may 24, 2017 institute of directors,...

May 24, 2017 Institute of Directors, London

RightsLink® Roundtable

RightsLink for Open Access Roundtable Institute of Directors, London ~ May 24, 20172

TABLE OF CONTENTS (HYPERLINKED)

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

EVALUATING CHALLENGES WITH RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS IN MEDICAL COMMUNICATIONS (MEDCOMMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Challenges when MedComms Interact with Clients or Healthcare Professionals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Challenges when MedComms Interact with Publishers or RightsLink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

POTENTIAL UPDATES TO RIGHTSLINK ORDER FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

PROJECT TRACKING SOLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

NEXT STEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Host . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Attendees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

RightsLink for Open Access Roundtable Institute of Directors, London ~ May 24, 2017 3

INTRODUCTION

On behalf of my colleagues at Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), I would like to thank you for taking time

out of your busy schedules to attend our May 24th roundtable meeting focused on permissions ordering and

project workflows. Such sessions are a vital part of our ongoing collaboration with our industry partners to

make the RightsLink and Republication Licensing Service (RLS) platforms as invaluable as possible to anyone

seeking to clear permissions or license content.

Medical communication professionals have particularly complex and demanding copyright compliance

needs across a wide range of uses. As a result, publishers also have a challenging time determining the

information required to grant permissions – while simultaneously also needing to navigate the requirements

of societies they may represent. The attendees reviewed the challenges affecting workflow in these

communities and suggested potential solutions, and this report summarizes their discussions.

We are once again grateful to Peter Llewellyn for promoting this roundtable meeting and helping to

coordinate attendance from our medical communications partners. Thanks to a high level of engagement,

collaboration, enthusiasm, and goodwill among the attendees we covered a lot of ground during the day.

We look forward to facilitating further engaging sessions over the next year and continuing the positive

dialogue between these two important communities.

With many thanks on behalf of the CCC team,

Darren

Darren Gillgrass

Director, Rightsholder Products and Services

Copyright Clearance Center

222 Rosewood Drive

Danvers, MA 01923


EVALUATING CHALLENGES WITH RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS IN MEDICAL COMMUNICATIONS (MEDCOMMS)

Goal:For publishers and medical communication professionals to outline the problems they encounter when trying to ensure copyright compliance – and to suggest workable solutions.

Before the meeting, the attendees were surveyed to identify types of re-use that can cause difficulties with permission requests. They were also asked to suggest alternative questions that publishers could ask to elicit the information they need to grant permissions. The first session of the roundtable meeting was an open dialogue between the publishers and the MedComms professionals to analyze these challenges and suggest potential solutions. The discussions are summarized in the following tables.

Challenges when MedComms Interact with CLIENTS OR HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS

Potential Solutions Discussed

Clients and healthcare professionals generally have very little understanding of copyright and are frequently unaware of the need to secure permission to re-use copyrighted works, especially with their own data.

Although MedComms try to educate clients, they may be perceived as being ‘awkward’ and can lose business to companies whose costs are lower because they are disregarding copyright law.

MedComms may produce copyright-compliant material which their client later disseminates to affiliates where it may be adapted, translated, and used in new ways. MedComms may not even know this has happened and cannot ensure continued copyright compliance on projects beyond their remit.

Clients may sometimes expect MedComms to upload references into Zinc – which means charging clients for 2 copies of the same reference (1 for Zinc, 1 for internal use) and clients may not understand the double charge.

Clear and concise infographics or other educational materials summarizing key information about copyright law would help MedComms educate their contacts (who are more likely to accept the facts if the information comes from an authoritative source such as CCC).

Author guidelines on re-use of their own data would be valuable (from a central source or with links to a central source).

At the time of copyright transfer to a journal, could publishers allow for the exclusion of a figure that a pharma company knows they will need to re-use multiple times in the future (e.g. graph of their own phase III data)? Could this be incorporated in an open access license (CC BY)?

Clients may prefer to pay one flat fee to allow unlimited use of some material to avoid the administrative burden and cost uncertainty associated with multiple permissions.

Even after permission for re-use has been obtained, clients are frequently unaware that it has limitations and does not permit additional uses.

Clients need education and clear documentation allowing them to see at a glance the extent and limitations of their licenses.

