Blog – Copyright Clearance Center http://www.copyright.com Rights Licensing Expert Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:23:30 +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 LCMS : What Are They Really Good For? http://www.copyright.com/blog/lcms-what-are-they-really-good-for/ Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:45:43 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=31047 With the majority of the enterprise still working from home or working in a hybrid model, it’s never been more critical to strengthen enterprise learning strategies with the right tools and systems.

The post LCMS : What Are They Really Good For? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
This is the second in our series of posts discussing Learning Content Management Solutions (LCMS), and their application to the Learning & Development (L&D) challenges encountered by business organizations of all types. With the majority of the enterprise still working from home or working in a hybrid model, it’s never been more critical to strengthen enterprise learning strategies with the right tools and systems.

In my first post, I explained our basic concept of LCMS and laid out ways in which this layer for teaching platforms is different from front-end learning management systems (LMS), and how the power of the LCMS is what makes learning delivery — including deployment onto an LMS — both more robust and more efficient. I also suggested how some of the key functionality the LCMS provides is exceptionally useful in complex, large scale L&D contexts, especially those with multiformat, linked content.

In this post, I’ll dive deeper into the characteristics of organizational training and content needs based on my direct experience with dozens of learning teams and will examine how these needs are met by an LCMS.

All organizations, but especially those with growing L&D programs, tend to start small with manual training and orientation systems and to rely on institutional knowledge, paper documentation and collective wisdom as comprising the system of record, in other words, the “source of truth” about the means and methods for accomplishing work —whether that work is pure training or it falls elsewhere on the scale toward direct communications with customers. While that approach may have worked in the past, given today’s realities of remote work and pandemic restrictions, more and more companies are finding it no longer widely feasible. Over time (usually driven by the need to scale quickly as well as the urgent requirement to support asynchronous teams), these organizations turn to solutions that work at scale to document workflows, processes and responsibilities while at the same time automating object creation and management.

An Effective LCMS

An effective LCMS removes impediments to knowledge curation and transfer, simplifying workflows, creating clarity for course developers and those who depend on them, and most importantly, delivering the learning outcomes needed to support the success of the enterprise.

As the whole organization gets on board with the learning organization model, the need for, and utility of, an LCMS becomes ever more apparent. Critical requirements for an LCMS solution include the following capabilities:

  • For Course Creators/Designers, as well as for Instructors (and their Administrators), the solution should include a means of managing the course content repository, including cross-media content search, as well as uploading new, and replacing obsolete, components. Course developers in particular have distinct preferences for working in the product they are already fluent with, whether as well-known as Word, PowerPoint, or Google Docs, or more dedicated training software applications like Captivate or Storyline.
  • For Learning Managers, the system should provide a mechanism for them to see how progress is being made, audit the effectiveness of their learning content, and pre-emptively see where bottlenecks may be emerging, all of which means they’re better able to support their valuable instructional designers.
  • Properly normalized and tagged content components (e.g., smaller chunks of text, short audio- or video-clips, and so on) enable the updating of those materials all at once and avoid inefficient and error-prone piecemeal methods. Also, this approach facilitates the reuse of different content components to build new courses/materials. We refer to this as the “single source of truth” for each component.
  • The integrated system also should be able to record supporting material – i.e. documentation explaining how it relates to wider learning objectives or curricula, who the intended audience is, and how successful material has been when deployed on an LMS. For example, a valuable supporting metric might indicate how long it typically takes for a learning component to be completed by the learner, or how many test-takers struggled to find the most appropriate response.

In the final post in this series, I’ll discuss how the CCC Professional Services team approaches each LCMS project with a focus on the unique needs of people, process, content and technology for that client organization.

The post LCMS : What Are They Really Good For? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
“You Can’t Do That”: The Beatles and Infringement Issues http://www.copyright.com/blog/you-cant-do-that-the-beatles-and-infringement-issues/ Wed, 14 Apr 2021 08:06:32 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=31136 This post focuses on questions of alleged infringement of musical works, and how those questions were resolved. It touches upon fair use, alleged (or subconscious) plagiarism, and parody.

