Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts

Tuesday, 24 January 2023

Retaining rights to make publications open access: the N8 partnership approach

Jonathan Cook is Open Research Project Officer based in Library, Archives & Learning Services. In this post, he looks at the significant collaborative approach to open access publishing announced by the N8 Research Partnership, and how it will impact York researchers and policy.

Image of an open padlock on a laptop
Photo: Lock on laptop, Rawpixel www.rawpixel.com/image/5908216
reproduced under a Creative Commons CC0 licence 

The N8 Research Partnership, of which York is a member, today released details of a collaborative approach aimed at strengthening and harmonising Open Access policies across eight of the leading universities in northern England. This new initiative aims to empower researchers to make their work openly available immediately on publication, removing current barriers to dissemination and streamlining an often complicated process. 

The N8 approach revolves around “Rights Retention”. In basic terms this is a recognition that authors should have certain rights over the research publications that they have created. In the past, researchers have typically been required to relinquish all rights to their research when signing contracts with publishers. This means they are left with limited ability to share their work. The University believes that open research practice enables a wide range of audiences to freely discover and engage with its excellent research, makes the research process transparent, and creates new opportunities for outputs and methods to be reused, reproduced and credited. If authors cannot exercise the rights to their research, and do not feel empowered to make their work open, these benefits become much harder to achieve.

This in turn can make it difficult for researchers to comply with Open Access requirements set by research funders. For instance, UKRI – the largest funding body in the UK – requires its authors to make their works openly accessible upon publication. This is often not possible in the current ecosystem, where publishers can place access embargoes on all versions of a paper, meaning the research may not be available until months or even years later.

Plan S logo
Plan S logo, © Coalition S
Rights Retention in an Open Access context was first endorsed by faculty at the University of Harvard in 2008 and it has been the basis for many subsequent Open Access policies in the US, and more recently in the UK. In early 2022, the University of Edinburgh became the first UK institution to adopt a Rights Retention policy, with Cambridge and St Andrews among the universities that have since moved to this approach. Rights Retention is also the first principle of Plan S, the Europe-wide initiative towards greater open-access. As many of the largest research funders in Europe are members of Plan S, Rights Retention principles are also likely to be endorsed by a growing number of institutions on the continent. 

In the N8 approach, the researcher grants their university a non-exclusive licence to make the peer-reviewed Accepted Manuscript version of a research article immediately and publicly available as soon as the final version is published in a journal. This licence then has precedence over any agreement subsequently made with the publisher. A Rights Retention model simply recognises and reinforces the rights that an author should hold over their own work. The journal publisher retains their right to charge for access to the final published, typeset version of the work, ensuring that all parties remain recompensed for their valuable input.


N8 Research Partnership logo
N8 logo. © N8 Research Partnership

Rights Retention will make it easier for researchers to make their work openly available and enjoy the benefits associated with open research. By continuing to deposit manuscripts to the York Research Database, authors can be confident that this is sufficient to comply with funder requirements, as well as meeting likely eligibility criteria for future Research Excellence Framework exercises. This is a positive move, from a situation where the responsibility fell on the individual researcher to make sense of the complex OA requirements of their particular case, to an environment where the University takes leadership in facilitating the open sharing of its research. 

The N8 Universities will now be implementing these principles. Leeds, Newcastle and Sheffield have already announced their new Rights Retention policies.  

More information about how this approach will affect Open Access policy at the University of York, along with guidance for researchers at York, will be available soon.

Thursday, 25 January 2018

Need some free images for your academic work / poster / presentation / website? Look no further

By Ned Potter, Academic Liaison Librarian

We all need images for essays, presentations, posters, art-projects, and lots of other reasons, but we don't necessarily want to pay for them. Neither do we want to break the law by using copyrighted material we aren't allowed to reproduce. So where do we find them?


Public Domain images


Step forward CC0. Images which have been made Creative Commons Zero (also known as CCO) by their creators, are available to use by anyone, however they like. The images are in the Public Domain and can be reproduced, incorporated into other works, modified, and reused, without needing permission and in most cases without even needing to credit the author.

