their third offense. The bill conflicts with a recently passed European Parliament law that prohibits EU member counties from disconnecting Internet users without judicial oversight.

Read more about it at "France Ignores EU and Passes Antipiracy Law" and "France Set for Showdown with EU after Passing 3 Strikes Law."

Cornell Lifts Use Restrictions on Reproductions of Public Domain Works, Including over 70,000 E-Books

The Cornell University Library has eliminated use restrictions on reproductions of public domain works, including over 70,000 e-books.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

In a dramatic change of practice, Cornell University Library has announced it will no longer require its users to seek permission to publish public domain items duplicated from its collections. Instead, users may now use reproductions of public domain works made for them by the Library or available via Web sites, without seeking any further permission.

The Library, as the producer of digital reproductions made from its collections, has in the past licensed the use of those reproductions. Individuals and corporations that failed to secure permission to repurpose these reproductions violated their agreement with the Library. "The threat of legal action, however," noted Anne R. Kenney, Carl A. Kroch University Librarian, "does little to stop bad actors while at the same time limits the good uses that can be made of digital surrogates. We decided it was more important to encourage the use of the public domain materials in our holdings than to impose roadblocks."

The immediate impetus for the new policy is Cornell’s donation of more than 70,000 digitized public domain books to the Internet Archive (details at www.archive.org/details/cornell).

"Imposing legally binding restrictions on these digital files would have been very difficult and in a way contrary to our broad support of open access principles," said Oya Y. Rieger, Associate University Librarian for Information Technologies. "It seemed better just to acknowledge their public domain status and make them freely usable for any purpose. And since it doesn't make sense to have different rules for material that is reproduced at the request of patrons, we have removed permission obligations from public domain works."

Institutional restrictions on the use of public domain work, sometimes labeled "copyfraud," have been the subject of much scholarly criticism. The Cornell initiative goes further than many other recent attempts to open access to public domain material by removing restrictions on both commercial and non-commercial use. Users of the public domain works are still expected to determine on their own that works are in the public domain where they live. They also must respect non-copyright rights, such as the rights of privacy, publicity, and trademark. The Library will continue to charge service fees associated with the reproduction of analog material or the provision of versions of files different than what is freely available on the Web. All library Web sites will be updated to reflect this new policy during 2009.

The new Cornell policy can be found at cdl.library.cornell.edu/guidelines.html.

British Library Releases “Copyright for Education and Research: Golden Opportunity or Digital Black Hole?”

The British Library has released "Copyright for Education and Research: Golden Opportunity or Digital Black Hole?"

Here's an excerpt:

The Golden Opportunity is:

  • a vibrant research environment which fully utilises technological developments for education and research which in turn supports the UK’s knowledge economy.

The Digital Black Hole is:

  • digital lockdown where access is restricted and education, research and the knowledge economy are stifled.

Also available is a MP3 audio file of the May 5th debate "Golden Opportunity or Digital Black Hole?" with Dame Lynne Brindley, David Lammy MP, Torin Douglas, Dr. Annette Davison, Simon Tanner and Rod Bristow. See the debate press release for details.

European Parliament Vote Requires Judicial Ruling Before Alleged Internet Copyright Violators Can Be Disconnected

The European Parliament has approved an amendment to its Telecoms Package that requires a judicial ruling before alleged Internet copyright violators can be disconnected from the network.

Here's the amendment:

No restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent.

Read more about it at "Euro-MPs Stick to Their Guns on Three-Strikes Court Permission," "European Parliament Smacks Down France on Three Strikes Law," and "European Parliament Votes in Favour of Internet Freedom."

DigitalKoans

Informed P2P User Act Hearing

On 3/5/2009, Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA) introduced the Informed P2P User Act. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Energy and Commerce held a hearing on the bill today.

Here's an excerpt from Marc Rotenberg's testimony (Rotenberg is the Executive Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center):

In the consideration of this bill, it is important to understand that P2P programs are used for a wide variety of function from the sharing of music to Internet-based telephony as well as scientific research. Even the military makes use of P2P networks. The technique is also important in countries where Internet censorship is a threat.

