Re: ILL language - responsibility of library

["Lesley Ellen Harris" <lesley@copyrightlaws.com>]

Another issue to think about re this ILL language is how responsible is
the library for ensuring that the use is for noncommercial purposes.  
Generally, a library does not want to have this burden/responsibility and
wording could be chosen to ensure this.

Lesley Ellen Harris
Copyright Lawyer/Consultant
lesley@copyrightlaws.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl A. Kocher" <kakocher@ucdavis.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:50 PM
Subject: ILL language

> You may also have encountered the following language and I wonder if it
> has raised similar questions.
>
> ... Licensee may supply single copies of articles included in the Licensed
> Materials to another library solely for the noncommercial use of such
> library's patron for the purposes of research or private study, provided
> that Licensee exercises due care to insure that no copies of such article
> may be retained by the recipient library.
>
> "Ensure" rather than "insure" might be intended.  Beyond that, is the
> language making reference to American Geophysical Union vs. Texaco, which
> is often referenced when the question of ILL to commercial firms is
> mentioned.  Is the use of the language intended to apply to the lender a
> higher standard than Section 108 in Title 17?  How enforceable would such
> language actually be?  Even if the lending library required the physical
> return of the loaned article, how could it insure/ensure that no copy is
> retained?
>
> Apologies if this has been queried before and a search of the archives
> failed to turn it up.