Tag: copyright (page 1 of 3)

The Hardy Boys: Public Domain in 2023

This post is authored by Heidi Bowles, current student at the UC Davis School of Law and former research assistant at Ohio State University Libraries’ Copyright Services.

The first three novels of the popular children’s detective series The Hardy Boys (The Tower Treasure, The House on the Cliff, and The Secret of the Old Mill) entered the public domain on January 1, 2023, meaning that they are free from copyright protection in the United States. The Ohio State University’s Rare Books and Manuscripts Library has copies of the original 1927 editions of The Tower Treasure and The House on the Cliff.

The Tower Treasure (The Hardy Boys), 1927

The House on the Cliff (The Hardy Boys), 1927

The Hardy Boys was created by the Stratemeyer Syndicate and published by Grosset and Dunlap. The Syndicate was a book packaging company that produced many popular children’s series in the twentieth century, like Nancy Drew and The Rover Boys. To create so many books on a short timeframe, the Syndicate operated as a well-oiled machine that followed a standard process for creating a book: a Syndicate executive, often Edward Stratemeyer himself, produced a short outline of a story, which was provided to a contracted ghostwriter who then wrote it into a book for a flat fee. The book was then returned to a Syndicate executive for final edits before being sent to the publisher. When launching a new series, they would release three initial books to test whether or not there was a market for their idea. These first three test books for The Hardy Boys are now in the public domain.

In the early years of the series, Edward Stratemeyer provided the outlines to Leslie McFarlane, who wrote under the pseudonym Franklin W. Dixon. The first eleven books in the series were written by McFarlane, who also contributed to other Syndicate series under various pseudonyms. After Stratemeyer’s death in 1930, other Syndicate writers, including his daughter Harriet Stratemeyer Adams, contributed outlines to several uncredited ghostwriters writing as Franklin W. Dixon.

Copyright

The Copyright Act of 1909, which applies to works created before January 1, 1978, provided new works that followed proper formalities with a 28-year period of copyright protection with the option to renew the copyright for another 28-year period. Changes in the law (in the Copyright Act of 1976 and the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA)) extended the second period, making the maximum copyright term for published works covered by the 1909 Copyright Act 95 years from the date of publication.

Under the terms of an agreement between the authors and Stratemeyer Syndicate, copyright in the works appears to have been transferred and then registered in the name of the publisher (Grosset and Dunlap). Under the agreement, actual writers of the series did not receive a share of the royalties for sales of the books.[1] Franklin W. Dixon (a pseudonym) was listed as the author in the copyright registrations for many of The Hardy Boys novels, rather than the actual writers.

Under the 1909 Copyright Act, a publisher who was assigned copyright could control the copyright for the initial term, but the author, if still living, could claim the copyright for the renewal term. If the author was not living at the time of renewal, the copyright in the renewal term could be claimed only by those designated under the law. Harriet Stratemeyer Adams, who took charge of the Syndicate after her father’s death, renewed the copyrights in 1955 and claimed them for the renewal term.

The Syndicate’s practices of hiring contract writers and publishing series under a pseudonym let them control their stories and their legacies. They were able to authorize many spinoffs, adaptations, and revisions. In the 1950s and 1960s, during the renewal copyright term, the Syndicate shortened and revised the original Hardy Boys series. Although they were based on the original public domain books, these revisions are still protected by copyright.

Releasing these revisions did not restart the copyright in the original books—as derivative works, the elements taken from the original books are not copyrightable, only the new creative elements in the revised versions. The revised wording, revised characterization, illustrations and other new elements are protected by a separate copyright that will last for 95 years after publication.

Similarly, characters and events from the revised version or later iterations of the series are still protected by copyright. In the 1927 Tower Treasure, Frank and Joe Hardy were sixteen and fifteen years old but they were eighteen and seventeen in 1959. Only the sixteen-year-old and fifteen-year-old brothers are public domain.

