The Public Domain Manifesto is an effort to describe the strengths of public domain, and to encourage support.

Some of the general principles:

• The Public Domain is the rule, copyright protection is the exception.
• Copyright protection should last only as long as necessary to achieve a reasonable compromise between protecting and rewarding the author for his intellectual labour and safeguarding the public interest in the dissemination of culture and knowledge.
• What is in the Public Domain must remain in the Public Domain.
• The lawful user of a digital copy of a Public Domain work should be free to (re-)use, copy and modify such work.
• Contracts or technical protection measures that restrict access to and re-use of Public Domain works must not be enforced.

I recommend that you review the manifesto, and if you agree with it, show your support by signing it.

found via Open Source Initiative

PACER is the online access portal for “U.S. Appellate, District, and Bankruptcy court records and documents nationwide”.  Because the documents it provides are created by the federal judiciary, they are not copyrightable; because PACER is the only place to obtain these records, it is a critical link to those who need case information.  PACER also charges a per-page fee ($0.08 per page up to 30 pages in a specific document) for access.

RECAP (which is PACER spelled backwards) is a new, open source Firefox extension which appears to follow all the rules:  you access documents through PACER, paying all assessed fees, and you get your docuements.  RECAP, however adds two elements to the mix:

1. RECAP automatically uploads any document that is accessed by users of the extension to a public repository hosted by the Internet Archive.
2. RECAP will alert the user when a document they wish to access is available through the public repository.

On the surface, it may appear that people are conducting an end-run against the court’s system for providing documents.  However, a broader view strongly suggests that these documents are public, and that the PACER system is actually an exception in the realm of access to public records.

The Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government provide documents free to the user; this is an attempt to make the workings and decisions of the judiciary as public as the other branches.  RECAP is a fully legal means to provide information in a way that is the spirit of the law.

Further reading:

• The Case Against PACER
• Firefox Extension Liberates US Court Docs from Paywall
• Use RECAP to Bypass Court Document Paywall

A very straightforward and readable overview of the issues surrounding Google’s book scanning project appeared in yesterdays Financial Times :  Books : A plan to scan.

A prime focus of the analysis is the Orphan Works issue, books that fall under copyright guidelines but have no clear indication of who the actual copyright holder is.  A chart detailing the number of orphan works in existence is an excellent example of  providing just the right amount of information in a very readable way (note the use of Google’s colors):

Financial Times Graphic on Orphan Works

There is also an interesting accompanying article on the European reaction to the issue.

thanks to Jim Campbell for posting about this on Web4Lib!

TinEye is an image search engine with a twist:  you provide it with an image, and it returns a list of websites utilizing that image.

I can quickly think of a few really good uses of this service:

• You have an image that you downloaded sometime in the past, but you don’t remember where you got it.
• You have found an image that would be perfect for a project, but you aren’t sure who the owner is, or what the usage terms might be.
• You are the owner of an image, and want to ensure that it isn’t being mis-appropriated by others.
• You have an image, and want to locate a site with a higher quality or different version of the image.

found via a comment thread in MetaFilter

Copyfraud : Poisoning the Public Domain is an introduction to some of the ways that content providers (websites, publishers, etc.) abuse copyright protections when they use public domain materials.  A couple of minor points, however:

• The act of assigning a copyright to something already in the public domain is the issue; taking a Project Gutenberg text, formatting it, and publishing it is of great benefit to people, as long as one doesn’t claim protection that doesn’t actually exist for the material.
• The Creative Commons Public Domain Tools is not a license, nor is it  an attempt “to become the arbiter of  public domain licensing”, but a way to allow people to have an easy and effective way to display that a work belongs to the Public Domain.

found via LISNews

The Review Board on Principles of Shared Data Creation and Stewardship has released their final report on OCLC’s proposed policy for use of records (pdf), and after reviewing the report, OCLC has formally withdrawn the policy.

This conclusion to the records policy proposal is the best that could be imagined.  OCLC has listened to criticism from the greater library community, considered both the policy and it’s criticism through the efforts of the Review Board, and has responded in a way that allows everyone to move forward with a greater understanding of how best to go about updating the policy.

I suggested early on that OCLC was a tiger, instinctively defending its territory.  This still feels like a proper metaphor:  the movement towards creating a policy without proper input from the library community, and the subsequent review and withdrawing of the policy, seems more like an organization that didn’t realize the true implications of what it was putting in place, as opposed to one that was attempting a power grab to create a monopoly.

This was, and remains, a critical issue for libraries.  The ability to use the metadata representing our collections (as well as connecting them to collections and resources beyond what we own) is critical to our future ability to offer services in ways that will serve our patrons best.

