Blog – Copyright Clearance Center http://www.copyright.com Rights Licensing Expert Fri, 15 Dec 2017 20:51:03 +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 A Look Back: Challenges of OA in 2017 http://www.copyright.com/blog/look-back-challenges-oa-2017/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/look-back-challenges-oa-2017/#respond Thu, 14 Dec 2017 08:00:50 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=14621 Top OA issues: the burden of expected author OA expertise; the underutilization of metadata in the publication lifecycle, and the challenges posed to authors and institutions by one-off solutions.

The post A Look Back: Challenges of OA in 2017 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Over the course of the year, three issues repeatedly reared their heads as barriers to the successful implementation of Open Access: the burden of expected author OA expertise; the underutilization of metadata in the publication lifecycle, and the challenges posed to authors and institutions by one-off solutions. October 2017 marked the tenth Open Access Week. With its theme on the concrete benefits of making scholarly research openly available, where have we gotten to in solving these problems and realizing the potential of OA?

1. The OA compliance labyrinth increases the burden on authors

By now, institutions, funders and publishers have developed a raft of OA guidelines and systems. But is it realistic or reasonable to expect authors to learn a whole new ecosystem in addition to their day jobs? A recent report from OpenAIRE identified a lack of incentives for authors to move to OA and the need to improve technical infrastructure for publishing and archiving. Likewise, the level of complexity is such that author education is no longer a suitable strategy for enabling OA authors to get to publication. Instead, the focus must shift to author automation, using technology to save time and improve the author experience. Systems can be structured using logic rules to drive pre-population of key fields and menus to help them understand what they should know and do to successfully comply with the policies of all stakeholders.

As the 10th Open Access Week draws to a close, with its focus on the concrete benefits of making scholarly research openly available, where have we gotten to in solving these problems and realizing the potential of OA?

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation set up Chronos (reported at the ALPSP conference) to help grantees focus on research, rather than the process of publishing, by helping them identify and submit work to compliant journals. And as reported in this earlier post, Copyright Clearance Center are working to develop a new range of tools within RightsLink© platform to assist authors in seamlessly complying with publisher, funder, and institutional mandates.

2. Metadata are underutilized pre- and post-article-publication

Upstream of article publication, consistent metadata is essential for successfully automating author Article Publication Charge workflows. Without requiring metadata such as funding information, author affiliations, or ORCiDs, publishers cannot deliver a smart compliant workflow that removes the burden of OA expertise from the author. Likewise, open doesn’t necessarily mean discoverable in the post-publication ecosystem. Without the appropriate, consistent metadata, it’s just online content that doesn’t find an audience, deliver its potential impact, further scientific dialogue, or provide recognition for the researcher(s).

What’s being done to orchestrate metadata adoption and related policy to ensure consistency across the STM industry? A new initiative – Metadata 2020 – launched in September 2017, aims to elevate metadata to the level of strategic priority for the whole research community. Key stakeholders have agreed to work together to connect systems and communities, remove duplication, improve discoverability and boost innovation.

3.  Authors and institutions are disadvantaged by the multiplication of proprietary solutions

While large publishers have resources to build new bespoke systems, what happens to other stakeholders if they all pursue proprietary solutions? Authors, funders and institutions are asked to register for, learn about, and use a myriad of individual systems. Now is the time to ask ourselves whether the big disadvantage of this approach is less uptake of OA across the board. We have already witnessed the clear expression of researchers’ preference for a consistent and unified user experience in the area of content discovery, reflected in the rise of non-publisher-specific platforms like ResearchGate. Is the APC payment space next to follow?

If we want to find a cost-effective and user-friendly experience to managing the APC process, outsourced, interoperable approaches will be critical in making the process efficient and effective.

 

 

A version of this post originally appeared in IP Watch.

The post A Look Back: Challenges of OA in 2017 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/look-back-challenges-oa-2017/feed/ 0
How Enterprise Data Science Has the Potential to Impact Life Sciences http://www.copyright.com/blog/enterprise-data-science-life-sciences/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/enterprise-data-science-life-sciences/#respond Tue, 12 Dec 2017 07:18:16 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=15130 How can life sciences organizations transform large volumes of complex data into hypothesis-generating knowledge representation? Enterprise data science.

The post How Enterprise Data Science Has the Potential to Impact Life Sciences appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Enterprise data science is a multidisciplinary approach to data analysis that transforms large volumes and varieties of complex data into hypothesis-generating knowledge representations such as graphs. Of particular interest are strategies to extract and integrate relevant features and relationships from unstructured, unstandardized bulk data, such as draft and published texts.

In life sciences, this requires the integration of expertise from several disciplines such as molecular biology and organic chemistry, statistics and machine learning, computer science and systems engineering.