The later revisions also altered the sidekick characters. One snarky review explains:

All the same, the Hardy Boys’ gang was a model of diversity for its day. In addition to best pal Chet Morton (or as he’s referred to in the original books, “the fat youth”), there was strongman Biff Hooper and two bona fide ethnics—Phil Cohen, a brainy Jewish kid; and Tony Prito, who is so darned ethnic that his poor Italian-accented English is the subject of good-natured mirth in the 1927 version of “The Tower Treasure.” In the 1959 rewrite, the melting pot has done its work and only the ethnic names remain. Tony Prito becomes “a lively boy with a good sense of humor.” Phil Cohen is “a quiet, intelligent boy.”

Characters and their characterization are copyrightable elements of a story, so only the version of the characters as they appear in these three 1927 books are in the public domain. Later updates to the specific characters are still protected by copyright. The stereotypical versions of Tony Prito and Phil Cohen are in the public domain, but the homogenized versions are not. Anyone making an adaptation or using these characters should be careful to avoid using any later versions of the character to avoid copyright issues.

This does not mean that any adaptation has to include these characters as they exist in the 1927 books. They can be changed and updated; it is just important to make sure that any changes to the characters have not already been made in copyrighted materials. To take clothing as an example, an adaptation would not have to dress the brothers in their original 1920s clothing simply because that version is in the public domain. There would be no copyright issues with styling the brothers as punks with pink mohawks and leather jackets (assuming that no copyrighted version like this already exists). There might, however, be copyright issues with dressing them in sweaters and denim as they appear in the 1950s.

Public Domain

Now that these books are in the public domain, they can be freely copied, adapted, distributed, performed, and displayed without having to seek permission from a rightsholder, negotiating a license, or paying royalties. This means that they can be posted online so they are more easily available for researchers and general readers, and they can be adapted by creators.

Public domain children’s books are particularly valuable because they are more accessible to children who do not live near a library and cannot afford to buy their own books, and, as the Authors Alliance pointed out, there is a severe lack of children’s books in many non-English languages. Public domain books are easier and cheaper to translate into languages with fewer available books.

Public domain materials are also available to be updated to address past injustices. The original Hardy Boys books were filled with racist and sexist stereotypes, and other reflections of 1920’s white male middle-class prejudice.[2] These books have sentimental value for many, and their enduring popularity makes them important material for researchers. Although these books might not be the best option to give to children, it is important to preserve and understand the underlying values of a series that many remember fondly as a part of their childhoods.

The public domain is a valuable and essential part of the lifecycle of copyright that makes creative works available to be freely used and inspire new works. This year, many important and interesting works entered the public domain. A few other notable works include:

  • Virginia Woolf’s To The Lighthouse
  • Sinclair Lewis’s Elmer Gantry
  • Langston Hughes’s Fine Clothes to the Jew
  • Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein’s Show Boat
  • Georgia Douglas Johnson’s Plumes: A play in one act
  • John Dewey’s The Public and Its Problems

Learn more about how Ohio State is celebrating the public domain at go.osu.edu/PublicDomainDay.


 

[1] For more about the history and business practices of the Stratemeyer Syndicate, see Carol Billman’s 1986 book, The Secret of the Stratemeyer Syndicate: Nancy Drew, The Hardy Boys, and the Million Dollar Fiction Factory (link to OSUL catalog).

[2] For an analysis of The Hardy Boys series, see Joe Arthur’s 1991 OSU dissertation, “Hardly Boys: An Analysis of Behaviors, Social Changes, and Class Awareness in the Old Text of the Hardy Boys Series.”

 

Celebrating Public Domain Day 2021

Today is Public Domain Day; the day that we celebrate new works that have entered the public domain. This year, we welcome works first registered or published in the United States in 1925. Works published during that time, that met all required formalities, enjoyed a maximum term of copyright protection of 95 years. With copyright term running to the end of the calendar year, works first published in 1925 officially enter the public domain in the U.S. on January 1, 2021.

Public domain works are free of copyright. This means they may be freely copied, adapted, distributed, performed and displayed, without permission from a rightsholder.

