Derechos de autor: retos en un mundo digital
Derechos de autor: retos en un mundo digital
La digitalización como estrategia de colaboración entre bibliotecas, archivos y museos
The promotional video for his 2020 campaign used the score from Batman film The Dark Night Rises. Disclaimer: The BBC Apple E-book Verdict an Opportunity for Libraries
The verdict is in—Apple illegally worked behind the scenes with publishers to limit competition in the e-book market. Last month, the US Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling which found Apple conspired with the “Big Five Publishers” (Hachette, Macmillan, HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, and Simon & Schuster) to fix e-book prices. Apple will need to pay a settlement of $450 million to e-book customers and the class-action law firms representing them.[1]
Apple was initially sued by the Department of Justice back in April 2012 for fixing e-book prices. At the time, the publishers were also sued but settled out of court. The case revolved around the “agency” model, which Apple used in its iBookstore offerings. This model required e-book authors and sellers to hand over a 30 percent cut of each sale. It also allowed publishers, rather than the vendors, to set the prices.[2]
Libraries across the country struggle to meet exponential patron demand for e-books by offering digital collections. However, the ability to lend digital material has been limited by the publishers offering the content. Now that the Apple e-books case has shown the “agency” model is anticompetitive, an opportunity is open for libraries to show the negative impacts of library e-book pricing practices on public access. Attention should be brought to the Justice Department to show that publishers are engaging in questionable practices involving the licensing of digital content to libraries.
While the e-book format is relatively new to the library world, the situation between publishers and libraries is not. Rather, antitrust claims against publishers have been a perennial issue. The current situation parallels the 1960s when the US Senate Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee investigated claims by libraries that publishers had conspired with wholesalers to inflate library prices for children’s books. Publishers would be wise to remember that libraries are a major player in the publishing world, expending $1.22 billion on total collection expenditures annually,[3] and find ways that they can include them in the role of content distribution rather than trying to cut them out.
Libraries need a champion to take on their cause at the federal level. The current practices of publishers suggest a viable case could be made using the same antitrust regulations that were cited in the 1960s. Publishers are alleged to be conspiring to control market pricing. The agency model of pricing cited in the US Justice Department case is similar to the net pricing structure of the 1960s. An argument can also be made that the library pricing structures of e-book publishers, with expiring content and inflated prices, are price discrimination against libraries.
In 1966, librarian Marvin Scilken led the charge against children’s book publishers after learning publishers were charging libraries under a different pricing structure than other consumers. Scilken contacted the Federal Trade Commission and members of the US Senate in an attempt to bring the situation into the public eye. Scilken’s efforts brought the issue before the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly in September 1966.
The words of Scilken echo today, “Libraries must be wary of our suppliers. Librarians should also be wary of books sold primarily to libraries for they tend to be overpriced. Every time publishers ‘discover’ libraries they tend to put their hands in the taxpayers’ pockets.”[4] It is time for libraries to influence more strongly federal law and policymaking for digital content and be more selective when spending taxpayer dollars on licensed materials.
References
[1] Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, “Apple gets smacked by $450-million e-book price-fixing fine,” ZDNet, March 7, 2016.
[2] Zack Whittaker, “DoJ sues Apple, publishers in e-book price fixing antitrust suit,” ZDNet, April 11, 2012.
[3] “Marketing to Libraries,” American Library Association, November 2015.
[4] Marvin H. Scilken, “Scilken on publishers,” Library Journal 116, no. 7 (1991): 8.
Further Reading
U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary, Alleged price fixing of library books: Hearings before the Committee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 1966.
Sherman Anti-Trust Act, U.S. Code 15 (1890), § 1 et seq.
Joseph Deitch, “A conversation with Marvin Scilken,” in Getting libraries the credit they deserve: A festschrift in honor of Marvin H. Scilken, ed. Lorien Roy and Antony Cherian (Oxford: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2002) 45–58.
Lawrence Hurley, “Supreme Court rejects Apple e-books price-fixing appeal,” Reuters, March 7, 2016.
Adam Liptak and Vindu Goel, “Supreme Court Declines to Hear Apple’s Appeal in E-Book Pricing Case,” New York Times, March 7, 2016.
Lyle Denniston, “Apple loses case on its e-book selling tactics,” Scotus Blog, March 7, 2016.
Bobbi Newman, “Should Libraries Get Out of the eBook Business?” Librarian by Day [blog], March 7, 2012.
—
Pundsack, K. (mayo 6 de 2016). Apple E-book Verdict an Opportunity for Libraries. Recuperado el 31 de mayo de 2016, de http://publiclibrariesonline.org/
Authors Guild v. Google, Part II: Fair Use Proceedings
[Google Books case]
Note: There are two parts for the case page for Authors Guild v. Google. Part I discusses the proposed class action settlement. This part II discusses the fair use proceedings that followed the court’s rejection of the proposed settlement.
Background
The case began in 2005 when the Authors Guild sued Google for digitizing books as part of the Google Book Search program called «Google Print» at the time. Through partnerships with university libraries, Google intended to scan books, index the contents, and provide both library users and the public with the ability to search through books. The Authors Guild complained that Google was «engaging in massive copyright infringement» by scanning books and that also that Google would be guilty of copyright infringement by displaying the search results to book-seeking users.
The case was filed in the Southern District of New York and assigned to Judge Denny Chin. After Judge Chin rejected the proposed class action settlement, the case turned to questions about certification of the class and about fair use. In May 2012, Judge Chin issued an order certifying the class. The order also held that the Authors Guild had standing to sue on behalf of its members, a somewhat controversial proposition.
Fair Use
Meanwhile, the parties focused on whether Google was protected by the fair use doctrine. As part of that briefing, in August 2012 EFF filed an amicus brief supporting Google’s fair use defense. EFF was joined by three associations representing over 100,000 libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, the American Library Association, and the Association of College and Research Libraries. The amicus brief pointed out several factors favoring fair use. Among others:
- Librarians surveyed about Google Book Search said the service can help them find valuable research sources inside their own libraries as well as lead them to rare books they can borrow from other institutions.
- Many librarians said that they have purchased new books for their collections after discovering them through using Google Book Search.
- Google Book Search is a reference tool that helps people find books, and serves the public benefit.
However, before Judge Chin could rule on fair use, Google appealed the class certification order. In September 2012, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the lower court proceedings pending the class certification appeal. When that appeal was argued in May 2013, there was a bit of a surprise: The Second Circuit was far more interested in fair use than in class certification. In July 2013, the Court sent the case back to Judge Chin to decide the fair use issue.
