Tag: publishing (page 2 of 2)

Copyright in the Libraries: Fine Arts Library

Copyright touches many library services because we collect, share and loan original works fixed in a wide variety of tangible media. The Copyright Resources Center conducted a series of informational interviews with faculty and staff from various areas of The OSU Libraries to discuss the ways in which they engage with copyright issues. This blog series documents those conversations, and highlights how copyright law helps to shape services provided by the Libraries. See all available posts in the series here.

Profile photo of Sarah Falls

Sarah Falls, Fine Arts Librarian

Sarah Falls, Assistant Professor, is the Head of the Fine Arts Library at OSU, and as Fine Arts Librarian, Sarah supports the Departments of DesignArt, History of Art, Arts Administration, Education and Policy, and the Advanced Computing Center for the Arts and Design. I met with Sarah to discuss copyright and the arts, and the unique influence copyright exerts on these particular disciplines.

Continue reading

Copyright in the Libraries: Digital Content Services (Part 1)

Copyright touches many library services because we collect, share and loan original works fixed in a wide variety of tangible media. The Copyright Resources Center conducted a series of informational interviews with faculty and staff from various areas of The Ohio State University Libraries to discuss the ways in which they engage with copyright issues. This blog series documents those conversations, and highlights how copyright law helps to shape services provided by the Libraries. See all available posts in the series here.

Photo of Melanie Schlosser

Melanie Schlosser, Digital Publishing Librarian

Digital Content Services at The OSU Libraries include the Libraries’ Publishing Program and the Knowledge Bank, OSU’s institutional repository (this post focuses on the Libraries’ Publishing Program, while Digital Content Services: Part 2 will discuss the Knowledge Bank). Melanie Schlosser (Digital Publishing Librarian) and Maureen Walsh (Institutional Repository Services Librarian) are interim co-heads of Digital Content Services; Melanie and Maureen met with me to discuss how copyright affects their work in the publishing program and the institutional repository. In fact, they observed that not a day goes by when they aren’t thinking about copyright, as they are constantly working with copyrighted materials and “someone else’s content.”

Continue reading

The Research Commons Needs Your Stories!

Predatory publishers, solicitation scams, and unethical publishing practices — the Research Commons needs your stories!

This year during International Open Access Week (October 19-25), the Research Commons, in partnership with the Libraries’ Publishing Program and the Copyright Resources Center, will host a panel discussion about the potentials and pitfalls of Open Access publishing.

As we prepare, we invite OSU faculty, postdocs, and graduate students to share your experiences with unscrupulous publishers and questionable publishing practices. We will use your experiences to inform our program, and may ask your permission to share especially relevant stories more widely.

Please email your story to Melanie Schlosser (schlosser.40@osu.edu) by September 1st.

Program organizers: Josh Sadvari (Research Commons Program Manager), Sandra Enimil (Head, Copyright Resources Center), and Melanie Schlosser (Digital Publishing Librarian).


This announcement first appeared on the Research Commons blog.

Articles of interest: July-December 2014

This post highlights articles published in the last six months 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!


Abdenour, J. (2014). Documenting fair use: Has the statement of best practices loosened the fair use reins for documentary filmmakers? Communication Law & Policy19(3), 367-398. [OSU full-text]

Collins, S. (2014). YouTube and limitations of fair use in remix videos. Journal of Media Practice, 15(2), 92-106. [OSU full-text]

Cowart, T. W., Gershuny, P., & Hawk, G. B. (2014). A survey of state copyright law. Southern Law Journal24(2), 311-335. [OSU full-text]

Glushko, R., Graham, R., Ludbrook, A., & Martin, H. (2014). Understanding “large and liberal” in the context of higher education. Feliciter60(4), 14-21. [OSU full-text]

Heald, P. J. (2014). How copyright keeps works disappeared. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies11(4), 829-866. [OSU full-text]

Hua, J. J. (2014). Construction of digital commons and exploration of public domain. Journal of International Commercial Law & Technology, 9(3), 148-164. [OA full-text] / [OSU full-text]

