Category Archives: Uncategorized

Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week Day 5 Roundup

Last week was Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week, an annual celebration of the important doctrines of fair use and fair dealing. It is designed to highlight and promote the opportunities presented by fair use and fair dealing, celebrate successful stories, and explain these doctrines.

Check out all the great posts from Day 5 of Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week 2020! Don’t see yours? Contact us to get it added! You can view previous roundups here.

Blog Posts/News

Alvin Benjamin Carter III on Fair Use Week 2020 Tumblr, “Sampling In Cultural Context… in Court: ‘You never thought that hip-hop would take it this far’

Brandon Butler on The Taper, “Fair Use and Biography, A First Draft Interview

Brandon Butler on The Taper, “Is Sampling Finally Being Recognized as Fair Use? Kinda.

Kathleen DeLaurenti on Copyright at Harvard Library Blog, “Hacking Fair Use: Making Music Accessible

Marle McKay on Dalhousie Libraries’ Libvine Blog, “Fair Dealing Week 2020” (five-part series)

Robin Sinn on the Sheridan Libraries and University Museums Blog, “Fair Use Can Be Fun!

Sarah Hartman-Caverly on the ALA Intellectual Freedom Blog, “From Lawyers to Language Practices: Two Hip-Hop Professors and the Living Legacy of 2 Live Crew

Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week Day 4 Roundup

This week is Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week, an annual celebration of the important doctrines of fair use and fair dealing. It is designed to highlight and promote the opportunities presented by fair use and fair dealing, celebrate successful stories, and explain these doctrines.

Check out all the great posts from Day 4 of Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week 2020! Don’t see yours? Contact us to get it added! You can view previous roundups here.

Blog Posts/News

Chase Ollis on ACRL Insider, “Learning Opportunities: Fair Use/Fair Dealing

Dave Hansen on Copyright at Harvard Library Blog, “Fair Use: Copyright’s Deus Ex Machina?

Jonathan Band on ARL Policy Notes, “Fair Use in South Africa

Jonathan Band on The DisCo Project, “Harry Potter and the Circular Logic: Oracle and the Solicitor General’s Supreme Court Briefs

Public Knowledge Project, “Fair Use, Worth Celebrating – But Open Access Needs Copyright Reform

Fair Use in South Africa

Guest blog post by Jonathan Band, policybandwidth and counsel to the Library Copyright Alliance

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) is reviewing the eligibility of South Africa (SA) for trade preferences because the SA Parliament has passed a Copyright Amendment Bill (CAB) that the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) claims will result in inadequate and ineffective protection of copyright in SA. The IIPA consists of US-based copyright associations such as the Motion Picture Association, the Recording Industry Association of America, and the Association of American Publishers. While IIPA raises numerous objections to the CAB, the focus of IIPA’s opposition is that the CAB adopts a US-style fair use right.

IIPA generally urges USTR to pressure foreign governments to adopt US copyright principles. IIPA, however, has consistently opposed the export of fair use. To be sure, IIPA members routinely rely on fair use when sued for infringement in the United States. The IIPA petition, therefore, sets forth justifications for opposing SA’s adoption of a central feature of US copyright law. These justifications have no merit.

First, IIPA states that the CAB creates a “hybrid” system combining a flexible fair use provision with specific exceptions. But that is exactly what US law does, as well as every other country that has fair use. For example, the US Copyright Act combines fair use with specific exceptions for libraries and archives (section 108); educational institutions, religious organizations, and small restaurants (section 110); users of computer programs (section 117); and authorized entities that provide services for people with print disabilities (sections 121 and 121A).

Second, IIPA complains that SA lacks the legal precedent—established over decades—that has served to define, refine, and qualify that doctrine in the United States. Under this reasoning, no country could ever adopt fair use.  Moreover, via the internet, judges in SA would have easy access to hundreds of fair use decisions in the United States, as well as the opinions by judges in the other jurisdictions that have fair use exceptions. Indeed, SA judges can rely upon online tools such as the US Copyright Office’s Fair Use Index, which contains a searchable database of summaries of hundreds of fair use decisions. The Copyright Office explains, “The goal of the Index is to make the principles and application of fair use more accessible and understandable to the public,” thereby directly addressing IIPA’s concerns. (In the introduction to its Fair Use Index, the Copyright Office notes, “Fair use is a longstanding and vital aspect of American copyright law.”)