In the most generic sense, a P2P network is a technical description, much like saying a telephone network or the Internet. It is no intrinsic application, other than architecture that allows nodes to exchange information equally with other nodes in the network. Some Internet scholars have observed that this architecture reflects the collaboration among individuals that has helped spur the growth of the Internet. Professor Yochai Benkler refers to this as "Commons Based Peer Production."

No doubt part of the bill aims to discourage the use of file sharing techniques that may infringe copyright as well as making users vulnerable to certain types of inadvertent file sharing. But there is some risk that the bill would also discourage the use of file sharing techniques that do not raise such concerns. More generally, it appears to be posting a warning sign on a very wide variety of applications that most likely have little to do with the sponsor’s concern.

Read more about it at "H.R. 1319 Wants You to Know When You're Sharing Files, but Will Drown You in Pop-Ups" and "P2P Bill Could Regulate Web Browsers, FTP Clients."

DigitalKoans

Digital Videos from Columbia’s Scholarly Communication Program’s Research without Borders 2008-2009 Program

A complete set of digital videos from Columbia University's Scholarly Communication Program's "Research without Borders" 2008-2009 program is now available.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The inaugural year of Research without Borders featured speakers at the forefront of the open access movement as well as experts in scholarly publishing, information policy, and copyright law. Harvard Professor Stuart Shieber kicked off the series in the fall semester, tracing the development of Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences' Open Access Policy. The second panel, with Marian Hollingsworth from Thomson Reuters, Jevin West of Eigenfactor.org, and Johan Bollen of the MESUR project, debated the controversial Impact Factor, a metric of scholarly journals' prominence. Helen Tartar and Sanford Thatcher, leaders of Fordham and Penn State University Presses, respectively, joined Columbia Libraries' Ree DeDonato for the third event, which focused on the future of scholarly monographs.

The spring semester opened with a discussion on the benefits of open science with Bora Zivkovic of the Public Library of Science, Jean-Claude Bradley of Drexel University, and Barry Canton of OpenWetWare and Ginkgo BioWorks. In March, UCLA's Christine Borgman, author of Scholarship in the Digital Age (2007), spoke to a packed room on information infrastructure and policy. The final event explored the implications of copyright trends for research, featuring SPARC's Heather Joseph, Michael Carroll of Washington Law School at American University, and Kenneth Crews of the Columbia University Copyright Advisory Office.

The Research Without Borders series will continue in the 2009-10 academic year with six new events on topics including scholarly blogging, open data, and open-access business models. Stay connected to the Program by following ScholarlyComm at http://twitter.com/ScholarlyComm, by joining the Scholarly Communication Program Facebook group, and through the iTunesU page. For more information on the Program and the series, please email Kathryn Pope at kp2002@columbia.edu, or visit http://scholcomm.columbia.edu.

DigitalKoans

ACRL, ALA, and ARL File Comments about Google Book Search Settlement

The American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries, and the Association of Research Libraries have filed comments with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the Google Book Search Copyright Class Action Settlement.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

Representing over 139,000 libraries and 350,000 librarians, the associations filed the brief as members of the plaintiff class because they are both authors and publishers of books. The associations asserted that although the settlement has the potential to provide public access to millions of books, many of the features of the settlement, including the absence of competition for the new services, could compromise fundamental library values including equity of access to information, patron privacy, and intellectual freedom. The court can mitigate these possible negative effects by regulating the conduct of Google and the Book Rights Registry the settlement establishes.

"While this settlement agreement could provide unprecedented access to a digital library of millions of books, we are concerned that the cost of an institutional subscription may skyrocket, as academic journal subscriptions have over the past two decades," Erika Linke, President of ACRL, said. . . .

Jim Rettig, President of ALA, said the proposed settlement "offers no assurances that the privacy of what the public accessed will be protected, which is in stark contrast to the long-standing patron privacy rights libraries champion on behalf of the public."

DigitalKoans

Digital Video: Know Your Rights: Who Really Owns Your Scholarly Works?

The Scholarly Communication Program at Columbia University Libraries/Information Services has released Know Your Rights: Who Really Owns Your Scholarly Works? (Thanks to Digital & Scholarly.)

