Das dieser Handreichung zugrundeliegende Vorhaben wurde mit Mitteln desBundesministeriums für Forschung, Technologie und Raumfahrt (BMFTR) unter demFörderkennzeichen 16KOA011 gefördert. Die Verantwortung für den Inhalt dieserVeröffentlichung liegt bei den Autorinnen.

The security and accessibility of U.S. federal data repositories have never been more important or more at risk. These collections of open datasets power

The open movement claims to include all disciplines. But it is profoundly shaped by the institution of science, leaving humanities researchers at risk.

Microsoft Virtual Events Powered by Teams

Ongoing efforts over the last 50 years have made data and methods more reproducible and transparent across the life sciences. This openness has led to transformative insights and vastly accelerated scientific progress ([Gražulis et al., 2012][1]; [Munafó et al., 2017][2]). For example, structural biology ([Bruno and Groom, 2014][3]) and genomics ([Benson et al., 2013][4]; [Porter and Hajibabaei, 2018][5]) have undertaken systematic collection and publication of protein sequences and structures over the past half century. These data, in turn, have led to scientific breakthroughs that were unthinkable when data collection first began ([Jumper et al., 2021][6]). We believe that neuroscience is poised to follow the same path, and that principles of open data and open science will transform our understanding of the nervous system in ways that are impossible to predict at the moment. New social structures supporting an active and open scientific community are essential ([Saunders, 2022][7]) to facilitate and expand the still limited adoption of open science practices in our field ([Schottdorf et al., 2024][8]). Unified by shared values of openness, we set out to organize a symposium for open data in neurophysiology (ODIN) to strengthen our community and facilitate transformative open neuroscience research at large. In this report, we synthesize insights from this first ODIN event. We also lay out plans for how to grow this movement, document emerging conversations, and propose a path toward a better and more transparent science of tomorrow. [1]: #ref-33 [2]: #ref-54 [3]: #ref-12 [4]: #ref-9 [5]: #ref-64 [6]: #ref-41 [7]: #ref-68 [8]: #ref-71

Explore how the UN Sustainable Development Goals shape global research and policy, and why publishers play a critical role in bridging science and decision-making.

When Canadian Science Publishing became a Dryad partner in January 2024, the editors clear aim to support authors in new ways.

