Le FMSS se tiendra à Montréal sous le thème « Transformations sociales et ère numérique » qui s’articule autour de deux axes et se décline sur plusieurs thèmes associés,qui sauront plaire à plusieurs lecteurs de mon humble carnet:

Premier axe : comment les technologies numériques transforment-elles les différentes sphères de la vie sociale ?
[…]
Le savoir numérique est-il un patrimoine mondial?
Commerce électronique: nouvelles formes de travail, travail libre
[…]
Convergence médiatique: régulation et contrôle
[…]
Imaginer une cyber-dystopie
Pauvreté et inégalités: divisions numériques et autres
Représentations des technologies numériques au cinéma et dans la fiction
Code: interaction humain-ordinateur/design de matériel informatique et de logiciels
Piratage informatique et jeux vidéos
Deuxième axe: comment transforment-elles les sciences sociales?
Science citoyenne: engagement et expertise
Big Data: fin de la théorie?
Science (sociale) informatique: moyens du savoir
Visualisation des données et résultats
Bibliothèques et archives
Collaborations entre disciplines et travail à distance
Impact, évaluation et responsabilité
Éthique de la recherche électronique
L’édition savante a-t-elle un avenir?
Libre accès/code source libre/libre évaluation des pers
Science et politique de recherche
Marchandisation de la donnée et la recherche
Changer les pratiques de recherche

Nous avons jusqu’au 15 janvier 2013 pour proposer un panel (2 heures, 3-6 personnes) ou une communication individuelle.

Voici la liste complète des fils RSS et abonnements que je consulte régulièrement. Décidément, c’est le temps de l’année de faire le point sur nos pratiques…

N’hésitez pas à me faire suivre quelques liens qui manquent à ma diète de l’information ou pour briser ma bulle d’information.

ABONNEMENTS
– Le Devoir (papier, Internet)
– Le Monde Diplomatique (papier)
– The Economist (électronique, portable)
– The Walrus (papier)
– Wired (papier)
– Maisonneuve (papier)
– WIPO Magazine (papier)
– On Spec (j’étais abonné à Alibis et Solaris mais je ne trouvais plus de plaisir à les lire…)
– Quatre temps (papier)
– Découvrir (internet)
– Nature Sauvage
– Québec Science (papier)
– Revue M (papier)
– Ma femme est abonnée à certaines revues… que je consulte parfois… Ricardo, Coup de pouce…

FILS RSS

Avec l’annonce du Amherst College aux USA annonce la création une presse universitaire exclusivement en accès libre, j’ai compilé une liste de rapports pertinents sur les livres numériques ou électroniques (ou livrels pour les amoureux du français, sur recommendation de l’Office québécois de la langue française).

OCDE
Dans un premier temps, l’OCDE annonce le rapport suivant sur les livrels :

OECD (2012), “E-books: Developments and Policy Considerations”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 208, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k912zxg5svh-en
(formats: PDF ou ePUB)

Réalisée en vue d’une réunion en 2011 et diffusé librement en 2012, ce texte présente l’industrie internationale des livrels (environ 8% du marché du livre aux USA, 2-3% au Royaume Uni et environ 1% ailleurs, voir p. 4). Intéressant, il traite de la question du prêt/accès aux livrels dans les bibliothèques :

E-books offer libraries a number of important benefits including savings on storage, handling, ordering and distribution. The growing emphasis on online services also enhances the visibility of the larger public libraries which have built up extensive collections of digital resources. On the other hand, cost implications of the need to purchase multiple licenses for e-book versions of texts traditionally shared through interlibrary loans may need to be considered, particularly for smaller libraries. Costs may also be affected if territorial digital rights management (DRM) restricts libraries to purchasing geographically specific editions of books.
The DRM generally embedded in the vast majority of e-books being produced today does not allow for the kind of free and open access provided by, for example, public libraries. Nor does it allow the use of books as learning resources provided for children in school libraries; nor the research goals of university / academic libraries.
There are also concerns about royalty payments for e-books in libraries. “Public Lending Rights (PLR)”110 is an internationally used system for ensuring that authors are financially compensated for the (unpaid) use of their books in public libraries. There are various options for calculating the amount due to an author and libraries rely on public funding to make these payments. It is not clear in a number of countries whether governments will support the extension of the system to cover e-books. [p.57]
[…]
The question of how to integrate e-books into public libraries, school libraries and university libraries, raises important social and public interest concerns. Potential future research could focus on the
[58]
specific ecosystem for authors, publishers and libraries in the developing digital-text environment. Key questions for policy-makers which could be addressed include:
i. The extension of “public lending rights” to e-books.
ii. Ensuring efficient, fair and socially beneficial processes for mass digitisation of copyright protected texts.
iii. Economic consequences of different policy models for authors, publishers, libraries and the public. [p. 59]