Here's the announcement:

In this panel discussion, experts on copyright law and scholarly publishing discuss how scholars and researchers can take full advantage of opportunities afforded by digital technology in today's legal environment, and suggest ways to advocate for positive change. The panelists are Heather Joseph, who has been Executive Director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC); Michael Carroll, Visiting Professor of Law at American University's Washington College of Law and a founding member of the Board of Directors of Creative Commons; and Director of the Columbia University Copyright Advisory Office Kenneth Crews, whose research focuses on copyright issues, particularly as they relate to the needs of scholarship at the university.

DigitalKoans

Canada Put on U.S. Copyright Blacklist

Canada has joined countries such as China, Russia, and Pakistan on a U.S. copyright blacklist.

Here's an excerpt from 2009 Special 301 Report:

Canada will be added to the Priority Watch List in 2009. The United States appreciates the high level of cooperation between our two governments in many important bilateral and multilateral IPR initiatives. The United States also welcomed the Government of Canada's reaffirmation earlier this year of its 2007 and 2008 commitments to improve IPR protection and enforcement. However, the Government of Canada has not delivered on these commitments by promptly and effectively implementing key copyright reforms. The United States continues to have serious concerns with Canada's failure to accede to and implement the WIPO Internet Treaties, which Canada signed in 1997. We urge Canada to enact legislation in the near term to strengthen its copyright laws and implement these treaties. The United States also continues to urge Canada to improve its IPR enforcement system to enable authorities to take effective action against the trade in counterfeit and pirated products within Canada, as well as curb the volume of infringing products transshipped and transiting through Canada. Canada's weak border measures continue to be a serious concern for IP owners.

Read more about it at "Canada Placed on Copyright Blacklist."

Controlling Access to and Use of Online Cultural Collections: A Survey of U.S. Archives, Libraries and Museums for IMLS

Kristin Eschenfelder has self-archived a draft of Controlling Access to and Use of Online Cultural Collections: A Survey of U.S. Archives, Libraries and Museums for IMLS in dLIST.

Here's an excerpt:

This report describes the results of an Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) funded study to investigate the use of technological or policy tools to control patron access to or use of digital collections of cultural materials created by U.S. archives, libraries and museums. The technological and policy tools serve primarily to control copying or other reuses of digital materials. The study had the following goals: 1. Assess what technical and policy tools cultural institutions are employing to control access to and use of online digital collections. 2. Investigate motivations for controlling access to or use of collections (e.g., copyright, privacy, protecting traditional restrictions, income generation etc.). 3. Investigate discouragers to the implementation of access and use control systems (e.g., preference for open collections, lack of resources, institutional mission, etc.). 4. Gauge interest in implementing technical systems to control access to and use of collections. 5. Determine what types of assistance IMLS could provide. 6. Identify institutions with innovative controlled online collections for follow up case studies on policy, technical and managerial details.

Justice Department Launches Antitrust Investigation into Google Book Search Settlement

The Justice Department has launched an antitrust investigation into the Google Book Search Copyright Class Action Settlement.

Read more about it at "Justice Department Looking into Google Book Settlement" and "Justice Dept. Opens Antitrust Inquiry Into Google Books Deal."

Foreign Opposition to the Google Book Search Settlement

Foreign opposition to the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement appears to be growing as the rights holder opt-out deadline nears.

Read more about it at "174 Writers, Poets Reject Google Book Search Offer"; "BA Warns Rights Holders over Google"; "Europeans Seem to Know Little About Google Settlement, But Enough Not to Like It"; and "German Authors Outraged at Google Book Search."

Google Asks Permission to Extend Author Opt-Out Deadline by 60 Days

Google has requested permission from the presiding court to extend the deadline for authors to opt out of the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement by 60 days.

Here's an excerpt from "Extending Notice on the Google Book Search Settlement":

It's pretty easy for credit card companies to contact their cardholders—they send bills to them all the time. The world's authors, publishers and their heirs are much more difficult to find. So, as the New York Times recently reported, the plaintiffs hired notice campaign specialists Kinsella Media Group to tell them about this exciting settlement, and Google has devoted millions of dollars to fund this notice campaign. . . .

The settlement is highly detailed, and we want to make sure rightsholders everywhere have enough time to think about it and make sure it's right for them. That's why we've asked the court for permission to extend the opt-out deadline for an extra 60 days.

Read more about it at "Delay Looming For Google Settlement Deadline?" and "Google Seeks More Time in Book Search Case."