Managing and Understanding Copyright in the Digital Age
Thomson Scientific is sponsoring this program; it's in 2 of the smaller rooms of the convention center and it looks to be a capacity crowd. Does this mean that librarians are getting copyright, or that they recognize that they don't get copyright and they need to?
A/V/IT issues are holding up the start of the panel for a bit ...
Panelists:
K. Matthew Danes, SESO Group
Lynette Jordan, ExxonMobil
Corilee Christie, Reed Business Division
Bill Burger, Copyright Clearance Center
Bob Weiner - Copyright Clearance Center: Intro
CCC reproduction/rights orgs - interacts with international/foreign rights societies/org; founded in 1978 after the passage of the 1976 Copyright Act. CCC is the largest copyright licensing org in the world
Powerpoint is now working. Bill has a slide quoting part of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (often called the Copyright Clause)
There's a digital dilemma: technology allows for perfect copies to be made and disseminated without signification degradation
Move from subscription model to transaction model
Issues:
shift from centralized to decentralized models - employees are fulfilling their own info needs, rather than going through an intermediary - may not be knowledgeable, or care about rights
What Copyright Owners Want
Protect their IP
Be compensated fairly
Produce materials that fulfill info needs
Lowry's Reports v. Legg Mason
Distribution of newsletter via fax, email and intranet - found to be infringing
- jury award of $20 mil
- rumored
Legg Mason's argument: rogue operation
Lowry's counter: vicarious liability - employer gave employees the tools to infringe and did nothing to inhibit such behavior
What content users want
To do their jobs
Get access to info
Protect the privacy of individuals
Case Study with Pfizer
Goals:
Empower the end-user to know what they can and cannot do with incoming content
Provide useful advice
Rationalize global rights issues
Trouble-free instant rights clearance
Also
Being able to track user demands
"No Dead-Ends" - some level of resolution or human assistance as opposed to simply hearing "no"
Single Worldwide Info Source
"Collaboration and Compliance" Solution from CCC
Web-based application developed
Tracking provided
Education and Compliance with general concepts from CCC and specifics provided by company
Pfizer was happy with it, CCC felt there was more to do:
* integrating copyright info in the standard workflow
* enabling managers to quickly assess, manage and acquire rights
Enhanced Solution - rightsphere
Also developed with assistance from Novartis and AstroZeneca
Managing and Understanding Copyright in the Digital Age
Thomson Scientific is sponsoring this program; it's in 2 of the smaller rooms of the convention center and it looks to be a capacity crowd. Does this mean that librarians are getting copyright, or that they recognize that they don't get copyright and they need to?
A/V/IT issues are holding up the start of the panel for a bit ...
Panelists:
K. Matthew Danes, SESO Group
Lynette Jordan, ExxonMobil
Corilee Christie, Reed Business Division
Bill Burger, Copyright Clearance Center
Bob Weiner - Copyright Clearance Center: Intro
CCC reproduction/rights orgs - interacts with international/foreign rights societies/org; founded in 1978 after the passage of the 1976 Copyright Act. CCC is the largest copyright licensing org in the world
Powerpoint is now working. Bill has a slide quoting part of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (often called the Copyright Clause)
There's a digital dilemma: technology allows for perfect copies to be made and disseminated without signification degradation
Move from subscription model to transaction model
Issues:
shift from centralized to decentralized models - employees are fulfilling their own info needs, rather than going through an intermediary - may not be knowledgeable, or care about rights
What Copyright Owners Want
Protect their IP
Be compensated fairly
Produce materials that fulfill info needs
Lowry's Reports v. Legg Mason
Distribution of newsletter via fax, email and intranet - found to be infringing
- jury award of $20 mil
- rumored
Legg Mason's argument: rogue operation
Lowry's counter: vicarious liability - employer gave employees the tools to infringe and did nothing to inhibit such behavior
What content users want
To do their jobs
Get access to info
Protect the privacy of individuals
Case Study with Pfizer
Goals:
Empower the end-user to know what they can and cannot do with incoming content
Provide useful advice
Rationalize global rights issues
Trouble-free instant rights clearance
Also
Being able to track user demands
"No Dead-Ends" - some level of resolution or human assistance as opposed to simply hearing "no"
Single Worldwide Info Source
"Collaboration and Compliance" Solution from CCC
Web-based application developed
Tracking provided
Education and Compliance with general concepts from CCC and specifics provided by company
Pfizer was happy with it, CCC felt there was more to do:
* integrating copyright info in the standard workflow
* enabling managers to quickly assess, manage and acquire rights
Enhanced Solution - rightsphere
Also developed with assistance from Novartis and AstroZeneca
Panel
Bill - rights issues have become increasingly important
Collaboration / shared content is a major trend in business, which adds to the urgency of the situation
1st Q: How has the rights question changed in the past 3-5 years
Lynette: It's become more complex - the range of content origin and the range of libraries (in terms of resources and user needs) within an organization are issues; compliance and education can get lost in a large organization; also, a conflict has developed between content provider amalgamation versus shareholder and customer responsibility to fulfill information needs, because there is less choice.
