Copyright and Legal Affairs Report
Policy
WIPO Director General Gurry calls for seamless, global, legal, digital content marketplace to bridge copyright issues
At the "Copyright and the Digital Agenda" conference on 6 June, WIPO Director General spoke on his organisation's priorities in the field of copyright.
At the "Copyright and the Digital Agenda" conference on 6 June, WIPO Director General spoke on his organisation's priorities in the field of copyright.
At the conference, organized by the European Union (EU) Greek presidency in Athens, Gurry is reported to have called for development of a seamless, global, legal, digital content marketplace that could offer the chance to bridge seemingly intractable copyright issues, and that the search for such a market should take the form of a dialogue that includes all stakeholders.
Source: Intellectual Property Watch at http://bit.ly/1icjPAD.
United Kingdom – Three Statutory Instruments for Hargreaves exceptions come into force, two others re-introduced
The UK Government re-introduced its SIs for quotation and parody and for personal copies for private use, with a target commencement date of 1 October. In the meantime, the exceptions for research, education, libraries and archives (including text and data mining); for persons with disabilities, and public administration, came into force on 1 June. The Government's press release promised that the reforms would bring "estimated benefits of at least £250 million to the UK economy over the next 10 years." It continued to state that, "The reforms will give a number of sectors a legal framework fit for the digital age, removing the burden of unnecessary regulations and helping the UK better preserve and use copyright material. Changes from today include the removal of copyright barriers to Text and Data Mining for non-commercial research. This important analytic technique helps the UK’s scientific and academic community to deliver new advances in medicine, technology and research." STM's position, both in its dealings with the UK Government as well as in other forae on the subject of text and data mining, has consistently been that copyright is not a barrier to text and data mining, and the Association has expressed concerns at the contract override provisions that were proposed for the UK text and data mining exception. Sources: UK Government press release on the coming into force of exceptions on 1 June at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-exceptions-to-copyright-reflect-digital-age. The re-laid Statutory Instruments are at http://bit.ly/1nme6W8 and http://bit.ly/1pm9G50. On STM's position on exceptions for text and data mining, see https://www.stm-assoc.org/2013_11_11_Text_and_Data_Mining_Declaration.pdf.
United Kingdom – Government response to consultation on regulations for Licensing of Orphan Works
The UK Government has indicated that it is pushing ahead with both its orphan works schemes in its response to the consultation on the draft regulations published on 30 May 2014.
The UK Government has indicated that it is pushing ahead with both its orphan works schemes in its response to the consultation on the draft regulations published on 30 May 2014.
There are two sets of regulations, one implementing the terms of the European Union Orphan Works Directive, and the other creating a licensing scheme to be managed by the IPO to license orphan works on behalf of absent owners on the basis that such works are lost and have become bona vacantia. Some legal scholars have questioned whether the latter set of regulations is compatible with the exceptions allowed under the EU Copyright Directive.
The Government's response is at http://bit.ly/1pGIeQX. For further reading, see an article by Eleonora Rosati's at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2323393.
United Kingdom - Opinion on Search Engines and Piracy
Mike Weatherly MP, the Prime Minister’s Adviser on Intellectual Property, published a new discussion paper “Search Engines and Piracy” on 29 May, which outlines the role search engines play in “inadvertently guiding consumers towards illegal content” and which are therefore “well placed to be part of the solution” to online copyright infringement.
Mike Weatherly MP, the Prime Minister’s Adviser on Intellectual Property, published a new discussion paper “Search Engines and Piracy” on 29 May, which outlines the role search engines play in “inadvertently guiding consumers towards illegal content” and which are therefore “well placed to be part of the solution” to online copyright infringement.
The paper notes that, given its market share, Google should “take the lead in setting responsible industry standards” and help “promote and guide consumers towards legitimate content.” Amongst its ten recommendations the paper suggests that search engines should remove sites which are subject to High Court blocking orders from its search results, reduce the flow of advertising funds to infringing sites, introduce a formal reporting system for “auto-complete” terms and to develop means of introducing trust-marks for legal content on to search results. For its part, Google – which has an Appendix of suggestions of its own in the paper – calls for the ability to crawl licensed services to make it easier to promote them in search results. The report concludes that “piracy remains the biggest threat to the growth of digital commerce; if we want the UK to continue to be a leader in creativity and innovation, the UK must also be an international leader in IP rights protection.”
