Cadmore media player playing video The Scholarly Kitchen: The Future of Copyright and Reuse in Academic Publishing
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
The Scholarly Kitchen: The Future of Copyright and Reuse in Academic Publishing
Description:
The Scholarly Kitchen: The Future of Copyright and Reuse in Academic Publishing
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/67ef06ae-2a66-42a8-a442-f49b459b5904/thumbnails/67ef06ae-2a66-42a8-a442-f49b459b5904.png
Duration:
T00H56M31S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/67ef06ae-2a66-42a8-a442-f49b459b5904
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/67ef06ae-2a66-42a8-a442-f49b459b5904/GMT20211116-160101_Recording_1760x900.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=qjwYuUl8Y9IMntsSri2XGjNl267w3ew3P%2FZh5tffYFY%3D&st=2024-11-19T20%3A22%3A41Z&se=2024-11-19T22%3A27%3A41Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-02-02T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
JASON POINTE: Thank, you and welcome to today's SSP webinar, the Future of Copyright and Reuse in Academic Publishing, presented by the Scholarly Kitchen. We are very pleased that you can join us today. My name is Jason Pointe, and I'm the lead for the SSP Education Committee webinar's working group. I'd like to thank the sponsor of today's webinar, ARPHA. I also have a few housekeeping items to review before we get started. Your phones will be muted automatically in consideration of our presenters and your fellow webinar participants.
JASON POINTE: This one-hour session will be recorded and posted on the SSP website 60 days following today's broadcast. Please use the Q&A box to submit your questions for panelists during the session or if you experience technical issues during the webinar. Questions will be compiled for the presenters at the end of the webinar. You may also use the chat feature to chat to the panelists or to the entire group.
JASON POINTE: Closed captions are available for today's event. There's a CC button on the lower right of the Zoom window. It is now my pleasure to introduce our moderator, Todd Carpenter. Todd is executive director of the National Information Standards Organization, NISO. He's a regular contributor to the Scholarly Kitchen, and serves in a variety of leadership roles for community organizations, such as FORCE11, the International Organization of Standards, the Free Ebook Foundation, and the American Library Association's Policy Corps.
JASON POINTE: He's-- was also recently appointed to the Copyright Public Modernization Committee, supporting the modernization of the Copyright Office's infrastructure. Todd, over to you--
TODD CARPENTER: right, good morning. Good afternoon. Welcome. Thank you all for joining us today. We are going to be talking about the future of copyright and reuse in academic publishing in panel discussion. Joining us today, in alphabetical order, is Rick Anderson, who is university librarian at Brigham Young University. He writes and speaks extensively on issues related to academic librarianship and scholarly communications, and is a past president of the Society for Scholarly Publishing.
TODD CARPENTER: Next, joining us is Haseeb Irfanullah, who is a biologist turned development facilitator, who often introduces himself as a research enthusiast. Currently an independent consultant on environment, climate change, and research systems, he's also visiting research fellow at the University of Liberal Arts in Bangladesh. And finally is Karin Wulf, who is Beatrice and Julio Mario Santo Domingo director and Librarian at the John Carter Brown Library.
TODD CARPENTER: She's also professor of history at Brown University. She's a historian and early-- historian of early America, and in her career, she has been a publisher, a funder, and also a convener. We have broken our session today into roughly three themes, the first being the author's perspective on copyright. We'll then get into issues of copyright assignment and a semi-theme related to Creative Commons.
TODD CARPENTER: And then finally, we'll put on our future goggles and look into the future of copyright. So we'll start off with a question for you, Haseeb. So starting with your perspective on what authors see from their perspective, when it comes to copyright, what do authors want from copyright, and why should authors care?
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Thanks, Todd. It's a very-- a pleasure to be on this panel with other [INAUDIBLE]. When we talk about authors' relationship with copyright, we need to think of author are basically researcher and readers as well. So they come across copyright issues from the very beginning, when they start exploring others' research. So when we talk about accessing past research or existing research, knowingly or unknowingly, they face copyright issues.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But when they not only access the past publication or existing literature-- they are governed by different rules and regulations that is being imposed or facilitated by their institutions. It is not only accessing the journals or books that their institutions actually provide them with. When they design research, they are also governed by so many rules-- rules by the donors-- what can you do, what can't you do-- by their institutions, by their disciplines as well.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: And that kind of norms, rules, regulations they have to abide by when they think of publishing or communicating research as an author. So when we see that, a researcher as an author, they are governed by so many rules, and regulations, and norms, although they want to have that kind of freedom that they will be creating knowledge on their own. But they can't. They have to abide by those.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: And I think copyright comes into play automatically whether they want it or not. But I'm not quite sure that whether, as an author, we pursue to learn about copyright-- what is going on, what I can do or can't do. It is part of our responsibility to know it, or it is part of our system that makes us knowing it. But if we focus on what authors actually want, definitely they want that their production, their newly gathered knowledge that they want to share, people are reading it.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: People are using it. And that will definitely increase the recognition. That will help them to build their career, go forward, and get more funding, of course. So utilization of the knowledge that I have created-- actually, by citing them, others-- other authors are actually recognizing that I'm the owner of it. So basically, I'm just trying to convey what I want to convey.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But like other protocols, other norms, other rules and regulations, is copyright hindering me? Is it stopping me? Is it just one of the rules and regulations that I have to abide by, despite the fact that we are in a knowledge making industry? Knowledge is not a common word, isn't it? We have to abide by so many things-- business, [INAUDIBLE] are some of our dream as a researcher.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: So now, my final thought would be that-- how do I proactively spread my creation to others? And then the issue comes to whether I'm violating, or supporting, or being frustrated by copyright and other related licensing, and so on, so forth. Or I'm not that proactive in that sense. I'm just allowing the system to diffuse my creation through the existing channel or not.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Or I would be just-- think from a fairness, or fair use, or justice perspective. Why can't I help other fellow researcher? Because I'm sharing my research with my students. Why can't my fellow researcher be at the same facility? Also, I don't know them, but they're approaching me through my ResearchGate account and asking me, please, can you share with me the research that you have published [INAUDIBLE] So there are so many issues.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: I think sometimes we authors, we get kind of in a dilemma, especially if we don't-- if we are not aware of the system as a whole and we are not quite used to the fine print of copyright. So I would say that, yes, we are part of it, we are dealing with it, but I'm not quite sure that we understand it fully. Thank you.
TODD CARPENTER: Thanks, Haseeb. And Karin, I'm interested-- because you've played so many different roles and has so many different perspectives on content creation and distribution, I'm wondering how that-- how those different roles impact people's feelings around copyright.
KARIN WULF: Thanks, Todd. And again, it's delight to be in conversation with my fellow Scholarly Kitchen chefs on this critically important subject. So I come to this conversation, as ever, as a humanist, and especially as a historian, and with the knowledge-- I know we're going to talk about this a little bit later, but with the knowledge that we have really different publishing-- research and publishing environments-- indeed, ecosystems-- across disciplines and fields, and that really influences how we encounter subjects as important and seemingly common as copyright.
KARIN WULF: I think Haseeb makes a crucial point here, which is that any individual person can have-- sit in a different subject position vis-a-vis-- and have a different vantage and different moments even in their day about copyright. And I think this is particularly true for the humanities, where most of our publishing is non-profit and small. And so an individual person, anyone who-- not even necessarily leading a specific organization, but an individual can be a researcher who is an author of a piece-- a published piece, an essay, or a book, can be trying to teach something that they're trying to get hold of, can be trying to share something with another person, can be a reader trying to just access something to cite it, can be the editor of a publication where they want to establish the journal's prerogative over that particular piece can be a publisher trying to sustain the viability of their publication.
KARIN WULF: Any individual person could be actually in all of those positions, and can feel differently about copyright. And I think it could be really useful for us to just point that out. I think we often see on social media or-- as in so many things about social media, we see polarized articulations about copyright. Copyright is great.
KARIN WULF: Copyright is terrible. And I often see the same person making that same argument, depending on their subject position. And one might be as an author, for example. I published an essay, and then all of a sudden, I see that it has shown up in a volume of essays, and I never gave my permission for it to be included there. As an author, I feel that my rights have been violated there.
KARIN WULF: As a reader, I-- why can't I just get access to that thing? And on and on-- so I think it is-- it's quite important for us to point out that copyright is neither good nor bad. It is a tool which people find useful in some contexts, and challenging in other contexts. But the same person can be experiencing all of those contexts, even within a fairly short period of time.
TODD CARPENTER: Yeah. Building on some of those contexts, Rick, how should we think about copyright in the context of the academic environment that we inhabit? Are there ways that we should be thinking about it slightly differently in an academic context?
RICK ANDERSON: Yeah, that's a great question, and a very complicated one, because there really are things about academic publications that, in many cases, do militate against giving their authors copyright protection. So for one thing, a lot of academic publications basically boil down to factual reports, and factual reports don't usually get as much copyright protection under the law as creative works or works of criticism.
