Five Questions With… Claudia Holland

chollandClaudia Holland, Associate Professor & Scholarly Communication Coordinator, Mississippi State University Libraries
This is #2 in our series of get-acquainted posts among members of ASERL’s Scholarly Communication community.


Describe your current scholcomm position.

This year I was hired at Mississippi State University Libraries in essence to build a sustainable scholarly communication (SC) program. A few years ago, the library created six in-house SC committees (copyright, open access publishing, OER, IR, open data, & digital scholarship) to address institutional needs and expand services that the library offered. We’re currently defining priorities and integrating them into a new strategic plan–with populating our IR, establishing a data repository, and OER outreach priorities floating to the top. Copyright is pretty much a given no matter what.

What attracted you to scholcomm work?
I enjoy change and challenges, hallmarks of SC in general, I believe. I kind of fell into this “specialty” when I became the University Copyright Officer in 2008 at George Mason University, my former institution. I was happily working as a Liaison Librarian for the Sociology/Anthropology and Communication departments, but the library needed someone to take the copyright position. I said I was interested and that eventually fed into broader SC work. I was asked to chair Mason Libraries’ first SC team, which I led for four years until I was named Head of the Scholarly Communication and Copyright Office (all 1-½ of us). One of our most successful endeavors supported by the Dean was to establish an Open Access Publishing Fund. The fund enabled a lot of faculty conversations about open access. Our long term goal was to put the fund out of business insofar as possible because researchers would learn to build OA publication costs into their grant proposals rather than rely on the library for assistance. We tried to set up a research profiles service, but it was too labor intensive; plus, the open software we were using required more maintenance than we had time for and expertise in. But it was a great experience!

Scholarly communication work is a moving target in many ways. Just when you think you have a plan of action, something changes and you have to decide whether to stick with your original plan, integrate the new approach, or simply walk away. To me, making that call is the most difficult part of the job. Also, unless you have dedicated help from colleagues, working alone can be isolating and makes your projects much harder to advance.

What is the most rewarding part of your job?
One of the most rewarding aspects of my work is collaborating with others to develop an idea into a successful program or service, and seeing evidence that this effort makes a positive difference in the lives of students and faculty in my university community and, hopefully, beyond. It sounds hokey but it’s real.

If you had a magic wand and could change one thing in the scholcomm ecosystem, what would it be?
Wow, this is a hard one; there are so many aspects of the ecosystem I would like to change. Some brief thoughts, unweighted:

  • I would like to see commercial academic publishers willingly cap profits at reasonable rather than extortionist levels.
  • I would like to see promotion and tenure processes for all disciplines modified to embrace openly-published scholarship and different forms of scholarship.
  • I would like to see all researchers feel personally driven (not mandated) to share their scholarship and data in open repositories.

If you were NOT a scholcomm librarian, what would you be?
If you mean work-related, I would either focus my efforts solely on OER advocacy and policy change at the state level, or return to my first academic love as a cultural anthropologist (I went into archaeology because I knew I could get a job with a Masters). I enjoy working with people no matter what I’m doing. We can learn a lot from each other; all we have to do is listen and observe.

If you mean non-work related, I would buy a good-size chunk of land somewhere I love and have several gardens and lots of critters. I would invite my closest friends and family to build their homes on this land and live the rest of my life exploring opportunities that crop up. 😉

Road Show Report: ORCID Workshop in Atlanta

orcid-logoOn September 8, 2017 as Hurricane Irma was approaching landfall and thousands of Floridians were packing into Atlanta to avoid its fury, our colleagues at Georgia State University Libraries hosted a one-day “road show” workshop led by ORCID, the researcher identification system (www.orcid.org). Despite the looming storm and the crowds that came with it, approximately 25 librarians from across the region attended the workshop, most from ASERL institutions.

Founded nearly five years ago, ORCID is a nonprofit organization that offers a free 16-digit identifier (“ORCID iD”) to academic authors and other contributors to research and scholarship. This iD number allows researchers to connect themselves with their works and affiliations so their outputs can be correctly attributed to creator(s) and aggregated and tracked throughout their careers. To date, more than 3.8 million ORCID iDs have been minted, and registration is growing at a rate of approximately 25,000 IDs per week. ORCID has produced a fun and informative video that provides an overview of their services: https://vimeo.com/97150912

ORCID iDs are provided at no charge, so how does a not-for-profit membership organization with a staff of 29 people scattered around the world support itself? In its early days, ORCID received initial support from loans from the scholarly communications community and later grant monies, including a significant endowment from the Helmsley Foundation (Leona Helmsley was not always the “queen of mean,” leaving all her fortune to her dog.) Today, ORCID is supported largely by libraries, research institutions, publishers, research funders and other players in the scholarly communications ecosystem that pay annual fees in exchange for real-time access to the ORCID database via Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)

ASERL members have access to deeply discounted ORCID Premium memberships via an agreement with the Greater Western Library Alliance. The discount provides five APIs for a cost of $4,000/year, more than 80% less than ORCID’s “list price” for Premium memberships that are paid by large commercial entities. Several other library consortia (LYRASIS, NERL, Big Ten Academic Alliance, etc.) offer similar discounts. (Note: ORCID’s services and pricing schedule is the same for libraries as for publishers and other commercial users, but only nonprofit organizations receive the deep discounts.)

