Hi,
I've just had reason to reread Charles's email, and I'm now confused (no
change there then).
Does "a copy", in this instance, mean "a final, revised, corrected, peer
reviewed draft" - or any document prior to that?
Is there any instance when the "publishers pdf" may be sent?
Would this not be the equivalent of the "request a paper reprint"
tradition that Stevan talked of in his Liege video (Not being an
academic, I don't know what was sent out, by authors, when they received
reprint requests)?
Thanks,
Matt Davies
Ashworth Building, Zone A
Peel Park Campus
University of Salford
Greater Manchester
t: [0161 29] 56644
e: [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:JISC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 06 August 2007 14:41
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Fair-Use/Schmair-Use...
>
> "Fair dealing" in the UK ("Fair Use" in the USA) is one of a number of
> exceptions to copyright that provides a defence against an
infringement
> action. In particular, in this context, it is the defence that you
were
> entitled to make and/or receive a copy of a work for the purposes of
> non-commercial research or private study without having to ask
> permission from the copyright owner or pay the owner any fees. So if I
> were to e mail Stevan to ask him to send me a copy of an article he
had
> written because I wanted it for my own non-commercial research or
> private study, then if the copyright owner were to sue me for
> infringement, I would say I was fair dealing, and if the owner were to
> sue Stevan, he would say he supplied me a copy because I needed it for
> fair dealing purposes.
>
> With respect, both Stevan and Peter are in part incorrect; Peter,
> Stevan's use of the term "fair use" is perfectly legitimate as what he
> is proposing is indeed an example of fair use and there IS a legal
> basis for what Stevan would be doing; and Stevan, you are wrong to
say
> that fair use is an out of date concept only applicable to print
because
> in fact it applies equally well to electronic copies.
>
> I agree with Peter that the term "archive" had a quite different
meaning
> well before OA came on the scene, and its use by the OA community does
> therefore cause confusion.
>
> Charles
>
> Professor Charles Oppenheim
> Head
> Department of Information Science
> Loughborough University
> Loughborough
> Leics LE11 3TU
>
> Tel 01509-223065
> Fax 01509 223053
> e mail [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 06 August 2007 14:08
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Fair-Use/Schmair-Use...
>
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Peter Hirtle wrote:
>
> > I for one am in agreement 100% with Sandy Thatcher on this. We
already
>
> > are suffering confusion because of the ill-advised decision to use
> > terms like "self-archiving" and "open archive," both of which have
> > nothing to do with archives or the permanent retention of knowledge.
>
> Both terms were perfectly fine for providing online access
(permanently,
> of course).
>
> But "open archive" then went on to denote OAI-compliant and
> interoperable, but not necessarily Open Access, so "Open Access" was
> needed as an extra descriptor. "Repository" was (and is) of course
> entirely superfluous ("archive" would have done just fine), but now
> "Institutional Repository"
> has consolidated its supererogatory niche, so OA IR is what we have to
> make do with.
>
> > Now we have proposal to use
> > the term "fair use" in a manner that has nothing to with either the
> > American concept of "fair use or the British concept of fair
dealing.
>
> The "American concept of fair use or the British concept of fair
> dealing"
> comes from the paper era, and does not fit the online era, especially
> for research. So they have to be adapted and updated. Not the online
era
> to the antique terminology, but the terminology to the online era.
>
> The adaptation needs to be natural, commonsensical and transparent,
not
> tortured and procrustean, attempting to resurrect obsolete,
inapplicable
> and incoherent usages of "fair use" by insisting on fidelity to
defunct,
> papyrocentric intuitions, consigning the commonsense ones to "schmair
> use." That would be pedantry, not progress.
>
> > Harnad's
> > proposal would just further obfuscate what is meant by both.
Further,
> > using the term suggests a specific legal basis for the action, when
in
>
> > reality the actions may be authorized by license. Schmair use it
is...
>
> > Peter B. Hirtle CUL Intellectual Property Officer Technology
> > Strategist Cornell University
>
> It is *fair use* -- legally as well as commonsensically -- to email a
> copy of your article to an eprint requester. It is fair use -- legally
> as well as commonsensically -- for the requester to read and use that
> emailed copy. End of story. The rest would just be self-imposed
> confusion and obfuscation. One should update one's understanding of
> "fair use"
> rather than trying to consign these perfectly natural, contemporary
and
> ubiquitous instances to "schmair use."
>
> (By the way, I'd started calling it the "Fair Use" Button instead of
the
> "Eprint Request" or "Request Copy" Button, inspired by someone else
> (I've forgotten who: felicitous first-coiner please identify thyself!)
> to call it that, because that made the Button's purpose and use far
more
> transparent and comprehensible, intuitively, and people at last
> understood what the Button was really about, and for. Does anyone
really
> imagine that this is the time to call it the "Schmair Use" Button, out
> of fealty to the Dark-Ages origins of the term "Fair Use"?)
>
> "How the Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access Mandate + the 'Fair
Use'
> Button Work"
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html
>
> "Get the Institutional Repository Managers Out of the Decision
> Loop"
> http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/6482.html
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/260-guid.html
>
> Stevan Harnad
> AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
>
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-For
> um.html
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
>
> UNIVERSITIES and RESEARCH FUNDERS:
> If you have adopted or plan to adopt an policy of providing Open
Access
> to your own research article output, please describe your policy at:
> http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html
>
> OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
> BOAI-1 ("Green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access
> journal
> http://romeo.eprints.org/
> OR
> BOAI-2 ("Gold"): Publish your article in an open-access journal
> if/when
> a suitable one exists.
> http://www.doaj.org/
> AND
> in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your
article
> in your own institutional repository.
> http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
> http://archives.eprints.org/
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/
|