Although the report has no formal status within Government as such, it is nevertheless an important document in terms of outlining the state of play in the debate over search. As internet service providers and rightsholders come ever closer to an agreement on dealing with infringement, search remains a missing piece of the puzzle. A report from the IP Adviser to the PM can leave all players in little doubt as to the increased profile and importance of the issue in Whitehall.
Source: The PA's PA. The paper can be found at http://bit.ly/1kpYToC.
United States - First Report of The US Industry Copyright Alert System
The Copyright Alert System set up in 2013 by internet service providers and copyright holders to stop unauthorised music and film downloads, saw 1.3 million alerts sent out in it its first 10 months, according to a new report.
The Copyright Alert System set up in 2013 by internet service providers and copyright holders to stop unauthorised music and film downloads, saw 1.3 million alerts sent out in it its first 10 months, according to a new report.
The Center for Copyright Information, the coalition of rights holders and internet service providers operating the alert system, released a report on May 28. It showed that of the 1.3 million alerts, most were in the “initial educational phases,” and only 265 challenges were filed, with “no findings of false positives.”
The press release and report are at http://bit.ly/1uFzQPC.
United States – Digital resale & digital “first sale” hearing
As part of the US process on possible copyright law revision, a hearing was conducted on 4 June in New York on digital resale and digital first sale issues (first sale is similar to the EU concept of ‘exhaustion’).
As part of the US process on possible copyright law revision, a hearing was conducted on 4 June in New York on digital resale and digital first sale issues (first sale is similar to the EU concept of ‘exhaustion’).
The first sale issue came up in the Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons decision last year (STM News April 2013), and Wiley’s CEO Stephen Smith was among the witnesses testifying at the hearing. Mr. Smith told the panel that Wiley and other publishers have had to consider their participation in developing markets and options in terms of the quantity of works made available to such markets to prevent arbitrage. There were other witnesses, including the founder of ReDigi, John Ossenmacher, who testified that “secondary markets have always existed and have always supported primary markets.” Jonathan Band (Owners’ Rights Initiative, supporting expanded first sale rights) and Greg Cram from the NY Public Library were supportive of the Kirtsaeng decision. On the ‘license or sale’ issue, similar division of views with the BSA (Business Software alliance) counsellor noting the important distinctions between the purchase of physical products and the licensing of digital content online, while Sherwin Sly of Public Knowledge, saying that digital use should be understood to be the same as a purchase of a product.
China - Next draft of copyright law circulated for comment
The State Council of China has recently published a new draft text of the long-awaited revised Copyright Law.
The State Council of China has recently published a new draft text of the long-awaited revised Copyright Law. A very short deadline for comments has been set, namely 5 July.
For more information, contact STM's counsel, Carlo Scollo Lavizzari at csl@lclaw.ch.
Cases
United States - Appeal decision in Hathi Trust upholds fair use defense for reproduction of whole works if transformative
The Second Circuit court of appeals in New York has upheld most of the District's Court's findings in the Hathi Trust case that mass digitization of content held by libraries is fair use, even if it involves copying the whole of the works concerned, in an opinion handed down on June 10. The Second Circuit’s opinion holds that mass digitization to make a search engine is fair use, and so is giving digital copies to the print-disabled. Professor James Grimmelman gives the following analysis: On applying the four factor test for fair use to the full-text search feature:
- Factor 1: “[T]he creation of a full‐text searchable database is a quintessentially transformative use” because it serves a “new and different function.” Authors write to be read, not to be searched.
- Factor 2: The nature of the copyrighted work fades into irrelevance for transformative uses.
- Factor 3: Since full-text search requires copying full books, the copying isn’t excessive in light of the use. Although HathiTrust makes four copies of each book, two live and two in tape backup, but those are appropriate precautions against Internet outages and natural disasters.
- Factor 4: “[T]he full‐text‐search use poses no harm to any existing or potential traditional market … .” Book reviews do not substitute for sales of a book, even when they convince readers not to buy the book. There is no lost licensing market because full-text search is not a substitute for books in the first place. While the Authors Guild says there’s a risk of a security breach, saying so doesn’t make it so: the harm from a hypothetical breach is pure speculation.
