Difference between revisions of "Sinnreich and Aufderheide (2015)"

From Copyright EVIDENCE
(Saved using "Save and continue" button in form)
 
Line 10: Line 10:
 
|Authentic Link=http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3657
 
|Authentic Link=http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3657
 
|Link=http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3657/1329
 
|Link=http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3657/1329
 +
|Reference=Sinnreich (2010); Hyde (2010); Aufderheide and Jaszi (2011); Aufderheide, Hobbs and Jaszi (2007); International Communication Association (2010);
 +
|Plain Text Proposition=* Communication scholars widely recognize fair use and value it highly. They are confident about their understanding of it—in fact, more confident than they should be, because they believe they know more than they demonstrate that they do.
 +
 +
* The communication scholars' lack of expertise as to fair use is hurting them, because too often they are not comfortable in asserting their rights or are not able to engage gatekeepers such as librarians, general counsels, editors, publishers, and funders whose policies do not accommodate existing law. Thus, they decide not to undertake some types of projects (although they can imagine undertaking them absent copyright concerns) and change other projects to accord with their insecurities or concerns.
 +
 +
* Positive changes have occurred in communication scholars’ behaviors since publication of the code of best practices. The data resulting from the survey show increased use of open licenses and open access options, especially among newer faculty. However, there is no improvement in the level of frustration communication scholars experience within their institutional relationships. Thus, some positive changes have occurred, but they lack the ecological effects that are intended to result from a consensus document such as the code of best practices.
 +
|FundamentalIssue=5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media),
 +
|EvidenceBasedPolicy=B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction),
 +
|Discipline=D83: Search • Learning • Information and Knowledge • Communication • Belief
 +
|Intervention-Response=* The challenges identified in this article can be overcome through a coordinated, discipline-wide initiative to educate scholars and upgrade institutions
 +
 +
* We already possess many of the requisite resources, especially the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Communication Scholars. The leading associations in our field, the International Communication Association and the National Communication Association, have endorsed this document, and they should help guide the academic publishers affiliated with them, such as communication journals, to affirm its principles in their editorial policies.
 +
 +
* Well-informed scholars can also work productively with gatekeepers, especially in the publishing realm, where some academic presses are already well aware of the value of fair use in scholarly publishing. Indeed, scholarly ranking of journals should include an element of transparency about fair use policies, which are vital to the efficient spread of knowledge and expertise.
 +
|Description of Data=A survey was administered online via Qualtrics and promoted through the International Communication Association, the National Communication Association, by some ICA division mailing lists, and through personal networks of scholars who were encouraged to not only take the survey but ask colleagues and students to take it as well. Of the 350 people who answered the survey, we selected only the students and teachers, excluding staff and administrators (whose answers were markedly different, reflecting their different roles), for a total of 326 survey responses.
 +
|Data Year=Not stated
 +
|Data Type=Primary and Secondary data
 +
|Data Source=Literature review;
 +
|Method of Collection=Qualitative Collection Methods, Survey Research (qualitative; e.g. consumer preferences)
 +
|Method of Analysis=Qualitative Analysis Methods, Textual Content Analysis
 +
|Industry=Cultural education;
 +
|Country=United States;
 
|Cross-country=No
 
|Cross-country=No
 
|Comparative=No
 
|Comparative=No
 
|Government or policy=No
 
|Government or policy=No
|Literature review=No
+
|Literature review=Yes
 +
}}
 +
|Dataset={{Dataset
 +
|Sample Size=350
 +
|Level of Aggregation=Respondant,
 +
|Data Material Year=Not stated
 +
}}{{Dataset
 +
|Sample Size=326
 +
|Level of Aggregation=Analysed response,
 +
|Data Material Year=Not stated
 
}}
 
}}
|Dataset=
 
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 12:24, 21 October 2016

Advertising Architectural Publishing of books, periodicals and other publishing Programming and broadcasting Computer programming Computer consultancy Creative, arts and entertainment Cultural education

Film and motion pictures Sound recording and music publishing Photographic activities PR and communication Software publishing (including video games) Specialised design Television programmes Translation and interpretation

1. Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare 2. Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)? 3. Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors) 4. Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption) 5. Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)

A. Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right) B. Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction) C. Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing) D. Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability) E. Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts) F. Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Source Details

