“Global Access in Action, a project of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, seeks to expand access to lifesaving medicines and combat the communicable disease burden that disproportionately harms the world’s most vulnerable populations. We accomplish this by conducting action-oriented research, supporting breakthrough initiatives, facilitating stakeholder dialogue, and providing policy advice to pharmaceutical firms on best practices to increase impact. GAIA uses its pragmatic and neutral viewpoint to enable dialogue across traditional boundaries between government, industry, nonprofits, and academia, and to promote new, innovative solutions amongst these parties to create better outcomes.”
“In early 2016, the Office for Scholarly Communication (OSC) launched a pilot project to recruit help from around the university to deposit faculty-authored articles in DASH, Harvard’s open-access repository. This project has the full support of the Harvard Library. In January of this year, the project emerged from the pilot phase, and was officially renamed the Distributed DASH Deposits program, or D3. All Harvard schools have made a start with D3, and the next goal is to scale up.”
“The Harvard-China Project on Energy, Economy and Environment is pleased to announce that the Project’s faculty, researchers, and staff have adopted an open-access policy. They unanimously endorsed the policy on September 21, 2017 to grant Harvard a nonexclusive and worldwide right to distribute “the fruits of [their] research and scholarship as widely as possible.”
“The Digital Futures Consortium at Harvard University is a network of technologists, faculty, researchers, and librarians engaged in the ongoing transformation of scholarship through innovative technology. We are dedicated to sharing expertise across the global academic community, facilitating new forms and methods of research, and fostering collaborative projects that bring about field changing developments in scholarship….”
“The Privacy Tools Project is a broad effort to advance a multidisciplinary understanding of data privacy issues and build computational, statistical, legal, and policy tools to help address these issues in a variety of contexts. It is a collaborative effort between Harvard’s Center for Research on Computation and Society, Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, and Data Privacy Lab, and MIT Libraries’ Program on Information Science.
Our work is funded by the National Science Foundation, the Sloan Foundation, the US Bureau of the Census, and Google. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed on this website are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders….”
“The Open Greek and Latin Project (OGL) is an international collaboration working to bring free access to all source texts written in Classical Greek or Latin from antiquity to c. 600 CE, including manuscripts, papyri, epigraphs, ostraca (broken pieces of ceramic material used as ballots) and more.
In 2016, the Harvard Library and the Harvard Center for Hellenic Studies joined forces with Mount Allison University and the University of Virginia to help the OGL implement a proof of concept of the project, focusing on the first thousand years of Greek texts. Funding for the First Thousand Years of Greek component of the OGL came from the Harvard Library through a grant from the Arcadia Foundation and the generous support of the Center for Hellenic Studies. The OGL is led by Professor Gregory Crane, the Humboldt Professor of Computer Science at the University of Leipzig and Professor of Classics at Tufts University and Editor-in-Chief of the Perseus Project. All partners in the project are providing staff and technical support.
This funding is helping the OGL complete the digitization of Greek texts and create an easy-to-use but functionally rich user interface. This will allow researchers to access, search, download, modify, and redistribute textual data to explore new forms in areas such as born-digital annotation, reading practices, audiences for Greek and Latin, and avenues of research. While the design of the website is under development, scholars are accessing and using the texts from GitHub, the software development platform. …”
Abstract: Open access proponents argue that scholars are far more likely to make their articles freely available online if they are required to do so by their university or funding institution. Therefore, if the open access movement is to achieve anything close to its goal of seeing all scholarly articles freely available online, mandates will likely play a significant role. In 2008, the Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences adopted a policy that purports not only to require scholars to deposit their works in open access repositories, but also to grant the university nonexclusive copyright licenses to archive and publicly distribute all faculty-produced scholarly articles. A number of other American universities have since adopted similar policies. The principal aim of this Article is to analyze the legal effect of these Harvard-style open access “permission” mandates.