The post “You Can’t Do That”: The Beatles and Infringement Issues appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Part II of a post about the nexus of The Beatles and Intellectual Property, primarily copyright. This post focuses on questions of alleged infringement of musical works, and how those questions were resolved. It touches upon fair use, alleged (or subconscious) plagiarism, and parody.

In my first essay for the Informed Librarian Online, I highlighted several of the times the Beatles (and later, their creation Apple Corps ) were innovators in the domain of intellectual property (IP). For this round, I thought I would focus on a whole ‘nother aspect of copyright (as illustrated by vignettes concerning The Beatles), this time focusing on questions of infringement.

Copyright infringement occurs when someone —or some corporate entity—misuses a copyrighted work (and that copyrighted work is still being managed by its creator or another rightsholder, such as the work’s publisher). Many small infringements go without notice or are not followed up on; but the copyright holder has the right to complain and, if they choose, to take the matter to court. As with any court proceeding, the desired result is not guaranteed to either side in the dispute — facts have to be substantiated, arguments made and the case proved, and the court needs to come to a decision.  Multiple defenses against a charge of copyright infringement are possible, including “It didn’t happen,” “It wasn’t me” and (in the US) “What I did should be excused due to the fair use doctrine.”  “Fair use” is, basically, a legal defense framed by the four-factor test as expressed in Section 107 of Title 17 of the U.S. Code (the U.S. Copyright Act) and the body of court decisions that have been built around it.*

*Note: This is a painfully compressed allusion to the wide-ranging operation of fair use, but I am not going to try and go through the doctrine in any detail here. For a reasonably descriptive —but still very introductory  — overview (for non-lawyers), see “The Fair Use Rule,” a blog post by Richard Stim posted at NoLo.com.

However, before talking about some infringement issues that came up for the Beatles (and the post-Beatles), I begin by mentioning the uses they made of “other people’s music” which were not infringements: cover versions. In music, a “cover” is a licensed re-recording of a track which has already been recorded and released by someone else – usually the original artist, who may also be the writer of the music and lyrics. Early in their career, the Beatles performed and recorded a couple of dozen covers, sometimes very memorably (“Twist and Shout” is the best known among these) and sometimes not so much (“Besame Mucho” or perhaps “Red Sails in the Sunset“) . The industry practice of covering songs is a licensed activity – basically, the label pays a license for each cover it releases.

Money (That’s What I Want) : Five Instances of Beatle-related Copyright/IP Issues:

  • Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da” This is one of the tracks included on the ‘White Album’ (1968), and it is a bouncy little number. The title and refrain were used by Paul McCartney, the principal composer of the song, from a coined as a catchphrase by a Jimmy Scott, a London-based Nigerian musician of McCartney’s acquaintance. While rumors of a threatened court action by Scott against the Beatles, demanding a lyrical credit, have been circulated for many years, there is no firm documentation that indicates that any such action happened. Under copyright law, the title and/or a single short phrase would not be subject to protection. (Perhaps trademark could apply, under some circumstances, but not copyright.)
  • “Come Together” A few months after September 1969, Chuck Berry’s music publisher, Morris Levy, brought a copyright infringement action against The Beatles/Apple, claiming that their 1969 track ‘Come Together’ had lifted music and lyrics from Berry’s 1956 track, ‘You Can’t Catch Me’. Morris’s case was complicated by other issues between his firm and John Lennon, who gave a deposition in the case. Lennon reciprocated on the complaint front and countersued Levy. If we were to listen carefully and compare the two tracks, I think most hearers would quickly pick up on the substantial (musical, more than lyrical) similarities between the two recordings; and, obviously, the four words “Here comes old flattop” do appear in both compositions. In the end, both sides of this cluster of disputes won at least a part of their respective cases; Lennon and EMI Music took home slightly more in dollar amounts. Perhaps the most direct copyright lesson to be gleaned from this kerfuffle is:  in re-using underlying material – which I am confident Lennon did here, despite his denying it in interviews — you should be careful when engaging in what the art critics call homageand  (even better) clear your use with the owners of your source material somehow.
    “March of the Meanies” : Another point from the “Come Together” dispute figures in the next case I’ll look at as well: Under US law at least, one can’t bring suits simply against “musical plagiarism”  — roughly, the passing off of someone else’s compositional work as one’s own. Copyright infringement is the closest available legal claim, and so cases of alleged plagiarism (especially in a commercial context, where significant sums may be at play) are generally brought to court as copyright disputes.
  • “He’s So Fine” vs. “My Sweet Lord” (aka ‘The Mother of all Rock Era Musical Infringement Suits’*) Basically – and I’m leaving out a lot of fascinating non-essentials —Bright Tunes Music sued George Harrison’s Harrisongs company (1971 – i.e., in the post-Beatles period). Bright Tunes alleged that Harrison’s composition, as produced by Billy Preston and released as a bestselling single and album track, infringed on an earlier composition by Ronny Mack, which was recorded and released by The Chiffons.  Harrison, who seems to have been morally offended at the charge, fought the action for more than a decade but was adjudged an infringer by the trial court (although the judge seemed to say that the infringement was unintentional and more in the nature of plagiarism). The damages phase of the case went on and on as well, the judge’s preliminary assessment of damages was quite high and, as a result of some complications involving other parties, the judge ultimately awarded Harrison the rights to “He’s So Fine” in exchange for a payment less than the preliminary damages assessment. In all, the case ran for more than 20 years. Due to the huge popularity of Harrison’s song (and of its ex-Beatle songwriter) and to the carefully spelled-out musical reasoning of the judge, I think it is accurate to refer to this as a leading case for this sort of infringement-that-is-really-plagiarism action. The case is certainly still cited and applied in court proceedings: We only have to look to the infringement actions brought against Pharrell & Robin ThickeEd Sheeran, and indeed Led Zeppelin to observe the legacy of the Bright Tunes case. Interestingly, the court in the “Stairway to Heaven” case specifically called attention to the Copyright Office’s “deposit copy” of the printed sheet music as a criterion for comparing the two works. In an alternative world in which a review of the sheet music was a requirement in 1971, I think Bright Tunes’ allegations would have been immediately dismissed.

*Note: I fully admit to my bias concerning this case. Harrison was robbed, in my view. But readers/listeners should come to their own conclusions; I’ve been wrong before.

And now for something completely different . . .

  • “The Rutles” (soundtrack album for the 1978 telemovie, ‘All You Need Is Cash’) In a less-well-remembered brouhaha, The Beatles and their music were parodied in a 1978 TV movie helmed (and starred-in) by Eric Idle of Monty Python fame and Neil Innes, a musician and composer. Innes’ parodies of Beatles tracks were considered uncomfortably close (‘knockoffs’ in the jargon) for the Beatles’ music publishers, and they considered filing a suit but came to a settlement instead. While “What I committed is parody!” is often a sufficient defense against such charges — because parody is generally recognized as a prime example of legitimate fair use.

Would-be parodists might also, however, consider the wisdom (and experience) of Master parodist Al Yankovic on this point:

“[Q] Does Al get permission to do his parodies?”

“[A] Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it’s important to maintain the relationships that he’s built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties.”

“Mailman, Bring Me No More Blues”: Earlier, I wrote about copyright as a species of “intellectual property,” a term which implies ownership and control. Allegations (and court actions) of copyright infringement are where the rubber hits the road, legally speaking — the party complaining of infringement seeks to enforce its right in its work. A defense of fair use essentially argues that the use made of the work, while not specifically authorized, ought to be excused for reasons that a court is authorized to accept within the legal confines of the defense. In the examples I drew on above, The Rutles’ parody use of underlying Beatles works would be the clearest situation calling forth an invocation of fair use — if it had ever come to trial. The Beatles and ex-Beatles themselves made different claims when the question of “borrowing” musical expression came up. Lennon asserted  (implausibly in my view) that ‘Come Together’ was unrelated to “You Can’t Catch Me.” George Harrison said that the similarity of his track to that of the Chiffons was entirely coincidental.

On the other hand, in my final example, McCartney’s subconscious* borrowing (if the older song were admitted as an influence) sounds like, perhaps, there was not enough “diligence” in his informal due diligence.