To achieve full functionality of ORCID is far more complex than I initially realized. This may explain why few universities have fully implemented the complete suite of ORCID services. ORCID’s integration program is called “Collect and Connect.” Full utilization of ORCID includes member organizations (universities, publishers, repositories, etc.) undertaking the following:

  • Confirming the affiliation of author identify of the researcher through an authentication process (OAuth), providing trust in the community;
  • Collecting and storing authenticated ORCID iDs;
  • Displaying iDs on member directories and other sites;
  • Connecting information about affiliation and contributions to an individual’s ORCID record, so creators can share trusted information with other systems and profiles they use;
  • Synchronizing data between systems to improve reporting accuracy and speed  and to allow researchers to spend more time making contributions and less time managing them.

For universities, full implementation includes:

  • Faculty/staff/students signing up for an ORCID iD, using it when prompted (e.g., when publishing an article or applying for a grant), and adding personal information such as links to their profile on relevant websites (personal pages, departmental pages, etc.);
  • Where needed, updating information previously added to ORCID records, such as articles published prior to receiving the ORCID iD. (In some cases this work is done by liaison librarians as a courtesy to the faculty they serve.);
  • University systems providing independent confirmation that a researcher is employed at the institution and pushing that information to their ORCID record;
  • Use of ORCID APIs by university systems (e.g., faculty profiling systems) that facilitate reporting of scholarly output at the institutional level.

Publishers and standards organizations also play a vital role, including:

  • Implementing ORCID IDs as part of their metadata schemas;
  • Using ORCID’s APIs to connect DOIs with iDs to ensure ORCID profiles are up-to-date.

So, it’s complicated. Members of the national ORCID consortia in Australia and Italy have implemented more ORCID services than in other parts of the world. Italy has a nationalized university system that mandated use of ORCID, resulting in over 90% take-up of ORCID among Italian researchers. In Australia, the Australian Access Federation has funded two full-time staff to work closely with universities and their libraries to implement various ORCID-related services. This has resulted in 35 of the consortium’s 40 members having one or more ORCID integrations up and running.  Additionally, a growing number of publishers are requiring authors to provide ORCID iDs for all submissions, incentivizing the use of ORCID from the publisher side.

To help foster greater utilization of the full array of its services in the US, ORCID has suggested US consortia consider supporting a model similar to the one used in Australia: to fund staff specifically to work directly with libraries to develop the communications and systems needed to implement ORCID fully. How this would be done across various library groups is yet to be determined – perhaps via a surcharge on the annual ORCID membership fee paid by each US library to cover staffing costs? LYRASIS is leading the development of a national survey that will determine the interest and price levels that ORCID members (via their consortia) are willing to pay for this kind of direct system implementation support.  The benefits are clear, as seen in the Australian example.  Given the huge discounts on the ORCID Premium membership fees enjoyed by libraries and the apparent need for implementation assistance, it seems a modest surcharge might be a useful method to ensure libraries get the most from their investment in ORCID. This survey is expected to be distributed to consortia (which will then distribute it to their member libraries) later this Fall.

But I thought we were just talking about OA

This post was contributed by Anita Walz, Open Education, Copyright & Scholarly Communication Librarian at Virginia Tech. This blog post is based in part on a presentation given at the Library Publishing Forum 2017, Baltimore, MD, entitled: “Adaptation? Derivatives? I thought we were just talking about Open Access.”

This is an invitation to librarians, particularly those engaged in publishing, to explore current standards and practices, clear communication to non-librarians, and to prompt us to reflect about and discuss our values as libraries supporting access and creation of scholarly and learning resources. I hope that this blog post will:

  1. Better know how to help our clients to think thru licensing options—especially to prompt authors in thinking about the needs of users (and potential users);
  2. Acknowledge a diversity of perspectives regarding what we may mean when we say “open access” and choose our words carefully;
  3. Develop a shared sense of best practices and values as library publishers. Namely, what is our mission and what do we value? Are we fulfilling our mission & values?

Libraries and library publishing initiatives are uniquely situated to both inform authors and to set policies that reflect our values and prioritize the use of limited time and resources to fulfill our respective missions.

Defining open

Within library, scholarly publishing, and open education initiatives the word open can mean many different things1: free online, free to read, or in the case of Public Domain and Creative Commons licenses which allow derivatives—free to adapt and redistribute.

Open access is an area within Scholarly Communication and the publishing industry at large that seems fraught with confusion, even though the prescriptive direction for the landscape was set nearly 15 years ago: The 2003 Berlin Declaration articulates the definition of “Open Access” as is the equivalent of a Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY) with one important caveat—limits on the number of print copies. “Open Access” in this case is not the same as “free online.” Yet, truth be told, I don’t use the phrase “Open Access” anymore. Many faculty I talk with understand “Open Access” to mean “free online” regardless of the in-copyright and/or open license (or not) status of a work. In my experience, this phrase does not convey to my faculty the full potential of an item with a CC BY license. I talk instead about “free online” and “openly licensed,” and occasionally discuss the difference between gratis (no cost) and libre (free as in freedom).

