I suspected that Charles would be The Man.
And so he proved to be.
Fyi...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 31 October 2007 08:55
> To: Davies Matt
> Subject: RE: Fair-Use/Schmair-Use...
>
> It means any copy - an early draft, the publisher's pdf or whatever
the
> supplier has to hand.
>
> 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:JISC-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of M.D.J.Davies
> Sent: 30 October 2007 11:53
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Fair-Use/Schmair-Use...
>
> 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/
>
>
|