On print-disabled access:
- Factor 1: Providing access to the print-disabled is not transformative: “By making copyrighted works available in formats accessible to the disabled, the HDL [HathiTrust Digital Library] enables a larger audience to read those works, but the underlying purpose of the HDL’s use is the same as the author’s original purpose.” But providing such access is still a favored use: there is a national policy of promoting access, reflected in the Chafee Amendment and recognized by the Supreme Court.
- Factor 2: Irrelevant again, even though the use isn’t transformative. (Factor 2 never matters for published expressive works.)
- Factor 3: The scanned images—and not just the OCR’ed text—are useful to print-disabled readers. Some readers are print-disabled because they need greater magnification or stronger color contrast than paper provides, others because they can’t turn pages. Scanned images help them both.
- Factor 4: There is no market for selling books to the print-disabled; only a small percentage of books are published in accessible formats and even for those authors typically forego their royalties.
These holdings affirm the District Court’s conclusions. The other major points in the opinion all consist of declining to decide that:
- The Authors Guild lacks standing to sue on behalf of its members. The case continues, thanks to the international organizations and the individual plaintiffs.
- Preservation uses are not ripe for consideration.
- Since the orphan works project has been suspended (showing orphaned works to non-disabled patrons) and has no plans to reinstate it in the same form, those issues are not ripe for adjudication either.
The opinion is a green light for library search engine digitization. It is an even greener light for making books and other works accessible to the disabled. Source: The Laboratorium at http://laboratorium.net/. Positively for rightsholders, the 2nd Circuit decision does criticize the trial court’s broad perception of “transformative” fair use, noting: “Contrary to what the district court implied, a use does not become transformative by making an ‘invaluable contribution to the progress of science and cultivation of the arts… Added value or utility is not the test: a transformative work is one that serves a new and different function from the original work and is not a substitute for it…” The Authors Guild described the decision as a “narrow” one in its press release, see http://www.authorsguild.org/advocacy/narrow-fair-use-ruling-permits-limited-library-uses-shoots-down-replacement/. Finally it should also be noted that contract pre-emption is not considered a likely outcome in discussions about copyright revision in the US. Full decision of the appellate decision can be found at http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/12-4547/278. We continue to wait for the decision in the broader Authors Guild v. Google case (which STM joined others in an amicus brief - STM Membership Matters A - May 2014 and December 2013 / January 2014) and in the Georgia State University coursepack case (STM News October 2012).
European Union - Advocate-General’s opinion on digitization of works in academic institutions and on display of works on "dedicated" terminals (Articles 5(3)(c) and (n) of the Information Society Directive 2001/29
On the other side of the Atlantic, the European Court of Justice's Advocate-General (AG) has given an opinion that libraries can digitise individual books in their collections for use on dedicated terminals on library premises.
On the other side of the Atlantic, the European Court of Justice's Advocate-General (AG) has given an opinion that libraries can digitise individual books in their collections for use on dedicated terminals on library premises. The AG’s opinion does not hold that digitising entire collections would be permissible per se under Article 5(3)(c) of the Infosoc Directive.
According to the AG, in the absence of actual binding terms and conditions agreed between a library and the rightsholders in a licensing agreement, digitisation for and display on dedicated terminals is permitted under an Exception if that exception is implemented into national law (which is the case in Germany where §52b of the German Copyright Act (GCA) permits this activity under certain conditions.). The central issue in this case referred from Germany was, whether, or not, a reasonable offer to licence the same materials in electronic form is enough to make the display exception contained in §52b GCA in applicable. The German publisher argued that it did subsequent to the refusal of the defendant library accepting a reasonable offer. The AG follows the view of most national governments and the Commission intervening in the case: an offer to licence is not enough in respect of this particular exception; what is required to render the exception inapplicable is no less than an actual binding agreement.
The AG went on to say that European Union copyright law does not allow book publishers to prevent libraries from making copies of books available on electronic reader terminals, in the absence of agreements to the contrary, but EU law does prevent the transfer of the digitized manuscript onto a flashdrive, e.g. a USB stick or other electronic storage device. However, the AG also stated that EU copyright law exceptions that allow private copying using a photocopying machine could apply in the case of printed material made from a manuscript digitized under the exception in question.
