Copyright – Copyright Clearance Center http://www.copyright.com Rights Licensing Expert Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:05:04 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://www.copyright.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/cropped-ccc-favicon-32x32.png Copyright – Copyright Clearance Center http://www.copyright.com 32 32 Pop Copyright: Summer 2018 in Review http://www.copyright.com/blog/pop-copyright-summer-2018-in-review/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/pop-copyright-summer-2018-in-review/#respond Mon, 17 Sep 2018 08:00:45 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=17369 How have recent appearances of copyright law in popular culture impacted literature, movies, pirates and the taste of cheese?

The post Pop Copyright: Summer 2018 in Review appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Underestimate the reach of copyright law at your peril – it has influenced and continues to influence nearly every major industry in the global economy. Each quarter, we recap the surprising ways that copyright has entered into major world events and popular culture.

“Edam it! The taste of cheese cannot be copyrighted, court told” via Politico Europe

Although some tastes may be as recognizable as a famous work of art, a case in the European Court of Justice finds that copyright law does not protect the flavor of a food product.

“Copyright Suit Over Blackbeard Shipwreck Footage Sinks” via Bloomberg Law

Queen Anne’s Revenge is at the center of the conflict between the State of North Carolina and an underwater videographer who alleges that N.C. infringed on his copyright by using his footage of the shipwreck.

“Cox Settles Trailblazing Lawsuit That Demanded ISPs Get Tough on Piracy” via The Hollywood Reporter

Protections against copyright infringement can be the linchpin in preventing large-scale infringement of entertainment media from BMG, Universal and Warner.

“Appeals Court Won’t Take Up Copyright Decision That Raised Alarm About Embedding, Linking” via The Hollywood Reporter

Social sharing of photographs clashes with copyright protections in the case of a tweeted photo of Tom Brady.

“G.M. Used Graffiti in a Car Ad. Should the Artist Be Paid?” via The New York Times

Graffiti may be gaining respect in the art world, but its ephemeral nature combined with the frequent anonymity of its creators leads to ambiguities in the application of copyright protections.

Related Reading

The post Pop Copyright: Summer 2018 in Review appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/pop-copyright-summer-2018-in-review/feed/ 0
Raising Up Journal Publishing Standards in Emerging Economies http://www.copyright.com/blog/raising-up-journal-publishing-standards-in-emerging-economies/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/raising-up-journal-publishing-standards-in-emerging-economies/#respond Mon, 10 Sep 2018 14:12:39 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=17288 Dr. Haseeb Irfanullah and Sioux Cumming discuss the evolution of Bangladeshi scholarly publishing, and best practices applicable for emerging economies.

The post Raising Up Journal Publishing Standards in Emerging Economies appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
“Bangladesh … is a very small and highly populous country in South Asia, better known for its natural disasters and other climatic impacts,” explains Dr. Haseeb Irfanullah, Programme Coordinator for the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Executive Editor or the Bangladesh Journal of Plant Taxonomy. “But we do research, and we do publish our journals. And you’ll be amazed to know that there are lots of journals being published from Bangladesh with support from the government.”

Raising Up Journal Publishing Standards

Dr. Inrfanullah is joined by Sioux Cumming, International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (INASP) program specialist, to discuss the evolution of Bangladeshi contributions to scholarly publishing, and best practices applicable to all emerging economies. Since 2016, Africa Journals Online and INASP have developed detailed publishing standards and a publication quality ranking system intended to guide local researchers and editors and spotlight their work. JPPS – the Journal Publishing Practices and Standards – is a framework for providing accreditation and support for journals that are hosted on the Journals Online platforms (JOLs). These include BanglaJOL in Bangladesh as well as others in Nepal, Sri Lanka, Mongolia and Latin America. JPPS has been shortlisted for the 2018 ALPSP Award for Innovation in Publishing, which will be announced on Thursday, September 13, 2018.

Interview highlights

Dr. Haseeb Irfanullah: “One of the purposes of this particular dialogue [about cultural change in Bangladesh] was being self-critical and regarding what can be done realistically because we can set our target really, really high, but it is not physical. (sp?) So one thing we did – I can summarize all the things we do in, say, four points. The first thing is what we can do on a short-term basis. For example, if we are not having quality manuscripts, what can be done? So there are some action points. How to (inaudible) your journal, how to make them attractive to (inaudible) authors.

“A second point is kind of a peer pressure. We proposed that, and it could be done, Bangladesh Journal Watch, it’s a kind of a watchdog which will kind of monitor whether a particular journal is doing well or not. You might be (inaudible) a new system, JPPS, Journal Publishing Practice and Standards, which is kind of a joint venture of African Journal (sic) OnLine and INASP. They tried to put stars on BanglaJOL journals, and only handful of actually got one or two stars out of three stars, and most of them actually found not doing that well. So that kind of peer pressure could be quite an interesting thing to have.

“The third thing I would like to say is more like a policy intervention. We don’t have any regulation from the government side, so what about having a national science publishing policy that will guide us what to publish, when to publish, and how to publish so that the journals can keep a particular standard.

And the final thing is one of the major issues why we publish so much, we want to publish, we focus on numbers – quantity – rather than quality because academics, they need to show that they have been publishing quite a lot, so they are trying to publish so many papers – (inaudible) papers and others. So we need to influence the academic system, our universities, and both private and public, so that they can actually shift from that kind approach, publish or perish, rather than focus on quality. So these four things can be done if we want to make a real change and be self-critical as well as innovative.”

