Blog – Copyright Clearance Center http://www.copyright.com Rights Licensing Expert Mon, 12 Nov 2018 19:43:44 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://www.copyright.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/cropped-ccc-favicon-32x32.png Blog – Copyright Clearance Center http://www.copyright.com 32 32 18 Inspiring Tweets from #KMWorld http://www.copyright.com/blog/inspiring-tweets-kmworld/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/inspiring-tweets-kmworld/#respond Fri, 09 Nov 2018 16:06:58 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=17983 Whether you attended KMWorld in Washington D.C. or not, check out our roundup of bite-sized inspiration, tips and advice.

The post 18 Inspiring Tweets from #KMWorld appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
KMWorld’s annual conference was held this week in Washington D.C. Dubbed as the world’s leading knowledge management event, more than a thousand knowledge and information professionals joined to discuss topics including search, A.I, and digital transformation.

In the spirit of knowledge sharing, we’ve rounded up some of our favorite bite-sized tips, session snippets and inspiration from the show:

Keep learning:

The post 18 Inspiring Tweets from #KMWorld appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/inspiring-tweets-kmworld/feed/ 0
Global Voices For Workplace Equity http://www.copyright.com/blog/global-voices-for-workplace-equity/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/global-voices-for-workplace-equity/#respond Thu, 08 Nov 2018 17:10:59 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=17970 The Workplace Equity Project reports the results of its 2018 survey, capturing data on diversity and equity-related issues in the scholarly publishing field.

The post Global Voices For Workplace Equity appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
As 2018 opened, the Workplace Equity Project released a survey to capture and analyze data on diversity and equity-related issues in the scholarly publishing field worldwide. Now, WE has reported on the survey’s findings.

Global Voices For Workplace Equity

“We were pleased with the response to this effort. We got a great deal of support from industry organizations. And it was through these industry organizations who disseminated the survey and encouraged their members to participate that we were able to get the results from across the globe,” WE Project co-founder Simone Taylor explains.

Altogether, the industry earned some high grades as well as lower marks.

First, the good news. According to three out of four survey respondents, work/life balance is good in scholarly publishing. 60% said their organizations were supportive of diversity, and over half say people of all religions and all sexual orientations have equal opportunities for promotion.

But the findings and answers from nearly 1,200 individuals on six continents don’t stop there.

“We gave people an opportunity, in addition to being able to tick yes or no or answer questions, just to add anything else they needed to say. And a recurring theme in many of these comments was that irrespective of organizational policies, what people experienced depended on their line manager’s interpretation of that policy,” Taylor says.

“This presents a very interesting challenge to an organization,” she continues. “What is clear is that setting the policy is one thing, and we know that there have been quite a few initiatives in the industry to address work/life balance issues, to address promotion and compensation. But if your own line manager doesn’t understand or doesn’t interpret these things in the way the company intends, then your own experience is very, very different from others around you. And it’s a challenge for the industry, because your managers are the people who you have entrusted with the values of the organization. This presents an opportunity to have a better discourse with managers as well as better training and improved oversight.”

View the full transcript here.

Related Reading

The post Global Voices For Workplace Equity appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/global-voices-for-workplace-equity/feed/ 0
Attending the European Continuing Medical Education (CME) Forum? Here Are 5 Session Picks http://www.copyright.com/blog/european-continuing-medical-education-cme-forum/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/european-continuing-medical-education-cme-forum/#respond Fri, 02 Nov 2018 15:41:52 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=17934 Stakeholders with an interest in European Continuing Medical Education (CME), will meet next week for the 11th Annual European CME Forum.

The post Attending the European Continuing Medical Education (CME) Forum? Here Are 5 Session Picks appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
In just over a week, I will join stakeholder groups with an interest in European Continuing Medical Education (CME), when they meet for the 11th Annual European CME Forum at the King’s Fund in London, UK, 7-9 November 2018.

The European CME Forum is a great opportunity to learn from providers, accreditors, medical societies, commercial supporters and vendors on the current and future challenges and direction of European CME.  When Eugene Pozniak, Co-Founder of the European CME Forum, assembled the program in 2008, the objective was to foster interdisciplinary and interprofessional dialogue. Since then, dialogue has been healthy and the publication of the  Journal of European CME, an Open Access peer review journal that is now PubMed Indexed, has been an excellent outlet for scientific communication.

