--- layout: post status: publish published: true title: Copyright and academia, particularly for Ph.Ds wordpress_id: 1921 wordpress_url: https://www.martineve.com/?p=1921 date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yMiAxOTo1NTowNiArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yMiAxOTo1NTowNiArMDEwMA== categories: - Technology - Academia tags: - Sussex - PhDchat - Copyright comments: - id: 6637 author: M-H Ward author_email: mhwardau@gmail.com author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yMiAyMDoxNTowMCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yMiAyMDoxNTowMCArMDEwMA== content: ! 'I''m interested in this area and I''m a bit confused by your expressions ''copyright checking'' and ''permission sought''. Can you explain a bit more about what these mean for you? Thanks. ' - id: 6638 author: Ailsa Haxell author_email: ailsa.haxell@aut.ac.nz author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yMiAyMDo0ODowMCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yMiAyMDo0ODowMCArMDEwMA== content: ! 'You pose a really interesting concern there in the last para.  I wouldnt want to be the test case :) There''s also lots of copyright issues around image use: so much is now easier with word processing than in old days of type, but also more restricted as images even in a montage are still use of an entire work, and even if digitally altered remain with a fingerprint of the original...' - id: 6639 author: Alistair Brown author_email: alibrown18@gmail.com author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yMiAyMjowMDowMCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yMiAyMjowMDowMCArMDEwMA== content: ! 'Interesting post, Martin. Copyright is frustrating in academia for all sorts of reasons - and I agree with much of what you''ve said elsewhere about following open models of publication to bypass the problem.  Just one thought on theses specifically. You''re "curious to know what would happen if a civil copyright suit were brought against a thesis. As the copyright holder, the doctorate holder would be liable, but it is the university that published it." But am I right in thinking that in some universities, if the university helps to fund the  research such as through a grant to do a specified project, it is the university which technically holds the copyright? With research councils doing funding through block grants for particular PhD projects/areas, I wonder if things could get a bit sticky between universities and thesis authors if a third party lodged a copyright complaint in one of these cases. Or, for that matter, between universities and authors who want to publish their research freely online.' - id: 6640 author: M-H Ward author_email: mhwardau@gmail.com author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yMiAyMzo0MjowMCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yMiAyMzo0MjowMCArMDEwMA== content: ! 'Any grant documentation would be expected to cover the intellectual property of the outcomes. Generally it is accepted that students own the rights in their written work (thesis), but the rights in something they create as part of their PhD project (eg a widget, a film, whatever) are negotiable, are included in the initial negotiations, and should be understood from the get-go. And if a student was the subject of a copyright claim that was proved against them, their PhD could be removed, I would imagine, as they could be considered to have plagiarised. This would not be anyone''s reponsibility but their own. Is it common for PhD theses to be put through text-matching software (such as TurnItIn)? This was what I was trying to get at with my initial question below. ' - id: 6641 author: Martin Paul Eve author_email: martin@martineve.com author_url: https://www.martineve.com date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yMyAwOTo1MzowMCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yMyAwOTo1MzowMCArMDEwMA== content:  I believe that TurnItIn is allowed for student use at Sussex, but I meant more that submitters are responsible for making sure that they adhere to (not rigorously defined) fair dealing restrictions. For instance, how much text may be cited, image reproduction etc. - id: 6642 author: Martin Paul Eve author_email: martin@martineve.com author_url: https://www.martineve.com date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yMyAwOTo1NDowMCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yMyAwOTo1NDowMCArMDEwMA== content:  Indeed; you can embargo online publication of your thesis if you believe that there is a good cause for doing so for up to 3 years, reviewed every 6 months. - id: 6643 author: M-H Ward author_email: mhwardau@gmail.com author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yNiAwMDoxMDowMCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yNiAwMDoxMDowMCArMDEwMA== content: ! " All these questions will be answered somewhere. For example, in Australia and NZ, the amount that can be quoted is defined in their Copyright Acts. Supervisor, Graduate Deans and Uni Libraries should be able to give guidance. My understanding is that a thesis is not a publication, in the sense that it is only prepared to be submitted for examination. Its 'publication' in digital form should not preclude future publication of material in it in another form. \n\nBut these are legal questions, and if the answer isn't available to you you should seek it out vigorously if you feel that it may affect you negatively. You Uni wil have a department that deals with legal questions like that, and you could try approaching them. Unis have a duty to protect enrolled students at every level, and there are many cases when HDR students have been protected, legally and/or in the media, by their Unis." - id: 6644 author: Annette Moore author_email: a.moore@sussex.ac.uk author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yNiAwMDo1ODowMCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yNiAwMDo1ODowMCArMDEwMA== content: ! 'In our copyright workshops for doctoral students at Sussex, we suggest that students refer to  the Society of Authors and the Publishing Association guidelines when including quotes under the fair dealing exception for criticism or review.  Their guidelines for what may be considered ''fair'' by the courts are a single extract of up to 400 words or a series of extracts, none of which exceed 300 words, up to a total of 800 words from a work. See Quick guide to permissions (2009) at http://www.societyofauthors.net/sites/default/files/Guide%20to%20Permissions.pdf Unfortunately, the fair dealing exception of criticism and review does not apply to unpublished material therefore permission would need to be sought from the copyright  holder for substantial use of quotes from archival material.' - id: 6645 author: Annette Moore author_email: a.moore@sussex.ac.uk author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yNiAwMjoxNTowMCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yNiAwMjoxNTowMCArMDEwMA== content: ! "Some interesting issues here.  I'd like to add something about the requirement of 'originality' in copyright.  The legal use of the term, 'original' seems to bare little similarity to the common conception of the term as something that is new or has not been done before.  Copyright law only require that a sufficient amount of work originates from the author independently and has not been copied from another work.  If it is similar to something that already exists but has been created independently, it still qualifies for copyright. \n\nAlso, regarding copyright checking and seeking permissions -  we have had some very positive feedback from doctoral students we have advised at Sussex about  seeking  permissions to include third party copyright material in their thesis.  A couple of examples - diagrams from BSI publications and  tables from an American  journal publisher - permissions received within a week and, in the case of the journal publisher, a licence to use the material was given after completing the Copyright Clearance Center's RightsCentral online application.  There may be some refusals from copyright holders, particularly if they are 'renowned' authors or their estates.  I am thinking of James Joyce here as his estate is renowned for its intractable defence of copyright, but happily for many scholars, the published works of James Joyce passed out of copyright on the last day of 2011!  \n\nIn terms of 'risk assessment' there is a spectrum of risk from low-risk to high-risk in using any of the 'fair dealing' defences, as the interpretation of whether the use is 'fair' is ultimately for the courts to decide. If permission was directly refused by the copyright holder for inclusion of third party content, I think it is very unlikely that a decision would be made to publish the thesis at Sussex.   There is a lot of guidance available to students, not only from  the University Library but also from  from National bodies such as JISC with their Strategic Content Alliance Toolkit - http://www.web2rights.com/SCAIPRModule/ - for using content and also creating content.  In the current technological environment we are all users and creators of content, so understanding the key issues through doctoral study is, in my opinion, a useful skill even though copyright law can be illogical and frustrating at times. \n\n" - id: 6646 author: Annette Moore author_email: a.moore@sussex.ac.uk author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yNiAxNjozMzowMCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yNiAxNjozMzowMCArMDEwMA== content: ! 'Thanks Martin for editing your post. My only concern is that the example of use of ''epigraphs'' in a publication is more often given by publishers in their permission guidelines as an example of a ''non fair use'' situation requiring permission from the author, as epigraphs are  more often used to serve as introductory asides rather than forming part of the central argument of the chapter.  For ''fair use''   to apply  to any quote from another author''s work, the material quoted must be accompanied by some actual discussion or assessment to warrant the criticism or review classification as well as consideration of the amount of material quoted (not more than is necessary for the purpose of the review); the work has already been made available to the public and the sources of the material is acknowledged.  ' - id: 6647 author: Martin Paul Eve author_email: martin@martineve.com author_url: https://www.martineve.com date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yNiAxNjozNTowMCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yNiAxNjozNTowMCArMDEwMA== content: Thanks for this excellent clarification, Annette; I've also sent you an email! - id: 6648 author: M-H Ward author_email: mhwardau@gmail.com author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yNiAyMTo0NDowMCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wMi0yNiAyMTo0NDowMCArMDEwMA== content: Annette, thanks for your comment. I knew that someone would know! It's really easy for PhD students to get really concerned about something, and not know how to get guidance. And, sadly, supervisors aren't always as much help as they could be. ---