A Selection of Public Domain Works

Below are just some of the creative works that have entered the public domain in the United States this year:

Literature:

  • The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
  • Mrs Dalloway by Virginia Woolf
  • Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis
  • The Informer by Liam O’Flaherty
  • Manhattan Transfer by John Dos Passos
  • An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser
  • In Our Time by Ernest Hemingway
  • Gentleman Prefer Blondes by Anita Loos

Film:

  • The Circle, directed by Frank Borzage
  • Clash of the Wolves, directed by Noel Smith
  • Go West, directed by Buster Keaton
  • Seven Chances, directed by Buster Keaton
  • Grass: A Nation’s Battle for Life, directed by Merian Cooper and Ernest Shoedsack
  • The Freshman, directed by Fred Newmeyer and Sam Taylor and starring Harold Lloyd

Music:

  • “Sweet Georgia Brown” by Ben Bernie, Kenneth Casey & Maceo Pinkard
  • “That Certain Feeling” by Ira and George Gershwin
  • “Sugar Foot Stomp” by Joe Oliver and Louis Armstrong
  • “Always” by Irving Berlin

Celebrating the Public Domain at OSU

The Public Domain Day Project at OSU continues this year to highlight and share public domain musical compositions.

We are offering a variety of 1925 works from the Music & Dance Library collections and creative projects, including: musical settings of fourteen children’s poems by A. A. Milne (featuring the first appearance of Winnie-the-Pooh) for voice and piano; a set of art songs inspired by the city of Paris, by American composer Kathleen Lockhart Manning; a piano solo by American avant-garde composer Henry Cowell; and popular sheet music by two Cleveland-based musicians, including a song inspired by a sensational 1920s serial fiction story in The Cleveland Press.

Visit the Music Scores & Audio page on the Public Domain Day Project site for access to available items, with more to be added throughout 2021.

Interested in learning more about the public domain? Explore the Public Domain Day website to learn more about the Public Domain Project at OSU, access public domain music scores and select audio recordings (dedicated to the public domain via Creative Commons CC0), and to view additional copyright and public domain resources.

Articles of Interest: January-June 2019

This post highlights articles published in the first half of 2019 with a focus on copyright, especially as it pertains to libraries, higher education, and scholarly communication. Links to the full-text articles are provided; [OSU full-text] links will connect authenticated users through The Ohio State University Libraries, while [OA full-text] links point to an open access version of the article that should be available to all users.

Did we miss an interesting article? Please share the citation in the comments!

Copyright

Bow, C. & Hepworth, P.  (2019). Observing and Respecting Diverse Knowledge Traditions in a Digital Archive of Indigenous Language Materials. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 3(1), 1-36. doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.7485 [OA full text]

Bunker, M. (2019) Decoding Academic Fair Use: Transformative Use and the Fair Use Doctrine in Scholarship. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 3(1), 1-24. doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.6481 [OA full text]

Katz, R. (2019). A Pilot Study of Fan Fiction Writer’s Legal Information Behavior. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 3(1), 1-29. doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.7697 [OA full text]

Harbeson, E. (2019). Thinking Globally About Copyright: ARSC at the World Intellectual Property Organization. ARSC Journal50(1), 100–107. [OSU full text]

Mallalieu, R. (2019). The elusive gold mine? The finer details of Creative Commons licences – and why they really matter. Insights: The UKSG Journal32, 1–7. doi.org/10.1629/uksg.448 [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Rosenblatt, B. (2019). Blockchain: The Hype and the Reality. Publishers Weekly266(12), 26. [OSU full text]

Russell, C. (2019). Librarian of Congress appoints new Register of Copyrights. College & Research Libraries News80(5), 298. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Schumacher, S. (2019). Unlocking the Public Domain. Visual Resources Association Bulletin46(1), 1–11. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Weeramuni, L. (2019). How to Fight Fair Use Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt: The Experience of One Open Educational Resource. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 3(1), 1-21. doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.9751 [OA full text]

Legislation & Policy Developments

Abbott, N. (2019). Marrakesh Treaty in Action. Library Journal144(4), 32–34. [OSU full text]

Libraries

Coates, J. (2019). Copyright: More Copyright Reform for Libraries in 2019. InCite40(1/2), 22–23.  [OSU full text]

