Academics v Publishers: Revolution in the air?

Following George Monbiot's scathing article in the Guardian last month, the subject of academic publishing has been weighed and been found wanting. Of course, librarians and academics have long known that journal publishers monopolise the market; even as much as ten years ago the larger publishers were busy buying out the smaller ones who weren't strong enough to compete with them. But outside of academia people are largely unaware of the struggles every electronic resources librarian faces each year as budgets shrink and journal bundle prices steadily increase. Tough decisions often have to be made, and naturally the impact is felt by researchers, academics and students.

Which is why today's announcement that Princeton University is enforcing an Open Access policy forbidding academics from transferring the copyright in their articles to journal publishers is so significant. Academics are required to licence their work instead, so that they retain the copyright and are therefore able to reproduce it elsewhere without having to seek the permission of the publisher. This could spark a welcome trend which would allow academics and universities to maximise their outputs and revolutionise knowledge sharing.

Certainly in the UK, where most universities now have institutional repositories which host research outputs (scholarly articles written by their academics), this trend would be welcome and would resolve numerous difficulties in attempting to interpret publisher policies. Part of the problem is that academics are often unaware of the terms they agree to when they sign a Copyright Transfer Agreement (for an example see here). Yet even when they are aware, academics often don't have time to negotiate licence agreements with publishers as they are under pressure from their institution and/or funding body to publish. Most of the larger publishers either do not allow a version to be deposited in the repository or are very specific about the version which can be deposited, and attempting to contact publishers for permission is usually incredibly difficult if not impossible. And whilst organisations such as SHERPA/RoMEO provide a useful source of information on publisher policies, policies are changing all the time and it is difficult to maintain up-to-date records. Recent woes include publishers moving to automated systems which invoice funding bodies and universities directly for open access; these sorts of issues cause headaches for repository managers and copyright officers alike.

This is is not to decry the value of academic publishing, and indeed it has been interesting to read reactionary pieces and comments to the Monbiot article (including from the publishers themselves) which indicate moves afoot in the publishing world. But what is increasingly obvious is that the current mainstream system cannot continue forever; something's got to give, and one wonders whether Princeton has just thrown down the gauntlet to universities everywhere...

Photo from Flickr: Princeton University by Yakinodi (CC-BY 2.0)

By George, We’ve got Ourselves a Washington Declaration

Washington, D.C. is a busy place for copyright these days and not just on Capitol Hill.

At the end of last month, intellectual property experts from around the world gathered in the earthquake and hurricane afflicted city for the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest.  This particular blogger did not attend the Congress, preferring to stick to the earthquake-only danger zone of San Francisco.  However, readers can find a full report of the Congress from attendee Technolama here.

One of the accomplishments of the Global Congress was the creation of the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, a document outlining the importance of reviewing the effects of changes made to the international intellectual property framework over the last few decades.

Summary

1. IP is important, but so are other types of rights, “including human rights, consumer protection, competition and privacy” and IP laws should be drafted within the framework of these other laws. [It’s good to see recognition that people must act within the confines of many different laws, not just IP laws. However, one must wonder about the ranking of these different types of laws. Why should IP laws be drafted within the framework of say, consumer protection laws? Why not the other way around?]
2. The public domain and openness are good things.  The public domain should be protected from further encroachment by term-lengthening and openness should be promoted.
3. Exceptions and limitations to intellectual property rights are important, especially when designed to assist people with disabilities or for creating archives.  Countries should have flexibility to implement them as fit for their jurisdiction.

4. Patent systems are out of wack and need to be redone.  New systems should encourage better incorporation of public interest priorities.

5. Creative contributions to society matter and “rewarding and empowering authors and artists may be needed.”  To this end, new methods need to be explored.  “Such innovation can help to end today’s fruitless disputes over practices like noncommercial file-sharing.”
6. Enforcement should be balanced; the punishment should fit the crime.
7. Development is still a key concern.  Not only should development be considered in new IP laws, developing countries should also be assisted in taking full advantage of existing opportunities.
8. New IP policies and laws should be based on research and evidence “rather than fait or ideology.”