Third, IIPA argues that SA does not have statutory damages, which copyright owners in the United States rely upon to deter and remedy infringement. The link between exceptions and remedies is unclear. Regardless, SA does allow the award of “additional damages” in cases of flagrant infringement. Additionally, SA follows the “English rule” for the award of attorney’s fees. Under the English rule, the prevailing party automatically recovers attorney’s fees. The English rule strongly discourages a defendant from pursuing a defense unless it has a high degree of confidence it would prevail. This would insure that defendants would not assert fair use frivolously.

On January 30, 2020, USTR held a hearing on IIPA’s petition, at which the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA), of which ARL is a member, testified in favor of maintaining trade preferences for SA. Additionally, LCA is submitting a post-hearing brief at the end of this week. The withholding of trade preferences could harm the SA economy by disrupting SA exports to the United States.

Other countries in Africa, and elsewhere in the developing world, are looking to see how this story ends. The CAB could become a model for progressive copyright legislation; or it could be a cautionary tale of what happens when a developing country tries to “step out of line.”

Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week Day 3 Roundup

This week is Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week, an annual celebration of the important doctrines of fair use and fair dealing. It is designed to highlight and promote the opportunities presented by fair use and fair dealing, celebrate successful stories, and explain these doctrines.

Check out all the great posts from Day 3 of Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week 2020! Don’t see yours? Contact us to get it added! You can view previous roundups here.

Blog Posts/News

Carla Myers on Copyright at Harvard Library Blog, “Fair Use and Video Streaming

Hannah Gunderman and Matthew Lincoln on Carnegie Mellon Libraries Tartan Datascapes Blog, “Special Installment: dSHARP and Fair Use Analyses of Text Data Sources

Karen Coghlan on National Network of Libraries of Medicine Blog, “Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week

Sara Benson on IFLA Library Policy and Advocacy Blog, “The HathiTrust Digital Library: A Fair Use Story

University of Manitoba News, “Fair Dealing Week: Understanding User’s Copy Right

Event

UCLA Library, Sounds Fair to Me! The Copyright Game Show

Podcast

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Copyright Chat, “Melissa Ocepek’s Insights into Copyright Instruction

Video

Association of College and Research Libraries, “ACRL Presents: Understanding Fair Use Through Case Law

Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week 2020 Day 2 Roundup

This week is Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week, an annual celebration of the important doctrines of fair use and fair dealing. It is designed to highlight and promote the opportunities presented by fair use and fair dealing, celebrate successful stories, and explain these doctrines.

Check out all the great posts from Day 2 of Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week 2020! Don’t see yours? Contact us to get it added! You can view previous roundups here.

Blog Posts/News:

Authors Alliance, “Fair Use Resource Roundup

Brandon Butler on Copyright at Harvard Library Blog, “The Feist-y Reason That Text and Data Mining is Fair Use

Erin Nevius on ACRL Insider, “ACRL Books Exploring Fair Use/Fair Dealing

Digital Exhibit:

Carnegie Mellon University Libraries, “Pertains To Me: I Heard the Mother of All Not Dead Youth, A Mountain Pensive, On Her Side, Gazing

Events

MIT Libraries, Fun and Legal: Making Art through Fair Use

Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week 2020 Day 1 Roundup

This week is Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week, an annual celebration of the important doctrines of fair use and fair dealing. It is designed to highlight and promote the opportunities presented by fair use and fair dealing, celebrate successful stories, and explain these doctrines.

Check out all the great posts from Day 1 of Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week 2020! Don’t see yours? Contact us to get it added! You can view previous roundups here.

Blog Posts/News:

Brandon Butler on The Taper, “Fair Use Week Day 1: “Fair Use in Seven Words” (Reprise)

Cathryn Copper on Open @VT Blog, “Fair Use in the Visual Arts

Christine Fruin on Atla Blog, “SCOOP: Fair Use Week 2020 – Fair Use in Pop Culture

Chase Ollis on ACRL Insider, “Celebrate Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week 2020

Denise Nicholson on IFLA Library Policy and Advocacy Blog, “Report on Status of Copyright Amendment Bill in South Africa

Kenneth D. Crews on Copyright at Harvard Library Blog, “Presidents, Politics, and Fair Use

LeEtta Schmidt, “USF Libraries Celebrate Fair Use Week

Oklahoma State University–Tulsa Blog, “What’s the Use in Fair Use?