Are No-Derivative licenses open enough?

A few semesters ago a new faculty member contacted me about fair use. The book she wanted to use for her course was out of print. While the library had multiple copies and there were half a dozen used books for sale, she had nearly 125 students. Could we license a digital version? No. Could she make copies? It depends. Published in 1987, the book was still clearly in copyright. After a semester of displaying one-chapter-at-a-time via library eReserves under a detailed fair use assertion, I worked with the publisher and authors and found that the rights had reverted to the authors. I negotiated with the authors to broaden access to their work by licensing it with a Creative Commons license and allowing worldwide digital access. Anyone is now able to access, read, download and share the digitized text free of charge, and the faculty member’s problem regarding student access to the text was solved.

I should be happy, right? Yes, the students in the VetMed course have access to an excellent text selected by their professor. The authors were happy to broaden the audience for their work and delighted to see new readership for their classic book which was published in 1987. The text is “free online” and can be freely redistributed with attribution.

Still, I was dissatisfied. The license chosen by the authors was the Creative Commons Non-Commercial No-Derivatives license. CC-BY-NC-ND I failed to convince the authors that there may be value in allowing others to modify their text with attribution—and I don’t mean translation or reformatting pages. I wondered: Is it open enough? Couldn’t we do better? My colleague working in an Open Education Initiative at another University cannot offer it to her faculty as something they could customize. Opportunities for development of albeit hypothetical derivatives, such as “Veterinary Epidemiology in Tropical Climates” or “VetEpi in Emergencies and Disasters” or “VetEpi for Small Animals,” cannot exist without an author starting from scratch. We still have the same problem as before where we can stand on the shoulders of giants, but cannot build on their works.

This has resulted in lingering questions: Is there anything I could have said to persuade the authors? We have limited resources: what kinds of projects do we as a department and as a library choose to support?  (The question of how to license our library-created works has for the most part already been settled.)

Ingredients matter

Several years ago I was involved in a grant-funded project to create a reusable digital learning object. The learning object was to be an open source platform which several faculty members would use as an ancillary teaching resource in their course. The code for the platform was also to be widely and publicly shared as open source software. It was an exciting project. It was not as exciting when small snippets of commercial code were licensed and an iStockPhoto appeared as the main part of the interface — both done to expedite completion of the project. Both actions meant we could not openly license the platform or to share the code openly. When we don’t value the reusability potential of resources we create or the components that go into such works, we end up creating resources which have limited potential impact.

Going beyond “free to read”

In my experience as an Open Education Librarian at Virginia Tech, I rely heavily on licenses which go beyond “free to read” or “no cost distribution” to those that allow derivatives. The following Creative Commons licenses (and Public Domain markers) allow remix, customization, and redistribution with attribution, allowing anyone to build on the shoulders of giants — which can save the time and effort of rebuilding on an otherwise solid foundation. In the case of learning resources, this is helpful because Geology, Calculus, French, Physics and the like don’t change very quickly.

CC-BY CC-BY-NC CC-BY-SA CC-BY-NC-SA CC0 PubDomMark

You’ll notice that two Creative Commons licenses are missing above, those which prohibit the creation of derivatives.

In November 2016, the Open Textbook Network, on whose Advisory Board I serve, issued a new policy regarding a preference for CC BY licenses. However, what was most striking to me was the decision that books with a “No Derivative” license will no longer be added to the Open Textbook Library. Legacy “No Derivative” titles were not removed, but no additional “ND” titles will be added. I cheered the decision, as this would make it easier for users to know how to find titles that could be remixed or adapted, like the 2015-16 Fundamentals of Business textbook on which I worked that was a deep revision of an openly licensed 2011 Intro to Business title. Yet, I wondered: How do we enable discovery of the entire range of free-online, CC BY-ND or CC BY-NC-ND books? I wondered: Is limiting the Open Textbook Library to only editable books too narrow? How do we help faculty, students, and broader audiences to navigate the increasingly complex maze of CC-but-not-editable and CC-and-editable items? Are we creating another complex wrinkle for readers and would-be users?

Author decisions

Deciding what to do with one’s copyrights as well as whether or not to openly license is the prerogative of the copyright holder. Authors concerned about the integrity of their work may question the use of Creative Commons licenses, all of which allow redistribution, and some of which allow adaptation (derivatives) with attribution.

Allows adaptation Allows redistribution Requires attribution Eliminates fair use
PD (no known copyright) Yes Yes No No
PD0 / CC0 (donated to public domain) Yes Yes No No
CC BY Yes Yes Yes No
CC BY SA Yes-under same license terms Yes Yes No
CC BY NC Yes Yes Yes No
CC BY NC SA Yes-under same license terms Yes Yes No
CC BY ND No Yes Yes No
CC BY NC ND No Yes Yes No
In-Copyright with no additional license or permission No No  — No

Who says whether it is open enough?

Whether something is “open enough” might be determined by what the eye-of-the-beholder sees or values. Something being “open enough” depends on the willingness of the copyright holder to allow and make space for unimagined possibilities. The vision and creativity (or desperation) of a potential adapter can then leverage this to make something new out of an existing openly licensed work.