Sioux Cumming: “We’ve been working with journals from these countries that you mentioned for a number of years now. Of course, African Journals Online started back in the 1990s, when most of these journals were largely invisible. They were housed in universities on bookshelves, and it was really difficult to get hold of this content. So we started this project largely to make these journals more visible. That was our aim at the beginning – just visibility, getting the journals online so that they could be discovered and so that this really valuable research being done in these countries was accessible to a global audience.

“As the project progressed, we began to realize that visibility was not all, that a lot of these journals are published by individuals, by scholars – what we call scholar journals – who have a limited experience of the publishing industry. While the research that they were publishing was fine, the publishing practices surrounding journal publishing were often not as good as they could be. So particularly in the last five years of a project at INASP, we focused very much on helping these journals to improve their quality.

“Prior to that, their policies were not as good as they could have been. They were not aware of things like copyright to a large extent, licensing permissions, the importance of explaining things like their peer review process. And then in the last three years in particular, both AJOL and ourselves have focused on helping the editors to address those publishing practices.

“I want to emphasize here that we’re looking at publishing practices. We’re not looking at the content. We are not subject specialists. So we can’t assist the actual content of the articles and the research that they cover. But we can look at the way in which the journals are being published.”

 

Read the full transcript here.

 

The post Raising Up Journal Publishing Standards in Emerging Economies appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/raising-up-journal-publishing-standards-in-emerging-economies/feed/ 0
Copyright Legislation in 2018: 4 Pending Bills to Know About http://www.copyright.com/blog/copyright-legislation-in-2018-4-pending-bills-to-know-about/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/copyright-legislation-in-2018-4-pending-bills-to-know-about/#respond Mon, 20 Aug 2018 15:37:48 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=17159 Copyright Alliance’s Keith Kupferschmid sizes up the prospects for four popular copyright-related congressional bills in the latter half of 2018.

The post Copyright Legislation in 2018: 4 Pending Bills to Know About appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>

For additional blogs by Keith and the Copyright Alliance team, please click here.

Back at the start of 2018, I reviewed several copyright bills pending before Congress and tried to predict which legislation might move forward this year. As we hit the mid-year mark and the legislative days remaining on the Congressional calendar dwindle, it makes sense to revisit these bills with an eye toward what may or may not move forward in the coming weeks and months.

H.R. 5447 and S. 2823, Music Modernization Act

Status: On Track

In January, I made the bold prediction that the bill “most likely to move forward in 2018 is actually one that wasn’t introduced until the end of 2017,” called the Music Modernization Act (MMA).

The MMA combines the previously introduced Music Modernization Act (MMA) of 2017, CLASSICS Act, and the AMP Act, and will, among other things, result in the most significant improvement of music copyright law in more than a generation. When passed, the bill will make it easier for creators across the music industry to earn a fair living through their creativity and will positively impact how music is licensed. It will enable legacy artists (who recorded music before 1972) to be paid royalties when their music is played on digital radio, and provide a consistent legal process for studio professionals – including record producers and engineers – to receive royalties for their contributions to music that they help to create.

The MMA has made its way through Congress steadily throughout 2018. There have been several bumps along the way, resulting in changes to the bill in the spirit of compromise, but none of these obstacles have proven fatal. Ultimately, the many diverse supporters in the music and technology industries, academia and the public continue to push Congress to repair a music ecosystem in need of fixing.

The diversity and breadth of support for the bill is so unheralded that it has resulted in unanimous passage in every instance it has been considered by Congress. Here’s a look at the timeline:

  • In April, the bill flew through the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 32-0.
  • Riding that wave of support, two weeks later, the bill then passed the House of Representatives by a monumental 415-0 vote.
  • From there, it moved to the Senate, where it was considered along with its Senate counterpart S. 2823 by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which (following a May 15 hearing) passed a manager’s amendment to the bill by a unanimous voice vote in June. During the vote, a few issues were raised by Senate Judiciary Committee members that have now been, or are in the process of being, addressed by the stakeholders. While some of the issues are significant, as of the writing of this blog, most were either resolved or on a trajectory to being resolved in the coming days or weeks.

The bill continues to move toward a floor vote. With close to 50 Senate co-sponsors and more likely to join, it seems certain the full Senate will pass a revised version of the MMA when given the opportunity.

Because this legislation is different than the version that passed the House, if the Senate passes the revised bill, the bill must go back to the House for a vote. Given the results when the bill was first considered by the House, it seems certain that it will pass the House and then land on the President’s desk to be signed into law at some point later this year.

H.R 1695 and S. 1010, the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 2017

Status: Slow Progress

In April 2017, the House passed H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 2017, a bill that would make the Register of Copyrights a presidential appointee confirmable by the Senate, by an overwhelming 378-48 vote. At the time, this was a significant accomplishment, as it represented the most substantive, stand-alone copyright bill to pass through the House in a decade (since the PRO-IP Act, which passed in 2008). Of course, now this feat is somewhat less impressive when compared to the tremendous support received for the MMA in the House.

After passing the House, H.R. 1695 headed to the Senate for approval where it was joined by companion bill S. 1010. Instead of being referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where virtually all copyright bills are sent, the bill was referred to the Senate Rules Committee. The Rules Committee rarely considers legislation relating to copyright or the U.S. Copyright Office, and therefore there was a significant learning curve for the Committee staff that took up most of the second half of 2017. At the same time, the Librarian agreed to pause her search for the next Register while Congress considers the legislation.

