Libraries have a mission to educate users about copyright, and library publishing staff are often involved in that work. This article investigates a concrete point of intersection between the two areas – copyright statements on library-published journals.
Journals published by members of the Library Publishing Coalition were examined for open access status, type and placement of copyright information, copyright ownership, and open licensing.
Journals in the sample were overwhelmingly (93%) open access. 80% presented copyright information of some kind, but only 30% of those included it at both the journal and the article level.
Open licensing was present in 38% of the journals, and the most common ownership scenario was the author retaining copyright while granting a nonexclusive license to the journal or publisher. 9% of the sample journals included two or more conflicting rights statements.
76% of the journals did not consistently provide accurate, easily-accessible rights information, and numerous problems were found with the use of open licensing, including conflicting licenses, incomplete licenses, and licenses not appearing at the article level.
Recommendations include presenting full copyright and licensing information at both the journal and the article level, careful use of open licenses, and publicly-available author agreements.
URL : Write up! A Study of Copyright Information on Library-Published Journals
« Background. The 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development is helping the European to prepare for an integrative system for intelligent management of biodiversity knowledge. The infrastructure that is envisaged and that will be further developed within the Programme “Horizon 2020” aims to provide open and free access to taxonomic information to anyone with a requirement for biodiversity data, without the need for individual consent of other persons or institutions. Open and free access to information will foster the re-use and improve the quality of data, will accelerate research, and will promote new types of research. Progress towards the goal of free and open access to content is hampered by numerous technical, economic, sociological, legal, and other factors. The present article addresses barriers to the open exchange of biodiversity knowledge that arise from European laws, in particular European legislation on copyright and database protection rights.
We present a legal point of view as to what will be needed to bring distributed information together and facilitate its re-use by data mining, integration into semantic knowledge systems, and similar techniques. We address exceptions and limitations of copyright or database protection within Europe, and we point to the importance of data use agreements. We illustrate how exceptions and limitations have been transformed into national legislations within some European states to create inconsistencies that impede access to biodiversity information.
Conclusions. The legal situation within the EU is unsatisfactory because there are inconsistencies among states that hamper the deployment of an open biodiversity knowledge management system. Scientists within the EU who work with copyright protected works or with protected databases have to be aware of regulations that vary from country to country. This is a major stumbling block to international collaboration and is an impediment to the open exchange of biodiversity knowledge. Such differences should be removed by unifying exceptions and limitations for research purposes in a binding, Europe-wide regulation. »
URL : Open exchange of scientific knowledge and European copyright
Alternative URL : http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/7717/abstract/open-exchange-of-scientific-knowledge-and-european-copyright-the-case-of-biodiversity-information
Legal Issues in Mass Digitization: A Preliminary Analysis and Discussion Document :
« This Preliminary Analysis and Discussion Document (the “Analysis”) addresses the issues raised by the intersection between copyright law and the mass digitization of books. The Copyright Office (the “Office”) has prepared this Analysis for the purpose of facilitating further discussion among the affected parties and the public – discussions that may encompass a number of possible approaches, including voluntary initiatives, legislative options, or both.
On March 22, 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected a proposed settlement of the class action lawsuit brought by the Authors Guild and a related suit by book publishers against Google for the mass digitization of books in several large U.S. libraries. The court ruled that the class action settlement would have redefined the relationship between copyright law and new technology, and encroached upon Congress’s ability to set copyright policy with respect to orphan works. Subsequently, on September 12, 2011, the Authors Guild and several prominent authors sued five university libraries that participated in Google’s mass digitization project as well as a library consortium known as the HathiTrust after the universities announced their intention to offer access to some of the book scans Google had provided to them.
These developments have sparked public debate on the risks and opportunities that mass book digitization may create for authors, publishers, libraries, technology companies, the general public, and the corresponding legal framework. The questions are many: What mass digitization projects are currently underway in the United States? What are the objectives and who are the intended beneficiaries? How are the exclusive rights of copyright owners implicated? What exceptions or limitations may apply, to whom, and in what circumstances? To the extent there are public policy goals at issue, what could Congress do to facilitate or control the boundaries of mass digitization projects? Would orphan works legislation help? Are efficient and costeffective licensing options available? Could Congress encourage or even require new licensing schemes for mass digitization? Could it provide direction and oversight to authors, publishers,
libraries, and technology companies as they explore solutions? Indeed, these stakeholders may be in the best position to find points of consensus and create strategies for the U.S. book and library sectors.
The issues discussed in this Analysis are complex and require public discussion. The Office recognizes that the Google Books proceeding, initiated more than six years ago, and the recently filed lawsuit involving the HathiTrust Digital Library will continue to influence the public debate over mass digitization. International developments may also contribute to the debate in the United States. Although the marketplace and the issues will continue to evolve, the Office believes there is sufficient information to undertake an intense public discussion about the broader policy implications of mass book digitization. By necessity, this discussion must address the relationship between the emerging digital marketplace and the existing copyright framework. »
URL : http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/USCOMassDigitization_October2011.pdf