Transcript of "Copyright communication in canadian academic libraries cla"
Copyright communication inCanadian academic libraries Tony Horava University of Ottawa 2009 CLA Conference May 30, 2009
Outline• Introduction• Survey questions and results• Copyright communication on the web• Survey continued• Recommendations• Areas for further study
Introduction• Took professional leave in 2008 (June-Sept): focus was on copyright.• My purpose was to gain a better understanding of copyright and explore how academic libraries are handling the many challenges involved• Copyright survey designed to investigate two questions: – Who has responsibility for copyright in the institution and library? – How do Canadian academic libraries communicate and teach copyright issues to their user community?• The survey posed a series a questions on the university and library context, and specific methods/practices as well as open-ended questions.
Introduction (cont’d)• Several sections: 1) The university context; 2) The library policy context; 3) Methods of communication re copyright ; 4) The library copyright webpage; and 5) Copyright challenges• Survey Monkey online tool was employed: it has strengths and weaknesses• Was sent to all university librarians in early June 2008.• By the end of the summer, 63 out of 75 institutions had participated (84%).• Participation ranged from 100% in Ontario to 70.5 % in the Maritimes.
Back to the future…"The inter-relation between copyright and thecommunications revolution is fully as important to our ageas the inter-relation between copyright and the revolutionbrought on by the printing press was to an earlier one.Somehow people must be made to realize that thecopyright statute of a country not only shapes its culturaland intellectual development, but actually penetrates intothe lives and thinking of every citizen (SupplementaryReport of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revisionof the US Copyright Law, 89th Congress, 1st session, May1965)- Copyright and the Public Interest, Ed. Gillian Davies, p.125
And where we are today…• “Copying information and passing it on to others has never been easier….Yet the very ubiquity of copying technologies, the lack of clarity in the law as it applies to the digital environment, and an increased determination by creators to seek redress for infringement of their rights all make it essential that citizens be better informed about copyright” – Jean Dryden Demystifying Copyright, p. 1
Self-identification - What is your position title?Position title of respondent Number of respondentsChief Librarian/University 38Librarian/Library Director/DirectorGeneralAssociate University Librarian/Assistant 6Director/Assistant DeanCopyright Officer 4Administrative officer (Library admin) 2Information Services Manager/Head of 3ReferenceSpecial Projects Librarian 2E-Resources Librarian, E-Reserves 1 eachLibrarian, Collection DevelopmentLibrarian, Reference Librarian, SystemsLibrarian, Law Librarian, AcademicLibrarian
The University context – Question : Which department or service in the university has been delegated responsibility for copyright issues?Name Frequency of responseLibrary (on its own) 19Shared between Library and another 19department or serviceCentral administration 17Non-library/non administrative (Archives, 6Bookstore, Learning ServicesNone identified 2
The University context- Question: Is there a separate department or service in the institution that has responsibility for managing copyright from the rights holders perspective, eg Open access publishing; intellectual property rights ; plagiarism; patents or trademarks; technology transfer?Response Number %Yes 29 46%No 34 54%
For schools that answered in the affirmative, here is the breakdown of the responsesName of department or service Number of responsesAdministration (other than Research 14Office)Office of Research 10Multiple departments including library 4Other non-administrative 1Library (on its own) 0
The Library policy context-Question: Does the librarys provision ofcopyright information influence or guide university policy?
Differences between English and French universities ‘Yes’ % ‘No’ % ‘Not sure’ %French 2 16.7% 7 58.3% 3 25%English 23 45% 9 17.6% 19 37.2%
Sample comments from schools responding in the affirmative….• The Library informs and educates the institution on the functionality of Canadian Copyright law and our Access Copyright agreement (via AUCC)• The university accepts that interpretation of areas of copyright that are unclear will be decided by the Library• The library steps in to influence when we feel it is important.• The Library was directly involved in the creation of University IP policies.• Input on a Copyright Committee that has stakeholders from across campus; input on other committees that may comment on copyright• The library has a representative on the universitys Educational Policies Committee, which vets all new course proposals and discusses issues such as the delivery of distance education and the integration of new technology into the classroom.• The Library was consulted prior to negotiations between the Board and the Faculty Association about copyright.• Library admin has been participating in information gathering, discussion, and writing of policies and procedures for the campus on this topic.