As both an editorial board member of the Journal of European CME and a business development director at Copyright Clearance Center, I am keen to learn more about the evolving tools and types of educational design and methods for disseminating CME programs to interdisciplinary learners. These potential solutions that could better serve the European CME community are under investigation at CCC and I look forward to sharing more of our concepts and thoughts during and after the conference.

5 Sessions Picks for European CME Forum

Within the three main program themes, “Change,” “Management,” and “Engine,” I look forward to attending the following sessions:

  • Ascent to the summit of the pyramid: a hands-on guide to implementing the outcomes framework – Don Moore (Vanderbilt University), Celine Carrera (European Society of Cardiology) and Melania Istrate (European Society of Intensive Care Medicine)
  • Accreditation criteria as a roadmap; designing education that matters – Kate Regnier (ACCME)
  • Medical Societies and CME: Objectives, challenges and aspirations to deliver quality education for the membership – led by Carine Pannetier (European Respiratory Society)
  • Collaboration in lifelong learning: making it work – Dale Kummerle (Bristol Myers-Squibb; Global Alliance Medical Education), Lisa Sullivan (InVivo Communications), Celeste Kolanko (Liberum IME)
  • Putting effort into design and outcomes evaluation: what a waste of resource? – Thomas Kellner (UCB), Eva Thalmann (Janssen Cilag), Dean Jenkins (UCB)

Looking forward to seeing you all there.

Related Resources:

The post Attending the European Continuing Medical Education (CME) Forum? Here Are 5 Session Picks appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/european-continuing-medical-education-cme-forum/feed/ 0
On the Road to Intelligent Content http://www.copyright.com/blog/on-the-road-to-intelligent-content/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/on-the-road-to-intelligent-content/#respond Thu, 01 Nov 2018 21:17:03 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=17913 Publishers have long dreamed of easily repurposing their catalogs for markets around the world, but creating intelligent content is no simple task.

The post On the Road to Intelligent Content appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Publishers have long dreamed of quickly and easily repurposing their catalogs for markets around the world. Transforming content, however, is no simple task. Some intelligence is required.

Dr. Alex Wissner-Gross, a fellow at the Institute for Applied Computational Science at Harvard University, has defined intelligence as a force to maximize future freedom of action. Intelligent content, therefore, strives to maximize its potential for the futures ahead, known and unknown. The earlier that content is embedded with intelligence, the more freedom of action it will have in the future.

The key point of intelligent content is that it’s about the relationships and metadata that are held together within a piece of content. The content is decorated with metadata around it and has relationships to other content. That ultimately makes it easier to query that data and bring that intelligence together. Somebody said intelligence is about making connections. It’s really that point of connecting that content using semantic enrichment to leverage the intelligence that’s there within those relationships, so you can find stuff that you didn’t know you were looking for.

The key point of intelligent content is that it’s about the relationships and metadata that are held together within a piece of content. You want to leverage the intelligence that’s there within those relationships, so you can find stuff that you didn’t know you were looking for.

View the full transcript here.

Recommended Reading:

The post On the Road to Intelligent Content appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/on-the-road-to-intelligent-content/feed/ 0
AI Usage Growing Among Life Sciences Professionals – But Challenges Remain http://www.copyright.com/blog/ai-life-sciences-challenges/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/ai-life-sciences-challenges/#respond Wed, 31 Oct 2018 06:05:30 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=17822 From entertainment to healthcare, ecommerce to finance – it’s undeniable that the way we do business changes when artificial intelligence… Read more

The post AI Usage Growing Among Life Sciences Professionals – But Challenges Remain appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
From entertainment to healthcare, ecommerce to finance – it’s undeniable that the way we do business changes when artificial intelligence is involved. AI is the buzzword du jour – seated currently at the top of Gartner’s well-known hype cycle.

In the life sciences sphere, the promise is there, but the widespread integration of AI technology has yet to be realized. This idea was supported by a survey released by Pistoia Alliance this year, which highlights both the adoption of these technologies and the challenges associated with getting the most out of them.

The survey of more 350 life science professionals found that nearly half (44%) are experimenting with AI-based solutions.