In September 2013, Judge Chin heard oral argument on fair use. On November 14, 2013, he granted summary judgment for Google. He discussed each of the fair use factors and concluded that, as a whole, Google Books Search was fair use. His remarks made it clear that copyright serves, and does not impede, the public interest:
In my view, Google Books provides significant public benefits. It advances the progress of the arts and sciences, while maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders. It has become an invaluable research tool that permits students, teachers, librarians, and others to more efficiently identify and locate books. It has given scholars the ability, for the first time, to conduct full-text searches of tens of millions of books. It preserves books, in particular out-of-print and old books that have been forgotten in the bowels of libraries, and it gives them new life. It facilitates access to books for print-disabled and remote or underserved populations. It generates new audiences and creates new sources of income for authors and publishers. Indeed, all society benefits.
The Authors Guild filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was argued on December 3, 2014. On October 16, 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court and agreed that Google Books was a fair use.
–
Electronic Frontier Foundation (s.f.) Authors Guild v. Google, Part II: Fair Use Proceedings. Recuperado el 28 de abril del 2016 de https://www.eff.org/cases/authors-guild-v-google-part-ii-fair-use-proceedings
More information about this topic:
Editores y autores españoles atacan la sentencia sobre Google Books
CEDRO considera que el fallo del Supremo de EE UU a favor del coloso tecnológico «no tiene encaje en la legislación europea»
La reacción es idéntica. Es decir, frustración. A ambos lados del charco, autores y entidades encargadas de la defensa delcopyright han criticado el fallo del pasado lunes del Supremo de EE UU a favor de Google y en contra de los escritores. Lo que varía mucho, en cambio, son las consecuencias. En EE UU, la sentencia es vinculante y reafirma a la multinacional en su postura de digitalizar miles de libros y ofrecer fragmentos y páginas en su proyecto Google Books, sin autorización previa de los autores. Pero en Europa la ley es distinta, más restrictiva, y no deja margen para un epílogo parecido, al menos según Magdalena Vinent, directora general de CEDRO, la entidad de gestión de los derechos de autores y editores en España.
“Un proyecto como este no tiene encaje en la legislación europea”, asevera Vinent en un correo electrónico a EL PAÍS, una opinión parecida a la que trasladan desde la Coalición de Creadores. Y lo mismo destaca el escritor Lorenzo Silva, uno de los pioneros en España la digitalización de su propia obra y siempre atento a los temas relacionados con derecho de autor y piratería. “Una sentencia así en España sería pasarse por el arco del triunfo la ley de propiedad intelectual”, asevera el creador de la saga de Bevilacqua y Chamorro, convencido de que el derecho de cita que sí plantea la normativa española en ningún caso autorizaría la publicación de páginas enteras que Google Books ofrece de muchas obras.
“Tengo la sensación de que Google es demasiado poderoso como para no darle la razón. Se produce una curiosa inversión por la que agentes económicos débiles, como los autores, subvencionan a otros poderosísimos”, añade Silva. Y Vinent asevera que “el final de este proceso no favorece la promoción de la cultura ni la creación, puesto que un servicio como el de Google, que parece de gran utilidad, se ha construido obviando el derecho de los creadores a decidir sobre su obra y a ser remunerados por el uso que ese haga de ella”.
En su fallo, el Supremo de EE UU acaba de resolver a favor del gigante tecnológico una batalla judicial de 11 años. El sindicato estadounidense de autores acusaba a Google de haber violado las leyes sobre propiedad intelectual al escanear y digitalizar millones de libros y ofrecer extractos y páginas en el portal Google Books, sin permiso previo de sus autores ni ofrecerles ninguna compensación. Sin embargo, el tribunal establece que el proyecto hace un “uso justo” de la ley.
“La figura del fair use [uso justo] procede del derecho anglosajón. Permite un uso limitado de una obra protegida por los derechos de autor sin la autorización de sus titulares, siempre y cuando se cumplan determinadas condiciones. Por ejemplo, no tiene que haber fin de lucro o uso comercial. Es cierto que Google ofrece este servicio sin que medie precio, pero desde luego le reporta otros beneficios de forma indirecta”, responde sin embargo Vinent, una conclusión con la que Silva se muestra de acuerdo. El escritor destaca además el enlace directo que la página ofrece a Google Play, otro portal del buscador donde es posible adquirir libros digitales.
Google, sin embargo, defendió en un comunicado que su proyecto «actúa como un catálogo de fichas para la era digital, que ofrece a la gente una nueva forma de encontrar y comprar libros, mientras que al mismo tiempo avanzan los intereses de los autores». Google Books nació con la aspiración de convertirse en una gigantesca biblioteca digital, que ofreciera acceso a fragmentos, páginas y reseñas de millones de obras. “Su finalidad es buena, pero desde luego se podría haber hecho con la complicidad de los autores. La forma en la que se ha desarrollado esta parte en la que se han escaneado millones de libros sin la autorización de sus titulares de derechos no reconoce ni promueve la creación, sino todo lo contrario”, remata Vinent.
Autor: Tommaso Koch
Twitter: <@TommKoch>
Fuente: <http://cultura.elpais.com/>
Google Books Project Ruled Fair Use by US Appeals Court—ARL Releases Issue Brief
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously ruled on Friday, October 16, 2015, in Authors Guild v. Google—also known as the “Google Books” case—that Google’s mass scanning and digital indexing of books for use in creating a searchable online library constituted a legal “fair use” of copyrighted material rather than an infringement.
Starting in 2004, Google, through its Library Project, made digital copies of tens of millions of books submitted to the project by libraries. Google then included these copies in a search index that displays “snippets” of the books in response to search queries. The Authors Guild and several authors sued Google in 2005, asserting that the project infringed their copyright. Google filed for summary judgment, arguing that its use was a fair use and, in 2013, the district court ruled in favor of Google. The plaintiffs appealed and the Second Circuit held on Friday that the copying of the books and the display of snippets is transformative and a fair use. Furthermore, Google’s provision of digital copies to its partner libraries that submitted the particular works is not an infringement.
The Second Circuit’s decision in this case is a strong affirmation of fair use and demonstrates the importance of the fair use doctrine in responding to new technological developments. The search and snippet functions of Google Books allow for important research, including research conducted through text and data mining, that would not be possible without the large searchable database created by Google. Additionally, Google’s digitization of certain works from library collections demonstrates an important partnership, which has allowed libraries to make fair uses of these copies, including providing access for those who are visually impaired.
