Search

At the end of 2022, the appearance of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot with amazing writing ability, caused a great sensation in academia. The chatbot turned out to be very capable, but also capable of deception, and the news broke that several researchers had listed the chatbot (including its earlier version) as co-authors of their academic papers. In response, Nature and Science expressed their position that this chatbot cannot be listed as an author in the papers they publish. Since an AI chatbot is not a human being, in the current legal system, the text automatically generated by an AI chatbot cannot be a copyrighted work; thus, an AI chatbot cannot be an author of a copyrighted work. Current AI chatbots such as ChatGPT are much more advanced than search engines in that they produce original text, but they still remain at the level of a search engine in that they cannot take responsibility for their writing. For this reason, they also cannot be authors from the perspective of research ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ghostwriting in medicine represents a highly significant problem in both legal and ethical terms, and particularly in recent years owing to a sudden increase in the practice. The main goal in this paper is to present the legal and ethical rules connected with the ghostwriting phenomenon. The problem is presented in the context of international, European and Polish law. From a legal perspective the issues bound up with ghostwriting are those of the notion and authorship of a work, authors' rights (both moral rights and copyright), the content of these rights and their nature, as well as the question of the transfer of such rights. From the point of view of ethics there arises a need for reflection on honesty, accuracy and credibility as defined both generally and scientifically.

Copyright of Comunicación is the property of Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Internet is challenging traditional publishing patterns. In the biomedical domain, medical journals are providing more and more content online, both free and for a fee. Beyond this, however, a number of commentators believe that traditional notions of copyright and intellectual property ownership are no longer suited to the information age and that ownership of copyright to research reports should be and will be wrested from publishers and returned to authors. In this paper, it is argued that, although the Internet will indeed profoundly affect the distribution of biomedical research results, the biomedical publishing industry is too intertwined with the research establishment and too powerful to fall prey to such a copyright revolution.

Electronic reserves present a new service option for libraries to provide needed materials during hours that the library is not open and to user groups located some distance from library collections. Possible changes to current copyright law and publishers permissions policies have delayed the development of electronic reserves in many libraries. This paper reviews the current state of electronic reserves materials in the publishing and library communities and presents the results of a survey of publishers to determine permissions policies for electronic materials. Issues of concern to both libraries and publishers are discussed.

Authors’ moral rights throughout history have been protected in various degrees across the globe: French law honors authors’ rights to their particular individual creative expression as supreme and perpetual; German law considers an author’s moral rights and economic rights in equal measure; in Australia, moral rights, though only recently codified, are not transferrable as they can be in the UK if waived. While the overarching Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works promises to protect the personality and reputation of authors, the literary landscape is now more diverse, with crossplatform entertainment streams expanding subsidiary rights opportunities in ways not anticipated even a decade ago. This paper explores how publishers and authors are currently navigating the publishing process post contract negotiations. Do authors defer to having their work manipulated to increase exposure or sales? Are publishers and editors successful negotiators and mediators of multiple uses of creative content and the authors who are inextricably tied to the work? Ultimately, where are the lines drawn when considering moral rights and opportunities in a converged literary landscape?. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This contribution focuses on the legal aspects of raw grey literature that is understood as yet to be published, interim or incomplete scientific results (e.g. raw primary data or drafts of scientific papers). Specifically the contribution deals with the limits of further re-use of such scientific results, when these were offered for publication in traditional publishing houses, and when these results should available under Open Access conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues against the assertion that several of Kant's writings were published in the form of pirate editions. It seeks to establish that most of the the editions in question (printed between 1769 and 1803) were lawfully printed. Presumably, these editions were to be sold exclusively at book fairs in Frankfurt and Leipzig; both locations are printed on their title pages, although no information on the publisher is provided. The paper also presents crucial results of detailed comparisons of all contemporary editions of Kant's writings and delivers a short historical sketch of eighteenth-century copyright law and the philosophical debate on this topic. Finally, the importance of book fairs for trading and selling books at that time is emphasized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author examines the benefits, risks and dangers of the use and integration of large language models (LLMs), such as Chat GPT-4 in orthopaedic publications. Topics covered include how LLMs can be used in the production of a manuscript and their risks and benefits, whether LLMs can be used in the peer review system and the dangers of LLMs.