Here’s a look at the emerging AI solutions in the life science industry described in the survey:

Natural Language Processing (NLP): Life sciences organizations can collect, annotate, and integrate unstructured text from large data sources, such a biomedical literature.

At CCC, we see life sciences organizations using text analytics and natural language processing to get actionable insight from real world data – and as a result they’ve found valuable intelligence that can inform commercial business strategies.

Here is a look at two use cases from our partners at Linguamatics, where text mining has transformed real world data to real world evidence.

Machine Learning (ML) In the life sciences setting, machine learning can be used to quickly and accurately identify disease phenotypes, to learn and predict from structured biological data and image-based data, and to improve patient safety and drug development.

But – a lack of access to full-text scientific literature vs. abstracts, inconsistent terms of use, and formatting discrepancies can lead to machine learning difficulties, as CCC’s Doug Knight points out here.

2 Milestones before AI reaches breakout velocity

AI is already being integrated into the lifecycle of pharmaceutical and healthcare companies in the areas of drug target discovery and clinical diagnosis, as well as the discovery of biomarkers and drug targets. Still, the survey outlined limiting factors before AI reaches breakout velocity in the life science industry.

The two primary limitations are the lack of in-house expertise and lack of access to quality data to develop domain-specific AI solutions. Because of this, we’re seeing more and more companies focus on building partnerships with organizations that have expertise in AI.

Lack of technical expertise is the most cited barrier for AI (30%) and for ML/NLP (28%)

There are several open-source platforms for developing AI solutions, but the ability to tailor in-house solutions to emerging biological data sources such as single-cell sequencing, proteomics, metabolomics, or 3D spatial/image-based biological data is more complex. Integrating this information with existing knowledge will be a necessary precursor to maximize the benefits of AI.

Lack of access to data (24%) and data quality (26%) were the next biggest barriers to using AI.

Many researchers cite not having access to quality data as a barrier to developing AI solutions. We know that intelligent data and information integration is what drives innovation, and business and scientific users need to search across, access, and analyze internal and external content and data. That’s difficult to do when data and content metadata often lack standardization, limiting the ability to process and analyze them.

Ultimately, we should look forward to cross-disciplinary partnerships that can bring together experts from complementary specialties to ask novel questions and deliver insights that directly impact human health.

 

CCC’s RightFind solutions help organizations retrieve data and content across disparate data repositories and content sources providing a unified view of all digital assets. Want to learn more? Contact us today.

Ready to learn more? Check out:

The post AI Usage Growing Among Life Sciences Professionals – But Challenges Remain appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/ai-life-sciences-challenges/feed/ 0
4 Sessions We’re Looking Forward to at KMWorld 2018 http://www.copyright.com/blog/ccc-kmworld-2018/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/ccc-kmworld-2018/#respond Tue, 30 Oct 2018 06:37:17 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=17840 CCC will be alongside upwards of a thousand attendees at KM World’s 2018 annual conference, held in Washington D.C., Nov. 6-8.

The post 4 Sessions We’re Looking Forward to at KMWorld 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
CCC will be alongside upwards of a thousand attendees at KMWorld’s 2018 annual conference. This premier event for knowledge professionals will be held in Washington D.C., Nov. 6-8.

We’re proud to be a gold sponsor of this year’s event. In addition to meeting our team in the exhibit hall, here’s a look at four sessions where we’ll be in the audience (plus a bonus!):

Rethinking KM for an Age of AI & IoT

  • Daniel W. Rasmus, Founder & Principal Analyst, Serious Insights

This session explores the impact of AI and IoT on KM, as machines get better and better at sensing the environment, comprehending content, interpreting signals, and anticipating needs. Get a better sense of how the overall world of work is changing and what it means for people who value knowledge, discovery, and curation.

KM Leadership & KM Champion Role

  • Hasan Syed, VP, KM, Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago
  • Mary Little, Senior Consultant, Enterprise Knowledge

KM often doesn’t get a seat at the table because there are common misunderstandings about what knowledge management even is, or organizational leaders are skeptical about its benefits because they’ve been burned by previous failed efforts. Having a KM champion within an organization can help connect those in need of KM solutions with the experts, tools, processes, and know-how to improve collaboration and knowledge flow between team members and departments. Syed will share how he has communicated the value of KM to the senior leaders of his organization and gained their buy-in to incorporate KM initiatives into their overall strategic plan.