On Friday, the Library Copyright Alliance—the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries, and the Association of Research Libraries—issued a statement applauding the Second Circuit’s decision (PDF).
The Authors Guild plans to appeal the case to the US Supreme Court, though it is far from clear whether the Supreme Court would take up the case.
For an in-depth analysis of the Second Circuit’s decision, see the ARL Policy Notes blog post “Second Circuit Affirms Fair Use in Google Books Case,” which has now been published as an Association of Research Libraries issue brief (PDF).
Also, the Library Copyright Alliance has updated its one-page “Google Books Litigation Family Tree” (PDF), summarizing the case’s chronology in a graphical format.
About the Association of Research Libraries
The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) is a nonprofit organization of 124 research libraries in the US and Canada. ARL’s mission is to influence the changing environment of scholarly communication and the public policies that affect research libraries and the diverse communities they serve. ARL pursues this mission by advancing the goals of its member research libraries, providing leadership in public and information policy to the scholarly and higher education communities, fostering the exchange of ideas and expertise, facilitating the emergence of new roles for research libraries, and shaping a future environment that leverages its interests with those of allied organizations. ARL is on the web at http://www.arl.org/.
—
Cox, K. (20 de octubre de 2015). Google Books Project Ruled Fair Use by US Appeals Court-ARL Releases Issue Brief | Association of Research Libraries® | ARL®. Recuperado el 26 de octubre de 2015 de http://www.arl.org/news/arl-news/3763-google-books-project-ruled-fair-use-by-us-appeals-court-arl-releases-issue-brief#.Vi4QxLerS71
Nueva Política De Elsevier Impide El Acceso Abierto
Coalición mundial de organizaciones denuncian la política e instan a Elsevier a revisarla.
Según un análisis realizado por Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) and the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR):
● La nueva política de Elsevier en cuanto a los permisos para alojar y compartir artículos en repositorios de libre acceso, representa un obstáculo importante para la difusión y uso de los resultados de la investigación, además de representar obstáculos innecesarios para el acatamiento por parte de los autores de las políticas de acceso abierto adoptadas por sus agencias e instituciones de financiamiento.
La nueva postura de Elsevier supone una desviación significativa de la política establecida en 2004, que permitió a los autores el auto-archivo de sus manuscritos aceptados de artículos revisados por pares en repositorios institucionales sin embargo de tiempo.
● Veintitrés (23) organizaciones dieron a conocer hoy la siguiente declaración en oposición a la política de Elsevier:
El 30 de abril de 2015, Elsevier anunció una nueva política de intercambio y alojamiento de los artículos publicados en revistas de Elsevier. Esta política representa un obstáculo importante para la difusión y uso de los conocimientos producto de la investigación, y crea obstáculos innecesarios para el cumplimiento con las políticas de acceso abierto de los patrocinadores para los autores que han publicado con Elsevier. Además, la política ha sido adoptada sin ninguna evidencia de que la compartición inmediata de los artículos tenga un impacto negativo en las subscripciones a la revista.
A pesar de la afirmación de Elsevier de que la política impulsa la compartición, en realidad hace lo contrario. La política impone períodos de embargo inaceptablemente largos de hasta 48 meses para algunas revistas. También requiere que los autores adopten una licencia “no comercial y sin obras derivadas” para cada artículo depositado en un repositorio, inhibiendo en gran medida el valor de reutilización de estos artículos.Cualquier retraso en la disponibilidad abierta de los artículos de investigación cercena el progreso científico y coloca restricciones innecesarias en la entrega de los beneficios de la investigación al público.
Además, la política se aplica a “todos los artículos publicados anteriormente y los que serán publicados en el futuro”, por lo que es aún más punitiva tanto para los autores como para las instituciones. Esto también puede conducir a que los artículos que están actualmente disponibles sean repentinamente embargados y queden inaccesibles para los lectores.
Como organizaciones comprometidas con el principio de que el acceso a la información impulsa los descubrimientos, acelera la innovación y mejora la educación, apoyamos la adopción de políticas y prácticas que permitan el libre acceso inmediato y sin barreras así como la reutilización de los artículos académicos. La política de Elsevier está en conflicto directo con la tendencia mundial hacia el acceso abierto y sólo sirve para diluir los beneficios de compartir abiertamente los resultados de la investigación.
Instamos firmemente Elsevier reconsiderar esta política y animamos a otras organizaciones e individuos a expresar sus opiniones. La declaración está disponible aquí y damos la bienvenida a otros a mostrar su apoyo. Algunas de las firmantes son:
- COAR: Confederation of Open Access Repositories
- SPARC: Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition
- ACRL: Association of College and Research Libraries
- ALA: American Library Association
- ARL: Association of Research Libraries
- Association of Southeastern Research Libraries
- Australian Open Access Support Group
- IBICT: Brazilian Institute of Information in Science and Technology
- CARL: Canadian Association of Research Libraries
- CLACSO: Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales
- COAPI: Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions
- Creative Commons
- Creative Commons (USA)
- EIFL
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Greater Western Library Alliance
- LIBER: European Research Library Association
- National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences
- OpenAIRE
- Open Data Hong Kong
- Research Libraries UK
- SANLiC: South African National Licensing Consortium
- University of St Andrews Library
La Biblioteca de Administración de Empresas de la Universidad de Puerto Rico, a través de la sección de Derechos de Autor de esta página web, sirve como repositorio de información enfocada en diferentes áreas de la Propiedad Intelectual, especialmente en aquellas que están evolucionado, e impactando el acceso a la información. A su vez, estimula el conocimiento y desarrollo de formas alternas al copyright -derecho de autor- y patentes, con el objetivo principal de no basarse sólo en el aspecto económico, sino también en la preocupación de adelantar la investigación y el continuo desarrollo de una sociedad más justa y equitativa. Por tanto, promovemos fervientemente los movimientos de libre acceso a la información a nivel de organizaciones profesionales y de investigación y rechazamos cualquier política que interfiera con estos propósitos.
Es por ello que como biblioteca nos unimos y respaldamos la iniciativa de COAR y SPARC, en pro del libre acceso e intercambio de información.