Life science companies accumulate vast amounts of textual data: laboratory protocols and observations, experiment outcomes, grant and patent applications, conference abstracts, pre- and post-publication research articles. Additionally, companies collect and curate structured textual data in the form of dictionaries and ontologies. The quality of these data varies a lot and is often stored in various formats across multiple systems. Taking advantage of this information requires a robust, scalable, and adaptable pipeline of automatic and semi-automatic approaches that:

  • collect and pool unstructured as well as structured data;
  • ensure data coherency through validation and filtering, standardization, abstraction, and integration of the inputs;
  • transform and merge unstructured inputs into structured features and define relationships between them;
  • iteratively improve the process and its output through cross-validation and the addition of new data sources.

Enterprise data science pipelines require application of advanced analytical methods to large datasets in real time, and thus rely on scalable computational platforms. Although recent advances in machine learning, cloud computing, and big data made these approaches a reality, realization of these data systems requires deep knowledge of the data sources and practical knowledge of machine learning algorithms. A lot of work is currently directed at developing ways of making enterprise data science less opaque and more practically available to users of all levels.

Ready to learn more? Check out:

The post How Enterprise Data Science Has the Potential to Impact Life Sciences appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/enterprise-data-science-life-sciences/feed/ 0
Putting an End to the Book Famine for the Blind http://www.copyright.com/blog/putting-end-book-famine-blind/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/putting-end-book-famine-blind/#comments Thu, 07 Dec 2017 18:10:48 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=15122 253 million people live with vision impairment, yet less than 10% of published works are made into accessible formats.

The post Putting an End to the Book Famine for the Blind appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
According to the World Health Organization, an estimated 253 million people live with vision impairment: 36 million are blind and another 217 million have moderately to severely reduced vision. In addition, there are millions of people with other kinds of print disability, such as dyslexic people and persons who are paralyzed and cannot manipulate a book or an e-book.

They all suffer from what is known as the “book famine.” In developed countries, notes the World Blind Union, less than 10% of published works are made into accessible formats, while in developing countries the situation is even worse, because only 1% of books are ever made into accessible formats. This situation represents an enormous barrier to information, knowledge and education for blind and partially sighted people, especially students.

Marrakesh Treaty: A roadmap for equality

On July 18, 2016, American musician Stevie Wonder welcomed the entry into force of the Marrakesh Treaty with powerful words. “A treaty that promises to end the global book famine… A pact,” he said, “that means that the millions of people in the world who are blind or visually impaired will be able to read books in accessible formats in various regions where they did not previously have access, regardless of their financial means.”

“In an ideal world, all literary works would be available and discoverable to sighted and print disabled readers at the same time and price.” – José Borghino

To address this challenge, the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled, was adopted in 2013 under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and entered into force in 2016. The treaty was conceived to foster and ease the production and transfer of accessible books, including across national boundaries. To achieve these goals, it established a set of limitations and exceptions to copyright, mandatory for ratifying countries, for the benefit of the blind, visually impaired and otherwise print disabled. So far, 91 countries have signed the treaty and 33 of them have ratified it.

The practical side of accessible books

But is the Marrakesh Treaty enough in and of itself to solve the problem? Everyone involved seems to agree that it is not. The treaty itself, in its recitals, acknowledges that other mechanisms are needed to fight the book famine. Along with technological solutions, what is crucial to provide equal access to books is to promote accessible publishing, or the design and production of books in accessible formats from their conception.

Promoting the production of “born accessible” publications that can be fully accessed by all readers is one of the missions of the Accessible Books Consortium (ABC), a private-public partnership created in 2014 that aims to implement the objectives of the Marrakesh Treaty at a practical level. Led by WIPO, the Accessible Books Consortium includes in its board organizations representing globally authors, publishers, libraries, blind people and others.

ABC has published a number of practical tools to advance accessible publishing, including a Books for All starter kit and a set of detailed Best Practice Guidelines for Publishers. They also present an annual award to recognize leadership and achievements in advancing the accessibility of digital publications. In a recent interview, one of the winners of the 2017 award, Huw Alexander, Digital Sales Manager at SAGE Publishing, stated that “inclusive publishing encourages innovation and community. More simply, accessibility makes reading better.”

Connecting blind and the visually impaired readers with books

The Accessible Books Consortium also runs an ambitious Global Book Service: an online catalogue where libraries for the blind and organizations serving people who are print disabled can easily obtain the content they need. Joined so far by 25 libraries for the blind, it currently contains over 360,000 titles in 76 languages, and 165,000 loans have been made to blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled individuals.