In April, the Rules Committee was continuing to consider the bill when Senator Thad Cochran, who chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee, retired. This sent a ripple through Congress that would result in Senator Shelby moving from the Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee to become Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Senator Blunt taking his place as the new Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee. As with any change in leadership, it takes time for the new Chairman and the Committee staff to get up to speed. But now, with staff in place and several months to consider the bill, it appears that that S. 1010 is primed to move forward by the Committee. Accordingly, time permitting, the Committee may act on the bill later this summer, and hopefully the full Senate can consider and pass the bill before the end of the year.

H.R. 3945, the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act of 2017

Status: Holding Pattern

Another bill that received a lot of attention and support in 2018 is H.R. 3945, the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act of 2017. This proposed bill would create a small claims board within the Copyright Office to provide copyright owners with an alternative to the expensive process of bringing infringement claims to federal court. This new board, called the Copyright Claims Board (CCB), would cap damages at $15,000 per work infringed and $30,000 total.

During the House Judiciary Committee markup of the MMA, Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Nadler expressed support for marking up the CASE Act. Despite this strong bipartisan support, little opposition and support from tens of thousands of creators across the country, the bill has yet to be considered by the House Judiciary Committee. It is possible that the Committee may take up the bill when the House returns from its August recess, but there are so few legislative days remaining on the calendar that this is becoming more unlikely. Instead, it is more plausible that the CASE Act will be reintroduced next year as one of the first copyright bills to be considered by the Committee in early 2019.

S. 2559, Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act

Status: Full Speed Ahead

In March, S. 2559, the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled — which would amend U.S. copyright law to allow the U.S. to implement its obligations under the Marrakesh Treaty — was introduced in the Senate.

Both the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees held hearings and unanimously passed the bill. Then, in late June, the full Senate passed S. 2559 by unanimous consent (and also provided its advice and consent for ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled).

After more than ten years without any copyright legislation being passed, it now seems like Congress is on the verge of passing as many as three copyright bills. And with the copyright legislative draught apparently over, and the Small Claims bill being teed up for next year, this momentum shows no sign of stopping.

Related Reading

The post Copyright Legislation in 2018: 4 Pending Bills to Know About appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/copyright-legislation-in-2018-4-pending-bills-to-know-about/feed/ 0
International Copyright News Must-Reads: Summer 2018 http://www.copyright.com/blog/international-copyright-news-must-reads-summer-2018/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/international-copyright-news-must-reads-summer-2018/#respond Mon, 09 Jul 2018 14:01:11 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=16927 In a few minutes, catch up on vital international copyright legislation and court case news from Europe, Australia and Canada.

The post International Copyright News Must-Reads: Summer 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
As the summer season started in the Northern hemisphere, the global conversation about copyright heated up in a number of territories around the world. What happened, particularly, in Europe, Canada and Australia?

Europe: Proposed Copyright Directive for the Digital Age

As recently as on July 5th, we saw a step further in the long and somewhat winding road towards the updating of copyright rules for the digital age in the European Union. That day, the European Parliament voted not to endorse the report approved by its Legal Affairs committee on June 20th and to postpone until September consideration of the proposed new Copyright Directive after more discussions intended to take place in August (when most legislators are on vacation) and in the first weeks of September. At that time, if the then-draft legislation is approved by the Parliament (still a big if), the legislative process will take its next step, which is in negotiation by the Parliament with the other two EU bodies involved: the European Council (representing the EU’s Member States) and the European Commission (representing the European Union’s elected central administration).

Among other things, the proposed legislation creates a new right for news publishers to ensure they are fairly remunerated for the use of their work by sharing platforms and news aggregators. It also contains new measures to fight online copyright infringement, stronger negotiation rights for authors and performers and new exceptions to copyright for text and data mining, education and preservation by cultural heritage institutions such as libraries.

Resistance to the draft Directive from the large tech companies has been fierce and American-style lobbying has taken place, perhaps for the first time with this intensity in the European legislature. And it is not expected that that campaign will stop. In any case, if the Parliament in fact passes the legislation in September, and the negotiations with the Council and Commission are fruitful – none of which is definite – then final approval for the new law would not come before the end of 2018, at which point the EU Member States will then have to “transpose” the Directive into their individual national law, which will likely take two years or more.

According to Politico, Europe’s copyright fight is just getting started

See here the reaction from the Federation of European Publishers to the voting at the European Parliament on July 5th here.

And Billboard offers another take on the impact for the music industry here.

Canada: Royalties Settlement for Copibec

Copibec, the collective licensing organization for text works in Québec, has just published a notice about its recent settlement regarding copyright royalties with Laval University. This is the way in which both parties agreed last June to put an end to the legal dispute between them regarding copyright licensing for the university’s teaching and research activities.

Copibec had launched a class action against Laval in 2014, when the university refused to renew its Copibec license and put into effect an internal policy for the use of third-party works. Both parties now acknowledge that collective management offers important advantages and promotes academic freedom. The settlement (for which the notice, but not the actual text, has just been made public) remains subject to Court approval.

This is happening at a time when a review of the Canada Copyright Modernization Act is being conducted, and the collective licenses and fees from the other Canadian licensing organization for text works, Access Copyright, are being challenged by some education authorities and most universities in English-speaking Canada.

Australia: Copyright Modernization Underway

July 4th marks the final submission date for the consultation launched by the Australian Government on its projected “copyright modernisation”, which aims to bring up to date the Copyright Act of 1968.

Based on reports from the Productivity Commission, stakeholders have been able to contribute their views on the proposals to include new exceptions to copyright (for educational purposes, among others), regulate the use of ‘orphan works’ and how to handle conflicts between contract terms and the scope of exceptions.

See Hugh Stephens’ recent post on the International Publishers Association’s blog for a detailed account of the proposed changes and what is at stake in Australia, where the copyright review is expected to continue into 2019.

