Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Towns and cities of the 18th and 19th centuries often had a place called a
commons: a centrally located unfenced area that was free for all to use. The
fighting a Congress that has acted to shrink the public domain, and the business
community that has exploited it. In a Washington Post news article, Lawrence
Lessig, the Stanford University law professor who co-founded the nonprofit Creative
Commons, and is the brainchild behind the Creative Commons licenses is quoted as
saying that the aim of the organization, is to "help artists and authors give others the
freedom to build upon their creativity -- without calling a lawyer first" (Cha, 2005). In
other words, open access to works without the worry of legal ramification is the main
Creative Commons takes the concepts surrounding copyrights and makes them
much simpler to understand and much easier to implement. The best protection
against plagiarism is detection, and detection is easier when the original work is
freely available.
Issues
proprietary online databases, thereby giving the publishers ownership of their work.
publishers over specific scientific works allows them to charge access fees to
anyone needing access to material they cannot get elsewhere. Scientific research
Wakefield 2
depends on the timely free flow of ideas and information. These very same
publishers will state that it is often very challenging to distinguish between quality
content and less-than-credible information when sifting through long lists of search
results from internet search engines or directories. Also, publishers often question
In the creative arts, copyright protects the rights of content producers who
need to make money from their song, book, or film, and there is tension between the
content producer's interest to profit from their labor and the consumers' desire to get
producers and consumers of information are largely the same people. And, second,
scientists don't make money from the sale of their work. Today, copyright is used
protects the interests of publishers and the works they publish, and not the rights of
Librarians and library institutions have special rights granted via US Copyright
law and are in a position to help educate the public about copyrights, plagiarism and
public domain importance, unite for its preservation, and encourage copyright
owners to dedicate their works to the public using Creative Commons licensing. In
doing so, they can provide a haven for scientists and researchers to place their
works in the public domain where detection of copyright violations and plagiarism
would be easier and also to promote the progress of human knowledge as our
History
Clause 8, that read “the Congress shall have power…to promote the progress of
Wakefield 3
science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” In 1790, the First
Congress implemented this copyright provision via the law: The Copyright Act of
1790, an Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Securing the Copies of Maps,
Charts, and Books to the Authors and Proprietors of Such Copies (Understanding
The first US copyright law was enacted in the Copyright Act of 1790. In 1909
the Copyright Act of 1909, U.S. Code, vol. 17, sec. 4 expanded the scope of
copyright with the words, “all writings of an author.” The US Copyright Act was again
revised in 1976. The Copyright Act of 1976, US Code, vol. 17, sec. 102(a) states that
revision was as a result of the US joining the Berne Convention for the Protection of
Literary & Artistic Works. The Berne Convention is an international copyright body.
As a result, US Copyright law now preempts all state laws. The 1992 Copyright
Renewal Act was drafted because of the NAFTA (North America Free Trade
1994. These agreements obliged the US to make further changes with regards to the
In 1998, the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) was another revision of US
copyright law. This law was an attempt to address electronic commerce and
copyright issues. The late Sony Bono, as a Senator from Florida, further extended
copyrights with the passage of the 1998 Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
This extended copyrights 70 years after the passing of the author. The TEACH
is an original work of authorship with a modicum of creativity and that is (a) fixed in a
tangible medium of expression whether now known or later developed and (b) from
directly or with the aid of a machine or device (Copyright Act of 1976, US Code, vol.
science and the arts to have factual works published and distributed to the public. If
this is so, then why do publisher’s acquire the rights to scientific works and then
publish them in journals and proprietary online databases and then, subsequently
charge the very same consumers for access to the works they originally published?
how to organize it, and how to present it. As a result journals and online databases of
the journals are copyrightable. The facts contained in the journal, however, are not
to encourage authors to create new works and therefore promote the progress of
human knowledge. Now, the ultimate goal is to foster the creation of new works that
will one day enter the public domain where they can be freely used to enrich
Copyright, 2006).