Lipinski, T. A., & Henderson, K. A. (2019). Legal Issues Surrounding the Collection, Use and Access to Grey Data in the University Setting: How Data Policies Reflect the Political Will of Organizations. Grey Journal (TGJ)15(2), 77–90. [OSU full text]

Reed, J. B., & Jahre, B. (2019). Reviewing the Current State of Library Support for Open Educational Resources. Collection Management44(2–4), 232–243. doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2019.1588181 [OSU full text]

Schmidt, L. (2019). Library VHS in Danger: Media Preservation in Academic Libraries. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 3(1), 1-23. doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.7109 [OA full text]

Towery, S., Price, A. N. & Cowen, K. E. (2019).  Video Streaming Licenses: Using a Decision Tree and Workflow Chart. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 3(1), 1-32.  doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.7483 [OA full text]

Publishing & Scholarly Communications

Gumb, L. (2019). An open impediment: Navigating copyright and OER publishing in the academic library. College & Research Libraries News80(4), 202–215. doi.org/10.5860/crln.80.4.202 [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Heaton, R., Burns, D., & Thoms, B. (2019). Altruism or Self-Interest? Exploring the Motivations of Open Access Authors. College & Research Libraries80(4), 485–507. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Prosser, D. (2019). Researchers: stop signing away your copyright. Research Information, (101), 36. [OSU full text]

Willinsky, J. & Rusk, M. (2019). If Research Libraries and Funders Finance Open Access: Moving beyond Subscriptions and APCs. College & Research Libraries80(3), 340–355. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

_____________________________________________________________________________________

By Maria Scheid, Copyright Services Coordinator at Copyright Services, The Ohio State University Libraries.

Categories of Protected Works

The most current federal copyright statute includes eight categories of copyrightable works for both published and unpublished materials. But these eight categories weren’t added all at once, rather these broad classifications were added gradually over time as new technologies gave rise to new works.

When the first federal copyright statute was enacted in the United States, the Act only extended protection to “maps, charts, and books”, what we now generally categorize as literary works. The first addition came in 1802 when the 1790 Act was amended to include “engraving, and etching historical and other prints”, and also included the first instance of formalities that required creators to include a prescribed copyright notice on every work distributed to the public.

David L. Richardson and I.T. Norton registered the first musical work, “Maid of My Love” in 1831 after a revision of the general copyright law. Under current copyright law, Section 102(a)(2) provides protection in “musical works, including any accompanying words” that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Dramatic works received protection in 1856 which included for the first time, the right of public performance.

In 1865, just a few weeks before his death, Lincoln signed a new law that granted copyright protection to photographs and photographic negatives. Many speculate that the work of famous Civil War photographer Mathew Brady had a strong influence on the bill.

Twenty six years later, U.S. copyright law was amended again when President Benjamin Harrison signed the International Copyright Act of 1891 which was the first US copyright law authorizing the establishment of copyright relations with foreign countries. It was the first U.S. congressional act that offered US copyright protection to citizens of other countries. The first foreign work registered was the play Saints and Sinners by British author Henry Arthur Jones.

Public performance rights for musical compositions were formally established in 1897. In 1903, the Supreme Court extended protection to commercial art after Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. sought protection for circus advertisements.

Before motion pictures were formally protected in 1912, copyright owners were required to register the works as a series of still photographs. “Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze” from 1894 is the oldest surviving motion picture deposited as still photos. The first motion picture registered under this new category was “Black Sheep’s Wool” from the Republic Film Company.

The last two additions to the categories of copyrightable works came in in the late 20th century. In 1980 the law was amended to affirm the copyrightability of computer programs, which falls under the broad category of literary works. Ten years later, architecture works were added in 1990, though they unofficially been protected since the 1909 Copyright Act as “[d]rawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical nature”, which were commonly interpreted as blueprints. In 1976, “an architect’s plans and drawings” were included as pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, but the protection was limited by the concept of useful articles. When the U.S. joined the Berne Convention in 1989, architectural works were formally added a requirement of the agreement.

Are you ready to test what you’ve learned above? Check out the interactive tool to put the categories of copyrightable works in the order they were added to law.

Do you want to learn more about copyright history in the United States? Visit the interactive Copyright Timeline available through the US Copyright Office.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

By Allison DeVito, Copyright Services Specialist at Copyright Services, The Ohio State University Libraries.