Corley: Definitely more complex. Do users see terms and conditions/know what they are permitted to do? Without DRM, how do you restrict content? Reed info is barred from distribution/dissemination to the Open Web.
Kevin: I don't even know where to start. Copyright is basically part of the rules of engagement for acquiring content for librarians. There's another part of the conversation that isn't being talked about and that's exceptions (Section 107-122) to rights (Section 106). Creators should be paid, but exceptions need to be understood and recognized.
Bill: Kevin is right, although no one is looking to expand copyright exceptions in the corporate environment.
Kevin: But sometimes the issue isn't really copyright, it is what rights and exceptions are contracted for.
Lynette: the overhead costs of negotiated a contract for content is rising because of the time and complexity involved; also, the language of contract from vendors isn't reasonable from the perspective of end-users -- example: provisions prohibiting synthesis of content/data, which is exactly what many users need to do with the data.
2nd Q: Corley, what are publishers doing?
Corley: We're protecting our proprietary content. We use partners to help selling our content on our behalf (since we can't do it ourselves). There is also, post-sale, a permissions component of what can be done within the corporate context. We don't want to put a speedbump in the learning process, but the permissions aspect must be present
3rd Q: Does RBI ever find itself in conflict with distributors as to resale?
We want eyeballs on our site, not other's sites. SEO is also important.
4th Q: Lynette, have you ever pushed back against a content provider and gotten an exception that wasn't present in the original contract?
Lynette: Yes, but there's a provision in the contract that I can't talk about it. There is an admitted bias against for-profit companies, which makes sense. But there are situations where company-generated content could be paid for 3 or 4 times.
It is possible to renegotiate and dialog with the vendor to come to an understanding of what's reasonable use and what's not. Compliance is not just about paying for rights, but also about mitigating risk. The right thing to do is also the most cost-effective thing to do in the long run ...
5th Q: There are several levels of education: educating the managers, the current users, and the coming "digital natives" who come into the corporate context with experience in the non-profit/university setting, which is more expansive in terms of exceptions?
Kevin: The people managing and acquiring content need to understand copyright. How many people with LIS degrees had a copyright class as part of their curricula? (only a couple of hands go up) How many people have met with their company's general counsel about copyright issues in the last year (majority of hands). There needs to be more education, within LIS schools and by professional associations, on this matter.
Lynette: E/M has a number of educational courses on compliance and education -- copyright should be a component of that process
Corlee: My son was downloading music onto his computer -- when confronted, his answer was "They won't catch me"; content is not just print ... it comes in various formats and various types, through various means.
Kevin: I think there's a misunderstanding of the protection angle; there's definitely needs to be education for users, but there's no or little effort for the content industry to meet users halfway.
Q&A
A sticking point in negotiation is that we want to respect rights, but we also need to synthesize and present data internally and externally ...
Kevin: There is some leeway in fair use, but you have to know about it and think about it and be willing to negotiate with it in mind.
Corlee: Attribution is a core component.
Lynette: There also needs to be a re-assessment regarding employees versus actual users within a corporation.