Home » Blog

Driving UK Research – Is copyright a help or a hindrance?

22 July 2010 320 views 15 Comments
© is the copyright symbol
Image via Wikipedia

The following is my contribution to a collection prepared by the British Library and released today at the Wellcome Trust, called “Driving UK Research. Is copyright a help or a hindrance?”  - Press ReleaseDocument[pdf] – which is being released under a CC-BY-NC license. The British Library kindly allowed authors to retain copyright on their contributions so I am here releasing the text into the public domain via a CCZero waiver. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Chris Morrison in editing and improving the piece.

If I want to be confident that this text will be used to its full extent  I am going to have to republish it separately to this collection. Not because the collection uses  restrictive rights management or licences, it actually uses a relatively liberal copyright licence. No, the problem is copyright itself and the way it interacts with how we create knowledge in the 21st century.

Until recently we would use texts or data by reading, taking notes, making photocopies, and then writing down new insights. We would refer to the originals by citing them. A person making limited copies or taking notes (perhaps quoting the text) does not breach copyright because of the notion of “fair dealing”. Making copies of reasonable portions of a work is explicitly not a violation of copyright. If it were we wouldn’t be able to do any useful work at all.

Today, scholarship and research cannot effectively proceed via manual human processes. There is simply too much for us to handle. On the other hand we have excellent computer systems that can, to some extent at least, take these notes for us. Automated assistants that can read the text for us, that can do text mining, data aggregation and indexing allowing us to cope with the volume of information. As these tools improve we have an opportunity to radically increase the speed of the innovation cycle, using the human brain for what it is best at: insight and creative thinking; and using machines for what they are best at: indexing, checking, collecting.

The problem is that to do this those machines need to take a copy of the whole of the text and in doing so they trigger copyright. Even though the collection you are reading is released under a Creative Commons licence that allows non-commercial use, no-one can take a copy, find an interesting sentence, and then index it if they are going to make money. Google are not allowed to check what is here and index it for us.

Or perhaps they are. Perhaps this does come under “fair use” in the US. Or maybe it does, but not in the UK. What about Australia? Or Brazil? All with slightly different copyright law and a slightly different relationship between copyright and contract law. Even if current legal opinion says it is allowed a future court case could change that. The only way I can be sure that my text is available into the future is to give up the copyright altogether.

To build effectively on the scientific and cultural data being generated today we need computers. If a human were doing the job it would clearly be covered by fair dealing. What we need is a clear and explicit statement that machine based analysis for the purpose of indexing, mining, or collecting references is a fair dealing exception, even where a full copy is taken. There clearly need to be boundaries. The entire work should not be kept or distributed. As with existing fair dealing we could have guidelines on amounts kept or quoted: perhaps no more than 5% of a work. These could easily be developed and be compatible with existing fair dealing guidance.

We risk stifling the development of new tools, both commercial and academic, and new knowledge under the weight of a legal regime that was designed to cope with the printing press. At the same time a simple statement that this kind of analysis is fair dealing will provide certainty without damaging the interests of copyright holders or complicating copyright law. These new uses will ultimately bring more traffic, and perhaps more customers, to the primary documents. By taking the simple and easy step of making automated analysis an allowable fair dealing exception everyone wins.

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

  • http://friendfeed.com/cavlec D0r0th34

    you realize, of course, that this would piss off every single publisher involved in the Google Books case…

    This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed

  • http://friendfeed.com/cameronneylon Cameron Neylon

    Yes, but if the quid pro quo was that Google couldn’t actually keep the copy but had to point back to the publisher is that perhaps a politically acceptable half way house?

    This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed

  • http://friendfeed.com/cavlec D0r0th34

    Not for Google, I suspect. For one thing, Google re-OCRs every now and then, when they’ve made sufficient improvements to their OCR engine.

    This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed

  • http://friendfeed.com/cavlec D0r0th34

    Anyway, I’m not disagreeing with you. F*** the publishers. *g*

    This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed

  • http://friendfeed.com/cameronneylon Cameron Neylon

    Managed to read the rest of the collection now as well. There is some good stuff in there from a wide range of people.

    This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed

  • http://friendfeed.com/cavlec D0r0th34

    Reading it now. So nice to see so much good sense in one place!

    This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed

  • http://friendfeed.com/billhooker Bill Hooker

    Good stuff. Recommended reading. (Cameron’s piece I mean — haven’t had time to ready any others yet.)

    This comment was originally posted on FriendFeed

  • Pingback: The British Library asks researchers and educators – Is copyright a help or a hindrance? - Creative Commons

  • http://ursinnig.janssons.org/ Christer

    @Sven van de Bergh:
    “Creating something new is not prohibited to those who copy.”

    So you truly believe that anyone can come up with something entirely “new”, out of the blue?

    Let’s face it – we humans can only make associations – generalize/specialize, improve or simplify – but everything we create is merely a combination of what others have created before us, and impressions from other sources.

    No “creator” can contribute with more than a tiny fraction of the creation.

    So I have to disagree – creating something new is actually more or less prohibited. Whatever you try to create.

    This comment was originally posted on Creative Commons » CC News

  • Nathan

    hindrance – I too use CC0 :)

    This comment was originally posted on Creative Commons » CC News

  • Davis Foulger

    Copyright is more hindrance than help now. The time extensions that have pushed copyright out to decades are particularly problematic, as has put an increasing number of books into publishing limbo. There are an increasing number of cases where the author cannot be located (and has probably died) having left no one responsible (or at least identifiable as responsible) for providing copyright permissions.

    I and others would love to reuse a graphic in a book that was coauthored by Marshall McLuhan for which the lead author and copyright holder can no longer be found. Under old copyright law this wouldn’t be a problem now (copyright would have expired), but under current copyright law the graphic cannot be legally used. I believe this has prevented an interested publisher from putting the book back in print, as well.

    This comment was originally posted on Creative Commons » CC News

  • Alex Moquin

    But then look at the other side. What about when you send out a novel that is going to sell a great many books. Without copyright, someone could much more easily take your book and sell it before it’s even published (potentially)(I say more easily since it’s not impossible even with copyright, they will just be (usually) sue-able). Now, lets say we replace our current copyright system with something similar to what creative commons licenses do(sorry if I’m off, I’ve not very deeply read into it): anything you make is yours, and no one can make a profit off of it; unless, of course, they change it. So, let’s take the same example. This time, when your precious manuscript is “stolen” the other person edits it. He adds a few lines here, there, and takes one or two out over there. Now, as far as I know, under cc his book is a new one. He gets it out to the market first, and you end up making no profit.

    This comment was originally posted on Creative Commons » CC News

  • http://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnjp7cUEa2-tW9sg3l9Uqs3TkkxTJKNiW0 Aaron Mavrinac

    @Alex Moquin

    Yes, and?

    Copyright law wasn’t introduced because you have some “right” to make a profit when you create a work; its intent is to promote said creation by guaranteeing to some degree the profit incentive. What is at issue is whether the modern copyright law in modern times is a net benefit to society — if it isn’t, as with any law, it should be modified or abolished.

    This comment was originally posted on Creative Commons » CC News