Olson, K. K. (2014). The future of fair use. Communication Law & Policy19(4), 417-432. [OSU full-text]


Anderson, R. (2014). Asserting rights we don’t have. Library Journal139(15), 12. [OA full-text]

Behnk, R. b., Georgi, K., Granzow, R., & Atze, L. (2014). Testing the HathiTrust copyright search protocol in Germany: A pilot project on procedures and resources. D-Lib Magazine20(9/10), 1. [OA full-text]

Dougan, K. (2014). “YouTube has changed everything”? Music faculty, librarians, and their use and perceptions of YouTube. College & Research Libraries75(4), 575-589. [OA full-text]

King, R. (2014). House of Cards: The Academic Library Media Center in the Era of Streaming Video. Serials Librarian67(3), 289-306. [OSU full-text]

McKinnon, L. l., & Helge, K. S. (2014). Copyright, open access and library instruction. Library Hi Tech News31(10), 13-16. [OSU full-text]

Owen, V. (2014). The librarian’s role in the interpretation of copyright law: Acting in the public interest. Feliciter60(5), 8-12. [OSU full-text]

Rodriguez, J. E., Greer, K., & Shipman, B. (2014). Copyright and you: Copyright instruction for college students in the digital age. Journal of Academic Librarianship40(5), 486-491. [OSU full-text]

Schopfel, J., Chaudiron, S., Jacquemin, B., Prost, H., Severo, M., & Thiault, F. (2014). Open access to research data in electronic theses and dissertations: An overview. Library Hi Tech32(4), 612-627. [OSU full-text]

Soltau, C., & Farrell, A. (2014). Copyright and the Canadian for-profit library. Feliciter60(6), 9-14. [OSU full-text]

Williams, L. A., Fox, L. M., Roeder, C., & Hunter, L. (2014). Negotiating a text mining license for faculty researchers. Information Technology & Libraries33(3), 5-21. [OA full-text]

Publishing & scholarly communication

Dawson, D. D. (2014). The scholarly communications needs of faculty: An evidence based foundation for the development of library services. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice, 9(4), 4-28. [OA full-text]

Dutta, G., & Paul, D. (2014). Awareness on institutional repositories-related issues by faculty of University of Calcutta. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology34(4), 293-297. doi:10.14429/djlit.34.5138 [OSU full-text]

Rahmatian, A. (2014). Make the butterflies fly in formation? Management of copyright created by academics in UK universities. Legal Studies, 34(4), 709-735. [OSU full-text]



By Jessica Meindertsma, Rights Management Specialist at the Copyright Resources Center, The Ohio State University Libraries

Articles of interest: January-June 2014

This post highlights citations for recent scholarly articles with a focus on copyright, especially as it pertains to libraries, higher education, and scholarly communication. Articles were selected according to the following criteria: scholarly/peer-reviewed, English language, published within the past six months, and subject matter pertaining to copyright and libraries, higher education, or 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!

Library services

Crews, K. D. (2014). Copyright and universities: Legal compliance or advancement of scholarship? The growth of copyright. IPRinfo Magazine, 2, 14-15. [OA full text]

Gilliland, A. T., & Bradigan, P. S. (2014). Copyright information queries in the health sciences: trends and implications from the Ohio State University. Journal Of The Medical Library Association102(2), 114-117. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.102.2.011 [OSU full text]

Gore, H. (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCs) and their impact on academic library services: Exploring the issues and challenges. New Review of Academic Librarianship20(1), 4-28. doi:10.1080/13614533.2013.851609 [OA full text]

Myers, C. S. (2014). Answering copyright questions at the reference desk: A guide for academic librarians. Reference Librarian55(1), 49-73. doi:10.1080/02763877.2014.856260 [OSU full text]

Library policies & procedures

Bowen, T., Calter, M., Lee, F., & Parang, E. (2014). Using computing power to replace lawyers: Advances in licensing and access. Serials Librarian66(1-4), 232-240. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2014.881221 [OSU full text]

Clark, A., & Chawner, B. (2014). Enclosing the public domain: The restriction of public domain books in a digital environment. First Monday19(6), 6. doi:10.5210/fm.v19i6.4975 [OA full text]