November 25-26, 2025 | globally

**Participants:** **Paul Keller** – Policy Director at Open Future, co-founder of Communia Association **Oana Nasui** – Cultural researcher and project coordinator * * * **Origins of Communia and the Public Domain Movement** Paul Keller explains that Communia Association emerged from an EU-funded research project that brought together activists from the Creative Commons communities across Europe (Netherlands, Germany, Greece, Poland, Spain, Catalonia) around 2005-2006. At that time, almost 20 years ago, many people felt the internet had enormous potential for enabling access to information, but much of that potential remained unrealized. This was before music subscription services, streaming platforms, or widespread digital access – a period when young people wanted online access to music and information, but faced significant barriers. The three-year EU-funded project built a strong network of people who cared about openness and access to information. After the project ended, they used part of the funding to establish an international association under Belgian law – the Communia Association – which still exists today with the mission to advocate for the interests of the public domain and access to information. **Defining the Public Domain – A Broad Conception** Keller articulates Communia’s comprehensive understanding of the public domain: information that isn’t owned by anyone and is available for everyone. This includes old information no longer protected by copyright due to term expiration, pure information that isn’t creative expression and therefore not protected by copyright, and voluntarily shared content under Creative Commons licenses (like Wikipedia). This broad conception emphasizes that free access to as much information as possible is fundamentally important for society. Communia operates primarily in Brussels (hence the Belgian legal structure) and at WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) in Geneva, advocating for these principles at both EU and international levels. **The Public Domain Manifesto and Policy Framework** Communia’s guiding principles are articulated in the Public Domain Manifesto (published around 2009) and accompanying policy recommendations, which were updated two years ago. Over 12-13 years of existence, Communia has become a frequent and respected participant in copyright policy discussions in Brussels, providing a crucial counterbalance to the numerous organizations representing specific creator groups, creative industries, and rights holders. Keller emphasizes that most discussions about access to information are filtered through the lens of copyright, which essentially defines the boundary between what is protected and what belongs to the public domain. Historically, very few voices – mostly academics – understood the importance and value of the public domain in these policy debates. **Copyright as a Territorial vs. Global Challenge** A central theme emerges: copyright is fundamentally territorial, designed for physical media like books and phonographic records that could be controlled within specific jurisdictions. The law was developed in response to technologies that were physical in nature and could be “pinned down” geographically. However, modern digital technologies and AI operate globally on the internet, creating a profound mismatch. As Keller states: “Everything is global except the regulatory framework.” This territorial nature of copyright creates significant enforcement challenges when content, platforms, and AI models circulate freely across borders. **The EU Copyright Directive and Cultural Heritage Digitization** Nasui introduces her research on the EU Copyright Directive, particularly focusing on how it impacts cultural heritage institutions. This provision is crucial for cultural heritage institutions seeking to digitize their collections. The directive creates a mechanism where cultural institutions can apply for permissions to digitize these orphan works or out-of-commerce materials, which would otherwise remain inaccessible due to copyright restrictions. This represents an attempt to balance copyright protection with the public interest in preserving and accessing cultural heritage. **The Orphan Works Problem** The discussion delves into the challenge of orphan works – copyrighted materials where the rights holder cannot be identified or located. This is a massive problem for digitization projects, as institutions cannot obtain permission to digitize and make available works whose owners are unknown. The EU directive attempts to address this through “diligent search” requirements, allowing institutions to use orphan works if they can demonstrate they’ve made reasonable efforts to locate rights holders. However, Keller notes this remains a complex and resource-intensive process that continues to impede digitization efforts. **The 25-Year Rule and Commercial Availability** An important technical detail emerges: the directive includes a 25-year rule for determining when works are considered “out of commerce.” If a work has not been commercially exploited for 25 years, it may qualify for the special digitization provisions. This rule attempts to balance the interests of rights holders (who may want to commercially exploit their works) with the public interest in accessing cultural heritage that has effectively disappeared from the market. However, implementation varies significantly across EU member states, creating inconsistencies in how cultural institutions can operate. **The Power Imbalance: Creators vs. Tech Giants** Keller identifies a fundamental power imbalance in copyright discussions. While creators and rights holders organize at the national level (writers’ unions, visual artists’ associations in individual countries), they face global corporations like Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI operating across borders with vastly greater resources. Even when all organized writers or visual artists in larger EU countries band together, they remain “comparatively small as an organization” compared to tech giants. This structural imbalance makes traditional copyright enforcement increasingly challenging and raises questions about whether copyright can effectively regulate global digital platforms. **AI and Copyright – The Training Data Debate** The conversation turns to one of the most contentious contemporary issues: whether using copyrighted material to train AI models constitutes copyright infringement. Keller outlines the fundamental debate: **Position 1 (Many creators and rights holders):** Using copyrighted works to train AI without permission is copyright infringement. They argue that AI companies are building profitable businesses on the unauthorized use of creative works, and creators should be compensated. **Position 2 (Many in the tech/open access community):** Training AI models is analogous to how humans learn – by reading, viewing, and absorbing existing works. From this perspective, it should be considered fair use or covered by existing exceptions for text and data mining. Keller notes there’s a spectrum of positions rather than two absolute camps, with many nuanced views in between. The debate touches on fundamental questions about the nature of learning, creativity, and what constitutes “copying” in the digital age. **Text and Data Mining (TDM) Exceptions** The EU Copyright Directive includes provisions for text and data mining – allowing researchers and others to analyze copyrighted materials computationally. However, rights holders can opt out of these provisions, creating uncertainty about what materials can be used for AI training. This opt-out mechanism reflects the ongoing tension between enabling technological innovation and research while respecting rights holders’ interests. Different EU member states have implemented these provisions differently, adding to the complexity and creating a patchwork of regulations across Europe. **The Getty Images Case – Jurisdictional Limits** Keller discusses the Getty Images vs. Stability AI lawsuit as an illustrative example of copyright’s territorial limitations. Getty Images sued Stability AI, presenting evidence that the AI system produced images containing Getty’s watermark – suggesting the training dataset included Getty images. However, Getty had to retract part of their claim when it became clear the AI training occurred outside the United Kingdom, where the lawsuit was filed. UK copyright law only applies within UK territory, making it irrelevant what happened elsewhere during the training process. This case demonstrates that instinctively, most people would agree that taking images without permission and using them to build a profitable system seems wrong. Yet the territorial nature of copyright law makes it extremely difficult to enforce such intuitions in a global digital environment. **The Mismatch Between Global Technology and Territorial Law** Keller emphasizes that AI models circulate globally on the internet, which is also global, but the regulatory framework remains stubbornly territorial. Copyright has “real limits as a system that is super territorial” when dealing with technologies that know no borders. The underlying mechanisms powering copyright were developed in response to physical technologies – printing books, creating phonographic records – that could be controlled within specific geographic boundaries. These mechanisms are increasingly inadequate for regulating digital information flows and AI development. **From Individual Creativity to Big Data Business** Nasui draws an important distinction: before AI, individuals with internet access could become “content producers,” creating collages and remixes from bits of existing material. This grassroots creativity was generally non-commercial and fell into legal gray areas. However, AI operates at a completely different scale – “billions of big data” – and is explicitly “mission-based” with clear commercial objectives. Companies are building huge businesses by aggregating vast amounts of data, fundamentally changing the stakes of the copyright debate. The scale and commercial nature of AI development make it qualitatively different from individual creative experimentation. **The EU as the Most Viable Regulatory Level** Despite critiques of EU bureaucracy, Keller argues that the European Union represents the most viable level for effective regulation. While some may view the EU as overly bureaucratic, it operates on “a set of shared values” with “common agency” that makes collective action possible. Global regulation would be ideal, but “we don’t have the structures” for effective global governance in this area. Therefore, Europeans must think strategically about “how can we organize ourselves in a way that this imbalance of power is not as big as it is currently.” The EU, despite its imperfections, offers the best available framework for balancing the interests of creators, the public, and tech companies. **Short-term Solutions in Exponential Times** Nasui concludes by emphasizing the need for short-term, practical solutions given AI’s exponential growth trajectory. We “can hardly measure and see where it’s going,” making long-term legislative solutions potentially obsolete before implementation. Public discussions in virtual spaces may not result in immediate legislative resolutions, but they can “open up our brains” to find workable approaches. Understanding the system and network of copyright, digitization, and AI governance helps stakeholders develop better proposals for navigating these challenges. The conversation emphasizes that thinking at higher organizational levels (EU rather than national) increases the “chance of success” in creating effective frameworks that can address the power imbalances inherent in the current system. **Justice and Systemic Balance** The dialogue closes with Nasui’s concern about “justice” – ensuring fair treatment for creators, cultural operators, and the public interest in accessing information. Keller’s response emphasizes building “strong enough” organizational structures to reduce the current power imbalance. This isn’t about creating “countervailing” opposition, but rather finding ways to organize that allow for more balanced negotiations between vastly unequal parties – individual creators and national organizations on one side, global tech giants on the other. * * * **Final Note:** This dialogue provides crucial insight into the complex intersection of copyright law, cultural heritage digitization, AI development, and the structural challenges of governing global technologies through territorial legal frameworks. It highlights the urgent need for coordinated action at the EU level to address power imbalances and protect both creator rights and public access to information in the AI age. **Context:** This professional dialogue is part of the “Beyond Creation” project, co-financed by the Administration of the National Cultural Fund (AFCN) and produced by the Formare Culturală platform. Share on Facebook Share on WhatsApp