—
Versión en español: SciELO México
New Policy from Elsevier impedes Open Access and Sharing. (2015, May 20). Recuperada el 12 de junio de 2015 de https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-media/new-policy-from-elsevier-impedes-open-access-and-sharing/
Qué Son Las Oficinas De Conocimiento Abierto Y Cómo Pueden Ayudar A Nuestras Universidades
El acceso abierto a las publicaciones de investigación es una tendencia que continúa en ascenso y, en palabras de la Comisión Europea, en 2013 alcanzó un punto de no retorno. En sintonía con esta tendencia, muchas Universidades y centros de conocimiento de todo el mundo están creando “Oficinas de Conocimiento Abierto” (OCA). Estas oficinas suelen tener un objetivo similar de ayudar yasesorar a los actores de la comunidad académica y científica en los temas de Acceso Abierto.
Como antecedente, un estudio financiado por la Comisión Europea, demostró que el 50% de las publicaciones científicas de Universidades de la Unión Europea en 2011 eran accesibles gratuitamente, y que más del 40% de los artículos científicos publicados entre el 2004 y 2011 están disponibles mediante licencias de acceso abierto.
Quizás este sea el dato más impactante que hoy podemos ofrecer sobre las dimensiones de este fenómeno pero es tan solo un indicador de un cambio más grande que se está produciendo en la manera que tenemos de comprender la ciencia y la tecnología. En muchos países ya se están produciendo cambios legislativos para favorecer la transición hacia el modelo de acceso abierto, como la ley argentina para la “Creación de Repositorios Digitales Institucionales de Acceso Abierto, Propios o Compartidos“.
A continuación, resumiremos algunas de las funciones principales de las oficinas de Conocimiento Abierto y cómo estas pueden ayudar a generar un cambio tecnológico en el mundo académico:
Crean una cultura favorable al acceso abierto al conocimiento
Sensibilizar a la comunidad académica sobre el significado y potencial del acceso abierto es algo fundamental. Pero no se trata solo de crear una cultura favorable sino de explicar un cambio que está tomando la forma de una norma legal y que afecta directamente a su dinámica de trabajo diario. En una recomendación a la Comisión Europea de 2012, por ejemplo, ya se estipula que “la política de acceso abierto a los resultados de la investigación científica debe aplicarse a toda investigación que reciba fondos públicos”. Y dado que gran parte de la investigación se financia con fondos públicos, este cambio afectará a muchos grupos de investigación.
Para conseguirlo, las OCAs suelen contar con comités académicos interdisciplinares que se encargan de debatir los mandatos y políticas institucionales sobre Acceso Abierto y formulan recomendaciones sobre estos temas a las máximas autoridades de la Institución.
Promueven la edición de revistas científicas y el depósito de documentos en bibliotecas digitales
El avance del acceso abierto está íntimamente ligado a la digitalización y difusión electrónica de los contenidos. En muchos casos, son las OCAs las encargadas de mantener los Repositorios y Portales de Revistas científicas, académicas y culturales, proporcionando la infraestructura tecnológica necesaria basada en software libre, estándares abiertos y normas de accesibilidad.
Pero además de eso, contribuyen a la mejora de la calidad científica de las publicaciones organizando encuentros con editores de la institución para abordar temas relacionados con la normalización editorial, gestión, visibilidad y el proceso de revisión por pares; buscan recursos económicos para subvencionar las publicaciones en abierto; y establecen redes institucionales para fomentar la diseminación de las publicaciones de los investigadores.
Capacitan a investigadores y personal universitario
La transición a un modelo abierto no es tan solo una cuestión cultural. Existe un desafío tecnológico que tiene que ver con el manejo de las tecnologías que lo hacen posible y los nuevos procesos que estas tecnologías imponen. Por un lado, las OCAs coordinan actividades para impulsar y organizar talleres de redacción de tesis, artículos científicos y técnicos y recursos educativos en abierto (REA); y por otro orientan a los investigadores en el uso de herramientas como Open Course Ware, E-Prints (versiones digitales de documentos de investigación), “Dspace”, u Open Journal Systems, entre otros. Finalmente, también ofrecen asesoramiento sobre los temas de derechos de autor y licencias Creative Commons y de la legislación vigente en cada país, que son piezas clave de la transición hacia el modelo de acceso abierto.
Analizan el impacto de las publicaciones digitales
Una de las grandes ventajas del acceso abierto tiene que ver con el análisis de impacto de las publicaciones. En el centro de la transición hacia el modelo de acceso abierto existe la voluntad de incrementar el impacto de las publicaciones científicas y por ello, la medición del impacto es una de las grandes tareas de las OCAs. En este campo, buscan generar datos fiables de la producción generada por la Institución, y desarrollan estrategias para almacenar los datos producidos en la institución. Con ello, tratan de definir indicadores de impacto de la producción científica de la institución.
Como se puede observar, existen varias ventajas que hacen recomendable la creación de estas infraestructuras que ayuden a nuestras investigaciones a completar la transición hacia el Acceso Abierto de manera exitosa.
—
Nardi, A., & Yrusta, L. (6 de noviembre de 2014). Qué son las Oficinas de Conocimiento Abierto y cómo pueden ayudar a nuestras universidades – Abierto al público. Recuperado el 12 de junio de 2015 de http://blogs.iadb.org/abierto-al-publico/2014/11/06/que-son-las-oficinas-de-conocimiento-abierto-y-como-pueden-ayudar-nuestras-universidades/
Un grupo de compañías de tecnologías, organizaciones de comercio, y organizaciones de la sociedad civil han creado la coalción nacional Re-Create para luchar por políticas de copyright más balanceadas. No olvide referirse a nuestra sección de Derechos de Autor en este mismo blog.
A group of technology companies, trade associations, and civil society organizations have joined forces to form Re:Create, a national coalition to advocate for balanced copyright policy. In the wake of recent proposals to amend the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as well as constant advances in the field of knowledge creation, coalition members are calling for responsive copyright law that balances the interests of those who create information and products with those of users and innovators, providing robust exceptions as well as limitations to copyright law in order that it not limit new uses and technologies.
Particular attention will be paid to the concept of fair use, considered a “safety valve” within U.S. copyright law and an important reinforcement of the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. This emphasis is particularly timely, as on April 29 register of copyrights Maria Pallante announced at a House Judiciary Committee hearing that the U.S. Copyright Office would launch a Fair Use Index—a searchable database listing court opinions pertaining to fair use. “This is perfect timing for us to be together and talk about the issues, and have a coordinated voice if possible,” said Carrie Russell, director of the American Library Association (ALA) Office for Information Technology Policy (OITP) Program on Public Access to Information. “I don’t believe we’re going to agree on all issues,” she added, but the wide and bipartisan range of partners will ensure that the coalition’s message—ensuring that copyright laws are clear, simple and transparent, while also fostering innovation, creativity, education and economic growth—reaches groups across the spectrum.