I certainly hope that OCLC sets up a policy creation board similar to the review board – one that seeks a wide a range of ideas, opinion and input.  This will ensure a policy that takes a broader and more complete view of the use of cataloging records, but will also strengthen OCLC, because a membership organization is stronger when the constituent members are consistently heard and respected.  This has happened with the Review Board, and if OCLC continues to encourage it, everyone will come out ahead.

To OCLC:  You have responded well, and in the process have created an opportunity to solidify your position as a membership organization.  Keep up the good work and you will benefit, along with your members.

To the Review Board:  The report is well-written, and does an excellent job of stating what was wrong with the policy (and the process of creating the policy), as well as providing a constructive means to create a new policy that will properly reflect the needs and desires of the membership as a whole.

To detractors of the policy:  Those who offered strong, but constructive, criticism deserve recognition.  This was an emotional debate, and keeping focused on the issues at hand has ultimately won the day.  The best, and most complete, resource of commentary and information is the Code4Lib OCLC Policy Change page.

This has been an education for all involved:  the power of sustained commentary, of constructive criticism, of listening as well as talking, and of reviewing and changing positions when necessary.  Everyone should keep it up.

resources:  ResourceShelf & Disruptive Library Technology Jester

The Center for Social Media at American University’s School of Communication has a PDF guide available for download titled Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video.

To both illustrate and promote the practices, they have just released a video called Remix Culture : Fair Use is Your Friend.

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Blip.tv video.

found via Lessig 2.0

Cory Doctorow has an interesting take on the differing attitude of copyright between those who wish to wish to honor a creative work and those who wish to diminish it.  An excerpt:

“The upshot of this is that you’re on much more solid ground if you want to quote or otherwise reference a work for the purposes of rubbishing it than if you are doing so to celebrate it. This is one of the most perverse elements of copyright law: the reality that loving something doesn’t confer any right to make it a part of your creative life.”

An added bonus is a reference to a Firefly-based fan fiction that I hadn’t encountered before, titled My Own Kind of Freedom.

found via Library Link of the Day (16 May 2009)

Peter Murray has an incredibly good selection of links about the Google Book Search Settlement on the Disruptive Library Technology Jester blog.  Really.  Spend some time perusing them.

A brief rant, if you will accomodate me for a moment:

I encountered a disclaimer in an e-mail that strikes me as extreme enough to mention:

This email, and any attachment, is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, copying, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.

This came as part of a response from a company I had asked about the availability of an item.  Note that, by a strict interpretation of the statement, only the specific recipient of the message can use the information contained within.  If the e-mail had been from the company’s legal department, or if it hadn’t been about a product with a great deal of publicity and interest, there might have been some justification.

I know that legal boilerplate such as this seems to go along with incorporation, and that many of the employees of this company must stifle a groan every time they send information on their products, but these statements can be worded in such a way that they don’t throw a giant blanket of silence over simple sale information.  Or, perhaps, the statement can be reserved for those departments that handle legal, fiscal, and personnel matters, and a “lighter” disclaimer be used for general public communication.

This is something that falls into the same general category as Copyfraud, in that it attempts to place a much stronger restriction on something that doesn’t legally deserve it.

Or am I supposed to take the information about whether a particular item is available for sale to the grave?

My own disclaimer:  I changed the language of the disclaimer a tad, even though a quick internet search revealed several companies using the same wording as the e-mail.

Authors Guild:  Contracts Forced Amazon to Flip on Kindle is an article on CNet.com in which the Authors Guild asserts that Amazon turned off the Kindle’s Text-to-speech function (unless authorized by a book’s publisher) due to contractual obligations, not pressure from the Guild.

The response from Amazon’s spokesperson was simply “Kindle 2’s experimental text-to-speech feature is legal.”

previously

found via LISNews

Amazon.com has given in to the Publisher’s Guild on the issue of text-to-speech capabilities in the Kindle 2.

In their press release, Amazon states up front that “Kindle 2’s experimental text-to-speech feature is legal: no copy is made, no derivative work is created, and no performance is being given.“  In this statement, they are correct.  If I read a book to someone who is visually or otherwise impaired, it takes a stretch of the imagination to suggest that I am actually staging a performance.

In addition, as I stated when the issue was first raised:

“How would someone with a visual impairment be able to order the audio book version of a title without using a screen reader?  In addition, how would they know whether a website allows for the use, under copyright law, of their own website by someone with a screen reader?”

To state that a feature of your product is legal, and to understand the benefit that the feature would bring to users of the product, but to then allow it to be disabled arbitrarily by third parties strikes me as a company that is attempting to placate the “squeaky wheels” simply because they threaten legal action.

BookFinder.com Journal makes a comparison to the relationship between large-print books and magnifiers.  Should the ability of consumers to use magnifiers while reading be controlled by the publisher (after all, it might be costing them large-print sales).

If you still feel that publishers should have the final say, then consider whether they should have this ability to control works that are in the public domain.  It doesn’t matter whether it is the consumer’s right to use text-to-speech, according to this decision; it only matters that individual consumers cannot respond with the apparent impact that the Writer’s guild can muster.