DOABooks
Ensuite, le Directory of Open Access Books (ou DOABooks) annonce la publication d’un rapport sur l’évaluation des besoins des divers intervenants dans un projet d’accès libre à des livres. Voici le sommaire exécutif de l’étude :

This final evaluation and recommendation report is based on the user experiences, needs, and expectations as they emerged from the data collected as part of the DOAB User Needs Analysis. This report aims to advise in the establishment of procedures, criteria and standards concerning the set-up and functioning of the DOAB platform and service and to devise guidelines and recommendations for admissions to DOAB and for its further development, sustainability and implementation.

The report gives an overview of the main aims and objectives of the user needs analysis, which are summarised in two main research questions:

What are the functional requirements, or needs, which different users have with respect to the platform, the protocols and the procedures that DOAB wants to establish?

What kind of recommendations can we extract from the users’ experiences with the beta-platform and their expectations of a future DOAB service?

The research design has been structured around defining user (librarians, academics, publishers and funders) needs, experiences and expectations with respect to the DOAB platform and system as it is currently set up, paying special attention to users perceptions and needs with respect to Open Access, Open Access books, and a directory of Open Access books; quality and peer review procedures; copyright policies; platform usability; and potential business and funding models both for Open Access books and for DOAB. This study has used a variety of qualitative data collection tools (surveys, online discussion platform and panel discussion) to capture these needs, experiences and expectations.

The findings are divided into 5 themes:

1. Perceptions concerning Open Access and Books.

The awareness of Open Access amongst the participants of our survey is high. Users are on average positive about the influence Open Access has on the values underlying scholarly communication, which is important especially because communication with one’s peers and releasing information to the wider society are seen as the most important motivations for publishing research findings amongst academics.

2. Quality and peer review.

A majority of the users declared the importance of quality control and peer review for Open Access book publishing, to ensure the quality and trustworthiness of Open Access books. Requirements and standards concerning quality control are warmly welcomed, as is more transparency about procedures used, as long as these standards remain flexible and open to a variety of quality control mechanisms, from editorial control to open peer review and post publication review.

3. Copyright.

There is a big disparity in opinions with respect to which Open Access license should be used and promoted. Nonetheless, it seems that most people are satisfied with the current requirements defined by DOAB. The availability of a wide array of open access licenses must be preferred to enable experiments with different business models and in anticipation of academic insecurities with respect to reuse. To enable experimentation and reuse of content and data and to stay open for future change, DOAB should strive to promote the use of CC-BY licenses as much as possible and should remain open for new forms of licensing.

4. Platform Usability.

DOAB seems to be on the right track with its platform. The feedback is positive and the user needs seem to concur with services that are already available in the DOAB Beta version, except for full-content search and information about the peer review procedures, which would be useful future services for DOAB to explore.

5. Business models.

Although many experiments with Open Access publishing are taking place there is a lot of concern with respect to sustainable funding from reliable, ‘non-controlling’ sources. It remains unclear who should fund Open Access books, and, related to that, who should fund a directory of Open Access books. However, there are possibilities for DOAB to attain funding from publishers, librarians or funders, as there was some willingness amongst these stakeholders to pay a fee either to take part in or to support DOAB.

Based on these findings a number of recommendations have been devised, focusing amongst others on DOAB’s role in establishing standards for peer review and licensing, standards and requirements that should both ensure trust and quality but at the same time should remain flexible and open to change. It was recommended that DOAB:

– Consult regularly with stakeholders to monitor needs and developments in these areas.
– Use a variety of Open Access licenses, although the CC-BY license should be promoted as much as possible.
– Make quality, which is seen as essential, more transparent by using for instance an icon system.
– Remain open to other forms of quality control such as open and post peer review and editorial control, where the focus should be on the outcome, not on the procedure used.
– Improve the information available on the DOAB website.
– Explore the future development of services for which a clear need was felt: full-content search and information about the peer review procedures.
– Try out asking a (voluntary) fee for its services in order to ensure its sustainability and future development.

