Uncategorized

“The Hathi Trust is a partnership of academic and research institutions, offering a collection of millions of titles digitized from libraries around the world.” Full text of documents in the collection is available only to members of partner institutions (hathitrust.org).
The Authors Guild brought suit against Hathi Trust in September of 2011, alleging massive copyright infringement. Both parties filed motions requesting summary judgment.
A “summary judgment” is “a final decision by a judge, upon a party’s motion, that resolves a lawsuit before there is a trial…Summary judgment is awarded if the undisputed facts and the law make it clear that it would be impossible for the opposing party to prevail in the matter were to proceed to trial.” (Plain English Law Dictionary, nolo.com)

The plaintiffs (Authors Guild) moved to request that the court declare fair use not available to libraries as a defense, because libraries have the protections in section 108 of the copyright law. If you are not familiar with section 108, review it here. The Judge completely rejected this claim (A big win for fair use and libraries, Scholarly Communications @ Duke). In my humble opinion, Section 108 is very small, and offers very specialized exceptions for copying in libraries. There is no way it could substitute for Fair Use.

The defendant (Hathi Trust) had three assertions for summary judgment: first, that the Authors Guild was not able, under the copyright law, to sue on behalf of its members. The Judge agreed with this for US associations, but possibly not for foreign associations due to treaties. (A big win for fair use and libraries, Scholarly Communications @ Duke).

The second judgment requested by the Hathi Trust was that its Orphan Works project could not go to trial because it had not been carried out yet. Orphan Works are works that are under copyright but whose authors cannot be located. The Authors Guild was concerned about the Orphan Works Project would allow access to such works. The Judge in this case agreed that there was no case until such access actually happened.

The third – and most significant – summary judgment for the defendants in this case is whether the actions of the Hathi Trust can be supported by Fair Use. The Judge did a four factor analysis and came to the conclusion that Fair Use does support the creation of a digital library such as Hathi Trust. In conclusion, he said:

“I cannot imagine a definition of fair use that would not encompass the transformative uses made by the defendants and would require that I terminate this invaluable contribution to the progress of science and the cultivation of the arts that at the same time effectuates the ideals of the ADA.”

For the full Four-Factor analysis and more details, go to A big win for fair use and libraries, Scholarly Communications @ Duke, Kevin Smith, Oct 11, 2012. 

The Georgia State E-reserves Case, 2008-2012.

Those of us who work with or study policies regarding e-reserves and copyright issues have long wondered when and where this issue would first come to court.  It began at Georgia State University, in 2008.

On April 15, 2008, Cambridge University Press et al. v. Becker  was filed.

The plaintiffs (Cambridge UP, Oxford UP, and SAGE Publishers) avoided the state institutions sovereign immunity by seeking only an injunction, not monetary damages, and by naming individuals at the University that oversaw electronic reserves. They also wished to establish copyright guidelines for use by Georgia State after the case was settled.

Some months into the case, Georgia State announced new copyright guidelines. These included heavy use of the Columbia University Fair Use checklist. http://bit.ly/9fHhLg  Judge Evans agreed to use the new Georgia State system rather than the old one. (The old system was very lenient, and Georgia State paid very few clearance fees under it).

Many hearings took place. While at an ALA meeting, I had an informal conversation with some librarians from Georgia State. They said that many (often flabbergasted) faculty were being called to testify about their use of E-reserves and course readings. All the librarians had heard representatives from the publishers say that if the CCC and AAP weren’t footing the bill, they would not be involved. In June of 2011, hearings were closed. There was an announcement that a conclusion would be reached “in Fall or Winter.”  The decision came nearly a year later, on May 11, 2012.

“Judge Evans dug deep into the questions surrounding fair use and concluded—after thorough analysis—that copyright was meant to promote the writing of more books. She wrote, “There is no reason to believe that allowing unpaid, nonprofit academic use of small excerpts in controlled circumstances would diminish creation of academic works.”” (EDUCAUSE Policy Brief, A Case For Fair Use: The Georgia State Decision.” http://bit.ly/KeD0pk .  The plaintiffs had submitted 99 examples of how their works were being “infringed” by the E-reserves program at Georgia State. Ninety-five of the excerpts were determined to be examples of Fair Use.

The Georgia State decision, while most welcome, is relatively weak. It only applies to the district within Georgia represented by this federal court. Libraries outside this region do not have to abide by this decision.