The post International Copyright News Must-Reads: Summer 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/international-copyright-news-must-reads-summer-2018/feed/ 0
Global Publishing Trends in 2018 http://www.copyright.com/blog/global-publishing-trends-2018/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/global-publishing-trends-2018/#respond Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:45:00 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=15984 The three driving forces behind digital disruption in global publishing are economic shifts, market fragmentation and consumer power.

The post Global Publishing Trends in 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
How big is global book publishing? And why should you care? Because within the business data lie critical clues for digital transformation.

Rüdiger Wischenbart , co-founder of BookMap, a non-profit initiative on international publishing statistics, believes an understanding of world book markets can drive decisions that will position your content to best advantage everywhere.

Global Publishing Trends in 2018

Author of the highly-regarded Global eBook Report, Wischenbart shared his latest data on the world’s biggest publishing markets during a recent Copyright Clearance Center webinar. As lines blur among books and other media, publishers must manage content assets and rights with the confidence that comes with quality data.

“When we speak here about digital, I’m not only talking about e-books. I’m talking about a digital transformation. I mean that a publishing company suddenly is driven and organized in a digitally organized value chain and work processes,” Wischenbart explains.

“Three major forces that really make the change. Number one, we have arrived – it’s not the future, it’s the present. We have arrived in a network economy for the book industry as well, and that means we have winner-take-all markets, where a few major and bigger and better-financed players are in a so much stronger position than all the little guys.

Learn More: Explore CCC’s Copyright Certificate Courses

“This is reinforced by market fragmentation,” he continues. “When I have a big organization, I can play around here and experiment there and acquire a little start-up or a little imprint from somewhere else. I can really play across all those different niches and fields. I even can fix a mistake that I may have made when – just recently in the US, Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury [has been] so much more successful than the publisher had expected. I have the tools to do this, and that is making the competition so much stronger against all the small and middle-sized publishing companies.

“Finally, a third factor [is] that is publishing traditionally thought that the publishers, the authors, and their offer are defining the market. But in a networked economy, in a corporate economy, in all these digital pipes and channels and platforms, it’s the consumers, it’s the customers who define it.”

View the transcript here.

The post Global Publishing Trends in 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/global-publishing-trends-2018/feed/ 0
Levy vs. License: Collective Licensing in the United States http://www.copyright.com/blog/levy-vs-license/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/levy-vs-license/#respond Thu, 08 Mar 2018 08:00:59 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=15728 The model that we've developed enables rightsholders to choose whether to participate, and if so, which works to license through the system.

The post Levy vs. License: Collective Licensing in the United States appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Jessica Pettitt: I’m joined here today by Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel of Copyright Clearance Center, Fred Haber.

Fred, I’m interested in knowing more about the US approach to collective licensing— a market driven option approach.

Why is this more beneficial than a levy system, or something more compulsory, like what exists in other parts of the world?

Frederic Haber: The short answer is that our model provides for greater choice. The levy model, or another model like that, eliminates the possibility of choice on at least one side. What I mean by that is that, in a levy system, often one side or the other might want to opt out but effectively can’t. The model that we’ve developed over the years enables rights holders to choose whether to participate in the licensing system, and if so, which works to license through the system.

The classic example is that you can buy the New York Times on a newsstand for a dollar every day, but you can’t buy a high intensity research biology journal for less than $10,000 a year.

On the flip side, users choose whether or not to take a license based on the terms that are available. The US model is not exclusive in that if our price is too high for what it is that the user wants, for example, the user is able to go directly to the rights holder. If we’re out of line with what the market can support, then it’s possible for both rights holders and users to connect directly.

For example, the Wall Street Journal and a major bank probably have a one-to-one relationship for the use of the Wall Street Journal’s information within that bank. But the Wall Street Journal will participate with us as well, because we’re also going to issue licenses to companies that quarry rocks, or that run retail stores, or that are law firms, which might not be worth a one-to-one negotiation for the Wall Street Journal.

Learn More: Explore CCC’s Copyright Certificate Courses

JP:  Are there any further advantages of a voluntary licensing services beyond choice

FH: Yes, market sensitivity. Market sensitivity determines participation. If, in the long run, rights holders and users don’t both agree with the price at which we’re offering licenses, then one or the other won’t participate.

In a levy system, you’re all in or you’re all out. You really don’t get anything more to it than that.

What our system has also provided is respect for this market sensitivity. It exists in some other systems to a degree, but it doesn’t work all that well there. We offer different prices to different groups of users in the marketplace. This is based on surveys that we do, which indicate that, for example, R&D companies use far more of our science-oriented, copyrighted information than anybody else. So, the prices are higher there, than, for example, in the retail industry, where our surveys indicate very little of the stuff that we have available is used, so the price there is brought down commensurately.

For distributions to rights holders, we also have market sensitivity in that our distribution model is a compromise between a pure volume model (that is, the more that’s copied, the more money you make from us) and a pure value model (that is, the higher your prices in the marketplace already are, the more money you make from us). The classic contrast intended to explain what we are trying to do is that you can buy the New York Times on a newsstand for a dollar or so every day, but you can’t buy a high intensity research biology journal for less than $10,000 a year. There’s something that the market is saying there about the relative value of the two items, and that relative value is built into our distribution model as well.

The post Levy vs. License: Collective Licensing in the United States appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/levy-vs-license/feed/ 0
Join CCC in London at Researcher to Reader 2018 http://www.copyright.com/blog/join-ccc-london-researcher-reader-2018/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/join-ccc-london-researcher-reader-2018/#respond Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:00:15 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=15752 CCC's Jake Kelleher and Jennifer Goodrich share their “can’t-miss” sessions at Researcher to Reader, a forum for publishers and technology providers.