Partners from all sectors will be working together toward Re:Create’s agenda: ALA, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), the Center for Democracy & Technology, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Media Democracy Fund, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge, and the R Street Institute. According to its website, Re:Create will be “Supporting a Pro-Innovation, Pro-Creator, Pro-Consumer Copyright Agenda.”
TAKING THE WIDE VIEW
While there have been copyright coalitions before, Russell explained, this is probably the largest, and the most representative of the public interest. “This group really wants to focus on people,” she told LJ: “new creators, the kinds of people who are buying digital music, kids in school, people who are using 3-D printing. What do they want to do? Let’s make sure that they can create and the law doesn’t stifle that kind of thing.” In addition, she noted, this will give groups whose agendas don’t ordinarily overlap the chance to work together.
Krista Cox, director of public policy initiatives at ARL, agrees that the organization’s potential lies in its reach. “Re:Create…has civil society organizations, it has trade associations, it has companies, and it has both left-leaning and right-leaning organizations,” she noted. While similar initiatives in the nonprofit sector have focused on consumers, she told LJ, “this coalition is also talking about how important balanced copyright is to the tech industry, to companies. Fair use is important to everybody.”
Members of the copyright policy community have high hopes for the coalition’s interdisciplinary resources as well. “I’m hoping they’re able to harness their combined expertise to advocate for change,” said Kyle Courtney, copyright advisor for Harvard University and a 2015 LJ Mover & Shaker. “There are a lot of copyright experts in these organizations that are well respected in this field. I think combining forces, whether technical, legislative, legal, lobbying, and other advocacy fronts, can only aid the cause. And I think the cause is clear: promote the creation of copyright policies that make sense for…the public at large.”
In addition, as Kevin Smith, director of the Duke University Office of Copyright and Scholarly Communications, pointed out, “The academic community contributes substantial value to the cultural and creative productivity of the U.S., but the copyright part of that contribution (as opposed to patents and licensed technology) often seems to fly under the radar. The coalition would be one channel of influential stakeholders that could surface that contribution.”
PLANS FOR ENGAGEMENT
Re:Create partners will lobby for progressive copyright policy on an individual basis, according to their organizations’ interests, and also as a group. Russell, for instance, would like to see the coalition address copyright trolls. As director of OITP, she said, “I have library users call me who get cease and desist letters—not through the proper take-down procedure, but directly from a copyright troll, with a threat of litigation.… People are frightened, so they pay. And the rights holder [thinks], ‘Hey, this is a good gig.’ They don’t have to go to court. They don’t have to prove their case. All they have to do is get somebody to cough up $250, $2,000.” She worries that such predatory practices could lead to a trend of conservatism among librarians when it comes to fair use. “They’ll be worried about everything everybody’s doing, and that will cause harm to the library user and the public.”
While the coalition is comprised of a number of leading contributors, it also has the potential to work on a grassroots level. Upcoming events of interest on its website include the 3-D printing and policy conference 3D/DC 2015 in Washington, DC, and Seedtime on Cumberland, a festival celebrating Appalachian people, music, arts, and culture. Cox noted that members also worked together for events as a part of ARL’s Fair Use Week in February.
Courtney, for one, appreciates Re:Create’s grassroots potential. “Maybe they can even…do a white paper,” he suggested, “propose legislation that doesn’t necessarily have to go to Congress, but start talking about it in a way that actually gets the public to engage. Because they’re saying that the public are creators now, more than they ever have been, and we need to respect that [change]—and when these creators then become [published] authors themselves, respect their rights as well.”
This is, Russell added, an interesting time for copyright laws. While legislative change can be time-consuming and cumbersome, the coalition has a clear opportunity to influence policy, especially in the current climate. “It’s kind of exciting because—wow, there could be a new copyright law,” she told LJ. “This could be like the Copyright Act of 1976. We’ll see.”
Peet, L. (30 de abril de 2015). Library Associations Spearhead New Copyright Coalition. Recuperado el 1ero de mayo de 2015 de http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2015/04/copyright/library-associations-spearhead-new-copyright-coalition/#_
Exhortamos a que participen de la actividad: Derechos de autor y «Fair Use» en entornos digitales, el día miércoles, 29 de abril de 2015 en el edificio JBR salón 306 durante el horario de 11:30 a.m. a 12:50 p.m.
Panel: Open Data, Open Access, And Open Education – Key To Open Innovation?
Intellectual property stimulates creativity but at the same time holds back innovation, speakers said at a recent event on open innovation and alternative business models. The roundtable looked a range of models, such as open source and open data, and their advantages, to “all rights reserved” protection.
The event attempted to answer the questions: “Does intellectual property stimulate creativity or hold back innovation,” and, “are open innovation initiatives viable and competitive in today’s proprietary world” and what is their future.
The 19 March roundtable, entitled “Open Innovation in the Proprietary World,” was organised by the DiploFoundation. It was an event of the EU MAPPING project, where various experts from academia and private sector as well as other stakeholders from civil society and international organisations share their views on issues related to the digital transition, such as problems of personal data, intellectual property rights protection online, business models, economic exploitation of IP rights and open innovation.
The MAPPING (Managing Alternatives for Privacy, Property and Internet Governance) project, which commenced in March 2014 and is funded by the European Union, focuses on three areas: IP rights, privacy and internet governance. Its aim is to investigate and debate the existing innovation policies, business models and legal framework related to the implementation of the Digital Agenda for Europe and the changes needed to set up an improved governance structure for the EU innovation ecosystem.
Several roundtables and a larger stakeholder meeting, the General Assembly, are organised yearly. The end objective of the MAPPING project is to prepare a roadmap for European policies dealing with internet governance, privacy and intellectual property rights. The project will run till 2018.
The event opened with the presentation by Darren Todd, author of “Pirate Nation: How Digital Piracy is Transforming Business, Society and Culture.” He discussed whether intellectual property rights incentivise content creation and innovation or whether they stifle the creativity that they are designed to protect.
Making a distinction between copyright and patent protection, he gave the perspectives of both individuals and corporations.
“Neither the amateurs, nor the professionals are over-relying upon the “all rights reserved” law. They are concerned with commercial infringement,” he said. “That is well within the preview of alternative licenses,” he added.
However, this is not the case for corporations, such as film and music industries, Todd claimed. “Trade organisations are never going to deny control,” and they “will still petition such (copyright) protection, it is in their nature,” he observed.
