Contributed by Organizations or Campuses; Articles, Papers, and Reports; Digital Collections; and Copyright
Scholarship and Academic Libraries (and their kin) in the World of Google
| Title: | Scholarship and Academic Libraries (and their kin) in the World of Google (ID: CSD4642) | | Author(s): | Paul N. Courant (University of Michigan-Ann Arbor) | | Origin: | Contributed by Organizations or Campuses (2006) | | Type: | Articles, Papers, and Reports | | Abstract: | The prospect of ubiquitous digitization will not change the fundamental relationships among scholarship, academic libraries, and publication. Collaboration across time and space, which is a principal mechanism of scholarship, ought to be enhanced. Reforms in copyright law will be required if the promise of digitization is to be realized; absent such reform, there is a serious risk that much academically valuable material will become invisible and unused. Ubiquitous digitization will change radically the economics that have supported university–based collections of published material. Scholars and scholarly institutions (including libraries and university presses) must assert vigorously claims of fair use and openness. | | View this resource: | |
Acquiring Copyright Permission to Digitize and Provide Open Access to Books
| Title: | Acquiring Copyright Permission to Digitize and Provide Open Access to Books (ID: CSD4309) | | Author(s): | Denise Troll Covey (Carnegie Mellon University) | | Origin: | Contributed by Organizations or Campuses (2005) | | Type: | Articles, Papers, and Reports | | Abstract: | What are the stumbling blocks to digitization? Is copyright law a major barrier? Is it easier to negotiate with some types of publishers than with others? To what extent does the age of the material influence permission decisions? This report, by Denise Troll Covey, principal librarian for special projects at Carnegie Mellon University, responds to many of these questions. It begins with a brief, cogent overview of U.S. copyright laws, licensing practices, and technological developments in publishing that serve as the backdrop for the current environment. It then recounts in detail three efforts undertaken at Carnegie-Mellon University to secure copyright permission to digitize and provide open access to books with scholarly content. | | View this resource: | |
Descriptive Metadata for Copyright Status
| Title: | Descriptive Metadata for Copyright Status (ID: CSD4238) | | Author(s): | Karen Coyle (Consultant) | | Source: | First Monday | | Origin: | Contributed by Organizations or Campuses (2005) | | Type: | Articles, Papers, and Reports | | Abstract: | The need to express the intellectual property rights of digital materials has focused on access and usage permissions which must be granted by the rights holder. A key set of permissions not acknowledged by these rights expressions is inherent in the legal copyright status of the item. Digital libraries can hold and provide access to many items for which copyright status is the sole governor of use. This article proposes a small set of descriptive data elements that should accompany digital materials to inform potential users of the copyright status of the item. | | View this resource: | |
Scholarship, Instruction, and Libraries at the Turn of the Century
| Title: | Scholarship, Instruction, and Libraries at the Turn of the Century (ID: CLR1007) | | Origin: | Contributed by Organizations or Campuses (1999) | | Type: | Articles, Papers, and Reports | | Abstract: | To understand how technology is changing the nature of scholarship and teaching, the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) and the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) joined forces to establish five task forces that examined these questions by looking at the special requirements posed by different types of information resources. The deliberations of these task forces are detailed in this report. From the discussions, CLIR extracted all of the recommendations that were proposed by individual task force members. While some clear priorities emerged, the groups did not always attempt to reach consensus on the various recommendations nor to place them in priority order | | View this resource: | |
|