There has been a similar theme in the bibliographical world lately – rules being put in place that attempt to ignore or even circumvent that which already exists, whether it is Public Domain, Fair Use, or the First Sale doctrine.  OCLC, Google, and now Amazon have all implemented restrictions to their various offerings.  OCLC, to their credit, has stepped back and is in the process of re-evaluating its approach towards licensing records.  Google hasn’t even blinked about restricting access to Google Book items waaay beyond even the tightest of copyright interpretations.  Amazon asserts the rights of users to use text-to-speech, but then allows those with a vested interest against it to control its use.

Yes, there is a pattern to all of this, and we need to figure out how to prevent it from continuing.

Research Libraries Clobber OCLC Policy is a title, and a descriptive one at that, for LibraryThing’s report of the ARL’s report on the OCLC licensing policy kerfluffle (I keep coming back to this word).

It is, however, an interesting read, one that holds much for one to consider as events unfold over the next few months.

In addition, Tim Spaulding states that “The full report makes for enjoyable reading—outside of Dublin, Ohio anyway.”  I have read the report, and can say I found it enjoyable (in the sense of celebrating the expression of shared ideals – I hold no enjoyment that this has become a divisive issue).  I live just a few miles from Dublin, so I suspect that I will have to travel there and re-read the report to see if this statement holds true.

Or perhaps it was meant to be taken figuratively? 

Sending OCLC on its way is a post by Peter Brantley on his Thoughts and Speculations blog.  It focuses on the library world’s reaction to OCLC’s licensing change, and cautions against our overreacting.

He is not an apologist for OCLC, but someone who is pointing out what he sees as the dangers in pushing OCLC too far off of its business model.  In this I agree; OCLC has done some fantastic things, and is an orgainization worth preserving.  However, we need to ensure that it does not stifle innovation at the same time.

The continuing survival of libraries in the digital age requires us to be creative and experimental with our data, and having it locked up too tightly will only hurt everyone involved.

found via Code4Lib OCLC Policy Change wiki

The March 2009 issue of Walt Crawford’s Cites & Insights is devoted to a 30 page essay on the Google Books settlement.  His is an opinion that spans many of the issues : he is at once a writer, fair use advocate, a reader, and a library supporter.

found at Walt at Random

The ARL’s Ad Hoc Task Force has submitted their final report (pdf) on the OCLC license policy change, and there is a great deal of constructive advice for OCLC to use.  The report’s Summary of Recommendations:

1. OCLC needs to develop a new policy regarding the transfer and use of WorldCat records that results from a wide  community review of issues; from member library engagement that builds understanding and consensus; and from a careful, widely discussed exploration of how the policy will achieve articulated goals, including whether or how restraints in record sharing may be needed. The currently proposed policy does not meet these criteria.
2. The policy needs to be written in a manner that can be understood and accepted by the community (e.g., as were the prior guidelines). This includes using a positive tone, a full description of Reasonable Use, and a consistent integration with FAQs that will need to be linked to, and thus incorporated in, the policy.
3. The policy statement should include explicit and specific explanation of its intent and how it carries out that intent.
4. Before a policy is implemented, member libraries need an opportunity to analyze how it impacts their operating environments, existing third-party or other agreements, and legal or regulatory environments and resolve implementation questions raised by that review. Specific issues that need more analysis and development in the current proposed policy include: its application to “data extracted from a WorldCat record,” a possible broader definition of Original Cataloging, inconsistencies between the policy and the FAQs (e.g., in allowable uses of Z39.50), the definition of “commercial” use, and the concept of binding downstream users to a separate license. The process for developing the policy with community engagement may uncover additional issues that require more analysis in order to make the policy operational.
5. The policy addressing the use and transfer of WorldCat Records should not apply to records from other OCLC services that make use of WorldCat data, such as Identities. Separate policies should be developed for these services.
6. Recognizing that the policy will be a living document applied in a changing environment, there needs to be a member-community process for ongoing periodic review of applications and interpretations of the policy, e.g., through the work of a continuing review board. Agreements (and denials of agreements) for uses of records, such as those made (or denied) for commercial use, are also integral to the interpretation of how WorldCat records should be used and transferred. Information on these agreements and decisions should be incorporated into the review process.

In essence:  a community-based organization should use community-derived methods for implementing change.

found via ResourceShelf

The impending release of the Kindle 2 wireless reading device has been all over the news this week, accompanied by many reviews and commentaries.  One response to a new feature strikes me as extreme, however:

“Some publishers and agents expressed concern over a new, experimental feature that reads text aloud with a computer-generated voice.

“They don’t have the right to read a book out loud,” said Paul Aiken, executive director of the Authors Guild. “That’s an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law.”