“In an ideal world, all literary works would be available and discoverable to sighted and print disabled readers at the same time and price,” according to José Borghino, the Secretary General of the International Publishers Association, an organization that sits on the board of the ABC Consortium. “Thanks to great strides in collaboration among all in the information chain, from author to reader, and thanks to advances in technology, this may become reality sooner than some may imagine.”

The post Putting an End to the Book Famine for the Blind appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/putting-end-book-famine-blind/feed/ 1
Recent Developments in US Federal Open Access Policies: FASTR Moves Slower http://www.copyright.com/blog/us-federal-open-access-policies-fastr/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/us-federal-open-access-policies-fastr/#respond Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:33:17 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=15069 Wondering what's happening with the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR)? Here's an update.

The post Recent Developments in US Federal Open Access Policies: FASTR Moves Slower appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
On July 26, H.R. 3427, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), was reintroduced in the US House of Representatives by Michael Doyle [D-PA-14]. This was followed by a similar bill in the Senate, S. 1701, reintroduced there on August 2 by Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX]. Essentially similar versions of these bills have been placed in the legislative hopper for three sessions now, introduced by mostly the same Senators and Representatives.

In 2013, under the Obama Administration, the introduction of FASTR was accompanied by an Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policy guidance memorandum which required all Federal agencies with annual R&D award budgets over $100 million to develop plans to support “increased public access.”

Will the Trump White House support FASTR?

There is no evidence that this remains a priority of the current Administration, and indeed there are reasons to believe that the Trump White House might not be inclined to support it.  As of September 13, 2017, the OSTP guidance document, “Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research” (2013) no longer appears on the White House web site. That said, as of now, the public access mandates (e.g., NIH, NSF) already in place have not been rescinded or revised.

How FASTR addresses embargoes

One key question addressed in FASTR is that of ‘embargoes’, referring to the time after which a research output resulting from Federal funds, such as an article or a data set, needs to be made “publicly available to every scientist, physician, educator, and citizen at home, in school, or in a library… .”

The House version envisions a 6-month embargo; the Senate version, 12 months. Currently, most US agencies follow the 12-month precedent set by the NIH.  The difference between a 6-month and a 12-month embargo is considered crucially important by many publishers, the former being problematic (because it means the free version competes with the paid, published version before the publication has had a reasonable time for sale in the marketplace) and the latter, longer, time relatively bearable. (It should be noted that these are the reactions in the science publishing industry; in the humanities and some of the social sciences, even 12 months is considered much too short.)

Much of the discussion of FASTR and other such policy directives — sometimes referred to as ‘mandates’ — centers around the issue of these embargoes. That said, there still remains an additional concern around a potential requirement that materials be made available under an “open access” (or “OA”) license which will essentially allow commercial reuse by anyone, without separate consent of the author or other rightsholder, even in competition with that author or other rightsholder.

In July, however, the OMB hosted a “Roundtable on Open Data,” which may be taken as a signal of continuing support for “Federal Open Data.” Of course, the openness of Federal data can easily be construed as a pro-business policy.

Finally, major research funders, such as the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation, now include OA requirements (often including free commercial as well as non-commercial reuse) as part of their conditions of grant support. These do not rise to the level of government-required mandates, but these funders are highly influential.

While certainly a 6-month embargo period would bring the viability of some journals into question, ought publishers accede to the inevitable at this point and accept that a 12-month embargo is the best that they can hope for in the U.S. legal environment? Is this a fight still worth having? There is public good resulting from openness, but how does that balance with the public good of having viable business models?

Publishers are concerned that the material value they add to the research publishing process is under-recognized. In a classic article by Kent Anderson for Scholarly Kitchen, he enumerated “96 Things Publishers Do.” A model that bleeds the money out of this system, as would a 6-month embargo, obviously would impair the ability of publishers to add this unique value. Acceding to such a move at the insistence of the government and some funders, might come back to bite the scholarly and research community for it could place the burden of such needful tasks as peer-review, copyediting and fact-checking, squarely on the backs of the public, or of the community of researchers themselves.

The demand for open science is valid; equally so is the expectation of quality science.

What happens next?

What actions are appropriate and prudent at this time? Well, there’s no campaign called “Not so fast, FASTR.” In its absence, interested parties can call or write their Senators and Representatives to express any concerns they have with these Bills in their current form. The OSTP doesn’t have any open comment period underway at the moment, but presumably one will be forthcoming at some point; this will provide another opportunity to speak up and weigh in

 

The post Recent Developments in US Federal Open Access Policies: FASTR Moves Slower appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/us-federal-open-access-policies-fastr/feed/ 0
Focus on Fair Use: Debunking Copyright’s Snake Oil Salesmen http://www.copyright.com/blog/focus-fair-use-debunking-copyrights-snake-oil-salesmen/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/focus-fair-use-debunking-copyrights-snake-oil-salesmen/#respond Fri, 01 Dec 2017 08:00:16 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=15022 Creators’ interests and the public’s interests are mutually reinforcing. Don't the author and the reader need each other?