There are all sorts of advantages to using CC0 pictures. Firstly you know you're not going to fall foul of any copyright rules and break the law. Then there's the fact that if attribution isn't required, you don't have to take up space on your poster / slide / artwork / website with an author credit and a link to flickr or another website. Plus if your work finds an audience and ends up being sold, for example as part of a book, CC0 images are licensed for commercial use too. It's amazing! 

Although you don't HAVE to credit the creators of CC0 works it's still courteous to do so, as is crediting the site where you found the image. If you're citing the images in an essay or report, a proper reference will be needed just like anything else. 


A number of image sites offer CCO works. They are in two broad categories - artworks, and stock photography. We've listed some great sites of both types below: all of these cost no money to use, although you may have to set up free personal accounts with some of them to download high quality images. 


Free to use stock photography


Pexels
Pexels is the CC0 site I go to first when creating slides or websites. It's good on technology particularly, but covers loads of areas well, with stock photography that is far above the average stock shots. It has tens of thousands of pictures, including the ability to search by colour, and also has a sister site dedicated to CC0 video.

A selection of images from pexels.com

Stocksnap
Once you start using CC0 image sites you get used to seeing the same stock photography appearing on many of them (it comes with the territory, as the fact that the copyright has no restrictions means any site can pick them up and use them - you could start an image bank right now using CC0 images if you wanted to), but Stocksnap seems to have a few more pictures which are unique to it. Here's the 'recently added images' from today:

stocksnap.io selection

finda.photo
finda.photo (that's the actual URL as well as the name) searches through lots of other CC0 sites in one go, including the excellent UnSplash. As well searching by keyword you can browse by colour, collection, or original source.

Some of the 'glare' collection from finda.photo

Gratisography
Finally, for some pictures that are about as far away from tired stock photography cliches as it is possible to get, head over to Gratisography. Quirky, odd images, of extremely high resolution and quality, free to use in any way you see fit. There's really nothing quite like it.

Some pics from the truly unique gratisography.com

Free to use art and artwork imagery

If you have any more suggestions for great CC0 sites, let us know with a comment below and we'll add them to the list.

Friday, 11 November 2016

Improving the Electronic Texts Service

Ben Catt explains how the introduction of the CLA Digital Content Store has led to enhancements to the Electronic Texts Service.


One of the many ways in which the Library can provide students with easy access to essential reading is through the Electronic Texts Service. If a book or journal is only available in print then teaching staff can request a digitised version of a key chapter or article for their resource lists. This is useful for both campus-based and distance learning students, especially for large courses where print availability is limited to one or two copies. Requests are easy to submit through our reading list software EARL (the deadline for Spring Term resource lists is Monday 21 November) and the Library produces over 2,000 scans each year. Our scans are high resolution and use optical character recognition for improved accessibility.

The process behind this service has been improved for the 2016/17 academic year thanks to the introduction of the Digital Content Store, a platform developed by the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) to help the Library streamline resource list digitisation workflows. Copying extent limits have also been increased from 5% to 10% per publication for each module (or one chapter/article, whichever is greater). This will provide the Library with greater flexibility to fulfil requests whilst complying with the CLA's Higher Education scanning licence.

Another major benefit of the DCS is that the Library can share digitised content with other participating Universities (currently 60 institutions across the UK) provided that they own or subscribe to the title, to save duplication of scanning. It also integrates the Enhanced Higher Education Supply Service (EHESS), offered by the CLA and British Library for supplying copyright-compliant, digitised content where we do not have an original print copy in our collections (or if the items are on loan, in-use or missing). The DCS also aligns with processes involved in the Library's new permissions clearance pilot service, whereby we can contact publishers directly to request digitisation permission if a title is excluded from the CLA licence. This will significantly increase the scope of digitised publications the Library is able to provide for course reading.

