Re: "Authors Re-using Their Own Work"
[ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ] [ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ] [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Charles The Australian Act makes no mention of who does the reproduction. Whether I make a reproduction/copy (say electronic by email, or photocopy my manuscript or the journal, or some other form of copy) of my article to give to my PhD student, or he/she does it personally from a CD I lend or a journal issue they borrow, makes no difference. I can even ask an administrative assistant to make the copy for me and deliver it. What matters is that the copy is for the purpose of research or study. Exactly the same applies to a remote researcher who asks me for a copy of my article. I left out sections 1A and 1B of Section 40 but they (amongst other things) even make provision for reproductions of journal articles to be provided to [multiple] off-campus students engaged in a course of study. The Australian Act simply recognises that research thrives on dissemination. I might add that it is equally sensible in other areas, such as photography of copyright works located permanently or temporarily in public places. But Stevan is right. The law is not the issue. I merely pointed out that the Australian Act is more sensible than most in that it legitimises what is common practice, so common indeed as to be hardly worth remarking on except when people query it. The facts are that researchers have practised copying of research articles and sending copies to fellow researchers for a long time, and they continue to do so. My memory of this goes back to when I started work as an academic in 1961, 48 years ago. My publishers then even asked me how many reprints I wanted - not necessary these days. Arthur Sale University of Tasmania -Original Message- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum [mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf Of C.Oppenheim Sent: Saturday, 1 August 2009 10:31 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] "Authors Re-using Their Own Work" The Austrlain Act does indeed permit fair dealing for one's own research or private study; but it doesn't permit copying for distribution to third parties. I am slightly alarmed that there is this misunderstanding about copyright law. Fair dealing for research or private study is when you make a copy for one's own research or private study. Thus, in law, if Dr Jones asks Dr Smith for an electronic copy of Dr Smith's article, and Dr Smith gave away the copyright to Megacorp Publishers, then Dr Smith should strictly not supply that copy (unless the publisher has granted permission for do such things) b3ecause the copy isn't then for Dr Smith's own research or private study, but should advise Dr Jones to make his own fair dealing copy.
Re: "Authors Re-using Their Own Work"
On 1-Aug-09, at 6:15 PM, Arthur Sale wrote: Charles The Australian Act makes no mention of who does the reproduction. Whether I make a reproduction/copy (say electronic by email, or photocopy my manuscript or the journal, or some other form of copy) of my article to give to my PhD student, or he/she does it personally from a CD I lend or a journal issue they borrow, makes no difference. I can even ask an administrative assistant to make the copy for me and deliver it. What matters is that the copy is for the purpose of research or study. Exactly the same applies to a remote researcher who asks me for a copy of my article. Comment: In Canada, a decision in recent years in which the Supreme Court sided with the Law Society of Canada on a similar matter against CCH, supports this view. In brief, under Canadian law, if the user has rights under fair dealing, a library as intermediary has the right to provide services to help the user to make use of such rights. The reprint button is a similar matter. While I am not an expert on copyright law, my reading is that this not only supports author re- distribution of their works (arguably common law, since as Stevan and others have pointed out this has been common practice for many years), but also automating responses to e-print requests, at least in Canada. Copyright law is evolving at an international level. It is important for all groups with a stake to ensure their voices are heard, including academics and librarians. Otherwise, we may end up with laws that do not suit our needs at all, such as laws that forbid tampering with technological protection measures (TPMs), even for legal purposes, one of the nastier provisions of last year's attempt at reform of Canadian copyright law. Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone, and does not represent the opinion or policy of BC Electronic Library Network or Simon Fraser University Library. Heather Morrison, MLIS The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
Re: "Authors Re-using Their Own Work"
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Heather Morrison wrote: > ...under Canadian law, if the user has > rights under fair dealing, a library as intermediary has the right to > provide services to help the user to make use of such rights. The > reprint button is a similar matter. While I am not an expert on > copyright law, my reading is that this not only supports author re- > distribution of their works (arguably common law, since as Stevan and > others have pointed out this has been common practice for many > years), but also automating responses to e-print requests, at least > in Canada. The crucial point, however, is that with the Button it is the individual author who personally decides, with each and every individual eprint request for his own work, whether or not to fulfill the request -- exactly as it has been the author deciding and fulfilling reprint requests for fifty years. The Button helps users discover the eprint itself, and the author's email address, and it helps them automatically email the author, but the decision as to whether or not to fulfill the request can on no account be automated (otherwise that is simply OA!). Hence the analogy with library services is somewhat misleading here. The Button is computationally and ergonomically efficient for contacting the author, but the library is in no way involved in the decision-making about whether or not to fulfill the eprint request (in the way it is in the preparation of, say, a course pack, or interlibrary loan). (If any service is facilitating fulfillment in the case of the Button, it is computational services, via the IR software, rather than library services!) Stevan Harnad
Re: "Authors Re-using Their Own Work"
On 2-Aug-09, at 11:26 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote: (If any service is facilitating fulfillment in the case of the Button, it is computational services, via the IR software, rather than library services!) Comment: this depends on which department is managing the IR. In Canada, this is generally the library. As reported by the Canadian Association of Research Libraries, over 80% of CARL libraries have an operational IR, with more in development. ARL's 2006 SPEC Kit on Institutional Repositories (by Charles Bailey), found that 30% already had an operational IR at that time, and the majority were expected to have implemented an IR by the end of 2007. These figures are obviously out-to-date given the rapid growth of OA by self- archiving. More recent figures would be welcome. However, clearly in more than one country, IRs are most commonly managed by libraries. Other management options may be more common in other countries, of course. Links: CARL Institutional Repository Program: http://www.carl-abrc.ca/projects/institutional_repositories/ institutional_repositories-e.html Bailey, Charles. Institutional Repositories. July 2006. SPEC Kit 292. Association of Research Libraries. Downloadable from: http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/spec/complete.shtml Please note that I am not necessarily advocating implementation of automated e-print request responses, rather pointing out that we might be excessively conservative in assessing what our rights actually are. For Canadians: please note that there is copyright consultation currently underway. Now is the time to advocate for things like fair copyright, elimination of Crown Copyright which would free up access to a great many taxpayer-funded research reports, and against draconian measures that will limit our access, such as making it illegal to break a technological protection measure to enjoy a perfectly legal use of a work. The Canadian consultation site can be found at: http://copyright.econsultation.ca/ Michael Geist's blog is a great way to catch up on the consultation: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ For everyone: there is considerably lobbying at an international level for changes to copyright law, largely coming from those who would like to make as much money from IP as possible (e.g., the entertainment industry, some of the very high profit commercial publishers). It is essential that academia has a strong voice in these discussions, to ensure that scholarship benefits from the potential of the Internet, and that we do not lose some of the rights that we already enjoy. Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone, and does not represent the opinion or policy of BC Electronic Library Network or Simon Fraser University Library. Heather Morrison, MLIS The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com