Building Cross-Functional Teams: Leveraging Tribal Knowledge

  • Detlef Hold, Knowledge Cycling Lead, Genentech Inc.

One of the core activities of a global pharma/biotech company is submitting a global dossier to health authorities to provide access to innovative medications to patients around the world. This talk describes the ongoing journey of institutionalizing the body of knowledge generated by all cross-functional teams on their journey to providing breakthrough medication to patients so that organizational learning can enable a faster, more sustainable and high-quality delivery of novel drugs to patients around the world.

From Suites to Platforms: ECM Shifts to Content Services

  • Cheryl McKinnon, Principal Analyst, Forrester Research

This session reveals recent trends and data from Forrester Research in the area of content management. The market is shifting quickly to cloud services for content management and collaboration. See where the market is going, how firms are re-thinking their ECM road maps, and how the rise of AI and analytics is creating new use cases.

Bonus Pick! KM Stories: Challenges & Solutions

  • Scott Lawrence, Associate Director Library & Knowledge Management Services at Shire
  • Jill Shuman, Director of Product Engagement at CCC

Look inside Shire’s struggle to tame the content chaos and its quest to develop a streamlined process for managing internal and external information. This happy story reveals KM leaders engaged with other department leaders, building relationships with core end users, and evolving their mission to meet the critical needs of their R&D organization. Hear lessons learned, strategic ideas, and tactical tips to align KM with business needs and priorities.

View the complete KMWorld 2018 agenda here.

Get in Touch with CCC at KMWorld 2018

Expo Hours:

  • Tuesday, Nov. 6, 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
  • Wednesday, Nov. 6, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Be sure to stop by Booth 405 to meet the CCC team!

Check out CCC’s latest KM blog posts here:

The post 4 Sessions We’re Looking Forward to at KMWorld 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/ccc-kmworld-2018/feed/ 0
Do Books Belong in Open Access? http://www.copyright.com/blog/do-books-belong-in-open-access/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/do-books-belong-in-open-access/#respond Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:41:14 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=17867 Publishing professionals examine the relevance of the almost 13,000 academic peer-reviewed open access books, monographs and chapters from 282 publishers.

The post Do Books Belong in Open Access? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Open access is transforming scholarly journal publishing, yet the looming size of the journal ecosystem has thrown into deep shadow an equally remarkable transformation in scholarly books. In recent years, e-book acquisition rates and usage have soared. E-books offer multiple advantages, from acquisition models to accessibility and researcher engagement metrics.

In parallel with research coming out of the UK, an ongoing study by the US-based Book Industry Study Group is identifying the challenges in understanding the usage of OA e-books. This research will provide much needed documentation on e-book impact levels, especially for funders of open access publishing programs.

At the recent 2018 Frankfurt Book Fair, CCC’s Carl Robinson moderated a panel discussion on the viability of business models and the unique needs of OA books compared to OA journals. Guests were Brian O’Leary, executive director of the New York City-based Book Industry Study Group (BISG),and David Worlock, a longtime independent publishing analyst and co-chair of Outsell’s leadership programs.

View the full transcript here.

Recommended Reading

The post Do Books Belong in Open Access? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/do-books-belong-in-open-access/feed/ 0
A Guide to a “Plan S” Impact Assessment http://www.copyright.com/blog/a-guide-to-a-plan-s-impact-assessment/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/a-guide-to-a-plan-s-impact-assessment/#respond Thu, 25 Oct 2018 16:53:33 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=17847 Two scholarly publishing executives offer an informal Guide to a “Plan S” Impact Assessment for society and independent publishers.

The post A Guide to a “Plan S” Impact Assessment appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
To explore what Plan S could mean for the future of publication programs at researcher-supported societies, we spoke with two leading executives – Malavika Legge of the Biochemical Society and Portland Press and Tasha Mellins-Cohen of the Microbiology Society – who offered an informal Guide to a “Plan S” Impact Assessment for society and independent publishers.

