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