Publishers to consider summarizing the key facts in a license at the top of the 1st page (rather than at the end of a multi-page document). Key facts should include specific use, duration, languages and territories covered, and whether or not adaptations have been allowed. Adaptation should also be defined (in terms of format, style, content etc.).

License agreements are commonly not read so the important information is not seen.

During online applications for permissions, each limitation in the license terms could have a separate check box for requesters to confirm they have read and understood the relevant text.


Challenges when MedComms Interact with CLIENTS OR HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS


Licenses may have expiry dates and expire without the relevant people realizing.

Even if MedComms ensure clients are aware of expiry dates, they can’t ensure the client takes any necessary action.

Two months before expiry, CCC could send out automatic renewal notifications to the client, MedComms company, and publisher. For renewals, CCC would keep the same license number and just change the date. If the publication is bought by another publisher during the license term, the renewal notice needs to go to both publishers.

Some pharma companies have licenses that allow them to supply articles to MedComms companies but the MedComms company isn’t then allowed to forward them on to opinion leaders without deleting their own copy.

Could licenses be adapted to allow MedComms companies to forward materials to healthcare professionals?

Increasing digital use poses new uncertainties (e.g. YouTube video with graph in the background, presentation slides being downloaded onto mobile devices).

Standardized guidance from publishers.

Challenges when MedComms Interact with PUBLISHERS OR RIGHTSLINK


Publishers may assume that anything funded by a pharmaceutical company is promotional even though this is not the case. Publishers and MedComms companies have a different perception of what promotional means.

To include precise definitions of promotional and non-promotional types of use on RightsLink. This could be supported by running educational webinars for publishers outlining the types of promotional and non-promotional MedComms projects.

It is especially important to know:• There are external non-promotional projects (e.g.

continuing medical education (CME), advisory boards, investigator meetings, plenary sessions)

• The difference between plenary sessions, satellite symposia and stand-alone meetings.

MedComms to define the main project types within a 2 x 2 grid of promotional or non-promotional versus internal or external (see 2nd image at end of this table). Publishers can then determine pricing depending on which quadrant the project falls in. For unusual projects, requester to indicate the relevant quadrant and publisher to determine pricing from that.

Publishers may not understand the different participants involved in internal and external training for pharma companies.

Education for publishers.

Some publishers may grant permissions only if the original work is used unchanged. However, this may mean the material cannot be used if:• It contains any error • It contains any unpublishable information

(e.g. patient initials, brand names) • Only part of a figure or table is relevant • Text needs translating or changing from US spelling to

UK spelling.

Publishers to reconsider whether such restrictive conditions are really necessary and whether MedComms can be allowed to correct errors, remove unpublishable information, use only part of a table or figure, and change spelling or language.

Education for permissions staff and authority to grant exceptions when there is a clear and justifiable rationale.

A comments box in RightsLink would help the requester describe the intended adaptation.




Publishers differ in the level of guidance provided to MedComms agencies about what constitutes adaptation.

Publishers could provide examples of what they consider constitutes allowable and non-allowable adaptations (including splitting a large figure across 2 slides and using only some rows of a table).

For adaptations, some publishers have no objection but insist that the author also gives approval of the change.

Consider adding a clause in the author’s copyright agreement to say that authors agree to adaptations (to avoid any later need to locate them and ask).

In some circumstances (e.g. gaining permissions for a doctor’s slide presentation at a plenary session), some publishers insist the doctor, not MedComms staff, applies for permission.

Education for publishers so that they better understand the key role that MedComms play in assisting healthcare professionals with data dissemination.

If permissions are too slow to be granted, or too problematic, MedComms have to make alternative arrangements before their deadlines (with a potential loss of revenue to publishers).

Education for publishers so that they better understand the complex needs in MedComms.

Maximize automated granting of licenses and minimize the need for manual review.

When manual review is required:• Consider providing a ballpark estimate quickly

as a guide, followed later by the actual quote • Consider adopting a standard turnaround time

(e.g. 3 working days) for requests that need manual input.RightsLink could include a question asking if pharma company training will be for an internal or external audience.

For adaptations, consider upload of original and desired images to RightsLink so publisher can see the change being requested.