Dryden, J. (2014). The role of copyright in selection for digitization. American Archivist77(1), 64-95. [OA full text]

Dygert, C., & Langendorfer, J. M. (2014). Fundamentals of e-resource licensing. Serials Librarian66(1-4), 289-297. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2014.881236 [OSU full text]

Simon, J. C. (2014). E-book purchasing best practices for academic libraries. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship26(1), 68-77. doi:10.1080/1941126X.2014.878640 [OSU full text]


Michael, G. J. (2014). Politics and Rulemaking at the Copyright Office. Journal of Information Technology & Politics11(1), 64-81. doi:10.1080/19331681.2013.872073 [OSU full text]

Muhammad Waris, B. (2014). National Library of Pakistan as Legal Depository. Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal45(1), 18-23. [OSU full text]

Nsibirwa, Z., Hoskins, R., & Stilwell, C. (2014). Building the South African nation through legal deposit: The impact of legislation on preservation of digital materials. African Journal of Library, Archives & Information Science24(1), 53-65. [OSU full text]

Publishing & scholarly communication

Björk, B., Laakso, M., Welling, P., & Paetau, P. (2014). Anatomy of green open access. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology65(2), 237-250. doi:10.1002/asi.22963 [OA full text]

Cheng, W., Ren, S., & Rousseau, R. (2014). Digital publishing and China’s core scientific journals: A position paper. Scientometrics98(1), 11-22. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0873-8 [OA full text]

Ludewig, K. (2014). MedOANet: The Copyright and OA Landscape in Mediterranean Europe. Liber Quarterly: The Journal of European Research Libraries23(3), 187-200. [OA full text]

Lwoga, E., & Questier, F. (2014). Faculty adoption and usage behaviour of open access scholarly communication in health science universities. New Library World115(3/4), 116-139. doi:10.1108/NLW-01-2014-0006 [OSU full text]

Melero, R. R., Rodríguez-Gairín, J. M., Abad-García, F. F., & Abadal, E. E. (2014). Journal author rights and self-archiving: The case of Spanish journals. Learned Publishing27(2), 107-120. doi:10.1087/20140205 [OSU full text]

Updated 8/8/2014 with K. D. Crews article. 


By Jessica Meindertsma, Rights Management Specialist at the Copyright Resources Center, The Ohio State University Libraries

Open access and “A Subversive Proposal”

In 2012, The Ohio State University Libraries adopted the Faculty Open Access Resolution, which requires Ohio State Libraries’ faculty to grant the University a license to make their scholarly articles openly accessible.  The goal of this initiative, and open access in general, is to increase the accessibility of research so that others can easily make use of it. According to Peter Suber, open access works are “digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.” While free of many restrictions, open access works are still protected by copyright law; publicly available does not mean copyright free.

An important contributor to the open access movement is Stevan Harnad.  In 1994, Harnad posted a message to a discussion list on electronic journals hosted by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute.  Harnad’s message, titled “A Subversive Proposal”, suggested that researchers should make their papers freely available.  The message sparked significant discussion and Harnad is now credited with initiating the concept of self-archiving.  In 1995, Harnad’s original message and the email discussion it provoked were collected into a book: Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing.  The full copy of that book is available through HathiTrust, under an open-access, Google digitized license. In honor of the proposal’s twentieth anniversary, Richard Poynder posted an interview with Harnad titled “The Subversive Proposal at 20”, which looks back at the proposal’s impact and discusses the development of the open access movement.

Scholarly articles are increasingly available as open access documents.  Learn more about open access on the Copyright Resources Center’s open access page, or by reading other articles tagged “open access” on the Copyright Corner Blog.


Marc Jaffy is a practicum student at the OSU Libraries Copyright Resources Center and is currently a Masters student at the Kent State University, School of Library and Information Science

Public Access Policies (Part 3): Proposed strategies for implementation

Welcome back to our three part series on the public access initiatives of 2013: FASTR, PAPS, and the OSTP directive. Part 1 provides an introduction to the three initiatives, and Part 2 explores their copyright implications and potential effects on researchers and libraries. Overall, these initiatives appear quite attractive for proponents of public access, but how might they work in practice? This final segment will evaluate the two most prominent proposals from the publishing and library communities on how federal policies might be applied.