  • Yesterday” (1965)  I’ve left this for last for two main reasons: First, McCartney’s composition (credited on the record to Lennon-McCartney, of course) is one of the best-known and admired pieces of popular music of any era ; and second, no allegations of its potential status as an infringing work came up at the time.

Famously in Beatles lore, the tune and chords for “Yesterday” (original working title:  “Scrambled Eggs”) came to Paul McCartney in a dream: “I was living in a little flat at the top of a house and I had a piano by my bed. I woke up one morning with a tune in my head and I thought, ‘Hey, I don’t know this tune – or do I?’ … I went to the piano and found the chords to it, made sure I remembered it and then hawked it round to all my friends, asking what it was: ‘Do you know this? It’s a good little tune, but I couldn’t have written it because I dreamt it.”  Specifically, McCartney asked EMI producer George Martin (who was the Beatles’ designated “grown up” and a person with an extensive knowledge of jazz and classical music if it was an old, well-known composition. Martin answered in the negative. Decades later (2003) a group of musicologists argued that they had identified a potential underlying work: “Answer Me, My Love,” especially the arrangement and recording of it released by Nat “King” Cole in 1954. This influence may have been a case of what the judge in the Harrisongs case memorably termed “subconscious appropriation“: [ “George Harrison’s ] subconscious knew it already had worked in a song his conscious mind did not remember. … This is, under the law, infringement of copyright, and is no less so even though subconsciously accomplished.”*

*Note: Perhaps it would be  better if judges strived to avoid  attempts at mind-reading in such circumstances;  I don’t know what was in Harrison’s mind, nor in McCartney’s while they were composing and arranging their pieces. Absent direct evidence, I remain skeptical that any judge could either. Speculatively, I wonder if Paul McCartney ever asked his father, a club musician who played jazz trumpet, if the senior McCartney recognized the tune?

If there are any copyright lessons to be gleaned through these vignettes, I would guess that the primary ones are: music is a tough business, be careful out there, always be prepared to defend yourself if your music sounds in any way like someone else’s — and, always respect copyrights.

This post originally appeared on Informed Librarian Online, republished with permission.

The post “You Can’t Do That”: The Beatles and Infringement Issues appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Why Do R&D Intensive Organizations Use Preprints? http://www.copyright.com/blog/rd-intensive-organizations-preprints/ Tue, 13 Apr 2021 05:32:13 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=31221 Preprints have become particularly popular over the past year and the reason for the uptick was, unsurprisingly, the Covid-19 pandemic. 

The post Why Do R&D Intensive Organizations Use Preprints? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>

Preprints have become particularly popular over the past year and the reason for the uptick was, unsurprisingly, the Covid-19 pandemic.

First, What Is A Preprint? 

A preprint is a preliminary version of a scientific paper made publicly available. It typically precedes formal peer review and/or acceptance into a journal.  

When looking at the publication cycle, preprints are typically found in the feedback stage before formal peer review.  Most often, authors are putting their work out there early foinformal feedback from peers to make sure the paper is ready for submission, as well as establishing precedence for research findings. Sometimes preprints have been submitted for acceptance in a journal, and sometimes not, and there is no guarantee that a preprint will be accepted by a journal and undergo peer review.  Preprints can also satisfy some funding requirements to make the results openly available, even if the results are ultimately not published in an open access journal.  

Covid-19’s Impact on Preprints  

As the world raced to share insights and provide therapies related to Covid-19, the result was a rapid increase in submissions to preprint servers and access to those preprints, which ultimately created a shift in how researchers are now publishing and interacting with preprints.  

Right now, about half of all pandemic research is being published to preprints servers first.  Comparatively, this marks a significant shift from previous outbreaks of Ebola and Zika, where only 5 percent of research was published as a preprint.  During the SARS pandemic, 93 percent of research was published after the epidemic had ended. The shift during COVID is understandable given that research was needed in real time so researchers could get a vaccine created as quickly as possible.  

Why are Preprints Used? What Our Research Shows 

A lot of literature focuses on the pros and cons of preprints for authors and publishers, but there is little information about what preprints mean for researchers, especially in the commercial space. We gathered feedback from corporate R&D intensive organizations to determine how preprints are being used. 

