The Centre for Intellectual Property Policy at McGill University has launched the CIPP Wiki.
Here's an excerpt from the home page:
Join colleagues and friends at the CIPP in setting out a re-draft of the [Canadian] Copyright Act. Using this wiki platform, we would ask you to draft possible articles on pressing issues of copyright reform. McGill members of the CIPP wiki team have identified specific areas and articles of reform, but feel free to add others in the general comments section
.
STM, the Federation of European Publishers, and 23 other organizations have signed a "Memorandum of Understanding on Diligent Search Guidelines for Orphan Works." The text of the document does not appear to be available; however, the press release seems to reference the 2006 "STM Position: The Use of Orphan Works."
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
The Memorandum is an outcome of extensive discussions of the High Level Expert Group on Digital libraries set up by Commissioner Reding as part of the EU i2010 initiatives. It covers a broad range of copyright sectors, including the text sector, and has incorporated the previous STM work on orphan works (REF).
The memorandum is one of several outcomes agreed by all participants in the Copyright SubGroup of the High Level Expert Group and reflects the leadership of its Chair Tarja Koskinen-Olsson, Honorary President of IFRRO and the input of its members, especially Anne Bergman-Tahon of the Federation of European Publishers.
ARL has released presentations from its 152nd membership meeting, which was titled "Institutional Strategies Supporting E-Scholarship & Multidisciplinary Research."
Here's a selection of the presentations:
Orphan works bills in House (H.R. 5889, The Orphan Works Act of 2008) and the Senate (S. 2913, the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008) have been marked up by the appropriate Congressional committees. House testimony by Marybeth Peters, The Register of Copyrights, overviews the issues involved in the legislation.
The bills are not without controversy. Prominent copyright reformer Lawrence Lessig wrote an Op Ed piece in The New York Times opposing the bills, calling them "both unfair and unwise." Public Knowledge and others countered his objections. Various associations of content creators, such as photographers, have been vocal opponents of the bills.
Read more about it at "ASMP Urges Photographers to Oppose 'Orphan Works' Bill," "Issue Brief: Orphan Works," "Library Group Favors Senate over House Bill on Orphan Works," "Orphan Works," "Orphan Works Bill Clears Senate Committee, May Soon Find Home," "Release the Orphan Works!," "Senate Marks Up Orphan Works," and "Two Cartoon-Group Presidents Slam Possible 'Orphan Works' Legislation."
Here's a selection of recent news articles and Weblog postings about the Georgia State copyright infringement lawsuit. See my prior postings for further information about the suit ("Georgia State Copyright Infringement Suit Coverage and Commentary" and "Georgia State Sued by Three Publishers for Alleged Digital Copyright Infringement in E-Reserves, Course Management, and Other Systems").
"Academic Publishers Sue US Uni over Digital Course Material"
It is an estimate that electronic course packs now constitute half of all syllabus reading at American colleges and universities. . . . Cambridge University Press, for example charges 17 cents a page for each student for electronic use, and generally grants permission for use of as much as 20 percent of a book.
"Copyright Suit Tests How Much Is Too Much"
Indeed, the complaint notes that the three plaintiffs have published more than 100 books and monographs authored by GSU professors. That GSU is a nonprofit institution shouldn't have any bearing on how much unauthorized copying it can do, Smith [Frank Smith, Cambridge University Press] says.
"We're a nonprofit," he points out. "I assume they wouldn't want their classes flooded with students who weren't paying tuition, but you could say there's no extra cost to filling another desk. I'm sure they would resist that, and I could see why."
The educational area is one where courts have traditionally afforded a greater degree of leeway in fair use and even the plaintiff's lawyer has to admit that he can't find a law or binding precedent stating how much digital copying would be "not too much." It seems likely that if the case ever makes it as far as a decision that decision would be appealed. My personal opinion is that they'll work out a settlement before it gets that far—neither side wants to see a precedent set that would go against them. Plus there's a core reality that academic publishers and educational institutions exist in a kind of death-grip dependency that would harm both if it was violently broken.
