In 2005, a jointly authored document titled “Campus Copyright: Rights and Responsibilities” was issued. it was authored by the Association of American Publishers , the Association of American Universities, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Association of American University Publishers. Following the publication of this document, which “recognized the continuing difficulty of developing workable copyright guidelines” the Association of American Publishers began a practice of calling a university library or E-reserves department and offering to help review and rewrite its e-reserves policy. The offer was delivered with the implication that the existing policy was definitely in need of such review. (University presses welcome new Cornell guidelines on use of digital content. AAUP web site).
We don’t know what happened in all cases, but Cornell University was the first to announce new copyright guidelines for e-reserves, written with the help of the AAP. Cornell and the AAP made many glowing, happy announcements about their wonderful collaboration. According to Peter Givler of the AAP, the guidelines were “a wonderful example of what can be accomplished when people who disagree agree to listen to each other and talk it out.” However, “soon after the guidelines appeared, it was disclosed that Cornell had, in fact, agreed to “talk it out” under the specter of a copyright infringement lawsuit…” (Downloads, Copyright, and the Moral Responsibility of Universities. Kate Torrey, Chronicle of Higher Education, 6-15-2007)
After Cornell, I remember other universities also developing new guidelines co-authored by the AAP, but have not been able to find their names.
One year after its new guidelines were established, Cornell officials said that “the result has been a 70-percent decline in the use of e-reserves” (Downloads, Copyright, and the Moral Responsibility of Universities. Kate Torrey, Chronicle of Higher Education, 6-15-2007)
This is the environment in which the Georgia State lawsuit initiated. Universities were being bullied (persuaded? convinced?) into restrictive e-reserves and online course content guidelines. Georgia State said “No”. Apparently they received several of these calls, and firmly declined the “opportunity” to work with the AAP. On April 15, 2008, Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton (aka the Georgia State case) was filed.