The Library policy context-Question: Conversely, does university policy guide or influence the librarys provision of copyright information?
Sample comments from schools responding in the affirmative…• The Library copyright guide refers users to the university policy on copyright.• Academic and legal opinions prevail.• Only so far as to guide instructors as to their IP rights vis-a-vis their works• We follow University policy where it exists• Consult as necessary with the University solicitor• Yes, because some of the IP issues are related to labour agreements hence the Library reflects this.• It is not university policy that guides us so much as the curriculum. Our provision of copyright information is influenced and informed by the needs of visual learners and creative practitioners.• Library services is guided by university polices: course and program planning, development, and delivery• Only insofar as it dictates that the library is to provide such information to the university community.• We would definitely consult the campus Copyright Officer whenever we were unsure of something concerning copyright.
The Library policy context- Question: Which department or service in the libraryhas been delegated responsibility for copyright issues?Response FrequencyLibrary administration 18Multiple departments 10None or not specified 10Access/Public/User Service 9Reference/Research/Information Service 6Copyright Office 2Collections 1Circulation 1Library committee 1Reserve 1Systems 1‘Whoever gets stuck with the question’ 1
The Library policy context-Question: Is there a separate department or service in the library that handles rights holders issues? Response Frequency % Yes 5 8% No 58 92%
Responses from schools answering in the affirmative: Purpose of service or department Frequency Open Access publishing 5 Advocacy for change in scholarly 5 communication Advice for authors re publishing 4 Publishing partnerships with other 2entities, either internal or external to the university
The challenge of copyright communication via the web…Copyright The Web• Highly conceptual and • Attention scarcity notoriously subject to interpretation • New communities of interest• Legal terminology • Culture of sharing content &• Matrix of principles, rights, collaboration; full interactivity rules, and tests • Everyone is a publisher• Involves copyright collectives, e-resource licensing, and • Scannable and concise copyright law information• Intersection of many interests: • Segmented and non-linear economic, cultural, social, political, legal, philosophical • Visual organization devices• Popular assumptions
An objectives-based framework for a copyright webpage• Legal obligations: The need to emphasize the library’s respect for copyright law and intellectual property;• The university’s diverse interests: The need to promote a balanced and informed approach between the interests of creators, owners, and users;• Educational role: The need to promote the library’s role as educator and facilitator in using copyrighted works for teaching, research, and learning;• External context: The interest in raising awareness of key decisions and copyright reform issues that are being put forward by public and private organizations.
Objective #1 – To emphasize the library’s respect for copyright and intellectual property:• Reference to university policies on intellectual property, whether it be copyright, academic integrity and plagiarism, or patents and technology transfer;• Reference to national legislation, as well as to specific departments (such as the Ministry of Heritage and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office) and to publicly- available case law on copyright cases;• Reference to international agreements, such as the Berne Convention, the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and the TRIPS agreement;• Reference to services or initiatives that embody copyright issues, such as institutional repositories, e-reserves, interlibrary loans, and technology-enhanced learning.
Objective #2 – To promote a balanced approach between the interests of copyright creators, owners and the needs of users:• An explanation of how the university’s educational and research activities intimately involve copyright from the creators’, owners’ and users’ perspectives, and that the library strives to ensure an informed balance of interests;• An overview of key concepts of intellectual property such as definitions of copyrights, patents, and trademarks; duration and extent of owner’s rights, fair dealing, public domain, substantial copying and educational exceptions• An overview of the purpose of collective societies, the coverage and scope of the university’s license with a copyright collective (eg AccessCopyright, Copibec, Criterion, etc); specific permissions and procedures for obtaining clearance;• Discussion of the importance of retaining various author rights as appropriate in commercial publications via copyright transfer agreements, and providing information and resources on this issue;• An overview of information on the use of licensed electronic resources and an explanation of the contractual obligations such as conditions of use, as being distinct from the provisions of copyright law;• Provide links to resources that can help in understanding the permissions and archiving policies of publishers, e.g. SHERPA.
