Tagged / copyright

Understanding Creative Commons licences and copyright for your research outputs

Copyright and licensing are becoming more complex in the world of academic publishing.

Creative Commons licences are becoming increasingly more popular for Open Access works and are a requirement by several funding bodies. These licences allow authors to decide how their work (articles, conferences, monographs, data, artwork, for example) may be shared.

Many publishers, such as Elsevier, request a specific type of licence in their copyright paperwork (when a paper gets submitted), so it is important to be aware of the differences.

The good news is that your librarians can help. We have put together guidance on Creative Commons. In doubt, you can also contact your library team.

You might also like to have a look at these articles (1 and 2) about the complexities of copyright and self-archiving (i.e. submitting articles to BURO or other repositories). The author, Elizabeth Gadd, is an expert in this field. The conclusions from these studies are that most academics are happy to share their work and that copyright legislation and restrictions imposed by publishers are sometimes in excess of what researchers need.

Firms putting more of their assets under IP

business_law
UK industry is investing more than £70 billion a year in intangible assets covered by intellectual property rights, the national agency responsible for regulating patents and copyright has said.
In its booklet Fast Facts 2017, the Intellectual Property Office—the government agency formerly known as the Patent Office—reveals a steady growth in industry investment in IP rights. Companies spent £70bn on assets protected by IPR agreements in 2014, compared with £47 billion in 2000.

The booklet contains facts and figures which describe the intellectual property landscape and provides information on:

  • patents
  • trade marks
  • designs
  • copyright
  • enforcement
  • the IPO

Further information including a printable version of the Fast facts 2017 can be found here.

Fusion Investment fund 2014/15 – Making sense of DRM in game development (Madrigal)

The United Kingdom is Europe’s second largest video game market and the fifth largest in the world. Almost all videogames developers now implement techniques that are designed to protect and enforce copyright law. This restrictive technology is now beginning to hamper the ability of gaming companies to innovate by imposing platform boundaries and these measures now appear to also be problematic to the game development lifecycle. The roots of this complex problem are grounded in several disciplines including copyright law, cyber security, and creative technology. This restrictive technology can prevent you from copying certain CDs or DVDs to a portable device to watch during your train journey or even go as far as to dictate which brand of coffee capsules you put in your expresso machine.

This is Digital Rights Management (DRM).

The Madrigal project has been awarded a Fusion Investment Fund to investigate, identify and communicate how game developers make sense of DRM technology when developing video games. At present virtually no empirical research exists on how much videogame developers really know about the relationship between DRM and copyright law in terms of boundaries to DRM implementation, or on their real expectations from currently available DRM technology. Do they really understand it? Do they like it? Do they implement it regularly? Do they respect the boundaries? Is DRM legal? Other pressing issues that need addressing include, does DRM really stifle competition? After all the developers are protected by copyright law, but where do the issues with DRM really lie?

These questions surrounding the issue of DRM have gained more coverage recently thanks to the Apple trial. In which Apple was accused of anti-competitive behaviour because it refused to disclose its DRM to competitors. The collection of this entirely new data on the complexities of DRM will form part of the basis for a wider-reaching research project involving not only legal and IT scholars at BU but also international academic and industry partners. With its research expertise in copyright law innovation, usable security research, and game development, and its institutional drive for fusion across inter-disciplinary research, education, and professional practice, BU is uniquely situated to start tackling this problem.

If you would like further information on this research feel free to contact us or to tweet us. We look forward to any feedback. Also, if you are interested, keep tuned, as we will tell you what we learned from our experience at the end of the project (July 2015).

Dr. Marcella Favale (Principal Investigator) Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management, BU, mfavale@bournemouth.ac.uk, @MFavaleIP

Dr. Shamal Faily (sfaily@bournemouth.ac.uk) and Dr. Christos Gatzidis (cgatzidis@bournemouth.ac.uk), Faculty of Science and Technology, BU

Neil McDonald (Research Assistant ) BU Cyber Security Unit (BUCSU) @BUCybersecurity (nmcdonald@bournemouth.ac.uk)

Want to know how to publish a journal article and retain your rights? – International Open Access Week

Then say hello to the SPARC Author Addendum – http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/authors/addendum

SPARC is The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, an international alliance of academic and research libraries working to create a more open system of scholarly communication.