It was fully expected that regardless of the outcome, this case would be appealed. On Jan 28, 2013, that appeal was filed. The US court of Appeals for the 11^th  District will hear the case. (Publishers and Library Groups Spar in Appeal to Ruling on Electronic Course Reserves, Chronicle of Higher Education, 2-1-2013). http://bit.ly/VzD9qx

On outcomes: there are many articles on the Internet and in law journals describing current and future outcomes of this case. I am calling attention to one that occurred almost immediately after the suit was filed. Georgia State hosted an excellent web site on copyright issues. It was large, in-depth, and written for the average student or faculty member. It had an excellent collection of scenarios to help people understand copyright. This great resource was removed very soon after the case was filed. I mention it to emphasize that the cost of legal suits goes beyond money and court orders.

For more information:  Georgia State Copyright Case: Resources (EDUCAUSE) http://bit.ly/14mlKbd

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.

The CI-CCI received news coverage on WHOTV!

The library directors of Drake University, Grinnell College, Grand View University, Central College, and Simpson College officially announced the formation of the Central Iowa Collaborative Collections Initiative (CI-CCI) earlier this month.

We asked the faculty and staff at Cowles Library for their best study tips for finals. Here’s what they said …

As of February 2013, current Drake students, faculty and staff can use your Drake ID and password (the same one you use to access blueView and Drake webmail) instead of a PIN to access your library account.

Special users, and those without a current University account, will still need to use a PIN.

Natural Standard provides a critical and transparent review of the evidence regarding herbs and supplements. Drake has had access to this database and its wealth of evaluative information on integrative treatments for human health for some time; however, Natural Standard recently added information on such treatments for pets and animals, too!  To access, follow the link below, and click on "Databases" in the menu bar, and choose "Animal Health" at the bottom of the pull-down list.  Info is browsable by both treatment and condition, and the entire database is searchable.

If you're a Drake student, faculty, or staff, check out Natural Standard!

Please note that this position has been filled.

Drake University is committed to an integrated combination of liberal arts and professional programs. As a learning-centered private institution with selective enrollment, Drake has approximately 3,900 full-time and 1,300 part-time students. Each of the past five years, U.S. News and World Report has ranked Drake among the top regional universities in the Midwest. Drake University invites applications for the following full-time faculty position:

Librarian for Digital Literacy and General Education (12-month, tenure-track appointment; position available 1 June 2011)

Drake University seeks an energetic, creative, and user-oriented instruction librarian to provide coordination of Cowles Library’s programs in support of Drake's General Education Curriculum, including First Year Experience initiatives, as well as support of Digital and Media Literacy. Working collaboratively with library staff and other campus partners, the Librarian for Digital Literacy and General Education will initiate and coordinate services focused on engaging and supporting undergraduates as they pursue the curricular goals of the General Education portion of the Drake Curriculum. Through both in-library and creative outreach methods, the incumbent will help develop the research and critical proficiencies of the undergraduate student population, as well as promote the resources and the services of the library. The incumbent will also contribute to the planning, development and provision of instruction and reference services of Cowles Library. The incumbent will be “lead instructor” of at least one class per semester, including leading an FYS (First-Year Seminar) during the Fall Semester.

The successful applicant will be appointed to a tenure-track position, with rank commensurate with qualifications and experience. Salary range: from mid- to upper forties.

Cowles Library is the main Library for Drake University, providing support for undergraduate and graduate programs, as well as the library and research needs of both on-campus and distance students. The Librarian for Digital Literacy and General Education will join a professional staff of twenty employees, including ten tenure-track and continuing appointment faculty members. The Library has a history of, and commitment to, innovation in services, instruction, and technology.

Qualifications:

Required

• MLIS from an ALA-accredited institution.
• Experience teaching library instruction classes in an academic environment, preferably to undergraduate students.
• Flexibility to teach evening and weekend hours, as needed .
• Strong commitment to service, excellent communication skills, ability to work collaboratively.
• Knowledge of evaluative standards in academia and libraries (e.g., LibQUAL, NSSE).
• Knowledge of trends and best practices in the provision and assessment of Information Literacy.

Preferred

• Teaching experience in a collaborative environment.
• Experience with assessment at the program level.
   

Review of applications will begin 10 March 2011 and will continue until the position is filled. Applicants should provide an application letter, current resume, and the names and contact information for at least three professional references. All applicants must use Drake's online application system, which requires the applicant to create a private and secure account.  To apply, visit the Drake HR Web Site: Application information here. Questions should be emailed to: cowles.administration@drake.edu, or call 515-271-4821.

Drake University is an equal-opportunity employer and actively seeks applicants who reflect the diversity of the nation. No applicant shall be discriminated against on the basis of race, color, national origin, creed, religion, age, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, genetic information or veteran status.