Objective #3 - To explain the library’s role as educator and facilitator• Provision of learning aids such as flowcharts, decision-trees, quizzes, or tutorials that can effectively communicate basic ideas and concepts;• ‘How to’ information such as procedures for requesting clearance of rights, an FAQ on copying issues and questions; model letters for requesting copying permission (if appropriate)• Information on specific books and other resources; links to catalogue subject headings;• An overview of the challenges of using works in digital formats and technologies, e.g. moving content from one format to another.• An overview of copyright myths, e.g. that everything on the Internet can be copied without permission for education purposes;• A description of copyright cues – how to consider the nature of a work and its intended use to help determine whether if a use is permitted;• Information on who to contact for specific issues.
Objective #4 –Raising awareness of copyright reform issues• Presenting the impact of new technology on the availability of intellectual works for education and research, e.g. digital rights management technology, anti-circumvention provisions;• Presenting an overview of recent legislation, national and international, in the context of expanding protection for owners’ rights ;• Discussing the impact of copyright on the availability of our cultural and intellectual heritage, in the context of broader scholarly communication issues, such as open access and author rights;• Discussing recent Supreme Court decisions reflecting on copyright issues such as the CCH and Théberge cases, and their impact on the concept of fair dealing and user rights;• Providing information and links to organizations that promote these issues, such as library, educational and artists’ groups, copyright blogs.
The Library copyright webpage- Question: Do you have a library webpage providing information about copyright issues? Response Number of responses % Yes 38 60.3% No 25 39.7%• Several schools answering in the affirmative that indicated theywere in the process of developing a webpage or revising anexisting page.• There are ten schools that answered in the negative that offer auniversity copyright page via another department or service.• Therefore there are fifteen schools among the respondents thatdon’t appear to offer a copyright webpage to their usercommunity
Differences between English and French universities ‘Yes’ % ‘No’ %French 8 72.7% 3 27.3%English 32 62.7% 19 37.3%
The Library copyright webpage-Question: How many clicks away from your library homepage is this page?
The Library copyright webpage-As searching is a critical method for information retrieval, a separate analysis was undertaken regarding search box availabilitySearch engine available on Number % library site? Yes 21 61.8% No 13 38.2%
Libraries providing a copyright page (all Canadian academic libraries) Institution size Number of Libraries providing % institutions copyright page 0-9,999 FTE 42 19 45.210,000-24,999 FTE 18 13 72.2 25,000+ FTE 15 11 73.3
Universities providing a copyright page other than via the library Institution size Number of Universities % institutions providing copyright page other than via the library 0-9,999 FTE 42 2 4.710,000-24,999 FTE 18 3 16.6 25,000 FTE 15 2 13.3
Universities not providing any copyright page Institution size Number of Universities not % institutions providing any copyright page 0-9,999 FTE 42 21 5010,000-24,999 FTE 18 2 11.1 25,000+ FTE 15 2 13.3
The Library copyright webpage- Question: Did information from any externalorganization (eg. library association, governmental agency, copyright collective) contribute to the development of this page?