Events:

Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week 2020 events

Fair Dealing Week 2020 events in Canada

Duke University Libraries, What happens when Netflix is Dead? How licensing and copyright threaten the future of our cultural heritage (and how Fair Use can save it)

Video:

Kyle Courtney, “Fair Use Fights Fascism: Some Fair Use Week Thoughts on the 1st Amendment & Fair Use

Research Libraries Can Be Partners with Societies in Open Access Transitions

Guest blog post by Judy Ruttenberg, director, Scholars and Scholarship, ARL

In mid-December, rumors of a US executive order requiring that the results of federally funded scientific research be made available for publication immediately, with zero embargo, blew up a corner of the scholarly web. What would this mean for publishers, authors, societies, libraries, and, crucially, the public?

We have been here before. In 2012, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) solicited public comments on what is now governing policy—the Holdren memo. Open access (OA) advocates, including libraries, heralded the policy, which would provide public access to publicly funded research. Publishers—from large commercial companies to nonprofit societies—warned that the subsequent loss of subscription revenue would be catastrophic for scientific publishing. Scholarly societies who depend on subscriptions to subsidize a range of non-publishing activities worried this would put their missions at risk. OA activist members in some of those societies publicly criticized them for their conservative thinking.

Now, in December 2019, when rumors of a new OSTP policy went viral, a remarkably similar, if more intense, public conversation followed. Publisher advocates suggested the executive order, if the rumors were true, would be “apocalyptic.” SPARC, ARL and others in the library community reiterated their support for full, immediate access to publicly funded research, and many societies signed letters opposing a zero-embargo policy. Reflecting a greater awareness of OA than existed in the research community in 2012, more scholars publicly pushed back against their societies. Then, university librarian and vice provost for libraries at the University of North Carolina Elaine Westbrooks, said the following on Twitter, and effectively changed the conversation:

Dec 18, 2019, tweet by Elaine Westbrooks: "In fact I would be happy to take a portion of the Library budget to subsidize a learned/scholarly society whose primary purpose is to promote an academic discipline."

 

About a month earlier, Westbrooks and other members of ARL’s Scholars and Scholarship Committee met with leaders and publishing directors from a half dozen, prominent, scientific societies in DC to explore how libraries and societies can work together to advance a more open and equitable, scholarly communication ecosystem. Research libraries and scientific societies have much more of a common agenda than they are at odds over the price of journals. And by working together, libraries and societies could figure out a way to (a) articulate their distinct contributions to advancing scholarship, and (b) envision a sustainable way to support the dissemination of scholarship and the essential, ancillary services of “promoting the discipline.”

One change that would advance our understanding of these complex relationships and the need to ensure the sustainability of our scholarly communications system is better data. We can only speculate, for example, about the percentage of scholarly publishing that is federally funded. What revenue is necessary for a society to continue its non-publishing-related work of convening, organizing, and promoting the disciplines? We don’t know, and we should have the courage to find out.

As allies in support of a robust, equitable, and open scholarly ecosystem, libraries and societies could commit to examine and refactor—in partnership with university research administrators—the current, complex flow of funding from a federal grant to an investigator, through a university, with a portion back to a society through its publications. That society portion is routed through the mechanism of the university’s own library’s subscription budget, as well as the personnel required to support acquisition, licensing, cataloging, link-resolving, and all the other functions librarians perform to improve access and discovery. Like societies, libraries have operationalized many of our business functions around paywalls and subscriptions, a situation which contributes to the system’s inertia. Doesn’t it make sense for universities, libraries, and societies to work together to design, or enable the system that will replace it, while advancing the reach and impact of the scholarship we all support? Much of the discipline-organizing work of scholarly societies—for example, the American Geophysical Union has sponsored FAIR data workshops and anti-harassment in STEM training—directly benefits universities.

ARL applauds the direction of public policy makers globally and private funders in the Open Research Funders Group, cOAlition S, and individual research institutions toward full, immediate, open access to research. The research library community is ready to work with scholarly societies where we make our greatest impact—at the intersection of public policy, institutional policy, and the research and learning community—on increasing the openness, equity, and sustainability of scholarship.

