<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Led by moderator Catherine Zaller Rowland, Vice President and General Counsel, CCC, the panel featured: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Below are some common myths about copyright in medical communications that were addressed during the webcast, as well as responses by the expert panelists: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Rebecca Cook, Wiley:<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI think what we need to clarify here is what we mean by redrawing. And, if by that you mean you\u2019re going to copy it in some way, you\u2019re going to reproduce something that looks very similar to the original version with maybe a few amendments, or you\u2019re getting it nicely reconfigured digitally, what you\u2019re not really doing, then, is redrawing a figure. In the copyright sense, you\u2019re reproducing that figure, and that means that permission is required.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Elizabeth Jennings, Lucid Group:<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s important to share with each publisher how you intend to reuse the figure. \u201cLet\u2019s not put ourselves or our clients at risk,\u201d Jennings advised. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Leslie Lansman, Springer Nature:<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s always best to reach out the rightsholder with your questions: \u201cWe are on the side of transparency.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Jackie Marchington, IPG Health Medical Communications:<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s licensing and pricing decisions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rebecca Cook, Wiley: <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n When it comes to licenses and permissions, the reuse rights you\u2019ve secured are a matter of contract law. \u201cIf you have a license that stipulates that it\u2019s tied to a specific use case, that\u2019s what that license is going to cover,\u201d Cook explained. \u201cAs rightsholders, we want to be flexible while making sure that the type of use is covered effectively in the license.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Elizabeth Jennings, Lucid Group:<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAs you\u2019re going through the project, what you\u2019re initially planning may change,\u201d 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\nMyth 2 \u2014 If you buy a license for content, you never need to buy another one.<\/strong> <\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Myth 3 \u2014 If a Creative Commons license is available, you don\u2019t need further permissions.<\/strong> <\/h4>\n\n\n\n