How the public domain promotes scholarship: Engaging Columbus uses 1922 OSU thesis to map Columbus neighborhoods | Copyright Corner
Looks like it’s cross-post Tuesday here on the Digital Scholarship blog! This second link is to a post on the Copyright Resources Center’s Copyright Corner blog. Maria Scheid writes about Engaging Columbus, an interesting collaborative project that makes use of digitized images from a 1922 OSU thesis. She uses the opportunity to talk about the important role of the public domain, but it’s also a great example of how digital technology can enable transformative scholarship, and a reminder of the curious life of online collections. When we digitize our content, it can be used in wonderful, creative ways that we never imaged when we put it on a scanner or submitted it to a repository. Read Maria’s post to learn more.
The OSU Libraries’ Publishing Program grew up as an extension of the Knowledge Bank, our repository program, and the two continue to share quite a bit. Some of those intersections, like a common platform (DSpace, used to publish some of our journals) and shared staff, are a benefit to both programs. In other cases, we have carried over something from the repository side that maybe isn’t the best fit for publishing. I came across one of those recently when I realized that the Knowledge Bank license agreement, which we had been using as an author agreement for our journals, didn’t include some provisions that are important to journal publishing. As an example, there is nothing in our KB license that would give the journal the right to contribute the article to a subject database for full-text indexing and discovery. When one of our editors was contacted by an indexing service, asking to index the full text of their journal, I had to sheepishly tell them that, while the risk was very low, they would most likely be infringing their authors’ copyright in doing so. It was also unclear who the licensee should be – is the author granting rights to the OSU Libraries? To the journal? As the license was adapted for various publications, the licensee morphed until we had a confusing – and embarrassing – variety.
To cut through the confusion and make sure our rights agreements were working for all parties, I worked with Sandra Enimil, Head of the Copyright Resources Center, and Maureen Walsh, the head of the Knowledge Bank program, to develop a standard author agreement. After multiple rounds of revisions and review by university legal counsel, we finally have a template that we’re all happy with. The agreement is intended to be modular, with sections that can be added or removed to support various licensing arrangements (like Creative Commons) and submission procedures (like the first part, about it taking effect upon acceptance). I would also emphasize that it’s not intended to be one-size-fits-all, even with the modularity, and we fully expect that individual journals – and occasionally even individual articles – will require modifications. For example, I just helped a student journal adapt it to include both the author’s acceptance and their advisor’s, and I worked with the editor of another journal (and Sandra, who is probably getting tired of me by now) to add a provision for an author who wanted to exempt the images in her submission from the Creative Commons license that was applied to the text.
Because I’m sure we’re not the only ones to struggle in this area, I wanted to share the agreement here. Please feel free to adopt, adapt, or draw from it.
Opening the vaults: Organizations make a multitude of digital images available | Copyright Corner
Jessica Meindertsma has published a new post on OSUL’s Copyright Corner blog about a wealth of image resources that have recently become available online, including digital images from the Wellcome Library, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, and Getty Images. An excerpt:
“In an encouraging trend towards lowering barriers for the use of third party materials, some institutions are implementing policies to make portions of their digital collections available for certain uses without requiring permission or payment of a fee.”
The post is interesting both as a pointer to these fantastic resources, and also as a glimpse of the different ways institutions choose to make content available online. Read the full post to learn more.
Yesterday I tweeted that I had finally created a list of standard copyright statements for the repository, and why I was excited about it. I’ve had a couple of people ask to see the statements, so I figured I might as well throw them on the blog while I’m looking for a more permanent home for them in our public documentation. The statements are below the fold.
First, some context: We have a lot of content in our repository, and it runs the gamut. Published articles and preprints, gray literature, digitized library collections, audio and video, etc. The items get submitted by a variety of folks at the Libraries and around the university, and so maintaining our high metadata standards has always been a challenge. One place where we haven’t always been great is in providing copyright information. I have strong feelings about the copyright information libraries provide to their users, so it’s embarrassing that I haven’t done a better job of making it happen in my own backyard.
To remedy this, with the help of my colleagues in Digital Content Services and the Copyright Resources Center, I created a list of standard copyright statements that we can use with different types of content. I’m especially happy with these statements because they are informative – not only about the copyright status of the item(s) in question, but also about things like Fair Use and the Public Domain. Hopefully we will get around to applying them retrospectively to the content in the KB, but for now at least we will have something to draw on when we submit new content. I’m sharing it here because I know this is an area where a lot of Libraries struggle, and I hope other people will find them useful. Feel free to copy them, modify them, build on them as you like.
Editor’s Note: In July of 2012, the faculty of the OSU Libraries adopted an open access resolution. Under the terms of this resolution, all faculty librarians agreed to retain certain rights in their published journal articles and submit them to the Knowledge Bank. Today’s blogger, Fern Cheek from the Health Sciences Library, offered to describe her experience complying with the resolution when publishing an article. She has helpfully extrapolated some lessons for the rest of us to keep in mind as we do the same.
I would like to share my first experience regarding author’s rights. My first “wrinkle” in the process was forgetting the fact that library faculty are required to retain rights to be able to deposit the article in the Knowledge Bank. It was the first article that I had written since the mandate went into effect and it was not on my radar at the time. It arose when I was asked to sign the copyright for authors’ agreement from the editor. Now, mind you, the article had not even been accepted at this point.