Todd showed how patent protection could hold back innovation, and observed that pharmaceutical companies are “motivated to create but not to innovate.”
In his concluding remarks, Todd emphasised that IP rights both incentivise and stifle creativity. “We just have to make sure that there is enough of the first to keep a second to an absolute minimum,” he concluded.
On the issue of current intellectual property policies and whether they support innovation, Julia Reda, Member of European Parliament, Pirate Party, and a rapporteur for the review of the 2001 EU Copyright Directive, advocated for simplifying the copyright system in the EU, which she said would enable the free exchange of culture and knowledge across borders.
Reda highlighted two aspects that are important for progressive copyright reform: evidence-based approach and the political will.
Having 28 copyright systems of the EU member states and no harmonisation of such rules at the European level makes “the exchange of culture across borders within the European Union extremely difficult,” Reda said.
Rihards Gulbis, head of the Copyright Division of the Latvian Ministry of Culture, talked about the importance of legal certainty in copyright rules. Latvia currently holds the EU presidency.
According to Gulbis, the process of drafting and adoption of the single legislative proposal could entail long discussions among parties involved in its adoption, and result in vague provisions.
He observed that because of the legal certainty already achieved at the national level, EU member states are inclined to maintain their own legal framework.
Gulbis also stressed that legal certainty requires unified interpretation and application of the provisions. A single copyright regulation risks leaving out the flexibility of the copyright provisions, which is of high importance in order to keep pace with future technological developments.
“The most appropriate way forward,” he said, would be to “harmonise existing legislative provisions only so far as it is necessary for the ensuring of the digital single market, and by maintaining the possibility for member states to adopt legislative solutions which suit their cultural, social and economic needs.”
Development of IP policies requires deliberation on “how to accommodate not only interests of different stakeholders, but also an interest of achieving the greatest level of legal certainty and flexibility,“ Gulbis concluded.
Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group (UK), talked about the UK debate on copyright and innovation, how copyright interacts with innovation and what is driving UK IP policy.
The practical perspective of how to deal with legal uncertainty was offered by Philippe Laurent, counsel at Marx, Van Ranst, Vermeersch & Partners, tasked with a project on the protection of “interoperability information”.
The roundtable included discussion of business models of the free/open source movement. Panellists were: Mario Pena, chief business development officer and community manager at Safe Creative, an online copyright repository (Spain), Georg Greve, founder and former president of Free Software Foundation Europe, Giuseppe Mazziotti, assistant professor of intellectual property law at Trinity College Dublin, and Nnenna Nwakanma, co-founder and co-chair of FOSS Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA).
“Open source has become mainstream,” said Greve. “It is very clear that this is by now a gigantic global industry and the reason is very simple: it ultimately is about the freedom to build, to innovate and then use for commercial purposes as well.”
“Innovation can be developed without intellectual property protection,” observed Mazziotti. “At the same time what we need, and it is something which becomes increasingly difficult to achieve at the international and European level, is to define which areas should be targeted by intellectual property protection in the traditional sense, also with regard to which kind of works.”
In the afternoon session, Greve in his keynote speech entitled “Innovation through liberty” stressed the importance of adapting the laws to a changing environment. “We should review our laws to see if they still fit because the world changes. The world has changed and to a very large extent because of innovation,” he said.
Claire Gallon (Libertic), Dimitar Dimitrov (Wikimedia) and Ryan Scicluna (University of Malta) talked about the so-called facilitators of open innovation, namely, open data, open access and open education.
Dimitrov stressed the importance of sharing and the importance of attribution with regard to open access.
Scicluna discussed the role of academia in the process of facilitating open innovation and talked about various initiatives at the University of Malta in this respect.
“Open access is a fundamental enabler of open innovation for the simple fact that research being carried out is more effectively disseminated across multiple viewers,” he said.
“The whole community benefits from open access as research is widely more accessible and researchers have a higher chance of being accredited for their work,” Scicluna noted.
More information about the MAPPING project and upcoming events can be found here.
Bourtchouladze, E. (31 de marzo de 2015). Panel: Open Data, Open Access, And Open Education – Key To Open Innovation? Recuperado el 27 de abril de 2015 de http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/03/31/panel-open-data-open-access-and-open-education-key-to-open-innovation/?utm_source=IP-Watch+Subscribers&utm_campaign=65e5ac6fc7-DAILY_SUMMARY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b78685696b-65e5ac6fc7-352138529
Can You Copyright a Dream?: How the Martin Luther King estate controls the national hero’s image.
The new film Selma has sparked a bitter public debate, mostly concerning the film’s representation of President Lyndon Johnson’s stance on voting rights and how much artistic license is appropriate for a biopic centering on a major historical event. Less discussed, however, is the degree to which the MLK estate’s tough stance on copyright affected the historical accuracy of the film—and has affected many other films and books before it. What is lost when a biopic cannot take full advantage of its main character’s rhetorical brilliance? And what alternatives are available for filmmakers that want to produce history, not hagiography, about MLK?
Selma director Ava DuVernay may well have taken more license than artistically necessary in the confrontational scenes between Martin Luther King Jr. and President Johnson. But inaccuracies in other significant parts of the film were forced upon DuVernay by copyright law. The film’s numerous scenes of King delivering powerful speeches regarding civil rights all had to be paraphrased, because the MLK estate has already licensed the film rights in those speeches to DreamWorks and Warner Bros., for an MLK biopic Steven Spielberg is slated to produce.
The litigious MLK estate, controlled now by King’s descendants, has a long history of employing copyright to restrict the use of King’s speeches. The estate appears to have two objectives: maximize revenue and control King’s image. In the 1990s, the estate sued USAToday for publishing the full text of the “I Have a Dream” speech King delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in August 1963, and the newspaper quickly settled by paying for a license and attorneys’ fees. The estate then sued CBS for including footage of the speech in a segment of its documentary series The 20th Century with Mike Wallace. In its defense in court, CBS argued that the speech had entered into the public domain because King had not complied with the notice and registration requirements of the Copyright Act of 1909. The trial court agreed with CBS, but an appellate court reversed and ruled in favor of the MLK estate on narrow technical grounds. (Specifically, although the speech was delivered to a live audience of several hundred thousand people and broadcast to millions more, the appellate court treated the delivery of the speech as only a limited publication of the underlying text that did not trigger the 1909 Act’s notice and registration requirements.)
