November 5

Copyright of State Documents and General Update

One of the many annoying factors in analyzing the data I have on state published law is the copyright issue.  Some states flat out say that they are claiming copyright on their published law, some just have a “copyright state of X” notice on the bottom of their webpages (which leaves it ambiguous as to whether they mean the law itself or just their groovy circa 1998 web page design), and some have no copyright notice but have a terms of use that prevents one from actually using the published law such that they might as well slap a copyright on it.   Happily, the folks at Harvard and Berkman have created this handy guide that breaks down (or at least provides some guidance) on the status of copyright on state documents.  I shall be incorporating it into my data analysis.

In other news, I’m putting Project X on the backburner for the time being and re-diving into my data collection analysis on state published law.  (I needed the break from the data and also Project X is now at a good point to break from it – I’ll really be heading into it full time in 2016.  I just was doing some preliminary work to reassure myself that there’s enough out there for Project X to work.  Possibly.  Anyway…)   I want to re-go over my regulations data – sharp eyed folks will notice I unpublished the link to it.   I found a mistake and I’m worried that my distraction in finishing it the day before leaving on a year-long planned vacation didn’t make me as cautious as I should have been.   Then I’m going to generally clean up the data so all the fun graphs and charts work right and try to figure out what it all means.  Besides the initial reaction of “omg this is so much worse than I thought.”

While I was gone at a conference in Canada, it was finally announced that the lab which I’m affiliated with – the Harvard Library Innovation Lab – is working with Ravel to digitize all of U.S. Case law.  I really admire my colleagues at LIL and all the hard work they have done to make this happen.  It’s a good thing.

Finally, the conference I went to in Canada was on law libraries and access to justice, especially in rural communities.  It was an interesting mix of legal aid attorneys, public librarians and law librarians.  It was good to see that there is interest in all sides to collaborate and make legal information and knowledge more available to communities.

Category: Berkman, case law | LEAVE A COMMENT
September 14

Activity Summary – Week Three

Last week was both very very busy, and yet I don’t feel like I got a lot done.

Started in on the case law review.  Holy cats, it’s so much worse than I thought it would be! I was expecting the unofficial, unauthenticated PDFs, but I was not expecting the really limited scope of the posted cases, the INABILITY TO EVEN SEARCH, or the fact that some states decided that once it was published by a print commercial journal, there was no need to make it available online anymore.

Last week was also when the Berkman Center kicked off activities and I got to meet all the other people connected to it.  Words can’t quite express how neat it all was.  Everyone is very smart, and dedicated and sincere.  I have a feeling I’m going to learn a lot from all of them.

Finally, on Friday I went down to DC for Transparency Camp. It was very interesting and I’m glad I made the somewhat spontaneous decision to go.  There’s not a lot of overlap between the “open law” and “open government” people, at least it doesn’t feel like it to me.  But, if law is data, and I believe it is, I think there’s a lot to be learned from each other.    Probably the biggest thing for me to come out of this unconference was the idea that I should take a look at state’s open data laws and portals.  Maybe they are the future of distribution of legal information since the creating bodies are seemingly having such a terrible time of it.

It also has occurred to me that in looking at law as data, there may be some more sticks (instead of just carrots) that can be used to encourage/force government bodies to open up their legal information.  Because that’s a big hurdle – convincing people in the government to do it and trying to get other people to join the open law movement. Unfortunately saying “it’s the right thing to do” or “access to justice” isn’t enough, sadly.  I’d like to be able to say “oh, actually you’re supposed to because of x,y,z requirements.”

I’ve sort of rededicated myself to/decided that looking into the law and policy behind open legal information is going to be an important piece of this year’s work.   I came up with a rough outline last night, but of course I have forgotten it right now as I write this.

Category: Berkman, case law, conferences, Week in Review | LEAVE A COMMENT