Demonstrating Impact in the Social Sciences — and Thinking Like a Social Scientist

Guest blog post by Judy Ruttenberg, director, Scholars and Scholarship, ARL

“I am more than my H-Index,” is a popular laptop sticker in the open science community, where the index—a long-reigning measure of influence in a field—is the highest number of citations garnered by the greatest number of a scholar’s published articles. Core to open science and open scholarship, however, is sharing research results in advance of formal publication—through preprints, auxiliary materials shared on platforms like GitHub and the Open Science Framework, and scholars’ direct engagement with the public through op-eds, blogs, and Twitter. Sage Publishing just released a white paper on “The Latest Thinking About Metrics for Research Impact in the Social Sciences,” and kicked off a public discussion of its findings last weekend at the Association for Psychological Science (APS) annual convention in Washington, DC.

First, key findings of the Sage report include:

  1. The full scholarly community must believe that new impact metrics are useful, necessary, and beneficial to society.
  2. A robust new regime of impact measurement must transcend, but not necessarily supplant, current literature-based systems.
  3. A new regime of social science impact measures must integrate the experiences and expectations of how nonacademic stakeholders will define impact.
  4. All stakeholders must understand that although social science impact is measurable, social science is not STEM, and social science’s impact measurements may echo STEM’s but are unlikely to mirror them.
  5. Social science needs a global vocabulary, a global taxonomy, global metadata, and finally a global set of benchmarks for talking about impact measurement.

Camille Gamboa of Sage moderated a lively panel at APS comprised of Altmetric founder Euan Adie, HuMetricsHSS team member Rebecca Kennison, and Simine Vazire, co-founder of the Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS). While all are champions of impact as a greater aspiration than citations or paper quantity, the panel nonetheless raised deeply thoughtful questions about how impact is defined and measured, how new biases might be introduced and mitigated, and the challenge of maintaining scholarly integrity and accountability while making claims of impact in a direct-to-reader environment. “High-impact journals,” and anonymous peer review, despite their known flaws, have traditionally provided that accountability. And, from an information-seeking perspective (I am a librarian, not a social scientist), they provided filters.

So how does open scholarship in the social sciences advance, and how do scholars meet the demands placed on them by universities and funding agencies for public engagement and demonstration of impact? Do they, as one audience member asked, go directly to where readers are, turning their research papers into TED Talks and slick YouTube videos? Dr. Vazire was not so sure. Science journalists, she argued, play an important role. They pay a professional price for overstating claims of impact, while individual scientists may not. While Dr. Vazire said she includes this kind of feedback as a peer reviewer, that may not be the norm. Rebecca Kennison talked about a journal policy review project she recently undertook around publication ethics, and said such guidelines would be both novel and, from her perspective, welcome. In defining impact at the outset, all panelists noted that impact can be both positive and negative—recalling Andrew Wakefield’s highly influential paper claiming that vaccines cause autism. Vazire wondered whether we can learn from professional sports, which use many different statistical indicators to assess a particular player’s impact—some of which are holistic: Does the team perform better or worse when the player is on the field?

Panelist Euan Adie founded Altmetric precisely to help address the vexing measure of scholarly impact, answering the question, “who’s talking about your research?” on social media, in the press, and in policy documents, the latter of which can be the grand prize for social scientists. He described a robust infrastructure of intermediaries, such as think tanks and policy institutes, that sit (with all their biases, flaws, and sometimes helpful filters) between social science researchers and policy-makers. Less formal networks of scholars, such as the Scholars Strategy Network and the Council on Contemporary Families, help social scientists get closer to readers outside of the academy, boosting their capacity for non-academic “impact,” while providing the scholarly oversight to assess claims based on the evidence provided and methods applied. In a tongue-in-cheek backlash to scholars’ social media popularity, we now have the “Kardashian Index,” coupled with the suggestion that if one’s twitter mentions vastly outnumber one’s formal citations, that may indicate an outsized influence in the field.

These issues hit very close to home for research libraries. ARL has decades of data on outputs and transactions of its membership—number of volumes on the shelf, expenditures, number of reference questions answered—and is making the exciting transition now to measuring impact. Resources like “The Latest Thinking About Metrics for Research Impact in the Social Sciences,” and colleagues like Adie, Kennison, and Vazire, provide excellent food for thought for libraries undertaking this work, and confronting its challenges along with the research and learning community.

