Scholarly Communication

IRis at the Research and Scholarship Expo

Tomorrow, March 24, Northeastern is hosting the Research and Scholarship Expo in the Cabot Cage. It takes place from 11 am- 2:30 pm and is an exhibition and poster session for student and faculty research. Hillary Corbett, Scholarly Communications Librarian, will be representing the Library and sharing information about IRis, a digital archive that collects, manages, preserves, and shares the intellectual output and historical record of Northeastern University, in booth 142. The Library has recently implemented a new platform for IRis, Digital Commons, which offers enhanced options for publishing journals and other materials.  Hillary says, “Universities produce plenty of material that may not get published through traditional means. With the Digital Commons software, faculty can produce online journals, conference proceedings, e-books, and more. Northeastern University celebrates its global experience and outreach, and faculty and researchers will be able to leverage the openness of IRis to increase the global impact of their work.” Download a brochure about IRis here. Be sure and stop by Cabot on Wednesday, to see the Expo and visit Hillary!

Introduction to Final Cut Pro Workshops on 3/24 and 3/25

Learn how to edit in Final Cut Pro. This workshops will help you create a professional quality video using your editing knowledge. Learn the difference between “insert edit” and “overwrite edit.”  Learn how to capture video as well as creatively use video filters and color correcting in your projects. Wednesday, 11:45 am-1:25 pm and Thursday, 2:50 pm-4:30 pm Digital Media Design Studio, 200 Snell Library Register for the workshop here.

Book review for Publishing: The Revolutionary Future

On my way to work I heard a brief review of this book on NPR. So I have looked up the review at their (NPR’s) website and found a link to the review by The New York Review of Books.  For a book review it is fairly dense reading. However, it touches on trends in library service that really color the future of how library service is going to be delivered to users. The Achilles heel of online digital content is that “service” interruptions can and do deny access to library users when they occur. So there is a continuing need for hard copy books and other media to be purchased and maintained within libraries for patron use off-line. Digital readers have yet to match the ease and durability of a quality hard bound book.   In my opinion consigning Text to the same fate as Audio and Motion Picture formats is tantamount to putting all of one’s eggs into a very expensive and fragile basket. It’s a real catch-22 situation. In order to maintain access to all the information in our “information society” we have to maintain a very fragile and expensive infrastructure or else all or part of the information is lost. Which is a sobering thought for those of us tasked with maintaining and preserving the works of others.

Google Book Settlement and Orphan Works

Today a final settlement hearing on the Google Book Settlement is slated to take place.  Part of the settlement calls for the creation of an independent registry for orphan works, which will make them more widely available to the public. Orphan works are copyrighted works where it is difficult or impossible to identify or locate the copyright holder (ALA, 2009). There are millions of orphan works that cannot be accessed or used (Peters, 2008). The settlement may give Google an exclusive advantage to become the sole entity to license the display of orphaned works (Siy, 2009). This has implications for libraries who may have to subscribe to the full display of orphaned works or not be able to provide access to users. Currently, anyone can be sued for copyright infringement even when a good faith effort is made to find the copyright holder (ALA, 2009). In 2006 the U.S. Copyright Office published a report of an investigation of orphan works that recommended limiting remedies for copyright infringement to users who performed reasonably diligent searchers to find the copyright holder but were not successful (ALA, 2009). The report also recommended that noncommercial users not receive damages if the user ceases infringement in a timely manner after being notified by the copyright owner (ALA, 2009). Since 2005, the Google Book Project has been scanning the collections of several major research libraries (Google Books, 2010). Both the Authors Guild and Association of American Publishers submitted class action lawsuits against Google for copyright infringement (Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2006). The parties began to negotiate the terms of a settlement out of court. Because earlier legislation died and the Google settlement has moved forward, the settlement will shape access to orphan works. Orphan works legislation was introduced in 2008 but died. A Google Book Project settlement updated version was released in November 2009. Under the terms, Google will fund a Book Rights Registry to dispense funds to copyright holders (Siy, 2009). One significant aspect of the settlement is that authors will be prohibited from suing Google (but can potentially sue a third-party licensing body— Google’s competition) for displaying unclaimed works if Google receives permission from a to-be-created independent body of the Books Rights Registry (Siy, 2009). American Libraries Association, Association of Research Libraries, and the Association of College and Research Libraries (2009) filed a joint letter to Deputy Assistant Attorney General recommending that the court review the pricing of the institutional subscription to realize rights of rights-holders, to ensure broad access to the Books by the public, and to make sure that perspectives of academic authors, as well as libraries, are taken into account. References American Library Association (ALA). (2009). Retrieved January 28, 2010 from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/copyright/activelegislation/orphanworks/index.cfm Association of Research Libraries (ARL), ALA, Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL). (2009, December 10). Google Library Project Settlement. Retrieved February 7, 2010, from http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/antitrustdivasa-final.pdf Authors Guild, Inc., Association of American Publishers, Inc., et al. v. Google, Inc., No. 05 CV 8136-DC (S.D. NY 2010). Amended Settlement Agreement. Retrieved January 31, 2010, from http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement Butler, B. (2010, February 10). The Google books settlement: second round comments. Association of Research Libraries. Retrieved February 14, 2010 from http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/gbs-pasa-summary.pdf Competition and Commerce in Digital Books: Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 111 Cong. 1 (2009, September 10). Retrieved February 6, 2010 from http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_090910.html Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2006). U. of Michigan’s Prez. Retrieved February 7, 2010 from http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/02/u-michigan-prez-googles-digitization-project-about-public-good Google Books (2010). History of Google Books. Retrieved February 7, 2010 from http://books.google.com/googlebooks/history.html H.R. 5889, 110th Congress. (2008). Retrieved January 31, 2010, from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.5889 “Orphan works” problem and proposed legislation: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 110 Cong. 2 (2008, March 13) (testimony of Marybeth Peters). Retrieved January 30, 2010 from http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031308.html Siy, S. (2009, November 17). The New Google Book settlement. Retrieved January 30, 2010 from http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2770 U.S. Department of Justice. (2010, February). Statement of Interest of the United States of America regarding proposed class settlement. Retrieved February 7, 2010 from http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f250100/250180.pdf

Advice for new faculty: “Get out there and shake it!”

I just read a great blog post on Inside Higher Ed — “Get Out There and Shake It!” by Kerry Ann Rockquemore. It offers valuable advice to new faculty wanting to make connections at their institution, but I think it’s excellent reading for anyone wanting to improve their collegial relationships on campus. In a nutshell, Rockquemore’s advice is, don’t wait for people to come to you. Seeking out your colleagues (as the title suggests, getting out there and shaking hands) is a surefire way to make sure you’re on their radar as well as improving their impressions of you. It’s advice that I needed to hear — as Scholarly Communication Librarian, I definitely need to connect with faculty and help them connect with each other. (So, you can bet you’ll be hearing from me soon!)