From: Matt McKay <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:02:06 +0000

Scientific publishers support text and data mining by providing access
to quality content and working with researchers to overcome technical
challenges. This also includes simplified licensing and the support
for text formatting allowing for efficient TDM activities. Active
users indicate that enabling initiatives introduced by publishers
deliver not only the legal certainty that they look for, but also meet
their practical needs. Most major STM publishers do and will continue
to offer licenses/license clauses which enable their customers to mine
both text and data across the research, corporate and educational
sectors. Likewise, most major STM publishers already meet the need of
users for TDM through various channels such as those facilitated by
CrossRef with a single one-time click through across multiple
publisher platforms. You can read STM’s position in our TDM
Declaration issued last year:

http://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_11_10_Text_and_Data_Mining_Declaration.pdf


-----Original Message-----
> On Jul 21, 2016, at 6:28 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: kalev leetaru <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 21:32:55 -0400
>
> One very critical distinction here that is often missed by academic
> data miners at universities is that in most cases of TDM you are
> looking at two very different classes of restrictions in the form of
> copyright and license. Copyright may or may not play a role depending
> on what you are doing and to what degree humans play a role (most
> TDM's like HathiTrust Research Center are erring towards the total
> exclusion of any possibility of a human consuming any copyrighted
> content, placing a firewall around the content such that only machines
> can access it).
>
> Yet, the far bigger issue is licensing. Take a digitized historical
> collection of newspapers from the 1800's that your library subscribes
> to. Regardless of your personal views on copyright claims to digitized
> imagery of public domain content (and more importantly, the views of
> courts in your particular jurisdiction), the bottom line is that when
> you access those images, you are doing so through a license agreement
> your library signed that governs your access to that content. If you
> have your university counsel take a deep read through those agreements
> you'll find that most publishers place explicit restrictions on data
> mining of their content, either specifically on mining or on direct
> and indirect access modalities to the content. Most universities are
> not currently trying to negotiate mining access as part of their
> license agreements and I always advise libraries to at least explore
> this with their publisher. Without saying more than I can in a public
> form, a good number of the large publishers are going to be making
> announcements around new or expanded data mining programs in the
> not-so-distant future (some of them in the next 12 months). Many of
> these will come in the form of an add-on that must be purchased by the
> library, but will grant data mining privileges to the content and
> provide mechanisms, such as cloud-based computing facilities and
> special APIs, to permit legal authorized large-scale data mining.
>
> Re #2, in the US the closest parallel is the illegal downloading of
> copyrighted music and movies. As the saying goes, just because someone
> else robbed the store, doesn't mean the merchandise is clean. Under US
> copyright law, the courts have generally held that downloading a
> copyrighted piece of content without authorization from the copyright
> holder is illegal. In particular, the process of downloading that file
> from a server to your local harddrive creates a copy of the work,
> which constitutes illegal duplication. In the case of SciHub, the
> simple act of downloading a PDF from that website to your computer
> typically constitutes infringement in the eyes of the US legal system
> under US copyright law. I can't speak to the EU legal system, since
> I'm not as familiar with its nuances, but I would assume you would
> largely see similar interpretations given various reciprocity of
> copyright laws.
>
> ~Kalev
>
>
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 8:12 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> From: "Peter B. Hirtle" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:00:33 +0000
>>
>> Joe, on question #1, I am not aware of any court cases that have yet tested TDM.
>>
>> Perhaps the closest are the Google Books/HathiTrust cases that make
>> it clear that when you are not using the expressive content of a
>> work, there is no infringement.  The arguments are well laid-out in
>> Jockers, Matthew L. and Sag, Matthew and Schultz, Jason, Brief of
>> Digital Humanities and Law Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of
>> Defendant-Appellees and Affirmance, (The Authors Guild, Inc., et al.,
>> v. Google, Inc., et al.) (Second Circuit) (July 10, 2014).
>>
>> Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2465413 or
>> http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2465413.  I can also recommend Matthew
>> Sag, Orphan Works As Grist for the Data Mill, 27 Berkeley Tech. L.J.
>> (2012).
>>
>> Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj/vol27/iss3/9
>> or http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.15779/Z387M5B.
>>
>> Your second question is a little harder.  While some argued during
>> the Napster cases that "there is no legal restriction on downloading
>> that content," I think that is far from established.  I suspect that
>> the opposite is likely to be the case now - but I haven't been
>> tracking the cases (primarily with regards to audio and videos) to
>> speak to this.
>>
>> Peter B. Hirtle
>> Affiliate Fellow, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society,
>> Harvard University [log in to unmask]
>> [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask]
>> http://vivo.cornell.edu/display/individual23436
>> Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization for
>> U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums:
>> http://hdl.handle.net/1813/14142
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 15:08:15 -0400
>>
>> I was puzzling over some of the copyright issues concerning text and
>> data mining (TDM) this week and wonder if anyone on this list can
>> offer some guidance. Basically, I have two questions:
>>
>> 1.  My understanding is that there is a growing body of court rulings
>> to the effect that TDM is not protected by copyright. That is,
>> machines/robots/spiders can mine full-text databases without
>> triggering a copyright claim. Are there any summary articles/blog
>> posts that lay out the current view of this?
>>
>> 2.  Related to this is a question that came up concerning SciHub and
>> other sites that reproduce scholarly content. While it may be a
>> breach of contract or illegal to upload content to SciHub and its
>> brethren, and it may be illegal for SciHub to display that content,
>> there is no legal restriction on downloading that content. The
>> downloader, on the other hand, cannot redisplay that content. If this
>> is true, could a TDM robot download articles from SciHub (or, for
>> that matter, from ResearchGate or Academia.edu) with impunity?
>>
>> Can anybody help me here?
>>
>> Joe Esposito