Appeals Court Rules That Library of Congress Can No Longer Require Deposit of Published Works
An appeals court has ruled that it is unconstitutional for the government to require deposit of published works in the Library of Congress
An appeals court has ruled that it is unconstitutional for the government to require deposit of published works in the Library of Congress
Are scholarly publishers primed to become the critical content suppliers for the big Generative AI companies?
The current uproar over artificial intelligence does not show us what the future of AI will look like, but rather how a human population falls into predictable patterns as it contemplates any new development: we are observing not AI but ourselves observing AI.
The copyright warning notice prescribed by the US Copyright Office misleads library patrons about their fair use rights, and must change.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the Andy Warhol–Prince fair use case. What does this mean for scholarly communications, and the reuse of materials for AI training?
Inconsistency in location/format of usage rights information and CC badges across formats and platforms makes it challenging to discover if/how articles can be reused. @lisalibrarian
A Federal judge’s ruling offered a stern rebuke of the Internet Archive’s National Emergency Library and its controlled digital lending service, providing a significant victory for the four publishers that had filed suit.
On Friday, the Internet Archive lost its “controlled digital lending” case on summary judgment. Reactions today from our Chefs Rick Anderson, Joseph Esposito, Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, Roy Kaufman, Roger C. Schonfeld, and Karin Wulf.
Best double check those Roman numerals in your copyright notice…
Five pending cases may set new ground rules for use of training materials for AI. Here is what to watch.
A compilation of links and a video to incisive analyses of ChatGPT and what it means for the future.
Ginger Williams and Posie Aagaard offer a look at the Texas Library Coalition and its new deal with Elsevier.
GitHub and Microsoft are being sued for using open source software without creator attribution in alleged violation of open licensing requirements. What implications does this have for the scholarly literature and Creative Commons licenses?
New arrangements planned in Texas and India move us away from a universal transition to OA, and back towards the Big Deal.
A flip to open access requires a holistic view of a journal’s incoming revenue. Are there important contributions to revenue that disappear with open access, and how can those funds be replaced?