RICK ANDERSON: It's a lot easier to make a fair use argument, for example, about a factual report than about a creative work. But for another thing, academic authors have usually already been paid for the work that goes into creating their scholarly products. In many cases, they have no expectation of making money off of their copyrights. Now, if they're writing textbooks, of course, that's a whole different area.
RICK ANDERSON: But for the most part, they earn salaries from their institutions, and in many cases, the direct costs of the research itself have already been covered by external funders. So you can easily see how somebody might look at academic publishing and say, hey, it really doesn't make sense for the normal copyright restrictions, or even for copyright itself to apply when it comes to scholarly publications.
RICK ANDERSON: And there are, in fact, people making that exact argument very explicitly in the open access community. The problem, of course, is that, when you start thinking about how you might apply copyright exceptions to scholarly work as a category, you run into all kinds of complication-- and Karin hinted at this-- because academic work is only a simple category. If you don't know anything about academic work.
RICK ANDERSON: What about the very large number of scholarly products that don't, in fact, amount to a factual report? For every article that reports factually on the results of a clinical trial or a chemistry experiment, you're going to have a work of literary criticism or a theory of social behavior, either of which will probably be expressed in a way that makes much more sense as a copyrightable work. A physicist might not care very much about whether her article's repurposed by someone else without her permission, but an academic literary critic might care very much, and with very good reason.
RICK ANDERSON: Now, there are some who say, well, right, universal reuse rights shouldn't apply across the board to all academic publications-- only to scientific ones-- which, fair enough, but then where do you draw the line between the kinds of science that should get copyright protection in those that shouldn't? We might all agree that a report on a clinical trial doesn't need copyright protection, but what about an economic analysis?
RICK ANDERSON: What about a sociology paper that not only reports on the raw results of a study, but also interprets those results in great depth? So this is one of those areas where personally, my greatest disagreement isn't with people on one side or the other of the issue. I can see some pretty good arguments on either side. Of my disagreement is with those who see this as a simple issue or as one that has a self-evident solution.
RICK ANDERSON:
TODD CARPENTER: Ah. Dealing with the mute button. We've just laid out a pretty complicated ecosystem. Copyright is not a simple concept, and it has very complicated implications. I'm wondering who is responsible for educating authors about copyright and helping them navigate this very complicated landscape.
TODD CARPENTER: Is there a role or responsibility for institutions, libraries, publishers? How do we help the authors in this space?
KARIN WULF: Todd, I can jump in here, if this is a jump in moment.
TODD CARPENTER: It is.
KARIN WULF: I think it is, because you didn't say-- trying to follow the directions here. Let me just note that I think-- I was on another event yesterday, where we were talking about whether and how to include more practical professionalization training in graduate programs. And while I think anybody who's been training graduate students would always say, there's more we could pack in-- more, more-- I think, actually, from my vantage, what would be helpful is if all of us took it as a responsibility to make transparent and to excavate the systems of which we're a part.
KARIN WULF: That is, I see-- in my new role in a library, I see lots of students and other researchers not really understanding how the library functions in their research. I see loads of researchers not understanding how publishers function. And I also see the other way around, publishers not understanding researcher needs.
KARIN WULF: I think copyright is another example of how, the more we hyper focus on our own situation, literally where we are situated, rather than understanding ourselves as being situated in relationship within a larger system, the more we are blinkered to such things as the complexity of copyright. So I know you're asking a question about, how can we teach about copyright, and who's going to do that teaching?
KARIN WULF: And I guess what I'm saying is I think it's part of a larger issue of teaching the metaverse, as it were-- let's take that term back, shall we-- teaching the metaphors of scholarly production, of knowledge production, in fact, in which we can see that we have so many collaborators with so many different kinds of expertise that are necessary to bring knowledge forward.
KARIN WULF:
TODD CARPENTER: And Haseeb--
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: I can--
TODD CARPENTER: Go ahead.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: I can quickly add, because there are certain countries, certain societies where governance system is not that strong-- so the way we are defining copyright, and its use, and its necessity might not be understood by the scholarly society in that country that much. In that case, I think definitely institutions could help, but there the institutions understanding is a bit low, isn't it?
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: In that case, I believe that publishers-- they do have a strong role to play. As a publishing researcher, I have seen that many journals, many journal on their home page are very easy to navigate. They highlight the elements of copyright we use, not making it too complicated-- making it quite simple so that the author doesn't feel quite concerned. Rather, they understand where their position is.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: I understood in that way. So since I got that kind of training or capacity development-- so I understand that publishers do have certain roles, especially when we are talking about publishing becoming more and more internationalized. So yeah, that's my thought. Thank you.
TODD CARPENTER: Rick, do you have any additional thoughts before we're going to move on?
RICK ANDERSON: Just to say that I'm not sure it makes sense to think in terms of any individual entity being the one that has a responsibility to teach authors about copyright-- the same way scholars learn their craft from a wide variety of sources in every other aspect, I think, points to the idea that they have lots of sources to draw upon. Excuse me. Certainly, in libraries, we try to share information about copyright with both students and faculty authors, many of whom understand copyright very well, but some of whom don't.
RICK ANDERSON: And if I were a department chair in an academic department, I would certainly have a meeting with the faculty and say, let's talk about copyright and make sure everybody understands how it works-- in particular in our field. And so I think this is one of those multivalent things. I don't think there's a single channel that's going to be the right way to make sure that authors know what they need to know.
TODD CARPENTER: Sure. And along those lines, I see copyright law is very country-specific. And when we're dealing with people in international context, how is that impacting the authors' decisions? Do the authors really know, when they're presented with a license, all of the things that-- the rights that they're signing over?
TODD CARPENTER:
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: It's still difficult to understand, because as Rick said, that understanding-- it doesn't matter whether you are undergraduate researcher, or a graduate student, or a very senior professor. It often depends upon whether you want to get involved into it, learn about it, because sometimes we try to avoid it. But from my experience, when I talk with-- or even I have to deal with these issues-- sometimes, as a researcher, when I am trying to publish my research in an academic journal which is being published by a publisher, my intuition would be I'm quite happy to publish it there, because it will be adding value to my CV.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: My CV will become heavier, better. So since they're asking me to sign something off, fine. Everybody's doing it. I'm not losing anything, I hope. But when you become aware of it, when you become cautious about what you are gaining, or what is the trade-off? Is it just part of [INAUDIBLE] regular assignment? So I think the answer to your question depends upon individuals, obviously.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: What's their background, and what's their interest, and what's their motivation to publish a scholarly communication? So sometimes [INAUDIBLE] rather than going through everything. Thank you.
TODD CARPENTER: And aside from the international aspect-- Karin, you talked a little bit about this in an earlier in your earlier comments-- the disciplinary differences are significant. What are some other variations, in terms of how authors look at copyright, maybe in the humanities?
KARIN WULF: Well, so I was just trying to disaggregate here in the chat, which I always find super terrific. I love the simultaneous chat and conversation here-- but a comment about the economic interests of publishers. So let me just say that authors-- I think, in a kind of classic sense, that Rick was drawing a distinction between factual reports and creative work, and then muddying that distinction.
KARIN WULF: In a classic sense, we might think about, let's say, an English professor at a small liberal arts college who also writes novels, and whose novels are copyrighted. And the question is, so is that person being paid by their college or university to produce their-- is that their research output? How are the economics tangled there? And I want to say that that particular situation, which is a kind of-- I think a little bit of a caricature at this point of how copyright functions in the humanities, it just is belied by the fact that many humanists now are not working in the humanities, not working in academia, which has declining humanities employment for a long time-- and then, of course, very sharply in the last couple of years.
KARIN WULF: So researchers are not working for employers for whom their research output-- even if you want to call a novel their research output-- is covered by their employment. And then secondarily, humanities researchers are publishing for non-profit publishers, whether they're journals that are independently published, like the one that I was a publisher for at the Omohundro Institute, the great William and Mary Quarterly; or University Presses, our press partner for our book series there, the University of North Carolina Press.
KARIN WULF: So the economic interests here are much more complicated than I think the caricature of copyright as being held by an author who might be double dipping, because they're getting paid by their college or university and then also being paid by the fantastic revenues. I just had another check for royalties from the wonderful Cornell University Press. Thank you, Cornell.
KARIN WULF: And it was, I think-- the number of times that I've had an $8, $10, $32 royalty check-- and they roll over until they get to $50, and it's a long rollover sometimes. All I'm saying is that I think it's-- it really behooves us to just think about these distinctions. And for an author, it is important to protect the veracity of the way they have arranged the language on the page, because for humanists, that arrangement of language is the fundamental contribution to knowledge that we're making.
KARIN WULF: That is our research. That is our work.
TODD CARPENTER: There's an interesting question that came in from one of the attendees about the licenses that are applied to academic work. In the academic publishing-- actually, in almost all publishing, copyright is assigned with a blanket, I'm signing it over to you forever, permanently. And the question is, would it be valuable for new forms of academic licenses, perhaps varying by subject, varying the terms, and the age of the article or book, and changing the fundamental structure of-- instead of signing over a license in perpetuity, you sign over the rights in it for a short period of time?