During the summer of 2013, as the nation was celebrating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, the MLK estate restricted broadcasts of “I Have a Dream,” but it did not lock down the speech altogether: It authorized sales of DVDs of the speech, and it licensed AT&T to use segments of the speech in cell phone ads. Over the years, the MLK estate has also licensed King speeches to be used in ads by Alcatel, Apple, Chevrolet and Mercedes. And it received over $700,000 from the foundation erecting the MLK Memorial in Washington, D.C., for the right to use MLK’s speeches and likeness in the Memorial.
How is it that one estate can control the use of speeches so central to American history 50 years after their delivery and 47 years after King’s tragic assassination?
One reason is that King was a private citizen. Had King been a federal government official when he wrote his speeches, those writings would always have been in the public domain. But because King was the extraordinary national political figure who was not a federal employee, the copyrights belonged to him and passed to his estate upon his death.
Another issue is that the term of copyright protection has grown increasingly long. The first copyright act adopted by Congress in 1790 provided a term of protection of 14 years after first publication that could be renewed for an additional 14 years, for a total of 28 years. The initial purpose of the exclusive rights granted by the copyright law was to provide authors with an economic incentive to create works for the public good. At the same time, the duration of the author’s monopoly was limited so as to enable other authors to build on the first artist’s work.
Thanks to aggressive lobbying by publishers, the estates of authors and, more recently, the motion picture studios, Congress has repeatedly extended the copyright term. In 1831, Congress extended it to two 21-year periods after first publication for a total of 42 years; and in 1909, Congress extended the term to two 28-year periods for a total of 56 years. Then, in the 1976 Copyright Act, in an effort to harmonize U.S. law with the international law of the Berne Convention, Congress lengthened the copyright term to the life of the author plus 50 years. In 1998, Congress added 20 more years of protection, to the life of the author plus 70 years, citing the law of the European Union as an international precedent.
The extensions have always been retroactive, applying to works already in existence. Thus, King’s speeches and other writings will not enter the public domain until at least 70 years after his death: January 1, 2039.
In Congress’ rush to please copyright owners, it has lost sight of the balance the founders intended. A term of protection of “life plus 70” grossly exceeds the economic incentive any author needs to create a work while constraining the ability of new artists to build on the original. And term of life plus 70 is particularly unnecessary in the case of Martin Luther King; King did not need any economic incentive to write his eloquent speeches, let alone a term of life plus 70.
Some agree that Congress has gone too far. The constitutionality of the most recent term extension in 1998 was challenged on the grounds that it went beyond the authority granted by Congress in the Constitution’s Intellectual Property Clause. That clause authorizes Congress to provide authors exclusive rights in their writings only for “limited Times.” In 2003, the Supreme Court rejected this challenge in Eldred v. Ashcroft, finding that a term of life plus 70 met the “limited Times” requirement because it had an end date—even though the term in practice could be as much as 10 times longer than the term adopted by Congress shortly after the ratification of the Constitution.
Congress in theory has the power to shorten the term. But since the enactment of the 1976 Copyright Act, the United States has joined a web of international agreements that mandate copyright terms of life plus 70. It is unlikely that Congress would adopt amendments to the copyright law that would place the United States in breach of these agreements.
Fortunately, filmmakers and historians are not entirely at the mercy of the MLK estate. The Copyright Act contains a fair use provision, which the Supreme Court in Eldred described as a “built-in First Amendment accommodation.” Fair use is a flexible, open-ended doctrine that, in the words of the Supreme Court, “allows courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statue when … it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster.”
Fair use has been essential to allowing historians, text book authors, documentary filmmakers and news organizations to use excerpts of King’s speeches and other writings without paying exorbitant license fees or securing the permission of the MLK estate. In other words, fair use has enabled the use of King’s words without the MLK estate dictating what was said about King. On the flip side, fair use has also diminished public awareness of the MLK estate’s hard-nosed copyright positions.
In the past, the utility of fair use was somewhat constrained by the perception that it permitted the use of only short excerpts. This imposed on historians and documentarians the dilemma of choosing between using short excerpts or paying the MLK estate high license fees and subjecting themselves to estate interference. The budget of the project often dictated the approach.
Short excerpts and careful paraphrases are less than optimal in conveying the full context and flavor of King’s oratory, but nonetheless are adequate for the educational purposes of many books and documentaries. Even a few seconds of footage of the “I Have A Dream” speech are sufficient to convey to the viewer elements of King’s vision and power.
Where short excerpts and careful paraphrases have been viewed as inadequate is in the creation of feature films. Numerous directors, including Oliver Stone, have considered producing King biopics, only to abandon them when they could not meet the MLK estate’s demands for fees and image control. Ava DuVerney found a work-around in Selma by paraphrasing King’s speeches, but at the cost of authenticity, which is a particularly serious problem in a world where people are far more likely to learn history from a biopic than from a textbook.
And the work-around might not actually work as a matter of copyright law. A close paraphrase that captures the speaker’s style and substance may still infringe copyright. Although some King family members declared themselves satisfied with the film, the statute of limitations on copyright infringement is three years, so they have plenty of time to change their minds.
On the other hand, a paraphrase that does not accurately capture the speaker’s style and substance may place the speaker in a negative light. A paraphrase of one of King’s speeches at the MLK Memorial in Washington, D.C., made him sound, according to Maya Angelou, “like an arrogant twit.” The paraphrase subsequently was sandblasted off the monument.
DuVernay may have thread the needle of a paraphrase that captures the essence of King’s cadence and tone yet doesn’t infringe. But future filmmakers may not be as skilled—or as careful—as DuVernay.
Over the past two decades, fair use jurisprudence has evolved significantly, and courts now are far more likely to permit the use of significant portions of a work—and indeed, entire works—if the use is for a different purpose from the original work. Courts have found that fair use permits the significant amount of copying necessary to create search indices for websites, books and television programs; digital libraries for the print disabled; and databases of legal briefs. Under this line of cases, DuVernay would have had a strong fair use defense had she used King’s actual words rather than just paraphrased them. While King’s purpose was to motivate his audience to action, DuVernay’s purpose was to educate her audience about King and his role in changing this country.
DuVernay might have concluded that even though she had a convincing fair use argument, quoting King verbatim would have invited a lawsuit from the MLK estate, particularly given that the estate might not have approved of the manner in which King is portrayed in the film. She has stated that she didn’t seek the King estate’s copyright permission because, in addition to the fact that the rights had already been licensed to DreamWorks and Warner Bros., she knew the estate would demand control over the film’s depiction of King. And indeed, the film presents King three dimensionally, not as a saint but as a man with self-doubt and a complicated marriage. Perhaps DuVernay decided that it was worth sacrificing the accuracy of King’s words in order to minimize the risk of the MLK estate taking legal action that could delay or prevent the release of a film that accurately displayed the content of King’s character. Based on the estate’s track record, it is hard to fault this decision.