"Publishing Group Hires Qorvis for Lawsuit Messaging"
The Association of American Publishers hired Qorvis to handle messaging for three academic publishers' copyright lawsuit against Georgia State University.
So, . . . what's left if you really, really, really believe that educators ought to be able to use whatever they need to and want to use in their classrooms without worrying about what it costs or whether it's fair use?
Consumer resistance, or OA.
If that case every reaches the stage of arguing the fair use defense, I hope the court will look very hard at the second fair use factor—the nature of the copyrighted work. Previously, the action on this factor has been minimal and has largely focused on published versus unpublished works and how much originality is necessary for "thick" or "thin" protection. But the economics of a particular segment of publishing, especially one as dysfunctional as scholarly publishing, ought to be considered when analyzing fair use, and factor two is a good place to do that. If the system is structured in a way that undermines the whole incentive purpose of copyright, as I have argued the scholarly publishing is, factor two, which really focuses on the expectations of creators of different types of works, should strongly favor an expansive application of fair use.
"What Does the Lawsuit against Georgia State Mean?"
There are a number of possible outcomes in this case. Settlement is possible. The complaint itself is somewhat vague in its details; while specific examples are provided for some of the allegedly infringing uses, the publishers provide no specific details or examples of professors linking to course material from their open web pages, or any information about specifically infringing behaviors within the course management system. Although it claims the copying is in excess of what is permitted as fair use, the publishers do not offer a specific discussion of what it considers to be the bounds of fair use, nor does it adequately define course packs, nor offer any interpretation of the cited cases against copy shops, other than to broadly claim that they act as guiding precedence.
EDUCAUSE has released a podcast on P2P file sharing called "Don't Download This Panel." The podcast is from a panel discussion about the topic at the EDUCAUSE 2008 Western Regional Conference.
The speakers are:
The draft designation for the Creative Commons Statement of Intent for Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses has been removed, and the document is now the official explanation of the goals of this group of licenses.
Read more about it at "Creative Commons Statement of Intent for Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses Released."
Here's a selection of news articles and Weblog postings about the Georgia State copyright infringement lawsuit.
"Coursepack Sharing: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?": John Mark Ockerbloom, who maintains The Online Books Page, looks at the suit from an open access point of view. He says:
But in a world that's brought us global content sharing systems like Flickr, CiteULike, and PubMedCentral, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine systems that would let instructors provide and share open access course readings more readily. A well-designed, browsable and searchable repository of such readings could provide a convenient way for professors to upload, organize, and disseminate open coursepacks for their students ("Just go to the OpenCoursePacks website, and type in the name of my course", they could say). The same site could also let profs could tag, annotate, and recommend their readings, thereby making it that much easier for other professors to find and include suitable open access content in their own coursepacks. With a good design, and suitable scale and interest, a coursepack sharing site could make a lot more good instructional material widely and freely used and shared.
"Georgia State Sued For Copyright Infringement": Information Media Partners supports the suit and provides an interesting comment about publishers' fear of entering the "valley of death" of the print-to-electronic transition.
"Oxford, Cambridge and Sage Sue Georgia State": Paul N. Courant, University Librarian and Dean of Libraries at the University of Michigan, reacts to the suit. In summary, he says:
Things have come to a pretty pass when academic institutions sue each other over academic matters. Even if the publishers prove to be right on the merits, the lawsuit ought to be the last resort, and student use of academic materials produced by academic institutions ought be priced at something like marginal cost, rather than at the price that maximizes profit. And one wonders why three rich and distinguished institutions would go after an urban university that is much less well-resourced.
"A Press Revolt against E-Packet Practices": Andy Guess' Inside Higher Ed article overviews the suit, provides background information about prior communications between GSU and the plaintiff’s law firm, notes that the suit indicates that the e-reserves system wasn't restricted access until after a complaint to the university, and includes a call from Kenneth C. Green, director of the Campus Computing Project, for a iTunes-like system for scholarly material.