TODD CARPENTER: Any thoughts about that as an idea?
RICK ANDERSON: I'll jump in real quick and just say that opportunity already exists. The problem isn't that such licenses aren't available. The problem is that academic publishers tend to insist on a complete transfer of copyright. But there's nothing, beyond the publishers' will, stopping the publisher from entering into a negotiation with an author to say, what license are you going to grant us in your work? Are you going to give us an exclusive license for a period of 24 months, after which others might have the opportunity to publish it?
RICK ANDERSON: Or are you going to transfer your copyright entirely? Or are you going to give us a permanent and irrevocable license to publish your work, but not an exclusive one? Those kinds of negotiations are-- can be time-consuming, but the possibility is there. And I think Richard is correct that Creative Commons licenses themselves weren't designed with that kind of conversation in mind, but the fact that Creative Commons licenses aren't designed for that purpose doesn't mean that licenses can't be created that fit the desires of-- or the negotiated compromise between an author and any publisher.
TODD CARPENTER: Yeah. It really seems as if we have, as a society, gotten used to, here are the terms, and you have no rights to negotiate these terms. Take it or leave it.
RICK ANDERSON: Well, I think the reality is that different journals and different publishers have different levels of power based on their desirability as a publishing forum. So if you feel that you absolutely must publish your article in Cell, and Cell says, well, here are the terms, and if you don't like them, there's 20 other researchers doing work just as good as yours, and they're in line behind you, so move along, buddy, your experience with another journal might be different, if it has less market power than your first choice does.
RICK ANDERSON:
TODD CARPENTER: But I think part of this is we're all trained to just click accept whatever terms are presented to us, rather than thinking, I have power or agency in this negotiation. Karin--
KARIN WULF: Todd, Could I just jump in there and say that I think, again, just over on the humanities end, Rick [INAUDIBLE] let's just keep our standard here as the William and Mary Quarterly. Could we? I always like that, but-- A-- but also, because I think it is true that the high volume and high dollar STEM output, I think, makes us think that knowledge is somehow proportional in the same way.
KARIN WULF: And it's not. Of course, knowledge is being produced across all kinds of domains, and even disciplines don't even reflect that. But if we resist the temptation, I think, to see the STEM high volume, mostly for profit, consolidated publishers as normative, I think it helps us in these conversations. And so I want to go back to William and Mary Quarterly example just to say that we also had authors who asked, while the journal was holding copyright-- and yes, people wanted to publish in that journal because it is the top journal in that field-- but people asked if they could hold copyright, for example, for creative use of their research as articulated in that article, so-- for film adaptations or whatever.
KARIN WULF: So we saw authors becoming increasingly aware of the potential uses for their material, and wanting to hold on to it for specific contexts, which I thought was pretty interesting. And that just happened more over the last couple of years.
TODD CARPENTER: Yeah. So Rick touched a little on Creative Commons, and we'll bounce into that thread, since there is a lot of challenges and ambiguities there. So let's start with a general question. There's a lot of common misunderstandings about Creative Commons licenses and what they give permission for or what are the limitations to that.
TODD CARPENTER: What's been your experience in dealing with Creative Commons licenses? And that's kind of a-- whoever wants to jump in. Everyone's shaking your head, like, no. Rick?
RICK ANDERSON: I'm holding back because I feel like I'm talking too much, and I really don't want to dominate the conversation. I'll just say briefly that I think Creative Commons licenses are awesome. And not everybody agrees with me on this, but I really believe that Creative Commons licenses solve a real problem, and the problem is the default setting of copyright law.
RICK ANDERSON: For authors who really want to make their work freely available, or somewhat freely available, Creative Commons offers a very simple, straightforward, and intuitive-- I believe intuitive way to do that. And as long as the use of Creative Commons licenses remains the choice of the author, I think they're fantastic. The only time I have concern about Creative Commons licenses is when those in power in the scholarly communication ecosystem impose them on authors against authors' will.
RICK ANDERSON: That's where I start having concerns. But the concern isn't with Creative Commons. The concern is with the use of power.
TODD CARPENTER: Haseeb, have you had any interaction or thoughts on-- [INTERPOSING VOICES]
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Yeah. I have been publishing a journal from my country, Bangladesh, which is [INAUDIBLE]. And when our-- what do you call it-- platform post-- they introduced quite a few years back a Creative Commons license. We're just wondering what benefit that would give us. The understanding was quite low among our editors and the publishers. We tried to understand that-- whether it is giving the authors any advantage or putting us as a publisher in disadvantageous position.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But as time passed by and I started seeing the open access journals, they're mentioning what kind of Creative Commons license I am supposed to hand them over or agree upon, I believe that definitely it help us to spread our work as an author. And if it turns into a kind of a fix or strict thing that I have to abide by, as Rick was mentioning, then it is not actually giving the-- or facilitating the process that it's supposed to facilitate.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: So yeah, that's my understanding, and that's the way I have seen all my concepts actually evolve over the years. Thank you.
TODD CARPENTER: And Karin, the issues in the humanities for-- with regard to Creative Commons are significantly different than, say, well-funded areas of science. Interested your thoughts there--
KARIN WULF: Let me just comment on along two dimensions here. One is, again, my point about how, for humanists, the arrangement of language is extraordinarily important. So the blanket CC license, which, for-- allows for re-use and remix, essentially-- derivative use-- is wholly inappropriate in my view unless an author is really dedicated to and makes a knowing choice for that. My worry is that the CC licenses, which can be-- and as Peter [INAUDIBLE] and other folks have argued for a long time, the default for the humanities ought to be CC BY and CND, non-commercial and non-derivative.
KARIN WULF: That makes perfect sense for the humanities for someone who wants their work to be openly shared, but also wants not to share their work for commercial use or for derivative use in which the work can be manipulated and exchanged. So my concern with CC, I guess, is that people understand only this one piece of it. It can be shared in ways that copyrighted material can't necessarily, and they don't understand the other implications, which were not designed for humanities scholarship, not designed for language-based scholarship.
KARIN WULF: Now, that's not to say that it's not problematic actually for language to be changed in a scientific article. I'm just saying that it's-- there's a different research base and there's a different formulation issue. The second is that, in my new job, as I'm learning a lot about it-- obviously, have thought a lot about over the last decade questions of openly accessible digitized materials from rare book and special collections libraries.
KARIN WULF: This is making it possible for researchers around the world to do research in the early modern period, which is my specialty, which is extraordinarily important. But it's also true that, as we make that material open, we also make that material also available for re-use in ways that we may be uncomfortable with, and thinking about what that means-- fully open, anybody using it for any purposes. I think people tend to default to what they think is going to be the positive re-use case always, and may not think in an extended way about potentially damaging-- let's just say, in this case, re-use that is specifically anti-democratic, or pro-violence, or white supremacist, or other kinds of uses.
KARIN WULF: So I think there are cautions around reuse and the blanket CC BY licenses for the humanities.
TODD CARPENTER: Yeah. I'm thinking of-- there was a pitch an article I wrote a couple of weeks ago about someone complaining that there was an overlay of semantic links-- automatically generated. And don't you understand what CC BY means and what you can do with that? Rick, over to-- I'm going to switch gears slightly, but somewhat related to CC BY, CC licensing.
TODD CARPENTER: And this is something that Haseeb had touched on, the-- our funding requirements. And we're starting to see some research funders placing restrictions on how the research that they're funding-- what sort of license the outputs of that research needs to be published under. Could you talk a little bit about, from your perspective, some of the pros and cons of that? And you're on mute.
TODD CARPENTER:
RICK ANDERSON: And I'll even unmute so that you can hear what I say. I think the most obvious upside to funders doing that is that, by doing so, of course, they maximize the likelihood that people other than the researcher will be able to make practical use of the work that the researcher's done. So when we're talking about the kinds of scholarly work that seem to have the least obvious need of copyright protection-- so in that case, the upsides are pretty obvious.
RICK ANDERSON: When we're talking about funded research that fits that category less obviously, though, then you start to see downsides in terms of the author's control over their original work. And Karin has really talked about this very articulately, I think. So for example, as she just mentioned, suppose you've published some funded research on a social issue, and somebody wants to republish it in a forum that also publishes material that you find morally abhorrent, or if they want to repackage-- package and resell it.
RICK ANDERSON: If you've granted the general public the right to do whatever they want to do with your work, as long as they give you attribution as the original author, then you have no recourse. And that lack of resource is a feature. It's not a bug. What they're doing is exactly what the funder required you to allow them to do. I wrote a piece for the Scholarly Kitchen some years ago about a guy who had done some photo journalistic work in the LGBTQ community in an African country.
RICK ANDERSON: I think it was Ghana, but I'm not positive. Those photos were later appropriated and used in an anti-gay newsletter to foment violence against gay people in Ghana. The only reason that that guy had recourse and was able to Sue the publisher was because he had retained all of his exclusive rights as the copyright holder. Now, that's maybe an extreme example, but it's the kind of thing-- it's the kind of issue that you have to think about when you're requiring people to give up what would normally be their exclusive prerogatives under the law.
