Hargreaves, Openness and Data Rowan Wilson IT Services November 2014

Rowan Wilson OSS Watch Research Support Open Spires

Is the UK copyright system fit for purpose?

Gowers Review 2005 Poor support for new learning technologies Poor support for new media technologies ‘Protection creep’ Poor support for preservation copying DRM needs to be reined in Digital infringement of copyright should be treated more harshly Patent Office should be called Intellectual Property Office

Gowers Review 2005 Poor support for new learning technologies Poor support for new media technologies ‘Protection creep’ Poor support for preservation copying DRM needs to be reined in Digital infringement of copyright should be treated more harshly Patent Office should be called Intellectual Property Office

Hargreaves Review 2011 Often called ‘the Google review’ Looked into many of the same issues as Gowers Gowers had suggested more ‘fair use’-like system David Cameron asserted that Eric Schmidt believed Google could not have started in the UK

What is Fair Use?  American  Fair Use provides loose guidelines that allow a court to decide if a particular use is infringing or not (the four factors)  the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;  the nature of the copyrighted work;  the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and  the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

 What is Fair Dealing?  'Fair Dealing' is a term which describes certain uses of a copyright work under certain defined circumstances. Provided that these circumstances are in place, no permission for this use is required from the copyright owner.  The 'Fair Dealing' exceptions can be read in full in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (and subsequent amendments)‏.  A potential criticism of this approach is that it stifles innovation by only allowing for uses that have already been envisaged (broadly at least)

Hargreaves Review 2011 Digital Copyright Exchange Orphan works licensing No opting out of statutory copyright exceptions Enforcements should not limit innovation; focus on education and building competitive markets Quotation and parody fair dealing exceptions Personal format shifting fair dealing exception Text and data analysis for non-commercial research fair dealing exception Radical simplification of educational fair dealing exceptions Library exceptions for viewing works on dedicated terminals, inter-library loans, preservation

Problem solved? Many issues addressed Much of what this University wanted obtained Yet… Still little ability for evidence to easily alter policy Entrenched positions

What is openness?

Numerous definitions create potential for confusion ‘Open-washing’ Today we will look at: Open development Open licensing Open access Open data

Open development Collaborative, networked resource creation Often facilitated by open licensing Efficacy demonstrated by the Free and Open Source software movement Crowd-sourcing Wikipedia, Github, FLOSS Manuals, Linux

Open licensing General licences with very few conditions Available to anyone Permit adaptation and redistribution No explicit communicated acceptance required Not the same as public domain Examples include FLOSS licences like BSD, GPL and content licences like Creative Commons Basis of Open Educational Resources

Open access Not the same as open licensing …although openly licensed works are open access However ‘open access’ also covers arrangements where no redistribution or adaptation is permitted More concerned with tearing down paywalls (or paying extra for ladders) Finch Report Green – academic self-archiving Gold – paying publications additional fees to cover open access

Open data Could be either… Data licensed openly (possibly without even attribution requirements) Data available under more restrictive ‘open access’-style arrangements Increasingly funders require open access to data underlying academic papers “Data ownership, IPR and the Cloud” (26 th November 2014)

What is Creative Commons? Derived from free and open source software licensing Founded in 2001 by Prof Lawrence Lessig at the University of Stanford Designed to push back against increased enclosure of ‘intellectual commons’ Six ‘general’, regionalised licences for easy sharing of rights in content A suite of machine-, human- and lawyer-readable licences Some cool icons

What are the conditions? Attribution Author must be acknowledged on all copies and adaptations of the work, including a link to the original version of the work

What are the conditions? Non-commercial The work can only be used for non-commercial purposes

What are the conditions? No Derivatives The work can only be distributed in its original form; no adaptations or translations can be made

What are the conditions? Sharealike The work can be modified and adapted, but the entire resulting work (including new material added by the adaptor) must be distributed under the same sharealike licence

What are the six licences?

Anything else? As mentioned above, we in the UK cannot divest ourselves of our copyright CC0 is a public domain dedication where that applies, and a broad, perpetual, general licence where it doesn't CC licences are regionalised by local projects in jurisdictions across the world England and Wales failed to regionalise the last iteration (v3) Version 4 is now complete and among other things covers database rights

Questions?

 What about software and data?  Free and Open Source Software licensing set the pattern for Creative Commons etc  Over 50 licences approved by Open Source Initiative.  Europe grants a form of IP called a Database Right that protects collections of data, and which is separate from copyright  Plain Creative Commons pre-v4 licences do not license these rights  provides licences that make these rights available under terms compatible with CChttp://opendatacommons.org/  CC0 also licences/waives database rights, and CC v4 fixes this issue.

 Funder requirements  RCUK data-sharing principles  “Two of the principles are of particular importance: firstly, that publicly funded research data should generally be made as widely and freely available as possible in a timely and responsible manner; and, secondly, that the research process should not be damaged by the inappropriate release of such data.”

 Archiving considerations  Data protection requirements and their effect on cloud hosting  Layers of IP ownership on research data sets: database rights, database structure copyright, database element copyright, researcher copyright, subject copyright, copyright,subject performance rights, institutional copyright  Inbound and outbound licensing