---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:32:43 -0600


Within universities that have presses, traditionally more expertise
on copyright issues resided with press staff than library staff.
This began to change somewhat as photocopying became a
contentious issue in the mid-1960s and resulted in sections
107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976.  Libraries became
even more involved as issues involving e-reserve systems came
into play in the 1990s. Now one often sees in announcements of
openings for a "scholarly communication" position within libraries
that the person holding this position is expected to have some
expertise about copyright.

By contrast with press and now library staff, legal departments
on campuses rarely have anyone who knows a lot about copyright.
It is only one of a great many legal issues that such departments
are tasked to deal with and, by comparison with other issues, hardly
the most important. (Just attend a NACUA conference sometime,
and you will understand why copyright is way down on the list of
priorities for on-campus lawyers.) And copyright is not important
because universities have followed the tradition of not exercising
their legal right to consider faculty work as "work made for hire"
but instead taken a hands-off position of allowing faculty to control
their own copyrights entirely. (This started to change a bit when
some universities began to see benefits in at least becoming co-
owners of copyright in courseware and when they began advising
faculty about retaining certain rights so as to be able to populate
new IRs with faculty articles.) Within the ambit of IP law, patents
and trademarks have been far and away more central to university
administrations' interests than copyrights have. It is therefore not
surprising that IP offices on campus have plenty of staff knowledgeable
about trademarks and patents, but few if any knowledgeable about
copyright law; there is big money in the former, but little or none in
the latter.

Since there are only some 85 American university presses,
librarians have played a much more pervasive role in advising faculty
and students about copyright issues than presses have. Interestingly,
of course, librarians and presses disagree about some copyright issues,
and on campuses where both exist, the administration has to sort out
which view to support in lobbying and other activities. Almost always,
the library wins out over the press when such disagreements exist so
far as overall campus policy on copyright is concerned. Presses often
feel somewhat isolated on campus when it comes to debates over
copyright.

Sandy Thatcher


At 8:18 PM -0500 11/21/11, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> From: FrederickFriend <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:42:10 +0000
>
>
> I shall "de-personalise" this reply to Anthony although what I shall
> write below is derived from my experience and the experience of other
> librarians and former librarians.
>
> On the influence of librarians within universities on copyright
> issues, this has developed because researchers, teachers and students
> have asked librarians for advice when faced with copyright issues
> affecting their work, for example on the copying of library materials
> for classroom use. In some institutions this has led to a nomination
> of a librarian as Copyright Officer, in others it has remained
> informal. Librarians recognise that they are not copyright experts,
> but they always have recourse to institutional legal advisers if
> necessary. (I wonder what the situation is in publishers' rights
> offices: are all the staff there legally-qualified, or do they also
> turn to the legal officers when they face an unusual situation?)
> Although librarians are not copyright experts, they do build up
> experience, particularly when they see the effect of restrictive
> copyright legislation or licences upon their institution's research
> and teaching.
>
> Likewise it is librarians' experience of dealing with problems in the
> current scholarly communication system that has led to their
> involvement in campaigns for change. Some librarians are scholars,
> some may not be, but most librarians know what it is like not to be
> able to purchase enough research monographs or textbooks because a
> very high proportion of the library budget is spent on journals from a
> handful of publishers. Librarians cannot ignore such situations,
> especially at a time when there is little hope of increased public
> funding of libraries. What librarians have to do in such situations is
> advise their university authorities on the allocation of the library
> budget which yields the highest return in terms of access, use and
> impact for researchers, teachers and learners. Some academics will not
> and do not agree with changes in scholarly communication. Others do
> agree. We all have to say what we believe to be right.
>
> The big publishers do spend a  lot of money on lobbying. I do not
> blame them for that (although it is galling that high journal prices
> paid by libraries provide the money for them to lobby). Publishers
> have to do what they feel to be right to protect their profit margins.
> Librarians also lobby for what they feel to be beneficial change. It
> is a reality within universities and within governments.
>
> Fred Friend
> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
>
>
>
> From: LIBLICENSE
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 4:23 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Future of the Subscription Model
>
> From: "Anthony Watkinson" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> I have refrained from commenting on posts by Fred Friend for some time but I
> cannot refrain from commenting on this one. Big publishers have absolutely
> no influence on universities. Big librarians have a huge influence within
> universities as he knows very well. For example in most universities
> librarians are the copyright officers whether or not they know anything
> about copyright. They organise campaigns about transforming scholarly
> communication even when they are not scholars. Yes of course some academics
> who are editors of journals published by big publishers (whether for profit
> or not-for-profit) do not want their journals to be removed from purchase
> but they are not acting as representatives of big publishers. They are
> acting as academics. Unfortunately for Fred Friend academics on the ground
> do not always agree with him. Librarians do not represent academics and of
> course publishers do not either. I guess few academics would wish to have a
> model of scholarly communication under which they would always to get money
> to pay fees to publish. I suggest that most academics whether they prefer to
> publish in open access journals or not would want the mixed economy that we
> currently have.
>
> Anthony Watkinson
> University College London