Yesterday, Tuesday the 21st of February 2012, I participated in a discussion at the University of Sussex Researcher Hive on copyright and academia, with particular emphasis on doctoral researchers, joined by Sarah Robins-Hobden, Liz Thackray and others. This post will attempt to document some of the ideas we discussed. It's far from authoritative as it comes from my flawed memory, without notes, from the occasion, but hopefully it will spark some thoughts from others.

We began by laying our ideological cards on the table. I find copyright in academia extremely frustrating. I think the idea of "intellectual property" is dubious and comes from the flawed idea that the first person to produce something becomes the owner of the property regardless of the feasibility of others independently producing it. Furthermore, when publishing, can the copyright holder exercise a form of censorship by withholding permission if a piece is critical? This doesn't seem to have been thoroughly tested in courts of law. It also ties in the commercial side of publishing; the second a financial transaction kicks in (buying a book etc.), any claim to purely academic criticism goes out the window...

This led to a discussion of what is copyrightable. Remember: many things are not copyrightable! Facts, titles, slogans, short phrases and non-original material are not.

We also debated, given the originality clause, where the line lay in academia between copyright violation and plagiarism; after all, ideas are not copyrightable, but specific expressions of the idea are. Plagiarism seems to work around this.

One of the most interesting points of the discussion was in relation to Sussex's new, mandatory e-thesis submission and publication. In this case, the thesis is put online on Sussex's website, but copyright is retained by the researcher. This led to several considerations: 1.) theses now have to undergo copyright checking and permission sought, even for doctoral works; 2.) if permission is refused, the university have a risk assessment to publish anyway with a takedown policy.

I was curious to know what would happen if a civil copyright suit were brought against a thesis. As the copyright holder, the doctorate holder would be liable, but it is the university that published it. There seems quite a burden on the researcher, given this new requirement that the thesis is published online. This raises again the concern that researchers are being stifled from what they need to say by the bureaucratic overhead of copyright checking, despite academic exemptions.

Edit: 24th February 2012:

Some additional information on the use of epigraphs comes from Annette Moore in Sussex's library, via Sarah Robins-Hobden, on the use of epigraphs:

Further edit: 26th February 2012:

I need to apologize for publicising this information without consulting the source personally. I had believed that the information was given in a general advice capacity, but it was, technically, in response to an individual query. As such, I'd like to clarify that I have paraphrased Annette's response; these are my words, not her official advice. Annette has, though, contributed some extremely insightful remarks in the comments below that I would recommend to interested parties.

To use an epigraph without permission under the 'fair dealing' exemption for criticism and review, the content of the epigraph itself should form part of the critique of that chapter.

If epigraphs are being used to set the scene, rather than the focus of direct critique, permission should be sought from the author.

Featured image by opensourceway under a CC-BY-SA license.