Proposed Strategies for Implementation

Keep the following points in mind while we consider how the OSTP directive (and FASTR and PAPS, if passed) might be applied in the field:

  • FASTR, PAPS, and the OSTP directive all lean towards green open access by requesting deposit of the accepted, peer-reviewed version of an article
  • Researchers would likely be the ones actually depositing papers in the system, unless publishers entered into an agreement with authors and funding agencies to deposit on their behalf
  • Individual funding agencies are ultimately responsible to develop and/or designate a suitable repository for funded articles which satisfies the mandated criteria for accessibility, preservation, and interoperability with computational analysis

The NIH model with PubMed Central is frequently mentioned in discussions regarding next steps and agency compliance. PubMed Central is a good example of a successful public access repository due to its proven track record for success, but this strategy is just one of several options. Federal agencies are not required to develop their own repositories in response to FASTR, PAPS, or the OSTP directive. Agencies could designate existing institutional systems or another third party system as suitable repositories in lieu of building something in house. Thus far, two such models have garnered significant attention: CHORUS and SHARE.

Clearinghouse for the Open Research of the United States (CHORUS)

See the June 5, 2013 proposal here and the August 30, 2013 proof of concept here.

  • Developed by the Association of American Publishers
  • Funded research articles would remain on publishers’ existing platforms with CrossRef used to link between publishing platforms
  • Articles would be available for public access following an embargo period determined by funding agency and/or subject discipline
  • Publishers favor CHORUS as it allows them to retain and monitor site traffic

Proponents contend that CHORUS would fulfill public access requirements with the fewest changes or expenditures on the part of research institutions or the federal government because it makes use of existing, privately funded systems. Secondly, CHORUS streamlines article handling; CrossRef would link back to original items on the publishers’ websites rather than requiring deposit in an outside repository. This would allow publishers to fulfill many of the researchers’ compliance requirements on their behalf. The plan also incorporates FundRef: an identification service that tracks article funding. Early critics noted that CHORUS did not mention text or data mining, however the proof of concept released August 30, 2013 now proposes text and data mining through CrossRef’s Prospect service, which could also include a license registry and click-through license agreements as needed.

Skeptics, however, perceive a conflict of interest in this arrangement and suggest that publishers have little incentive to develop a robust, user-friendly system; for instance, the system would not generate revenue for publishers and could detract from pay-per-view revenue streams. Secondly, funding agencies and researchers are the ones bound to comply with federal public access policies—not publishers—and CHROUS takes the means to comply out of their hands. Limited scope is another issue: CHORUS would only support public access for articles under the umbrella of participating publishers with alternate solutions required for other publishers. Lastly, detractors believe the cost-savings presented by CHORUS as one of its greatest advantages may not be so significant; they argue that alternatives, such as the NIH model, don’t actually cost that much to implement and suggest that publishers could pass on the costs of CHORUS by raising subscription and pay-per-view prices.

Find more information on CHORUS here:

Shared Access Research Ecosystem (SHARE)              

See the proposal here.

  • Developed by library associations: Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), and Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
  • Recommends that research universities participate in a cross-institutional repository
  • Universities’ existing repositories could be integrated or linked into the system assuming that participating institutions adopt a common metadata scheme

SHARE supporters favor the use of existing institutional repositories to fulfill public access policies. Such institutions possess a strong interest in facilitating discovery and would therefore be motivated to develop a flexible, user-friendly system. Placing development and oversight in the hands of those closest to the end users provides greater opportunities and incentives to build in desired functionality. Secondly, a cross-institutional repository would be able to accommodate all federally funded research as organizations without their own repository would be able to designate a participating repository to hold their funded research. SHARE proposes roll-out in four phases with the system operational for article deposit and access following Phase I. The plan also contains provisions for preservation, text mining, data sharing, semantic data, and APIs. Proponents note that many suitable institutional repositories and relevant infrastructure (e.g. Digital Preservation Network) already exist.