Guide to a "Plan S" Impact Assessment

Highlights

“The key message in the context of Plan S is we want to make that transition sustainable, i.e., that we can continue on our mission to return sustainable revenues to our parent society.” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press/The Biochemical Society

“[At] The Microbiology Society…75-80% of all revenue is derived from publishing. Now, that supports our grants programs for early-career and mid-career microbiologists… our policy work… lots of our events programs… and all of the professional development activities that we do. Societies don’t have a God-given right to exist, but if we’re going to pull the plug on all of these activities, which Plan S might well threaten to do, we might want to have a bit more of a conversation about it.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“What is the practical detail around payment workflows [in Plan S]? That remains to be explored, particularly where you’ve got international collaborations, and you’ve got part-funded work, and you’ve got authors or researchers… focusing on their science [who] don’t need to be distracted by administrative burden around bills and part payments and things like this.” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press/The Biochemical Society

“What about humanities scholars?  What about social sciences and arts and all the rest of those fields, which we know do not have the same kind of funding, certainly don’t have the same kind of acceptance of open access that our fields enjoy?  We know that the cOAlition’s thought about having a different ruling for social sciences, arts, and humanities and decided against it.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“That’s very worrying to me that you’re having this very broad-brush approach with no flexibility to allow for differences in fields and publisher types.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“We do see this as risk, but we also see it as an opportunity.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society “There’s an opportunity for us to look to transformative business models, transformative editorial models, and also potentially to really force a change in the way that research metrics are looked at to … make the break with the impact factor.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“We’re mapping every affiliation metric that we have, every piece of XML that includes affiliation details… back to what we’re calling parent organizations. We are then creating a global map of where our authors are, where our subscribers are, and we are looking at what Plan S could do. Something that came through very clearly when we started doing this mapping exercise was that even those authors within Plan S countries … [do] not all have Plan S funding. So, you can’t simply say, ‘20% of our author base is going to go away because they’ve got Plan S funding.’ You’ve got to be more nuanced than that.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“There is a route to just doing a very, very quick proxy analysis… You could look at authors [based in Plan S countries] publishing in the journals in a particular time period and get a very quick reading of what the possible scale of impact is. Straightaway… you might find that … different journals are affected in different ways… Taking a quick reading can really help to focus … on where the risk is falling.” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press/The Biochemical Society

“[It] has been made very clear by cOAlition S is that they’re not expecting us to have our new model in place on the 1st of January 2020… [but rather] we need to provide a document stating how we will get to a pure open access world.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“Editorial options include things like doubling the size of our portfolio by providing Open Access B versions of all of our journals. That obviously has huge overhead implications. [Would] your authors who are open access-funded move to a B version? It takes several years to get indexed properly, to get all the metrics you might want, and so on and so forth.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“On the business model side, obviously there’s … the read and publish model. The question that you have to ask is if, you’re very small … how many librarians are going to want to talk to you about a bespoke read and publish model?” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“Do you want to leverage the existing relationships with librarians’ existing workflows that currently exist around subscriptions, but change the conversation to talking about funding open access?” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press/The Biochemical Society

“Something that is potentially quite exciting and positive about that [Open Access B version] model is you take away the individual APC payment. You start having a conversation about institutions and consortia [funding] the journal … open access and able for everybody to access the content. …The risk that one has to consider with that is one of institutions saying, ‘Well, not me. I’ll wait for somebody else to stump up that money.’” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press/The Biochemical Society

“It would be great to hear from the funding bodies how they plan to influence [institution and consortia funding] so that [publishers] can continue to operate and provide on the editorial front the rigorous peer review, being the independent validator of research communications.” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press/The Biochemical Society

“Isn’t there benefit in having an independent party that is not deciding what research is funded –independent to the funder, [to the institution] and to the researcher – coming in and having a very robust validation process for that work, whatever the output might look like?” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press/The Biochemical Society

“We looked through nine different options around how we could respond to Plan S, ranging from do nothing to complete flip to APC-driven OA through things like institutional membership models, subscribe to open along the lines of the Knowledge Unlatched model and so on.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“I have taken a whole lot of the affiliation data and a whole lot of other data around funding, around APCs, around institutions who have open access mandates, so on and so forth, and I also looked at deposited green copies of articles that we’ve published, and I have crunched all of that data through a nifty little script that I wrote to give us an exposure level journal by journal to open access risk and potential.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

“We’re now seeing a huge new market for … an institutional membership model, which would allow us to go way beyond the existing subscriber base and actually reach out to all of our affiliated institutions one way and another.” – Tasha Mellins-Cohen, The Microbiology Society

View the full transcript here.