Le texte complet du rapport est disponible ici: DOAB User Needs Report (PDF, EN, 77 p.)

France
J’ai découvert deux listes très intéressantes d’études françaises sur les livrels. La première se trouve à la note infrapaginale no. 23 de la page 4 du récent livre Droit d’auteur et bibliothèques aux Éditions du cercle de la librarie (excellent soit dit en passant, j’en ai fait la critique pour la prochaine livraison de Documentation et bibliothèques). La seconde, se trouve sur le site LeMotif.fr. Voici une sélection des titres pertinents :
– 2008, Bruno Patino, Rapport sur le livre numérique – Le Ministère de la culture ;
– 2010, Christine Albanel, Pour un livre numérique créateur de valeur ;
– 2010, Marc Tessier, La Numérisation du patrimoine écrit ;
– 2010, Patrick Zelnik, Jacques Toubon, Guillaume Cerutti, Création et Internet ;
– 2010, Bruno Racine, Schéma numérique des bibliothèques
– 2010, Benhamou, Modèles économiques d’un marché naissant : le livre numérique
– 2010, Gaillard, la politique du livre face au défi du numérique, Sénat
– 2011, Pierre Carbone, Commission bibliothèques numériques, rapport 2011.
(Peut-être d’intérêt, cette étude intitulée « Coûts, bénéfices et contraintes de la mutualisation des ressources électroniques : éléments de comparaison internationale et propositions » 2010 et « Optimisation des coûts de la documentation électronique dans les établissements d’enseignement supérieur et de recherche français » 2011 également sous les soins de Pierre Carbone).
-2012 synthèse du Centre d’analyse stratégique du Premier ministre de la France: auteurs et éditeurs ; les librairies ; les bibliothèques publiques
– 2012, Cremisi, Soutenir la librairie pour consolider l’ensemble de la chaîne du livre :une exigence et une responsabilité partagées

Petit rappel d’inclure les dossiers suivants du Bulletin des bibliothèques de France dans ma bibliographie de doc :
– Les bibliothèques dans l’économie du livre (2000, no. 2) ;
– Alliances ou concurrences (2002, no. 1) ;
– Liberté de l’information (2004, no. 6) ;
– Économie et droit de l’information (2006, no. 5) ;
– Le droit contre les bibliothèques ? (2011, no.3)
– La bibliothèque en concurrence (2012, no. 4)
(Au fait, vous savez s’il y a un moyen de télécharger un numéro entier du BBF ?)

Si jamais la ferveur de la réforme du droit d’auteur vous manque, il suffit de porter votre attention vers d’autres juridictions sur cette belle planète pour trouver de quoi s’amuser… (oui, je m’ennuie déjà, j’ai une dépendance lourde à la réforme du droit d’auteur ou « copyright reform junkie » en anglais)

La semaine passée, la Commission Européenne a annoncée (5 décembre) un processus pour entamer une « modernisation » du droit d’auteur. On verra ici la suite du discours de Neelie Kroes, VP Agenda Numérique et Droit d’auteur de la Commission Européenne, du 10 septembre dernier lors du « IP Summet » (voir aussi le billet sur l’excellent IP Watch).

Par ailleurs, nos amis Australiens ne sont pas sans participer à leur propre réforme. Sous le thème « Copyright and the digital economy » en mai dernier, la Australian Law Reform Commission a publié en août dernier une liste d’épicerie de sujets à traiter sur le droit d’auteur. Un mémoire explorant en plus de détail les questions est attendu en début 2013 (je me suis abonné à leur liste de diffusion pour vous informer des suites).

Imbroglio comme seuls les Américains ne savent le faire. Le parti Républicain, de droite, a rapidement licencié un analyste ayant fustigé les entreprises culturelles comme étant en collusion avec l’État pour étendre le droit d’auteur et nuisant aux consommateurs et aux marchés libres, comme le souligne Timothy P. Carney dans le Washington Examiner du 5 décembre dernier. Le fameux rapport fut éliminé des serveurs du Grand Old Party ( ou GOP – tel que le parti Républicain est parfois nommé) mais est disponible via ScriBD:

Republican Study Committee Intellectual Property Brief
An policy brief dated November 16, 2012 for the Republican Study Committee in favor of liberalizing the intellectual property system

Republican Study Committee Intellectual Property Brief
Peut-on penser que la droite libertaire (associée au Tea Party – d’où la référence dans le titre de ce billet) à intérêt à s’associer aux technophiles (généralement de gauche aux USA) – comme l’indique Jeff Roberts dans l’excellente revue d’actualité web IP News this Month ?

