[GOAL] Re: Librarians, copyright and the IR
Heather, I think you nailed it. Thanks for your supportive words on behalf of librarians. We're advocates (and in some case, leaders) in OA. On the other hand, we need to extricate ourselves from being copyright police (in the case of IRs), OA enforcers (in the case of institutional mandates), and patsies to publishers (where we allow anti-OA and non-disclosure statements to be written into licenses, etc). The ultimate responsibility lies with authors. We can and should advocate for them, as should administrators (who can do so by incentivizing publishing in OA venues via hiring practices, tenure & promotion considerations, etc). All best, Stacy Konkiel Stacy Konkiel Director of Marketing & Research at Impactstory <http://impactstory.org/>: share the full story of your research impact. working from beautiful Albuquerque, NM, USA @skonkiel <http://www.twitter.com/skonkiel> and @Impactstory <https://twitter.com/ImpactStory> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> wrote: > Copyright and intellectual property are arguably among the most important > and most contentious social issues of our times. The internet can be used > for open sharing or for vigorous enforcement of an expanding range of IP > rights. What kind of society emerges in the future will depend a lot on the > outcome of some of the current debates. The open access movement is a key > driver of the push for open sharing. > > Libraries and librarians are active proponents not only of open access but > also fair and balanced copyright, at an international level. Library > associations like the International Federation of Library Associations > (IFLA) and the European Bureau of Library, Information and Documentation > Associations (EBLIDA), are among the very few voices for the users of > copyrighted materials at international venues such as the World > Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the EU. Library associations > work with like-minded groups to uncover the intellectual property > discussions that have moved from relatively open, democratic venues such as > WIPO to secretive trade treaties (the now-defunct ACTA, TAFTA, the TPP). > Library associations are among the most vocal and effective advocates for > balance in copyright laws at the national level. > > At the institutional level, my perspective is that there is a growing role > for librarians with respect to copyright. This is in part due to the > increasing role of librarians in scholarly communication. Another factor is > the shift from print-based materials and copyright to the electronic > environment where the mix of contract, licensing and rapidly evolving > copyright law make for a much more complex and not at all settled > environment. Here, librarians play a central role in the licensing of > electronic resources which overlaps with copyright. The push by ARL > libraries and others to eliminate non-disclosure clauses and the fight for > public libraries' right to lend e-books are examples of library leadership > in these areas. The institutional roles of libraries can include such > matters as educating and advising the community and formulating > institutional policy. > > Again from my perspective, there is an increasing tendency for librarians > to take on a leadership role with respect to copyright at academic > institutions, precisely because of the overlap with related functions > (licensing and scholarly communication), and this is a good thing. > Information studies programs are expanding their education in this area. > For example, I am currently teaching a course in the MIS program at ÉSIS on > information and the law, and copyright is a major focus. > > It is in the context of this understanding of these leadership roles of > the profession in the areas of copyright and licensing that I argue that in > the case of the institutional repository, where authors are depositing > their own work, the library should avoid taking on the role of copyright > guarantor. This should remain in the hands of the depositor / author, > unless the author specifically requests that the library undertakes this > service. If we wish scholarly authors to assert their own rights to their > work, then when they come to the library to deposit their work in the IR, > it is reasonable to presume that the author has this right, and that if > they do not have such a right, then they should be aware of their actions > in transferring copyright, or at the very least that they are adults and > have the right to take responsibility for their own actions. It strikes me > that some good legal language to make it clear who is taking responsibility > (the individual, not the library except if the library is asked to do this) > would be h
[GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex
+100 to what Richard said. >> they should not interfere with the process of self archiving on the basis of such considerations as scientific quality or any kind of personal judgement. << Ah, but what about when the review step is put into place to ensure that copyright is not violated? IR Librarians have, unfortunately, become the enforcers of copyright restrictions at many universities. Somehow, we ended up with the responsibility of ensuring that we're not opening our uni's up to liabilities when paywall publishers come a-threatening with their pack of lawyers because a researcher has made the publisher's version of a paper available on the IR. Contrast that with the Terms of Service of websites like ResearchGate and Academia.edu, who put the onus on the researcher to understand and comply with copyrights for the papers they upload--and *trust* the researchers to do so. No wonder we're getting beat at our own game! But I digress. I agree that library-based IR workflows need a lot of improvement. Librarians need to start pushing back against legal counsels and administrators who make us into the gatekeepers/copyright enforcers. But I take exception to the assertion that we librarians need to step back and let the grownups figure out OA workflows. We often know just as much as researchers at our institutions about copyright, OA, IP, etc. What we need is a partnership to eradicate the barriers to OA that exist at the institutional/library policy and workflow levels. Oftentimes, library administrators take what groups of informed researchers have to say much more seriously than what their rank and file librarians say about things like OA. We could use your support in tearing down these barriers and getting rid of awful legacy workflows that restrict access, rather than this sort of divisive language that suggests we're just dopes who don't get OA and are making things harder for researchers. Respectfully, Stacy Konkiel Stacy Konkiel Director of Marketing & Research at Impactstory <http://impactstory.org/>: share the full story of your research impact. working from beautiful Albuquerque, NM, USA @skonkiel <http://www.twitter.com/skonkiel> and @Impactstory <https://twitter.com/ImpactStory> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:09 AM, wrote: > I do not believe they are asking for anything contradictory. > We all agree on (1), but when (2) is asking (some) librarians to get out > of the way, it means just that they should not interfere with the process > of self archiving on the basis of such considerations as scientific quality > or any kind of personal judgement. They are welcome to help making the > deposit which should be done as fast as possible, in restricted access if > required. > > > Le 23 sept. 2014 à 16:27, "Richard Poynder" > a écrit : > > I suspect that Andrew Adams and Stevan Harnad may be asking for two > contradictory things here. If I understand correctly, they want 1) as near > 100% OA as soon as possible and 2) for librarians to get out of the way so > that researchers can get on and self-archive. Given that many researchers > have shown themselves to be generally uninterested in open access and, in > some cases, directly antagonistic towards it, and given that over half of > UK researchers appear to be unware of whether or not their future articles > will need to be published in accordance with the RCUK policy or not ( > http://goo.gl/Y3Lyua) I cannot see how keeping librarians (who have done > so much to fill repositories and to educate researchers about OA) out of > the way (wish 2) is going to help achieve wish 1. > > > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Stevan Harnad > *Sent:* 23 September 2014 14:33 > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* [GOAL] Re: The Open Access Interviews: Dagmara Weckowska, > lecturer in Business and Innovation at the University of Sussex > > > > Andrew is so right. > > > > We did the rounds of this at Southampton, where the library (for obscure > reasons of its own) wanted to do time-consuming and frustrating (for the > author) "checks" on the deposit (is it suitable? is it legal? are the > metadata in order?). In ECS we bagged that right away. And now ECS has > "fast lane" exception in the university repository (but alas other > departments do not). Similar needless roadblocks (unresolved) at UQAM. > > > > *Librarians*: I know your hearts are in the right place. But please, > please trust those who understand OA far, far better than you do, that this > library vetting -- if it needs to be done at all -- should be done *after* > the deposit has already been made (by the author) and has already been made > *immediately* O
