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

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 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!

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

• 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

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

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

Click here to view the embedded video.

found via Lessig 2.0

“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)

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.