The post Join CCC in London at Researcher to Reader 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
The international scholarly content supply chain takes center stage every February in London at the Researcher to Reader Conference, a premier forum for discussion among content authors, publishers, librarians, and technology providers which ranges from content creation, discovery and use, through to archiving and preservation. 

CCC colleagues Jake Kelleher, Vice President of Business Development, and Jennifer Goodrich, Director of Product Management, share their take on “can’t-miss” sessions at this year’s conference: 

JEN GOODRICH:  

  • Workshop E – Open Access Communications (Mon 26 Feb, 10:20 AM)
    How can publishers, funders, research organizations and other stakeholders co-operate to communicate with each another and researchers more efficiently? 

This workshop, led by front-line industry experts Valerie McCutcheon, Research Information Manager, University of Glasgow; Catriona MacCallum, Director of Open Science, Hindawi Publishing; and Liz Ferguson, Vice President, Publishing Development, Wiley, is vitally important to the scholarly publishing ecosystem in this moment, making it one of my top “can’t miss” events. The question of sustainability for OA business models is in many ways predicated on the effectiveness with which authors, institutions, funders, and publishers align, and real solutions will only come about if these parties tackle challenges and obstacles together in forums such as this. 

  • Workshop D – Metadata Lifecycles (Mon 26 Feb, 10:20 AM)
    Why should researchers and readers care about metadata quality? 

My second pick is also a workshop, led by open data authorities Ginny Hendricks, Director of Member & Community Outreach at Crossref and founder of Metadata2020, and Ross Mounce, Open Access Grants Manager at Arcadia Fund. Beyond being an operational issue for publishers, rich, connected, and reusable metadata holds the promise of improving scholarly pursuits and advancing science for researchers and readers. When genuinely backed by all stakeholders, it can facilitate easy content discovery, bridge gaps between communities, and eliminate duplication of effort and research. Researchers and readers ought to learn as much as they can about metadata and ways to support it. 

JAKE KELLEHER: 

  • Constants in a Changing World (Tues 27 Feb, 9:30 AM)
    How learned societies can survive and thrive in an open future.  

My first “must-attend” event is an expert panel discussion led by founder and director of Research Consulting and R2R Chair, Rob Johnson, alongside Catherine Cotton, CEO of the Federation of European Microbiological Societies (FEBS); Sally Hardy, Chief Executive of the Regional Studies Association, and Caroline Sutton, Director of Editorial Development at Taylor & Francis. In contrast to their larger counterparts, society publishers face unique challenges in terms of adapting to and offering value in an increasingly open landscape, while simultaneously pursuing their mission-driven activities in their field. When done right, however, OA can add to, rather than subtract from, the model of traditional society journal publishing. This panel is likely to have terrific advice on how to bring that vision to fruition.  

  •  From Open Access Dream to Administrative Nightmare (Mon 26 Feb, 3:30 PM)
    The ever-increasing burden of open access policy on libraries and researchers 

As part of the “Open Access & Open Science in Institutions” stream, this presentation from Elizabeth Gadd, Research Policy Manager at Loughborough University, and Yvonne Budden, Head of Scholarly Communications at the University of Warwick, promises to be really enlightening for funders, publishers, and technology providers, as these institution-based stakeholders elaborate on their current OA pain points. It’s incredibly important to discuss, evaluate, and appreciate the outcomes (good and bad) of OA mandates now that they have been operationalized. If the open model is to be successful in the long run, the needs of all players in the scholarly publishing ecosystem must be heard and accommodated with the assistance of new solutions, technology-based or otherwise.  

 

Interested in meeting up with Jen or Jake at Researcher2Reader?
Send a note to publishers@copyright.com and we’ll get in touch to set up an appointment!  

The post Join CCC in London at Researcher to Reader 2018 appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/join-ccc-london-researcher-reader-2018/feed/ 0
Hear CCC on Collective Rights Management at the 2018 International Publishers Congress http://www.copyright.com/blog/hear-ccc-collective-rights-management-2018-international-publishers-congress/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/hear-ccc-collective-rights-management-2018-international-publishers-congress/#respond Mon, 12 Feb 2018 19:17:06 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=15673 CCC panel participation, Gui Minhai's Prix Voltaire Award, an interview with International Publishers Congress' Michiel Kolman and more.

The post Hear CCC on Collective Rights Management at the 2018 International Publishers Congress appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
CCC returns to the International Publishers Congress with Michael Healy participating in the Collective Rights Management Panel. The 2018 gathering of national, regional and specialty publishers takes place in New Delhi from 10-14 February.

Interview with IPA President Michiel Kolman

As much as India has transformed over the last 25 years, so has publishing. National barriers to the flow of information have largely fallen while the ubiquity of mobile devices places a virtual global library in nearly every human hand. Yet the core concerns of IPA endure – freedom to publish and respect for copyright. In an age of fake news, censorship and piracy, says IPA President Michiel Kolman, publishers can be stewards of truth and quality.

“We live in a world of alternative facts, so trust in reliable, high-quality information is now even more important than ever before,” he tells CCC’s Chris Kenneally in a recent episode of the Beyond the Book podcast. “And it’s the publishers around the world that have risen to this challenge and are publishing what I would call trustworthy information, as they have been doing for ages. That’s true for science publishers, for trade publishers, or educational publishers.

Listen now.