Opportunities for Libraries in the AI Ecosystem

Guest post by Cynthia Hudson-Vitale, head, Research Informatics and Publishing, Penn State University Libraries

Artificial intelligence (AI) for data discovery and reuse was the topic of a recent conference sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and hosted by Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), in cooperation with the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). Beth Plale, Senior Advisor for Public Access for NSF, set the context: Harnessing the data revolution will require research, educational pathways, and advanced cyberinfrastructure.

Librarians, researchers across disciplines, computer scientists, industry representatives, and technologists came together at CMU to share practices and discuss methods for leveraging machine learning and artificial intelligence for metadata generation, data curation, data discovery, and data integration. Prominent themes of data privacy, data security, and mechanisms to limit algorithmic bias were found through many of the papers.    

While many institutions and researchers are exploring or developing AI models to solve complex issues, this conference was unique, both in the variety of perspectives it provided and the intentional focus on data discovery and reuse practices. Notable papers and presentations included:

  • Extracting key phrases from texts to aid in discovery
  • Creating descriptive tags for images
  • Recognizing and transcribe handwriting from digitized assets
  • Finding and extracting dataset references from published articles
  • Protecting clinical patient privacy  
  • Developing synthetic control arms for clinical trials

While much research focused on AI, many speakers emphasized human curation and intervention s a required component of workflows for model design and validation.

Keith Webster, Dean of CMU Libraries, summed up the takeaways and themes of the conference as demands for:

  • collaboration across disciplines and domains,
  • improved mechanisms for data discovery,
  • increased incentives for sharing data,
  • improved standards for data interoperability and adoption,
  • A better understanding and application of ethical guidelines,
  • research on the power of data reuse, and
  • enhanced tools for AI  

Huajin Wang, PhD., Research Liaison, Biology & Computer Science at CMU and Co-PI for the conference said, “I am really excited and touched by the enthusiasm participants shared for moving forward as a unique and diverse community.  I look forward to growing the community, and encourage everyone to keep the conversation going and join the mailing list aidr-all@lists.andrew.cmu.edu”.

For Libraries this conference surfaced a number of opportunities, including:

  • Delivering training and education around AI and data science topics
  • Providing expertise around metadata and controlled vocabularies
  • Acting as facilitators of local communities of practices for AI
  • Leveraging AI models to supplement human curation of datasets and enhance the discoverability of library digital assets (including digitized images, text, etc.)
  • Supporting and advocating for AI privacy initiatives

Discussions around  data privacy and AI reinforced many of the ongoing conversations that libraries are having in protecting student and library patron privacy, including:

Presentation and poster abstracts may be found on the conference website, some of which are published as a F1000Reseach collection.  Full papers of selected presentations will be peer-reviewed and published shortly in AIDR ’19 – ACM ICPS.

 

Marrakesh Treaty Enters Into Force in the United States

Today, May 8, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) administered Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled enters into force in the United States.  The United States Senate ratified the Marrakesh Treaty last summer and the United States House of Representatives passed the implementing legislation in September 2018.  Following the United States’ deposit of its instrument of ratification with WIPO on February 8 and the subsequent three month period prescribed in the treaty, the treaty is now in force in the United States.

The Marrakesh Treaty is designed to address the “book famine” problem in which it has been estimated that only between 1 and 7% of all published works are ever created in an accessible format for those that are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled.  The Marrakesh Treaty sets forth minimum standards for limitations and exceptions to facilitate access to accessible format works.  It also permit cross-border sharing of these accessible formats, allowing countries to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts and resources in the creation of these accessible works.  The cross-border provision also facilitates importation of works created in other languages.

As an organization dedicated to achieving enduring and barrier-free access to information, ARL celebrates this milestone in the United States.  Libraries, as authorized entities, play a critical role not only in serving their own patrons, but also in facilitating cross-border exchange of accessible format works.  The United States is one of 55 contracting parties and countries from every region of the world are members of the Marrakesh Treaty.  Canada previously joined the Marrakesh Treaty in 2016 and, significantly, was the 20th ratifying or acceding country which triggered the entry into force of the Treaty itself.  A number of other ratifications are also currently underway.