Library TeachMeet
26 June 2017 | 7:19 pm

This Teachmeet is an opportunity to boost your creativity just in time for the new term. It’s an informal flexible day led by the participants. Your input is invaluable! We’re looking to hear about your teaching experiences in any type of library or information setting. It could be a new teaching activity, or even an old one that really works well. Perhaps you’ve done some research or gathered some useful feedback about your teaching. Or you’ve started a new venture and have lessons to share.

Please let us know if you’d like to present. There’ll be both 15 minute sessions where you can present about your teaching, or run a quick micro-teach (great opportunity to try something new on a willing audience!), or 40 minute workshops for demonstrating your activities in action, discussion and sharing of best practice.

10:30 – 11:00 Welcome, refreshments and networking

11:00 – 12:30 Presentations

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch

13:30 – 15:00 Workshops

Wed, 6th Sep 2017 -
10:30am to 3:00pm
CILIP SWMN

Event Format

University of Plymouth, A102

Portland Square

Cost

  • Free
Free Event: 

Margaret Casely-Hayford to lead diversity review of CILIP Carnegie and Kate Greenaway Medals
26 June 2017 | 8:00 am

CILIP Carnegie and Kate Greenaway Medals logo

Chair of ActionAid UK, Margaret Casely-Hayford, will chair an independent review into how equality, diversity, inclusion and participation can best be championed and embedded into the work of the country’s oldest children’s book awards, the CILIP Carnegie and Kate Greenaway Medals.

A Board Apprentice Ambassador, Margaret is a long-standing champion of board diversity, advising young entrepreneurs, those embarking upon board careers and organisations on governance. A retired lawyer, Margaret has held a wide range of non-executive positions at organisations including NHS England, the Co-op, Great Ormond St Children's Hospital Charity and the Geffrye Museum.

Margaret Casely-Hayford said, “It is so important for young people growing up that they are genuinely included in the world around them. Stories and pictures are the oldest way in which we record and represent our environment and our place in it. Which is why I am so pleased to be working with CILIP to ensure the UK’s oldest and most prestigious awards for outstanding writing and illustration for children and young people are the best possible champions of inclusion, diversity and equality.”

CILIP, the library and information association, announced the review of Medals - as part of the organisation’s wider Equality and Diversity Action Plan which will be published Monday 31 July 2017 - following concerns raised about the lack of BAME representation on the 2017 Carnegie Medal longlist. CILIP’s Equality and Diversity Action Plan follows previously published research commissioned in 2015 by CILIP and the Archives and Records Association, which outlined diversity issues in the library, archives, records, information management and knowledge management sector.

Nick Poole CILIP Chief Executive said, “We are so proud of the awards, our hard-working judges and partners; and of the thousands of young people that discover new writing and illustration through the awards each year. The review is a welcome opportunity to promote positive change by championing equality, diversity, inclusion and participation. We are so grateful to Margaret for her support and commitment and we look forward to working with her through the review process.”

The review was launched today, Monday 26 June, and will seek views from the widest possible range of stakeholders. A consultation will run in the autumn of 2017 before the review report is published in early 2018. Recommendations from the review will come into effect from the autumn of 2018 onwards.

-ends-

Press contact

Mark Taylor Director of External Relations, CILIP
mark.taylor@cilip.org.uk
020 7255 0654
07792 635 305

Notes for editors

1. About Margaret Casely-Hayford

Margaret is a retired lawyer, was on the board of NHS England and is now on the Co-op board and is the chair of ActionAid UK. From 2000-2008 she was a government appointed trustee of Great Ormond St Children's Hospital Charity, and the Geffrye Museum; and was on the development board of the Young Vic theatre.

For nine years until July 2014 she was Director of Legal Services for the John Lewis Partnership. She worked for twenty years previously with City law firm Dentons where she was a partner. After 30 years as a lawyer, she retired from executive roles. In 2014 Margaret was named by the Black British Business Awards as Business Person of the Year.

This year Margaret was awarded an honorary doctorate from the Business Faculty of Middlesex University.

Margaret was appointed Chair of international development Charity Action Aid UK in 2014. She was elected to the Board of the Co-op in May 2016; and in June 2016 was appointed a Trustee on the Board of the Radcliffe Foundation that funds arts and music projects.

She now advises young entrepreneurs, organisations on governance and those embarking upon board careers. Promoting board diversity, she’s a Board Apprentice ambassador. She’s Chair of the Advisory Board of Ultra Education, which teaches entrepreneurial skills to primary school children.

http://margaretcasely-hayford.com

2. About CILIP

CILIP, the library and information association is the leading voice for the information, knowledge management and library profession. CILIP’s goal is to put information and library skills and professional values at the heart of a democratic, equal and prosperous society. CILIP is a registered charity, no. 313014. The Youth Libraries Group (YLG) of CILIP works in a ‘pressure group’ role to preserve and influence the provision of quality literature and library services for children and young people, both in public libraries and school library services. Visit www.cilip.org.uk

More about CILIP’s research about the library and information workforce with ARA

3. The CILIP Carnegie and Kate Greenaway Medals

The CILIP Carnegie Medal is awarded annually to the writer of an outstanding book for children and young people. The CILIP Kate Greenaway Medal is awarded annually for an outstanding book in terms of illustration for children and young people. The Amnesty CILIP Honours are a unique commendation that recognises writing and illustration for children and young people that illuminate, uphold and celebrate our freedoms and human rights. Amnesty International’s judging panel examines the shortlists for the CILIP Carnegie Medal for outstanding writing and CILIP Kate Greenaway Medal for distinguished illustration and selects one title from each shortlist that best celebrates the values of freedom, justice and fairness; and contributes to a better understanding of our human rights.

Each year CILIP members are invited to nominate books for the Carnegie and the Kate Greenaway Medals using the published criteria as their guide. In 2017, 114 books of outstanding writing were nominated for the Carnegie and 93 books of distinguished illustration for nominated for the Kate Greenaway Medal. The panel of 12 judges are democratically elected from across the UK through CILIP’s Youth Libraries Group of children’s and youth librarians in schools and public libraries. The panel uses the criteria to judge the nominated books and decide a longlist of 20 titles for each medal, a shortlist of six to eight titles and the ultimate winners.

2017 marks the 80th anniversary of the CILIP Carnegie Medal and the 60th anniversary of the CILIP Kate Greenaway Medal.

The 2017 winners were:

  • CILIP Carnegie Medal: Salt to the Sea, by Ruta Sepetys (Puffin)
  • CILIP Kate Greenaway: There is a Tribe of Kids, illustrated and written by Lane Smith (Two Hoots)
  • Amnesty CILIP Honour from the CILIP Carnegie Medal shortlist: The Bone Sparrow, by Zana Fraillon (Orion Children's Books)
  • Amnesty CILIP Honour from the CILIP Kate Greenaway Medal shortlist: The Journey, illustrated and written by Francesca Sanna (Flying Eye Books)

Copyright exception for text and data mining
23 June 2017 | 3:43 pm

I <3 DATA MINING by Jason Cale

Today’s computers are capable of processing large quantities of data quickly and efficiently. This has focused some attention on ‘big data’, ‘open data’, and, more recently, artificial intelligence. What do these capabilities mean more fundamentally for library and information collections?

Broadly termed, ‘text and data mining’ (TDM) refers to the processing of information to ‘discover patterns, trends and other useful information that cannot be detected through usual ‘human’ reading’.  Much of this is about ‘speed reading’: allowing a computer to sift through the text of thousands of books or millions of datapoints faster than any human. Anyone who has used the Google Books Ngram viewer has seen this in practice: the viewer queries Google’s sizeable corpus of digitised books to draw out instances of selected words, showing usage trends over time.

To enable this processing, content often needs to be transformed into a ‘mineable’ format, which may be as simple as turning it into plain text. Prior to 2014 there was no specific legal mechanism in the UK to enable copyright protected works to be so transformed. Anyone wishing to ‘mine’ in-copyright works would almost certainly have needed to obtain explicit permission from the copyright owner(s) first. Given the scale at which text and data mining operates, this was a barrier to research that involved material from much of the past century (at least). Growing interest in securing a legalframework to enable text and data mining culminated in the recommendations of the Hargreaves review of copyright in 2011 and the resulting implementation in 2014 of a copyright exception for non-commercial computational analysis.   

This post digs into the specifics of this still relatively new exception, looking in particular at how libraries and other information organisations may wish to interact with it. As a JISC report found in 2012  (when advocates were in the midst of pressing the UK for this exception in the wake of Hargreaves) ‘Text mining presents an opportunity for the UK, encouraging innovation and growth through leveraging additional value from the public research base.’. Now that the UK has a text and data mining exception, information professionals should ensure they have an understanding of how it can and should be used to benefit research and the development of new knowledge.