The post Focus on Fair Use: Debunking Copyright’s Snake Oil Salesmen appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
I was on the phone last week talking to someone about a potential partnership between our two organizations that could benefit individual creators. We began by exchanging information about our respective organizations. He spoke first, and I followed. After explaining that the mission of the Copyright Alliance is to promote the value of copyright and to protect creators’ interests, the person on the other end of the phone said something that caught me by surprise. He said that he didn’t think his organization could partner with us because we support copyright law and, therefore, must not support fair use.

But it still astounds me that there are so many people who consider copyright and fair use as two opposite notions.

Maybe this statement shouldn’t have surprised me, having worked at the Copyright Alliance for more than two years. But it still astounds me that there are so many people who consider copyright and fair use as two opposite notions.

Creator Rights and Public Use: Opposing Force, or Applied Force?

I think a lot of the misunderstanding about copyright is due to the persistent and intentionally deceptive messaging by certain groups – let’s call them copyright snake oil salesmen – that attempt to denigrate copyright by pitting creators’ interests against the public interest. In doing so, they intentionally ignore the purpose of copyright law (to incentivize creation and dissemination of creative works to the public) and the internal balancing mechanisms in the copyright law (like exclusive rights and defenses, such as fair use). This approach is tremendously damaging to the goals of copyright, our creative future, and the economic and cultural well-being of our nation.

Setting creators’ copyright interests on one scale and the public’s interests on the other is both one-dimensional and detrimental to the overall goals of copyright – because its underlying premise is that creators’ interests are distinct from the public’s interests, and that one can only be furthered at the expense of the other. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, creators’ interests and the public’s interests are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. They are not opposed to one another. After all, doesn’t the author need the reader? Don’t the performer and the audience both need each other?

Giving creators a marketable right in the tangible expression they produce is the best way to advance the interests of both the creator and the public, and it’s also the foundation that underlies copyright. By keeping in mind the intertwined nature of the private right and the public gain, we can better reach a more balanced and healthy approach to copyright.

Establishing marketable property rights balances between two of the primary goals of copyright: rewarding creators’ labor and encouraging the dissemination of creative and informational works to the public. Importantly, copyright law also balances the interests of creators in recouping the value of their work while preserving the ability for follow-on and downstream creators (and the public) to build on existing works through inspiration, homage, criticism, and commentary.

Everyone Benefits from Fair Use

One way the Copyright Act does this is through the fair use doctrine. Some of the strongest supporters of fair use are the very creators who rely on copyright to earn a living and who are members of the Copyright Alliance. Creators who rely on copyright themselves very often make fair uses of works in the creation of their own, new works. Journalists, filmmakers, and authors, just to name a few, routinely rely on fair use to create new copyrighted works.

So, when we at the Copyright Alliance talk about the value of copyright, we are talking about all aspects of copyright and not just certain parts or certain people. We don’t separate fair use and treat it as the redheaded stepchild of copyright. We embrace fair use as a necessary and important part of copyright, just as we embrace other aspects of the law.

Our copyright law has helped make this country the world leader in innovation and creativity. A robust, well-functioning and up-to-date copyright law is essential to everyone – creators, owners, users, the public, and many others.

#UniteForCopyright

Let’s not fall into the trap set by these snake oil salesmen who seek to divide us into those that support creators’ rights and those that support fair use. Instead, let’s unite around all of copyright law and support copyright and creativity. Let’s #UniteForCopyright.

Keith Kupferschmid is the CEO of the Copyright Alliance. For more blogs by Keith and the Alliance, click here.

The post Focus on Fair Use: Debunking Copyright’s Snake Oil Salesmen appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/focus-fair-use-debunking-copyrights-snake-oil-salesmen/feed/ 0
Can’t-Miss Sessions at STM Week 2017 http://www.copyright.com/blog/cant-miss-sessions-stm-week-2017/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/cant-miss-sessions-stm-week-2017/#respond Thu, 30 Nov 2017 08:00:37 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=14941 CCC is proud to be a Silver Sponsor of STM Week events, which will take place this year on 5 – 7 December, at the Congress Centre in London.

The post Can’t-Miss Sessions at STM Week 2017 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
CCC is proud to be a Silver Sponsor of STM Week events, which will take place this year on 5 – 7 December, at the Congress Centre in London. STM is the leading global trade association for academic and professional publishers, with a mission to help disseminate the results of research in the fields of science, technology and medicine.