By invoking copyright law terminology in permission mandates, schools might intend that they have the legal effect of transferring nonexclusive rights to the school, thereby clarifying and fortifying the school’s rights to reproduce and publicly disseminate faculty works. However, the legal effect of these mandates is uncertain for several reasons. First, it is unsettled whether scholars or their university employers are the authors and initial owners of scholarly articles under U.S. copyright law’s work-made-for-hire rules, which vest authorship and copyright ownership in the employer for works created by employees within the scope of employment. Second, the mandates are broad university policies that purport to grant the university nonexclusive copyright licenses in every scholarly article unless a faculty member affirmatively opts out on a per-article basis. Are the policies specific enough to provide the essential terms of the grant? Furthermore, can the mere adoption of a school policy, without some additional affirmative act by the author, effectuate such a grant without unduly encroaching upon the author’s autonomy interests? Lastly, even if the policies effectuate nonexclusive license grants, will the licenses survive after the author transfers copyright ownership to a journal publisher as per common practice? Section 205(e) of the Copyright Act provides that a prior nonexclusive license evidenced in a writing signed by the right holder prevails over a subsequent conflicting transfer of copyright ownership, so the answer appears to turn on whether permission mandates satisfy the requirements of § 205(e).
This Article argues that permission mandates can create legally enforceable, durable nonexclusive licenses. First, it argues that although there are important justifications, including academic freedom concerns, for recognizing the controversial “teacher exception” to the work for hire rules for scholarly articles, such an exception may be unnecessary because a strong argument also exists that much scholarship is produced outside the scope of employment for work for hire purposes. Second, it argues that permission mandates provide sufficient evidence of the grantor’s intent and the rights granted to create effective nonexclusive licenses. Third, permission mandates satisfy the requirements of § 205(e) and establish the license’s priority over the subsequent transfer of copyright ownership largely because they fulfill the underlying purposes of § 205(e) by providing sufficient evidence and notice of the license to potential copyright transferees (typically academic publishers). In reaching these conclusions, this Article emphasizes that Courts should consider the uniformity costs (social costs resulting from applying uniform rules and granting uniform entitlements across diverse conditions) that arise from applying to scholarly articles copyright rules developed to address proprietary models of information production. Applying the relevant copyright rules in a manner sensitive to the nonmarket nature of scholarly production is the most effective way to reduce these social costs, and reinforces the conclusion that mandate licenses are enforceable.
Lastly, the Article considers whether the opt-out nature of permission mandates offends notions of authorial autonomy in copyright. It compares permission mandates with another high profile opt-out licensing regime: the proposed Google Books settlement agreement, which the court rejected partly because of authorial autonomy concerns. Authorial autonomy is far less of a concern for scholarly articles than for the books at issue in the Google Books case, however, due to the nonmarket nature of scholarly article production coupled with academic community norms. Accordingly, it does not substantially interfere with authors’ autonomy interests to find that the opt-out structure of permission mandates creates valid nonexclusive licenses in universities.
“Yesterday at the Scholarly Kitchen, Karin Wulf and Simon Newman posted some objections to the UK Scholarly Communications License, which is based on the Harvard OA license.
In the process they characterized the Harvard OA license and OA policies, sometimes correctly and sometimes incorrectly.
I posted a comment which is still undergoing moderation. I’m posting a copy here in case my comment is rejected, abridged, or delayed. …”
“There are any number of issues to be addressed in the premises of the UK Scholarly Communications License, among them the longstanding and keen interest of higher education in acquiring intellectual property rights to the work of their researchers. But we want to focus here on some of the implications for our discipline, history, as illustrative. History research is published in journals, but it is very much a book discipline. The publishing systems for each are themselves distinctive. History journals are mostly published by non-profit organizations, often university presses, and require intensive editorial work. Because the formulation of text in argument is the primary research output, derivative use is not as applicable or desirable as it might be for other fields. That is, we produce essays with interpretive arguments, not data or experimental findings. Additionally, institutional publication of scholarly articles raises all kinds of issues related to intellectual property and third-party rights. Scholars across the arts and humanities regularly cite or use in their articles third-party sources (including privately and institutionally owned manuscripts and printed works, poetry, literature music, art etc.). It is extremely unlikely that the rights holders of such materials will abandon their third-party rights and allow libraries to publish their materials. The result will be an administrative burden for libraries and academics, and create potential legal problems too. Historical organizations have devised a variety of ways to increase the reach of these outputs. And for these reasons and more, historians have strongly advocated for flexible approaches to Open Access. Many convenings have resulted in the development of Green OA to recognize the diversity of needs and practices of disciplines and fields, primarily but not only in HSS.”
“The proposed policy is based on the Harvard model which has been in use since 2008 and has been adopted by over 60 institutions worldwide, including Ivy League universities whose publishing outputs eclipse the numbers published in total in the UK. Under the Harvard model policy, waivers are requested for less than 5% of articles. We are at a loss to understand why, therefore, the estimate is so high for UK authors and why UK authors might be treated differently to their counterparts in existing ‘Harvard policy’ institutions.”