An Amazon spokesman noted the text-reading feature depends on text-to-speech technology, and that listeners won’t confuse it with the audiobook experience. Amazon owns Audible, a leading audiobook provider.

Source:  Wall Street Journal

On one level he is correct:  the audio rights, like movies and other adaptations, are derivative and subject to negotiation.  However, text reading features are considered an assistive technology, and to attempt to make the output a derivative under copyright law opens a nasty can of worms.

Imagine if reading Goodnight Moon to your two-year-old was considered a “performance” and required permission… that’s how nasty and worm-ridden this can is.

One example of a negative effect of this viewpoint basically involves any website that would sell audio books, including Amazon.  How would someone with a visual impairment be able to order the audio book version of a title without using a screen reader?  In addition, how would they know whether a website allows for the use, under copyright law, of their own website by someone with a screen reader?

Note that we aren’t discussing audio books, which are derivative works, and are mostly very professionally produced and are meant to enhance the experience of the book, not simply to allow the person to experience it at all.

The argument by the Author’s Guild representative is a nasty legal mess that we should not consider reasonable under copyright law.

found at Open Access News

OCLC announced the members of the Review Board of Shared Data Creation and Stewardship yesterday, save for a member yet to be announced from the European National Library:

• Christopher Cole (FEDLINK): Associate Director for Technical Services, National Agricultural Library
• Poul Erlandsen (EMEA): Head, Document Access Services and Collection Management, Danish University of Education, National Library of Education
• Pat French (OCLC Western): Manager, Collection and Technical Services, Multnomah County Library
• Clifford A. Lynch: Executive Director, Coalition for Networked Information (CNI)
• Brian E. C. Schottlaender (OCLC Western): The Audrey Geisel University Librarian, UC San Diego Libraries
• Ted Schwitzner (ILLINET): Head, Bibliographic Services Division, Illinois State University, Milner Library
• Roberta Shaffer (FLICC/FEDLINK/LC): Executive Director, Federal Library and Information Center Committee, Library of Congress
• Lamar Veatch (COSLA/SOLINET): State Librarian, Georgia Public Library Service—University System of Georgia
• Elsie Weatherington (SOLINET): Dean, University Library, Virginia State University
• Jennifer Younger (INCOLSA): Edward H. Arnold Director of Hesburgh Libraries, University of Notre Dame

I do not know anyone from this list, nor do I know of them, but I like the that they are drawn from a fairly wide range of libraries.  At this point I have every confidence that they will approach their duties with the best of intentions.  Theirs will be a challenging task, and one which will be watched and commented on closely.

In the same announcement, OCLC posted an e-mail address for questions and comments:  reviewboard@oclc.org .  I encourage everyone who has an interest in how the records are to be licensed and/or used to compose their views and send them to the board.  Every viewpoint, every arguement, every communication sends a message.  The library community created and nurtured OCLC as it exists, the library community created and nurtured the bibliographic records that are at the heart of this matter; the library community should make its wishes known.

found via ResourceShelf

A few links of note:

• Library Journal has an overview of the panel session – OCLC Defends Records Policy, Faces Questions, Suggestions, and Criticisms.
• Karen Calhoun, Vice President OCLC WorldCat and Metadata Services, has posted the slides from her presentation.
• The Disruptive Technology Library Jester blog has a couple of posts well worth reading – Consideration of OCLC Record Use Policy and Further Consideration of OCLC Record Use Policy.

I sincerely hope that Karen Calhoun and OCLC are taking into consideration that a licensing structure similar to Creative Commons (to name one that many people have become familiar with) can be a win-win situation, allowing for quality control and prevent reselling of records, while still allowing for sharing and creative use of the data within the records.

A Fire on the Plain is a post by Peter Brantley of the University of California that relates the essence of conversations he has had with several rightsholders who were part of the Google Book Search negotiations.  An exerpt:

From the rightsholders’ perspective, one terminal per library, instead of being stingy, quivered with profligacy. I heard remarked by several individuals (and often enough now to feel it corroborated) that indeed this concession started out far more restricted: either no public access, or starkly limited access – perhaps apocryphally, a single terminal in each State capitol, or one terminal in each city. In short, it was impressed upon me that libraries were lucky to get as much as they did.

As I understand it, rightsholders feared that having unhindered access to books online at libraries might (among other issues) encourage libraries to decelerate buying print books, thereby reducing royalties to authors and profits to publishers. In this equation, more public access = less revenue.

This is not a good sign.  If this is applicable to rightsholders as a group (and be mindful that this is an incredibly small sample of opinion), then the resistance of publishers and other rightsholders is going to increase exponentially when we finally get an e-book reader that becomes the equivalent of what the I-Pod was to e-audio.  Libraries and other organizations need to ensure that Fair Use is respected (and utilized), and that there is a broad understanding of the changes happening to media and culture.

found via Open Access News