[ILL-L] Question about licensing agreement

Nora Allred nsallred at mtu.edu
Mon Jun 9 08:35:06 EDT 2008


I'm going to put on my "Pollyanna Rant Hat" for a moment and take issue 
with Ed's statement (sorry Ed):

"...though I guess they can make any contract they want"

I see this as saying "the publishers/vendors are in charge" and that's a dangerous attitude for libraries.  Contracts are negotiated.  True, "they" can present any contract they want, but we do not have to agree to all of their terms.  

In this case it looks like OUP doesn't understand how the ILL process works and I'd argue that it's our responsibility to educate them.  IMHO, the right to share through ILL in accordance with the ILL Code should be negotiated into any and all licenses. 

If enough libraries speak up the publishers/vendors will have to listen.  We are after all their customers.

Rant over.

Nora




Document Delivery wrote:
> It's nice that they let you lend at all, but I agree with your interpretation of where the rule of 5 responsibility rests, though I guess they can make any contract they want, Ed.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: ill-l-bounces at webjunction.org on behalf of Melissa Jackson
> Sent: Tue 6/3/2008 10:28 AM
> To: ILLiad-l Discussion List; ILL-L at webjunction.org
> Subject: [ILL-L] Question about licensing agreement
>
>
>
> Hi everyone!
>
> It's time for us to renew our licence with Oxford University Press Journal's online package, and they want to put an odd bit of wording in there.  They want us to track how many times we send an article from their journals to a library, and as soon as we hit 6 in 5 years or less they want US to pay copyright.  They say that because we now have ILLiad this is possible.
>
> I think they're wrong. My understanding of copyright law/guidelines that the responsibility rests on the borrower to keep track and report to the CCC, not the lenders.  Has anyone else heard otherwise?  Does anyone else have language like this in your electronic license(s)?   Can anyone recommend a way to successfully argue OUP out of this new rule?
>
> Thank you very much for your advice in this matter.  We /really/ don't want to agree to this, and appreciate any tips on how to get OUP to back off.
>
>
> Melissa Jackson
> ILL Librarian
> melissa.jackson at armstrong.edu
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ILL-L mailing list
> ILL-L at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/ill-l
>
>
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ILL-L mailing list
> ILL-L at webjunction.org
> http://lists.webjunction.org/mailman/listinfo/ill-l
>   

-- 
Nora Allred
Head, Access Services
J. Robert Van Pelt Library
Michigan Technological University
Houghton, MI
phone: 906-487-3208
email: nsallred at mtu.edu





More information about the ILL-L mailing list