In my experience, authors tend to take a conservative stance, opting to do what they’ve always done out of habit, or because they’re unaware of the negative consequences or missed opportunities for others, or out of concern for “what might happen.” Clearing these hurdles requires creativity and tact.  It requires an analysis regarding risk and probability around concerns about potential negative effects. It also requires providing authors with a vision for what sharing and cooperation can do for us, the benefits of Ut Prosim (Virginia Tech’s motto: “That I may serve”), and the reality of virtuous circles. A few places to start these discussions include a blog post by Ryan Merkley of Creative Commons, Sharing, the Foreword of the recent book Made with Creative Commons, or the Why Openness in Education, Chapter 6 of Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies (2012).

Library values (and boundaries)

As librarians, we have a responsibility to educate our potential authors regarding options and outcomes. I see each of these decisions as an investment toward the future, as voting for the future we want, or of getting the future we have chosen. I cannot rightly tell a faculty or staff member, student or colleague, “this is the license you should choose.” I am responsible, however, to invest in the types of projects I should be working on, to say “no” to those outside of the priorities and values, and to carefully leverage the grant monies at my disposal. I’m also responsible to be clear regarding rationale to the people with whom I work, including my understanding of long- or short-term opportunities, impacts, or consequences related to potential projects. I enjoy providing opportunities for those yet unmet who will interested in leveraging and adapting openly licensed content for the benefit of readers beyond what I and the authors I work with can presently imagine.

 


1 For a longer discussion on this topic, see Pomerantz and Peek in First Monday at http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i5.6360.

© Anita Walz CC BY 4.0 International

5 Questions With… Andy Wesolek

photo of Andy Wesolek

Andy Wesolek, Clemson University

Andy Wesolek, Head of Digital Scholarship at Clemson University, gamely agreed to be our inaugural profile in the new
5 Questions With… series. It helps that he’s also the new ASERL Scholarly Communications Interest Group Co-Chair, so he couldn’t exactly say no!

In this new series, we will be profiling ASERL scholcomm librarians each month so we can learn more about one another. If you’re interested in sharing your scholcomm story, or wish to know more about a fellow ASERL librarian’s path by suggesting they be featured, contact Molly Keener or Andy Wesolek.

Q1. Describe your current scholcomm position.

I currently serve as the head of digital scholarship at Clemson University. In this role, I lead a team of 3.5 FTE committed to advancing our digital scholarship initiatives. Broadly, these encompass scholarly communication and digital imaging. More specifically, we focus on institutional repository management, library-based publishing efforts, copyright education and compliance, and developing an array of educational programming. We also implement OER and OA funding initiatives and work closely with the special collections unit to digitize and make accessible the cultural heritage of the Upstate and archives of Clemson University.

Q2. What attracted you to scholcomm work?

It was actually a very happy accident! I trained as a reference librarian, then after obtaining my MLIS, I began working on a masters in philosophy at the University of Idaho. While there, I worked in university archives and digital initiatives. When I hit the job market, I applied primarily for emerging technologies librarian positions (a title I rarely see these days). I was fortunate to have applied to one such position at Utah State University and while I did not get the job, several future colleagues noted that I had the skill set to serve as a scholarly communication librarian, a position that was also open. I had some reservations, because at the time I knew next to nothing about the scholarly communication environment! But, Utah State is awesome, and they provided me with on-the-job training, at which point I totally fell in love with the work.

Q3. What is the most rewarding part of your job?

I think there are very real and clear ethical dimensions to creating a more open and effective scholarly communication environment, and I find it deeply rewarding to play a role in that, no matter how small. I am particularly passionate about open publishing facilitated by libraries and university presses. Editing the Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, several monographs, and a special issue of a journal has allowed me to work with some really powerful thinkers and bring their ideas together into holistic works.

Q4. If you had a magic wand and could change one thing in the scholcomm ecosystem, what would it be?

Promotion and tenure decisions would be based in part on a thorough reading of a candidate’s published work and assessment of its quality, rather than reliance on various impact metrics. Institutional reliance on journal impact metrics is one of the biggest barriers to increased innovation in the scholarly communication space. I think the scholarly communication environment is going to get messier before we see the emergence of another dominant (or two or three) revenue model and that we can move more quickly through this messy period by eliminating reliance on journal impact metrics—and even author and article level metrics that are often incomplete and unreliable.

Q5. If you were NOT a scholcomm librarian, what would you be?

Good question! Maybe a furniture builder/cabinet maker? I love woodworking, but I am too slow and meticulous to make it profitable. That or full-time bicycle rider and traveler? Is that a thing?

 

Revenge of the Fourth Factor: GSU Back in Court

posted by Tucker Taylor (University of South Carolina) and John Burger (ASERL), July 31, 2017.

The Georgia State University e-reserves copyright case is still going after all these years. Officially starting in 2008, this case has bounced around the courts for many years, and it was back at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, July 27, 2017.  The plaintiffs are Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and Sage Publishing, with significant financial support from the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) and the Association of American Publishers (AAP).  The case deals with nonprofit academic institutions’ rights to post portions of copyrighted materials online for their students –  how much and under what circumstances is this allowable?  Most of the importance of this case revolves around how US copyright law interprets Fair Use provisions under these circumstances, which is common to all academic institutions.

