English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

C&RL News Digitizing existing collections and making them available online facilitates public and scholarly access to the niftiness we have squirreled away in our archives and special collections. But providing only online access to collections is of limited value when visitors don’t know how they can make use of these materials. That is why there are many efforts underway in libraries and related cultural institutions to become more active in establishing and communicating this information to our visitors. One way we communicate usability information to our visitors is by describing the rights status of items from our collections that we have digitized and shared online. Some libraries have stuck with the “handsoff” approach, with statements that suggest, “We have no clear info about this item. Do whatever you want, it’s all at your own risk—but you must write us for permission to do anything, too.” However, other organizations have attempted to improve on that and provide more information to users. These attempts have often been limited by liability concerns from institutional counsel (e.g., “We don’t want to be liable for misuse if we wrongly label something as public domain.”). Rights descriptions have also been less-than-useful for end users because of a lack of standardization. The problems of limited information and lack of standardization in descriptive rights statements are both being addressed through collaborative efforts to systematize accurate information sharing about items’ rights statuses, such as the RightsStatements.org project underway via DPLA and Europeana. It will take both time and human effort to establish the actual rights status of many items. Even for a single item, it can be an intensive research project to determine whether there is a rights owner, and to establish who it might be. It is likely some of the details of these projects will continue to evolve, but RightsStatements.org is well on its way to addressing the thorny problems caused by proliferating idiosyncratic ways of describing rights statuses in online collections. However, prior to the existence of rights standardization efforts, some organizations started using open licenses to try to communicate rights information—often with the best of intentions, but in ways that sow confusion. For example, it is legally inappropriate for people or organizations other than a rightsholder to try to apply an open license to a work. They are intended to be Nancy Sims Rights, ethics, accuracy, and open licenses in online collections What’s “ours” isn’t really ours

Rights, ethics, accuracy, and open licenses in online collections: What’s “ours” isn’t really ours