Articles of Interest: July-December 2018

This post highlights articles published in the second half of 2018 with a focus on copyright, especially as it pertains to libraries, higher education, and scholarly communication. Links to the full-text articles are provided when available; [OSU full-text] links will connect authenticated users through The Ohio State University Libraries, while [OA full-text] links point to an open access version of the article that should be available to all users.

Did we miss an interesting article? Please share the citation in the comments!

Copyright

Boettcher, J. C. & Dames, K. M. (2018). Government Data as Intellectual Property: Is Public Domain the same as Open Access? Online Searcher42(4), 42–48. [OSU full text]

Charlton, J. (2018). New European Copyright Directive Courts Controversy. Information Today35(9), 15. [OSU full text]

Christou, C. (2018). Where to Learn About Copyright. Information Today35(7), 1–27. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Courtney, K. K. (2018). The state copyright conundrum: What’s your state government’s rule on copyright? College & Research Libraries News79(10), 571–574. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Ensign, D. (2018). Copyright Corner: Blockchain and Copyright. Kentucky Libraries82(3), 4–5. [OSU full text]

Pike, G. H. (2018). Who Owns the Law? Information Today, 35(6), 18. [OSU full text]

Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2018). The Issue of Comment Ownership and Copyright at PubPeer. Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences55(2), 1–15. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Wingo, R. S., Logsdon, A., & Schommer, C. (2018). Going viral: Copyright lessons from Max the Cat. College & Research Libraries News, 79(7/8), 350–353. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Libraries

Capell, L. and Williams, E., 2018. Implementing RightsStatements.org at the University of Miami Libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 6(1), p.eP2254. doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2254 [OA full text]

Ensign, D. (2018). Copyright Corner: Public Lending Rights. Kentucky Libraries82(4), 2–3. [OSU full text]

Hansen, D. R., & Courtney, K. K. (2018, September 24). A White Paper on Controlled Digital Lending of Library Books. doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/7fdyr [OA full text]

Radniecki, T. (2018). Intellectual Property in the Makerspace. Journal of Library Administration58(6), 545–560. doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2018.1491178 [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Publishing & Scholarly Communication

Bolick, J. (2018). Leveraging Elsevier’s Creative Commons License Requirement to Undermine Embargoes. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 2(2), 1-19. doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v2i2.7415 [OA full text]

Herr, M., 2018. The Rights Provisions of a Book Publishing Contract. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 6(1), p.eP2273. doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2273 [OA full text]

Kohn, A. and Lange, J., 2018. Confused about copyright? Assessing Researchers’ Comprehension of Copyright Transfer Agreements. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication, 6(1), p.eP2253. doi.org/10.7710/2162-3309.2253 [OA full text]

Lewis, C. (2018). The Open Access Citation Advantage: Does It Exist and What Does It Mean for Libraries? Information Technology & Libraries, 37(3), 50–65. doi.org/10.6017/ital.v37i3.10604 [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Xu, H. (2018). Obstacles for Faculty using Open Educational Resources and Solutions. Texas Library Journal, 94(3), 85–87. [OSU full text]

_____________________________________________________________________________________

By Maria Scheid, Copyright Services Coordinator at Copyright Services, The Ohio State University Libraries.

Back to the Basics with Copyright Law

Today is the 9th anniversary of the Copyright Corner blog, with the first post (Why Copyright Education?) published back in August of 2009. Since then, we’ve had posts covering a wide-range of issues; from copyright protection for patterns and DMCA exemptions to copyright issues faced by units across OSU Libraries and tips on finding a copyright owner. For this post, we are going back to the basics and looking at some of the fundamentals of copyright law in the United States.

Why do we have copyright?

There are a number of theories on the purpose of copyright. Countries may have laws that encompass one or more of these theories.

One common theory for the purpose of copyright is utilitarian. Under this theory, we provide authors a copyright in the works they create as an incentive to create and disseminate new works. The law is organized to promote the collective welfare of society, but recognizes that unless creators can recoup the costs involved in the creation and dissemination of their works, they won’t produce the works. Copyright gives to authors and creators exclusive rights in the works they create, which in turn allows them to suppress competition for a limited time.