Large multi-faceted projects require multiple applications for permissions.

Adapt RightsLink to enable multiple requests through a single modifiable application.

Can batch requests receive a discount?

Additional uses may need to be added to an existing permission.

The publisher named on a permission may need to be changed if a manuscript is rejected by one journal and later accepted elsewhere.

Restructure applications so that they are a “live entity,” capable of being expanded and modified as and when necessary.

Audience levels may be very hard to estimate for many projects (and impossible for online materials).

The number of devices used may be irrelevant.

Adopt standardized bands for audience numbers per project type (these should not reach infinity too quickly – i.e. should not jump from > 10 to infinity).

Modifiable licenses could allow estimates to be adjusted over time once more information is available.

In the absence of any estimate, knowing the intention of the re-use can help publishers set pricing.

Lack of consistency among publishers on rights, terms, duration, and adaptation terms (i.e. if allowed and to what extent).

CCC to consider education piece.

Consider areas in which terms can be made more consistent.




Difficult to anticipate duration needed for licenses. Option for duration of license could include “for the lifetime of the project.”

Cost quotations may not include VAT, meaning client approval has to be sought a second time.

RightsLink and publishers to ensure all applicable taxes are clearly stated on the total amount quoted.

Cost quotations may have changed by the time MedComms have obtained client approval of the cost (e.g. due to slow approval or currency fluctuations).

Publishers to consider extending the validity of quotes (ideally to 6 months and at least to 3 – 4 months).

If quote in desired currency is not guaranteed for a sufficiently long period, MedComms to notify clients that it is subject to currency fluctuations.

RightsLink does not provide clear definition and guidance around what is meant by the term author. Users are confused as to whether this term means primary author of new work, co-author or author support

Rewording or clarification within RightsLink.

“Re-use in a manner not listed here” is a problem and can result in invalid licenses.

Include more nuanced options on RightsLink to give better chance of appropriate match.

Consider better ways of contacting publishers through RightsLink to discuss difficulties.

Can be difficult to find contact details for permissions staff.

Publishers to consider whether contact details could be more prominently placed on their websites (though it was recognized that some publishers may have restrictions on such matters from their associated societies).

Credit line can be hard to find. Ensure credit line is easy to find and re-use (and also surfaces on RightsLink at the article level?).

Consider a standardized credit line across publishers.

Evaluating Challenges with Rights and Permissions in Medical Communications (MEDCOMMS)


POTENTIAL UPDATES TO RIGHTSLINK ORDER FORM

Goal:To gain feedback from the participants on potential updates to questions on the RightsLink order form.

Brian Goode demonstrated potential new changes to the RightsLink order form that have been developed in response to input at previous meetings. Among other changes, he highlighted that the number of events was not asked for as only the total audience is relevant. Also, he showed how choosing a menu option that would trigger manual review results in an onscreen message saying “Requires publisher review” – so requesters immediately know the reason for any delay.

Suggestions for further improvements:• The first question on the form should be the type of requester and RightsLink should then respond dynamically

with relevant questions.

• Need to define specific promotional and non-promotional activities for greater precision. (Publishers would also like to agree among themselves a definition for non-promotional materials so that all work to the same definition.)

• Include standardized ranges for audience levels for each type of activity so that publishers have some idea of reach when audience levels are not easily estimated (e.g. up to 100, up to 500, up to 1,000, up to 5,000, and > 5,000). If online, have to assume an unlimited audience. The bands used on the Republication Licensing Service could be a good starting point.

• Some publishers need to know if pharma company training is for internal or external audiences.

• Publishers would like to know the anticipated duration of re-use.

• For journals especially, need to clarify that “author” refers to any of the authors not just the lead author.

• Include definitions for closed and open websites (avoiding the term “open website” as this implies open access – suggest “unrestricted website” or “public website” instead).

• Selecting “closed website” should trigger additional questions asking for duration of activity and audience numbers.

• Ask for the number of languages in total (English may not be relevant so it should not say “in addition to English”).

• Incorporate the ability to upload a desired adaptation of an image together with the original.

• It may be easier for requesters if the text is in the form of questions rather than statements.

• Need to ensure that everything relevant to license terms is included on the RightsLink screen as that is what will print out on the license and become part of a legal document.