  • Access the earliest, most cutting-edge research available in real time 
  • Early competitive research can help a company decide whether to pursue a new product line
  • Monitor how products are being used in the market 
  • Access science that may never be published in a traditional journal 

Has Covid-19 Changed Perceptions Around Preprints? 

There are challenges when it comes to discerning the quality of non-peer reviewed information, as well as the ambiguity around copyright for commercial organizations. At the end of the day, there is overwhelming consensus that the final published article in a peer reviewed journal is preferred and should replace the preprint version. But, when speaking with researchers, we learned preprints can still play a significant role in early phase explorations.  

Here are a few key takeaways from our conversations: 

Most literature search results I compile specifically exclude preprints since they are not yet peer-reviewed. However, I do provide a weekly update to support our COVID-19 Task Force and that one lists pre-prints because that body of literature is so dynamic.

Our thinking on pre-prints is evolving during the COVID crisis.  Science is accelerating, and we are finding that we need to pay more attention to articles that are being deposited in repositories ahead of publication.

Sometimes I need hard facts, other times it is useful just to find ideas and inspiration, and that can come from anywhere. If preprints were included I could make an informed decision about whether they were relevant to the query in hand and either flag them up or discard them.

RightFind Navigate breaks down inefficiencies caused by information silos by bringing together scientific literature, preprints, global life science patents, information on clinical trials, drugs, and research projects from publicly available data sources with licensed content and internal proprietary data in a single intuitive interfaceRequest a demo here.   

 

The post Why Do R&D Intensive Organizations Use Preprints? appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Ahead of Her Time http://www.copyright.com/blog/ahead-of-her-time/ Mon, 12 Apr 2021 13:10:13 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=31210 Over her career as publisher and entrepreneur, Judy Piatkus found herself at Buckingham Palace and Number 10 Downing Street. She got there by giving a generation of readers, most of them women, what they wanted most to find in books – a way to see themselves in a new and fresh light.

The post Ahead of Her Time appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Building a publishing business and a brand aiming at an audience of women consumers with empowering stories and fresh ideas about personal development. That all sounds so 2021. But for Judy Piatkus, the opening chapter of her new memoir is set in 1970s London.

Published this week, Ahead of Her Time recalls an era in British publishing history as far behind us as miner’s strikes and sold-out shows by Led Zeppelin. Yet the key themes from the personal and working life of Judy Piatkus still resonate.

When Judy Piatkus opened the doors at Piatkus Books in 1979, it wasn’t the first business she started. But Piatkus Books was now entirely her own to shape as she saw best. Fundamentally, she wanted to succeed, and that meant nothing more nor less than selling books, which Judy Piatkus did – and plenty of them, too – before Hachette acquired the company in 2007.

Ahead of Her Time

Along the way, Judy Piatkus found herself at Buckingham Palace and Number 10 Downing Street. She got there by giving a generation of readers, most of them women, what they wanted most to find in books – a way to see themselves in a new and fresh light.

“When we started out, all the readers were people who enjoyed easy, escapist fiction. It didn’t demand too much. And then I realized that if I wanted to be taken seriously as a publisher, I needed to think about publishing nonfiction as well,” Piatkus recalls.

At the time, Piatkus tells CCC, “I was a young woman in my early 30s. I had one child with disabilities, another child on the way when I started the company. Then I had a third child.”

“So we began to do books on subjects that I was familiar with – cooking, parenting – and we also began to explore the area of alternative health, because women were beginning to talk about it.”

“If they went to their doctors, and the doctors didn’t have an answer which helped them resolve their problems, they were beginning to turn to aromatherapy, reflexology, tai chi, shiatsu, all those things. So we began to put out books on those subjects.”

The post Ahead of Her Time appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Librarians List Top “Banned” Books http://www.copyright.com/blog/librarians-list-top-banned-books/ Fri, 09 Apr 2021 13:02:56 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=31203 According to ALA, demands to remove books largely focused on areas that became hot politically over the last year.