The Advocate General's opinion is not a decision binding as such, but is meant to guide and direct the deliberation of the Court. In that sense it is more often than not of persuasive value for the subsequent ECJ ruling. The case revolves around a legal dispute in Germany between a German publishing company, Eugen Ulmer AG, which took legal action to prevent the library at the Technical University of Darmstadt from digitizing books to be used for electronic reading. The German academic institution had refused the German publisher's offer to sell its electronic book version of the textbooks it publishes (STM News November 2012).
Source: Carlo Scollo Lavizzari and in part Bloomberg BNA Electronic Commerce and Law Report. The Advocate-General's opinion can be found at http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-06/cp140078en.pdf.
European Union - ECJ holds reproduction for internet browsing falls under "temporary copying” exception in that these are “temporary and incidental” copies.
On 5 June 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) announced its decision on the “temporary copying” exception, Article 5 of the EU Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC (EUCD), in PRC (“Meltwater”) v NLA, Case C‑360/13. In a nutshell, the CJEU ruled that "Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC (…) must be interpreted as meaning that the copies on the user’s computer screen and the copies in the internet ‘cache’ of that computer’s hard disk, made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website, satisfy the conditions that those copies must be temporary, that they must be transient or incidental in nature and that they must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, as well as the conditions laid down in Article 5(5) of that directive, and that they may therefore be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders." The full judgment is available here: http://bit.ly/Thk2XR.
In a widely expected judgment the court helpfully re-iterated that even in the case of copies falling under the EU’s mandatory temporary reproduction exception, the said exception remains subject to the three-step test. Copies for viewing a website are a “special case” and given that the website viewing takes place with the consent of the rigthsholder, and it is that consent which allows the work to be exploited in perfectly normal ways. For this reason the copies enabling the viewing of an authorised communication to the public do not conflict with the normal exploitation nor does it cause unreasonable prejudice to the rigthsholder. In a comment to the decision (http://www.nlamediaaccess.com/default.aspx?tabid=143 ), NLA states that it is confident that the result of the case has no implications for the licences NLA media access issues for the present web-monitoring services operated by Meltwater and other media monitoring agencies. End user clients who pay for their current monitoring service still require a licence for the content they receive; negotiated commercial solutions which recognise and meet the needs of all parties are the way forward.
Google takes the first steps to comply with European Court of Justice ruling
“In implementing this decision, we will assess each individual request and attempt to balance the privacy rights of the individual with the public’s right to know and distribute information,” reads the webform that Google made available in the aftermath of the “Right to be Forgotten” decision rendered by the European Court of Justice.
Google very shortly after the judgment received already over 12,000 requests for take down of content that is allegedly subject to the right to be forgotten.
Part of Google’s evaluation will be to consider whether the results include outdated information about a person, as well as whether there’s a public interest in the information, such as information about professional malpractice, criminal convictions and the public conduct of government officials.
Google has issued a claim form. The form includes space for users to submit objectionable links and a box for the person to explain why the link is "irrelevant, outdated, or otherwise inappropriate."
To make a request, a person must submit a digital copy of an official identification, such as a valid driver's license, and select from a drop-down menu of 32 European countries the appropriate country whose law applies to the request.
The decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union places search engines, such as Google, in a tricky position as it strives to interpret the EU's broad criteria for objectionable links.
Google and others will also face logistical challenge, challenges which Google to some extent already has in the case of copyright infringements and in relation to other offending content.
Even though Google voiced its disappointment with the judgment, it formed a special advisory committee to study the issue. The group includes Jimmy Wales, co-founder of online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, and Frank La Rue, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression. The committee will be co-chaired by Schmidt and Google Chief Legal Officer David Drummond.
Source: http://www.ibtimes.com/google-takes-steps-comply-eus-right-be-forgotten-ruling-1592276
General
Torrenz.eu suspended, but restored in absence of court order
The domain of one of the largest search engines for Torrentz, Torrentz.eu, was unsuspended and the torrent search was made available to users.
The domain of one of the largest search engines for Torrentz, Torrentz.eu, was unsuspended and the torrent search was made available to users. When Torrentz' legal team stated that the suspension was unlawful, the Polish registrar restored the DNS entries of the domain name, as reported on http://torrentfreak.com/torrentz-eu-domain-unsuspended-back-action-140527/. Apparently the domain was first taken down by Polish registrars upon a request received from the London Metropolitan Police. The Met issued a statement indicating that their request falls under an initiative known as “Operation Creative”. The Met reportedly made the following statement:
“As part of Operation Creative, rights holders in the creative industries identify and report copyright infringing websites to PIPCU, providing a detailed package of evidence indicating how the site is involved in illegal copyright infringement. Officers from PIPCU then evaluate the websites and verify whether they are infringing copyright. At the first instance of a website being confirmed as providing copyright infringing content, the site owner is contacted by officers at PIPCU and offered the opportunity to engage with the police, to correct their behaviour and to begin to operate legitimately.”
“If a website fails to comply and engage with the police, then a variety of other tactical options may be used including; contacting the domain registrar informing them of the criminality and seeking suspension of the site and disrupting advertising revenue through the use of an Infringing Website List (IWL) available to those involved in the sale and trading of digital advertising.”
The Met’s initiative which spans several countries is a very useful project that has also led to many piratical or other structurally infringing sites being blocked. See http://ind.pn/1kR8JeM.
Are royalties payable to Jesus?
In an unusually metaphysical copyright case, a German Court has ruled that an American psychologist — and not Jesus Christ — is the author of a book that she said Christ dictated to her in a "waking dream."
In an unusually metaphysical copyright case, a German court has ruled that an American psychologist — and not Jesus Christ — is the author of a book that she said Christ dictated to her in a "waking dream."
The late Helen Schucman said she was a vessel for the words of Christ in her book A Course in Miracles, and a German Christian group called the New Christian Endeavour Academy argued that they were therefore free to put text from the book up on their website without paying for it (Jesus, apparently, does not require payment.) The U.S.-based Foundation for Inner Peace, which owns the worldly rights to the book, sued. According to The Guardian, the New Christian Endeavour Academy "argued that Schucman had not considered herself the author of the work, and referred to a 2003 ruling by a New York court that it said had put the work into the public domain." The academy also said: "For many there is no doubt that Jesus of Nazareth is the author of the course and that copyright law therefore doesn't apply to his work." The German court, however, ruled that the rights go to the actual writer of the book, regardless of divine inspiration.
Source: The Guardian at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/15/helen-shucman-course-of-miracles-germany-jesus-christ
Mark Seeley, Carlo Scollo Lavizzari and André Myburgh
Public Affairs Report
North America
Agencies Continue Internal Discussions of Public Access Plans
All has been quiet on the policy announcement front, which is news in itself. Last month, we were expecting imminent announcements from one or more US federal agencies with respect to their policies and or implementation plans pursuant to the February 2013 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) memo on “increasing access to the results of federally funded scientific research.” Based on information obtained by STM, it appears that it may be later in the summer or even early fall before many agencies make any public announcements, and even longer before any plans are actually implemented or enforced.
Reports are that many of the agencies have responded to OSTP’s initial comments, and discussion between the agencies and the White House has continued. At most agencies, each new set of comments and their official responses must be vetted through a process that involves many steps up and down the agency’s hierarchy. While it could take some time for this process to resolve, the US government’s policy-making apparatus tends to advance in fits and starts, so publishers are best to be prepared for an announcement at any time. Especially for some of the more independent agencies like the Department of Energy, once the text of a plan clears the current review process it could be announced very quickly. It is hard to say exactly what policies might contain beyond what is expressly in the OSTP memo. However, the continued discussion implies that they are taking the evidence that the publishing community and other stakeholders have submitted very seriously.
More Appropriations Legislation Passed Mentioning Public Access; No Restrictive Language Included
Nearly all of the Congressional Appropriations Committees have passed initial versions of their bills, and some have even been considered by the full House of Representatives, significant progress as compared to recent years.
Nearly all of the Congressional Appropriations Committees have passed initial versions of their bills, and some have even been considered by the full House of Representatives, significant progress as compared to recent years. None of the bills so far have had restrictive language regarding public access, although several of them mention the issue and urge the relevant Departments or agencies to report on their progress in developing their public access plans.