For those answering in the affirmative, here is the breakdown of influences Name Frequency of mention Percentage of respondents Copyright collectives 19 63.3% (AccessCopyright, Copibec, Audio Cine, Criterion, ERCC) Copyright Act and regulations 7 23.3% Association of Universities and 6 20% Colleges in Canada Canadian Library Association 5 16.6% Other university or library 4 13.3% websites Canadian Association of 3 10% Research Libraries Advocacy or information 2 6.6% websites Association of Research 1 3.3% Libraries Canadian Intellectual Property 1 3.3% Office
Question: What is the general purpose of this page?Purpose Frequency of response Percentage of respondents Information about the copyright 36 83.7% collective license (AccessCopyright, Copibec)Explaining copyright legislation, 32 74.4%including ‘fair dealing’Conditions of use for digitized materials 24 55.8%(electronic resources)Information about specific library 24 55.8%services such as Reserve , InterlibraryLoan, Document Delivery, and MediaResourcesInformation and links for national and 22 51.1%international agreements andorganizationsProcedures on how to submit requests 21 48.8%for copying, such as an FAQExplaining the impact of copyright on 16 37.2%research and publishingIntegration of content into course 12 27.9%management systems, such as WebCTor BlackboardAdvocacy for copyright reform 1 2.3%None of the above 1 2.3%
Methods of communication re copyright- Question: Does your library use any of thefollowing methods to raise awareness of the use of copyrighted materials? Method Frequency of response Percentage of respondents Individual assistance 48 77.4% Information literacy 41 66.1% Faculty liaison/outreach 40 40% Reference service 39 39% Web page 39 39% Printed information 31 30% Online tutorial 12 19.3% Other 7 11.2% None 3 4.8%
Methods of communication re copyright-Question: Which of the above do you feel is the most important method, and why? Method Frequency of response Percentage of respondentsFaculty liaison/outreach 14 22.9% Multiple methods 11 18% Web page 10 16.3% Individual assistance 9 14.7%Other (eg printed signs,…) 7 11.4% Reference service 1 1.6%
A sample of comments received….• Information literacy: because IL can reach so many people in so many different ways, and because IL allows you to catch peoples interest in copyright issues through storytelling• Web page because this is where faculty check first to get a sense of what they need to do. Because of the complexity of copyright rules and restrictions the web site cant possibly answer all their questions, but at least it alerts them to the fact that copyright is something that has to be considered and encourages them to contact the Copyright Officer• Faculty liaison: they are the front line to student understanding of copyright implications, as it applies to their research and writing for assignments• Individual assistance: it provides information and assistance at time of greatest need• Web page: distributed most widely• Faculty liaison/outreach, because of the impact on creating course packs, print and electronic; because faculty have a strong influence on students, both in terms of educating them about what is permissible, and helping them avoid temptation by the way they (faculty) provide or point to the resources they want their students to use
Methods of communication re copyright- Question: If you use printed information, is it generally similar in content to your web page? Response Frequency % Yes 18 30% No 8 13.3% Doesn’t apply 34 56.7%• Comments indicated that the print material was condensed, or restrictedto signs on photocopiers, or targeted to a particular group such as faculty.• The findings indicate that the content of the copyright messagefrequently needs to be modified or re-thought in working with these twomedia, as the two approaches are fundamentally different in nature.
Copyright challenges- Question: What are the biggest challenges you face in dealing with copyright issues?This question elicited a large wave of feedback…spanninga wide range of issues and can be categorized into three broad themes : – Educational (referring to outreach, teaching, and other communication with the user community, as well as library staff knowledge) – Interpretive (understanding of the law, in particular the limitations and restrictions on what is permissible) – Organizational (referring to staff resources and coordination on campus)
Copyright challenges- ‘Educational’ comments:– Faculty are convinced that copyright restrictions dont apply to them. Students dont care.– Reaching a consistent and common understanding among our clients– Helping students to understand the difference between copyright and plagiarism– Widespread misunderstanding about limitations– Getting faculty to accept that copyright is real– To convince people that copyright issues are important in the academic world. People seem to think that copyright only applies to profit making organizations
Copyright challenges- ‘Educational’ comments (cont’d)– Developing respect for copyright in a world where open access is being advocated for all information resources.– Compliance by users, understanding digital copyright– Educating users is difficult. The current generation of university students believes that if something is on the web, it is "free" and can be "freely" used. It is doubtful that this issue can be dealt with easily– Trying to explain the ambiguity of the Copyright Act. Explaining the varying percentages of copying allowed under the Access Copyright license