"Publishers Sue Georgia State for Copyright Infringement": Calvin Reid's Publisher's Weekly article overviews the suit and includes comments by Patricia Schroeder (AAP President and Chief Executive Officer), Allan Adler (AAP Vice President, Legal and Governmental Affairs), and Niko Pfund (Oxford University Press Vice President).
"Publishers Sue Georgia State University Over E-Reserves": Andrew Albanese's Library Journal article overviews the suit and includes comments by Pfund as well as a useful brief recap of prior e-reserves disputes and resolutions. (For more background, see Albanese's 2007 article "Down with E-Reserves: Confusing, Contentious, and Vital, E-Reserves Fuel Higher Education—And an Ongoing Copyright Battle.") Albanese notes that the "suit offers a remarkably detailed view of what the plaintiffs believe to be infringing activity at GSU, including specific examples of uses it considers to be well beyond the scope of fair use and a detailed appendix of alleged infringed materials."
"Trying to Sue State U": Kevin Smith, Scholarly Communications Officer at Duke University, analyzes the suit, weaving in an analysis of a recent case of state sovereign immunity and copyright infringement (discussed here in "Copyright Infringement Liability of State Employees"). In summary, Smith says:
A little bit of attention to the economics of scholarly publishing quickly undermines the claim in this complaint that, without permission fees for electronic reserves, the incentive system of copyright will be undermined. No monetary incentive currently exists for the vast majority of academic publishing, from the point of view of faculty, yet academics keep writing. There is no evidence at all that this well of free content will suddenly go dry if publishers are not able to collect an additional income stream from that well. If this suit goes forward in spite of sovereign immunity, that should be the issue on which the court focuses its attention.
For further reactions, see Jennifer Howard's "Librarians React to Lawsuit Against Georgia State U."
Analyzing Mary Minow's "District Court Invalidates Portion of Copyright Act as Unconstitutional; Holds State University and Employee Immune from Claim for Copyright Infringement," copyright expert William Patry has written a timely summary of the copyright infringement liability that state employees face in light of the state sovereign immunity doctrine ("State Sovereign Immunity and State Employees"), and Georgia Harper has commented on his analysis ("Another Attention Getter on the Campus Infringement Front").
Here's an excerpt from Harper's post:
His [Patry's] commentary, and the commentary to which he points at the Stanford Fair Use blog [Minow's commentary], both make the distinction which can be sort of confusing, that even though sovereign immunity protects individuals acting in their official capacity, when they have acted in a way that is illegal, they are going to get stripped of the character of "acting within official capacity," Basically, you can't be acting officially if you are breaking the law. It can't be the official act of the state to break the law. Isn't logic great?
The Association of American University Presses has issued a press release supporting the digital copyright lawsuit against Georgia State University (see "Georgia State Sued by Three Publishers for Alleged Digital Copyright Infringement in E-Reserves, Course Management, and Other Systems.")
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
In today's universities, it is increasingly rare for students to buy assigned books at the campus bookstore or purchase coursepacks at the local copyshop. Instead, professors often distribute assigned course readings electronically through digital course management, e-reserves, or similar systems. While many universities seek legally required permissions, others do not and simply distribute substantial excerpts from books and journals without permission or compensation. This has become a significant problem for university presses, who depend upon the income due them to continue to publish the specialized scholarly books required to educate students and to advance university research.
Against this backdrop, three scholarly publishers, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and Sage Publications, have recently filed suit against Georgia State University officials, citing a pattern of illegal distribution of copyrighted book and journal content through digital course management and similar systems controlled by Georgia State. The Association of American University Presses supports the difficult decision made by Cambridge and Oxford, both AAUP members, to take this action—particularly in light of its broad concerns for the critical role that university presses, which are non-profits, play in the world of university instruction and scholarly communications.
The basic legal issue in the suit, namely whether permissions are required for course materials, was forcefully addressed in Basic Books v. Kinko's Graphics Corp. (1991), which held that the coursepacks sold by Kinko's required the payment of permissions fees to publishers, and that the reproduction of a single chapter was "quantitatively [and] qualitatively substantial" under the Copyright Act. While AAUP respects the doctrine of fair use, which permits spontaneous and limited uses of copyrighted material for instruction, it is clear that universities need to seek permission for more regular and substantial uses of excerpts in coursepacks and other assigned reading. That the delivery method for coursepacks is digital rather than print-on-paper does not change the nature of the use or the content, and such uses are governed by the same legal principles established in earlier cases.
