Scholarly Communication

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!)

Faculty as Authors, Faculty as Researchers: What You Need to Know About the Google Book Search Settlement

Note: This is a longer version of an article that appeared in the Libraries’ most recent faculty newsletter. Google Book Search started in 2004 as a project to digitize and make available online millions of books held by a group of major university libraries. The plan was to digitize everything but only make fully available those books that were in the public domain, that is, no longer protected by copyright law. The books that were still under copyright would be presented in “snippets” – a few sentences displaying a user’s search terms in context, but the entire work would not be made available online. Copyright holders would also be given the option of granting permission for their work to be made freely available in its entirety, or for a limited preview (more extensive than the “snippet” view) to be made available online. In 2008, a group of authors and publishers initiated a class action lawsuit against Google, who they claim violated their copyrights by scanning and digitizing published works without permission. Google denied any wrongdoing, claiming that its actions are covered by the concept of “fair use” in U.S. copyright law; however, it decided to offer a settlement to the group of authors and publishers rather than having the suit go to trial. If you are the author of a book published in the United States (or a chapter in such a book) before January 5, 2009, you need to know how the Google Book Search Settlement affects you. First, determine whether you or your publisher holds the copyright to your book. If you hold the copyright and want to receive payment for the inclusion of your work in Google Book Search, or exclude your work entirely from Google Book Search, then you must “claim” your work or works at the Google Book Search Settlement administration website by June 5, 2010. If your publisher owns the copyright to your book, then the publisher gets to decide if it will be included in Google Book Search, and it will be entitled to the rights holder’s financial compensation. Some argue that the Google Book Search settlement, if approved, sets a dangerous precedent in its handling of what are called “orphan works” – books still in copyright and for which the rights holders cannot be identified or located. The Department of Justice submitted a “statement of concern” that Google would have the potential to monopolize the commercial market for these works. Google submitted a revision of the proposed settlement on November 13, 2009, which contained provisions for an independent trustee to represent the missing rights holders and removing some of the barriers to other companies licensing content digitized by Google. However, the fact remains that access to these works may change over time. This affects you as a researcher, as do the provisions of the settlement that limit full-text access and printing capabilities. Google’s mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” – but in the case of Google Book Search, just how that will happen is still uncertain. Recommended Reading “About Google Books” http://www.google.com/googlebooks/about.html “Google Book Search” http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/google_inc/google_book_search/index.html “Google Book Search and the Future of Books in Cyberspace” http://ssrn.com/abstract=1535067 “The Google Book Search Settlement: A New Orphan-Works Monopoly?” http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2009/04/the-google-book-search-settlement-a-new-orphanworks-monopoly.html “Google Book Settlement” http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/ “Google Books Settlement: Key Players Comment” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/google-books-settlement-k_n_361393.html “Will Your Book Be in Google?” http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/will-your-book-be-in-google-final.pdf

Librarian assumes new role in scholarly communication

Congratulations to Hillary Corbett on her movement to the new position of Scholarly Communication Librarian this past October!  She has chaired the Library’s Scholarly Communication Committee, which worked on outreach to faculty about issues affecting them as researchers and authors, since its inception. Corbett’s new full-time position is devoted to scholarly communication to advance the Library’s focus on supporting research and publishing on campus; to promote the value of IRis as a research repository and publishing tool; and to keep the university community informed about relevant issues such as open access. In addition to her responsibilities as committee chair, she was formerly the Assistant Head for Receipt and Resource Control. There she supervised the group responsible for receiving and cataloging print materials for the Library, managing print journal subscriptions, and the physical processing (labeling, binding, etc.) of all library materials. Hillary says she plans to use Snell Snippets, in addition to the feed already in place, to share information on scholarly communication.  Stay tuned!