Re: [GOAL] Informed consent and open licensing: some questions for discussion
Thank you very much, Marc. It helps a lot to have knowledge from someone who actually does the work. Good luck with writing up your survey, this sounds like a very important line of research. My perspective is that we're only beginning a learning curve that is actually itself in a process of growth. As an example, I teach first year MIS students a bit of the basics of copyright. One thing I like to do is to find examples that illustrate this growing complexity. Anecdotally, I find it gets easier to find such examples every year. Last year all I had to do was go to the Ottawa Public Library website, go to electronic resources, and there at the very top is a service called "Artist Works". This is a tool for learning how to create art and music, so users post their own content. The license (which virtually no one will read) focuses on users' responsibility regarding not only copyright, but also privacy and publicity rights and contracts (users' contracts, i.e. think before posting music if you have a contract with a record label), plus the usual "whatever we didn't think of". I try not to overwhelm students so I left out the easy and obvious "look for a journal provided by University of Ottawa Library and find examples of conflicting and/or incorrect information about usage rights with respect to the journal". uO library is not different from any other large university library that needs to provide simple answers to complex questions for a very large number of resources, and often obtains journals from multiple sources covered by contracts with different terms. As libraries and other information services tend to work with creators more often, rather than just published material, the kinds of IP and related rights we need to work with are increasing. Patent and industrial design law are highly relevant in the Makerspace context. Social media changes the social context. Publicity rights developed in a context where public sharing of photos was mostly done by professional photographers and publishers and so mostly focused on celebrities. Today, the easy sharing of digital images means that publicity rights are becoming highly relevant to everyone. Laws and policy will need to evolve. This usually takes time, and follows rather than leads social practice. The growing complexity and relevance of various types of IP and related rights is challenging to work with, but for this reason, I see it as a career growth area for librarians and other information professionals with an interest in and aptitude for policy work. best, Dr. Heather Morrison Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight Project sustainingknowledgecommons.org heather.morri...@uottawa.ca https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] From: goal-boun...@eprints.org on behalf of Couture, Marc Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 11:57 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: Re: [GOAL] Informed consent and open licensing: some questions for discussion Attention : courriel externe | external email Hi all, Heather Morrison raises in this thread some relevant and important issues regarding open licenses: How they are displayed? How to treat works combining elements bearing various licenses (some of them being possibly “all rights reserved”)? She asks: “who is using embedded licensing metadata (as opposed to displayed), and how?” Licensing metadata embedding, though not explicitly part of its “best practice”, is suggested by DOAJ, and is a condition for obtaining the DOAJ Seal. This can be done by including basic HTML code in the article (and/or abstract) pages, and by importing XMP metadata in the PDF (see https://doaj.org/rights). I was in charge of this task for our small journal (http://ijthe.org) when we had to reapply to DOAJ, and we did qualify for the Seal. However, I didn’t see any way to embed, in the (HTML) abstract page or the PDF, anything other than a global license applying to the whole article. Embedding licensing metadata of individual elements is probably easier in the HTML versions of the articles, but as we offer only PDFs (and HTML abstracts), I didn’t try to find how to do it. Maybe others can pitch in. We do include in the CC mention displayed in the journal footer the disclaimer (“Except when otherwise noted...”), and we clearly display in the articles (as it’s usually done in scholarly publishing) the status of any element not covered by our CC licence. However, I didn’t find anything about embedding in the PDF such a disclaimer, which would be useless anyway if the licensing info of individual elements is not also embedded. As a final thought, as part of an
Re: [GOAL] Informed consent and open licensing: some questions for discussion
Hi all,
Heather Morrison raises in this thread some relevant and important issues
regarding open licenses: How they are displayed? How to treat works combining
elements bearing various licenses (some of them being possibly "all rights
reserved")? She asks:
"who is using embedded licensing metadata (as opposed to displayed), and how?"
Licensing metadata embedding, though not explicitly part of its "best
practice", is suggested by DOAJ, and is a condition for obtaining the DOAJ
Seal. This can be done by including basic HTML code in the article (and/or
abstract) pages, and by importing XMP metadata in the PDF (see
https://doaj.org/rights).
I was in charge of this task for our small journal (http://ijthe.org) when we
had to reapply to DOAJ, and we did qualify for the Seal. However, I didn't see
any way to embed, in the (HTML) abstract page or the PDF, anything other than a
global license applying to the whole article. Embedding licensing metadata of
individual elements is probably easier in the HTML versions of the articles,
but as we offer only PDFs (and HTML abstracts), I didn't try to find how to do
it. Maybe others can pitch in.
We do include in the CC mention displayed in the journal footer the disclaimer
("Except when otherwise noted..."), and we clearly display in the articles (as
it's usually done in scholarly publishing) the status of any element not
covered by our CC licence. However, I didn't find anything about embedding in
the PDF such a disclaimer, which would be useless anyway if the licensing info
of individual elements is not also embedded.
As a final thought, as part of an exhaustive survey of Canadian scholarly OA
journals, I assessed how journals cope with copyright matters. I plan to write
about it soon (the survey is almost finished), but I can already point out that
these (mostly) small (or very small indeed) journals could really improve their
practice in this matter. I'll just say for now that talking of embedding
licensing metadata would be too soon, too much for many journals, as compared
to actually display the license (if any) so that their potential recipients
(users/readers) can see it, or even to say something user rights, or even about
copyright itself. DOAJ could really be of help here, and I know they are making
efforts to reach these journals.
Marc Couture
De : goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] De la part de
Heather Morrison
Envoyé : 28 août 2019 12:17
À : goal@eprints.org
Objet : Re: [GOAL] Informed consent and open licensing: some questions for
discussion
Thank you Martyn, this is very helpful.
As an author, I have appreciated MDPI's flexibility with respect to licenses. I
am sure that other publishers have similar situations where re-use of material
and/or accommodating particular authors requires flexibility with respect to
licensing.
This mixed licensing environment raises a number of questions, mostly technical
ones. Fully answering the questions requires an understanding of who proposes
to use these works, and how. Following are 2 questions that I hope will further
understanding of the issues, one for MDPI and other publishers and one for
everyone.
1. For MDPI and other publishers: based on the Jan. 31, 2019 DOAJ metadata,
it appears that all or nearly all of MDPI journals have answered "yes" to
"Machine-readable CC licensing information embedded or displayed in articles".
Q: can you explain how embedding works when the CC license does not apply to
all of the content in the article, as is the case when re-use of an item like
an image requires permission and must be under All Rights Reserved terms? For
example, do the elements that require separate licensing have separate metadata
embedded licensing? Does the embedded metadata at the article level state the
default license only or does it speak to the separately licensed material, in
specific or general terms?
2. Everyone: who is using embedded licensing metadata (as opposed to
displayed), and how? Are there hopes or expectations of how this metadata will
be used in future for which there are no examples yet?
Further discussion - answers or more questions - is encouraged.
Dr. Heather Morrison
Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa
Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa
Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight
Project
sustainingknowledgecommons.org
heather.morri...@uottawa.ca
https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706
[On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
From: goal-boun...@eprints.org on behalf of Martyn
Rittman
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 7:02 AM
To: goal@eprints.org
Subject: Re: [GOAL] Informed consent and open licensing: some questions for
discussion
Attention : courriel externe | external email
Heather raises a good point here related to certain