Recommended Reading:

 

The post A Guide to a “Plan S” Impact Assessment appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/a-guide-to-a-plan-s-impact-assessment/feed/ 0
The Seventh Triennial Section 1201 “Final Rule” has Been Issued http://www.copyright.com/blog/section-1201-rulemaking/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/section-1201-rulemaking/#respond Thu, 25 Oct 2018 07:02:19 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=15906 Section 1201 exceptions are a topic of considerable discussion every few years. As it turns out, 2018 is one of those years.

The post The Seventh Triennial Section 1201 “Final Rule” has Been Issued appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Update (Oct. 25, 2018): On a quick read of the 85-page “Final Rule,” it appears that more than 90% of the requested exemptions were granted. Exemptions for the purpose of media preservation did very well. Some very technical exemptions, those for avionics telemetry for example, were not granted; proponents for those can sharpen their arguments and come back in the next 3-year cycle. Overall, I believe that this iteration will stand as an outstanding instance of a fair and open public rule making process.

Update (May 7, 2018) : Public hearings on the 1201 rulemaking process were held  in Washington DC on April 10-13, and in Los Angeles on April 23-25, 2018. These all-day sessions included discussion about each  of the 12 proposed classes of exemptions, with groups on each side of each proposed exemption provided with time to argue for their view of the best policy to adopt. These groups included: Association of American Publishers (AAP), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), various Universities, the Library Copyright Alliance, the Software & Information Industry Association, Public Knowledge, International Game Developers Association, and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

In the next stages of the process, the Copyright Office staff will (in effect) go into a huddle and sort it all out, preparing recommendations which will then work their way up to the Acting Register of Copyright, Karyn A. Temple, whose responsibility is to make the final recommendations to the Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden. This final step will likely occur sometime in the fall of 2018.

Further information about the status of the current 1201 rulemaking may be accessed here.

This article was originally published in March, 2018. 

Section 1201 is a curious little section of the US Copyright Act, added by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998. But the matter covered in that section is of great importance in our digital age and, due to its triennial rulemaking requirement, ‘1201’ exceptions are a topic of considerable discussion every few years. As it turns out, 2018 is one of those years.

For this (seventh) round the Copyright Office is trying out a “new, streamlined procedure for the renewal of exemptions that were granted during the sixth triennial rulemaking.” For this round, the Copyright Office has signaled its intent to streamline by taking into account exemptions which have been previously granted, and providing them a bit of a fast lane.

But let’s provide some context before digging in to these updates. One of the things that Congress realized at the time of passing the DMCA (1998)– and it’s something that Congress realizes all too infrequently – is that it was likely that technology would develop more quickly than laws and rules could be written to manage how the new technology would interact with everyone else’s rights and privileges. So Congress included within the DMCA a provision that became Section 1201 of the Copyright Act, under which the Copyright Office is instructed to update some of the ways in which technology and the law interact, by undertaking a rulemaking process every three years. That means hearing evidence and then granting – or denying –  specific exemptions from the limitations that the Copyright Act imposes on what users might do with works protected by copyright. The Copyright Office is now already in the middle stages of the seventh cycle of Section 1201 rulemakings (its conclusions are due to be published and effective at the end of October 2018).

This time through, twelve exemptions have been requested, with dozens of organizations weighing in. Among the exemptions requested are those that apply to different types of copyrighted works: audiovisual works (towards improving accessibility for specified purposes), computer programs (including unlocking smartphones for ‘jailbreaking’ and repair, as well as video game preservation) and two entirely new ones, one for flight-related software, and one involving an aspect of 3D printing. Some of these (particularly ‘jailbreaking’) have been frequently requested, and sometimes granted, before.