RICK ANDERSON: Another potential downside is the impact on authors' academic freedom. Now, this is a very complicated issue that we obviously don't have time to get into fully here today, but for now, I'll just say that, in the United States in particular, the phrase full freedom in the publication of results is embedded in the only formal and cross-institutional definition of academic freedom that we have.
RICK ANDERSON: So in this context, the question is, does full freedom in publication mean the freedom to publish wherever one wishes, even if that venue doesn't allow the work it publishes to be made available under a CC license? If it does mean that, then when those with power over researchers use that power to require them to publish in specific ways, that does have real implications for academic freedom.
RICK ANDERSON: Now, there's a lot of disagreement about this question, and it's complicated further by the international nature of scholarly communication and the fact that different countries interpret academic freedom in very different ways. In fact, academic freedom is embedded in the law in some countries, and not in others, so you can see how difficult this question can be to resolve when you're dealing with an international ecosystem of scholarly communication.
RICK ANDERSON:
TODD CARPENTER: Anybody else want to jump into funding requirements? Haseeb, you talked a little bit about this earlier. Karin?
KARIN WULF: Yeah. Todd, I'll just mention that, again, just to go back to the disciplinary perspective for humanists, for whom we might get-- so the John Carter Brown Library, for example, offers a research fellowship that's $2,100 for a month of research. That $2,100 per month of research may be even for an article, or even if one is publishing in a different venue in a blog or something like that.
KARIN WULF: That month of research is likely only a small slice of the support one needs to further and advance this work. So if we had a requirement that all research conducted here be published in an open access form, we would be competing with likely another half dozen institutional requirements. In other words, it is so unusual for a humanist operating in the United States, but even in places like the UK and Europe, where there are these big multimillion value grants, to be funded by a single grant-- it's remarkable and highly unusual.
KARIN WULF: So a single funder mandate will never function, even if I agreed with those funder mandates-- which I generally don't.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Very quickly, definitely, in this competitive world, we need funding to continue our research as part of our responsibility towards our institution. I would like to come from a different direction. It is not only the law or authors' right or the disciplinary-- differences among the different disciplines, but we often see that there are certain rules and regulations, or priorities are being, if I may use the word, imposed by the donors because of their mission or their mandate.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: And often we see that sometimes funding coming from the Western or the Global North donor based there, and they do encourage the applicants from the Global North to work with Global South. And often, I have become part of those funding applications as well. Sometimes we don't actually talk about how to use the final output and get it out publicly.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: What are the rights as a contributor to that particular research once it is done? I'm just generalizing it. Often we just give the responsibility of understanding those issues, those concerns from the donor side or the [INAUDIBLE] towards my [INAUDIBLE] collaborators. You deal with it. You take care of it, because it is your donors.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: I'm just participating in it. That's the reality. I might be being too straight, but this is the way when we see collaborative work from the South and North. I have seen that kind of arrangement. So yes, these are very much context-specific, discipline-specific-- and of course, the country where the donor is based in.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Thank you.
TODD CARPENTER: So moving into some forward-thinking edge cases, and where is-- where's copyright going, there's actually an interesting question in here from one of the participants about a publisher having produced a book that was released a year ago in hard copy. And the editors are holding back on release of that publication in electronic form because they feel that, given the topic-- it's focused on mineral deposits in China-- that essentially, if you release one electronic copy, they'll only sell one copy, because there are regions that have less respect for copyright.
TODD CARPENTER: Interested in your thoughts about that, and any suggestions or recommendations you might have-- I know this is a challenging issue for a lot of publishers, apart from like, let's wrap it up in heavy DRM that no one can break or use. Karin, you've been a-- you've sat as a publisher for a while.
TODD CARPENTER: Do you have any thoughts?
KARIN WULF: Yeah. I was just actually doing a quick look to see how some of the digital humanities projects that I'm most interested in are licensed, because I think, as we think more about-- well, I am an analog person. I am a pen and paper, give me the book, let me scribble in the margins person. They'll pry my notebooks from my cold dead proverbial hands. But so much of what we're doing now is publishing in digital platforms and in figuring out ways to publish multidimensional work that engages both text, and object, and image-- and also that provides a non-linear path through a historical argument, for example.
KARIN WULF: I'm interested in thinking about, how our digital humanities publications online being licensed, and how are people imagining their use? And I see a lot of CC NC licenses affixed to them, but I also know that a lot of these projects don't necessarily have institutional support behind them. They are an aggregation, a collaborative, a group that-- for whom recourse, if there is an inappropriate reuse, is limited, because they won't have an institutional supporter.
KARIN WULF: So one of the things I'm really interested in is this question about how is increasingly digital, increasingly collaborative, increasingly non-institutional work licensed going forward. And that's kind of a question mark, rather than any kind of prognostication.
TODD CARPENTER: Another issue-- and this was raised, again, by one of the participants-- which is a topic that we were going to touch on-- has to do with open access, and copyright, and licenses. So the question that the participant asked is, what's the effect of open access on copyrights and licenses? Is it having an effect?
RICK ANDERSON: I think, to a very real degree, it depends on how you define open access. And this is part of the challenge that we have in the ecosystem is that there is no international body that has the authority to say, this is the definition of open access. There are lots of bodies that have said that, but they disagree with each other, and they all say it without any authority. And as a result, when some people say open access, they mean I can download the article for free.
RICK ANDERSON: And when some people say open access, they mean I can download the article for free and use it for any purpose I wish, as long as I attribute it to the author. And people disagree about what open access should mean. So the implications for copyright depend largely on what you mean when you say open access. If open access means CC BY, that has implications for copyright that don't-- that are not the same, if you think CC BY-ND NC is also legitimately open access.
RICK ANDERSON: I guess there's also the question of, when you say implications for copyright, do we mean implications for the future of copyright law or implications for copyright holders in the here and now? And the answers to those two things are going to be very different.
TODD CARPENTER: Sure. I think both questions-- in the remaining three minutes, let's see if we can cover that. On the one hand, we-- on the author side, are we essentially teaching authors to not really care much about copyright-- make it all open, make it all free? Is that one of the unintended consequences of open access?
RICK ANDERSON: I think it's an explicitly intended consequence of much of the rhetoric in the open access movement. It's not hidden. It's not subtle. You have people like [INAUDIBLE] saying copyright has no role in scholarly publications. And that's just one example of the message. Now, that's not what everybody's saying, but that is a dominant-- I would say a dominant message in open access advocacy.
RICK ANDERSON:
KARIN WULF: And Todd, I would just say-- oh, Haseeb, you go ahead.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: No, no. You go first-- no problem. [INAUDIBLE]
KARIN WULF: I was just going to say that I think that it is true that authors may be inclined in that direction, but I also think it's because authors have a sense that open access only means people are free to read. And they're not thinking about the fuller system and the fuller implications. And most people that I've had longer conversations with are excited for free to read for lots of people, but they also understand that there are trade-offs there.
KARIN WULF: And they're not excited about commercial re-use and they're not excited about derivative use-- in fact, usually alarmed by it. And they're not excited about-- once we start to talk about the sustainability of non-profit publications.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Whenever I hear the word open-- open source, open research, open science, open access-- I always wonder, who closed it, that we are talking about opening it up? But I'm quite excited. Definitely, I'm very much excited that we are talking about openness in our research communication, in research publishing. That's why we see so many discussion, conversations-- not only [INAUDIBLE] different models we are talking about, whether it should be global [INAUDIBLE] model, whether they should be a flat rate, or transformative agreement, what kind of open access model we would be focusing on.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But coming from the Global South, we often don't-- can't actually relate to this type of conversation. Often I find it very much Northern, because in many cases, if not all the cases, our journals are being published by different societies, often supported by the government. And those have always been open, free to access, free to publish. So because they are quite cheap to publish, editors, they are working as a volunteer, and their publication cost is very, very low.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But we never call them [INAUDIBLE] open access, isn't it? But they are, actually. So I think we need to contextualize those definitions, those models, those discussions. And we need to see not only what is happening in the North, but also the other parts of the world, and see that-- how copyright and open access conversation or any conversation like that and actually touch upon all the part of the world when we talk about-- when we want to touch upon scholarly publishing.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: It is a global thing, isn't it? Thank you.
TODD CARPENTER: Yeah. All right, well, I think we've covered a great deal of landscape here in the discussion around copyright. I want to thank the three of you-- Rick, Karin, Haseeb. This has been a fantastic conversation. I really enjoyed it. I hope our participants enjoyed it as well. And I will pass it back to Jason to close us out.
JASON POINTE: Thank you, Todd. And thank you, everybody, for attending today's SSP webinar. Thank you to our speakers for their time and engaging presentations, and special thanks to today's sponsor, ARPHA. Attendees will receive a webinar evaluation email. We encourage you to provide feedback and to help us determine topics for future webinars. We will announce our 2022 webinar series soon, but in the meantime, save the date for the 44th annual meeting to be held in Chicago June 1 through the 3rd.