The post Librarians List Top “Banned” Books appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
The ALA’s Most Challenged Books list, released annually in conjunction with National Library Week, tracks attempts to ban or restrict access to books in libraries across the United States.

“In 2020, the American Library Association reports that more than 273 books were challenged or banned,” explains Andrew AlbanesePublishers Weekly senior writer. “That number is actually down quite a bit from 2019—but for an obvious reason: many libraries and schools were closed or moved online for much of the year because of the pandemic.”

According to ALA, demands to remove books largely focused on areas that became hot politically over the last year. Titles addressing racism and racial justice and those that shared the stories of people of color particularly grew in number, Albanese tells CCC. Books addressing themes and issues of concern for LGBTQIA+ people also continued to dominate the list.

“This list should be a reminder of what cancel culture really looks like—it’s school boards and parents and parent groups demanding that libraries pull books off the shelf because those books offend them,” Albanese says. “And it happens every day in our communities.”

The post Librarians List Top “Banned” Books appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Catching Up with Ionut Burghiu of CCC’s Cluj Office http://www.copyright.com/blog/catching-up-with-ionut-burghiu-of-cccs-cluj-office/ Wed, 07 Apr 2021 08:41:37 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=30976 In our latest Q&A, we catch up with Ionut Burghiu, one of CCC’s Senior Windows System Administrators based in Cluj, Romania.

The post Catching Up with Ionut Burghiu of CCC’s Cluj Office appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
In our latest Q&A, we catch up with Ionut Burghiu, one of CCC’s Senior Windows System Administrators based in Cluj, Romania.

DD: Hi, Ionut! Please tell us a little bit about your professional background. You’ve worked in IT Security and systems configuration. What were those experiences like?

IB: Hello, David! It’s a pleasure to speak with you. My career started with a job as a Security Systems Engineer. I had completed my studies at The Polytechnic University of Bucharest and obtained my bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering. I was in charge of configuring and setting up different security systems for various clients: EAS (Electronic Article Surveillance) Systems to prevent shoplifting, CCTV (surveillance cameras), access control, fire detection systems. It was a rewarding job because I was travelling a lot and I got the chance to visit a lot of beautiful places.

After two years I wanted to search for something that did not involve so much traveling and I decided to start working in the IT industry. I worked for a small company in Bucharest where I was in charge of support for a number of clients. During my two years there I learned a lot and I managed to improve my skills.

After nine years spent in Bucharest, in May 2018 I traveled to Cluj-Napoca, Romania’s second most populous city, and I was mesmerized by the city. After only two days spent here, I decided I wanted to move and started looking for a job.  Two months later, I was at in my new role at Copyright Clearance Center.

What does your role as Windows System Administrator entail? What are the most interesting (or challenging) parts of that role?

IB: My role as a Windows System Administrator is basically installing, monitoring, managing and upgrading Windows-based systems.  The most interesting part of the role is the contact with all the new technologies, which evolve at a fast rate. This is sometimes challenging but I find it to be good practice for improving my skills. Another interesting part is that there is always something new to learn.

In the current (2021) environment, what has your experience of working from home been? Good? Challenging? Both?

IB: The experience of working from home was something new for me. At my previous jobs, working from home was not an option – I always had to be at a location.

In the first few weeks of working from home it was challenging but I managed to create my own little office space.

After the first few months I got used to working from home all the time. However, I have been missing the office and being able to talk with colleagues face to face. But, given the circumstances, I really appreciate the company’s policy to let us work from home.

I have a (limited) background in European history, but I have never yet been to eastern Europe. If I get there at some point, what do you think is a must-see?

IB: If you manage to visit Romania, there are a lot of great things to see. We have mountains with great landscapes and there are many castles. We also have a lot of monasteries and churches with amazing architecture and paintings. There are a lot of must-see things in Eastern Europe but most of my recommendations are for the ones in Romania with which I am more familiar.

If you had one thing to share with a prospective employee, to encourage them to come work at CCC in Cluj — or anywhere — what would that be?

IB: The people are awesome and the working environment is great. The company treats  employees with respect.

