If you work in any of the higher ed institutions that are preparing to move online – maybe your copyright world has exploded in a range of questions on fair use, e-reserves, online access, scanning, digitization, and more! Many in the library community are working towards the best solution for students, faculty, staff, and patrons in this time of crisis. To help you navigate this process, lawyer, librarian, copyright academic Kyle K. Courtney’s Two Part article offers a wealth of guidance on the legal tools libraries have for copyright as “stewards of access” in our communities. [See Part 2]
If you work in any of the higher ed institutions that are preparing to move online – maybe your copyright world has exploded in a range of questions on fair use, e-reserves, online access, scanning, digitization, and more! Many in the library community are working towards the best solution for students, faculty, staff, and patrons in this time of crisis. To help you navigate this process, lawyer, librarian, copyright academic Kyle K. Courtney’s Two Part article offers a wealth of guidance on the legal tools libraries have for copyright as “stewards of access” in our communities. [See Part 1]
Todd A Carpenter, Executive Director of the National Information Standards Organization (NISO), discusses the factors that have brought us to an inflection point with a new technology, artificial intelligence (AI), and associated questions about the boundaries of intellectual property rights. Carpenter contends there could be profound implications for the publishing and scientific communities, which are becoming key sources of training data for artificial intelligence systems, as well as for publishers themselves, potentially becoming reliant on artificial intelligence for creation, curation and engagement of new content. In this article he reports on a forum hosted by WIPO and the Copyright Office that focused on whether copyright can apply to the works created by artificial intelligence systems.
In this article, Alan Rothman engages us with significant insights into how the music business is using artificially intelligent music composers, producers and performers that challenge the boundaries of intellectual property and human versus AI musical production. Rothman offers perspective and resources that address whether the dawn of new music produced by AI is upon us, what are the consequences for the artists, the consumers, and the legal system that may be called up to deal with conflicts that will invariably arise.
Chris Meadows revisits a subject, Google Books, that has been the focal point of legal action, disagreement within the publishing and library communities, and basically an issue lacking closure concerning the end product. Meadows reiterates the Second Circuit finding on Google Books and fair uses in his response to the continued quest of some groups to restore the “Library of Alexandria.” Please also see his related article, Oh Lord, please don’t let Google Book Search be misunderstood.
In what became a two part article, Chris Meadows responds to the continuing commentary and rebuttals on the Google Books decision and access to the search engine that remains available to query a huge index of full-text books and access the text of scanned copies of books in the public domain. The second part of Meadows’ rebuttal was prompted by the publication of yet another article, and is also republished on LLRX – Google Books is not Alexandria redux.
Ken Sawdon discusses the implications of copyright lawsuit that was settled in India which had been brought by several large textbook publishers against a photocopying services that created student coursepacks for educational purposes only.
Deans of Virginia University Libraries to Chairman Goodlatte: First Do No Harm in Copyright Revision
UVA Director of Information Policy Brandon Butler explains the implications of the Copyright Office plan to to issue a total rewrite of Section 108 of the Copyright Act and provides context on such a decision, which protects library and archives’ copying for preservation and research. Libraries and archives have said they do not want this, but the Office seems to be determined to do it. So, a group of Deans and Directors of Virginia university libraries has sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) to ensure he realizes the controversy and context that surrounds the Office’s proposed changes. If you are a concerned library or librarian, consider writing your representative, especially if they sit on the Judiciary Committee.
Alan Rothman’s article focuses on a creative, innovative effort to deploy the blockchain as a form of global registry of creative works ownership – specifically a global rights database for images. The co-founders of a new metadata protocol they call the Mediachain enables creators working in digital media to write data describing their work along with a timestamp directly onto the blockchain. The implications of this technology impact multiple sectors such as: legal, financial, libraries, museums and archives, and social media.
3D printing is a growth market – for vendors, consumers, and for public libraries (providing them in combination with maker spaces – “a shared work area where people build things collaboratively.”) Within the sphere of this innovative technology there is growing recognition that 3D printing can produce objects covered by specific particular patents. This new area of copyright infringement is the focus of Alan Rothman’s article.