"Heather Joseph is the executive director of SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition). SPARC is sponsoring this week’s ninth annual observation of Open Access Week (Oct. 24–30), a worldwide event held to celebrate open access and advocate for further progress toward its goals. I visited with Joseph at SPARC’s Washington, D.C., office for a wide-ranging conversation about past progress, the state of open access today, the road ahead, and how open access could change the role of academic librarians."
My Bloomsbury book "Ethics, Information, and Technology" was published on Nov. 13, 2025. Purchases can be made via Amazon and this Bloomsbury webpage: https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/ethics-information-and-technology-9781440856662/
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Librarians Working Inside Out: An Open Access Week Interview; Information Today, Inc., 10/25/16
Dave Shumaker, Information Today, Inc.; Librarians Working Inside Out: An Open Access Week Interview:
In a Copyright Case, Justices Ponder the Meaning of Fashion; New York Times, 10/31/16
Adam Liptak, New York Times; In a Copyright Case, Justices Ponder the Meaning of Fashion:
"The case, Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, No. 15-866, concerned stripes, zigzags and chevrons copyrighted by Varsity Brands, the leading seller of cheerleading uniforms. The company sued Star Athletica, a rival company, after it started to market uniforms with similar designs. All concerned agree that two-dimensional designs may be copyrighted but that the cut and shape of three-dimensional garments may not. The question for the court was the legal significance of fusing Varsity’s designs with cheerleading outfits."
Monday, October 31, 2016
He dreamed of screams: Meet the man behind the modern haunted house; Washington Post, 10/26/16
John Kelly, Washington Post; He dreamed of screams: Meet the man behind the modern haunted house:
" Itsi Atkins always believed that if he built it, they would scream. And they did, by the thousands, at Blood Manor, the pulse-pounding, scream-inducing haunted house Itsi unveiled in 1971. When it became world famous — when a British tabloid called it “the sickest show in America” — Itsi knew that it had all been worth it — all that blood, all those severed limbs, all those fake guts and fake snakes, all those monsters, murderers and ghouls . . . And to think it started in the wilds of St. Mary’s County, Md... Itsi had trademarked the name “Blood Manor,” so when he saw the name being used for a Manhattan attraction — the sort of place lampooned in the “Saturday Night Live” David S. Pumpkins sketch — he sued them. They credited him with the name and concept on their website."
Sunday, October 30, 2016
Guess What’s Back From the Grave? ‘Night of the Living Dead’; New York Times, 10/27/16
Glenn Kenny, New York Times; Guess What’s Back From the Grave? ‘Night of the Living Dead’ :
"The film’s original distributor, the Walter Reade Organization (named for its founder, a pioneer of art-house distribution), did not file for a new copyright after changing the title from the original “Night of the Flesh Eaters” to “Night of the Living Dead.” That meant the movie went into the public domain almost immediately. As was once the case with Frank Capra’s “It’s a Wonderful Life,” the movie has been subjected to many unofficial, though legal, iterations. The paradox of the situation has not been lost on its director, George A. Romero. “The fact that people were able to show it for free, that anybody was able to distribute it, did result in lots of people seeing it, and keeping the film alive,” he said in a phone interview. But viewers were too often watching inferior versions. That will change — dramatically, the moviemakers hope — on Saturday, Nov. 5, when the Museum of Modern Art screens a new, and copyrightable, restoration of “Living Dead” as part of its annual restoration and preservation festival, “To Save and Project.”"
Change at the Copyright Office; Publishers Weekly, 10/28/16
Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly; Change at the Copyright Office:
"Could Pallante’s departure spur Congress to finally appropriate sufficient resources to modernize the Copyright Office, which virtually everyone agrees is badly needed and long overdue? Hayden herself said she intends to build on the work Pallante did in terms of modernizing the Copyright Office for the digital age. Or, might Pallante’s removal push Congress to consider removing the office from the Library of Congress altogether? Pallante was certainly held in high esteem by lawmakers. But sources expressed doubt that in the current political climate Congress would seek to create a new federal bureaucracy for copyright—which is the domain of Congress—that would be headed by a presidential appointee. At the very least, ALA’s Sheketoff observed that Pallante’s removal suggests that the future of the U.S. Copyright Office is a high priority for at least one government official—Carla Hayden."
This ‘Stranger Things’ / ‘A Charlie Brown Christmas’ Mashup Is — Wait, Come Back, It’s Actually Really Good; Comics Alliance, 10/28/16
Chris Sims, Comics Alliance; This ‘Stranger Things’ / ‘A Charlie Brown Christmas’ Mashup Is — Wait, Come Back, It’s Actually Really Good:
"Listen, I’m as tired of stuff that mashes up two things that nerds like into one chimera of presumed awesomeness as everyone else is, but every now and then, that rare thing comes along that’s just really, really well done and well worth seeing. Today, we have one of those: Leigh Lahev and Oren Mendez’s Merry Christmas, Will Byers. The animated short is, of course, a mashup that parodies Stranger Things and the classic A Charlie Brown Christmas, but what sets it apart from your average It’s Two Things project (aside from not being a t-shirt) is that it’s really, really well done, and also builds to a pretty great punchline. Take three minutes and give it a watch!"
Patent Trolls Undermine Open Access; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 10/28/16
Elliot Harmon, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Patent Trolls Undermine Open Access:
"...[E]ven as university research becomes accessible to a wider public, some of that same research is falling into the hands of patent trolls, companies that serve no purpose but to amass patents and sue innovators who independently created similar inventions. When universities file patents on inventions that arise from scientific research and then sell those patents to trolls, it puts a strain on innovation. That’s why EFF recently launched Reclaim Invention, a campaign to encourage universities to adopt policies not to sell or license patents to trolls... As the open access movement continues to grow and mature, we hope to see open access allies on campus begin to take on their institutions’ patenting policies. University patenting and licensing policies directly affect how researchers’ outputs will be used in the field. The same arguments that have given way to the explosion of open access publishing also apply to patents—just as researchers shouldn’t trust their work with publishers that don’t have the public’s interest at heart, their institutions shouldn’t sell patents to trolls out for nothing but a quick buck. Instead, they should partner with companies that will bring their inventions to the public. After all, the public paid for it."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)