Reading John Willinsky’s The Access Principle, I couldn’t help but feel like he was trying to get me to scoop up my pitchfork and rally for the cause: Open access for all! It’s a human right! It seemed so Utopian; too good to be true. I’ll admit relief when I encountered his chapter on Economics, I was a little relieved. He seemed to take a pragmatic approach to the costs of publishing and he may be on to something with his Open Journal System (OJS), grant funded software that allows small journals to publish online, for free. Over all, I agree with his point that the academic publishing system—perhaps much like the systems in place for determining tenure—are a bit archaic. Changing these systems, however, may require the movement of mountains.
I was amused also, at Willinsky’s chapter on politics, from whence my title quote is derived. The truth is, having only ever worked for Uncle Sam (at least for a salary), my work has never been subject to copyright law. And I get paid a decent salary (and I love my job) so I don’t really mind. In fact, I enjoy being able to give away my work to the masses; the grateful voice on the other end of the telephone or those sending an e-mail sometimes just plain makes my day. Dr. Cohen and Dr. Rosensweig nail the only hang up that I have with my “free” work when they note that historians “fret more about the sin of plagiarism than the crime of copyright infringement” (200). It’s happened and it’s occasionally irksome, but I can’t really say I fret too much. For a mild example, I’m pleased that they link back to us, but the biographies found here, were a little alarming when I was accustomed to seeing them…well…here. Where we put them.
That said, I have taken a conservative approach in my encounters on the other end, that is obtaining permission to use material. For example, a coworker and I spent a great deal of time tracking down the rights to several San Francisco Chronicle images we wished to use in our documentary on the Florence Kahn, the first Jewish woman to serve in Congress. Unfortunately, we were attempting to contact the Chronicle when they were on the brink of bankruptcy. The headaches involved made me wonder if we could have claimed “fair use,” but the ambiguity seemed like too much of a risk. This murkiness was highlighted by all authors this week; unfortunately, that means better safe than sorry (and a lot of extra work) for digital historians.
You have a right to be annoyed when people use your work without credit to the office for whom you performed the work. I looked at your site; I like that you provide specific information on how to correctly cite the Florence Kahn documentary. It provides no wiggle room for those who would freely borrow it. We also did that at the VHP, (as does P&P), yet I was amazed at how many researchers completely ignored the citation format.
I admit, the economics chapter is what gave Willinsky so credibility. Rosendo, in a comment, mentioned that a lot times open access theories are presented as “what if” scenarios. Willinsky provides the ethical, democratic, and professional argument, but also says, “Well, not so fast there. Here are some financial hurdles.” I personally see open access taking over, but naturally. There really won’t be a movement, but rising publication costs will lead to the rise of journals being ran by nonprofits or foundations. We have already seen this with journalism. The St. Petersburg Times is successfully ran by the Poynter Institute and the MinnPostg is just one of a number of widely read/viewed nonprofit press organizations.
In regards to your last point about obtaining permission to reuse photos and video from other, I can only imagine what you had to go through. I have to do that daily with local television and top 100 dailies. Most of the time, they don’t care (especially for web) as long as you give them credit. It gets complicated with print and video and I am sure it gets harder when they are getting ready to shut their doors.