From: Winston Tabb <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:31:14 +0000 This is yet another reminder that we should always attempt to include a provision in our licenses that nothing in them overrides provisions of copyright law. Sent from my iPhone > 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