Wakefield 5
In determining the nature of the protected works, the courts usually consider
whether the work is factual or creative. Recall that a work must show a “modicum of
of statistics, include original work as well as the facts. In a biography, original work
would include the language the author chooses to tell the story (Understanding
Copyright law, 2004). In a statistical collection, the selection and organization of the
factual works encourages publication and distribution of the information. At the same
time, however, we have to consider the ability to access and use scientific works as
more important to education and society, and thus to the progress of science and the
arts, than the ability to access and use purely fictional works. Therefore, courts are
more likely to judge use of a factual work to be a fair use than use of a purely
Causes
Currently, the way that publishers wield copyright actually weakens authors'
protection against misuse of their works. While copyright offers some legal protection
against plagiarism, there are few cases in which copyright has been used to
comes from a scientific culture that does not tolerate these practices. Scientists'
careers have been ruined when it is discovered that they have stolen someone
What does copyright have to do with plagiarism and what is the difference
between plagiarism and copyright? Plagiarism has nothing to do with copyright law.
Although they may be similar at first glance in that an infringer is “stealing” someone
Wakefield 6
else’s work, they differ in several ways. One may infringe a copyright without claming
to be the author of a work. Likewise, one may commit plagiarism with a work not
detection, and detection is much easier when the original work is freely available.
Scientific works exist as a result of the broader scientific community, and the whole
reason you publish them is so that other people will read and use them. If research is
paid for by the public through a federal agency or public institution, it's likely the
scientists doing the research are interested in producing public knowledge. If the
product of that research doesn't belong in the public domain, then the public domain
What is public domain? Once a work falls into the Public Domain it will stay
there indefinitely. This means that the work no longer has copyright protection. These
creative works for some reason or another are not protected by copyright law and
are ordinarily free for all to use (McCord-Hoffman, 2005). Since the goal of scientists
is to publish into the public domain in order to expand human knowledge, then open
access appears to be the best way to enable public access, peer review and
plagiarism detection. And if other scientists have equal and open access to this
knowledge then it makes it easier to peer review their colleagues published scientific
Effects
So, what would be the effectsof open access on scientific works? Everyone
who has access to a computer and an Internet connection will have unlimited access
education, could lead to more informed healthcare decisions by doctors and patients,
Wakefield 7
and could level the playing field for scientists at small or less wealthy institutions and
developing world by ensuring that no one will be unable to read an important paper
just because their institution does not subscribe to a particular journal. Open access
will also enable scientists to begin transforming scientific works into something far
more useful than just the electronic equivalent of rows and rows of journals on library
shelves. The ability to search an entire scientific library for particular terms,
concepts, methods, data, and images and then retrieve the results is only a
pages and random boundaries drawn by the publishers who are fixated on their
relics of paper publication, open access opens up countless new possibilities for
new dimension of accessibility. Hopefully, even the most reluctant publisher will
journals and a financially viable economic model. Once this happens, I suspect many
publishers will respond positively either on their own or in response to the market
available archives of DNA sequences. It was decided in the early 1980s that
format, where they could be freely accessed and used by anyone. Simply giving
scientists free and unrestricted access to the raw DNA sequences led them to
develop methods, tools, and resources to complete whole sequences, including the
human genome (Public Library of Science, 2006). If open access in the scientific
Conclusion
We need to see a shift in how the publishers are paid for distributing scientific
ideas and discoveries. From a model in which publishers are given permanent,
exclusive control over the scientific works and allowed to charge for access to a
model in which the literature is effectively placed in the public domain and publishers
are paid a fair price for the service they provide in getting the works there. Internally,
I am sure most scientists would agree strongly with the general principles of what is
being advocated here. What remains is the challenge of convincing them that they
should publish in established journals and support this new model of publishing in
the public domain at the same time. Publication records play a major role in landing
jobs, getting grants, and achieving tenure. The more prestigious the journal, the
scenario. Many scientists perceive publishing in a new journal, no matter how much
they agree with its principles, as a risky career move. As a result, a tremendous
amount of energy has to go into creating an open access journal with the highest
editorial and production standards that publishes outstanding works from all areas of
science. Once established as prestigious journals, scientists will no longer feel they
have to choose between what is right for them and what is right for science.