As reported earlier this year, the House Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act directs OSTP to report on each agency’s progress in developing, finalizing, and implementing plans to enable public access in accordance with OSTP’s February 2013 guidance, and the House Military Construction and Veteran’s Affairs Act notes that the Department of Veterans Affairs is developing a policy to use PubMed Central to provide access and asks for a report on the implementation timeline.
In the past month, several more bills were passed with public access language. The Senate Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act expresses appreciation for progress being made, and asks for an update on progress. It also expresses an expectation that all plans will be approved this year, and that most agencies will begin implementation next year. The House Homeland Security Appropriations Act was passed, and similarly the bill asks simply for an update on the Department of Homeland Security’s “progress in developing a public access policy.”
On the other hand, the recently-passed House Agriculture, Senate Agriculture, House Defense, House Energy and Water, Senate Energy and Water, and Senate Military Construction and Veteran’s Affairs bills have no language on public access. The remainder of the bills are expected to be considered later in the summer or fall.
The bill that STM is watching most carefully is the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Act. It has the greatest potential to contain negative and prescriptive language and is also likely to be the latest to be considered. Although the Senate was anticipated to take action on their bill in June, it was pulled from consideration at the last minute and reportedly now will not be considered until after elections in November. The House is also expected to take its time in considering their version of the bill.
New York Legislative Session Ends With No Action of Open Access Legislation
The 2014 New York State legislative session ended on June 19th without taking action on the Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research (TAPFR).
The 2014 New York State legislative session ended on June 19th without taking action on the Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research (TAPFR).
The bill, referred to by its numbers A.180 and S.4050 in the Assembly and Senate respectively, could still be considered if an emergency session is called before December 31st, but such an action is not expected. The bill’s sponsors and leadership of the committees with jurisdiction over the bill have expressed interest in addressing the issue of public access, but also have told STM that they understand that the issues involved are complex and that these bills are likely not the best approach.
California Senate Passes Open Access Mandate for Health Sciences
The California Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Act was approved by a key State Senate Committee this month, a significant hurdle on its way to enactment. In the process, however, it was significantly improved to reduce its potential negative impact on scholarly communication. On June 10, the California Senate Governmental Organization Committee approved, with amendment, AB 609, the California Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Act. As amended, this bill would require researchers funded by the California Department of Public Health to provide public access to articles that report on funded research no later than 12 months after publication. Specifically, accepted versions of peer-reviewed articles reporting on funded research must be deposited in a “publicly accessible database approved by the Department,” which could include a California repository, PubMed Central, or any other approved source. Depending on the implementation, this could even include publisher platforms.
This approved bill is a significant improvement over previous versions of the legislation, which would have applied to all research funded by a California State Agency with limited flexibility regarding embargoes and the submission process. By restricting the affected articles to those reporting on research funded by the Department of Public Health, it is expected that the impact will not be much beyond the already-existing policy at the National Institutes of Health. The bill is expected to easily pass the remaining Committees that must consider it in the State Senate, and to be approved by both Houses and signed into law. The full text of the legislation is available at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB609
CHORUS One Step Closer To Launch; Publisher Implementation Guide Released
With an expected launch coming this fall, the Clearinghouse for Open Research of the United States (CHORUS) continues its progress of outreach to publishers, US federal agencies, and the rest of the research community.
In late May, after the previous issue of Membership Matters A went to press, CHORUS released its publisher implementation guide, meant to be a tool for publishers to understand the requirements of participation in CHORUS. It is also another step in ensuring the transparency of CHORUS development for the public and policy-makers.
As reported by CHORUS, “the guide’s comprehensive explanation of CHORUS’ technical requirements and business decisions will be of immediate use to any publisher considering participation in CHORUS. It will be periodically updated as CHORUS evolves in response to the forthcoming agency requirements, helping researchers and agencies achieve their goals.” The guide is available here: http://chorusaccess.org/chorus-publisher-implementation-guide/.
Presentations from two implementation workshops held earlier this year are also posted on the website at www.chorusaccess.org under events.
CHORUS continues to receive positive attention from policy-makers, but any official announcement regarding CHORUS’ use by the federal agencies will not occur until those agencies make their plans public (see news item above). However, there have been some positive public statements by policy-makers. For example, at the SSP Conference in Boston, Mike Stebbins, public access lead for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said that CHORUS would be an important part of the public access ecosystem.
Barbara Kalumenos, Jack Ochs and David Weinreich