STM is the leading global trade association for academic and professional publishers, with a mission to help disseminate the results of research in the fields of science, technology and medicine.

We’ve asked members of the CCC team who’ll be in attendance for their take on “can’t miss” sessions from the Digital Publishing Conference (5 December), the Innovation Seminar (6 December) and the Future of Publishing Conference (7 December).

Miles McNamee, Vice President of Licensing and Business Development 

There are so many good sessions, it’s hard to pick just one. But I’m particularly interested in the series of presentations under the banner of “Resource Access in the 21st Century: A joint project by STM and NISO” (2:45 PM, 6 December), which is part of the Innovations Seminar. Access to content – on any device, at any location – is a critical and growing need in today’s information age. Users expect reliable and rapid access to content, as well as the highest possible level of data privacy. Yet publishers also need to know who has authorized access to the content they provide to protect it from misuse. RA21, whose mission is to align and simplify pathways to subscribed content across participating scientific platforms, is currently exploring potential IP-authentication alternatives among researcher, customer, vendor, and publisher partners. This session covers outcomes from the pilot programs, with feedback from participants like the American Chemical Society and GlaxoSmithKline. It also takes a deep-dive into the technology, and tackles questions about what’s next for publishers and content subscribers in the area of authentication. These are huge challenges for our industry, and it’s exciting to see meaningful progress achieved through collaboration.

Bill O’Brien, Business Development Director 

The session, “Help! I’m an Author – Get Me out of Here: A Wishlist for Better Research Dissemination for Authors” by Sally Rumsey, Head of Scholarly Communications at the Bodleian stands out to me. It kicks off the Digital Publishing Conference (9:40 AM, 5 December) and promises to be very timely and engaging. We’re all witnessing the OA environment getting more and more complex. Authors – and by extension, their institutions – are struggling to keep track of all of the policies, mandates, and options available to them in addition to their primary responsibilities as researchers. Dialogue like this, that is focused on how publishers, as well as partners like CCC, can improve the experience of authors, will be central to the future success and sustainability of OA for all stakeholders.

Darren Gillgrass, Director of Rightsholder Products and Services 

While I’m no avid fan of Avatar or Titanic, I suspect that the Future of Publishing Conference session, “What Can James Cameron Teach You About Doing Business in China?” hosted by Joanne Sheppard of Holztbrinck Publishing Group (1:40 PM on 7 December) will have some interesting take-aways for publishers and other industry partners. China is expected to overtake the US in R&D spending in the near future, and the volume and quality of research output from Asia more generally is growing exponentially. Back in 2004, both the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and the National Science Foundation for China (NSFC) – two big players in the scholarly research space in China, signed the Berlin Declaration on Open Access. Developments like these, which have compounded across the last decade, should motivate organizations in the industry to pay attention to the needs of these authors, which differ from those in other geographies.

Interested in meeting up with CCC during STM Week? Send us a message (publishers@copyright.com) and we’ll contact you!

The post Can’t-Miss Sessions at STM Week 2017 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/cant-miss-sessions-stm-week-2017/feed/ 0
Music & Copyright: What You Need to Know About the CASE Act http://www.copyright.com/blog/music-copyright-need-know-case-act/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/music-copyright-need-know-case-act/#respond Tue, 28 Nov 2017 06:28:24 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=14869 Here’s a look inside the CASE Act, a bipartisan bill proposing to ease the burden of disputes concerning the use of musical works.

The post Music & Copyright: What You Need to Know About the CASE Act appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
A friend of mine has a professional, working rock band (and he is not only lead guitarist but principal composer of the group’s original music). They are not headliners, but they’ve opened for some nationally known acts, and they have four or five albums out there of their original music. Recently, my friend learned that some people in another state wanted to use his music in a TV ad, but they didn’t want to pay him beyond a nominal rate. After breaking off discussion of these terms, they went ahead and used it anyway.

Can he sue them for copyright infringement? Sure – but at what cost, especially if it’s in another state? We’re not talking millions of dollars in missing royalties here. At most, a mortgage payment or two. Should he bother? Would it be worth it?

As it turns out, these sorts of low-profile copyright cases are quite common.

Introducing the CASE Act

Back in July 2017, US Representatives Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY-8), with several co-sponsors, introduced a bipartisan bill, the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act. In October,the bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on the Courts, and IP, Intellectual Property and the Internet of the House Judiciary Committee under Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA-6).

