Posts Tagged ‘ fair use ’

brutiful truths

When I set up this blog for my MLS capstone, I gave myself permission to seek truth beyond the MLS.  I’ve done that in my tradtionally quiet way.  But I’ve been wrestling a lot lately with how to speak some of that seeking more openly here, and more often.  This post, by one of my favorite truth-speakers has motivated me to get started on this…just a little.

G, I’ve been tweeting about my 2012 resolution to read 12 books this year.  My last book was kind of a cop out, it being an “I Can Read” children’s book of only 63 pages.  But, one of the things your shared truth has taught me is that deep, full, and brutiful truths can be found in the simplest places. So, I’m sharing just two pages (a fair use) in hopes it will encourage you, encourage me, and maybe even get you out to the library and pick up a copy.  Oh yeah, and my kids like it too.

We look brave

Brave Together

Lobel, Arnold. (1971). Dragons and Giants. In Frog and Toad Together pp.43,51. Columbus, OH: Newfield Publications.

truthberry pickings

The interwebs are smiling brightly today, particularly on a few of my very favorite topics: fair use, sensemaking,  workflow analysis, and project management.

First up, Brett Bonfield of ITLWLP http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2012/the-ebook-cargo-cult/ .  Fear not the seemingly tired topics of ‘scholarly publishing crisis, e-books, and library core values’ upon which this particular post expounds.  Bonfield gives a most clear, well paced, and relevant discussion, outlining the currently available and ideal purchase/license models in a nifty table and a brief discussion of each.  Local highlight: the State Library of Kansas helped establish the Portability Model.  I do so appreciate well written, and very practical reminders of how we can and do preserve library core principles of fair use and first sale.

I also find Roy Tennant to be an excellent bibliographer of articles both timely and relevant to my work.  A couple from his recent Current Cites update seemed very relevant to things I’ve been presently working on (and to my libraries’ larger strategic directions) – workflow analysis and the next generation ILS (Breeding, 2012) and use of project management in libraries (Horwath, 2012).  See more at: http://currentcites.org/2012/cc12.23.6.html

Finally, how lovely to find sensemaking in the most unexpected places.  Another of my more personal (than professional) favorite blogs, Glennon Melton (of Don’t Carpe Diem fame), explores a third option when faced with difficult communications.  Right!   In her concluding statement…

If she’d never written, or if I’d have fought her back, or ignored her – I’d never have explored my desperate need and insistence upon laughter. I wouldn’t have understood myself the way I do now.

And we wouldn’t understand each other. A crack would remain where now stands a bridge.

…(especially that last line) she alludes to Dervin’s sensemaking while offering an approach for care-full truth-seeking in every encounter.

truthberry picking

New thing.  I read the American Libraries Direct newsletter each week and often fill my browser with tabs of the items I find most interesting, sharing some in facebook, others via email to library colleagues.  It occurred to me today that I could use this as a blogging opportunity and aggregate my favorites here.  My hope is that perhaps  my research foci will emerge out of this effort and that you, dear readers (if you exist), may find common narrowed interest.

So, truthberry is actually the more common Rasta reinvention of the word library.   That I more often call it a truthbrary (and ourselves as truthbrarians) is just to make the connection a little clearer.  But how nicely it serves my purpose here for the berries of truth I picked out of the interwebs this week.

It occurs to me Zotero will also be my dear friend in this effort.  So, stay tuned.

Why non-academics should be following the Georgia State U case (Copyright Librarian blog)  Did I mention this might be my favorite library topic?

…a ruling against fair use at Georgia State would do a lot to establish that any time a copyright holder is willing to sell a license, not taking them up on it is inherently infringement.

As an ACRL Legislative advocate, I’m always looking for succinct pointers to help communicate the value of academic libraries.  When talking about the library remember N3P3: an advocacy talking points framework for academic libraries (Ubiquitous Librarian blog) is a useful start.

A few nods to my Learner strength and some good tips for organizational effectiveness from your desk to your desktop.