There have been many blog posts and articles about the GSU case by library copyright experts such as Brandon Butler, Dave Hansen and Kevin Smith, and others.  And a good overview, if a bit outdated, to this long, complicated case can be found on Wikipedia.  Please check those out for more detailed information on the case.

Potential for Market Harm
While each lawyer had prepared remarks, most of the time in court was devoted to a back-forth conversation between the three judge panel and each of the attorneys.  The focus of the overwhelming amount of the conversation focused on how Judge Evans at the District Court interpreted and implemented the directive from the first Appeals Court panel regarding the importance of the potential for market harm, the fourth factor in assessing Fair Use.  The first Appeals panel noted that in this type of case – nontransformative use of copyrighted materials  – the risk of harm from market substitution was “severe” and directed Judge Evans to give the fourth factor greater weight than in her first analysis.

In her first decision, Evans gave each of the four factors equal weight — 25% each.   After receiving the first Appeals Court ruling, Judge Evans’ second decision re-calculated the weighting of each of the factors:

  • 25% to factor 1 (purpose and character of the use),
  • 5% to factor 2 (nature of the copyrighted work),
  • 30% to factor 3 (amount and substantiality of the portion taken), and
  • 40% to factor 4 (the effect of the use on the potential market).

In her second review, Judge Evans also changed the methodology she used to determine the fourth factor, taking into consideration the licensing revenues the plaintiffs would have received for each of the book excerpts they cited as potential infringements.  In some cases, the revenues the publishers would have gained if GSU had  licensed the content would have been quite small — just a few dollars — which seemed to impact Evans’ interpretation of potential for market harm.

The product of Judge Evans’ detailed analyses:  In her first decision in 2012, Evans identified 31 instances of potential copyright infringement using the 25%/25%/25%/25% formula.  In her second decision in 2016, Judge Evans found only four of the same uses to be infringing using the ‘new’ 25%/5%/30%/40% formula and the new process for determining the 4th factor.   In this most recent hearing, Judge Pryor in particular found this change in methodology and its results to be completely untenable and he was singularly focused on this issue.  Further, at one point Judge Pryor commented to the court that he “hates balancing tests” and believes them to be “antithetical to the rule of law.”  He later noted that if Judge Evans’ second ruling was allowed to stand “everyone in educational settings could do what GSU did and steal the content.”   Ahem.

Availability of Licensing
Judge Rosenbaum’s main line of questioning also centered around the fourth factor, although not the same aspect.  Rosenbaum questioned the “circularity” of relying solely upon the availability of a license to determine market harm, and noted that the availability of a license is not, in her opinion, “determinative.”  She pointed out that this sole criteria created a situation that would never allow Fair Use if a license were available, and this was not a sufficiently meaningful way to determine where the scale tipped for the fourth factor.  She even quoted from the preamble to the Fair Use statute that includes teaching with multiple copies for classroom use as an example of a fair use to bolster her line of reasoning.  This question was raised several times by Rosenbaum and Pryor during the arguments, however a clear answer was not offered as a result of their discussions.

The Specter of an Injunction
The publishers’ attorney noted that the case has always been about seeking a judicial injunction against the type of uses they found objectionable at GSU, not monetary damages.  Judge Pryor asked the plaintiffs’ lawyer what they would like to see an injunction, beyond a ruling of “follow the law.”  Rich pointed to the Classroom Copying Guidelines drafted by Congress in 1976, as well as the need to have training for and oversight of faculty who are tasked with determining if their desired use of content falls within the boundaries of Fair Use.  Attorney Rich was also able to work several anticipated points into the discussion, such as the detrimental effect of repeated use of the same material, to Princeton v Michigan Document Services (the ‘course pack case’), to American Geophysical Union vs Texaco, and others.  Regrettably, GSU’s lawyer failed to rebut those analogies, as each has been found to be not germane to this case in earlier proceedings.

In his argument, GSU’s lawyer Steven Schaetzel pointed out the lack of evidence for market harm.  Most of his time was devoted to defending Pryor’s barrage of questions regarding Judge Evan’s re-evaluation of the fourth factor determinations.  Schaetzel defended this by saying Evans needed to examine the evidence holistically in order to judge how to best weigh the factor.  Schaetzel summed up his arguments by stating that the publishers’ fear was not that faculty would make bad Fair Use decisions, but instead that they would make good ones.  He believes the goal of this case is to enshrine the availability of a license to be the only determining factor, which would remove the possibility of Fair Use from educational use.

Who Should Pay Legal Fees?
A small amount of the discussion was spent on reviewing Judge Evans’ decision requiring the plaintiffs to repay all of GSU’s legal fees, approximately $3M at this point. Judge Martin questioned Schaetzel to explain why he felt the court costs should be awarded to Georgia State.  Schaetzel felt that there were several actions by the publishers that were worthy of deterrence, including how they had complained of thousands of unspecified possible infringements before the trial, but at trial they only could specify 99 instances, and later could only pursue legal action on half of those claims because of lack of evidence and lack of case, either because the publishers could not show they owned the copyright or they could not prove there was any use of the works.   The discussion of legal fee awards was very brief, and difficult to gauge how each judge felt about the matter.

Conclusion
We were partly expecting – hoping, perhaps — that this hearing to be focused primarily on who would pay the legal fees, considering the two previous decisions from the District Court strongly favored GSU.  However, it was clear the publishers are dogged in their determination that Judge Evans at the District Court erred in her methods in both the first and second rulings, and they are continuing to actively pursue an injunction against GSU.  If there is a decision against GSU, it would ostensibly be limited in its effect — impacting only  universities in the 11th Circuit (Georgia, Florida, Alabama) and how they can use Fair Use principles to provide unlicensed content to students via e-reserves.  In reality, the final ruling will likely be interpreted to apply to libraries nationally, so the implications here are significant.  On the other hand, the use of e-reserves varies widely among libraries — some libraries see it as a technology that has come and gone, while other libraries continue to use it quite actively – the ultimate impact of this seemingly-endless litigation could vary widely.

 

 

 

Summer scholarly communication plans

May means summer for those of us in higher ed, and if your library is like mine, summer means projects (and construction…ALWAYS construction). Here’s what I, and a few of our ASERL colleagues, have planned for our summer of scholcomm!

Robin @ Johns Hopkins: continuing work on the draft OA policy for JHU; overhauling the scholcomm libguide

Melanie @ Emory: redeveloping the ETD repository; finalizing brand new Scholarly Communications Office website

Jeanne @ ECU: hiring a Data Services Librarian; working on the textbook initiative; developing tutorials on scholcomm topics

Molly (me!) @ Wake Forest: planning for integration of the Digital Initiatives & Scholarly Communication team and Teaching & Learning Center in renovated library space mid-fall; developing Digital Humanities/Scholarship faculty workshop series for AY2017-18

What are you working on this summer? Email me, and I’ll add it to our list!

Updated 5-23-17 to add…

Hillary & the ScholComm & Publishing division @ VCU: kicking off our new Affordable Course Content Awards program; hiring a Research Data Librarian, holding scholarly communications workshops for library faculty and staff; refining OA publishing fund guidelines; working toward publication of new OA journals and monographs; review of ETD processes and requirements

Devin @ FSU: working with the inaugural winners of our alternative textbook grants program to adopt, remix, and create open textbooks for their courses; facilitating our first Know Your CopyRights! internal training workshop series; OA policy implementation efforts, including automated metadata harvesting and bulk-soliciting post-prints from authors who published in Yellow SR journals in 2016

Laura @ GSU: develop/redevelop a graduate student workshop series focusing on fair use/permission in dissertations, fair use/permissions in teaching, and author rights in publishing; plan for an ORCiD push in the fall; and take the Georgia Bar Exam in late July [Good luck, Laura!]

Updated 6-27-17 to add…

Brandon, Chip, Dave, Sherry, & Ellen @ UVA: on June 23, hosted the Virginia Scholarly Communication Interest Group forum, with 30 attendees from libraries and organizations around the Commonwealth (this group has been meeting twice a year for four years now); August soft launch of final phase of our scholarly repository replacement project: Libra Open, which will join Libra ETD and Libra Data as modern containers for all kinds of open products of research generated by UVa scholars; actively building an open access journal publishing service, coming months will bring some exciting developments; summer is scholcomm org-building time, including overhauling our web presence for copyright and scholarly communication advocacy

Updated 7-5-17 to add…

Claudia @ MSU: Claudia Holland left George Mason University and is now the first scholarly communication librarian at Mississippi State University Libraries. Three years ago, the library established five committees in the areas of open access, OER, institutional repositories, copyright education, and data management for the purposes of: assessing the University community’s knowledge about these and related issues; offering internal library education, as needed; and planning for services for/outreach to the university community. During that time, MSU’s institutional repository was established, numerous in-house trainings and external workshops on these topics were offered, a website was created, and a summit on data services was held. Claudia will be working with her new colleagues to plan and implement the next steps in the library’s SC journey. Planning priorities include advancing OER/OT adoption, increasing deposits in the IR, and collaborating with MSU’s Office of Research and Economic Development to address grant compliance (e.g., funder required DMPs & access to scholarship produced by grantees).

Fair Use Week 2017

fair-use-week-logo-smHappy Fair Use Week 2017!

Following on the heels of Love Your Data Week, Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week is “an annual celebration of the important doctrines of fair use and fair dealing. It is designed to highlight and promote the opportunities presented by fair use and fair dealing, celebrate successful stories, and explain these doctrines.” Started in 2015, with support from the Association of Research Libraries, this is the first year that we are participating here at Wake Forest University, with two workshops.

Our first workshop is aimed at faculty, and I will be co-presenting with Carrie Johnston, the Digital Humanities Research Designer, on how to use researcher profile systems and personal websites to maximize scholars’ impact online. As we all know, faculty don’t always think about their copyrights when publishing, nor when they share their published research online, so understanding copyright and fair use, even as it applies to their own scholarship, is critical!

Our second workshop will be for graduate students who are nearing the end of their studies, and are preparing their theses and dissertations. We will be addressing how fair use applies in graduate research, particularly when that research is shared electronically as part of our university’s ETD collection.

