CCC recently brought together a panel of experts for a discussion focused on copyright as it pertains to the work of medical communications professionals. Led by moderator Catherine Zaller Rowland, Vice President and General Counsel, CCC, the panel featured:
- Rebecca Cook, Associate Director, Copyright and Permissions Licensing, Wiley
- Leslie Lansman, Global Permissions Manager, Springer Nature
- Jackie Marchington, Head of Compliance and Ethics, IPG Health Medical Communications
- Elizabeth Jennings, Associate Editorial Director, Lucid Group
The panelists drew on their respective decades of experience to answer questions submitted by the audience, and the discussion covered a range of topics regarding reuse in medical communications projects, including when copyright permission is needed and common use cases around permissions.
Below are some common myths about copyright in medical communications that were addressed during the webcast, as well as responses by the expert panelists:
Myth 1 — You can always redraw or reimage tables and figures without a license.
Rebecca Cook, Wiley:
“I think what we need to clarify here is what we mean by redrawing. And, if by that you mean you’re going to copy it in some way, you’re going to reproduce something that looks very similar to the original version with maybe a few amendments, or you’re getting it nicely reconfigured digitally, what you’re not really doing, then, is redrawing a figure. In the copyright sense, you’re reproducing that figure, and that means that permission is required.”
Elizabeth Jennings, Lucid Group:
How medical communications professionals and rightsholders interpret tracing of a figure can vary quite a bit. One publisher may consider tracing adaptation, but another could have a different stance. It’s important to share with each publisher how you intend to reuse the figure. “Let’s not put ourselves or our clients at risk,” Jennings advised.
Leslie Lansman, Springer Nature:
Remember that not all adaptations are the same. Lansman shared that on occasion agents contact her with adaptations that only incorporate unprotected elements of the original figure. In such situations, permission is not required, but it can be difficult to judge. She advises that it’s always best to reach out the rightsholder with your questions: “We are on the side of transparency.”
Myth 2 — If you buy a license for content, you never need to buy another one.
Jackie Marchington, IPG Health Medical Communications:
When you secure a permission, you provide specific details about how you intend to reuse the content, the number of people who will view the content, etc. Those factors are considered when the rightsholders determine whether to grant the license and at what cost. If you then want to reuse the content in another way, the details of the reuse scenario change and therefore could impact the publisher’s licensing and pricing decisions.
Rebecca Cook, Wiley:
When it comes to licenses and permissions, the reuse rights you’ve secured are a matter of contract law. “If you have a license that stipulates that it’s tied to a specific use case, that’s what that license is going to cover,” Cook explained. “As rightsholders, we want to be flexible while making sure that the type of use is covered effectively in the license.”
Elizabeth Jennings, Lucid Group:
“As you’re going through the project, what you’re initially planning may change,” Jennings said. Be as clear as possible upfront but go back to the publisher for guidance if you need to amend the reuse details, she advised.
Myth 3 — If a Creative Commons license is available, you don’t need further permissions.
Elizabeth Jennings, Lucid Group:
According to Jennings, people often make the mistake of considering Creative Commons as a green light to reuse content without seeking permission from the rightsholder. However, there are many types of Creative Commons license, which determines how content can be reused. “You have to look really carefully to determine whether the specific Creative Commons license allows reuse on a commercial basis, which is where MedComms most often fits in,” she explained.
Rebecca Cook, Wiley:
The question commercial versus non-commercial often comes up in the context of Creative Commons licenses. “Whether an activity is generating revenue or not is not the determining factor as to whether most rightsholders would consider an activity as being commercial,” Cook said.
Cook cautioned against assuming internal training and educational presentations are non-commercial. “In reality, most rightsholders would consider anything that involves either the direct financial gain for an organization, or even indirect financial gain for an organization, as falling outside the scope of a non-commercial Creative Commons license,” she said. “When in doubt, double-check, because each rightsholder will have a different interpretation.”
For more information, check out the full recording of the panel discussion now to watch an in-depth discussion of the above myths and get answers to many common questions about reuse in medical communications.