New Resource: OER State Policy Playbook – SPARC

“Today, SPARC released the OER State Policy Playbook, a new resource to support state-level advocacy in the U.S. The Playbook provides policy recommendations for state legislators interested in tackling college affordability through Open Educational Resources (OER). Our partners at Creative Commons USA released a companion resource, the OER State Legislative Guide, which provides detailed commentary on existing legislation.”

Can secondary publication rights be compulsory? | Press releases in detail | Press releases | Current announcements | News and media | University | University of Konstanz

“The administrative court in Mannheim seeks clarification on the question of whether the legal norm of the Landeshochschulgesetz (state law on higher education) underlying the University of Konstanz regulations is in conformity with the German constitution.”

Can secondary publication rights be compulsory? | Press releases in detail | Press releases | Current announcements | News and media | University | University of Konstanz

“The administrative court in Mannheim seeks clarification on the question of whether the legal norm of the Landeshochschulgesetz (state law on higher education) underlying the University of Konstanz regulations is in conformity with the German constitution.”

The right to share in Open Access

“It can be difficult for researchers to understand what are their author rights, what articles they can archive in Open Access… Fortunately, political decisions are taken across Europe to strongly authorize free dissemination of knowledge. In Belgium, Wallonia-Brussels Federation has presented a decree in order to authorize the Open Access deposit of publicly funded research. Moreover, the federal government plans to propose a bill in this regard in 2018. The preliminary draft decree defining an Open access policy for publicly funded scientific publications in Wallonia-Brussels Federation (FWB) has passed second reading by the FWB government. This preliminary draft decree proposed by the Minister of Higher Education, Scientific Research and Media Jean-Claude Marcourt is intended to allow scientific publications of publicly funded research to be freely shared and disseminated. This takes place in the context of the Open Science movement promoted by the FWB.”

The right to share in Open Access

“It can be difficult for researchers to understand what are their author rights, what articles they can archive in Open Access… Fortunately, political decisions are taken across Europe to strongly authorize free dissemination of knowledge. In Belgium, Wallonia-Brussels Federation has presented a decree in order to authorize the Open Access deposit of publicly funded research. Moreover, the federal government plans to propose a bill in this regard in 2018. The preliminary draft decree defining an Open access policy for publicly funded scientific publications in Wallonia-Brussels Federation (FWB) has passed second reading by the FWB government. This preliminary draft decree proposed by the Minister of Higher Education, Scientific Research and Media Jean-Claude Marcourt is intended to allow scientific publications of publicly funded research to be freely shared and disseminated. This takes place in the context of the Open Science movement promoted by the FWB.”

Ent­scheid­ung zum ver­pflicht­end­en Zweit­­ver­­öffent­­lichung­s­recht noch nicht be­kannt (Decision on mandatory secondary publication is not yet known)

From Google’s English:

“17 university lecturers from the University of Konstanz had been sued. The decision on the statutes of 10 December 2015, which obliges the scientists of the University of Konstanz to exercise their so-called “right to secondary publication”, will be sent in writing. From the remarks of the court is a template to the BVerfG in Karlsruhe. The Verwaltungsgerichtshof has expressed doubts that § 44 (6) LHG, on which the statutes are based, is covered by the legislative competence of the Land Baden-Württemberg. Incidentally, the Administrative Court did not raise any doubts about the content of the statutes. The University of Konstanz will continue to inform the public about the progress of the procedure.”

 

 

Ent­scheid­ung zum ver­pflicht­end­en Zweit­­ver­­öffent­­lichung­s­recht noch nicht be­kannt (Decision on mandatory secondary publication is not yet known)

From Google’s English:

“17 university lecturers from the University of Konstanz had been sued. The decision on the statutes of 10 December 2015, which obliges the scientists of the University of Konstanz to exercise their so-called “right to secondary publication”, will be sent in writing. From the remarks of the court is a template to the BVerfG in Karlsruhe. The Verwaltungsgerichtshof has expressed doubts that § 44 (6) LHG, on which the statutes are based, is covered by the legislative competence of the Land Baden-Württemberg. Incidentally, the Administrative Court did not raise any doubts about the content of the statutes. The University of Konstanz will continue to inform the public about the progress of the procedure.”

 

 

Bill Text – AB-609 State-funded research: State Department of Public Health.

“This bill would enact, until January 1, 2020, the California Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Act. The bill would establish publication requirements for a grantee receiving funding, in whole or in part, in the form of a research grant from the State Department of Public Health. The bill would require the department to include specified terms and conditions in a research grant that are required to be adhered to as a condition of the grantee receiving the research grant. The bill would require the grantee to provide for public access to any publication of a department-funded invention or department-funded technology, as specified, including ensuring that electronic version of the peer-reviewed manuscript is available to the department on an appropriate publicly accessible database approved by the department, to be made publicly available not later than 12 months after the official date of publication. The bill would provide that this act does not apply to a grantee that receives funding from the department if there is an existing publication requirement that meets or exceeds the requirements of this bill and that the provisions do not apply to research grants issued prior to January 1, 2015….”

Recent Developments in US Federal Open Access Policies: FASTR Moves Slower – Copyright Clearance Center

“On July 26, H.R. 3427, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), was reintroduced in the US House of Representatives by Michael Doyle [D-PA-14]. This was followed by a similar bill in the Senate, S. 1701, reintroduced there on August 2 by Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX]. Essentially similar versions of these bills have been placed in the legislative hopper for three sessions now, introduced by mostly the same Senators and Representatives.

In 2013, under the Obama Administration, the introduction of FASTR was accompanied by an Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policy guidance memorandum which required all Federal agencies with annual R&D award budgets over $100 million to develop plans to support “increased public access.””

A Tale of Two Bills: The Research Works Act and Federal Research Public Access Act

“The RWA didn’t explicitly say that it would amend copyright law, but it could could have done so implicitly, or by superseding any parts of current law inconsistent with the new law.  Under the NIH policy, authors give permission for OA when they are still the copyright holders.  Even when they later transfer some rights to publishers, they retain the right to authorize OA.  Hence, OA through NIH is authorized by the relevant rightsholder, in this case by the author.  But RWA Section 2.1 would have required publisher consent for that OA.  It would have required publisher consent even when the holder of the relevant rights under current law had already consented.  A consent which suffices under current copyright law would not suffice under RWA.  Either that would violate US copyright law or amend it pro tanto (that is, amend it to the extent necessary to avoid irreconcilable conflict between the old and new statutes).

This may seem like a technical point of law.  But it’s the most radical aspect of RWA.  Under current law, in the US and around the world, authors are the copyright holders in their work until or unless they decide to transfer rights to someone else, such as a publisher.  Copyright consists of a bundle of rights, and authors may lawfully transfer all, some, or none of those rights, as they see fit.  If they retain the right to authorize OA, then no other permission is needed.  Under RWA, however, publishers would have held a new right, beyond copyright, to overrule the rights exercised by authors under copyright law.

It was an unprecedented power grab by publishers.  Unlike past, lopsided legal reforms to benefit publishers, this one was not limited to enhancing the rights of copyright holders against users and consumers.  This one would have harmed all copyright holders except publishers, and benefited publishers even when they were not copyright holders….”