The longtime ideological logjam over copyright that pits reformers versus Hollywood and Republicans may be breaking. The shift is illustrated in a draft memo floated by conservative politicians that blasted the existing copyright regime as offensive to economic efficiency and free market principles. A new book from a prominent right wing scholar makes the same case. It’s early days but an alliance between the tech left and libertarian right could produce pressure for shorter copyright terms.

(D’ailleurs, vous devriez vous abonner à cette liste de diffusion – le CIPP News est une excellente source).

Aussi, le livre auquel Jeff fait référence est :

Malheureusement seulement disponible en format Kindle au Canada pour le moment.

L’ACFAS a confirmé la tenue d’un colloque thématique intitulé : « La révolution de la science ouverte et de l’accès libre. État des débats et des enjeux. » – le comité scientifique (dont je fais partie) lance un appel de communications via ce formulaire web :

La science ouverte recouvre quatre grands aspects de la pratique scientifique contemporaine : 1) l’accès libre pour tous les internautes à toutes les publications scientifiques arbitrées par les pairs (le libre accès), 2) le partage des données de recherche (la science en ligne), 3) la science collaborative (ou citoyenne) qui intègre des non professionnels de la recherche scientifique dans les projets de recherche et 4) la science 2.0 qui regroupe les réseaux sociaux et blogs où s’expriment de plus en plus les chercheurs, y compris pour présenter et mettre en débat leurs hypothèses.

L’existence même de ces nouvelles pratiques est une révolution par rapport aux pratiques conventionnelles de la science (revues réservées aux abonnés, données protégées ou secrètes, exclusion des non-pairs, confinement à la parole scientifique institutionnelle dans les revues ou les livres). Selon les pays, les universités et les disciplines, cette révolution s’effectue à des vitesses différentes. Par exemple, l’Université de Liège a rendu obligatoire le dépôt des articles de tous ses chercheurs dans son archive ouverte, alors que des universités québécoises n’ont pas encore développé une telle archive. [Lire la suite et proposer une communication]

Le congrès de l’ACFAS rassemble la communauté universitaire francophone du Canada et aura lieu à l’Université Laval à Québec du 6 au 10 mai prochain.

Voici la communication que je propose :

Souvent associé à l’éparpillement et au grégarisme, le blogue peut sembler un outil improbable pour le doctorant, qui rime mieux avec persévérant et isolement. Au delà des apparences, le blogue s’offre comme un outil rédactionnel normalisé mais aussi un moyen d’interaction avec une communauté. Donc, comme tout outil, l’usage dicte l’utilité. Cette présentation se veut une réflexion sur l’utilisation d’un blogue dans le cadre des études doctorales de l’auteur (accessible à www.culturelibre.ca).

De par sa nature, le blogue représente un vecteur nouveau pour transmettre les savoirs universitaires au profit des citoyens branchés. De plus, les résultats et réflexions peuvent y être livrées en amont du processus scientifique et d’obtenir des rétroactions immédiates, ce qui décloisonne le chercheur et ses savoirs. L’accès et la préservation de son contenu sont aussi automatisés. Sans oublier, enfin, l’impact éventuel sur la notoriété du blogueur.

Ainsi, cette communication vise répondre à tous les thèmes du colloque mais, elle s’insère particulièrement sous le thème « Science 2.0 ».

Ce 7 novembre marque la fin du processus de réforme du droit d’auteur au Canada. En effet, le projet de loi C-11 (à lire le résumé législatif de la bibliothèque du Parlement Canadien), devenu, suite à sa sanction par le Parlement, le chapitre 20 des Lois annuelles du Canada de 2012, entre finalement en vigueur aujourd’hui.

Beaucoup de choses changent dans la loi sur le droit d’auteur. On note l’émergence d’un nouveau droit – celui de mettre à disposition par Internet. Le législateur Canadien inclut aussi l’éducation, la parodie et la satire dans l’utilisation équitable. Il protège de sanctions criminelles tout bris d’un verrou numérique. Les institutions documentaires ont du pain sur la planche!