Much of U.S. copyright law seems to align with this theory, with Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution granting Congress the power “to Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Rights to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

Another theory for the purpose of copyright is the author’s rights theory. Under this theory, the primary purpose of copyright is to recognize and protect the emotional bond between artists and their creations, acknowledging creative works as manifestations and extensions of their author’s personality. Countries whose laws are influenced by this theory may provide moral rights for authors and creators that exist separately from economic rights.

What exactly is copyright and how do you get it?

Copyright is a legal right that allows creators and authors the ability to control certain uses of their works. The owner of a copyright has a number of exclusive rights that are provided under the law (these rights are discussed below).

In the U.S., copyright protects original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and copyright exists at the moment of fixation. In other words, copyright protection is automatic.

Including a copyright notice (e.g., © 2018 The Ohio State University) is optional for works created today but there can be some advantages to including a notice on your copyrighted work. And registration with the U.S. Copyright Office? That’s also an optional step that provides some important benefits to copyright holders.

Continue reading

Articles of Interest: January-June 2018

This post highlights articles published in the first half of 2018 with a focus on copyright, especially as it pertains to libraries, higher education, and scholarly communication. Links to the full-text articles are provided when available; [OSU full-text] links will connect authenticated users through The Ohio State University Libraries, while [OA full-text] links point to an open access version of the article that should be available to all users.

Did we miss an interesting article? Please share the citation in the comments!

Copyright

Benson, S. R.  (2018).  Sports  uniforms  and  copyright:  Implication for applied  art  educators  from  the  Star  Athletica  decision. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 2(1), 1–7. doi:10.17161/jcel.v2i1.6575 [OA full text]

Carlstone, J., Stein, A., Norman, M., & Wilkin, J. (2018) Copyright renewal of U.S. books published in 1932: Re-analyzing Ringer’s study to determine a more accurate renewal rate for books. College & Research Libraries, [S.l.], v. 79, n. 5, p. 697. doi:10.5860/crl.79.5.697. [OA full text]

Harbeson, E. J. (2018). Bridge over Bridgeport: An incremental change in case law of sampling. ARSC Journal 49(1), 41–46. [OA full text]

Pike, G. H. (2018). Legal limits to linking challenge social media. Online Searcher42(3), 36-38. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Willi Hooper, M. (2018). Copyright for movie night: Film screenings on campus. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 2(1), 1–17. doi:10.17161/jcel.v2i1.6576 [OA full text]

Legislation & Policy Developments

Hines, S., & Russell, C. (2018). Washington Hotline: Music copyright legislation proceeding. College & Research Libraries News79(4), 205. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Peet, L. (2018). Marrakesh Treaty Act introduced. Library Journal143(7), 10-11. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Libraries

Algenio, E. (2018). Making the transition as the new copyright librarian. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 2(1), 1–24. doi:10.17161/jcel.v2i1.6579 [OA full text]

Ensign, D. (2018). Copyright Corner: Library reproduction and distribution of older copyrighted materials. Kentucky Libraries82(1), 2-3. [OSU full text]

Goben, A., & Doubleday, A.F. (2018).  Copyright in the health sciences literature: A narrative review. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 2(2), 1-26 . doi:10.17161/jcel.v2i2.6654 [OA full text]

Lewin-Lane, S., Dethloff, N., Grob, J, Townes, A., & Lierman, A. (2018). The search for a service model of copyright best practices in academic libraries. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 2(2), 1-25. doi:10.17161/jcel.v2i2.6713 [OA full text]

Thomas, C. (2018). In depth: Interactive copyright education for 3D objects. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 2(1), 1–17. doi:10.17161/jcel.v2i1.6577 [OA full text]

Publishing & Scholarly Communication

Charlton, J. (2018). Elsevier negotiations still in limbo. Information Today35(2), 8. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Greco, A. N. (2018). The scholarly publishing community should support changes to US copyright law. Journal of Scholarly Publishing49(2), 248-259. doi:10.3138/jsp.49.2.248 [OSU full text]

Lipinski, T. A., & Kritikos, K. C. (2018). How open access policies affect access to grey literature in university digital repositories: A case study of iSchools. Grey Journal (TGJ)14(1), 6-20. [OSU full text]

_____________________________________________________________________________________

By Maria Scheid, Copyright Services Coordinator at Copyright Services, The Ohio State University Libraries.