Critics of SHARE note that the system would require significant investment from research institutions to develop and maintain. Limited resources in terms of staffing, funding, and software currently in use could severely undermine libraries’ ability to get SHARE up and running in the proposed time frame of 12-18 months for Phase I.

Find more information on SHARE here:

While the fates of PAPS and FASTR are yet to be determined, the OSTP directive has been in effect since February. If funding agencies adhered to the directive’s timeline, they should already have submitted drafts of their policies to the OSTP. In the future, we can expect to see negotiations with stakeholders (especially publishers and libraries) regarding the terms of the final policies and the selection of suitable repositories.

This concludes our series on pending public access policies. Still have questions? Visit the Copyright Resources Center or email us at libcopyright@osu.edu for more information.


By Jessica Meindertsma, Rights Management Specialist at the Copyright Resources Center at OSU Libraries

Public Access Policies (Part 2): Copyright implications and impact on researchers and libraries

Welcome back to our series on current public access initiatives. If you’re just joining us, consider clicking over to Part 1 for an introduction to the three initiatives under discussion:

  • Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR)
  • Public Access to Public Science Act (PAPS)
  • Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Directive

In this installment, we will take a look at what these initiatives have to say about copyright, and we will also consider how the proposed policies could affect researchers and libraries.

Copyright Implications

As written, the OSTP directive, FASTR, and PAPS would have little impact on copyright issues. None of the proposals amend existing copyright or patent law, and all require federal agencies to develop their public access policies in accordance with existing copyright law. However, only FASTR actually advises agencies on how to avoid copyright infringement while the OSTP and PAPS are silent on the matter. FASTR instructs that agencies “shall…make effective use of any law or guidance relating to the creation and reservation of a Government license that provides for the reproduction, publication, release, or other uses of a final manuscript for Federal purposes” (section 4.c.3). This essentially suggests a model like the one in place for NIH and PubMed Central. Funding agencies would possess a non-exclusive license to store and distribute funded manuscripts through designated repositories. The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) suggests in its FAQ for FASTR that this could ultimately prompt adjustments in the publishing agreements between researchers and publishers so that exclusive rights are not transferred to the publisher, but notes that “the government’s license precedes any such copyright transfer and so would override it.”

Impact on Researchers and Libraries

This collection of public access proposals is good news for the research community. Public access policies will facilitate knowledge sharing, new research, and preservation of federally funded research. The proposals are also forward thinking, with provisions for system functionality including text or data mining and other computational analysis. Outside of generating opportunities for conducting new research, the effect on researchers is likely to be fairly minimal: researchers would need to deposit the accepted version of their article in a designated repository, but the time investment is expected to be very minor. Each proposal requests that federal agencies coordinate their policies, making it easier for researchers who receive funding from multiple sources to comply.  As mentioned previously, the OSTP directive is the only initiative to suggest public access to data. This could precipitate a philosophical shift for disciplines that are unaccustomed to sharing data if federal agencies developed policies which required public access to data from funded studies.

So where do the libraries come in? Librarians are well-positioned to liaise with researchers, administrators, and IT departments within their institution regarding public access and data-sharing requirements of new legislation. Secondly, federal agencies could identify institutional repositories as the destination for federally funded research. Libraries would feel the greatest impact should the agencies go this route.  This strategy would require additional investment in library staff and infrastructure to support increased demands on staff time and to develop system capabilities that comply with the federal policies. A coalition of library associations has already proposed one such model; their system, called SHARE, will be discussed in our next post.

To be Continued… The final chapter (Part 3) of our series on pending public access policies will introduce the two most prominent models that have been proposed to fulfill federal requirements for a suitable repository.


By Jessica Meindertsma, Rights Management Specialist at the Copyright Resources Center at OSU Libraries

Public Access Policies (Part 1): FASTR, PAPS, and the OSTP Directive

Two new public access bills and a directive from the White House have rekindled public access discussions in 2013, with some immediate implications for federally funded research and many details yet to be determined. This is the first in a three part series exploring (1) what these initiatives entail, (2) what they could mean for copyright, libraries, and researchers, and (3) the proposed next steps for implementation. Without further ado, Part 1 will provide a brief introduction to the three public access initiatives.

Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR)

See the full text of the bill here.

  • Introduced in both the House and the Senate on February 14, 2013
  • Requires public access for research funded in part or in whole by federal agencies with extramural research budgets in excess of $100 million per year (~11 agencies at current count)
  • Six month embargo for most articles; no embargo for works by government employees

FASTR is considered to be a new, improved version of the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA), which was last seen in Congress in 2012 but never voted upon.  If you are familiar with FRPAA, then much of FASTR will sound the same; however, FASTR improves on its predecessor by requiring federal agencies to coordinate their policies and introducing open licensing as a desired outcome. Specifically, open licensing is requested to further support text mining, data mining, and other computational analysis of materials in the repository.

Public access would be provided through one or more designated digital repositories. One option could resemble the NIH Public Access Policy and PubMed Central, however FASTR allows agencies to identify a suitable repository whether that results in the development of a new central system or the use of existing institutional repositories. Funding agreements would require researchers to deposit the accepted version of a peer reviewed paper in the designated repository, but this legislation would not require publishers to deposit the final published version.

Find more information on FASTR here:

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Directive

See the full text of the directive here.

  • Issued on February 22, 2013
  • Known as the OSTP directive, the White House directive, or the Obama directive
  • Instructs federal agencies that spend more than $100 million per year on research and development to develop public access policies for funded research
  • Twelve month embargo for all funded articles

The OSTP directive on “increasing access to the results of federally funded scientific research” requires federal agencies with annual research and development expenditures exceeding $100 million per year to draft public access policies for funded research within six months. If this sounds familiar, that’s because the OSTP directive is very similar to FASTR in scope and objectives. Peter Suber’s excellent article provides a detailed discussion of the ways in which FASTR and the OSTP directive overlap and complement one another; two of the most salient points are:

(1)    The OSTP directive has already gone into effect, whereas FASTR would not come into play for another year if and when it passed. Federal agencies affected by the OSTP directive (a larger group than FASTR) had six months from the publication of the directive to submit drafts of their public access policies to OSTP; drafts were due in August 2013 and interested parties are calling for OSTP to make them publically available for comment by the open access community and other stakeholders.

(2)    Enacting one does not devalue or unnecessarily duplicate the work of other. FASTR and the OSTP directive together would result in a stronger, more comprehensive package in favor of public access and greater system functionality, especially where the finer details related to metadata, data, and embargo periods are concerned. For instance, the OSTP directive is the only proposal to include public access to data (FASTR and PAPS do not mention it). Secondly, while the OSTP directive could be revoked by the next President, FASTR would codify these public access policies and enjoy more longevity.

Find more information on the OSTP Public Access Directive here:

Public Access to Public Science Act (PAPS)

See the full text of the bill here.

  • Introduced in the House on September 20, 2013
  • Requires public access for research funded by federal agencies under the jurisdiction of the House Science Committee
  • Twelve month minimum embargo for all articles, with possible extensions in six month increments

PAPS pertains to four agencies under the jurisdiction of the House Science Committee. Like FASTR and the OSTP directive, PAPS requires public access for federally funded research and emphasizes accessibility, preservation, and functionality to support data and text mining of the funded articles. Funded research articles would be deposited in a public access repository with immediate publication of article metadata and subsequent full-text open access. PAPS differentiates itself with a request for retroactive inclusion of covered works in designated public access repositories where practicable, and a requirement that federal agencies negotiate policies with stakeholders.

Find more information on PAPS here:

Stay tuned for the next installment of our series on public access initiatives; Part 2 will discuss the potential effects of the pending policies on researchers and libraries, and explore the copyright implications of each initiative, while Part 3 will examine two proposed strategies for implementing these policies.


By Jessica Meindertsma, Rights Management Specialist at the Copyright Resources Center at OSU Libraries

Newer posts