D’ailleurs, je tiens à souligner l’excellente politique institutionnelle de l’Université de Toronto, qui incorpore plusieurs des nouveaux concepts du droit d’auteur moderne canadien. Il fait aussi mentionner qu’ils ont une licence avec une société de gestion collective (Access Copyright).

Voici le texte :

1
Copyright Fair Dealing Guidelines
______________________________________________________________________
Introduction:
University of Toronto faculty, staff and students are creators of material that is subject to the protections of the Copyright Act. They are also the users of such material. Accordingly, all have both rights and obligations that arise from copyright law as it has been interpreted and applied by the courts.
As specified in the Act, “copyright” in relation to a particular work means the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part of it, to perform the work or any substantial part of it in public, and if the work is unpublished, to publish the work or any substantial part of it. Copyright extends to other activities such as adaptation, translation, and telecommunication to the public of a work. The definition in the Act also contains several other details that will not be explored here.
In general, if a work meets the definition of a copyright-protected work, copying the work or any substantial portion of it, or engaging in any of the other protected activities, will require permission of the copyright owner unless one of the exceptions in the Act applies. The statutory concept of “fair dealing” is an important exception, particularly in the educational context of a university, and these Guidelines will explain that concept and indicate the kinds and levels of copying that it typically includes. The Act also contains other specific educational exceptions that may apply to your activities. These will be covered in an update to of the University’s Copyright FAQs document, which will be published shortly.
Fair Dealing:
The fair dealing provisions in sections 29, 29.1, and 29.2 of the Copyright Act permit dealing with a copyright-protected work, without permission from or payment to the copyright owner, for specified purposes. These purposes are research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review or news reporting. According to the Supreme Court of Canada the fair dealing exception is “always available” to users, provided that its legal requirements are met. When these legal requirements are met there is no need to look further at the more specific exceptions that follow in the legislation. Fair dealing, therefore, has considerable significance as people contemplating copying or other dealings with copyright-protected works consider what options are available.
“Fair dealing” is not defined in the Act. The concept has evolved significantly over the last decade through case law, including at the Supreme Court level through cases such as CCH Canadian v. Law Society of Upper Canada in 2004, and Alberta (Minister of Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), and Society of Composers,
2
Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Bell Canada, both in 2012. These decisions set out a multi-factor analysis for assessing whether a particular copying activity or other dealing falls within the ambit of fair dealing.
These Guidelines set out a short-form guide to assist in decision-making about copying. The University is of the view that these short-form Guidelines should provide a “safe harbour” for a considerable range of copying that occurs in the teaching and research activities of members of our community. However, in situations of doubt reference should be made to the underlying principles as articulated by the courts and specialized advice should be sought.
A) A Step-by-Step Approach to Determining if the Copying or other Dealing is Permitted :
The following sets out four steps, each of which needs to be considered before you copy material for teaching or research purposes. Similar considerations may apply to other uses of material, including performance in the classroom, and transmission by electronic means, including via the internet. In some cases, such as classroom performance of sound recordings and videos, additional exceptions are specifically provided by the legislation.
Step One: Is the material you seek to copy protected by copyright and owned by a third party?
Material that is in the public domain (this will be the case if all of the authors of a published work died more than 50 years ago) will no longer be subject to copyright protection. Care must be taken to consider the work itself, since if it contains new material, for example, it might be subject to copyright. In general, it is assumed that most of the material used in University of Toronto teaching and research is subject to copyright.
If no > you may copy and use the material without seeking permission
If yes > proceed to Step Two
Step Two: Does the University already have permission to copy the material under an existing licence with the publisher of the work, either directly or through Access Copyright?
The University has entered into licences with large numbers of publishers, both directly and through Access Copyright, which allow University faculty, staff and students to copy certain works, subject to the terms and conditions of the particular licence. Information about licences is available through the library and the subject will also be discussed in updated Copyright FAQs that will be issued as soon as possible. If the material is licensed,
3
and your proposed use falls within the scope of what is permitted by the licence, it is not necessary to inquire further.
If yes > you may copy and use the material in accordance with the licence.
If no > proceed to Step Three
Step Three: is the copying you propose to do “substantial”?
Copyright in section 3 of the Act includes the sole right to reproduce the work “or a substantial part thereof.” Copying that is not substantial does not require permission or payment and no further analysis is required.
As you would expect, what is considered “substantial” is a matter of degree and context. A small amount copied from a much larger work will often not be viewed as substantial depending on the nature of the work, and the proportion of what is copied to the underlying work as a whole. The analysis is not purely quantitative: even a relatively short passage may be viewed as substantial in some circumstances, especially if it is of particular importance to the original work.
The “short excerpt” criteria set out below in the discussion of fair dealing assume that, even though short, the excerpt constitutes a substantial part of the work when viewed in context. Please note that, although not a copyright concept, copying of parts of a work, even if not substantial, will typically require appropriate citation of the source, depending on academic conventions.
If no > you may copy and use the material without seeking permission
If yes > proceed to Step Four
Step Four: is the copying permitted by “fair dealing” or any of the other exceptions to copyright?