The post Catching Up with Ionut Burghiu of CCC’s Cluj Office appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Why Golden Oldies Are Hot Investments http://www.copyright.com/blog/why-golden-oldies-are-hot-investments/ Mon, 05 Apr 2021 12:50:38 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=31163 While the music industry experienced financial carnage in the first decade of digital disruption, streaming has restored the business to growth by playing your favorite song.

The post Why Golden Oldies Are Hot Investments appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
The music industry may have started to wrestle with digital transformation in 1999 over Napster, but the pace of disruption has yet to settle down. In 2021, important business and creative changes tied to streaming have begun to attract new sources of capital and new financial players with data-driven insights for how value can be derived from music as well as movies and TV programs.

The entertainment industry transition to a streaming-based economy remains a work in progress, even after 20 years, says Paul Sweeting, a veteran business journalist and industry analyst specializing in the intersecting worlds of media, technology, and public policy.

While the music industry experienced financial carnage in the first decade of digital disruption, Sweeting says, streaming has since restored the business to growth. Pandora and iTunes and Spotify upended the fortunes of many artists and recording companies, only to fortify those for many others.

Why Golden Oldies Are Hot Investments

The industry’s current up-tempo mood music has now led entrepreneurs and private equity firms to raise more than $2 billion to fund the purchase of music rights and the streaming royalties those rights can yield.

“The music industry was all about the hits – the current hits – because that’s what drove record and CD sales, and that’s where most of the money came from. In the streaming context, that’s sort of been turned on its head,” explains Sweeting, founder and principal of Concurrent Media Strategies.

“It turns out that catalog product – that is, songs and records that are over 18 months or three years old – are now where most of the streaming revenue is being created. It’s from streams of older catalog releases, rather than the latest hits,” he tells CCC.

The post Why Golden Oldies Are Hot Investments appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Houghton Mifflin Trade Division Sold to HarperCollins http://www.copyright.com/blog/houghton-mifflin-trade-division-sold-to-harpercollins/ Fri, 02 Apr 2021 13:31:46 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=31153 “A solid deal for a company that has shown a shrewd eye for a good buy, going back to 2014 and the Harlequin acquisition,” says PW’s Albanese.

The post Houghton Mifflin Trade Division Sold to HarperCollins appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
After losing out to Bertelsmann’s Penguin Random House in its bid to buy publishing rival Simon & Schuster, News Corp and its HarperCollins subsidiary this week announced an agreement to buy the trade publishing division of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt for $349 million in cash.

As part of its strategy to focus more on its educational technology business, HMH put the division up for sale last fall .

“We can now say that the top six trade publishers will become the Big Four, when factoring in Harper’s bid to acquire HMH,” says Andrew AlbanesePublishers Weekly senior writer.

Houghton Mifflin Trade Division Sold to HarperCollins

“HMH may not be the big fish that HarperCollins wanted, but this is a solid deal for a company that has shown a shrewd eye for a good buy, going back to 2014 and its deal for Harlequin,” Albanese tells CCC.

Before the trade division sale, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt was generally considered to be the largest of the so-called “mini-majors” in US publishing.

“HMH is the sixth-largest trade publisher in the country outside the Big Five – which is about to become the Big Four, of course, once PRH complete its acquisition of S&S.”

The post Houghton Mifflin Trade Division Sold to HarperCollins appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
CCC Named to 2021 KMWorld 100 Companies That Matter in Knowledge Management http://www.copyright.com/blog/ccc-named-to-2021-kmworld-100-companies-that-matter-in-knowledge-management/ Thu, 01 Apr 2021 08:28:01 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=31120 Copyright Clearance Center has been named to the 2021 KMWorld list of 100 Companies That Matter in Knowledge Management.

The post CCC Named to 2021 KMWorld 100 Companies That Matter in Knowledge Management appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
In honoring CCC, KMWorld described the company as building solutions that connect content and rights in contextually relevant ways through software and professional services to help people navigate vast amounts of data and discover actionable insights so they can make informed decisions.

