---
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.Â
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.Â
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: Â 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: Â 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: ! "Â 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 -Â 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.
---
<p>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.</p>
<p>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...</p>
<p>This led to a discussion of what is copyrightable. Remember: <a href="https://www.martineve.com/2010/11/04/the-problems-of-copyleft-twitter-and-tweets/">many things are not copyrightable</a>! Facts, titles, slogans, short phrases and non-original material are not.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I was curious to know what would happen if a <b>civil</b> 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.</p>
<p><b>Edit: 24th February 2012</b>:</p>
<p><s>Some additional information on the use of epigraphs comes from Annette Moore in Sussex's library, via <a href="http://www.robinshobden.com">Sarah Robins-Hobden</a>, on the use of epigraphs:</s></p>
<p><b>Further edit: 26th February 2012</b>:</p>
<p><i>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.</i></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>If epigraphs are being used to set the scene, rather than the focus of direct critique, permission should be sought from the author.</p>
<p><i>Featured image by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/opensourceway/">opensourceway</a> under a CC-BY-SA license.</i></p>