From my perspective, it’s a interesting piece of proposed legislation that would make a meaningful change. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) summary for it outlines the main proposal:  a “small claims board” would be established, with authorization  to “(1) conduct hearings and conferences to facilitate parties’ settlement of claims [of copyright infringement] and counterclaims; (2) render independent determinations based on copyright laws and regulations; (3) award monetary relief; and (4) require cessation or mitigation of infringing activity, including the takedown or destruction of infringing materials, where the parties agree.”  The bill also provides that the case can be conducted mostly online.

What does this have to do with my friend and his music, and that infringement case? It’s probably not a surprise to learn that copyright litigation can be very expensive – one estimate from the American Intellectual Property Law Association suggests that the average cost of a case in recent years, including appeals, runs over $278,000.  The CASE Act would make it a lot simpler, and a lot less costly, to get a relatively small case expedited, heard, and resolved in short order. Think of it as – almost –  Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) for copyright matters.

Although very little in the way of copyright legislation has made it through Congress to the President’s desk in the past five years, if the stars align properly, this bill just might. Several organizations have indicated their support for this bill, including the Songwriters Guild of America and the National Music Publishers Association.

Keep your fingers crossed. If it passes, maybe I can score you some tickets to my friend’s next show. (Just kidding.)

Learn more about music licensing:

The post Music & Copyright: What You Need to Know About the CASE Act appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/music-copyright-need-know-case-act/feed/ 0
Tracey Armstrong on Women in Publishing: ‘Still Striving for Equal Pay’ http://www.copyright.com/blog/tracey-armstrong-women-publishing-still-striving-for-equal-pay/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/tracey-armstrong-women-publishing-still-striving-for-equal-pay/#respond Tue, 21 Nov 2017 08:00:25 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=14695 CCC's CEO, Tracey Armstrong, discusses diversity and gender equality in publishing and beyond--a hot topic at this year's Frankfurt Book Fair.

The post Tracey Armstrong on Women in Publishing: ‘Still Striving for Equal Pay’ appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
‘Deeply Ingrained’ Attitudes

Women’s struggle to break into C-level positions in corporate settings is hardly exclusive to publishing, says Tracey Armstrong, president and CEO at Copyright Clearance Center.

“But I do think there’s some momentum” in publishing these days, she says. “I see the Publishers Association in the UK coming up with a program on diversity I’ve talked on a panel at London Book Fair about diversity. And I do think ‘diversity’ is further-reaching than gender diversity.

“But we do tend to do a lot of studies and a lot of talking. We contemplate the issue, but we don’t seem to be able to break the barrier. And I don’t think that some of this is unrelated to the US election.

“I think that over all, society is challenged in accepting women in positions of power. And that’s deeply ingrained in who we are, both men and women. I don’t think it’s appropriate to say that men are holding women back. I think that in many ways culture is holding them back. Societal norms are holding them back.”

In an interview with Publishing Perspectives ahead of her appearance on a panel with sister women executives on October 10 at Frankfurt Book Fair in its 2017 The Markets conference, Armstrong explored the all-but-invisible power of assumptions and behavior in our workplace lives today–and the proximity that women executives typically have, or not, to money and power in business.

Armstrong appeared on the panel with:

• Sophie de Closets of Fayard in Paris
• Arpita Das of Yoda Press in New Delhi
• Xandra Ramos-Padilla of Manila’s National Book Store and Anvil Publishing
• Vicky Williams of the UK’s Emerald Group
• Moderator Jane Tappuni of IPR License in the UK

To CEOs: ‘Get Out of the Office’

Armstrong is well aware of what “unconscious bias” might entail in a business setting. “Language, the harsh descriptions and emotional language that we use when we’re critiquing women as opposed to the more intellectual terms we use when we’re critiquing men. It’s so deeply embodied in who we are,” she says. “Writ large, that’s what’s going on.

“Then to go from the macro to micro, we don’t have women in positions of ‘owning revenue’ often enough” in corporate leadership. “I believe that’s very important. We see more women in executive positions in marketing, in human resources, and these are critical positions. But you tend to ascend past a certain point in an organization when you have P&L [profit and loss] ownership and you’re driving revenue or profitability or both. I think that’s an important element.”

In many conversations about women and advancement in the workplace, the topic of mentoring arises. “And I do think that mentoring is important,” Armstrong says. “But I think it’s as important for men to mentor women as it is for women to mentor women emerging in their careers. How those men made achievements in their careers, I think it’s important for them to impart that” to women.

“I think you see much more of women mentoring women,” Armstrong says. “And when we see executives wondering, ‘Why isn’t my organization more diverse?’ we need to ask what are they doing, what are those male CEOs and line owners doing to bring women up? What chances are they taking with women? What pilot programs are they initiating? Not studying the issue and going and interviewing.

“The talent of the future works for you already. You just haven’t met them yet. You’ve got to get out of your office. You’ve got to walk around the halls and meet these people. You’ve got to talk to them.”

