LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:42:50 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines)
From: "Pennington, Buddy D." <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:09:46 +0000

I think the language is unclear, but I would not accept it. Do they
not understand what ILL is?? I would push back with better language,
maybe refer them to the CONTU guidelines if they are not already aware
of it.

Buddy Pennington
Director of Collections and Access Management
University of Missouri--Kansas City
308 Miller Nichols Library
Kansas City, MO 64110-2499
[log in to unmask]


From: Anna Creech <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:22:34 -0400

I'm working with a publisher on an amendment that would permit us to
send copies of articles via ILL (the standard license does not), and
they have included the following line:

"Licensee warrants that... Licensee will not make articles available
to any other library, database, or service that provides document
delivery or ILL services without the express written consent of
Publisher"


My interpretation is that we cannot send articles via ILL to any
institution that offers ILL services without written consent from the
Publisher each time, which would pretty much negate the point of
having the ILL amendment added in the first place. Am I
misunderstanding the language here?

I've asked them for clarification, but I wanted to share this in case
someone else has had this experience and could illuminate.

Anna

ATOM RSS1 RSS2