Open Textbooks

Georgia Harper saw an interesting article in USA Today about Open textbooks and, among else, says:

Open access is just one part of a much bigger and more complex picture. I am very optimistic that open access will find its way into the book market (or what we call books today), but again, it's not like that will cut off the flow of revenues. Quite the contrary. It just makes it possible for a lot more people to benefit from the work of authors while authors and those who help them ready their works for public consumption still reap sufficient financial rewards to make creating worthwhile. Maybe the biggest stumbling block is understanding that as a copyright owner, you don't have to appropriate every cent of public benefit from your work. There's viability in skimming off the top and letting some of the benefit go to those who never would have been able to buy your book anyway. That concept seems really counter-intuitive to many authors and publishers, but I think it's what makes open access a successful competitor -- authors and publishers can still get paid (if that's what they want) but people who would not have had access also derive benefit.

So, back to copyright law: we make and distribute copies of others' works; we license others' works; we buy others' works. We (educators) are very big consumers of and producers of educational, research and scholarly materials. This is big, big business. And it's got copyright as a major component of its engine. But a bundle of copyrights, no matter how big, becomes worth less and less over time. New works get created every single day. And every single new author has choices today about how to distribute, market and benefit from his or her work that were simply not available even a decade ago. That's what makes authoring and creating so exciting today: the chance to reach an audience of any size is within reach for many more of us than in the past. How will you handle your copyrights? Open access has an awful lot to recommend it. Look into it! Creative Commons licensing is a good example of how you can make your work widely and freely available while still maintaining the degree of control that fits with your overall goals in writing or creating in the first place.

Amen.

Hat-tip: Gavin Baker

More like this

I don't like getting into blog back and forths, but this post from the Information Research folks really deserves a reply of its own. I believe this is an honest piece of confusion, and it's likely the result of FUD from the traditional publishing community. I invite the Information Research folks…
This one is via Christina Pikas, Bobbi Newman and Sarah-Houghton-Jan, who originated it. It's released under a CC0 license, so please feel free to repost, remix and whatever else strikes your fancy. This arises from the current controversy in the library world (and beyond) about a particular…
When three separate people send you an article in Nature it gets your attention. Since I have a paid subscription to Nature, my attention was ready to be grabbed anyway, but I hadn't yet read this story so a tip of the hat to my informants. I also have paid personal subscriptions to Science and a…
There's been some talk among the sciencebloggers about the idea of intellectual property, and href="http://www.scienceblogs.com/clock/">Bora over at "A Blog Around the Clock" asked me to convert my thoughts into a post. It's a serious topic, which is worth giving some deep consideration, and…