Project Zero: status & challenges for the Secondary Publishing Right

Presentation of the preliminary findings of the survey that has been conducted by LIBER in the frame of the Arcadia funded Knowledge Rights 21 program in the "Open Science & AI: a UK policy discussion" event at Tuesday 25th April 2023 in Friends House, London.

Transcript

1. Project Zero
   status & challenges for the Secondary Publishing Right
   Dr. Giannis Tsakonas, LIBER / University of Patras, Greece
   gtsak@upatras.gr / @gtsakonas
   Open Science & AI: a UK policy discussion / Tuesday 25th April 2023 / Friends House, London
   

   View Slide

2. Aim
   • To specify successful cases of national SPR
   legislation and identify the workflow to it.
   • Further, to figure out the effect of the existent laws
   and to determine the obstacles to overcome in
   countries that do not have such legislation.
   • Survey of the countries that have SPR in their
   legislation (orange), plus countries that have strong
   OA policies (blue). International stakeholders’ opinion
   was taken also into account.
   • A complex issue expressed as the combination of
   Copyright and Open Access aspects.
   

   View Slide

3. Environment
   • Several countries have stated their will to reach 100% of OA via many roads.
   • Growing concerns about the cost of Gold OA & reuse
   • European Union
   • Horizon Europe Grant Agreement terms
   • ERA: propose an EU copyright & data legislative and regulatory framework fit for
   research
   • Strong Council of EU conclusions statements (June 2022 & February 2023)
   • OSTP, US: Ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research
   • Supporting statements from organizations
   • LIBER (#ZeroEmbargo model law) / ALLEA / CESAER / LERU
   

   View Slide

4. Secondary Publishing
   Nations
   Rights Retention
   RPO & RFO
   Sorting the concepts
   ,
   Implementation & Monitoring
   RPO & Libraries
   idea > expression
   manifestation 1 : pre-print
   manifestation 2 : AAM Embargoes in STEM/HSS
   

   View Slide

5. Anatomy of an SPR article
   The author of a scientific contribution …. [extend of
   funding] …. [embargo period] …. [format] …. [purpose]
   …. [citation of first source].
   • Additional elements:
   • Definition of periodical (e.g., twice per year)
   • Range/Relationships of beneficiaries
   • Status of the article
   • Critical: republishing without licensing
   P NC NC NC
   C + + + +
   F AAM AAM AAM AAM
   EF 50% 50% 50% * 50% * 50%
   EP > 12 > 12 < 12/6 0 > 12/6 * < 12/6
   AT DE FR SP BE NL IT
   DP 2 2 1
   RB + + +
   SA NW
   

   View Slide

6. Reasons
   • To protect the author
   • not compensated; both on the production & the
   consumption stage
   • disproportionate power of the publishers
   • To allow the public to access scientific publications
   / But the original concept was, that
   in general, makers of creative
   work should be more protected
   and have more rights.
   / I think that this article was to
   make the research more
   transparent first, and that the
   public funded research could be
   available for every citizen.
   

   View Slide

7. Context
   • Legal framework
   • Science law – Education & Research (FR, SP)
   • Copyright law – Justice (AT, DE, NL) or Culture (IT)
   • Economic law – Finances (BE)
   • Primarily a need of RPOs for alignment with EU (with
   OA policies and through the DSM transposition)
   • Stakeholders
   • Structure: Ministries, Councils of Rectors, Research
   Councils, Councils of IP, Library Associations, etc.
   • Skills: might be missing from crucial stages.
   / I don't know that many experts
   that are working on copyright
   from the view of a user and with
   the user, I mean institutional
   user, like a repository, like
   university, et cetera. In most
   cases, they really look at it from
   the view of the rights holder…
   

   View Slide

8. Engagement
   • Opposition during consultation (SP, IT)
   • Lack of engagement by RPOs
   • Uncoordinated stakeholders
   • Not of high priority when embedded in broader laws
   • Support in policy making bodies might be
   circumstantial (AT, BE)
   / The word of the university and
   the public sector was in favor of
   the proposal, but the influence of
   the universities is very low. We
   don't have a strong organization
   defending the interest of Italian
   University.
   

   View Slide

9. Implementation
   • Follow up policies and laws; linking with Research
   Assessment and RFO Calls.
   • Uneven implementation in Federal systems (DE, BE)
   • The contractual law is often stronger (DE, SP)
   • No clarity about the rights holders of the works.
   • Reversed thinking: from what is actionable to what is
   reasonable.
   • Opt-In (enable) vs Opt-Out (oblige) signals the
   determination to implement.
   / The fact is that the article in the
   law is a recommendation. There
   is no control and no paying fee if
   you don't reach the law. It's not
   an obligation. It's not really
   strong for law, you know?
   

   View Slide

10. Solutions
    • Harmonization as an opportunity to solve national
    (institutional policies & law) and international
    (countries) unevenness and weakness.
    • needs to be detailed; with mandatory provisions
    • silent harmonization (SP adopting Horizon
    Europe GA)
    • The need for a special legislative framework for
    research & education
    / … you'd have to decide how
    detailed you want the proposal to
    be. The trouble with not being
    detailed is that, if you adopt an
    EU level proposal that's not
    detailed, you are inviting in this
    harmonization, you're inviting in
    the ultimate result of 27 different
    secondary publication rights.
    

    View Slide

11. Concerns
    • Is the matter of OA growth a Copyright or a Market
    problem?
    • Licensing the republished work or ‘pre-licensing’ a
    work?
    • To which extend we can base the claim for SPR on the
    moral right?
    • Does the SPR pass the three-step test?
    / The challenge here is that for
    Member States there's not a lot
    of appetite to propose and
    pursue EU legislation on this
    topic, since it's a multi-year
    effort that requires a lot of
    effort. Of course, there is very
    strong lobbying against this by
    the for-profit publisher
    community.
    

    View Slide

12. Conclusions
    • It is difficult to see SPR belonging to a distinct field. It is
    both a Copyright and an Open Access topic.
    • Principles-driven actionable process.
    • Coordinated action on all levels; key stakeholders need to
    take initiatives to increase political support.
    • Skill building of the stakeholders & monitoring of the
    legislative process is essential.
    • Implementation roadmap per country is linked to
    resources; strong mandates, skilled persons, funds,
    infrastructures.
    • Compromises should be mitigated by a new
    acknowledgements & rewards system.
    / It's better to have a poor law and
    a good implementation than a
    good law and no implementation
    

    View Slide

13. Thank you
    for your attention
    

    View Slide