**Context** SocArXiv is experiencing record high submission rates. In addition, now that we have paper versioning – which is great – our moderators have to approve every paper revision. As a result, our volunteer workload is increasing. In addition we are receiving many non-research, spam, and AI-generated submissions. We do not have a technological way of identifying these, and it is time-consuming to read and assess them according to our moderation rules. We also don’t have moderation workflow tools that allow us to, for example, sort incoming papers by subject, to get them to specific expert moderators. So all our moderators look at all papers as they come in. That encourages us to think about narrowing the range of subjects we accept. The two rule changes below are intended to help manage the increased moderator burden. More policy changes may follow if the volume keeps increasing. **1. ORCID requirement** We require the submitting author to have a publicly accessible ORCID linked from the OSF profile page, with a name that matches that on the paper and the OSF account. In the case of non-bibliographic submittors (e.g., a research assistant submitting for a supervisor), the first author must have an ORCID. We can make exceptions for institutional submitters upon request, such as journals that upload their papers for authors. At present we are not requiring additional verification or specific trust markers on the ORCID (such as email or employer verification), just the existence of an account that lists the author’s name. It’s not a foolproof identity verification, obviously, but it adds a step for scammers, and also helps identify pseudonymous authors, which we do not permit. We may take advantage of ORCID’s trust markers program in the future and require additional elements on the ORCID record. We are happy to host papers by independent scholars, but a disproportionate share of non-research, spam, and AI-generated submissions come from independent scholars, many of whom do not have ORCIDs. For those scholars with institutional affiliations, we urge you to get an ORCID. This is a good practice that we should all endorse. **2. Focus on social sciences** At its founding, SocArXiv did not want to maintain disciplinary boundaries. It was our intention to be the big paper server for all of social sciences, and we couldn’t draw an easy line between social sciences and some humanities subjects, especially history, philosophy, religious studies, and some area studies, which are humanities in the taxonomy we use, but have significant overlap with social sciences. It was more logical just to accept them all. As the volume has increased, this has become less practical. In addition, a lot of junk and AI submissions are in the areas of religion, philosophy, and various language studies. We also don’t have moderators working in arts and humanities, and our moderators trained in social sciences are not expert at reviewing these papers. Finally, there is an excellent, open humanities archive: Knowledge Commons (KC Works), which is freely available for humanities scholars. With approval from that service, we will now direct authors to their site for papers we are rejecting in arts and humanities subjects. We continue to accept papers in education and law, which are also generally adjacent to social science. For a limited time we will accept revisions of papers we already host in arts and humanities, but urge those authors to include links to Knowledge Commons or somewhere else that can host their work in the future. We will assess papers that include arts/humanities as well as social science subject identifiers, and if we determine they are principally in art/humanities, reject them. We will continue to host all work we have already accepted. ### Share this: * Tweet * * Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit * More * * * Like Loading...