Band, J. (12 de enero de 2015). Can You Copyright a Dream? Recuperado el 24 de abril de 2015 de http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/selma-martin-luther-king-can-you-copyright-a-dream-114187.html#.VTqV0NJViko
Día Mundial del Libro y del Derecho de Autor: 23 de abril
El 23 de abril es un día simbólico para la literatura mundial ya que ese día en 1616 fallecieron Cervantes, Shakespeare e Inca Garcilaso de la Vega. La fecha también coincide con el nacimiento o la muerte de otros autores prominentes como Maurice Druon, Haldor K.Laxness, Vladimir Nabokov, Josep Pla y Manuel Mejía Vallejo.
La alfabetización es la puerta de entrada al aprendizaje y es esencial para fomentar la autoestima y la autonomía de las personas. Los libros, en todas sus formas, desempeñan una fuención esencial a este respecto. (Mensaje de Irina Bokova, Directora General de la UNESCO, con motivo del Día Mundial del Libro y del Derecho de Autor, 23 de abril de 2015)
Fue natural que la Conferencia General de la UNESCO, celebrada en París en 1995, decidiera rendir un homenaje universal a los libros y autores en esta fecha, alentando a todos, y en particular a los jóvenes, a descubrir el placer de la lectura y a valorar las irremplazables contribuciones de aquellos quienes han impulsado el progreso social y cultural de la humanidad. Respecto a este tema, la UNESCO creó el Día Mundial del Libro y del Derecho de Autor, así como el Premio UNESCO de Literatura Infantil y Juvenil Pro de la Tolerancia.
En el 2012, el «Index Translationum» celebró su 80° aniversario. El Index Translationum es un repertorio de obras traducidas en todo el mundo, una bibliografía internacional de traducciones. Fue creado en 1932. Instrumento irremplazable que permite inventariar las traducciones publicadas a nivel mundial. Para celebrar dicho acontecimiento, la UNESCO tiene previsto organizar un debate sobre la utilidad y el porvenir de esta herramienta.
Este año Día Mundial del Libro y del Derecho de Autor.
Capital Mundial del Libro 2015: Incheon (República de Corea)
Cada año, la UNESCO y las tres organizaciones profesionales internacionales del mundo del libro (la Unión Internacional de Editores, la Federación Internacional de Libreros y la Federación Internacional de Asociaciones e Instituciones Bibliotecarias) eligen una capital mundial del libro cuyo mandato empieza cada 23 de abril. Así, la iniciativa se añade a las celebraciones del Día Mundial del Libro y del Derecho de Autor y pone de manifiesto la colaboración entre los principales actores del sector del libro y el compromiso de las ciudades para promover el libro y la lectura.
La ciudad de Incheon (República de Corea) fue elegida para este año en reconocimiento de su programa encaminado a promover la lectura entre los jóvenes y los sectores desfavorecidos de la población, de acuerdo con el Comité de Selección.
Literatura, Libro, Día Mundial del Libro y del Derecho de Autor, 23 de abril, Derecho de Autor, autores, libros y autores, Literatura Infantil. (s.f.). Recuperado el 24 de abril de http://www.un.org/es/events/bookday/
Microjuris transmitirá simposio de acceso a información pública y documentos confidenciales
Enmarcado en el 60 aniversario del Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña (ICP), el Archivo General de Puerto Rico (AGPR) anuncia la conmemoración de su sesenta aniversario como entidad custodio de los documentos históricos y patrimonio cultural de Puerto Rico. La celebración será dedicada al reconocido historiador puertorriqueño Dr. Fernando Picó, quien a través de sus escritos ha indagado profundamente en la historia puertorriqueña.
Como parte de la serie de actividades a celebrarse se incluirán presentaciones de libros, exhibiciones, muestras de cine y conferencias, entre otras que se llevarán a cabo a los largo de este año en el mismo Archivo General en Puerta de Tierra.
Entre ellas se destaca el Primer simposio de acceso a la información pública y documentos confidenciales que será transmitido en vivo a través de Microjuris al Día. El simposio se ofrecerá el jueves, 19 de marzo de 2015 de 9:00AM a 4:00PM en el anfiteatro del Archivo General.
El evento contará con los siguientes deponentes: la Jueza Migdalia Fraticelli Torres, el Lcdo. Oscar J. Serrano, el Lcdo.Efrén Rivera Ramos, la Dra. Ivonne Acosta Lespier, el Lcdo. Samuel Quiñones García y el Dr. José Javier Colón Morera, entre otros.
La actividad es libre de costo y abierta al público general.
Recuperado el 27 de febrero de 2015 de: http://aldia.microjuris.com/2015/02/25/microjuris-transmitira-simposio-de-acceso-informacion-publica-y-documentos-confidenciales/
La colección de reserva y la ley de derechos de autor
La Ley de Derechos de Autor de los Estados Unidos fue el tema de la conferencia ofrecida por la Dra. Ketty Rodríguez Casillas del pasado 24 de abril. La conferenciante, que forma parte de la facultad bibliotecaria del Recinto de Río Piedras de la UPR, disertó sobre aspectos considerados violatorios de los derechos de un autor.
Asimismo, hizo énfasis en los elementos del estatuto a considerar al momento de utilizar obras para propósitos educativos, ya sea en el salón de clase o como parte de los materiales que se colocan en la colección de reserva de una biblioteca.
Aclaró que no necesariamente se considera uso justo la utilización de una obra protegida alegando propósitos educativos. La ley exige siempre que se cumpla con ciertos requerimientos aún cuando se utiliza el material para fines educativos.
Al momento de utilizar materiales protegidos por los derechos de autor hay que tomar en cuenta aspectos tales como: el propósito para el que su utiliza, la naturaleza de la obra, la cantidad de la obra que se utilizará y el efecto sobre la comercialización del original.
Rodríguez Sosa, S. (8 de mayo de 2012). Colecciones al Día. Accesado el 11 de febrero de 2012 de http://coleccionesyalgomas.blogspot.com/2012/05/la-coleccion-de-reserva-y-la-ley-de.html
BIBLIOTECA ADMINISTRACIÓN DE EMPRESAS (BAE) 