This paper discusses aspects of economic analysis of law developed because of the status quo existing on the Internet and of the evolution of legal theory on copyright. It also explores the massive increase of interest in the law and economics of intellectual property during the first decade of twenty-first century. The paper argues that law and economics discourse on copyright foregrounds policymaking with a focus on copyright's economic ramifications. This paper also examines Coase's theorem and its influence on considerations about copyright regulatory frameworks and potential reform to keep abreast of ongoing technological advancements and their impact on copyright protection in the digital age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to consider how the open access policy environment has developed since the Rights Metadata for Open Archiving Project’s call in 2003 for universities and academics to assert joint copyright ownership of scholarly works and investigate whether UK universities are moving towards a joint copyright ownership.Design/methodology/approach The paper analyses 81 UK university copyright policies to understand what proportion make a claim over: IP ownership of all outputs; the copyright in scholarly works; re-using scholarly works in specific ways; and approaches to moral rights. Results are cross-tabulated by policy age and mission group.Findings Universities have not asserted their interest in scholarly works through joint ownership, leaving research funders and publishers to set open access policy. The paper finds an increased proportion of universities assert a generic claim to all IP (87 per cent) relative to earlier studies. In total, 74 per cent of policies relinquished rights in scholarly works in favour of academic staff; 20 per cent of policies share ownership of scholarly works through licensing; 28 per cent of policies assert the right to re-use scholarly works in some way; and 32 per cent of policies seek to protect moral rights. Policies that “share” ownership of scholarly works are more recent. The UK Scholarly Communication Licence (UK-SCL) should have an impact on this area. The reliance on individual academics to enforce a copyright policy or not to opt-out of the UK-SCL could be problematic. The paper concludes that open access may still be best served by joint ownership of scholarly works.Originality/value This the first large-scale analysis of UK university policy positions towards scholarly works. The paper discovers for the first time a move towards “shared” ownership of scholarly works in copyright policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses aspects of economic analysis of law developed because of the status quo existing on the Internet and of the evolution of legal theory on copyright. It also explores the massive increase of interest in the law and economics of intellectual property during the first decade of twenty-first century. The paper argues that law and economics discourse on copyright foregrounds policymaking with a focus on copyright's economic ramifications. This paper also examines Coase's theorem and its influence on considerations about copyright regulatory frameworks and potential reform to keep abreast of ongoing technological advancements and their impact on copyright protection in the digital age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews aspects of academic and scientific publishing, primarily in the context of IEEE publications and policies. The intent is to provide a brief tutorial for those new to academic publishing. The material on publication ethics and the IEEE's associated policies should be useful to all, including those experienced with academic publishing. The types of IEEE publications and what they publish are reviewed. The importance of a publication's scope is explained, and publication and author metrics are examined. The steps in the publication process are described in detail, along with the roles of the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), associate editors, reviewers, and authors. Ethical issues and the principles of scholarly publishing are examined, including authorship and the responsibilities of authors, duplicate submission and publication, and plagiarism. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In the tradition of legal writing about landmark intellectual property cases, this paper provides an in-depth case study and analysis of an important copyright conflict during the COVID-19 crisis. The Internet Archive established the National Emergency Library to provide for access to knowledge for those who were unable to access their usual libraries, schools, and educational institutions. In response, four large publishers have brought a copyright lawsuit against the Internet Archive, alleging both direct copyright infringement, as well as secondary copyright infringement. The Authors Guild has supported this action. Fearful of litigation, the Internet Archive has decided to close the National Emergency Library earlier than it anticipated. The litigation raises a range of issues in respect of copyright infringement, the defence of fair use, library exceptions, digital lending, and intermediary liability. The conflict also raises questions about the operation of the first sale doctrine in the digital era. There are also divided views as to what, if any, remedies are appropriate in the case over the Internet Archive and the National Emergency Library. It is argued that there needs to better mechanisms under copyright law to enable access to knowledge in a public health crisis—such as the coronavirus outbreak. This case study makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the relationship between authors, publishers, and libraries in the digital age. It also provides an insight into copyright litigation—in particular, the role of amicus curiae submissions, and the nature and scope of copyright exceptions. This paper also raises larger considerations about the intersection of copyright law with larger concerns about access to knowledge, competition policy, and public health emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic publishers have different definitions of multiple authorship and ghost/guest authorship. When a scientific paper is submitted to a journal, the general assumption is that its ethics and authorship-related rules have been respected. Copyright transfer is a central issue in the flow of scientific information. To familiarize more academics with this topic, we examine the issue of copyright transfer from authors to a publisher. A key argument is the potential invalidation of a copyright transfer agreement if one or some of the co-authors do not authorize the transferring author to sign the agreement on their behalf. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the first of a series of studies emanating from the UK JISC-funded RoMEO Project (Rights Metadata for Open-archiving) which investigated the IPR issues relating to academic author self-archiving of research papers. It considers the claims for copyright ownership in research papers by universities, academics, and publishers by drawing on the literature, a survey of 542 academic authors and an analysis of 80 journal publisher copyright transfer agreements. The paper concludes that self-archiving is not best supported by copyright transfer to publishers. It recommends that universities assert their interest in copyright ownership in the long term, that academics retain rights in the short term, and that publishers consider new ways of protecting the value they add through journal publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to analyse the DSM Directive through the perspective of insurance the balance between private and public interests. The paper analyses how technological growth has led to the adoption of the DSM Directive, the goals set by the legislator and if they were met in the DSM Directive. The paper as well reviews key points of the DSM Directive and how it influences the interests of different parties in copyright. The article focuses on press publishers' rights, new exceptions and limitations and use of protected content by online content-sharing service providers, that were introduced by DSM Directive. The gaps of the DSM Directive are also reviewed in this article and how they impact the disbalance of interests in copyright. The article as well provides brief analysis how instruments brought up in DSM Directive may influence the copyright outside the EU. Methods used in this research: general scientific (analysis, induction, deduction), legal methods (legal comparation, formal legal method). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]