Armstrong points to the kinds of discrepancies in workplace behavior that are so common that we tend not to notice them. “For example, in the younger generations, you may see employees leaving work early today,” she says, “both men and women, because family responsibilities are much more shared. But when the man leaves the office, he’s just ‘leaving early.’ The woman?—is explaining. ‘I’ve got to pick my son up.’ The way society has stovepiped and stereotyped that kind of behavior, it’s diminishing her contribution.

“Now, should she not say that? It’s hard for me to say that she shouldn’t say” that she has to leave to pick up a child from school. “But it’s important to recognize the ‘off-label’ effects of saying it, the off-label effects of diminishing our contributions for reminding our employers of our other obligations when, of course, our employers want as much of our mind-share as they can get.

“I think this is a serious challenge, particularly at the most senior levels. When you get past a certain threshold and you’re really trying to move” in your career, “you’re usually in the minority group in the room. If you’re really trying to ascend in your career, you’ve got to get used to being by yourself as the only female at the table.

“I’ve actually counseled women in my own company not to take notes in the meetings. I’m absolutely a nut about this, you can ask my colleagues, about rotating the note-taking. On the executive team? Male, female, dog, cat, bird, whoever you are, you’re going to take notes. And we rotate on a quarterly basis. Because before we did that, you can bet who was taking the notes. It was always the women, regardless of their position or title.”

‘These Waters Run Deep’

The subtlety of such culturally embedded expectations was reflected last Wednesday (September 20) in a report by Kim Parker and Renee Stepler at the Pew Center’s FactTank in which research indicates that, “In about a third of married or cohabiting couples in the United States, women bring in half or more of the earnings, a significant increase from the past.

“But in most couples,” the report reads, “men contribute more of the income, and this aligns with the fact that Americans place a higher value on a man’s role as financial provider.”

The nationally representative survey behind this finding comprised input from 4,971 adults and was conducted in August using Pew Research Center’s American Trends panel.

Armstrong, asked if there’s a time ahead when such biases can be reversed, says, “We’re just trying to keep the lid on them for now, trying to keep it from getting worse.

“I have a 21-year-old daughter,” Armstrong says, “and do I think it will be meaningfully better for her? I don’t think it will be worse. I’m not confident how much better it will be.”

Looking at the political landscape of the autumn, Armstrong says, “In the last 18 months, we’ve learned a lot, certainly in the United States, about how deeply rooted are the biases that we thought we’d progressed on. That definitely includes gender bias.

“I read recently about Hillary Clinton, for example, a question of whether any other politician had ever been asked so many times to apologize. I think that’s an excellent insight. I’m not making a comment as to whether she should have apologized for some of her choices such as the email server” that became a point of distraction and bitter dispute in the 2016 US presidential election.

“The point is, how much are we going to labor over these things, how many minutiae are we going to ask her to apologize for? As opposed to offenses committed by male politicians. We’re not getting apologies from our current president on some of his vulgar language, which we have on videotape.”

Such double standards—expectations of female apologies but not male apologies—show us that “These waters run very deep,” Armstrong says, “so I don’t think we’re going to see marked improvement one generation from me” in her daughter’s time.

“We can certainly think about systemic changes in education. We can certainly think about equal pay” for women and men, “which we’re still striving toward. Think about that.”

And when was the last time you heard male employees being asked how they deal with work-life balance?

“That’s because ‘balance’ is much more a heart-word than a head-word,” Armstrong says. “And we do tend to deal with women much more heart-words, words out of the chest, than words out of the head. In all areas.

“Look at the differences in emails as an example,” she says. “I’ll get an email from a young woman that says, ‘I love that idea.’ And then I’ll get one from a young man who says, ‘I think that idea is great.’”

Sharply attuned to these distinctions, Copyright Clearance Center’s Tracey Armstrong says she’s glad to be participating in the Frankfurt panel at The Markets. And she has no delusions of how entrenched so many biases may be.

“In 2017, we’re having to have a panel on women executives in publishing,” she says. “And we’re still striving for equal pay.”

This post originally appeared in Publishing Perspectives.

The post Tracey Armstrong on Women in Publishing: ‘Still Striving for Equal Pay’ appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/tracey-armstrong-women-publishing-still-striving-for-equal-pay/feed/ 0
What is Value Data and Why Do Information Managers Need It? http://www.copyright.com/blog/value-data-information-managers/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/value-data-information-managers/#respond Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:31:26 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=14823 Being armed with value data makes justifying R&D content spend significantly easier. Here are some types of value indicators to consider.

