[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: An ILL contract terms clearning house?

As David Goodman noted, some vendors are willing to negotiate terms.  I
know of two contracts we have where we were able to negotiate permission
to ILL -- one where it was strictly forbidden in the original contract,
and one where it was open to interpretation.  Perhaps this list could
include (being careful to preserve confidentiality and not mention
individual institutions by name!) whether anyone has been able to
negotiate permission from the vendors that prohibit ILL use?

Janet Brennan Croft
Head of Access Services
University of Oklahoma
Bizzell Library NW106
Norman OK 73069
fax 405-325-7618

-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Okerson [mailto:ann.okerson@yale.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 8:26 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: An ILL contract terms clearning house?

Carole and liblicense-l readers:

The LIBLICENSE site would be happy to host such a list of ILL provisions.
In order to do so, we would need a couple of people (i.e., a small
editorial board) who would agree to the means of delivering the
information (by publisher, vendor, title, whatever); define the categories
of permissions;  and who would agree to serve as recruiters and contact
points for such information from the authoritative sources.

If anyone is willing to take a ringleader role in such a cooperative
venture, please send me a note (Ann.Okerson@yale.edu).

This seems too good an idea to pass up without at least some exploration!

On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, Carole Richter wrote:

> David,
> I think asking people to publish their contracts publicly *could* indeed
> lead to a lot of frantic arm waving, but I'm really only suggesting that
> ILL terms be shared. Even though they may not be absolutely consistent, it
> seems reasonable enough that they should be. I can't imagine that the ILL
> conditions would ordinarily be thought to provide special negotiated
> benefits. On the other hand, the publisher terms and conditions might
> change, and it would be useful to have an up to date site where the
> current terms/restrictions are posted. They are difficult enough to track
> individually that it might be helpful to everyone if there were a
> clearinghouse of ILL practices from vendor to vendor. We could even
> fantasize that such a central site of posted understandings might
> encourage vendors to emulate some of the better terms.
> Carole Richter, Notre Dame University