512 of the Copyright Act. Librarians can limit the caching of information to the very
minimum necessary to qualify for the Section 512 protections (Copyright Act of 1976,
US Code, vol. 17, sec. 512). Libraries must follow strict regulations of Section 512 to
qualify as an OSP. Although most libraries would qualify as an OSP, protection is not
automatically granted. The Copyright Act does not protect a library (a) unless and
Wakefield 9
until it takes specified action to indicate its desire to be protected by Section 512,
which includes registering an agent (someone who will receive complaints) with the
its users but must investigate any and all complaints of copyright infringement or
library should consider seriously the trade-offs of complying with the Section 512 of
A library can facilitate access to open works and licensed works as far as the
First Sale Doctrine. The first sale doctrine permits libraries to lend copies of
copyright holder. Sharing those resources with other libraries is another matter.
Under the Fair Use Doctrine, resources the library has purchased fall under the First
Sale Doctrine. This does not give them the right to reproduce a work and forward to
another library. They can only reproduce the work in the library for onsite use. A
library could make a copy of a Creative Common licensed work and forward it to
another library (Simpson, 2005). The bigger question would be for licensed works.
some particular act or series of acts on [a piece of property] without possessing any
estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at will of the licensor and is not
assignable.” So, a license is the ability to use a piece of property that belongs to
someone else without obtaining any ownership rights in the property. You could think
to download or print items from the database and information, but you do not obtain
copyright holder? As stated previously, the first sale doctrine permits libraries to lend
the copyright holder. Access controls, however, could disrupt traditional library
provide access to all patrons. This would create information have and ‘have-nots’.
Another reason why libraries and librarians should be part of the solution is
archives. Publishers have control of their archives and works can disappear
make the works publicly available after a specific period of time, as we mentioned
earlier in this paper, there is no guarantee that these works will be archived or placed
Ultimately, libraries and librarians have the special rights and skills to educate
the public about public domain works and shepherd open access to scientific works.
I surmise that we will see market forces change the landscape of copyright and
nudge publishers in this direction as well eventually. The Library of Congress would
be a good place to start as far as a clearinghouse and archive as they have the
resources and expertise to do so. Like other issues in our government, public opinion
and adoption could swing things this way if our new informational science graduates
and educators plant the seeds into our future librarians minds now.
Wakefield 11
Works Cited
http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.academic.bcc.ctc.edu/pqdweb?index=44&did
=807644851&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=
309&VName=PQD&TS=1164609716&clientId=2680.
“Copyright & Fair Use.” Stanford University Libraries. 2004. 30 Oct. 2006
<http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-
a.html>.
"Copyright Law of the United States of America." U.S. Copyright Office. 2006. 4 Nov.
2006 <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/>.
<http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/cprtindx.htm>.
“Fair Use Project - Stanford Center for Internet and Society.” 2 Nov. 2006
<http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/fair-use-project>.
Fishman, Stephen. The Copyright Handbook: How to Protect & Use Written Works.
---. “The Public Domain: How to Find & Use Copyright-Free Writings, Music, Art &
Francis, Barbara. Other People’s Words: What Plagiarism Is and How to Avoid It.
and Dealing with Plagiarism. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Pyrczak Publishing, 2002.
Kozak, Ellen M. Every Writer’s Guide to Copyright and Publishing Law. 3rd ed. New
Lipson, Charles. Doing Honest Work in College: How to Prepare Citations, Avoid
“Public Library of Science: About.” Public Library of Science. 2006. 10 Nov. 2006
<http://www.plos.org/about/index.html>.
Simpson, Carol. Copyright for Schools: A Practical Guide. 4th ed. Worthington, OH:
"Son of Citation Machine." The Landmark Project. April 2006. 30 Oct. 2006
Wakefield 13
<http://citationmachine.net/index.php>.
“Stanford Copyright & Fair Use - Copyright Basics FAQ.” 2006. 14 Nov. 2006
<http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-
a.html>.
<http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Ecsundt/copyweb/>.
“Understanding Copyright Law: What You Need to Know.” Dir. D. Spotted Eagle.
<http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html>.
Wiener, Jon. Historians in Trouble: Plagiarism, Fraud, and Politics in the Ivory Tower.