Re: Journal of Immunology

["John Cox" <John.E.Cox@btinternet.com>]

The "Cox" model license for which I was responsible does indeed include
remote users.  Of course, the publisher of the Journal of Immunology may
have adjusted the model license text.  Nevertheless it was always intended
that the definition of "Authorised Users" should include remote access.
The "Secure Network" is open only to Authorised Users (that phrase
includes remote access), but it may be a 'virtual network' on the
Internet; in other words, remote users log into the institution's network,
which gives them access to the resources licensed by the institution's
library.  For reference, see the model license text at
www.licensingmodels.com

I have no personal knowledge of the Journal of Immunology license and the
terms of use that the publisher chose to adopt.  If it does indeed
restrict access t campus only, then there is a substantive problem.  If
the Journal is accessible remotely, then the definition of Authorised
Users - not the Secure Network - should contain the appropriate wording.

John Cox Associates
Rookwood, Bradden
TOWCESTER, Northants NN12 8ED
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1327 860949
Fax: +44 (0) 1327 861184
E-mail: John.E.Cox@btinternet.com
----- Original Message -----

From: "Daniel Dollar" <Daniel.Dollar@yale.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: 3 May 2002 10:09 pm
Subject: Journal of Immunology

> Has anyone else out there been struggling with the Journal of Immunology
> license? They have finally consented to indemnity clauses we can stomach,
> barely. Plus, their general restrictions on scholarly sharing are
> problematic--of course we can sign and turn a blind eye to what we know
> our users will do.
>
> Beyond indemnity and other issues, one major stumbling block is the
> publisher's insistence on the phrase "Secure Network" which they define
> as: A network (whether a standalone network or a virtual network within
> the Internet), which is only accessible to Authorized Users whose identity
> is authenticated at the time of login and periodically thereafter
> consistent with then-current best practice and security procedures.
>
> We find this language problematic since the publisher makes no distinction
> between on-campus and remote access. Of course, we require authentication
> for all remote users, but not for on-campus users. The publisher feels
> that no change is required since it follows the Cox model, plus their
> "copyright" lawyer has signed off on it!
>
> I am still new to licensing issues, and although I have received excellent
> guidance from my colleagues here. I wonder if others have encountered this
> issue.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Daniel Dollar, MLS, AHIP
> daniel.dollar@yale.edu