PROJECT TRACKING SOLUTION

Goal:To gain feedback on elements of a potential project tracking solution.

Aaron Reid (Product Manager, Republication Licensing Service) described a vision for a tool to facilitate the tracking of license information across multiple projects (e.g. for a single client) or a large and complex multi-faceted project.

Audience feedback:• This would be useful in

MedComms especially for an overview of license status and impending expiry dates.

• Within MedComms agencies, it would have a cost control function and save time by reducing the need for quick quotes.

• It would be useful for pharma companies tracking permissions across their different agencies and could help identify where they may be paying more than necessary (for example, if different agencies are working on related projects and overlapping permission requests are submitted).

• Publishers do not need to see a licensee’s overall budget.

• Could a copy of the material needing a permission be uploaded into the report so that clients can see what an approval relates to?

• Could it integrate directly with PubMed?

Project Tracking Solution Wireframes


NEXT STEPS Participants voted on which of the main issues that had been discussed were the most important to prioritize. Each participant was given 10 stickers for them to distribute across the issues in whatever manner they felt was most appropriate.

In order of declining priority, next steps were considered to be:

• Update questions on RightsLink (e.g. regarding duration of use, audience levels, different meeting types, internal vs. external training) (61 votes)

• Standardize definitions (e.g. regarding promotional and non-promotional uses) (49 votes)

• Implement ability to upload intended figure adaptations to RightsLink (47 votes)

• Introduce ability to obtain a blanket license specifying multiple uses in a single license (40 votes)

• Develop authoritative infographics or other educational materials to help MedComms companies educate their contacts (31 votes)

• Increase transparency of pricing (22 votes)

• Extend duration of quote validity (14 votes)

• Progress the project tracking solution (14 votes)

• Consider areas in which terms can be made more consistent (11 votes)

• Link RightsLink to a document delivery service (8 votes)

Voting on Priorities and Next Steps

We now look forward to working towards these goals and implementing the suggestions made.


PARTICIPANTS

HostsDarren Gillgrass, Director, Rightsholder Products and Services, CCC

Brian Goode, Product Manager, RightsLink, CCC

Aaron Reid, Product Manager, Republication Licensing Service, CCC

Emilie Delquié, Strategic Account Manager, CCC

Kurt Heisler, Director of Business Development, CCC

Jonathan Brett-Harris, Managing Director, Ixxus

Paul Twelftree, Chief Innovation Officer, Ixxus

Tom Morris, Chief Technology Officer, Ixxus

AttendeesHelen Harvey, AMICULUM

Robin Bodisbaugh, ASCO

Jennifer Banks, Ashfield Healthcare Communications

Julie Halfacre and Laura Lacey, BMJ

Jackie Marchington, Caudex

Hilary Dean, Complete Healthvizion

Steve Banner, Darwin Healthcare Communications

Laura Pritchard and Natalie Qureshi, Elsevier

Jackie Bannister, Fishawack Communications

Phil Garner, Future Science

Claire Inness, Highfield Communication

Liz Beatty, inVentiV Health

Jen Holton and Rebecca Cook, John Wiley and Sons

Elaine Wilson, McCann Complete Group

Peter Llewellyn, NetworkPharma Ltd

Elif Fincanci-Smith, NexGen Healthcare Communications

Keely Jennings, Obsidian Healthcare Group

Ben Kennedy, Oxford University Publishing

Ellie Hodge and Katherine Ryan, SAGE Publications

Silvia Serra and Claire Smith, Springer Nature

Lee-Ann Anderson and Paulette Dooler, Taylor & Francis

Gill Shears, Write on Target Ltd

Post-meeting Refreshments

Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) is a global leader in content management, discovery and document delivery solutions. Through its relationships with those who use and create content, CCC drives market-based solutions that accelerate knowledge, power publishing and advance copyright. With its subsidiaries RightsDirect and Ixxus, CCC provides solutions for millions of people from the world’s largest companies and academic institutions around the world.

Copyright Clearance Center | +1.978.750.8400 | [email protected] | Copyright.com © 2017 Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. All rights reserved. RH0717

mailto:info%40copyright.com?subject=

http://Copyright.com

may 24, 2017 institute of directors,...

Documents