CCC on Collective Rights Management

13 February 2018, 4:00 to 5:30 PM

Chair: Ana María Cabanellas, Grupo Claridad; IPA past President, Argentina

Panelists:

  • Caroline Morgan, Chief Executive & Secretary General, International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations, Belgium
  • Sudhir Malhotra, Chairman, Indian Reprographic Rights Organization, India
  • Michael Healy, Executive Director of International Relations, Copyright Clearance Center, United States
  • Kevin Fitzgerald, Senior Advisor Copyright and Creative Industries, WIPO, Switzerland

International Publishers Repeat Call for Gui Minhai’s Release

This year’s Prix Voltaire award for honour a person or organization adjudged to have made a significant contribution to the defence and promotion of freedom to publish in the world goes to scholar and publisher Gui Minhai. Gui has been incarcerated in his native China since 2015 on the charge of distributing banned books. The International Publishers Association explained their choice in this statement:

“At the 2018 IPA Prix Voltaire award ceremony in New Delhi, the International Publishers Association (IPA) renewed its calls for the release of Prix Voltaire recipient, Gui Minhai. Mr Gui’s daughter, Angela, welcomed the Award on his behalf on a night when the IPA also handed out two posthumous Special Awards.

IPA President, Michiel Kolman reminded the gathered audience why freedom of publish was so important to IPA: ‘Freedom of expression is a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet this right is under continuous, sustained, daily attack, with writers and publishers vilified, jailed, tortured and killed merely for doing their jobs.’

Receiving the award, Angela Gui said: ‘I think that my father’s version of optimism is perhaps precisely the kind that Voltaire describes. It’s an optimism that in the face of unimaginable cruelty still believes in change. And it’s an optimism that isn’t crushed by lies, force and humiliation.’”

Can’t make it to New Delhi? Stay up to date and join in the conversation on Twitter, using the hashtag #IPACongress2018.

The post Hear CCC on Collective Rights Management at the 2018 International Publishers Congress appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/hear-ccc-collective-rights-management-2018-international-publishers-congress/feed/ 0
The Evolution of Collective Licensing http://www.copyright.com/blog/evolution-collective-licensing/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/evolution-collective-licensing/#respond Thu, 08 Feb 2018 08:00:08 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=15633 The system of compensation for use of a creative, original work evolved naturally out of the music scene in 19th century Paris.

The post The Evolution of Collective Licensing appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
Jessica Pettitt: I’m joined here today by Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel of Copyright Clearance Center, Frederic Haber.

Fred, I’m interested in knowing more about the intersection of collective licensing and copyright law. Can you explain it a little bit for us?

Frederic Haber: Sure. We’ll first need some history about the origin of collective licensing to set the context.

Copyright law was originally designed around the assumption that somebody would create a work, like a novel, that would be of great significance. And the point was that the author wanted to get the novel published, and somebody was going to earn money through sales of the copies of the book (in the first instance usually the publisher, who would share the proceeds with the author under their contract with each other). That was the ideal model for copyright back three and four hundred years ago.

Then came the mass marketing of copyrighted works in the text and image worlds, and eventually of recordings of music as well. Suddenly, there were all these uses of intellectual property that were incidental to the core goal of selling individually treasured copies of the entire piece of intellectual property.

THE CREATION STORY FOR COLLECTIVE LICENSING

The classic, premodern example of how music was made in the music industry here was when a composer would produce a piece of music, would sell the music to an orchestra, and would get paid a lot of money for all the rights. Then, the orchestra could do whatever it wanted with it and make its own money that way. However, once someone recorded that same music on a phonograph record, many, many people were going to play it and possibly in a context where the composer would be entitled to some money.

The story – maybe it’s best to see it as a creation myth – goes back to the middle of the 19th century, on Avenue des Champs-Élysées in Paris.

The story – maybe it’s best to see it as a creation myth – goes back to the middle of the 19th century, on Avenue des Champs-Élysées in Paris. Three composers and librettists of light operatic music that was very popular in its time, were lounging on the Champs-Élysées at a café, having coffee and watching the people go by. After they finish their coffee, they get up to leave, when the waiter comes chasing after them and says, “Messieurs, you didn’t pay your bill. You took something from me, and you have to pay for it.” The composers’ response was, “Well, Monsieur, you took something from each of us and you should pay us for it.” That is, the musicians in the café were playing these composers’ pieces for the entertainment of the people, which was helping the café owner get customers to eat there or drink there. Essentially, the café owner was making money from the music, and the composers thought that they, too, were entitled to some money.

That may or may not be an exactly true story, but it is the mythological source for the first collective licensing organization, which was in fact started by those three composers in France in the mid-19th century. It started with music for exactly the kind of uses that we’ve talked about— the performance of music for the entertainment of people by somebody other than the composer, other than the copyright holder – whether it was a bunch of musicians, or by the end of the 19th century, a phonograph recording, in either case playing the music in public.

The notion underlying collective licensing was that there was no way for every composer, for example, to issue a license to every café in Paris – let alone the rest of France – let alone the rest of the world – for the right to use the music for a couple of minutes here and there at a price that anybody could afford. There were simply going to be too many transaction costs.

So, in the middle of the 19th century in France, a notion quickly gained traction among music copyright holders that they could create what was fundamentally a union, and that the union could efficiently license all of their works together for the convenience of users, in order to earn a meaningful amount of money and then divide up the money among themselves.

COLLECTIVE LICENSING SPREADS ACROSS TIME AND GEOGRAPHY

JP: Did this then spread to other countries?