Lesson #1: Talk to your co-authors
For anyone thinking about co-authoring an article, be upfront with your co-authors about this requirement in the initial discussions. After panic set in, I looked at the Open Access Resolution and emailed Melanie Schlosser for help. She referred me to the OA Resolution – Rights Help available on the Carmen wiki. After reading this information, I plunged ahead to contact my co-author and explain the requirement for the article to go into the Knowledge Bank. Thankfully, she was agreeable and offered assistance to help with the process.
I contacted the publisher, an association publisher, to ask about their policies on institutional repositories. They sent a copy and I proceeded to consult with Melanie and Sandra Enimil to make sure that I understood the requirements.
Lesson#2: Look at journal policies
Look at the copyright policies & author agreements for the journals to which you are considering submitting your manuscripts for publication. This can save you the grief that I was going through and give you an idea about whether it will be a fairly easy process or whether negotiation will be required. If so, time should be allowed for that, so it doesn’t hold up the publication. As luck would have it, the policy was one that allowed me to deposit the article, after a period of embargo. Therefore, if the manuscript was accepted for publication, I would be able to fulfill my faculty requirement.
In the health sciences, it’s more routine than not to co-author. I am just getting starting on a project, as part of a systematic review team, where I’ll be doing the literature searching. I’ve already talked with the primary investigator to let her know about my obligation to deposit the article when accepted. I’ve asked her to send me the list of journals that are being considered for submission of the manuscript.
Lesson #3: Keep the goal in mind
It does not have to be a complicated process if you keep in mind what the goal is, to share the information with a larger audience. If all else fails, you can petition for an exception if the publisher is unrelenting.
Two new public access bills and a directive from the White House have rekindled public access discussions in 2013. Here’s what’s at stake: increased access to federally funded research and accompanying data, and opportunities for new research using computational analysis (e.g. text and data mining). Already in effect, the White House directive requires certain federal agencies to implement public access policies for funded research. Pending legislation would strengthen public access requirements and extend coverage to additional agencies. Visit Copyright Corner to learn more about (1) these initiatives, (2) the copyright implications and impact on researchers and libraries, and (3) potential next steps.
The Getty Open Content Program
The J. Paul Getty Trust announced this week that it will provide unrestricted access to and reuse rights for high-quality digital images of many items in its collection. According to James Cuno on the Getty Iris,
The initial focus of the Open Content Program is to make available all images of public domain artworks in the Getty’s collections. Today we’ve taken a first step toward this goal by making roughly 4,600 high-resolution images of the Museum’s collection free to use, modify, and publish for any purpose.
This is an exciting step for the Getty, and great news for scholars, artists, and others. Read the full post or click the link to the Open Content Program above to learn more.
The Future of Creative Commons (PDF)
Creative Commons (CC) is one of the major providers of standard licenses for copyright holders who want to allow certain kinds of reuse of their content. The Libraries makes it easy for OSU faculty, staff, and students to apply CC licenses to their content archived in the Knowledge Bank, or published through the publishing program, and our own faculty and staff make use of CC-licensed materials in our writings, presentations, and classes.
If you want to learn more about CC licensing, I suggest checking out their recently released report, “The Future of Creative Commons,” linked above. It does a nice job summarizing why and how Creative Commons works, and provides a glimpse into the organization’s future. There is also a wealth of information and resources available through the main Creative Commons website, including videos, FAQs, more detailed background information, and a tool for searching CC-licensed content.
The First Sale Doctrine and the Sale of Digital Goods in Light of Kirtsaeng and ReDigi, Inc.
A recent decision has attempted to clarify the scope of the first sale doctrine: Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi, Inc. In Kirtsaeng, a Thai graduate student, attending school in the United States, purchased foreign editions of textbooks in Thailand, shipped them to the United States, and then resold the books for profit. The Supreme Court held that the first sale doctrine would apply, as the doctrine extends to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad. The Court’s decision in Kirtsaeng is limited to the sale of tangible or physical items. In our advancing technological world, questions remain in how far the first sale doctrine extends to the sale of digital goods. In other words, can a consumer resell songs purchased on iTunes or eBooks they have downloaded to their Kindle? A Company called ReDigi, Inc. believes that consumers should be able to resell digital music, unsurprisingly Capitol Records, LLC disagrees……..
Read the full post
Chris Bourg: My short stint on the JLA Editorial Board
Over the weekend, the news came out the the entire editorial board of the Journal of Library Administration, published by Taylor and Francis, had resigned. The outgoing board didn’t make an official public statement, but blog posts and tweets by members made it clear that the mass resignation was due to their inability to come to terms with T&F over licensing and open access issues. The link above is to a post by Chris Bourg, the AUL for Public Services at Stanford University Libraries. You can read more about what happened in a Chronicle blog post by Brian Matthews, who was editing a forthcoming special issue of the journal, and in a post by Jason Griffey, who was asked to contribute an article to the special issue and declined because of the same licensing issues.
This news seemed worth a mention on Digital Scholarship because the issues involved – authors’ rights, open access, the role of editorial boards (and editors and authors and reviewers) as change agents – are ones we deal with on a daily basis. Whatever the outcome of this particular incident, it is certainly another sign of how scholarly communication is changing.