Although the declaration does advocate scaling back some of the recent changes to intellectual property, it is not a pirate party type of manifesto.  The declaration is written and supported by a large group of intellectual property scholars and experts, and it asks for review, not for an overthrow of copyright.  The declaration recognizes the importance of intellectual property laws, “Intellectual property can promote innovation, creativity and cultural development.” But it also calls for a reexamination of current and proposed IP laws.

Many of the suggestions in the Washington Declaration are familiar, having come up in the context of the WIPO Development Agenda, a number of open licensing communities and many conversations this blogger has had with IP experts in Africa and Latin America.  Does this declaration represent a bigger push for change, and if so, are we getting close enough to the tipping point for an actual shift?

Those wishing to comment on or show their support for the Washington Declaration can do so at the above link. 

Photo: Washington D.C. cc-by John-Morgan available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/aidanmorgan/1470415503/

Copyright Law, Getting in the Way of Getting Copyrighted Works

“The biggest barriers that consumers face in accessing copyright works
are those created by copyright law.”  And with that profound statement, Consumers International begins its exploration into how copyright and consumers interact, investigating the barriers consumers face when attempting to find information.

The book is Access to Knowledge for Consumers: Reports of Campaigns and Research 2008-2010, and it presents the findings of two years of studies conducted by Consumers International.  These studies included surveys of consumers across a wide variety of countries, in-depth reviews of the effects of enacting new flexibilities in the copyright laws of Australia and Israel, and reports from six country groups involved in advocacy at the national level.

Consumer Survey

The global survey looked at potential barriers to access (to knowledge) in four different categories: Political, Economic, Social and Technological.  The book includes a full copy of the survey questions, highlights of notable qualitative answers and full charts of quantitative breakdowns.  Unfortunately, the charts are a bit hard to read sideways on a computer screen.  A surprising finding of the survey was that African consumers have the highest respect for copyright law.  A not-so-surprising finding was that consumers are confused about FOSS (free and open source software) and open licensing.

However, in combination with the other studies, Consumer International also found:

Part of the solution to the access barriers that consumers face is the wider use of open content, such as Open Educational Resources (OER) and free and open source software (FOSS). Our survey found that most consumers are aware of these alternatives, and ready to give them a try.

Based on this information, Consumers International has identified “the need for education of consumers on the unique features of FOSS and (though not covered in the phase one survey) other forms of free licensing such as Creative Commons.” 

Copyright Law Flexibilities

Australia’s 2006 amendments to its copyright act added flexibilities that made time-shifting and formatting-shifting legal.  Before the enactment of the amendments, arguments arose that the amendments would interfere with the markets for legal downloads and a threat to nearly every type of copyright protected work.  Results of the research conducted revealed that the content industry’s nightmares did not come true. 

[T]here was evidence to suggest that the amendments may have increased compliance with the law – not only by legalising the common and harmless consumer practices in question, but by improving some consumers’ respect for the fairness of copyright law in general.

When looking at Australian’s perspectives on whether and when it is ok to download copyrighted material, the book again presents a mix of quantitative data and qualitative information. Some of the justifications of those who feel it is ok to download to their heart’s content are rather amusing.

“Because when I see what happens, when people like Britney Spears
get paid what they do and act like they do. This means to me the
entertainment industry can kiss my arse!!!!!!!!”

Israel introduced fair use into its British-based copyright act in 2007.  To study the effects of the introduction of this provision, researchers compared case law before and after 2007.  The concept of fair use existed in Israeli copyright before 2007, but it was not codified.  Results of the analysis was slightly disappointing but hopeful.  Finding that fair use claims rarely succeeded and that courts were applying the doctrine in disparate ways, the researchers also expressed belief that this will change with the progression of more cases.

In conclusion, we find the law in Israel, while evolving to meet the
new digital creativity landscape, still lacks the balance which will reflect the social understanding of what should constitute a fair use and how copyright can foster creativity and innovation.

Country Group Reports

The book includes reports on national advocacy from Brazil, Cameroon, India, Nigeria, South Africa and Zambia.  Each of these reports discusses activities done in the country to promote access to knowledge and the strengths and weaknesses of these activities.

 

Access to Knowledge for Consumers: Reports of Campaigns and Research 2008-2010 is a 336 page book, but it will not cause you back strain.  The entire book is available in pdf, released under a Creative Commons BY-SA license.