Hi Welcome to the session called We’re both from WiLS
I’m going to start out with talking a little bit about definitions. At WiLS we work with a couple types of agreements and no two agreements are alike. Licenses and Contracts A short definition of a license is "an authorization (by the licensor) to use the licensed material (by the licensee).“ In particular a license is entered into to allow an activity that would otherwise be forbidden. In terms of libraries and resources, it almost always requires paying a fee. The license serves to keep the vendors informed on a type of activity, and to give them the opportunity to set conditions and limitations on the usage of their content or service.Terms and Conditions are rules that one must agree to in order to use a service, and may or may not include a fee. With the Terms and Conditions we work with at WiLS, there is almost always a fee, but Terms and Conditions are signed by most of us on pretty regular basis. and most of us will admit that we rarely give more than cursory look over of them before we sign them as we usually want the service they provide and want it now. We also understand that much of what we are agreeing to is not negotiable. We sign them with Amazon, with Google, with Facebook. Terms of service can cover a range of issues, including acceptable user behavior online, a company's marketing policies, and copyright. If you violate the Terms of Service, you may lose access to a resource, but just as we rely on the Terms not being onerous, there is also a safety in numbers mentality that counts on the idea that it is difficult to track violations when there are so many users. So, the bar is often set high for infractions and infractions for us as consumers seldom leads to much more than temporary loss of access.
I’m going to start out with talking a little bit about what license negotiations are done, and for what resources within WiLS. In terms of agreements, we have oversight on Licenses and Contracts and Terms and Conditions Because we are a consortia and are most often signing licenses on behalf of multiple institutions, we have a lot of licenses.Don’t do much with Click through licenses. These are signed by individual institutions. Primarily we work with Databases.Ebooks are some for collections and others for individual titles. ebrary from ProQuest, Ebsco, Springer, Gale, Oxford Images are ProQuest Getty Images, EBSCO AP Image Collection, Art Museum Image GalleryA lot of datasets are government issued. Census, studies. maps, caseloads from courts, climate data, geography, precipitation, water resources, many local and regionalMany consortia do deal with journals but except on a case by case basis,we don’t. As most of you are aware, managing journals is a very difficult and time consuming task and those consortia that do this task, often wish that they didn’t
Licenses have been on file for years. In some cases they go back to 1996. Exceptions such as some of the databases that EBSCO acquired from Wilson.
What compels us to change our license In many cases the older license is better in what it remains silent on. Requests from a library. Analysis of our current license, ICOLC, community standards that are emerging. Best practices. Some licenses simply have old non-negotiated language ICOLC is the International Coaliton of Library Consortia
Like many of you, we have a standard license. We use this most often as a starting point with new vendors. - Sometimes they reject it outright and come back at us with their own license. Sometimes they ask for a few changes to our license and accept it. An ideal license needs to press for important things like Scholarly Sharing, access issues and ILL but also needs to be balanced enough to not be rejected immediately. It is much easier to amend our license than to read through and suggest changes to someone else’s
Sometimes we are successful at negotiating and other times not at all. Have had times when I go back and forth with a vendor 4-5 times and gain nothing.
Would have liked to have an ERMS, and had been seriously considering CORAL, and open source licensing solution, but but have backed off from investigating at this point.
With so much content moving to e-only, there are sometimes no options for peers who want to borrow an item as the license is too restrictive.chapter-level ILL rights are better than nothing, but are also less than ideal. Would you want to borrow chapter 7 of Pride and Prejudice? And in the academic context, content is often cumulative and builds on ideas in previous chapters and is expanded on in chapters afterAre short-terms loans an answer?Ereserves, scholarly sharing and walk ins are more focused on to the detriment of ILL
The move to e-only collections can leave us with no option for users who want an item that peers have only in e-format with a restrictive license.The signing of e-book licenses with chapter-level ILL rights will not always suit patrons (e.g. a chapter from a novel is not sufficient).Are short-terms loans an answer?Ereserves, scholarly sharing and walk ins are more focused on to the detriment of ILLRecommendations
Licensing and its impact on ill oct 2012b
OTHE EFFECT OF LICENSING ON RESOURCE SHARING Kirsten Houtman & Eric Robinson
Definitions Types of Agreements • Licenses / Contracts • Terms and Conditions
What License Negotiating is done within WiLS Agreements • Licenses / Contracts • Terms and Conditions • Click through licenses Resources • Datasets • Ebooks • Images • Journals/Databases
Current License Scenario at WiLS• A mix of old and new licenses (1996-2012)• Most group licenses have been scanned• Many licenses have been reviewed and assessed for rights• Some licenses have been posted to a secure area on our website• Other licenses from large vendors such as EBSCO and ProQuest have been signed at the indivual institution level and cover most anything that is added by an institution
When do we even want a new license?• Requests from a member• We are negotiating with a new vendor or for a new database• ICOLC (icolc.net)• Community standards and best practices
How successful are we at negotiating?• What history does the vendor have with updating their licenses with other consortia• Does a group have added sway• What terms are we negotiating for and do our members want to walk away if we can’t get them
Not so ideal licenseHere are some changes I would like to have made:¶ 2.1.4 "Course Packs shall be used only in electronic form". Could this be changedto "Course Packs shall be used only in electronic form, unless copyright clearance issecured for them to appear in print, CD-ROM, DVD or other physical medium"¶ 4.1.2 Could this be changed to the following: "The ----- reserves the right towithdraw from the Licensed Materials any material which it no longer retains the rightto publish, or which it has reasonable grounds to believe infringes on copyright or isdefamatory, obscene or unlawful. The ----- shall give written notice of the withdrawalto Licensee within sixty (60) days of the removal of any material pursuant to thissection."¶ 4.2.1 Could this be changed to "Licensee agrees to the terms and conditions hereinand shall use reasonable means to hold its Member Sites to the terms of thisagreement. Licensee represents and warrants that it has the right and authority toenter into this License Agreement and act on behalf of the Member Sites."¶ 4.2.2 We would like to see this removed¶ 6.4 We would like to see this removed
Additional concerns with licensing and ebooks:• Licenses don’t allow ILL or are silent• When ILL is allowed, there may not be a workflow established or the permissions are restrictive• Technically challenging because of downloading and printing limitations• Time consuming to find out which ebook providers allow ILL• libraries are failing to advocate for lending rights of ebooks
How can Electronic Resources Departmentsand ILL work more closely together?• Communicate with one another• Be familiar with ICOLC recommendations on licensing• Advocate for lending rights, with particular attention to ebooks.