Some of these examples make immediate sense – for example, making licit the jailbreaking of phones has been written up quite a few times and nearly everyone (other than phone companies and manufacturers, of course) favors that in principle. Some video games and other older (consumer-facing) software are at risk of becoming completely inaccessible if the ability to ‘crack’ them open for examination, and running on modern devices, is somehow walled off by law. I myself favor, in general, what is sometimes called “the right to tinker,” which is to say that if I buy myself (for instance) a tractor, and I have alternative software that I wish to run on it in order to repair it, I should be able to do just that – at my own risk. It seems like overreach of copyright to use the all mighty c-in-a-circle to make me stick with what came shipped with the tool. I should be able to take my own chances with my own toy – even if it is a big toy, like a car or a tractor. The wisdom of this approach, however, is subject to debate. As a manufacturer, or a more cautious consumer, might point out, these are complicated machines, and if you don’t know who was writing that code you are installing, you might be opening yourself, and other people, up to problems you are not anticipating.

Of the 12 requested exemptions, two are new (to me at least): Class 11, Avionics, and Class 12, 3D Printing.

The proposed exemption for access to avionics data reads “A proposed exemption for access to aircraft flight, operations, maintenance and security data captured by computer programs or firmware. The digital avionics systems lock out access to collected aircraft flight, operations, maintenance and cyber security data necessary to comply with flight safety, maintenance and cyber security regulations and to maintain the safe and secure operation of an aircraft.” I don’t know enough about the field of avionics, including what are sometimes referred to as “e-Enabled aircraft,” to weigh in on the details, but as long as it doesn’t materially affect airplane safety I can see a valid argument for opening up the data systems and outputs here. Frankly, not to do so might amount to an anti-competitive policy (as well as a possible safety issue), and one that unnecessarily impedes technology innovation. But again, I don’t claim any expertise on these matters; it’s simply interesting, to me, to see the insertion of copyright issues into this mix. Did they anticipate such applications of copyright law at all, back in 1998?

The final request for exemption, in the domain of 3D Printing, reads, A proposed exemption for owners of 3D printers to circumvent technological protection measures on firmware or software in 3D printers to run the printers’ operating systems to allow use of non-manufacturer-approved feedstock.” I’ve long been fascinated with 3D printing. “Feedstock” is a jargon term for the raw materials used by the various 3D printer technologies, the most common of which are Selective laser sintering (SLS), Fused deposition modeling (FDM), and Stereolithography (SLA). Which is to say, plastics, metal powders and resins. The argument here seems like a descendant of the “toner wars” from traditional (2D) printing, whereby anticircumvention rules were used to prevent users from substituting aftermarket toner cartridges for laser printers. Under a 2017 Supreme Court Ruling, this sort of anti-consumer shenanigans are no longer allowed, and I’d expect a case focused on the supplies used in 3D printing to go the same way.

The next round of public hearings before the Copyright Office is coming up in mid-April. I’m looking forward to it; maybe we’ll see you there.

A version of this post originally appeared in IP Watch.

The post The Seventh Triennial Section 1201 “Final Rule” has Been Issued appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/section-1201-rulemaking/feed/ 0
Get Smart About Plan S http://www.copyright.com/blog/get-smart-plan-s/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/get-smart-plan-s/#respond Wed, 24 Oct 2018 18:25:35 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=17825 Streaming now: In a special “pop-up” program for the Frankfurt Book Fair, a trio of leading scholarly publishers shared what it takes for Open Access publishers to be smart about Plan S.

The post Get Smart About Plan S appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
An initiative of 13 European national research funding organizations announced only a month ago, “Plan S” puts pressure on Open Access (OA) publishing business models by capping article fees, ending embargoes and withdrawing support for “hybrid” OA journals.

Not only publishers but also authors are affected by Plan S’s ambitions. Researchers are concerned that under Plan S, funders can decide where they may publish their work – with adverse effect on their academic careers.

Robert-Jan Smits, the European Commission’s Open Access special envoy and mastermind of Plan S, says the “S” in “Plan S” can stand for “science, speed, solution, shock.” In a special “pop-up” program for the Frankfurt Book Fair, Copyright Clearance Center welcomed a trio of leading scholarly publishers who shared what it takes for Open Access publishers to be smart about Plan S.