Your article has been accepted for publication in a journal and, like your colleagues, you want it to have the widest possible distribution and impact in the scholarly community. In the past, this required print publication. Today you have other options, like online archiving, but the publication agreement you’ll likely encounter will actually prevent broad distribution of your work.

It is unlikely that you would knowingly keep your research from a readership that could benefit from it, but signing a restrictive publication agreement limits your scholarly universe and lessens your impact as an author.

Why? According to the traditional publication agreement, all rights —including copyright — go to the journal. You probably want to include sections of your article in later works. You might want to give copies to your class or distribute it among colleagues. And you are likely to want to place it on your staff profile page and in BU’s institutional repository (BURO, especially as this is now a requirement for the next REF exercise – see this post for further information). These are all ways to give your research wide exposure and fulfill your goals as a scholar, but they are inhibited by the traditional agreement. If you sign on the publisher’s dotted line, is there any way to retain these critical rights?

Yes. The SPARC Author Addendum is a legal instrument that modifies the publisher’s agreement and allows you to keep key rights to your articles. The Author Addendum is a free resource developed by SPARC in partnership with Creative Commons and Science Commons, established non-profit organizations that offer a range of copyright options for many different creative endeavors.

Visit the SPARC website for further information – http://www.sparc.arl.org/resources/authors/addendum

Have you got any experience of using this to negotiate your rights as an author with publishers? Share your experiences by contributing to the Research Blog!

Report from the ESRC Festival of Social Science

Bournemouth University was host to an ESRC Festival of Social Science event on 8 November 2012.  The one-day conference, organized by Professor Martin Kretschmer and colleagues from the Law School, sought to explore the complexities of developing empirical research to support public policy in domains such as copyright law.   In attendance at the conference were stakeholders from the Intellectual Property Office UK, the Cabinet Office, law professionals and academics from around Europe.  The day was structured around a series of panel discussions by representatives from policy, the media industry, and law, prompting lively debate around questions such as: ‘What is the status of qualitative research in policy decision making?’ and ‘How can we reconcile the differing legal and academic standards for evidence?’.

The conference was video recorded with the help of research assistants from the Media School and will be made available in full as a series of digital conference proceedings.

The conference was also an opportunity for Professor Kretschmer, Dr. Kris Erickson and Dr. Dinusha Mendis to present the findings of research they carried out during the IPO consultation on the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property.  The research seeks to evaluate possible economic impacts of any future change to UK copyright law to permit parody, caricature and pastiche of existing works.  Currently, parody is not explicitly permitted under UK copyright law.  The authors hope that this type of empirical research will help to illuminate complex public policy questions and strengthen the role of academic research in the policy process.

Below you may view a detailed presentation of the research from the ESRC event.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWbgZ63Ug9k

 

 

 

ESRC Festival of Social Science, What Constitutes Evidence for Copyright Policy?

ESRC Festival of Social Science,

What Constitutes Evidence for Copyright Policy?

Thursday 8 November 2012, 10.30 am – 6 pm

Executive Business Centre, Bournemouth University


What the Workshop is about?

This interactive event offers the opportunity for discussion on evidence for copyright policy between social scientists, policy–makers and producers and users of copyright works. The event, which is part of the ESRC Festival of Social Science, will take the form of panel and round table discussions between policy–makers from the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), stakeholders from the creative industries and academics from economics, sociology, law and cultural studies with expertise in copyright. The focus is on what evidence from these fields of study is relevant and useful to policy–makers and those seeking to put their case to them.  For more information see http://www.cippm.org.uk/news/2012/june/ne001-esrc-social-science-festival.html

How I can participate if I cannot attend?

The event will be complemented by digital interaction which will include an effective micro-blogging infrastructure to encourage participation and dissemination of information for those who are unable to attend.  There will also be write-ups following the Workshop detailing the events of the day.