What the law says:

29A Copies for text and data analysis for non-commercial research

1.    The making of a copy of a work by a person who has lawful access to the work does not infringe copyright in the work provided that—
i.    the copy is made in order that a person who has lawful access to the work may carry out a computational analysis of anything recorded in the work for the sole purpose of research for a non-commercial purpose, and
ii.    the copy is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement (unless this would be impossible for reasons of practicality or otherwise).
Where a copy of a work has been made under this section, copyright in the work is infringed if—
iii.the copy is transferred to any other person, except where the transfer is authorised by the copyright owner, or
iv.the copy is used for any purpose other than that mentioned in subsection (1)(a), except where the use is authorised by the copyright owner.
If a copy made under this section is subsequently dealt with—
v.it is to be treated as an infringing copy for the purposes of that dealing, and
vi.if that dealing infringes copyright, it is to be treated as an infringing copy for all subsequent purposes.
In subsection (3) “dealt with” means sold or let for hire, or offered or exposed for sale or hire.
To the extent that a term of a contract purports to prevent or restrict the making of a copy which, by virtue of this section, would not infringe copyright, that term is unenforceable.

Breaking it down a bit

This exception allows ‘a person’ who has ‘lawful access’to a work to make a copy of that work so that ‘a person’ who has ‘lawful access’to that work can ‘carry out a computational analysis of anything recorded in the work’ for non-commercial research purposes.

The exception also allows for any contract term that would ‘prevent or restrict’ the making of such a copy to be ignored (ie because it is ‘unenforceable’ - see this previous post about contract override in copyright law).

The exception is subject to a number of requirements. These are:

  • the maker of the copy must have lawful access to the work,
  • the person undertaking the computational analysis must have lawful access to the work,
  • copies may only be made for enabling computational analysis for non-commercial research purposes,
  • copies must be accompanied by sufficient acknowledgement, other than where this would be impossible, and
  • copies must not be transferred to any other persons or used for other purposes (unless the copyright owner(s) give permission).

Maker versus analyst

This exception allows ‘a person’ to make a copy of a work so that ‘a person’ may undertake computational analysis. There is no limitation that the person who makescreates the copy must be the person who undertakes the analysis. The makercopierdoesn’t necessarily need to be the analyst. The exception permits one person to make a copy so that they or another person may undertake computational analysis with that copy, so long as the other requirements of the exception - such as lawful access - are met. If the maker is intending to rely on this TDM (Text and Data Mining) exception to justify their copying, they do need legitimately to be creating the copy so that a person with lawful access may carry out computational analysis.

Suppose two people - Person A and Person B - both enjoy lawful access to a work - Work X. The exception permits Person A to make a copy of Work X so that Person A or Person B can undertake computational analysis of anything recorded in the work. Person A does not necessarily need to be the analyst, even if they are the maker.

To take a similar example, suppose a librarian has lawful access to Work Y, because Work Y is held in the library’s collection. The librarian can make a copy of Work Y under this exception so that a library user, who also enjoys lawful access to Work Y by virtue of being a member of the library, can undertake computational analysis of anything recorded in the work.

Copies made under this exception may not be transferred to ‘any other person’ or used for any purpose other than computational analysis for non-commercial research. In the example of Person A and Person B, the copy of Work X may be transferred by Person A to Person B, so long as non-commercial analysis purpose remains. This can happen because both Person A and Person B have lawful access to Work X. The copy may not, however, be transferred to a person who does not have lawful access to Work X (for example, Person C) or to a person who does have lawful access but does not intend to use the copy for computational analysis for non-commercial research. Naturally, these acts may be undertaken if the copyright owner(s) give permission.
 
It is also worth noting that this exception relates to persons who have ‘lawful access’to a work. The exception does not discuss ownership of the work (as, for example, s. 31A(1)(a) discusses ‘lawful possession’ in respect of creating accessible copies of works). In other words, it should be sufficient for the party or parties involved in creating and using copies under this exception to merely enjoy lawful access to the original, and it is not necessary for the work in question actually to be owned by the party(ies). Again, an obvious benefit here relates to the users of libraries and archives, who will enjoy lawful access to the works within relevant library and archive collections, but of course will not exercise ownership over those works.

To date, discussion of this exception has tended to focus on subscription materials, mainly those held by universities. However, the exception is not limited to subscription content. The wording is framed to allow use of any copyright-protected work for the specified purpose. Therefore, the exception covers material in any format, for example the content of a web page or a printed book.

Contract terms and technical protection measures

This exception benefits from the laudable ‘contract override’ clause that was applied to a number of UK copyright exceptions in 2014. This clause is hugely important, and ensures that a copyright owner cannot use contract terms to prevent or restrict a person from benefiting from an otherwise valid exception. For example, a copyright owner cannot enforce a contract clause that seeks to prohibit the purchaser of a work from creating copies for the purpose of non-commercial computational analysis.