While neither of our workshops are directly marketed as fair use workshops, both have strong elements of copyright and fair use woven throughout. Carrie and I decided to hold these workshops during Fair Use Week to acknowledge the critical reliance on fair use that anchors scholarship, and to participate with other libraries in Fair Use Week activities.

If you are new to Fair Use Week, I encourage you to visit fairuseweek.org to see what other institutions are doing to celebrate, and to see what resources are available that you may be able to use this week (hint: infographic!) And if you aren’t new to Fair Use Week…

Tell us — What kinds of activities are happening on your campus to promote Fair Use Week?

Want to know what other ASERL institutions are up to this week? Check out the survey responses below:

Post created by Melanie, but authored by Molly, just in case you were confused as to why Melanie was suddenly talking about work at Wake Forest. We promise the MK co-chairs didn’t swap schools!

Love Your Data Week 2017

This post was contributed by Renaine Julian from Florida State University.

What is Love Your Data Week?

This week (February 12 – 19, 2017) is Love Your Data Week (LYD), a social media event coordinated by data professionals, mostly working in academic libraries, archives, or centers. The purpose of the LYD campaign is to raise awareness and build community around topics related to research data management. This includes things like data sharing, preservation, reuse, and library-based research data services. During Love Your Data Week, we strive to share resources, stories, and practical tips to make researchers better stewards of their own data.  Love Your Data Week is quite similar to Open Access Week, and ScholComm professionals are well-positioned to make a positive impact through their participation.

This year’s theme is data quality, and our target audience is early career researchers. Each day of the week will have a specific focus. For example, Monday will center on getting researchers to think about the quality of the data they’re working with and/or creating. On Tuesday, data documentation will be the focal point, including metadata creation and techniques for describing data like data dictionaries and README files.

What does this have to do with Scholarly Communications?

LYD has a whole lot to do with Scholarly Communications (ScholComm)!  Anna Gold of MIT has said “data is the currency of science” (Gold 2007). And the ability to exchange data, reuse it, and review it is crucial to the productivity of all scholarship.  At Florida State University Libraries, we’ve always treated research data management as a form of ScholComm. There is a logical intersection between ScholComm work and the efforts of data specialists. The recent success of FSU’s data management program is bolstered by this collaboration.

#LYD17 @ FSU Libraries

Being involved with LYD is easy and doesn’t require huge preparation. Last year, we found out about LYD about a week before the event. I knew we wouldn’t be able to do much, but we’re fortunate enough to have a marketing director who manages our libraries’ social media accounts. I introduced him to the concept of LYD, and we went from there. I used the LYD website to find some canned messages that we could deliver, and he was kind (and brave) enough to let me do a takeover of our libraries’ Twitter account on that Monday. Throughout the week, my colleagues and I also used our personal accounts to tweet our thoughts as well as tips and tricks based on the theme of the day. There was positive engagement, and we were glad that we made the last minute effort to participate.

This year, we’re trying to ramp up our involvement. Since I managed to not burn the place down last time, I get to do another Twitter takeover this week. Our team will engage folks based on each day’s theme. The primary difference between this year and last are our efforts outside of social media to engage researchers. Our outreach specialist made an engagement board for our engineering library so that our patrons could post notes on how they document their own data.

Love Your Data Engagement Board @ FSU

LYD Engagement Board

At FSU, we teach workshops regularly on best practices in research data management and creating data management plans. The LYD 2017 theme, data quality, provided a timely opportunity to do our first workshop on data documentation and organization best practices. Since Tuesday’s theme is data documentation, that’s when we’ll host the workshop. It also happens to be Valentine’s Day so I plan to shamelessly encourage participants to give data the tender love and care that it deserves!

How can you get involved?

The participation of the ScholComm community is sure to enhance the success of this year’s LYD Week.  LYD has a low barrier to entry; it’s simple to get involved. When you’re ready to get started, you can find out more by visiting the LYD site and registering your institution! Also, don’t forget to use the hashtags #LYD17 and #loveyourdata.

And don’t forget to share your plans with ASERL:  Use the link to share the kinds of activities that are happening on your campus to promote Love Your Data Week.  And check out the responses below:

Conflicting Visions for the Future of the Copyright Office

By many accounts, 2016 has been a tumultuous year, including within the realm of copyright. The latest copyright skirmish comes as we are all preparing for a new year, and a new Presidential administration—and all the attendant questions and uncertainty those bring. It seems that there are those within Congress who are taking this time of transition as an opportunity to put forth suggested changes to the structure of the Copyright Office and its historical relationship with the Library of Congress. While there may well be cause to review the operations of the Copyright Office and the Library of Congress, particularly as our newest Librarian of Congress, Dr. Carla Hayden, settles into her tenure as Librarian and begins to chart her course for fully bringing the LOC into the 21st century, the suggestions that have come forward thus far have been more concerning than intriguing.