FH: Yes. What started in France in the middle of the 19th century, was imitated elsewhere – first, all over Europe. The first such collective in the United States – which still exists – is known as ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, and it was started in 1914, which, luckily for them, was about five minutes before commercial radio was invented. As soon as radios started playing music and selling ads, the rights holders realized that here was this wonderfully convenient way to make money for composers, without having to deal with every broadcaster or listener in America. All they had to do was issue a license on a collective basis to a radio station that would pay appropriately.

The first such collective in the United States – which still exists – is known as ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers, and it was started in 1914, which, luckily for them, was about five minutes before commercial radio was invented.

But it took many years to figure out what an appropriate basis for payment was – almost 30 years in fact! Finally, a model was put into place where ASCAP and a couple of other organizations in the United States collected rights from virtually all the people who owned the rights for the commercial performance of music. On the other side were auditoriums, music halls and theatres, and then radio stations, and eventually television stations, and eventually the Internet, which bought the rights to perform music in huge collections for a license price that could then be divvied up among the various rights holders.

Learn More: Explore CCC’s Copyright Certificate Courses

JP: What about other forms of intellectual property?

FH: Of course, other types of copyrighted works apart from music started to be put to similar mass uses – like text, for example. What reproduced text quickly? Well, we’re past the monks; we’re even past the big printing presses; we’re down to the convenience photocopier, which was suddenly in every corridor in every office in America and soon the world. By the middle of the 1960s, the concern was that convenience photocopying had become very cheap and pervasive, and it was very easy to reproduce a book, reproduce a newspaper, reproduce a scientific article for next to nothing, thereby eliminating the possibility of additional sales and subscriptions for the rightsholder. The end result of this technology problem was, again, a banding together, as was done by the composers in France in the middle of the 19th century. Authors and publishers of text, whose works were going to be frequently reproduced by photocopying, banded together into a collective organization of a similar kind. In our case, in the United States, it’s called CCC, Copyright Clearance Center; and similar organizations exist in 60 or more other countries as well.

COLLECTIVE LICENSING AND COPYRIGHT

JP: So, where is the connection between collective licensing and copyright?

FH: Copyright entitles rights holders to be compensated for all kinds of uses of their works. Some uses are worth a one-on-one negotiation – for example, between the author of a piece of fiction and the publisher of that piece of fiction. But, on the other hand, if I’m publishing a newspaper, with many articles each of great interest to a lot of people, or a scientific journal, again with many articles each of interest to a lot of people, it is still true that no one article is going to be worth enough for me to negotiate the reproduction rights with every business or science-oriented company in America. So, what we’ve done instead is collect the rights on one side and combined them in a single license, and then we present all those rights as a large mass to the user market, who then buy the rights to use the entire mass (even if they definitely won’t use every item in the mass), paying a single fee for the privilege. We collect the money and divide it up among rightsholders based on usage data. This is intended to fulfill the purpose of copyright in connection with low-cost rights in the most efficient way possible.

We…collect the rights on one side and combined them in a single license, and then we present all those rights as a large mass to the user market…

JP: So, this collective action benefits both rights holders and users?

FH: Right. Rights holders collect money that would otherwise be in tiny little bits that they could not afford to collect, and in that way they are able to protect their copyright rights. On the flip side, substantial users of lots of other people’s copyrighted materials are prepared to pay for it, as long as the transaction costs are not extreme. They can purchase rights a-la-carte from us if they want to, but most companies that do business with CCC buy a single annual license. They pay a big piece of money all at once to CCC and then they get the right for a year to do anything that the license allows them to do with all those pieces of copyrighted material, which is more than ten million individual works. As context for that number, please note that a book is an individual work, but so is the entire run of the New York Times from 1896 to 2017 – and so we are probably talking about hundreds of millions of books and articles in the repertory.

The post The Evolution of Collective Licensing appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/evolution-collective-licensing/feed/ 0
Copyright Law in 2017: A Look at What Happened in the News http://www.copyright.com/blog/copyright-law-2017-look-happened-news/ http://www.copyright.com/blog/copyright-law-2017-look-happened-news/#respond Thu, 11 Jan 2018 08:00:53 +0000 http://www.copyright.com/?post_type=blog_post&p=15291 Changes to the Copyright Office, piracy attacks on major media corporations and trade negotiations put copyright on the front page.

The post Copyright Law in 2017: A Look at What Happened in the News appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>

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

2017 was a tumultuous year – even in the copyright world.

In this three-part series, we’re taking a look at the most significant U.S. copyright moments of 2017 from a few different perspectives: what happened on Capitol Hill, in the courts, and in the headlines.

Changes to the Copyright Office, piracy attacks on major media corporations and trade negotiations put copyright on the front page.

U.S. Copyright Office

Changes to the Copyright Office, piracy attacks on major media corporations and trade negotiations put copyright on the front page.

In 2017, the U.S. Copyright Office continued to publish important copyright policy reports to help shape and modernize U.S. copyright law. The most significant of these were reports on Sections 108 and 1201 of the Copyright Act.

Following a one and a half year public consultation process, the U.S. Copyright Office released its report on Section 1201, concluding that the overall framework of Section 1201 is sound. The Office does not recommend altering the basic framework of Section 1201, but did recommend certain legislative updates, including expanding existing exemptions for security and encryption research and adding new provisions to allow circumvention for other purposes, such as the use of assistive reading technologies and the repair of devices. The report also recommends an amendment to give the Librarian of Congress discretion to authorize third parties to assist the beneficiaries of temporary exemptions granted via the statute’s triennial rulemaking proceeding. In addition, the report identifies changes to the Office’s administration of the rulemaking to streamline the process for renewing previously adopted exemptions.