And, finally, because Borders declared bankruptcy and, thus, closed in my town while the little (and very awesome) local bookstore around its corner remains, a tribute:  Independent Bookstores in New Orleans say they’re thriving (Nola.com, via AL Direct June 8, 2011).  Also, yet another reason I am bummed to not be going to ALA New Orleans.

truthbrarians and copyright

I was so glad to see this post on copyright-knowledgable librarians highlighted in American Libraries Direct this week. It gives me opportunity to agree and briefly follow-up on a previous post of my own on the matter.

My favorite point this Copyright Librarian blogger points out is the context that librarians bring to the issue of copyright.  The reason that we know what we know and can impart this wisdom effectively to others is because we had to learn it in the context of doing.  And that context of doing is the same or very similar to the context of need for faculty or other library users.   Moreover,  as librarians who value integrity of knowledge, we don’t just half-ass our learning in doing — we research.

Few copyright specialist attorneys have extensive experience with academic publishing, but academic librarians – they have an amazing view of the whole system and life-cycle of scholarly publishing.

The post goes on to illustrate a small survey comparing faculty and librarian knowledge on copyright matters relative to the use of textual quotations, use of images, and course reserves.  The latter which I was happy to see the least margin of difference between the two.

And what’s more, the post references another little blog (before I knew what blogs were) entry of yore — one that made me want to be a librarian!

In summary:  we are cool, we are knowledgable, and we’ve got image issues to overcome.

ereserves, scholarly communication, the role of the librarian faculty liaison

I think when this major court case Publishers v. Georgia State University began, it was about the time we started trying to figure out how to dump our e-reserves system onto faculty.  Too bad, just when librarians are starting to really pick up their copyright baton in their role in Scholarly Communication.  We could have had quite a head start.

When I was involved in helping coordinate the work of copyright compliance for e-reserves at my library years back, I constantly wondered why the subject librarians, the faculty liaisons were not involved in the process.  Our biggest problem at that time was trying to communicate to faculty the provision of fair use we were using and why we had to restrict their course content.  Seems simple enough, right?  Well, the trouble was that we often couldn’t just tell them this outright.  As lowly and still fairly shy technical services staff we funnelled this  faculty communication through the public service staff.  This was a relief, but also a frustration because often the result  was promises were made by public services to keep the customer happy that technical services couldn’t keep.

So why not involve the librarians who consulted with faculty all the time?  They were the experts in these tricky copyright issues, weren’t they?  They they had the greatest relationship clout to influence faculty practice and were already skilled at information literacy instruction, right?   I guess, like us,  they also had a lot of other stuff to do.

Google Books

This is my first (and therefore off the cuff and unresearched) attempt to discuss Google Books. I attended a summary of the settlements and issues relevant to our institution today.  One librarian presented the history of the settlements and issues related to the for and against the project.  Another librarian presented to pros and cons of the Google Books search itself.  “So, she asked, do we jump on this bandwagon?”  The bandwagon being the subscription model for access to what ever will eventually be allowed through Google Books.  But my question is this — did we not just dig our own grave (or allow the authors and publishers to dig the libraries’ grave) by not jumping on the bandwagon from the beginning when it was free!?  Wasn’t that the original idea.  That Google would “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” and we would all benefit for free…or at least subsidized by advertising?  But then a big stink was made that resulted in complicated matrices of how to distribute the profit and the rights and in order for it all to work out with that in mind its going to have to be a subscription service. For real?

I don’t understand why we weren’t fighting (maybe we were, again no research here) from the beginning the same fight we fought for e-reserves.  We fought the fair use point for the digitization of course reserves and faced many of these very issues, how to determine rights, what was public domain and how to address orphan works, how much could be digitized and variation like restrictions for using anthologies as opposed to the original work, and of course, how to pay for it and the ROI.  So what happened?  Well,  I know what happened to e-reserves at my institution and as such I have lost touch with the national trend.

If I learned anything today it was at least that I want to learn more.  And that’s what its all about, eh?  Hokey pokey!

%d bloggers like this: