Re: Elsevier & ILL

[Dennis Dillon <dillon@mail.utexas.edu>]

The message below is from our ILL librarian and is from an in-library
discussion about ScienceDirect:

"We will not keep any records of articles we supply from ScienceDirect
through ILL (because it's too much work and in my opinion an unfair/overly
restrictive limitation), so in effect, it means we would not do ILL from
ScienceDirect.

Even using OCLC Direct Request, the borrowing library knows what is
ordered and makes appropriate copyright payments.  It wouldn't matter what
the source of the material supplied was, the borrowing library would still
be expected to make appropriate copyright payments.  [She writes:
"particularly when the preferred trend in ILL is to have direct requestor
input into the process and direct electronic article return to the
requestor, i.e., a "hands (and eyes) off" procedure."  So far, I think
this process is primarily through vendors like Uncover--not libraries.  
It would be more appropriate for them to restrict ILL of their articles to
library-to-library transactions.]

The law does not say that libraries need to report what is loaned;
borrowers need to maintain records on what is borrowed, and pay royalties
as outlined by the CONTU Guidelines.  Until publishers and users can agree
on a new set of Guidelines (which they have so far failed to do), CONTU is
still the standard. When negotiating a contract, it would be optimal to
avoid the clause that the lending library must report transactions. So far
we have not supplied anything from a full-text source through ILL.  So I
guess we don't have to start now."


Nancy Paine
ILL Librarian, The University of Texas at Austin
NancyPaine@mail.utexas.edu
forwarded by  Dennis Dillon
Collections and Information Resources, UT-Austin