_Books in Byeolmadang Library_ by Adli Wahid Authors Alliance has had a longstanding interest in helping authors see their older books reinvigorated with new life by making them available online for free on an open access basis. One of the most exciting initiatives working on OA for backlist books is the Big Ten Open Books program. This post is based on a set of questions we posed to Kate McCready (Program Director for Open Publishing, Center for Library Programs at the Big Ten Academic Alliance) and Charles Watkinson (Director of University of Michigan Press and Associate University Librarian for Publishing at the University of Michigan) about what the program is and how it works. **1) What are the goals of the Big Ten Open Books program?** The Big Ten Open Books program aims to develop a sustainable approach for creating open access copies of scholarly monographs previously published by Big Ten affiliated university presses. The program is a collaboration between those presses and the academic librarians at Big Ten Academic Alliance member institutions to publish thematic collections of 100 books each. The production team is based at the University of Michigan. 2) **I see that the project started in 2023, with 100 titles already opened up, and you’ve got a number of books available now for “sponsorship.” What are the basic terms you’ve been able to work out for opening up books, and what success have you had so far in terms of broadening the reach of these books?** Yes, we began publication in 2023 with our first collection focused on Gender and Sexuality Studies. The next collection of 100 ebooks on Indigenous North Americans was published this August. The topics were identified by a group led by the Collection Development Officers. Initially, the Big Ten Academic Alliance Center for Library Programs funded the program. Now, we are looking to scale our efforts and are seeking support from other institutions to fund the creation of these open access versions of the books. We have three more collections under development: African-, Asian-, and Hispanic American Experiences, Health Disparities and Disability Culture, and Human Environmental Impact. Institutions can sponsor a book for $3800. So far, of the 300 books we are seeking to re-publish openly, we have nearly 150 titles sponsored. Financial sustainability for both libraries and university presses is foundational to our work, and we have built from there. We provide $2000 per title to the university presses and are completely transparent about the costs to produce a high quality, fully accessible open access ebook. **3) What do you find has been the biggest challenge for the project so far?** Title selection has been harder than we thought it would be. We are looking for semi-recent, relevant works where the presses have (or can obtain) all the rights and permissions needed to make the works openly available. We also want to be sure that the participating presses can afford to make the works open access because they can no longer sell ebook copies to libraries once they agree to make an open access copy. Unsurprisingly, funding this work is challenging. It is expensive to create these works, but we continue to be motivated by the huge impact we’re seeing. Though documenting impact is another challenge we face, we’ve been blown away by the usage of the first two collections. In just two years, these books have been downloaded by over 1 million people! The response to our program has been tremendously positive from both authors and readers. Authors are thrilled that their work is reaching new audiences. Readers are incredibly grateful that these materials are available to them without charges. Of the hundreds of thank yous and comments we see recurring themes that highlight the benefits of providing vetted, well researched, scholarly materials to the world: * _“I’m an adjunct academic who loves researching and teaching on Indigenous issues and your collection is incredible!”_ * _“Very nice for students looking to save $ on course materials, tbs. Thanks for providing this service.”_ * _“It is very hard to find academic books if you are not a member of a university. Open access books are so important.”_ * _“Easily accessible ebooks are powerful and wonderful, please keep it up.”_ * _“Thank you for providing free and open content. You are the shining beacon of what the Internet was meant to be.”_ **4) Do you have a sense of what the project might look like in 2-3 years? Are there plans to expand?** We are expanding our work by publishing multiple collections at one time. This allows other institutions to fund those works that are highest priorities for their affiliates and scholars. We are also working to identify future collection areas through a deep analysis of all titles that have been published by the Big Ten university presses. **5) How have authors reacted to the project?** They’ve been so excited to see their books have a second life! We have a couple video testimonials that demonstrate how important the authors feel it is to make their books widely available. The humanities and social science scholars who authored the books included in Big Ten Open Books did so to bring attention to different aspects of our world and culture, and they’re overwhelmingly thrilled to gain new readers. **6) Do you have any suggestions for other libraries, presses, or others who might be interested in pursuing a similar initiative?** When we began our work, there were no other programs actively working on making in-copyright backlist content (older than one year) open access. Now that we’ve developed systems and figured out solutions, we are happy to share our model with others. We also believe we have encouraged colleagues in other libraries and presses to focus on backlist. I would also suggest that if others are interested, we should work together to find solutions that find even more efficiencies to make this work more scalable. ### Share this: * Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X * Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky * Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * * * * ### Discover more from Authors Alliance Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email. Type your email… Subscribe