Although fair dealing is an exception to copyright, the courts have made clear that it is a “user’s right” and is not to be narrowly or restrictively construed in the research, private study, educational or any other applicable context. Indeed, the Supreme Court has said that it should be given a “large and liberal interpretation.” In its recent decision dealing with the K-12 context, the Court noted that teachers are there to facilitate the research and private study of students, that their activities cannot be viewed as completely separate from such research and private study and, indeed, that their activities are symbiotic with those of their students. Although the Court has not ruled on the post-secondary context, one could argue that there are many similarities at that level and that the concept of fair dealing as a user’s right should likewise expand at the university level. Recent amendments to the Copyright Act which added educational use as a specific allowable purpose under the fair dealing exception will also likely expand the availability of fair dealing in the university setting.
4
To qualify for fair dealing, two broad tests must be passed.
First, the « dealing » must be for an allowable purpose. The activity must be for one or more of the specific allowable purposes recognized by the Copyright Act: research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review, or news reporting. Use of a copyright-protected work for teaching or research will typically pass the first test.
Secondly, the “dealing” must be « fair. » In its landmark CCH decision in 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada identified six factors that are relevant in determining whether or not the dealing is fair. In 2012, the Supreme Court elaborated on the interpretation and application of those factors in the context of K-12 educational institutions, and that elaboration will doubtless influence the application of the six factors in the post-secondary context as well. The six factors are (in abbreviated form – for the Court’s full commentary see paragraphs 54 to 60 of CCH: via this link to the CanLII database http://canlii.ca/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc13/2004scc13.html ):
1. The purpose of the dealing
2. The character of the dealing
3. The amount of the dealing
4. The nature of the work
5. Available alternatives to the dealing
6. The effect of the dealing on the work
The relevance of the factors depends on the context. Sometimes, certain factors will be much more significant than the others. Occasionally other factors, beyond these six, may be relevant. It is not necessarily the case that all six factors need to be satisfied.
Even if the copying does not constitute fair dealing, it may be permitted under one of the exceptions in the Act that are specific to educational institutions, such as classroom performance of music, sound recordings and videos. The University’s Copyright FAQs document, when updated and re-published, will provide further practical guidance as to whether a specific exception applies to your activity.
If yes > you may copy and use the material without seeking permission, and, if you are using a specific exception, subject to the conditions or limitations that apply to that exception.
If no > you need permission to copy and use the material and should contact the Library for more information and guidance.
5
B) Guidelines as to what constitutes “fair dealing”:
The University of Toronto believes that these Fair Dealing Guidelines provide reasonable safeguards for the owners of copyright-protected works in accordance with the Copyright Act and the Supreme Court decisions, and that they also provide a good sense of the extent of copying that the University of Toronto views as likely to be considered fair dealing in most contexts – all with the understanding that there may be additional scope for fair dealing in the University setting but that these will require some guidance from a knowledgeable expert at the University.
The following points assume that 1) the copying is of a copyright-protected work; 2) an available University licence does not cover the work; and 3) the copying is of a “substantial part” of the work. Further, they only deal with situations where fair dealing needs to be considered, and not with specific exceptions such as classroom use of video, or the creation and dissemination of user-generated content, which have separate statutory requirements but may be available even if fair dealing is not.
1. Faculty and other members of the teaching staff, as well as other University staff supporting the educational activity may communicate and reproduce, or otherwise deal with, in paper or electronic form, short excerpts (as defined below) from a copyright-protected work (including literary works, musical scores, sound recordings and audio-visual works) for the purposes of research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review, or news reporting
In some limited circumstances, such as with a photograph or drawing, an entire work may be copied.
2. Copying or communicating short excerpts from a copyright-protected work for the purpose of news reporting, criticism or review must mention the source and, if given in the source, the name of the author or creator of the work.
3. Subject always to the consideration and application of the fair dealing factors referred to above, a copy of a “short excerpt” from a copyright-protected work may be provided or communicated to each student enrolled in a class or course:
a. as a class handout
b. as a posting to a learning or course management system that is password protected or otherwise restricted to students of the University
c. as part of a course pack
6
4. A “short excerpt” can mean (but is not limited to and may vary depending on the exact nature of the work being used, and of the use itself, all in the context of consideration and application of the fair dealing factors):
a. up to 10% of a copyright-protected work (including a literary work, musical score, sound recording, and an audiovisual work)
b. one chapter from a book
c. a single article from a periodical
d. an entire artistic work (including a painting, print, photograph, diagram, drawing, map, chart, and plan) from a copyright-protected work containing other artistic works
e. an entire newspaper article or page
f. an entire single poem or musical score from a copyright-protected work containing other poems or musical scores
g. an entire entry from an encyclopedia, annotated bibliography, dictionary or similar reference work, provided that in each case you copy no more of the work than you need to in order to achieve the allowable purpose.
5. Copying or communicating multiple different short excerpts from the same copyright-protected work, with the intention of copying or communicating substantially the entire work, will generally not be considered fair dealing.
6. Copying or communicating that exceeds the limits in these Fair Dealing Guidelines will require further analysis, including additional scrutiny of the principles enunciated in CCH and the other Supreme Court cases referred to above. If you find yourself in this situation you should seek guidance from a supervisor or other person designated by the University for evaluation. An evaluation of whether the proposed copying or communication is permitted under fair dealing will be made based on all relevant circumstances.
7. Any fee charged by the University for communicating or copying a short excerpt from a copyright-protected work must be intended only to cover the University’s costs, including overhead costs.
November, 2012
University of Toronto