JASON POINTE: The call for proposals closes on the 19th, so there's still time to submit an idea. Check our website at sspnet.org for more details. Today's webinar was recorded, and all registrants will be sent a link to the recording when it is posted on the SSP website. This concludes our session today. Thank you.
Segment:0 .
JASON POINTE: Thank, you and welcome to today's SSP webinar, the Future of Copyright and Reuse in Academic Publishing, presented by the Scholarly Kitchen. We are very pleased that you can join us today. My name is Jason Pointe, and I'm the lead for the SSP Education Committee webinar's working group. I'd like to thank the sponsor of today's webinar, ARPHA. I also have a few housekeeping items to review before we get started. Your phones will be muted automatically in consideration of our presenters and your fellow webinar participants.
JASON POINTE: This one-hour session will be recorded and posted on the SSP website 60 days following today's broadcast. Please use the Q&A box to submit your questions for panelists during the session or if you experience technical issues during the webinar. Questions will be compiled for the presenters at the end of the webinar. You may also use the chat feature to chat to the panelists or to the entire group.
JASON POINTE: Closed captions are available for today's event. There's a CC button on the lower right of the Zoom window. It is now my pleasure to introduce our moderator, Todd Carpenter. Todd is executive director of the National Information Standards Organization, NISO. He's a regular contributor to the Scholarly Kitchen, and serves in a variety of leadership roles for community organizations, such as FORCE11, the International Organization of Standards, the Free Ebook Foundation, and the American Library Association's Policy Corps.
JASON POINTE: He's-- was also recently appointed to the Copyright Public Modernization Committee, supporting the modernization of the Copyright Office's infrastructure. Todd, over to you--
TODD CARPENTER: right, good morning. Good afternoon. Welcome. Thank you all for joining us today. We are going to be talking about the future of copyright and reuse in academic publishing in panel discussion. Joining us today, in alphabetical order, is Rick Anderson, who is university librarian at Brigham Young University. He writes and speaks extensively on issues related to academic librarianship and scholarly communications, and is a past president of the Society for Scholarly Publishing.
TODD CARPENTER: Next, joining us is Haseeb Irfanullah, who is a biologist turned development facilitator, who often introduces himself as a research enthusiast. Currently an independent consultant on environment, climate change, and research systems, he's also visiting research fellow at the University of Liberal Arts in Bangladesh. And finally is Karin Wulf, who is Beatrice and Julio Mario Santo Domingo director and Librarian at the John Carter Brown Library.
TODD CARPENTER: She's also professor of history at Brown University. She's a historian and early-- historian of early America, and in her career, she has been a publisher, a funder, and also a convener. We have broken our session today into roughly three themes, the first being the author's perspective on copyright. We'll then get into issues of copyright assignment and a semi-theme related to Creative Commons.
TODD CARPENTER: And then finally, we'll put on our future goggles and look into the future of copyright. So we'll start off with a question for you, Haseeb. So starting with your perspective on what authors see from their perspective, when it comes to copyright, what do authors want from copyright, and why should authors care?
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Thanks, Todd. It's a very-- a pleasure to be on this panel with other [INAUDIBLE]. When we talk about authors' relationship with copyright, we need to think of author are basically researcher and readers as well. So they come across copyright issues from the very beginning, when they start exploring others' research. So when we talk about accessing past research or existing research, knowingly or unknowingly, they face copyright issues.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But when they not only access the past publication or existing literature-- they are governed by different rules and regulations that is being imposed or facilitated by their institutions. It is not only accessing the journals or books that their institutions actually provide them with. When they design research, they are also governed by so many rules-- rules by the donors-- what can you do, what can't you do-- by their institutions, by their disciplines as well.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: And that kind of norms, rules, regulations they have to abide by when they think of publishing or communicating research as an author. So when we see that, a researcher as an author, they are governed by so many rules, and regulations, and norms, although they want to have that kind of freedom that they will be creating knowledge on their own. But they can't. They have to abide by those.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: And I think copyright comes into play automatically whether they want it or not. But I'm not quite sure that whether, as an author, we pursue to learn about copyright-- what is going on, what I can do or can't do. It is part of our responsibility to know it, or it is part of our system that makes us knowing it. But if we focus on what authors actually want, definitely they want that their production, their newly gathered knowledge that they want to share, people are reading it.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: People are using it. And that will definitely increase the recognition. That will help them to build their career, go forward, and get more funding, of course. So utilization of the knowledge that I have created-- actually, by citing them, others-- other authors are actually recognizing that I'm the owner of it. So basically, I'm just trying to convey what I want to convey.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But like other protocols, other norms, other rules and regulations, is copyright hindering me? Is it stopping me? Is it just one of the rules and regulations that I have to abide by, despite the fact that we are in a knowledge making industry? Knowledge is not a common word, isn't it? We have to abide by so many things-- business, [INAUDIBLE] are some of our dream as a researcher.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: So now, my final thought would be that-- how do I proactively spread my creation to others? And then the issue comes to whether I'm violating, or supporting, or being frustrated by copyright and other related licensing, and so on, so forth. Or I'm not that proactive in that sense. I'm just allowing the system to diffuse my creation through the existing channel or not.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Or I would be just-- think from a fairness, or fair use, or justice perspective. Why can't I help other fellow researcher? Because I'm sharing my research with my students. Why can't my fellow researcher be at the same facility? Also, I don't know them, but they're approaching me through my ResearchGate account and asking me, please, can you share with me the research that you have published [INAUDIBLE] So there are so many issues.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: I think sometimes we authors, we get kind of in a dilemma, especially if we don't-- if we are not aware of the system as a whole and we are not quite used to the fine print of copyright. So I would say that, yes, we are part of it, we are dealing with it, but I'm not quite sure that we understand it fully. Thank you.
TODD CARPENTER: Thanks, Haseeb. And Karin, I'm interested-- because you've played so many different roles and has so many different perspectives on content creation and distribution, I'm wondering how that-- how those different roles impact people's feelings around copyright.
KARIN WULF: Thanks, Todd. And again, it's delight to be in conversation with my fellow Scholarly Kitchen chefs on this critically important subject. So I come to this conversation, as ever, as a humanist, and especially as a historian, and with the knowledge-- I know we're going to talk about this a little bit later, but with the knowledge that we have really different publishing-- research and publishing environments-- indeed, ecosystems-- across disciplines and fields, and that really influences how we encounter subjects as important and seemingly common as copyright.
KARIN WULF: I think Haseeb makes a crucial point here, which is that any individual person can have-- sit in a different subject position vis-a-vis-- and have a different vantage and different moments even in their day about copyright. And I think this is particularly true for the humanities, where most of our publishing is non-profit and small. And so an individual person, anyone who-- not even necessarily leading a specific organization, but an individual can be a researcher who is an author of a piece-- a published piece, an essay, or a book, can be trying to teach something that they're trying to get hold of, can be trying to share something with another person, can be a reader trying to just access something to cite it, can be the editor of a publication where they want to establish the journal's prerogative over that particular piece can be a publisher trying to sustain the viability of their publication.
KARIN WULF: Any individual person could be actually in all of those positions, and can feel differently about copyright. And I think it could be really useful for us to just point that out. I think we often see on social media or-- as in so many things about social media, we see polarized articulations about copyright. Copyright is great.
KARIN WULF: Copyright is terrible. And I often see the same person making that same argument, depending on their subject position. And one might be as an author, for example. I published an essay, and then all of a sudden, I see that it has shown up in a volume of essays, and I never gave my permission for it to be included there. As an author, I feel that my rights have been violated there.
KARIN WULF: As a reader, I-- why can't I just get access to that thing? And on and on-- so I think it is-- it's quite important for us to point out that copyright is neither good nor bad. It is a tool which people find useful in some contexts, and challenging in other contexts. But the same person can be experiencing all of those contexts, even within a fairly short period of time.
TODD CARPENTER: Yeah. Building on some of those contexts, Rick, how should we think about copyright in the context of the academic environment that we inhabit? Are there ways that we should be thinking about it slightly differently in an academic context?
RICK ANDERSON: Yeah, that's a great question, and a very complicated one, because there really are things about academic publications that, in many cases, do militate against giving their authors copyright protection. So for one thing, a lot of academic publications basically boil down to factual reports, and factual reports don't usually get as much copyright protection under the law as creative works or works of criticism.
RICK ANDERSON: It's a lot easier to make a fair use argument, for example, about a factual report than about a creative work. But for another thing, academic authors have usually already been paid for the work that goes into creating their scholarly products. In many cases, they have no expectation of making money off of their copyrights. Now, if they're writing textbooks, of course, that's a whole different area.
RICK ANDERSON: But for the most part, they earn salaries from their institutions, and in many cases, the direct costs of the research itself have already been covered by external funders. So you can easily see how somebody might look at academic publishing and say, hey, it really doesn't make sense for the normal copyright restrictions, or even for copyright itself to apply when it comes to scholarly publications.