Articles of Interest: July-December 2017

This post highlights articles published in the second half of 2017 with a focus on copyright, especially as it pertains to libraries, higher education, and scholarly communication. Links to the full-text articles are provided when available; [OSU full-text] links will connect authenticated users through The Ohio State University Libraries, while [OA full-text] links point to an open access version of the article that should be available to all users.

Did we miss an interesting article? Please share the citation in the comments!

Copyright

Bailey, J. (2017). How Copyright Law Works for YouTube. Copyright & New Media Law21(4), 5-7. [OSU full-text]

Christou, C. (2017). Copyright in 2018. Information Today34(10), Cover-29. [OSU full-text] / [OA full-text]

McCord, G. (2017). A Few Secrets About Fair Use. Copyright & New Media Law21(4), 8-10. [OSU full-text]

Myers, C., Taylor, T., & Wesolek, A. (2017). An Interview with Peter Jaszi, Professor of Law, Faculty Director of the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Clinic. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship. 2(1), 1‒8. doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v1i2.6970. [OA full-text]

Perez, J. E. (2017). Images and the Open Educational Resources (OER) movement. Reference Librarian58(4), 229-237. doi:10.1080/02763877.2017.1346495. [OA full-text]

Pike, G. H. (2017). NAFTA and its IP provisions at risk. Information Today, 34(10), 18. [OSU full-text]

Russell, C. (2017). The latest on H.R. 1695/S. 1010. College & Research Libraries News, 78(7), 398. [OSU full-text] / [OA full-text]

Libraries

Butler, B., & Russell, C. (2017). Section 108 revision: Nothing new under the sun. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship. 2(1), 1‒37. doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v1i2.6972. [OA full-text]

Oltmann, S. s. (2017). Intellectual freedom in academic libraries: Surveying deans about its significance. College & Research Libraries, 78(6), 741-760. [OSU full-text] / [OA full-text]

Vargas, M.A., & Bright, J. (2017). Rev your engines: Racing ahead with mass digitization. Computers In Libraries37(7), 4-8. [OSU full-text]

Publishing & Scholarly Communication

Narayan, B., & Luca, E. (2017). Issues and challenges in researchers’ adoption of open access and institutional repositories: a contextual study of a university repository. Information Research22(4), 1-14. [OSU full-text] / [OA full-text]

Sterman, L. (2017). The enemy of the good: How specifics in publisher’s green OA policies are bogging down IR deposits of scholarly literature. College & Research Libraries News78(7), 372-401. [OSU full-text] / [OA full-text]

Yeates, S. (2017). After Beall’s ‘List of predatory publishers’: Problems with the list and paths forward. Information Research, 22(4), 1-6. [OSU full-text] / [OA full-text]

_____________________________________________________________________________________

By Maria Scheid, Copyright Services Specialist at Copyright Services, The Ohio State University Libraries

Copyright in CarmenCanvas Guide: New resource demonstrates best practices for sharing copyrighted content in Carmen courses

Does your course include movies, text, pictures, or audio that you did not create? Are you planning to share materials you created with your students? To help instructors in the creation of their Carmen courses, we’ve put together the Copyright in CarmenCanvas Guide.  It will help readers understand copyright law, specifically in the context of creating Carmen courses.  While it is not legal advice, it is both a wealth of information and a multi-media demonstration of copyright best practices for sharing content through Carmen.

Readers can begin with the syllabus, gaining a topical overview of the information in each module of the Guide.  The modules in the Guide are in order from most open (materials that may be used in a course without copyright limitation), to most restrictive (materials and uses that will require permission from the copyright owner).  Each module begins with an introduction page describing the topics to be discussed in the module.  After the introduction, each page within a module contains an explanation and one or more demonstrations of best practices relevant to the topic at issue.   A listing of helpful resources is also included within each page, for those seeking more information on the topic. The introduction page of the Guide provides additional resources for those who wish to improve their general understanding of copyright and related issues.