“Flexibility, agility, and the ability to pivot are attributes that have become critical to forward-thinking companies—and that is particularly the case now. Successful organizations don’t want to merely survive; they want to dominate their market sectors. But to do that, they need the right tools and products,” said Tom Hogan, Group Publisher, KMWorld. “Amidst the dramatic changes taking place today, innovative organizations are seeking new approaches to improve their processes. The 2021 KMWorld 100 is a list of leading-edge knowledge management companies that are helping their customers to expand access to information, leverage new opportunities, and accelerate growth.”

“Businesses in all industries continue to rely on easy access to copyrighted material supported by powerful content and technology platforms,” said Tracey Armstrong, President and CEO, CCC. “At CCC, we are focused on collaborating with customers to create solutions together. We’re committed to providing innovative content, licensing, software and professional services to help organizations adapt to a changing world.”

In a recent survey by industry analyst firm Outsell, fewer than half of global business workers are aware of their organization’s copyright policy, yet the frequency of sharing work-related content is on the rise. CCC’s Annual Copyright Licenses strengthen and simplify copyright-compliant collaboration and its RightFind suite provides complementary tools to speed discovery of and access to  scientific content. Developing effective licensing solutions in partnership with customers is in CCC’s DNA. Its recently published eBook, “Creating Solutions Together: Lessons to Inform the Future of Collective Licensing,” summarizes how innovative copyright solutions help content users and publishers find a path forward.

The post CCC Named to 2021 KMWorld 100 Companies That Matter in Knowledge Management appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
CCC Now Automating Open Access Agreement Management Between Publishers and More Than 800 Institutions and Funders in 40+ Countries http://www.copyright.com/blog/ccc-now-automating-open-access-agreement-management-between-publishers-and-more-than-800-institutions-and-funders-in-40-countries-through-rlsc/ Wed, 31 Mar 2021 08:43:25 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=31051 RLSC is now being used to simplify the management of Open Access (OA) agreements between publishers and more than 800 institutions and funders in 40+ countries.

The post CCC Now Automating Open Access Agreement Management Between Publishers and More Than 800 Institutions and Funders in 40+ Countries appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
CCC announced that RightsLink for Scientific Communications (RLSC), its market-leading, comprehensive scholarly communications workflow solution trusted by more than 30 leading publishers representing 2,400 journals, is now being used to simplify the management of Open Access (OA) agreements between publishers and more than 800 institutions and funders in 40+ countries.

Tens of thousands of OA institutional agreement funding requests have been processed using RightsLink since 2019. Institutions, consortia, and funders include: BIBSAM, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, CzechELib, FinELib, FWF, Jisc, Max Planck, MIT, National Institutes of Health (NIH), SURF, and the University of California System/California Digital Library.

RLSC enables publishers, funders and institutions to support a variety of OA agreements, such as Read and Publish and Community Action Publishing, and accelerates the implementation of OA Membership deals. CCC recently announced expanded functionality for RightsLink, including a capability to inform authors of available OA publication funding throughout the manuscript lifecycle, starting with submission. CCC’s Open Access Workflow Services, a comprehensive consulting practice providing strategic OA institutional agreement workflow support, also helps organizations deliver on each agreement’s unique needs.

“RightsLink is now the most widely adopted market solution for scholarly publishing with support for OA institutional agreements, APC payments, and alignment with mandates such as Plan S,” said Emily Sheahan, Vice President and Managing Director, Information and Content Solutions, CCC. “Not only does it help lower operating costs, but when it comes to data security and privacy, publishers and institutions count on RightsLink.”

CCC adheres to the rigorous PCI standard, is certified for the ISO 27001 Information Security Management System (ISMS) standard, which reflects CCC’s ability to manage data confidentiality, integrity and availability, and it also produces a SOC 2 (Type2) report.

CCC is an active partner in the information industry’s evolution of hybrid and pure Open Access publishing models. For years, CCC has brought together key Open Access stakeholders from the author, publisher, institution, funding, and vendor communities through roundtables, panel events, webinars, podcasts, and published pieces. CCC is a member of OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association), ALPSP (Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers), STM (International Association of STM Publishers) and SSP (Society for Scholarly Publishing).

The post CCC Now Automating Open Access Agreement Management Between Publishers and More Than 800 Institutions and Funders in 40+ Countries appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>