Il est intéressant de noter leur approche, qui tente de poser des questions simples pour isoler la situation juridique d’un usage.

Je serai de passage au Musée des civilisations de Québec ce jeudi pour l’événement « La Nuit de la Liberté » organisé par la Faculté des lettres de l’Université Laval. Je participe à un panel sur le droit d’auteur et l’accès libre de 16h30 à 17h30.

À voir aussi, cette association nommée Science et Bien Commun dont je viens de découvrir l’existance… à suivre !

Lors Congrès des milieux documentaires à Montréal le 31 october 2012, une équipe de bibliothécaires en milieu scolaire et moi avons présenter le résultat d’un chantier, lancé en mai 2012, pour analyser le droit d’auteur au profit du milieu scolaire (les écoles du Québec).

J’ai filmé la présentation, que j’ai déposé dans YouTube :

En réalité, nous proposons ce modèle pour expliquer les questions de droit d’auteur pour les bibliothécaires :

À noter qu’il y a une coquille dans le graphique « délais » ne devrait pas avoir de « s »

De plus, les éléments de la présentation, tels les acétates PowerPoint et quelques images, sont versées dans le dépôt institutionnel de l’Université Concordia. De plus, une partie de la présentation se trouve su Prezi (celle d’Olivier Ménard, intitulée: Utilisation d’un droit réservé d’une œuvre protégée) :

(Il s’agit d’une partie de la présentation – pour le reste, il faut télécharger le document PowerPoint dans SPECTRUM, le dépôt institutionnel de l’Université Concordia)

J’aime ce nuage de concepts réalisé par Olivier Ménard:

Ont participé aux travaux du Chantier du droit d’auteur en milieu scolaire :

Olivier Charbonneau, bibliothécaire titulaire et chercheur, Université Concordia
Raphaella Dixon, bibliothécaire scolaire, LBPSB
Marie-Ève Guibord, bibliothécaire scolaire, Commission scolaire de MontréalMarie Hélène Labory, bibliothécaire scolaireOlivier Ménard, bibliothécaire, Commission scolaire du Val-des-CerfsBrigitte Moreau, bibliothécaire, Commission scolaire de la Pointe-de-l’Île
Sophie Morissette, bibliothécaire scolaire, Commission scolaire Sorel-Tracy
Merci à Nadine Beaudin de la CS Riverside pour son aide.