It is interesting that i got to this topic today when only yesterday i was catching up on my ILN (International Librarian Network) topics since my email app went bust and copyright was the topic i was discussing with my partner.
What i said i will repeat here: considering my profession as an academic librarian i have scandalously little knowledge on the current national rules on copyright except the usual 'no photocopying more than 5% of a text' and referencing in an essay. I would know a bit about attribution and creative commons from my college essay writing days and choosing images to use in posters advertising our services and rules, but other than that i'm fairly behind, particularly with regards to stuff that is not open access. I volunteer now and again with the DOAJ so my knowledge of what constitutes open access is improving but its the other side of the copyright field i know little about. In my conversation with my partner he discussed his frustration about pharmaceutical companies claiming intellectual ownership of indiginous knowledge and I mentioned how my understanding about just how free a stock image is expanded in relation to that No campaign poster earlier this year.
 |
| Created by Christina Hardison for opensource.com |
I didnt know that legend suggests copyright law originated among monks and i can certainly understand that copyright was first brought into law to protect the author. I can understand that continuing today. But what i cannot understand is that a certain amount of journal publishers can have such a hold over research and its dissemination to the point that sometimes it costs so much more for a researcher to have their work freely available and still respected. Also this idea that works of a ridiculous age are the property of a writers family- surely they should be making their own living and not desperately hanging on to the rights of their deceased family members efforts so that big companies can give them lots of money to make a movie - yes the movie company shouldnt be able to make so much money off the work of others but when did art become about who made money and who didnt? In my own view, education should not be something for the privileged, but for the masses. Maybe this is a bit idealistic but most librarians are librarians for a love of literacy and imparting knowledge, particularly to the disadvantaged.
I am certainly glad there are additional provisions WIPO has made for libraries, although the document is a few pages long so i will go have a read and comment some more later.
Creative commons is something i have a bit of knowledge about from volunteering with DOAJ as mentioned above so i think i will take the second task to complete. However the content of the first task has given me lots to think about - particularly in terms of who anything i create at work belongs to.
To be included in the Directory of Open Access Journals there are a few important requirements - people need to be able to read all content of the journal ("Is the full text of the articles available online? The options selected must be available on the site for download by a user.") and they need to have access to the copyright information ("Check that a statement about the journal’s Open Access Policy is stated clearly on the web site") which is fairly usable creative commons and has to be embedded in the article.
This is a useful resource for information professionals as it offers another source, both for our own research and aiding the research of our patrons as electronic resources and journals in general are quite expensive. In the few applications i've processed so far, a few have even had low or no Article Processing charges which although it is less popular, it means that this research at least could be entered easily, an incentive for academics to have their articles freely available. The website also encourages a digital archiving policy meaning that older work is also available freely. Another important requirement for being included is that the journal have a full editorial board and be peer reviewed, increasing the quality of the content. The editors scan for plagiarism also.
The website is fairly easy to use and is searchable at article level. Once you search, you can filter results by journal licence, which means that you know which will be easier to reference, re-use etc. There is also a browse function which devides sources by, thankfully, the library of congress subject classifications which means finding the right content easier. The whole website has an embedded link to more information about the creative commons licence of each work.
 |
| sourced from Academic Revolution Remixed's Flikr |
To be included in the Directory of Open Access Journals there are a few important requirements - people need to be able to read all content of the journal ("Is the full text of the articles available online? The options selected must be available on the site for download by a user.") and they need to have access to the copyright information ("Check that a statement about the journal’s Open Access Policy is stated clearly on the web site") which is fairly usable creative commons and has to be embedded in the article.
This is a useful resource for information professionals as it offers another source, both for our own research and aiding the research of our patrons as electronic resources and journals in general are quite expensive. In the few applications i've processed so far, a few have even had low or no Article Processing charges which although it is less popular, it means that this research at least could be entered easily, an incentive for academics to have their articles freely available. The website also encourages a digital archiving policy meaning that older work is also available freely. Another important requirement for being included is that the journal have a full editorial board and be peer reviewed, increasing the quality of the content. The editors scan for plagiarism also.
The website is fairly easy to use and is searchable at article level. Once you search, you can filter results by journal licence, which means that you know which will be easier to reference, re-use etc. There is also a browse function which devides sources by, thankfully, the library of congress subject classifications which means finding the right content easier. The whole website has an embedded link to more information about the creative commons licence of each work.
No comments:
Post a Comment