On the surface, the process for staff to submit digitisation requests remains unchanged. However, behind the scenes the DCS can automate a range of Library processes such as ownership verification, licence compliance checking, and annual reporting tasks. The DCS is integrated with the Library's resource management system (Ex Libris Alma), containing the data behind our collections which displays in YorSearch. This streamlined, cohesive approach will increase the responsiveness of the services the Library can offer, in keeping with our principles of providing efficient access to resources in high demand.

We welcome any feedback from staff and students on the DCS (or the Electronic Texts Service in general): lib-resourcelists@york.ac.uk

Friday, 30 January 2015

Monkeys, selfies and copyright (and the back of Rod Stewart’s head)

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: man meets monkey, monkey steals man’s camera, monkey takes photo of herself, monkey causes international copyright storm that rumbles on for years.


Back in 2011, nature photographer David Slater went to Indonesia to photograph - among other things - the native Crested Black Macaques that live on the island of Celebes. He certainly got some good pictures: one of the mischievous monkeys pinched his camera and seemed to enjoy the sound the shutter made. Several hundred photos later, Slater retrieved his expensive equipment (undamaged but with a pretty full memory card) and found one or two really quite startling and lovely images.

Photo: A crested black macaque - sadly not the contentious selfie - we thought it best not to risk using it here. 
This image is by Henrik Ishihara and is reproduced under a Creative Commons licence 
with consent of the copyright owner


The best of them was a selfie of a grinning female, taken in perfect focus. The encounter made the news, the image went viral…and it’s been at the centre of a copyright controversy ever since. You may indeed stop me because you probably have heard this one before. But why does any of this matter?

Well, I think it’s because this story neatly encapsulates the challenges of copyright in the digital age. How do we ensure that writers, photographers, musicians and artists are credited and treated fairly when today’s technology makes it so easy to share their stories, pictures and songs? This isn’t a trifling question: according to a report by Tru Optik (a digital media monitoring company) “over 4 billion movies and TV shows were illegally downloaded worldwide in the first half of 2014”. I wouldn’t even know how to download a TV show illegally – but I’d certainly know how to Tweet you a hilarious photo of a monkey that I found on Google.

How sure are you that something you found on the internet is OK to use in your essay, lecture, Slideshare or Prezi? Even the most cursory Google image search will demonstrate that it’s easy to find images in less than a second. But what you may do with those images should give you pause for thought. In the case of the curious macaque, ask yourself these questions:
  • Who owns the image? The monkey or the photographer? Neither?
  • Who needs to grant permission to re-use the picture?
  • Since the picture was taken accidentally and not part of a deliberately set up shoot, does intent matter?
  • What if the picture had been taken by a motion-sensor trigger set up by Slater? Or the monkey was deliberately rewarded with a banana each time she took a shot?
Wikimedia Commons seem to be still grappling with these questions; Slater is claiming ownership and re-use rights and has apparently successfully had the image removed from there several times, but it's then re-uploaded by editors who believe it's in the public domain.

Thankfully, the copyright minefield - as traversed by students, libraries and researchers - was made slightly less treacherous by recent changes to UK legislation. You may still need to tiptoe warily, but the changes on format make it legal to copy a snippet from a sound recording or film for personal use, and for lecturers to include them in presentations. Libraries can digitally preserve sound and film archives and, of course, you can now legally copy your CDs to iTunes for personal use (which will come as some relief to those of us who have faithfully waited for the law to change before clicking on that ‘Import CD’ button).

So what does all this have to do with Rod Stewart?


Photo: Rod Stewart by MEDIODESCOCIDO. Reproduced under a Creative Commons licence.
Well, a recent image of the back of his head is raising another cranial conundrum and causing some copyright head-scratching (sorry, couldn’t resist). The New Yorker magazine reports that Rod is being sued to the tune of two and a half million dollars - by a photographer who once took a picture of the singing Scot’s mullet:

In 1981, a professional photographer named Bonnie Schiffman took a picture of the back of Stewart’s head, which was used, eight years later, on the cover of the album “Storyteller.” Now a different picture of Stewart’s head, also from the back, has been used to promote his Las Vegas act and world tour. Schiffman claims that the resemblance between her photograph and the new image is too close - the legal term is “substantial similarity”- and she is suing for copyright infringement. 
(From Louis Menand ‘Crooner in Rights Spat’; The New Yorker online, 20 Oct 2014)

Both controversies remain hotly debated, but no one yet seems to have approached the really pressing question: at what point will an infinite number of monkeys write the works of Shakespeare? And, when (not if) that happens, who will own them and will they be part of the required reading on university English Literature courses?