So long as you meet the requirements of the exception (eg in respect of non-commercial research, lawful access, and no-transfer of copies) you do not need to check whether you are compliant with any relevant contract terms before benefiting from this exception, save for one respect. The exception places clear limits around ‘lawful access’to works.Making a copy of a work that you do not have lawful access to or enabling someone to access a copy if that person does not have lawful access to the original are not permitted and would not be a legal uses under the exception.

Therefore, you should check any relevant contract, purchase, or licence terms to clarify who has lawful access to the original work before making use of this exception. For example, contract terms that limit access to the original work only to members of staff of your organisation, and not students, would mean that you cannot allow a student to undertake computational analysis using a copy of the work under the exception, because the student does not enjoy lawful access to the original work.

Contract terms are one way of limiting use of works and exercise of the exceptions to copyright. Another way is through technical protection measures (TPMs). TPMs place technical or operational barriers on the use of a work or the exercise of some other function. CAPTCHA is a common access barrier frequently encountered online. This technology limits access to material or the exercise of functions until a series of characters, symbols, or shapes have been deciphered and typed out, with the aim of confirming that the user is a human.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 does contain a remedy for situations where TPMs prevent permitted acts (s. 296ZE). However, this mechanism is clunky and for a TPM issue to be resolved a complaint must be made to the Secretary of State, through the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) . In 2015 LACA made a complaint to the IPO regarding the use of CAPTCHA in respect of the exercise of the text and data mining exception. We have posted previously about the complaint here.

In response to LACA’s complaint, the IPO concluded that, because the material that was being restricted was available online under particular contract terms, the narrow wording of the remedy clause meant the material was out of scope and that the IPO was therefore unable to oblige the copyright owner to remove or curtail the technical barriers.

In short, while the contract override clause helpfully ensures that contract and legal terms cannot stymie the exercise of certain copyright exceptions where otherwise lawful, the UK’s copyright laws are insufficient in terms of TPMs where the material in question is licensed and made available online. The law fails to prevent TPMs from restricting the otherwise-valid use of exceptions. It is important to be aware that TPMs may be used, intentionally or otherwise, to prevent or restrict the making of copies under the exception for computational analysis. However, the proposed Digital Single Market Directive, which is currently being discussed in the European Parliament, may partially tackle this issue. While not removing the right of content providers to protect their content using TPMs, the proposals aim to apply pressure so that such restrictions may only be used when there are legitimate fears of unlawful activity.

Summary

The text and data mining exception offers a potentially valuable tool for UK users of copyright-protected works, as well as for information-supplying organisations, such as libraries and archives. In particular, libraries and archives should be in the position with this exception to enable users to undertake computational analysis of material recorded within works held in collections. Although contract terms cannot prevent the making of copies for this purpose, contract terms may still be relevant in relation to defining who has lawful access to the original work. Likewise, TPMs may continue to present practical barriers to the proper use of this exception.

References

•    Copyright User provides a useful overview of this exception, in particular the role of database rights and contract law:

•    Future TDM expert reports

•    Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s.29A

Image referenceI <3 DATA MINING photographed by Jason Cale on Flickr Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic, cropped and resized.

Related knowledge and skills


Now Available: June issue of the HLG newsletter
23 June 2017 | 11:23 am

The June (latest) issue of the CILIP Health Libraries Group newsletter is now available online at:

http://www.cilip.org.uk/health-libraries-group/newsletter

Key items in this issue include:

  • Evidence into practice – case studies
    Jacqui Watkeys, Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust
  • NIHR Dissemination Centre Signals – evaluating the impact
  • Update-ing the Royal College of Surgeons of England’s Current Awareness Service
    Sarah Kennedy, Royal College of Surgeons
  • Connecting its workforce to corporate knowledge and best practice: how the Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust (RLBUHT) Library Service is utilising clinicalskills.net
    Angela Hall, Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust
  • Meeting report – visit to the Dana Research Centre and Library
    Claire Jones, Princess Royal University Hospital

Internet sites of interest

This issue features useful information and sites related to transgender health.

Book reviews

  • Baker, D. and Evans, W. The end of wisdom? The future of libraries in the digital age. Chandos Publishing, 2017.

  • Foster, M. and Jewell, S. Assembling the pieces of a systematic review: a guide for librarians. Rowman & Littlefield 2017.

  • Gray, J. Becoming a powerhouse librarian: how to get things done right the first time. Rowman & Littlefield 2017.

Along with all our usual newsletter features. We welcome your contributions to the newsletter, such as original articles, meeting reports or book reviews. Let us know what you'd like to see!

For further information, please contact myself rachel.gledhill@phe.gov.uk or Joel Kerry, Editor joel.kerry@nhs.net.

The next copydate is 11 August; we look forward to hearing from you.

Rachel Gledhill

HLG Newsletter – Assistant Editor



More News from this Feed See Full Web Site