Modules do not need to be completed in any particular order.  However, we do encourage readers to explore all the modules to become familiar with the many options available to course creators as they pull content into their courses.

Whether a reader visits one page, or reviews the entire Copyright in CarmenCanvas Guide, it is a great resource for anyone creating courses at The Ohio State University.

Contact our office with additional questions.

Website: go.osu.edu/copyright

Email:  LIBCopyright@osu.edu

Twitter:  @OSUCopyright

Phone:  614-688-5849

__________________________________________________________________________________
By Maria Scheid, Rights Management Specialist at  Copyright Services, The Ohio State University Libraries

Articles of Interest: January-June 2017

This post highlights articles published in the first half of 2017 with a focus on copyright, especially as it pertains to libraries, higher education, and scholarly communication. Links to the full-text articles are provided when available; [OSU full-text] links will connect authenticated users through The Ohio State University Libraries, while [OA full-text] links point to an open access version of the article that should be available to all users.

Did we miss an interesting article? Please share the citation in the comments!

Copyright

Clobridge, A. (2017). The ins and outs of open licenses. Online Searcher41(2), 62-65. [OSU full text]

Fernández-Molina, J., Moraes, J. E., & Guimarães, J. C. (2017). Academic libraries and copyright: Do librarians really have the required knowledge? College & Research Libraries78(2), 241-259. doi:10.5860/crl.78.2.241. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Harbeson, E. (2017). The Story So Far: Recap and Update on Flo & Eddie. ARSC Journal48(1), 43-49. [OSU full text]

Pike, G. H. (2017). Influence and Independence: Intrigue and the direction of the Copyright Office. Information Today34(1), 21. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Wilkin, J. P. (2017). How large is the “Public Domain”? A comparative analysis of Ringer’s 1961 Copyright Renewal Study and HathiTrust CRMS data. College & Research Libraries78(2), 201-218. doi:10.5860/crl.78.2.201. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Legislation & Policy Developments

Ayris, P. (2017). Brexit – and its potential impact for open access in the UK. Insights: The UKSG Journal30(1), 4-10. doi:10.1629/uksg.336. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Benson, S. R. (2017). Keep copyright in the library: Why the Copyright Office belongs in the Library of Congress. American Libraries48(5), 20. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Peet, L. (2017). Experts on next Register of Copyrights. Library Journal142(3), 14-17. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Libraries

Benson, S. R. (2017). Interpreting Fair Use for Academic Librarians: Thinking Beyond the Scope of the Circular 21 Guidelines. Journal of Academic Librarianship43(2), 105-107. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2017.02.001 [OA full text]

Borchard, L., & Magnuson, L. (2017). Library leadership in open educational resource adoption and affordable learning initiatives. Urban Library Journal23(1), 1-13. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Sims, N. (2017). Rights, ethics, accuracy, and open licenses in online collections. College & Research Libraries News78(2), 79-82. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Tay Pek, S., Lim Heng, G., Ghani Azmi, I. A., & Sik Cheng, P. (2017). The impact of copyright law on the digitization of library collections in academic libraries in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal Of Library & Information Science22(1), 83-97. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Publishing & Scholarly Communication

Badke, W. (2017). Sci-Hub and the researcher. Online Searcher41(2), 56-58. [OSU full text]

Gardner, C. c., & Gardner, G. g. (2017). Fast and Furious (at Publishers): The motivations behind crowdsourced research sharing. College & Research Libraries78(2), 131-149. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Myška, M. (2017). Text and data mining of grey literature for the purpose of scientific research. Grey Journal (TGJ)1332-37. [OSU full text]

Rowley, J., Johnson, F., Sbaffi, L., Frass, W., & Devine, E. (2017). Academics’ behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(5), 1201-1211. doi:10.1002/ASI.23710 [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

_____________________________________________________________________________________

By Maria Scheid, Rights Management Specialist at the Copyright Resources Center, The Ohio State University Libraries

Older posts