Further reading:

  • You can see the licensed versions of the Macaque selfies on The Telegraph’s website and on David Slater’s official site: www.djsphotography.co.uk
  • You can find lots of books in the Library that discuss human/primate interaction and self-awareness in monkeys. Here are just a couple:
o   Macachiavellian intelligence : how rhesus macaques and humans have conquered the world Maestripieri, Dario. Chicago : University of Chicago Press 2007
o   Self-awareness in animals and humans : developmental perspectives Parker, Sue Taylor. ; Mitchell, Robert W.; Boccia, Maria. Cambridge ; New York, NY : Cambridge University Press 1994

Tuesday, 29 July 2014

Mountweazels in Argleton: the phantom town on Google Maps, and the woman who never was

Tom Grady goes trapping for Mountweazels.

Have you ever been to the town of Argleton? Probably not, because it doesn’t exist and never did. But for a while you could find it just off the A59 on Google Maps. 


If you had been there, I suppose you might have run into Lillian V. Mountweazel, a celebrated photographer, known for her shots of rural American mailboxes. She never existed either but she’s in an edition of the New Columbia Encyclopedia. So what’s going on? Copyright traps my friend, copyright traps.

The bustling metropolis of Argleton.
Photo courtesy of Micahel Nolan, neighbour; used under a Creative Commons licence.
Most cartographers will deny it, but it’s rumoured that they deliberately introduce mistakes into their maps in order to catch out copyright violators. Usually the ‘mistakes’ are small, like an extra cul-de-sac here or an exaggerated bend in a road there: they are calculated imperfections that identify authorship and are often known as ‘trap streets’. But the settlement of Argleton could be the boldest example yet - a ‘trap town’. Or it could just have been a genuine mistake that got corrected: either way, for a time it was on the map and then suddenly it wasn’t.

But in-between, the world went slightly mad.

Despite it never existing, news of the fictitious settlement spread across the internet after it was spotted and blogged about by a nearby resident in 2008. The story was picked up by mainstream media, gained momentum, and at one point you could even buy t-shirts bearing the slogan "I visited Argleton and all I got was this t-shirt". Pretty soon, you could find job listings, hotels, flats to rent, and even a chiropractor based there. According to The Daily Telegraph “the businesses, people and services listed [were] real, but actually based elsewhere in the same postcode”. Google removed the town from its maps in May 2010 and released a statement saying that it was a simple, unexplained error. As an earlier blog post of ours explains, you can report errors yourself and get them fixed.

A real weasel. Photo by Jared Kelly,
used under a Creative Commons licence.
But the case of Lillian Virginia Mountweazel is much more cut-and-dried: she was definitely made up.

The 1975 New Columbia Encyclopedia has an entry for the "fountain designer turned photographer" who died "in an explosion while on assignment for Combustibles magazine" but a former New Columbia editor explained it quite simply to the New Yorker magazine:
"It was an old tradition in encyclopedias to put in a fake entry to protect your copyright," Richard Steins, who was one of the volume’s editors, said... "If someone copied Lillian, then we’d know they’d stolen from us."
In a neat twist, the word 'Mountweazel' has now entered general usage as a term used to describe these lexicographical traps. It is an excellent word. See also Esquivalience.

Further reading:
  1. If you’d like to know what the sky above Argleton and other non-existent places looks like, then there’s a Tumblr site for that (of course there is) theskyontrapstreet.tumblr.com
  2. More Mountweazels can be found at mentalfloss.com