The post What is Value Data and Why Do Information Managers Need It? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Information managers have been using usage statistics for years to determine what content researchers consider important. While quantitative analytics are extremely important, standalone usage statistics are only the starting point. Data needs to tell a story that goes beyond numbers, and provide a more precise picture of what users are most interested in – and which content supports overarching business initiatives.

If you’re just beginning to gather and analyze data to inform your content strategy, it’s important to first assess your information center’s goals and set key performance indicators to measure against. Once you’ve determined your goals and KPIs, you’ll need to analyze and share with stakeholders.

This excerpt below from our new white paper, Tell Your Information Center’s ROI Story Through Data Visualizations, highlights the importance of value data when justifying your R&D content investments.

What is Value Data?

Information managers know that sometimes usage and spend data is not enough. There are many cases where cost is high and use is low, but the content is vital to the organization. Unfortunately, when budgets are flat or on the decline, this narrative won’t be enough. You need to be able to prove the value of content beyond usage metrics.

Here are some types of value indicators to consider:

  • What is the impact of usage on the research pipeline? For example, was a publication used heavily during early research? Does the usage of a specific business unit have a significant impact on one pipeline stage? This information will allow you to understand more than just sum usage numbers, but also the value of the content in helping the company bring products to market.
  • What are users searching for and are those searches aligned with organizational goals? If you know what users are looking for or what they will be focused on, you can make the case for content in those focus areas. It also helps you identify new content needs and gaps in coverage.
  • Could this content impact different areas within the organization? When different groups use the same content for various purposes, it’s easier to prove its value. For example, content that is used by marketing, research and regulatory groups may have higher value because its benefit can be seen across the organization.

Think about it like this: If a small group of researchers is interested in an obscure journal, you may wonder if it’s worth the investment. If you dig deeper and learn that in part through that journal’s research, a breakthrough discovery was made, the value of that subscription skyrockets. Being armed with these types of insights make justifying content spend significantly easier.

Ready to learn more? Check out:

The post What is Value Data and Why Do Information Managers Need It? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/value-data-information-managers/feed/ 0
Defining Open Access in 4 Minutes or Less http://www.copyright.com/blog/defining-open-access-4-minutes-less/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/defining-open-access-4-minutes-less/#respond Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:00:05 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=14875 Roy Kaufman provides a quick but informative overview about Open Access and its impact on the availability of valuable content.

The post Defining Open Access in 4 Minutes or Less appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Open Access has been described as everything from a business model to a movement. Join Roy Kaufman as he provides a quick but informative overview about Open Access and its impact on the availability and use of valuable content.

Open Access has been described as everything from a business model to a movement, and it generally involves the ability of users to access articles in full text from the open web, without the necessity of having to pay a license fee, a pay-per-use fee, or other provide information before being able to access the article.

There are some definitions of open access that also include licensing. Some people will define open access as requiring that the article have a license which allows people to reuse the work, make derivatives of the work, mine the work, and do other things without the permission from the original author, always so long as attribution is used. Others have less expansive versions, and generally view things to be open access so long as a user can get to it.

At a recent event called the Open Scholarship Initiative, which was sponsored by the United Nations, I participated in a panel which was out there to define “open.” Now, it was more than just open access because it was about open scholarship, and in that group, we defined openness as a continuum of various attributes. Those attributes include things not just involving reuse rights, but…

  • How open is the peer review?
  • Is the underlying data made openly available?
  • Is it searchable?
  • Is it able to be linked to on the web?
  • Can people find it?
  • Can people use it?
  • Is the sponsorship of the underlying research disclosed in a clear and concise way?

So, the moment you start talking about openness, there are a whole lot of other attributes beyond just being able to access the document, which we would all agree is the fundamental baseline, and other attributes such as the ones I’ve mentioned.

There are also several other flavors of open access which are often known as Gold Road and Green Road. Those terms can be really confusing, but the simplest way to think about it, particularly if you’re a user or author, is under the Gold Road, the article is published upon the payment of a fee to a publisher, and the article, the version of record, is then available to everyone.

Under the Green Road, which is favored by some governments under mandates, the version of record isn’t generally made available. It’s a version of the article that’s made available prior to publication. So, it might not have copyediting, links, pagination, and a lot of the value-add that publishers put on. When you access articles thus, particularly if you’re in a repository and not on a publisher’s website, you do want to check, is this the version of record or some other version, the submitted version or the accepted version, or even a version that’s been modified since publication.

Now, I realize I’ve just thrown a million concepts at you, and all of these concepts are not just complicated but often subject to dispute. So what I’ll recommend, as I often do, is some links where you can get more information.

 

The post Defining Open Access in 4 Minutes or Less appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/defining-open-access-4-minutes-less/feed/ 0