The Office also issued a Discussion Document to facilitate discussions involving potential statutory updates to Section 108 of the Copyright Act, which provides for certain limitations for libraries and archives for purposes of preservation, replacement, and research. In the Discussion Document, the Copyright Office states its “longstanding belief that Section 108 needs to be updated so that libraries, archives, and museums have a robust, comprehensible, and balanced set of exceptions in order to fulfill their missions. The primary objective of the Discussion Document is to provide a concrete framework for further discussion among stakeholders and Members of Congress.” The document also includes model statutory language that would, among other things, make many changes to the organization and scope of Section 108 as well as the provisions relating to making of preservation, research, and replacement copies.

The most anticipated report by the Copyright Office is still forthcoming. This is the report on Section 512 of the Copyright Act, which relates to the very contentious notice and takedown and safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. For the past two years or so the Copyright Office has been collecting information from stakeholders with the last request for information coming in the first quarter of 2017. Thus, it’s probably safe to assume that we will see this report sometime in 2018.

With legislation to modernize the Copyright Office apparently still far away, the Office chose not to wait and instead to try and do what it could to modernize the Office in areas where legislation was not necessary. Over the course of 2017, the Office issued proposed new or interim rules relating to the group registration of unpublished works, newspapers and secured tests (to name just a few), as well as revising the Compendium to improve the Office’s practices. The Office also took steps to implement a new electronic system to designate and search for agents to receive notifications of claimed infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Related Reading: Copyright in 2017 – 12 Big Court Cases to Know About

Piracy Trends

2017 brought three new piracy trends. The newest piracy challenge is something called Kodi. Kodi is an open source media player application that is itself legal. The problem is that these boxes often come “fully loaded” with “impossibly cheap subscriptions to improbably large selections of Movies, TV shows, Live Sports, etc. [that] are not affiliated with the Kodi project.” These “criminal boxes,” as Kodi puts it, are the work of “criminals who profit from piracy.” Several movie studios including Universal, Disney, Twentieth Century Fox, Sony, and Netflix struck back, filing a lawsuit against one of the worst offenders – TickBox TV for “intentional inducement of, and knowing and material contribution to, the widespread infringement of Plaintiffs’ rights,” arguing that “TickBox urges its customers to use [TickBox TV] as a tool for the mass infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted motion pictures and television shows.”

Unfortunately, with each step forward that the music industry takes to reach its fans, there are bad actors one step behind who exploit these new capabilities and harm the industry, individual song writers, composers and performers and — most of all — the music fans. 2017 was no exception, as pirates turned to a new method of illegal copying called stream-ripping. Stream-ripping is a process by which everyday listeners can “rip” a file from a streaming platform and convert it into a downloadable file, and apps that facilitate this process are rapidly growing in popularity. A Music Consumer Insight Report published by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry found that “stream-ripping is the fastest-growing form of infringement,” surpassing even file-sharing. The study also found that nearly half of millennials age 16 – 24, in countries around the world, engage in stream-ripping from popular platforms like YouTube. The difficulty in combatting this problem is that there are no infringing links or content to pinpoint and eliminate. Instead, stream-ripping targets legitimate copies of music and creates illegal reproductions. One method for dealing with this issue, however, is to target the source. For example, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sued the website “Youtube-mp3” for copyright infringement based on its stream ripping services.

The last piracy trend I will highlight is hackers ransoming copyrighted content. During the course of the year, hackers threatened to leak hit shows like Netflix’s Orange is the New Black, HBO’s Game of Thrones, ABC’s Steve Harvey’s Funderdome, and others, if the studios did not pay the millions of dollars in ransom that was being demanded by the hackers. When the studios refused to pay the ransom, the hacker leaked the shows. The Department of Justice eventually indicted the man responsible, Behzad Mesri. Mesri is charged with one count of wire fraud, one count of computer hacking, three counts of threatening to impair the confidentiality of information, one count of aggravated identity theft, and one count of interstate transmission of an extortionate communication.

International News

Immediately after taking office, President Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. Trade Representative to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and another executive order stating the Administration’s intention to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). That action was followed in May by a letter from U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer to Congress stating President Trump’s intent to renegotiate the NAFTA, a formal requirement of the 2015 Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation which initiates a 90-day period during which the Administration must consult with Congress before beginning renegotiations. The letter stated the Administration’s intention to “modernize” NAFTA to address digital trade, and to include “new provisions to address intellectual property rights,” among other objectives.

In July, the Office of the USTR released its “Summary of Objectives for the NAFTA Renegotiation.” On intellectual property, the USTR wrote that it wants to “ensure provisions governing intellectual property reflect a standard of protection similar to that found in U.S. law” and also “ensure standards of protection and enforcement that keep pace with technological developments, and in particular ensure that rightsholders have the legal and technological means to control the use of their works.” Later on the year, Ambassador Lighthizer released an updated version of the NAFTA negotiating objectives, which include “provisions governing intellectual property rights that reflect a standard of protection similar to that found in U.S. law, including, but not limited to protections related to trademarks, patents, copyright and related rights (including, as appropriate, exceptions and limitations)” and “rules that limit non-IPR civil liability of online platforms for third party content.” Although it was originally hoped that negotiations could be concluded before the end of the year that goal was not met and negotiations will now continue through 2018.

The USTR also “formally initiated an investigation of China under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974…to determine whether acts, policies, and practices of the Government of China related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation are unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce.” Presumably we will know about the results of this investigation in 2018.

Keep Learning:

The post Copyright Law in 2017: A Look at What Happened in the News appeared first on Copyright Clearance Center.

]]>
http://www.copyright.com/blog/copyright-law-2017-look-happened-news/feed/ 0