University presses are non-profits that operate on very thin margins, and their primary audience is the university community. Indeed, although university presses comprise only a small segment of the market, they supply a very significant proportion of the books and journal articles taught and read in universities, particularly in graduate and upper-level undergraduate courses. . . .
University presses also serve a critical role for universities by providing faculty with a platform to publish their research, a role central to scholarship and the tenure system. . . .
Many universities have understood these realities and have promulgated strong institutional policies on the digital use of copyrighted materials. Over the last two years, publishers have had productive discussions with several universities including Cornell, Syracuse, Marquette and Hofstra, all of whom have recently adopted sound copyright policies about the use of digital course materials. Several mechanisms currently exist for universities to obtain clearance for the use of these materials, whether through individual publishers or the Copyright Clearance Center. While many universities have adopted a centralized approach and treated electronic course materials as they do paper, Georgia State has flatly rebuffed repeated attempts by publishers to work toward an acceptable university policy and has continued to foster a system of widespread copyright abuse.
The decision to file a suit is never easy, and always a last resort. It is particularly painful for non-profit publishers to sue a university, even if in this situation it was unavoidable. "It feels like suing a member of the family" said AAUP Executive Director Peter Givler. "Unfortunately, the alleged infringement is like stealing from a member of the family."
Backed by the Association of American Publishers, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and SAGE Publications have sued Georgia State University alleging "systematic, widespread and unauthorized copying and distribution of a vast amount of copyrighted works" via GSU's e-reserves, course management, and other systems.
The suit "seeks injunctive relief to bring an end to such practices, but does not seek monetary damages." The defendants named in the suit are the GSU President, Provost, Dean of Libraries, and Associate Provost for Information Systems and Technology.
Read more about it at "Publishers Sue Georgia State on Digital Reading Matter" and "Publishers Take Action against Georgia State University Copyright Infringement."
NPR has released a digital audio interview with Harold Varmus (Noble Prize winner, President of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, former Director of the National Institutes of Health, and co-founder and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Public Library of Science) about the NIH Public Access Policy and open access.
The Edward G. Miner Library of the University of Rochester Medical Center has a very useful page (Publishers' Policies on the NIH Public Access Policy) that includes excerpts from selected publisher's policies about the NIH Public Access Policy. However, this page does not include the URLs for the policies.
I've identified the URL's (listed below in the same order as in the original document), provided updates where appropriate, and included the publisher's fee-based open access option if available.
BioOne has released its Model Author Agreement. An Informational Sheet is also available.
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
BioOne (www.bioone.org) is pleased to announce the release of a model publication agreement that addresses current trends in copyright assignment and requirements by NIH and other funding agencies for digital repository deposits. While the Agreement was developed at the request of several BioOne publishers, it may be of interest to any scholarly publishing organization that is seeking a clear, concise, and legally vetted publication agreement.
In March 2007, the legal firm Morrison & Foerster LLC (www.mofo.com) generously agreed to provide pro bono legal assistance to BioOne in drafting a Model Publication Agreement. Ms. Pamela Pasti, Of Counsel in the Technology Transactions Group of Morrison & Foerster's San Francisco office, was assigned to the project. Over the course of the following year, Ms. Pasti worked with BioOne to review existing publication agreements, notable author's addenda, and articles describing emerging trends in copyright law as it relates to academic publishing.
The resulting agreement allows author(s) to retain copyright, while granting the publisher both a temporally limited and exclusive right to first publish, and a perpetual, non-exclusive right to publish, distribute, and sublicense. In response to NIH's Public Access Policy (passed by Congress in December 2007) and other institutional and subject repository deposit mandates, the Agreement allows authors to deposit their work in digital repositories directly, or permits the publisher to deposit to the National Library of Medicine on their behalf.
