Posts

Earlier this year I had the privilege of joining the Steering Group for SNSI (the Scholarly Networks Security Initiative). Chairing the SG was an easy decision for me, as I’ve long admired the approach that the group has made to this important question of infrastructure, cybsersecurity and (anti)piracy work, all in the context of stakeholder engagement. That approach involves multiple layers and approaches— from the purely legalistic (mostly focused on site-blocking) to communications, education and awareness-training. Importantly this has also involved technology and library/information resource professionals. All of these threads need to work together to be effective, as I believe the group has been!

Copyright is meaningless in the absence of a means to exercise those rights that is also reasonably useful to users. By enabling efficient licensing and guaranteeing remuneration for creative works, CMOs ensure that licenses meet both rightsholders’ and users’ needs and expectations.

Twenty-five (close to 26) years ago, the publisher plaintiffs in the Texaco case (https://openjurist.org/60/f3d/913) settled with Texaco over unauthorized copying of science journal articles for commercial purposes. The case was led by the American Geophysical Union, the earth and space science society and publisher of a number of leading journals, supported by an extensive list of other scholarly publishers and the CCC (Copyright Clearance Center, where I am a Board member). The decision and settlement were important events in establishing that businesses cannot assume a “fair use” defense, even if they are engaged in some form of research, and led to the establishment and success of the CCC in offering licensing options for corporations (CCC has other licensing and service options as well).

Terrific conference earlier in February at the US Copyright Office, co-sponsored by the World Intellectual Property Office, on “Copyright in the Age of Artificial Intelligence” with speakers addressing issues such as the “human-ness” requirement for authorship and invention under copyright and patent rules. Other difficult issues included the extent to which the ingestion of copyright-protected content might be a fair use or copyright exception, the exploding issue of deep fakes, and an exploration of creativity in computer-generated images and in the “Next Rembrandt” project. Below is Francis Gurry (WIPO director-general) kicking off the 5 February discussions. I attended with a number of CCC colleagues including Roy Kaufman and David Davis, and was happy that my notes were published on the CCC “velocity of content” site here http://www.copyright.com/blog/a-panoply-of-views-on-copyright-in-the-age-of-ai/.

I was pleased to join in the amicus brief supporting the Oracle position on functionality analysis for software copyrightability and fair use, concerning the copying by Google of Oracle’s Java APIs...

Rubbing shoulders at the Frankfurt Book Fair in October reminded me how international the publishing business is. German publishers and authors pass by Korean publishers in the hallways, and potential distributors and translators are looking for local deals for famous international authors. One thing I had to manage as a former General Counsel to an international publisher was how to negotiate international deals and contracts across national boundaries– what laws of which countries should be understood as applying to particular contracts and transactions? In the post you can find HERE I suggest that authors and publishers might agree to bifurcate governing law as between core authorship principles and distribution and enforcement issues.

The copying and distribution of copyrighted content by libraries present complex legal issues, and although there are existing copyright law exceptions for such library activities (primarily in Section 108 of the US Copyright Law), those exceptions have not formally been amended for digital and online uses. The position statement and white paper on controlled digital lending (CDL) published in September 2018 by Kyle Courtney (Harvard) and David Hansen (Duke) is endorsed by a number of libraries, copyright academics, and other organizations such as the Internet Archive, but should be understood to be primarily an advocacy position, relying principally on a “fair use” argument and some risk assessment. While in the past publishers and libraries have worked together on legislative solutions including a working group on Section 108 in the mid-2000’s, and on a number of pilot e-book lending projects in 2013 and 2014, there was no such “bipartisan” engagement in developing the CDL proposal, and publishers (the AAP) and authors (the Authors Guild) have noted their opposition and disagreement with the CDL position. In this presentation I reviewed the legal issues and discussed alternatives and concerns.

The copying and distribution of copyrighted content by libraries present complex legal issues, and although there are existing copyright law exceptions for such library activities (primarily in Section 108 of the US Copyright Law), those exceptions have not formally been amended for digital and online uses.

I’ve seen a few retweets about a 17 March article in University World News called “Open science in the EU—Will the astroturfers take over?”, and my first thought was that it must be a mistake because pro-copyright organizations in the EU have recently been using the term “astroturf” to talk about organizations that are funded by US technology companies to oppose copyright.

Mark Seeley explores the essential professional ethics for publishing on preprint servers. This post delves into the guidelines and standards required to maintain integrity and accuracy in academic publishing in the evolving digital landscape.

Analysis of the text of the TPP Treaty– and comment on the “myths” advanced by its critics and the reality of an attempt at setting transparent norms that would be consistent with US laws.

Copyright law changes are in the air in both Brussels and Washington– what are the key issues, and what implications for publishers?

Mark Seeley presents a critical analysis of the 2nd Circuit Court’s decision in the Authors Guild vs. Google case. Understand the legal implications and how it shapes the balance between copyright and digital innovation in publishing.