RICK ANDERSON: And there are, in fact, people making that exact argument very explicitly in the open access community. The problem, of course, is that, when you start thinking about how you might apply copyright exceptions to scholarly work as a category, you run into all kinds of complication-- and Karin hinted at this-- because academic work is only a simple category. If you don't know anything about academic work.
RICK ANDERSON: What about the very large number of scholarly products that don't, in fact, amount to a factual report? For every article that reports factually on the results of a clinical trial or a chemistry experiment, you're going to have a work of literary criticism or a theory of social behavior, either of which will probably be expressed in a way that makes much more sense as a copyrightable work. A physicist might not care very much about whether her article's repurposed by someone else without her permission, but an academic literary critic might care very much, and with very good reason.
RICK ANDERSON: Now, there are some who say, well, right, universal reuse rights shouldn't apply across the board to all academic publications-- only to scientific ones-- which, fair enough, but then where do you draw the line between the kinds of science that should get copyright protection in those that shouldn't? We might all agree that a report on a clinical trial doesn't need copyright protection, but what about an economic analysis?
RICK ANDERSON: What about a sociology paper that not only reports on the raw results of a study, but also interprets those results in great depth? So this is one of those areas where personally, my greatest disagreement isn't with people on one side or the other of the issue. I can see some pretty good arguments on either side. Of my disagreement is with those who see this as a simple issue or as one that has a self-evident solution.
RICK ANDERSON:
TODD CARPENTER: Ah. Dealing with the mute button. We've just laid out a pretty complicated ecosystem. Copyright is not a simple concept, and it has very complicated implications. I'm wondering who is responsible for educating authors about copyright and helping them navigate this very complicated landscape.
TODD CARPENTER: Is there a role or responsibility for institutions, libraries, publishers? How do we help the authors in this space?
KARIN WULF: Todd, I can jump in here, if this is a jump in moment.
TODD CARPENTER: It is.
KARIN WULF: I think it is, because you didn't say-- trying to follow the directions here. Let me just note that I think-- I was on another event yesterday, where we were talking about whether and how to include more practical professionalization training in graduate programs. And while I think anybody who's been training graduate students would always say, there's more we could pack in-- more, more-- I think, actually, from my vantage, what would be helpful is if all of us took it as a responsibility to make transparent and to excavate the systems of which we're a part.
KARIN WULF: That is, I see-- in my new role in a library, I see lots of students and other researchers not really understanding how the library functions in their research. I see loads of researchers not understanding how publishers function. And I also see the other way around, publishers not understanding researcher needs.
KARIN WULF: I think copyright is another example of how, the more we hyper focus on our own situation, literally where we are situated, rather than understanding ourselves as being situated in relationship within a larger system, the more we are blinkered to such things as the complexity of copyright. So I know you're asking a question about, how can we teach about copyright, and who's going to do that teaching?
KARIN WULF: And I guess what I'm saying is I think it's part of a larger issue of teaching the metaverse, as it were-- let's take that term back, shall we-- teaching the metaphors of scholarly production, of knowledge production, in fact, in which we can see that we have so many collaborators with so many different kinds of expertise that are necessary to bring knowledge forward.
KARIN WULF:
TODD CARPENTER: And Haseeb--
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: I can--
TODD CARPENTER: Go ahead.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: I can quickly add, because there are certain countries, certain societies where governance system is not that strong-- so the way we are defining copyright, and its use, and its necessity might not be understood by the scholarly society in that country that much. In that case, I think definitely institutions could help, but there the institutions understanding is a bit low, isn't it?
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: In that case, I believe that publishers-- they do have a strong role to play. As a publishing researcher, I have seen that many journals, many journal on their home page are very easy to navigate. They highlight the elements of copyright we use, not making it too complicated-- making it quite simple so that the author doesn't feel quite concerned. Rather, they understand where their position is.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: I understood in that way. So since I got that kind of training or capacity development-- so I understand that publishers do have certain roles, especially when we are talking about publishing becoming more and more internationalized. So yeah, that's my thought. Thank you.
TODD CARPENTER: Rick, do you have any additional thoughts before we're going to move on?
RICK ANDERSON: Just to say that I'm not sure it makes sense to think in terms of any individual entity being the one that has a responsibility to teach authors about copyright-- the same way scholars learn their craft from a wide variety of sources in every other aspect, I think, points to the idea that they have lots of sources to draw upon. Excuse me. Certainly, in libraries, we try to share information about copyright with both students and faculty authors, many of whom understand copyright very well, but some of whom don't.
RICK ANDERSON: And if I were a department chair in an academic department, I would certainly have a meeting with the faculty and say, let's talk about copyright and make sure everybody understands how it works-- in particular in our field. And so I think this is one of those multivalent things. I don't think there's a single channel that's going to be the right way to make sure that authors know what they need to know.
TODD CARPENTER: Sure. And along those lines, I see copyright law is very country-specific. And when we're dealing with people in international context, how is that impacting the authors' decisions? Do the authors really know, when they're presented with a license, all of the things that-- the rights that they're signing over?
TODD CARPENTER:
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: It's still difficult to understand, because as Rick said, that understanding-- it doesn't matter whether you are undergraduate researcher, or a graduate student, or a very senior professor. It often depends upon whether you want to get involved into it, learn about it, because sometimes we try to avoid it. But from my experience, when I talk with-- or even I have to deal with these issues-- sometimes, as a researcher, when I am trying to publish my research in an academic journal which is being published by a publisher, my intuition would be I'm quite happy to publish it there, because it will be adding value to my CV.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: My CV will become heavier, better. So since they're asking me to sign something off, fine. Everybody's doing it. I'm not losing anything, I hope. But when you become aware of it, when you become cautious about what you are gaining, or what is the trade-off? Is it just part of [INAUDIBLE] regular assignment? So I think the answer to your question depends upon individuals, obviously.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: What's their background, and what's their interest, and what's their motivation to publish a scholarly communication? So sometimes [INAUDIBLE] rather than going through everything. Thank you.
TODD CARPENTER: And aside from the international aspect-- Karin, you talked a little bit about this in an earlier in your earlier comments-- the disciplinary differences are significant. What are some other variations, in terms of how authors look at copyright, maybe in the humanities?
KARIN WULF: Well, so I was just trying to disaggregate here in the chat, which I always find super terrific. I love the simultaneous chat and conversation here-- but a comment about the economic interests of publishers. So let me just say that authors-- I think, in a kind of classic sense, that Rick was drawing a distinction between factual reports and creative work, and then muddying that distinction.
KARIN WULF: In a classic sense, we might think about, let's say, an English professor at a small liberal arts college who also writes novels, and whose novels are copyrighted. And the question is, so is that person being paid by their college or university to produce their-- is that their research output? How are the economics tangled there? And I want to say that that particular situation, which is a kind of-- I think a little bit of a caricature at this point of how copyright functions in the humanities, it just is belied by the fact that many humanists now are not working in the humanities, not working in academia, which has declining humanities employment for a long time-- and then, of course, very sharply in the last couple of years.
KARIN WULF: So researchers are not working for employers for whom their research output-- even if you want to call a novel their research output-- is covered by their employment. And then secondarily, humanities researchers are publishing for non-profit publishers, whether they're journals that are independently published, like the one that I was a publisher for at the Omohundro Institute, the great William and Mary Quarterly; or University Presses, our press partner for our book series there, the University of North Carolina Press.
KARIN WULF: So the economic interests here are much more complicated than I think the caricature of copyright as being held by an author who might be double dipping, because they're getting paid by their college or university and then also being paid by the fantastic revenues. I just had another check for royalties from the wonderful Cornell University Press. Thank you, Cornell.
KARIN WULF: And it was, I think-- the number of times that I've had an $8, $10, $32 royalty check-- and they roll over until they get to $50, and it's a long rollover sometimes. All I'm saying is that I think it's-- it really behooves us to just think about these distinctions. And for an author, it is important to protect the veracity of the way they have arranged the language on the page, because for humanists, that arrangement of language is the fundamental contribution to knowledge that we're making.
KARIN WULF: That is our research. That is our work.
TODD CARPENTER: There's an interesting question that came in from one of the attendees about the licenses that are applied to academic work. In the academic publishing-- actually, in almost all publishing, copyright is assigned with a blanket, I'm signing it over to you forever, permanently. And the question is, would it be valuable for new forms of academic licenses, perhaps varying by subject, varying the terms, and the age of the article or book, and changing the fundamental structure of-- instead of signing over a license in perpetuity, you sign over the rights in it for a short period of time?
TODD CARPENTER: Any thoughts about that as an idea?
RICK ANDERSON: I'll jump in real quick and just say that opportunity already exists. The problem isn't that such licenses aren't available. The problem is that academic publishers tend to insist on a complete transfer of copyright. But there's nothing, beyond the publishers' will, stopping the publisher from entering into a negotiation with an author to say, what license are you going to grant us in your work? Are you going to give us an exclusive license for a period of 24 months, after which others might have the opportunity to publish it?