In a survey conducted by the British Library, 87% of respondents supported copyright use exceptions and fair use (called fair dealing in UK) for digital materials. (Thanks to the ResourceShelf.)
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
87% of respondents stated they should be able to use exceptions and fair dealing in the digital age. Fair dealing is the 'right' to make a copy from an in-copyright work without permission from, or remuneration to, the rights holder for non-commercial research, private study, criticism, review and news reporting. For example, most individual copying by researchers at university for academic purposes is done under the fair dealing provision in UK law. 68% of the survey respondents are opposed to having different fair dealing laws for material in paper or electronic format. The British Library will be putting these points, on behalf of researchers, to the UK Intellectual Property Office in the current consultation on copyright exceptions. . . .
The British Library's position in the IP debate has been guided by five principles:
1. Public Interest
Public interest policy formation must consider the impact on the creator, the citizen, the economy, the education system and our culture—for today, and for future generations to come.
2. Balance
Creativity, innovation and a democratic civil society requires copyright law to strike a balance between the private interest of the creator being recognised and remunerated for their work, and the interest of the citizen in ensuring access to information and ideas.
3. Digital is Not Different
Copyright law should enshrine the principles of creativity, access, recognition and remuneration as it always has done. Exceptions should apply to all formats including digital formats.
4. Law Aligned with Realities
Rationalisation and simplification of the law will lead to understanding and respect for copyright.
5. Technology Neutral
Copyright law must be informed by technological advances, but must be kept generic as opposed to specific technologies being enshrined in law.
The British Library will be submitting its response to the UK Intellectual Property Office's consultation on copyright exceptions on 8 April 2008.
The European Parliament's Cultural Industries in Europe Committee's Cultural industries in the Context of the Lisbon Strategy report now includes a proposed amendment that:
Calls on the Commission and the Member States to recognise that the Internet is a vast platform for cultural expression, access to knowledge, and democratic participation in European creativity, bringing generations together through the information society; calls on the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to avoid adopting measures conflicting with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness, such as the interruption of Internet access.
This is far cry from an earlier amendment by Chris Heaton-Harris that was pro-blocking, pro-filtering, and pro-disconnection that was voted down by the committee.
Read more about it at "EU Politicians Strikes Back against Three Strikes" and "Sweden Rejects Sarkozy’s War on File Sharing."
Of late, there has been increased attention by the courts about the legality of having digital music files in P2P software folders where other P2P users could retrieve them.
Noted copyright attorney William Patry has reviewed three cases (Atlantic v. Brennan, Elektra v. Barker, and London-Sire v. Doe) involving this issue in "The Recent Making Available Cases."
Joi Ito, an entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and free culture advocate, has been named CEO of the Creative Commons, replacing Lawrence Lessig. Lessig is leading a new effort, Change Congress. He will serve as a Creative Commons board member.
The organization has received a $4 million grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation ($2.5 million of general funding for five years and $1.5 million to support ccLearn).
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
"Although I have changed my focus, I’m still very much committed to Creative Commons and the Free Culture cause," Lessig said. "The work I intend to do with Change Congress is in many ways complementary to the work of Creative Commons. Both projects are about putting people in power and enabling them to build a better system. I could not be more pleased to hand off the leadership of Creative Commons to the extraordinarily passionate and qualified Joi Ito."
"Under Larry’s management, Creative Commons has grown from an inspirational idea to an essential part of the technical, social, and legal landscape involving organizations and people in 80 countries," said Ito. "With it, the organization has grown in size and complexity, and I am excited to increase the level of my participation to help manage this amazing group of people. The Hewlett Foundation has been a major supporter of ours from the beginning and we could not be more grateful for their support going forward into the future."
Founding board member and Duke law professor James Boyle will become chair of the board, replacing Ito, who remains on the board. "Jamie has demonstrated his commitment to Creative Commons from its founding," said Lessig. "He led the formation of Science Commons and ccLearn, our divisions focused on scientific research and education respectively. There is no person better suited to lead the Creative Commons board."
Boyle is optimistic about Creative Commons' future. "If one looks at all the amazing material that has been placed under our licenses—from MIT’s Open Courseware and the Public Library of Science to great music, from countless photographs and blogs to open textbooks—one realizes that, under Larry's leadership, the organization has actually helped build a global 'creative commons' in which millions of people around the world participate, either as creators or users. My job will be to use the skills of the remarkable people on our board—including a guy called Larry Lessig, who has promised me he isn’t going away any time soon to make sure that mission continues and expands."
The Hewlett Foundation grant consists of $2.5 million to provide general support to Creative Commons over five years and $1.5 million to support ccLearn, the division of Creative Commons that is focused on open educational resources. "The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation has been a strong supporter of openness and open educational resources in particular," said Catherine Casserly, the Director of the Open Educational Resources Initiative at Hewlett. "Creative Commons licenses are a critical part of the infrastructure of openness on which those efforts depend." The Hewlett grant was a vital part of a five-year funding plan which also saw promises of support from Omidyar Network, Google, Mozilla, Red Hat, and the Creative Commons board.
Creative Commons also announces two other senior staff changes. Diane Peters joins the organization as General Counsel. Peters arrives from the Mozilla Corporation, serves on the board of the Software Freedom Law Center, and was previously General Counsel for Open Source Development Labs and the Linux Foundation. She has extensive experience collaborating with and advising nonprofit organizations, development communities, and high-tech companies on a variety of matters.
Vice President and General Counsel Virginia Rutledge, who joined Creative Commons last year from Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, will take on a new role as Vice President and Special Counsel. In her new role, Rutledge will focus on development and external relations, while continuing to lead special legal projects.
In its 2007 "Safe Harbor Provisions for the Use of Orphan Works for Scientific, Technical and Medical Literature" position paper, STM (International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers) outlines how orphan works searches should be conducted.
Here's an excerpt:
The publishers do believe that in virtually all cases searches and reviews must be conducted of these kinds of resources identified generically as:
- Published indexes of published material relevant for the publication type and subject matter;
- Indexes and catalogs from library holdings and collections;
- Sources that identify changes in ownership of publishing houses and publications (see below comment on imprints) including from local reprographic rights organizations;
- Biographical resources for authors;
- Searches of recent relevant literature to determine if the citation to the underlying work has been updated by other users or authors;
- Relevant business or personal directories or search engine searches of businesses or persons; and
- Sources on the history of relevant publishing houses or scientific, technical or medical disciplines.
In "Orphan Works Legislation: Round Two," Georgia Harper calls this procedure "daunting." She goes on to say:
It was clearly designed with other publishers in mind, given their corporate resources, and their likely intent to profit from the use of the work contributing to their willingness to spend considerable time and money chasing down every rabbit track. This does not seem like a good idea for nonprofit entities making nonprofit uses. As I commented at the time, the proposal suggested that all the rigor of adopting real human orphans should be applied to making even nonprofit uses of abandoned copyrighted works.
In a ruling in the Elektra v. Barker case, United States District Judge Kenneth M. Karas has ruled that having digital music files in a KaZaA shared folder is a violation of copyright holders' distribution rights. EFF attorney Fred von Lohmann said that the ruling was an important precedent.
Read more about it at "New Ruling May 'Grease the Wheels" of RIAA Litigation Machine."
The Section 108 Study Group has released the The Section 108 Study Group Report.
Here's the group's charge from the "Executive Summary":
The purpose of the Section 108 Study Group is to conduct a reexamination of the exceptions and limitations applicable to libraries and archives under the Copyright Act, specifically in light of digital technologies. The group will study how section 108 of the Copyright Act may need to be amended to address the relevant issues and concerns of libraries and archives, as well as creators and other copyright holders. The group will provide findings and recommendations on how to revise the copyright law in order to ensure an appropriate balance among the interests of creators and other copyright holders, libraries and archives in a manner that best serves the national interest.
Here's an overview of the document from the "Executive Summary":
The Study Group’s recommendations, conclusions, and other outcomes of its discussions are described in this Report in three separate sections: "Recommendations for Legislative Change" addresses issues for which the Study Group agreed a legislative solution is appropriate and agreed on recommendations for legislative change. These recommendations often are subject to the resolution of related outstanding issues, discussed in detail in the body of the Report. "Conclusions on Other Issues" addresses issues on which the Study Group had substantive discussions, and agreed a legislative solution might be appropriate, but for which it has no specific recommendations on the major issues. "Additional Issues" addresses additional important issues that the Study Group discussed.
The Berkman Center for Internet & Society has released a digital video of the Lawrence Lessig and Jack Valenti debate about "The Future of Intellectual Property on the Internet" on October 1, 2000.
OCLC's RLG Program has released the Copyright Investigation Summary Report.
Here's an excerpt from the announcement:
This report summarizes interviews conducted between August and September 2007 with staff RLG Partner institutions. Interviewees shared information about how and why institutions investigate and collect copyright evidence, both for mass digitization projects and for items in special collections.
EDUCAUSE has released "EDUCAUSE Live! Podcast: Update on Key U.S. Copyright Developments," in which James G. Neal, Vice President for Information Services and University Librarian at Columbia University, discusses recent copyright issues.
Here's a description of the podcast:
Copyright continues to be a core interest of the higher education and academic library communities. This briefing focuses on eight critical legislative and legal arenas where the United States will be working on copyright: orphan works, digital fair use, broadcast flag, Section 1201 anti-circumvention rulemaking, electronic reserves, peer-to-peer file sharing, open access to government-funded research, and the report of the Section 108 Study Group on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. The work of the study group is highlighted, including its primary findings and recommendations. In addition, two important recent studies are described and their importance for libraries are cited. The advocacy and educational roles and responsibilities of librarians on copyright also is outlined.
The Association of College and Research Libraries' journal, College & Research Libraries, is now offering access to preprints on its site; however, access is restricted to ACRL members.
According to the C&RL Manuscript Preparation page, the typical post-review publication delay for papers is about one year.
This preprint strategy does not appear to preclude authors from depositing preprints elsewhere after publication. Below is an excerpt from the C&RL Manuscript Preparation page (emphasis added):
The agreement between ACRL and the author is license to publish. The author retains copyright and thus is free to post the article on an institutional or personal web page subsequent to publication in C&RL. All material in the journal may be photocopied for the noncommercial purpose of scientific or educational advancement.
The American Librarian Library Association's author agreement that C&RL uses states (emphasis added):
- In consideration of the Publisher’s agreement to publish the Work, Author hereby grants and assigns to Publisher the right to print, publish, reproduce, or distribute the Work throughout the world in all means of expression by any method now known or hereafter developed, including electronic format, and to market or sell the Work or any part of it as it sees fit. Author further grants Publisher the right to use Author’s name in association with the Work in published form and in advertising and promotional materials. Copyright of the Work remains in Author’s name.
- Author agrees not to publish the Work in print form prior to publication of the Work by the Publisher. [ALA requests that should you publish the Work elsewhere, you cite the publication in ALA’s Publication, by author, title, and publisher, through a tagline, author bibliography, or similar means.]
The author agreement says nothing about restricting the author's right to distribute digital preprints, yet the Manuscript Preparation page implies that the author is not free to do so prior to publication. Which is it?
If authors are free to distribute their own digital preprints, what good does it do to restrict access to preprints at the ACRL Website? This policy appears to make no sense unless ACRL believes that authors' motivation to distribute their own preprints will be undermined by ACRL making them available or unless ACRL believes that its authors simply have little or no interest in distributing their own preprints.
Perhaps the C&RL Manuscript Preparation page is just poorly worded. If so, it would be helpful if it were corrected.
But even if this is the case, it begs the question: "What is ACRL, which is actively promoting open access on many fronts, doing making C&RL's preprint service restricted?" While ACRL directly providing access to preprints at the C&RL Website is a welcome step forward, restricting access to those preprints is taking two steps back, and, although well intended, it sends the wrong message for an organization that is trying to move the open access agenda forward.
Read more about it at "C&RL Launches Preprints!"