Panelists:

  • Tim Britton, Managing Director of the Open Research Group at Springer Nature
  • Malavika Legge, Acting Director of Publishing at Portland Press, the wholly-owned publishing arm of the UK’s Biochemical Society
  • David Ross, Executive Publisher for Open Access at SAGE Publishing

Highlights

“Plan S is an initiative of 13 national research funding organizations, and it puts pressure on open access publishing business models by capping article fees, ending embargoes, and withdrawing support for hybrid OA journals. Not only are publishers affected by Plan S ambitions, but authors as well. Authors and researchers are concerned that under Plan S, they may have limited choice about where they can publish their work, which could adversely affect their careers.” – Chuck Hemenway, CCC

“Plan S…overtly recognizes that and says hybrid as part of a transitional arrangement is acceptable. But more generally than that, why would we want to relaunch or recreate a whole existing journal network to kind of have a separate OA offer? It does seem to me that the use of the existing journals [that have] been around for hundreds of years [such as] society journals – why are we trying to shut them out of the market? It doesn’t make sense to me. We should use…the capital that we’ve already got as a way of helping us move forward.” – Tim Britton, Springer Nature

“There is no direct funding in social sciences and in the humanities. So, how [could] a model that was [clearly] being developed for highly funded biomedical disciplines…just be read across to these disciplines? …Within that, many social science [and humanities] journals…are small niche journals, and they’re communities in themselves. There’s actually no way you could convert them to a charge per article basis. They just would never be sustainable. …For all those small social science publishers, of which there are thousands, …literally would not be able to operate under this model.” – David Ross, Sage

“The social sciences and humanities…has to rely on a combination of hybrid and green archiving. …The idea that…anyone could just flip some of these journals and create brand new vehicles…is beyond me.” – David Ross, Sage

“If you take transformational agreements as I’m currently reading them to be, read and publish deals or some kind of arrangement like that, [niche society publishers] are just too small from a librarian’s perspective to have those individual conversations, because from an institute’s perspective, the output from their researchers in our tiny portfolio of journals is not high enough that it warrants a conversation around a bespoke read and publish deal or some other kind of bespoke arrangement. If Plan S is going to say, ‘Hybrid is only compliant in a world where you have these kind of deals,’ well, these kind of deals can only be done by the biggest publishers with the largest scale. So where does that leave the kind of publisher that we are?” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press

“Science doesn’t have borders. Science is about international collaboration these days. It’s getting more multicultural, more interdisciplinary. You’ve got people collaborating across the globe. So, when you have a group of funders in a ring-fenced number of countries saying, ‘Where we are funding things, we want these rules to play out,’ what happens? What happens when a Chinese author is collaborating with somebody based in Europe, is collaborating with somebody based in the US, and the work is only [partially] funded by one of these funders? Whose rules are going to play out?” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press

“APCs… is there a bill to be paid… This sort of administrative burden matters, because ideally none of us want to burden a researcher’s life with the hassle of any of this.” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press

“Is Plan S possibly going to drive further consolidation in the market? If the major complaint of the science funding bodies is that the major publishers have too much leverage, this type of fast movement can force the hand of smaller societies to give over their programs.” – Chuck Hemenway, CCC

“With Plan S, what we have is the problem, perhaps, or a challenge, of a lack of consultation or consideration, around perspectives [of small society publishers]. [Plus] potentially, a lack of details – certainly at the moment, and it remains to see what that detail is. A lot rests on what that detail looks like. And thirdly, a lack of time, because 2020 is essentially right here.” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press

[The value of publishers in an Open Access environment.] “We have a number of different stakeholder groups, of which our shareholders are one, of which our authors are one, of which our employees are one, of which our funders are one, and that is why, ultimately, we do have a mixed model. All we can do is continue to point out what we do and the value that we bring.” – Tim Britton, Springer Nature

“There’s a lot of the US societies kind of shrugging their shoulders at this and going, well, we just won’t publish that 2% of researchers in our journals, then, and we’ll move on, because it’s not impacting the US.” – David Ross, Sage

“This is academic publishing. Every journal is different. That’s why they’re not fungible goods – they’re communities. And many of these communities, if it were played out as in the 10-points of Plan S, would be destroyed by that. That’s how you’ve got to engage.” – David Ross, Sage

“I think where we have to work is with the funding bodies, with the institutions, to make workflows and make ways that can shield the researcher community from this, because their focus needs to be on the science.” – Malavika Legge, Portland Press

View the full transcript here.

Recommended Reading:

The post Get Smart About Plan S appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/get-smart-plan-s/feed/ 0