[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: An ILL contract terms clearning house?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: RE: An ILL contract terms clearning house?
- From: Janet Croft <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:29:41 EST
- Reply-To: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
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 405-325-1918 fax 405-325-7618 email@example.com -----Original Message----- From: Ann Okerson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 8:26 PM To: email@example.com 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