We’re pleased to announce a new funding opportunity for **Canadian archives, libraries, museums, and other memory institutions** to take part in a digitization initiative focused on the **Arctic Circumpolar region**. With funding from the Rasmuson Foundation, this project supports the digitization of **primarily textual collections** (including ephemera), to preserve and share materials connected to the Arctic Circumpolar region and broader Northern histories. The project focuses on digitizing primarily textual collections, including ephemera, related to: * The **Arctic and Circumpolar regions**** ** * **Canadiana** and Northern regional histories * The **fur trade** , including materials tied to voyageurs and trade routes extending into Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan * **Canadian railroad history** , especially involving northern expansion and infrastructure * **First Nations cultures and histories** , with particular attention to the North and the Northwest Coast (British Columbia) Digitization work will be carried out by **Internet Archive Canada** at its Toronto digitization centre. Participating institutions will receive complete digital copies of all materials processed. ### **Access, Reuse & Visibility** All digitized content will be made openly available on **archive.org** , and featured on a dedicated portal for Arctic and Northern materials: **circumpolarnavigator.org**. All funded projects must be completed by **October 2026**. ### **How to Participate** If your organization holds collections that align with this initiative, you’re invited to get involved (by December 31, 2025): * Submit a digitization inquiry form: https://digitization.archive.org/contact-us/ * Or express interest directly by emailing **[email protected]**** ** This initiative presents an opportunity to surface and share the stories, histories, and cultural heritage of Canada’s northern regions. We look forward to collaborating with institutions across the country to broaden access to these vital collections.