RICK ANDERSON: Or are you going to transfer your copyright entirely? Or are you going to give us a permanent and irrevocable license to publish your work, but not an exclusive one? Those kinds of negotiations are-- can be time-consuming, but the possibility is there. And I think Richard is correct that Creative Commons licenses themselves weren't designed with that kind of conversation in mind, but the fact that Creative Commons licenses aren't designed for that purpose doesn't mean that licenses can't be created that fit the desires of-- or the negotiated compromise between an author and any publisher.
TODD CARPENTER: Yeah. It really seems as if we have, as a society, gotten used to, here are the terms, and you have no rights to negotiate these terms. Take it or leave it.
RICK ANDERSON: Well, I think the reality is that different journals and different publishers have different levels of power based on their desirability as a publishing forum. So if you feel that you absolutely must publish your article in Cell, and Cell says, well, here are the terms, and if you don't like them, there's 20 other researchers doing work just as good as yours, and they're in line behind you, so move along, buddy, your experience with another journal might be different, if it has less market power than your first choice does.
RICK ANDERSON:
TODD CARPENTER: But I think part of this is we're all trained to just click accept whatever terms are presented to us, rather than thinking, I have power or agency in this negotiation. Karin--
KARIN WULF: Todd, Could I just jump in there and say that I think, again, just over on the humanities end, Rick [INAUDIBLE] let's just keep our standard here as the William and Mary Quarterly. Could we? I always like that, but-- A-- but also, because I think it is true that the high volume and high dollar STEM output, I think, makes us think that knowledge is somehow proportional in the same way.
KARIN WULF: And it's not. Of course, knowledge is being produced across all kinds of domains, and even disciplines don't even reflect that. But if we resist the temptation, I think, to see the STEM high volume, mostly for profit, consolidated publishers as normative, I think it helps us in these conversations. And so I want to go back to William and Mary Quarterly example just to say that we also had authors who asked, while the journal was holding copyright-- and yes, people wanted to publish in that journal because it is the top journal in that field-- but people asked if they could hold copyright, for example, for creative use of their research as articulated in that article, so-- for film adaptations or whatever.
KARIN WULF: So we saw authors becoming increasingly aware of the potential uses for their material, and wanting to hold on to it for specific contexts, which I thought was pretty interesting. And that just happened more over the last couple of years.
TODD CARPENTER: Yeah. So Rick touched a little on Creative Commons, and we'll bounce into that thread, since there is a lot of challenges and ambiguities there. So let's start with a general question. There's a lot of common misunderstandings about Creative Commons licenses and what they give permission for or what are the limitations to that.
TODD CARPENTER: What's been your experience in dealing with Creative Commons licenses? And that's kind of a-- whoever wants to jump in. Everyone's shaking your head, like, no. Rick?
RICK ANDERSON: I'm holding back because I feel like I'm talking too much, and I really don't want to dominate the conversation. I'll just say briefly that I think Creative Commons licenses are awesome. And not everybody agrees with me on this, but I really believe that Creative Commons licenses solve a real problem, and the problem is the default setting of copyright law.
RICK ANDERSON: For authors who really want to make their work freely available, or somewhat freely available, Creative Commons offers a very simple, straightforward, and intuitive-- I believe intuitive way to do that. And as long as the use of Creative Commons licenses remains the choice of the author, I think they're fantastic. The only time I have concern about Creative Commons licenses is when those in power in the scholarly communication ecosystem impose them on authors against authors' will.
RICK ANDERSON: That's where I start having concerns. But the concern isn't with Creative Commons. The concern is with the use of power.
TODD CARPENTER: Haseeb, have you had any interaction or thoughts on-- [INTERPOSING VOICES]
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Yeah. I have been publishing a journal from my country, Bangladesh, which is [INAUDIBLE]. And when our-- what do you call it-- platform post-- they introduced quite a few years back a Creative Commons license. We're just wondering what benefit that would give us. The understanding was quite low among our editors and the publishers. We tried to understand that-- whether it is giving the authors any advantage or putting us as a publisher in disadvantageous position.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But as time passed by and I started seeing the open access journals, they're mentioning what kind of Creative Commons license I am supposed to hand them over or agree upon, I believe that definitely it help us to spread our work as an author. And if it turns into a kind of a fix or strict thing that I have to abide by, as Rick was mentioning, then it is not actually giving the-- or facilitating the process that it's supposed to facilitate.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: So yeah, that's my understanding, and that's the way I have seen all my concepts actually evolve over the years. Thank you.
TODD CARPENTER: And Karin, the issues in the humanities for-- with regard to Creative Commons are significantly different than, say, well-funded areas of science. Interested your thoughts there--
KARIN WULF: Let me just comment on along two dimensions here. One is, again, my point about how, for humanists, the arrangement of language is extraordinarily important. So the blanket CC license, which, for-- allows for re-use and remix, essentially-- derivative use-- is wholly inappropriate in my view unless an author is really dedicated to and makes a knowing choice for that. My worry is that the CC licenses, which can be-- and as Peter [INAUDIBLE] and other folks have argued for a long time, the default for the humanities ought to be CC BY and CND, non-commercial and non-derivative.
KARIN WULF: That makes perfect sense for the humanities for someone who wants their work to be openly shared, but also wants not to share their work for commercial use or for derivative use in which the work can be manipulated and exchanged. So my concern with CC, I guess, is that people understand only this one piece of it. It can be shared in ways that copyrighted material can't necessarily, and they don't understand the other implications, which were not designed for humanities scholarship, not designed for language-based scholarship.
KARIN WULF: Now, that's not to say that it's not problematic actually for language to be changed in a scientific article. I'm just saying that it's-- there's a different research base and there's a different formulation issue. The second is that, in my new job, as I'm learning a lot about it-- obviously, have thought a lot about over the last decade questions of openly accessible digitized materials from rare book and special collections libraries.
KARIN WULF: This is making it possible for researchers around the world to do research in the early modern period, which is my specialty, which is extraordinarily important. But it's also true that, as we make that material open, we also make that material also available for re-use in ways that we may be uncomfortable with, and thinking about what that means-- fully open, anybody using it for any purposes. I think people tend to default to what they think is going to be the positive re-use case always, and may not think in an extended way about potentially damaging-- let's just say, in this case, re-use that is specifically anti-democratic, or pro-violence, or white supremacist, or other kinds of uses.
KARIN WULF: So I think there are cautions around reuse and the blanket CC BY licenses for the humanities.
TODD CARPENTER: Yeah. I'm thinking of-- there was a pitch an article I wrote a couple of weeks ago about someone complaining that there was an overlay of semantic links-- automatically generated. And don't you understand what CC BY means and what you can do with that? Rick, over to-- I'm going to switch gears slightly, but somewhat related to CC BY, CC licensing.
TODD CARPENTER: And this is something that Haseeb had touched on, the-- our funding requirements. And we're starting to see some research funders placing restrictions on how the research that they're funding-- what sort of license the outputs of that research needs to be published under. Could you talk a little bit about, from your perspective, some of the pros and cons of that? And you're on mute.
TODD CARPENTER:
RICK ANDERSON: And I'll even unmute so that you can hear what I say. I think the most obvious upside to funders doing that is that, by doing so, of course, they maximize the likelihood that people other than the researcher will be able to make practical use of the work that the researcher's done. So when we're talking about the kinds of scholarly work that seem to have the least obvious need of copyright protection-- so in that case, the upsides are pretty obvious.
RICK ANDERSON: When we're talking about funded research that fits that category less obviously, though, then you start to see downsides in terms of the author's control over their original work. And Karin has really talked about this very articulately, I think. So for example, as she just mentioned, suppose you've published some funded research on a social issue, and somebody wants to republish it in a forum that also publishes material that you find morally abhorrent, or if they want to repackage-- package and resell it.
RICK ANDERSON: If you've granted the general public the right to do whatever they want to do with your work, as long as they give you attribution as the original author, then you have no recourse. And that lack of resource is a feature. It's not a bug. What they're doing is exactly what the funder required you to allow them to do. I wrote a piece for the Scholarly Kitchen some years ago about a guy who had done some photo journalistic work in the LGBTQ community in an African country.
RICK ANDERSON: I think it was Ghana, but I'm not positive. Those photos were later appropriated and used in an anti-gay newsletter to foment violence against gay people in Ghana. The only reason that that guy had recourse and was able to Sue the publisher was because he had retained all of his exclusive rights as the copyright holder. Now, that's maybe an extreme example, but it's the kind of thing-- it's the kind of issue that you have to think about when you're requiring people to give up what would normally be their exclusive prerogatives under the law.
RICK ANDERSON: Another potential downside is the impact on authors' academic freedom. Now, this is a very complicated issue that we obviously don't have time to get into fully here today, but for now, I'll just say that, in the United States in particular, the phrase full freedom in the publication of results is embedded in the only formal and cross-institutional definition of academic freedom that we have.