For those who are not as knee-deep in copyright nerdiness as I, a quick recap of events:

  • On October 21, 2016, the seemingly abrupt re-assignment of the Register of Copyrights, Maria Pallante, caught many by surprise; however, given that her previous calls to move the Copyright Office out of the Library of Congress were at odds with the new Librarian of Congress’s desire to keep the CO within the LOC, it isn’t wholly surprising.
  • On November 28, 2016, two former Registers of Copyrights, Ralph Oman and Marybeth Peters, issued a letter calling for the removal of the Copyright Office from the Library of Congress, citing Ms. Pallante’s dismissal as evidence that all libraries, and especially the Library of Congress, are poor leaders of the U.S. copyright system.
  • On December 8, 2016, the House Judiciary Committee issued a statement (and YouTube video…who knew they did this? I didn’t!) charting proposed revisions to the structure of the Copyright Office and the appointment process for the Register of Copyrights within the Legislative Branch.

Needless to say, many librarians, libraries, and library organizations rightly objected to Mr. Oman’s and Ms. Peters’s denunciation of libraries as effectively being at odds with copyright and their call for an “independent” Copyright Office.

In swift response to the House Judiciary statement last week, the Library Copyright Alliance issued a statement calling for the Copyright Office to remain within the Library of Congress and under the supervision of the Librarian of Congress. This week, two additional letters have been issued: one by ASERL’s own Duke University Libraries, and another by 42 copyright experts working in libraries [full disclosure: I signed], an effort spearheaded by an ASERL colleague from UVA, Brandon Butler. These letters voiced further support for the retention of the Copyright Office within the Library of Congress, and expounded upon how libraries and librarians do, in fact, work to support the role of copyright as enshrined in the Constitution to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts.”

Hopefully these are just the first of many voices affirming libraries’ support for copyright, and for keeping the responsibility of oversight of the Copyright Office, and appointment of the Register of Copyrights, under the auspices of the Library of Congress.

UPDATED December 16, 2016 11:54 a.m.

Hot off the presses from the U.S. Copyright Office NewsNet Issue 648, a way to make your voice heard on what you believe we need in our next Register of Copyrights:

The public will have the opportunity to provide input to the Library of Congress on expertise needed by the Register of Copyrights, the Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, announced today.

Beginning today, December 16, an online survey is open to the public. The survey will be posted through January 31, 2017. Input will be reviewed and inform development of knowledge, skills, and abilities for fulfilling the Register position.

Information provided through the survey will be posted online and submitters’ names will appear. Note that input will be subject to review, and input may not be posted that is off-topic or contains vulgar, offensive, racist, threatening or harassing content; personal information; or gratuitous links to sites that could be considered spam. The Library’s complete comment policy can be viewed here.

To provide input through the survey, click here.

Conference Report from OpenCon 2016

This report was contributed by Andy Wesolek from Clemson University.

What is OpenCon?

OpenCon is an international conference and community for, and of, early career researchers and students committed to Open Access, Open Education, and Open Data. Nearly 10,000 researchers and students applied for the 200 seats available at the November 2016 live conference. Scholarships covering transportation and attendance were provided by SPARC through member institutions. In addition, member institutions may sponsor up to two scholarships to reserve seats at OpenCon for their own researchers or students. Both I and our amazing Undergraduate Instruction and OER Librarian, Kirsten Dean, were the fortunate recipients of scholarships supported by Clemson University Libraries. As a result, we were able to attend the live OpenCon event, which was held on November 12th and 13th in Washington, DC.

The OpenCon Experience

Only a small majority (~52%) of the attendees at OpenCon called North America home, so it was a wonderful venue to connect with global colleagues, and to better understand the opportunities and challenges of Openness at their institutions and in the countries. Holding the event in Washington the weekend following the Presidential Election also made for interesting conversation with international colleagues, and indeed many of the keynote presenters altered their presentations to focus on the urgent and political dimensions of the Open agenda.

The greatest value in attending the live OpenCon event is not in the formal presentations, though they were excellent, but in the informal networking and discussions with global colleagues. OpenCon is intended to facilitate the growth of an active community in support of Open, and it was structured to reflect this. Many of the formal offerings took place in small group settings with workshop or unconference structures.

Advocacy Work

Following the conference, OpenCon sponsored a day of advocacy. During the first half of the day, we were given a crash course in advocacy work. Topics ranged from communication and messaging, to strategies for continued conversation. SPARC then arranged for us to break into small groups to meet with our local representatives.

Kirsten Dean, Lillian Rigling (NCSU Libraries Fellow), and I met with a representative from South Carolina Senator Tim Scott’s office. Prior to the meeting, we reviewed Senator Scott’s legislative agenda to develop a message primarily focused on Open Educational Resources and economic development through access to education in South Carolina. Senator Scott’s office was receptive to the message and enthusiastic to support openness. We encouraged them to take a concrete approach by supporting FASTR in the senate, and we hope to continue the conversation going forward.

How you can get involved

Joining the OpenCon community is as simple as signing up at: http://www.opencon2016.org/community. You might also consider contacting your local senator or congressperson. I was honestly a bit nervous attending a meeting on Openness with a conservative Senator’s office, but in doing a bit of research, there are powerful arguments in favor of Openness that will resonate with each side of the aisle. For example, Senator Scott’s office appeared receptive to arguments in favor of Openness that focused on efficient spending of taxpayer dollars and expanded access to community college and vocational training.