Headline says it all - CCC’s terms may have jumped the shark for many institutions.
Licensing maven Peggy Hoon sees a very interesting take-away in the recent UCLA decision. I need to look at this decision again!
Orphan works should be administered through collective management and licensing.
“
| — | Copyright maximalists often describe copyright infringement as “IP theft.” The term is inappropriate for reasons that have been explained a million times on the Internets, most entertainingly by Nina Paley via vintage-looking animation. Using your copy of a work in ways that implicate copyright without asking permission is not the same as “stealing” the copyright itself. But you know what does look a lot like stealing the right itself? Trying to hold your hand out and demand license payments for a work you didn’t create, publish, or license from the author. That sounds like taking over control of the right itself, not just a particular copy or use. |
Copyright scholar and library licensing expert Peggy Hoon issues a crie de coeur on the deplorable state of library licensing and fair use, pointing to an interesting article on the subject here.
An ad hoc working group has created a new blog to share and discuss draft standard author rights language for library content licenses. This language is intended to be used by libraries and consortia as they negotiate contracts with content vendors in order to ensure that authors at these institutions retain consistent rights to make educational and scholarly uses of their own publications. See link for more info.
The permissions system is too inefficient and the prices too high for it to function in the current educational climate. Professors… will opt to reduce the content available, not because they are willing to settle for less robust pedagogy…, but simply because neither the money nor the time to navigate the serpentine permissions system is available.
