From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 00:11:07 -0500

If I read what Fred is saying here correctly, it sounds like a call
for librarians to settle for second best (author's final version vs.
version of record) as the price of regaining control over perpetual
access. Are librarians prepared to do that? Chuck Hamaker seems to be
one librarian who isn't.

Sandy Thatcher



At 7:43 PM -0400 10/3/13, LIBLICENSE wrote:
>
> From: "Friend, Fred" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:37:09 +0000
>
> Obtaining reasonable perpetual access to journal backfiles was a
> battle the library community lost almost twenty years ago. It was part
> of the disastrous (for library users and librarians) switch from a
> content purchasing model to a content licensing model. For all
> licensed content we are totally dependent upon what the publisher will
> allow, and of course there is no uniform approach to such issues as
> perpetual access amongst publishers.
>
> The only way to cut through this Gordian Knot is for the academic
> community to re-take control over its own work, which researchers can
> do by refusing to sign over all rights to publishers and by placing
> the peer-reviewed author's final version in an open access repository.
> Open access repositories do not charge for perpetual access, nor do
> they require you to spend many hours negotiating the rights to
> perpetual access. We may have lost the battle for unfettered perpetual
> access to licensed content but future arrangements for access to
> taxpayer-funded research outputs are in our hands.
>
> Fred Friend
> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Chris Bulock <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:55:56 -0500
>
> Hello Michele,
>
> I might say that there is too much variation in perpetual access clauses to
> declare an "industry standard." I've read through the perpetual access
> clauses in all of our licenses, and it seems no two are alike.  A provision
> like the one you mention is fairly common in our agreements though. Most
> vendors are (understandably) hesitant to agree to provide a service in
> perpetuity without sometime of optional exit. Aside from providing a copy or
> providing access through a third party (as was offered in your agreement),
> I've also seen agreements that state they could charge a fee (sometimes
> specified, sometimes not) for access after a certain number of years.
>
> Chris Bulock
> Electronic Resources Librarian
> Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
> [log in to unmask]
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: "Shipley, Michele" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:10:50 -0400
>
> I have a question about what other libraries consider to be acceptable
> language in a license agreement covering perpetual access to electronic
> journal backfiles purchased by the library. Miner Library recently purchased
> electronic backfiles for several important journals from a major vendor.
> This was a one-time purchase; Miner now "owns"
> the backfiles. However the license agreement for the backfiles states that
> the vendor may decide to stop providing access to the backfiles with a 30
> day notice. In the event the vendor stops providing access to the backfiles
> they will provide an electronic copy to Miner or, if they choose, make the
> backfiles available through Portico or CLOCKSS.
> We are being told that this is the industry standard.
>
> Has anyone else run into language like this and been able to negotiate a
> better guarantee of perpetual access? Is this language really the industry
> standard?
>
> Thanks for your help. Michele
>
> Michele Shipley, MLS
> Assistant Director of Digital & Branch Libraries Edward G. Miner Library
> University of Rochester Medical Center Rochester, NY 14642
> [log in to unmask]