Sinnreich and Aufderheide (2015)
Title: Communication Scholars and Fair Use: The Case for Discipline-Wide Education and Institutional Reform
Author(s): Sinnreich, A, Aufderheide, P
Year: 2015
Citation: Sinnreich, A., & Aufderheide, P. (2015). Communication Scholars and Fair Use: The Case for Discipline-Wide Education and Institutional Reform. International Journal of Communication, 9.
Link(s): Definitive , Open Access
Key Related Studies:
Discipline:
Linked by:
About the Data
Data Description: A survey was administered online via Qualtrics and promoted through the International Communication Association, the National Communication Association, by some ICA division mailing lists, and through personal networks of scholars who were encouraged to not only take the survey but ask colleagues and students to take it as well. Of the 350 people who answered the survey, we selected only the students and teachers, excluding staff and administrators (whose answers were markedly different, reflecting their different roles), for a total of 326 survey responses.
Data Type: Primary and Secondary data
Secondary Data Sources:
Data Collection Methods:
Data Analysis Methods:
Industry(ies):
Country(ies):
Cross Country Study?: No
Comparative Study?: No
Literature review?: Yes
Government or policy study?: No
Time Period(s) of Collection:
  • Not stated
Funder(s):

Abstract

A survey of 350 communication scholars internationally shows that, although scholars are increasingly aware of fair use and (when aware of it) benefit from the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Communication Scholarship, they continue to suffer from confusion and ignorance about how to apply this feature of copyright law that is crucial to their work. Most are not aware of the code, although those who use it report success. The survey results point to the need for discipline-wide education and application of the code’s affordances for institutional reform.

Main Results of the Study

  • Communication scholars widely recognize fair use and value it highly. They are confident about their understanding of it—in fact, more confident than they should be, because they believe they know more than they demonstrate that they do.
  • The communication scholars' lack of expertise as to fair use is hurting them, because too often they are not comfortable in asserting their rights or are not able to engage gatekeepers such as librarians, general counsels, editors, publishers, and funders whose policies do not accommodate existing law. Thus, they decide not to undertake some types of projects (although they can imagine undertaking them absent copyright concerns) and change other projects to accord with their insecurities or concerns.
  • Positive changes have occurred in communication scholars’ behaviors since publication of the code of best practices. The data resulting from the survey show increased use of open licenses and open access options, especially among newer faculty. However, there is no improvement in the level of frustration communication scholars experience within their institutional relationships. Thus, some positive changes have occurred, but they lack the ecological effects that are intended to result from a consensus document such as the code of best practices.


Policy Implications as Stated By Author

  • The challenges identified in this article can be overcome through a coordinated, discipline-wide initiative to educate scholars and upgrade institutions
  • We already possess many of the requisite resources, especially the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Communication Scholars. The leading associations in our field, the International Communication Association and the National Communication Association, have endorsed this document, and they should help guide the academic publishers affiliated with them, such as communication journals, to affirm its principles in their editorial policies.
  • Well-informed scholars can also work productively with gatekeepers, especially in the publishing realm, where some academic presses are already well aware of the value of fair use in scholarly publishing. Indeed, scholarly ranking of journals should include an element of transparency about fair use policies, which are vital to the efficient spread of knowledge and expertise.



Coverage of Study

Coverage of Fundamental Issues
Issue Included within Study
Relationship between protection (subject matter/term/scope) and supply/economic development/growth/welfare
Relationship between creative process and protection - what motivates creators (e.g. attribution; control; remuneration; time allocation)?
Harmony of interest assumption between authors and publishers (creators and producers/investors)
Effects of protection on industry structure (e.g. oligopolies; competition; economics of superstars; business models; technology adoption)
Understanding consumption/use (e.g. determinants of unlawful behaviour; user-generated content; social media)
Green-tick.png
Coverage of Evidence Based Policies
Issue Included within Study
Nature and Scope of exclusive rights (hyperlinking/browsing; reproduction right)
Exceptions (distinguish innovation and public policy purposes; open-ended/closed list; commercial/non-commercial distinction)
Green-tick.png
Mass digitisation/orphan works (non-use; extended collective licensing)
Licensing and Business models (collecting societies; meta data; exchanges/hubs; windowing; crossborder availability)
Fair remuneration (levies; copyright contracts)
Enforcement (quantifying infringement; criminal sanctions; intermediary liability; graduated response; litigation and court data; commercial/non-commercial distinction; education and awareness)

Datasets

Sample size: 350
Level of aggregation: Respondant
Period of material under study: Not stated


Sample size: 326
Level of aggregation: Analysed response
Period of material under study: Not stated