RICK ANDERSON: So in this context, the question is, does full freedom in publication mean the freedom to publish wherever one wishes, even if that venue doesn't allow the work it publishes to be made available under a CC license? If it does mean that, then when those with power over researchers use that power to require them to publish in specific ways, that does have real implications for academic freedom.
RICK ANDERSON: Now, there's a lot of disagreement about this question, and it's complicated further by the international nature of scholarly communication and the fact that different countries interpret academic freedom in very different ways. In fact, academic freedom is embedded in the law in some countries, and not in others, so you can see how difficult this question can be to resolve when you're dealing with an international ecosystem of scholarly communication.
RICK ANDERSON:
TODD CARPENTER: Anybody else want to jump into funding requirements? Haseeb, you talked a little bit about this earlier. Karin?
KARIN WULF: Yeah. Todd, I'll just mention that, again, just to go back to the disciplinary perspective for humanists, for whom we might get-- so the John Carter Brown Library, for example, offers a research fellowship that's $2,100 for a month of research. That $2,100 per month of research may be even for an article, or even if one is publishing in a different venue in a blog or something like that.
KARIN WULF: That month of research is likely only a small slice of the support one needs to further and advance this work. So if we had a requirement that all research conducted here be published in an open access form, we would be competing with likely another half dozen institutional requirements. In other words, it is so unusual for a humanist operating in the United States, but even in places like the UK and Europe, where there are these big multimillion value grants, to be funded by a single grant-- it's remarkable and highly unusual.
KARIN WULF: So a single funder mandate will never function, even if I agreed with those funder mandates-- which I generally don't.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Very quickly, definitely, in this competitive world, we need funding to continue our research as part of our responsibility towards our institution. I would like to come from a different direction. It is not only the law or authors' right or the disciplinary-- differences among the different disciplines, but we often see that there are certain rules and regulations, or priorities are being, if I may use the word, imposed by the donors because of their mission or their mandate.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: And often we see that sometimes funding coming from the Western or the Global North donor based there, and they do encourage the applicants from the Global North to work with Global South. And often, I have become part of those funding applications as well. Sometimes we don't actually talk about how to use the final output and get it out publicly.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: What are the rights as a contributor to that particular research once it is done? I'm just generalizing it. Often we just give the responsibility of understanding those issues, those concerns from the donor side or the [INAUDIBLE] towards my [INAUDIBLE] collaborators. You deal with it. You take care of it, because it is your donors.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: I'm just participating in it. That's the reality. I might be being too straight, but this is the way when we see collaborative work from the South and North. I have seen that kind of arrangement. So yes, these are very much context-specific, discipline-specific-- and of course, the country where the donor is based in.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Thank you.
TODD CARPENTER: So moving into some forward-thinking edge cases, and where is-- where's copyright going, there's actually an interesting question in here from one of the participants about a publisher having produced a book that was released a year ago in hard copy. And the editors are holding back on release of that publication in electronic form because they feel that, given the topic-- it's focused on mineral deposits in China-- that essentially, if you release one electronic copy, they'll only sell one copy, because there are regions that have less respect for copyright.
TODD CARPENTER: Interested in your thoughts about that, and any suggestions or recommendations you might have-- I know this is a challenging issue for a lot of publishers, apart from like, let's wrap it up in heavy DRM that no one can break or use. Karin, you've been a-- you've sat as a publisher for a while.
TODD CARPENTER: Do you have any thoughts?
KARIN WULF: Yeah. I was just actually doing a quick look to see how some of the digital humanities projects that I'm most interested in are licensed, because I think, as we think more about-- well, I am an analog person. I am a pen and paper, give me the book, let me scribble in the margins person. They'll pry my notebooks from my cold dead proverbial hands. But so much of what we're doing now is publishing in digital platforms and in figuring out ways to publish multidimensional work that engages both text, and object, and image-- and also that provides a non-linear path through a historical argument, for example.
KARIN WULF: I'm interested in thinking about, how our digital humanities publications online being licensed, and how are people imagining their use? And I see a lot of CC NC licenses affixed to them, but I also know that a lot of these projects don't necessarily have institutional support behind them. They are an aggregation, a collaborative, a group that-- for whom recourse, if there is an inappropriate reuse, is limited, because they won't have an institutional supporter.
KARIN WULF: So one of the things I'm really interested in is this question about how is increasingly digital, increasingly collaborative, increasingly non-institutional work licensed going forward. And that's kind of a question mark, rather than any kind of prognostication.
TODD CARPENTER: Another issue-- and this was raised, again, by one of the participants-- which is a topic that we were going to touch on-- has to do with open access, and copyright, and licenses. So the question that the participant asked is, what's the effect of open access on copyrights and licenses? Is it having an effect?
RICK ANDERSON: I think, to a very real degree, it depends on how you define open access. And this is part of the challenge that we have in the ecosystem is that there is no international body that has the authority to say, this is the definition of open access. There are lots of bodies that have said that, but they disagree with each other, and they all say it without any authority. And as a result, when some people say open access, they mean I can download the article for free.
RICK ANDERSON: And when some people say open access, they mean I can download the article for free and use it for any purpose I wish, as long as I attribute it to the author. And people disagree about what open access should mean. So the implications for copyright depend largely on what you mean when you say open access. If open access means CC BY, that has implications for copyright that don't-- that are not the same, if you think CC BY-ND NC is also legitimately open access.
RICK ANDERSON: I guess there's also the question of, when you say implications for copyright, do we mean implications for the future of copyright law or implications for copyright holders in the here and now? And the answers to those two things are going to be very different.
TODD CARPENTER: Sure. I think both questions-- in the remaining three minutes, let's see if we can cover that. On the one hand, we-- on the author side, are we essentially teaching authors to not really care much about copyright-- make it all open, make it all free? Is that one of the unintended consequences of open access?
RICK ANDERSON: I think it's an explicitly intended consequence of much of the rhetoric in the open access movement. It's not hidden. It's not subtle. You have people like [INAUDIBLE] saying copyright has no role in scholarly publications. And that's just one example of the message. Now, that's not what everybody's saying, but that is a dominant-- I would say a dominant message in open access advocacy.
RICK ANDERSON:
KARIN WULF: And Todd, I would just say-- oh, Haseeb, you go ahead.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: No, no. You go first-- no problem. [INAUDIBLE]
KARIN WULF: I was just going to say that I think that it is true that authors may be inclined in that direction, but I also think it's because authors have a sense that open access only means people are free to read. And they're not thinking about the fuller system and the fuller implications. And most people that I've had longer conversations with are excited for free to read for lots of people, but they also understand that there are trade-offs there.
KARIN WULF: And they're not excited about commercial re-use and they're not excited about derivative use-- in fact, usually alarmed by it. And they're not excited about-- once we start to talk about the sustainability of non-profit publications.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: Whenever I hear the word open-- open source, open research, open science, open access-- I always wonder, who closed it, that we are talking about opening it up? But I'm quite excited. Definitely, I'm very much excited that we are talking about openness in our research communication, in research publishing. That's why we see so many discussion, conversations-- not only [INAUDIBLE] different models we are talking about, whether it should be global [INAUDIBLE] model, whether they should be a flat rate, or transformative agreement, what kind of open access model we would be focusing on.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But coming from the Global South, we often don't-- can't actually relate to this type of conversation. Often I find it very much Northern, because in many cases, if not all the cases, our journals are being published by different societies, often supported by the government. And those have always been open, free to access, free to publish. So because they are quite cheap to publish, editors, they are working as a volunteer, and their publication cost is very, very low.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: But we never call them [INAUDIBLE] open access, isn't it? But they are, actually. So I think we need to contextualize those definitions, those models, those discussions. And we need to see not only what is happening in the North, but also the other parts of the world, and see that-- how copyright and open access conversation or any conversation like that and actually touch upon all the part of the world when we talk about-- when we want to touch upon scholarly publishing.
HASEEB IRFANULLAH: It is a global thing, isn't it? Thank you.
TODD CARPENTER: Yeah. All right, well, I think we've covered a great deal of landscape here in the discussion around copyright. I want to thank the three of you-- Rick, Karin, Haseeb. This has been a fantastic conversation. I really enjoyed it. I hope our participants enjoyed it as well. And I will pass it back to Jason to close us out.
JASON POINTE: Thank you, Todd. And thank you, everybody, for attending today's SSP webinar. Thank you to our speakers for their time and engaging presentations, and special thanks to today's sponsor, ARPHA. Attendees will receive a webinar evaluation email. We encourage you to provide feedback and to help us determine topics for future webinars. We will announce our 2022 webinar series soon, but in the meantime, save the date for the 44th annual meeting to be held in Chicago June 1 through the 3rd.
JASON POINTE: The call for proposals closes on the 19th, so there's still time to submit an idea. Check our website at sspnet.org for more details. Today's webinar was recorded, and all registrants will be sent a link to the recording when it is posted on the SSP website. This concludes our session today. Thank you.
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode