From: Sarah Durrant <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 09:29:50 +0000

Hi Anna,

I think your interpretation of this wording is correct.  Whether the
wording itself is fair is, as you suggest, another matter.  It does
seem to contradict and undermine the principles of ILL.  Part of the
work I do involves supporting librarians in their negotiations with
publishers to secure fair and sustainable pricing and license terms.
My suggestion would be that you explain to the publisher the impact of
this wording as it currently stands.  It may be that they are unaware
of the effect of this language on your institution, and are open to
changing it.  Even if they are aware, they may still be open the
amending the language. It would certainly be in their interests in my
opinion since ILL is a very standard right, granted by most publishers
and content owners to library customers on the basis of mutual trust
and understanding.

You may find it helpful to have sight of a ‘model’ ILL license clause
to support your argument.  Sharing such a clause with the publisher in
question may give them the confidence they appear to be missing that
this right is standard, widespread and fully upheld by the whole
community. I would suggest taking a look at the JISC Collections
License here in the UK (although there will be others). You can
download a copy here: http://www.jisc-collections.ac.uk/model_licence
In the current version, the ILL clause is 3.1.2.

[MOD NOTE:  See also the N American model  license at:
http://liblicense.crl.edu/licensing-information/model-license/]

Other colleagues on this list will be experts on the details and
principles of ILL.  What I have outlined above is what I believe to be
a reasonable approach towards better understanding on the part of
publishers as to why their library customers value certain rights and
the impact of these being compromised.  I hope this helps.

Good luck.

Sarah Durrant

Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: www.sarahdurrant.co.uk




From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of LIBLICENSE
Sent: 29 October 2015 23:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Question about a line regarding ILL

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