If I am unable to attend, can I ask questions on the day from the expert panel?

Yes, it will be possible by using the hash-tag #cippm2012

There will be an opportunity for chosen ‘virtual questions’ to be raised and answered at the event, which in turn will be published on Twitter.  The tweets on the day will be captured on Storify which will be made available on the CIPPM website http://www.cippm.org.uk/  following the event.

We invite you to ‘tune in’ and join us in the discussion on the 8th November using the Twitter hash-tag #cippm2012

Dr. Dinusha Mendis presents papers on digital copyright, parody and 3D Printing

Dr. Dinusha Mendis, Senior Lecturer in Law and Co-Director of the Centre for Intellectual Property and Policy and Management http://www.cippm.org.uk/ of the Business School presented papers on digital copyright and parody at the 103rd Annual Society of Legal Scholars Conference at the University of Bristol which was held from 11-14 September 2012.  Dr. Mendis presented a third paper on the Intellectual Property Implications of 3D Printing at the VII Gikii Conference, at UEA London Campus, London which was held on 17-18 September 2012.

The papers are a reflection of the recent research carried out by Dr. Mendis into online infringement of copyright, with particular focus on the Digital Economy Act 2010, which advocates a ‘three-strikes-and-you’re-out’ policy.  A paper on this topic has been authored by Dr. Mendis and submitted to an international peer-reviewed journal for publication.  The paper on parody is based on research commissioned by the Intellectual Property Office and carried out by Dr. Kris Erickson (of CEMP, Media School), Dr. Dinusha Mendis and Professor Martin Kretschmer of CIPPM.  The paper presented at the SLS conference by Dr. Mendis considered parody exceptions in various countries in implementing a suitable parody exception in the UK as recommended in the Hargreaves Review http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview.htm Various reports on the research by Dr. Erickson, Dr. Mendis and Professor Kretschmer will be published by the Intellectual Property Office in the near future.

The paper on the intellectual property (IP) implications of 3D Printing drew much interest at the Gikii Conference, London. Being at the cutting-edge of law and technology, Dinusha’s presentation was amongst the first to consider the IP implications of 3D printing.  A paper on this topic has been authored by Dr. Mendis and has been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

ESRC Social Science Festival

Professor Ruth Towse and Professor Martin Kretschmer have been awarded funding from the ESRC (RES-622-26-565) to organise an event as part of the Festival of Social Science 2012.

The symposium ‘What constitutes evidence for copyright policy?’ will be held on 8 November 2012 in the Executive Business Centre.

Professors Towse and Kretschmer write: “This interactive event offers the opportunity for discussion on evidence for copyright policy between social scientists, policy-makers and producers and users of copyright works. Copyright law is a topical and contentious area that affects a wide range of stakeholders with differing views on copyright policy. The need for evidence-based policy on copyright policy was emphasised in the Hargreaves Review and has led to several calls for evidence from stakeholders. The responses they provide to the Intellectual Policy Office are varied in nature and quality; the IPO has responded by issuing guidelines on what constitutes acceptable evidence (which itself is contested).

“Besides being a matter of pressing public concern, copyright also attracts the interest of a broad range of social science disciplines each with its own rules of evidence. The emphasis on economic growth as the objective of copyright policy has shifted the need for evidence in the direction of economics but economic evidence is not always easily available. Nor it is the case that only quantitative evidence is regarded as valid.”

The event will involve the following:

  1. Social scientists in a range of disciplines will explore their perceptions of evidence in non-technical terms and discuss their research findings on copyright. The aim is to develop a perspective on what evidence social scientists believe is relevant for copyright policy-making purposes.
  2. Representatives of stakeholder organisations that have responded with evidence to the IPO’s calls for evidence will explain what to them is relevant evidence.
  3. IPO staff responsible for assessing responses to calls for evidence have already committed to participate in this event. They will explain how they use the information they receive from stakeholder meetings and calls for evidence to develop policy measures.

If you are interested to participate, please contact Dr Rebecca Edwards (Research Development Officer, Public Engagement): redwards@bournemouth.ac.uk