Re: Sage titles

["Chris Beckett" <chris.beckett@catchword.com>]

CatchWord supports the development and use of model licenses by the
industry, because we believe that it saves both publishers and librarians
time and money. It would seem to be one of the most contentious areas
holding up the deployment of electronic resources and yet one that can be
most easily addressed through the use of model licenses.

I would urge publishers and librarians who haven't already done so to
check out

http://www.licensingmodels.com/

to see how well (or otherwise) these standardised and boilerplated
licenses work for the community as a whole. Any feedback on these licenses
should be directed to John Cox Associates at John.E.Cox@btinternet.com

Licensingmodels.com is an initiative funded and organised by the
subscription agents collectively in order to specifically address some of
the issues raised by Carole Richter. Just one of those issues was
inter-library loan, and it might be useful to illustrate how the
licensingmodels initiative deals with this specific issue.

As far as interlibrary loan goes these model licenses offer three
alternative clauses to cover interlibrary loan. The example from the
Academic Consortia model license offers the publisher the choice of:-

SUPPLY OF COPIES TO OTHER LIBRARIES

4.1 [Members may, subject to clause 6 below, supply to an Authorised User
of another library {within the same country as the Consortium} (whether by
post, fax or secure transmission, using Ariel or its equivalent, whereby
the electronic file is deleted immediately after printing), for the
purposes of research or private study and not for Commercial Use, a single
paper copy of an electronic original of an individual document being part
of the Licensed Materials.]

Or

[Members may, subject to clause 6 below, supply to an Authorised User of
another library {within the same country as the Consortium}single copies
of an individual document being part of the Licensed Materials by post,
fax or electronic transmission via the Internet or otherwise, for the
purposes of r esearch or private study and not for Commercial Use.]

Or

[Notwithstanding the provisions of Clauses 3.1 and 3.3, it is understood
and agreed that neither the Consortium nor Members nor Authorised Users
may provide, by electronic means, to a user at another library a copy of
any part of the Licensed Materials for research or private study or
otherwise.]

The commentary on these clauses states:-

Three alternatives cover the issue of supplying copies to other libraries:

the first allows electronic files to be used to generate paper copies for
supply to other libraries. Note the optional limitation to the country in
which the Consortium and its Members are based; this should be included or
deleted as appropriate.

The second allows copies to be sent electronically as well as on paper.
The same optional limitation to the country of supply is in { } brackets
and should be included or deleted as appropriate.

The third prohibits the supply of copies to other libraries using the
electronic files under the License.

As I understand it these model licenses are in a process of continual
development and therefore if librarians or publishers regard these and the
other terms of these license boilerplates problematic, then the best
solution will be to let John Cox Associates know, so this feedback can be
incorporated into future versions of the model licenses.

For our part at CatchWord we encourage all the publishers we provide
electronic publishing services for to consider adopting these licenses in
order to make life simpler for everyone.

Chris Beckett
Director - Sales & Marketing
CatchWord Ltd

Tel:-  +44 (0) 1235 555877
Fax:- +44 (0) 1235 536500

Email   chris.beckett@catchword.com

www.catchword.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Carole Richter <Carole.J.Richter.8@nd.edu>
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Date: 23 February 2000 23:24
Subject: RE: Sage titles

>Here are my concerns: access to the electronic version is no longer 'free'
>if access requires a 3rd party platform that includes a substantial fee.
>OCLC access for our Sage titles would cost at least $8,000 per year, not
>including access fees for the base package which is also necessary.
>Ebsco would be free if they were our serials vendor for Sage titles, but
>they aren't. Rowecom...it's true that we need to investigate what that
>would entail. Because Faxon is our primary serials vendor, it is possible
>that Rowecom would be an option for us. But I would most prefer to see
>either direct access provided by Sage, or as a good alternative, through a
>service such as Catchword which manages e-journal access efficiently and
>without additional charge to libraries. We are placed in an awkward
>position when faculty learn from Sage that they 'should' have free access
>to electronic versions of their journals, but when the logistics are not
>in fact free.
>
>Licensing issues--I am not the best person to discuss the finer points of
>licensing agreements, but I'll address a couple of things that seem to me
>to be of concern:
>
>* 1.1 Sentence 1 is fine. Re the statement "In addition, the Licensee
>shall take reasonable necessary measures to safeguard the intellectual
>property and proprietary rights of Sage and any others involved in the
>creation of the Sage Journals Online Material including the property and
>moral rights of all authors of the Sage Journals Online Material."--I
>don't recall seeing anthing quite like it before, but I think the wording
>is so broad and vague that it should be excluded completely.
>
>Re "The Licensee shall ensure that the Notes for Authorized Users below
>are made available to all Authorized Users of the Sage Journals Online
>Material. All rights in the Sage Journals Online Material which are not
>specifically granted to the Licensee under this Licence are expressly
>reserved to Sage." I don't object to this, but we would need to know
>exactly what you expect here. Can you post this clearly at the title level
>for each journal? If not, is a statement on a 'connect page' enough?  1.2
>Re "Physical visitors using public access terminals within the Library at
>the Site, who must be made aware of the obligations of Authorized Users
>shown below..."Again, is a connect page with the information posted
>adequate awareness?
>
>1.3 and 1.4 RE "The Licensee may not otherwise store or permit Authorized
>Users to store the Sage Journals Online Material on any medium, transfer,
>reproduce, modify, publish or otherwise exploit the Sage Journals Online
>Material except in so far as is reasonable to exercise the rights granted
>under this Licence. Neither the Licensee nor the Authorized Users may use
>any part or parts of the Sage Journals Online Material in coursepacks or
>other collections for teaching purposes..." and also the statement re
>"Licensee may not engage in any form of competitive activity by delivering
>to any other institution copies of articles from Sage journals" ---these
>statements appear to forbid basic fair use ILL activity, although perhaps
>I am mistaken? It is unclear just how restrictive these phrases are
>intended to be. We would be much relieved to see somthing indicating that
>at least print copies of the electronic article could be transmitted under
>fair use guidelines, and that password authorized access to articles
>placed on electronic reserve would be permitted.  Because electronic
>access is based on print subscription, it may be that you are assuming
>these rights are permitted from the print environment and aren't needed in
>the electronic format. We are moving in the direction of considering not
>binding or storing print versions of journals we receive in electronic
>format (at least in some instances), and that would make it difficult to
>provide these ordinary services from the print copies.
>
>Thank you for listening...I look forward to hearing back from you. I do
>apologize sincerely for not bringing the concerns that I felt to you
>directly.  I could certainly agree that the term abyssmal is overstating
>the case considerably.  Sincerely, Carole (somewhat mortified but still
>hoping for easier access) Carole Richter