Copyright challenges- ‘Organizational’ comments– Determining what the librarys role should be in conjunction with the university– The depth and breadth of understanding of copyright issues required to respond to some copyright questions and the lack of anyone on our campus with such responsibility– Lack of campus wide agreement– Lack of university central coordination, lack of expertise on campus, lack of legal support, lack of staff resources for the library to take the lead on copyright for the campus– Campus support and understanding of the issues in more than a superficial fashion
Copyright challenges- ‘Interpretive’ comments– Interpreting copyright language (the Act and court decisions) that are complicated, often vague, and sometimes out of date– The ambiguous nature of the beast, subject to a wide range of interpretations– Knowing how to use fair dealing clearly– Vagaries of the law itself - barrier to disabled patrons– Technology - WebCT and what can go there– Keeping up with the relevant legislation and understanding when other jurisdictions apply also which legislation trumps other legislation– Not wanting to be too conservative in practice– To be able to rely upon clear legislation in order to provide appropriate guidance to researchers– The differences between copyright and licensing
Copyright challenges- Question : Do you have any other comments on copyright inthe academic library context, eg the impact of new technologies; the impact of contractual licensing for e-resources; the education of users? – Definite concern about licenses for e-resources sapping rights previously enjoyed under copyright for print – We feel we are often paying twice - once for electronic resource subscription and then again when used in course packs or on Blackboard – IP is the new copyright; we may have missed the boat as IP in other guises moves forward – The Copyright Act and existing copyright licensing agencies dont mesh well with technological changes in the transmission of information – I suspect we are often licensing and paying for access that is available to us under fair dealing esp. since the CCH case. I think an argument could be made that we no longer need Part A of the Access Copyright license
Copyright challenges- Other comments (cont’d)– The technical complexity of copyright is very onerous for the library to manage, and we don’t have the resources for it.– Promoting awareness of fair dealing, and its importance to teaching and scholarship; political spin and media sensationalism/over-simplification make this more difficult– New technologies make it possible to do anything, and it is difficult to know how to interpret the current law & licenses to apply to the various types of new technologies.– Wed like to move into electronic reserves : clarification needed
A few recommendations to the library community…• That libraries seek a coordinated approach to copyright in their institutions with the different stakeholders on campus, in terms of communication, teaching, and interpretation;• That libraries provide a copyright information page on the library website;• That wherever possible, libraries designate an individual who will act as the lead for coordinating copyright activities and education within the library, and in conjunction with scholarly communication issues;• That the different methods of ‘copyright literacy’ be assessed holistically, in terms of values, technology, and policy;
A few more recommendations…• That copyright literacy needs different levels of involvement, at the local, regional, or national levels, depending on what is feasible and appropriate;• That libraries find means & tools for sharing best practices and ideas;• That libraries be vigilant in ensuring that statutory rights (eg fair dealing & library exceptions) are not eroded by license agreements;• That libraries review their portfolio of licensed electronic resources to ensure that they are not paying twice to reproduce a copyrighted item for coursepacks, eg a journal article, for research and private study purposes.
Areas for further investigation• Information literacy programs and copyright – what is being communicated to users, in relation to open access, authors’ rights, and scholarly communication in general?• How does ‘copyright literacy’ fit into the broader narrative of post-secondary learning and research?• What is the role of the copyright officer in the library and the university?• How are college libraries, public libraries, and school libraries handling copyright communication?• How do Canadian approaches compare to those of US and European universities?
Publications• “ Webpages on copyright in Canadian academic libra ” Partnership: the Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 3 16 Dec 2008• “Copyright communication in Canadian academic libraries: a national survey” Canadian Journal of Library and Information Science 34 (1) In Press.
A lighter side of copyright….• The Marx Brothers and the Warner Brothers in the making of ‘A Night in Casablanca’ (1946)
Thanks! Any questions or comments?Tony Horavathorava@uottawa.ca(613) 562-5800 ext 3645
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.