From blawlor at nfais.org Tue Jul 3 14:30:37 2012 From: blawlor at nfais.org (Bonnie Lawlor) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:30:37 -0400 Subject: [nfais-l] Research Behavior report just released Message-ID: <00c201cd5949$f18eba80$d4ac2f80$@org> The final report, Researchers of Tomorrow: The Research Behaviour of Generation Y Doctoral Students, resulting from a three-year study done by the British Library and JISC, has just been released. It is available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/reports/2012/researchers- of-tomorrow.pdf Bonnie Lawlor Executive Director National Federation of Advanced Information Services (NFAIS) 1518 Walnut Street, Suite 1004 Philadelphia, PA 19102 1-215-893-1561 Phone 1-215-893-1564 Fax blawlor at nfais.org www.nfais.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jilloneill at nfais.org Wed Jul 11 13:07:02 2012 From: jilloneill at nfais.org (jilloneill at nfais.org) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 13:07:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nfais-l] Thinking the Unthinkable: A Library Without a Catalogue Message-ID: <1342026422.59651517@webmail.nfais.org> Those NFAIS members with an interest in discoverability in the library environment and discovery services may have an interest in reviewing this speaker abstract and the accompanying Powerpoint accessible at: [http://utlib.ee/liber2012/presentations/n/Kortekaas_thinking_the_unthinkable_IV_2.ppt] http://utlib.ee/liber2012/presentations/n/Kortekaas_thinking_the_unthinkable_IV_2.ppt. Of particular interest is Slide #9 regarding patron behaviors (student, faculty). My thanks to Lorcan Dempsey whose tweet this morning pointed me towards this item. Thinking the Unthinkable: A Library without a Catalogue In 2011 this very idea was the starting point for reconsidering the future of discovery tools for Utrecht University Library. Like every other library, we have always offered our users a catalogue. In 2002 we built our own discovery tool aimed at finding electronic journal articles. We called it Omega and it immediately became a huge success. We were able to explain this division to our users. Looking for print material? Search the catalogue. Looking for electronic journals? Search Omega. In the last few years, things have been changing rapidly. New commercial discovery tools such as Primo and Summon entered the library market and we lost our pioneering role. Meanwhile more and more users are finding their way to our licensed journals through larger and stronger search engines like Google Scholar: freely available on the Internet and containing massive amounts of scientific material. But our users also switched to databases we paid for such as Web of Science and Scopus. Statistics showed that the use of our library catalogue and Omega was decreasing whereas the use of our licensed journals was still growing. The time had come to rethink the future of our library discovery tools. In the summer of 2011, a small study group was formed to start investigating the succession of the catalogue and Omega. Instead of looking for commercial discovery tools, we tried to view the situation from the perspective of our users. They are on the Internet and use Google or Google-like discovery tools. There they find the content they need and next expect the library to deliver the goods. If this is the world of our users, if this is the reality, if big commercial companies are able to offer freely accessible search engines containing scientific content, why then should we do our best to pull our users back to our library catalogue? What will our users be missing if we should decide to leave the discovery side of our services to parties that are far better equipped to build, keep up and constantly update their products? What would happen if we, as a library, should focus on the delivery part of the job? Starting the investigation from this point of view turned into a thrilling voyage of discovery leading to a bold and unconventional outcome. Speaker Information: Simone Kortekaas is Head of the Information & Marketing Department at Utrecht University Library since 2008. The department includes Reference Staff, Special Collections and the Open Access Publishing Team. Jill O'Neill Director, Planning & Communication NFAIS Email: jilloneill at nfais.org Voice: 215/893-1561 Web: [http://www.nfais.org] http://www.nfais.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jilloneill at nfais.org Wed Jul 11 14:10:13 2012 From: jilloneill at nfais.org (jilloneill at nfais.org) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 14:10:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nfais-l] FW: Thinking the Unthinkable: A Library Without a Catalogue Message-ID: <1342030213.16179130@webmail.nfais.org> With regard to what appears to be a broken link below, I would ask NFAIS members to right click on the link which will prompt an automatic download of the PPT file. Sorry for any inconvenience. Alternatively, you may try to access the link through a Google result shown below: [PPT] [http://www.utlib.ee/liber2012/presentations/n/Kortekaas_Thinking_the_Unthinkable_IV_2.ppt] See presentation www.utlib.ee/liber2012/presentations/n/Kortekaas_Thinking_the_...File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - [https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:GmjSL-kkVTcJ:www.utlib.ee/liber2012/presentations/n/Kortekaas_Thinking_the_Unthinkable_IV_2.ppt+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjJ-X_6ppKgV3MMTrIyEsKxsY7WRTsOkLrVtd_ovRGIlf556YdMvcVruq8pg6A-FZMxO0qKhbyJMwNBhshAE69bQ87jOaYkY29OVKpW8r4eqqss-AkGTt-wL_oyRQweQGxdUItY&sig=AHIEtbQGgno1gCjSq-MDDdySfK2ulB5tMQ] Quick View In the next twenty minutes I would like to ?share findings of our research on discoveryand delivery. & ?present some convincing and inspiring ideas. My name ... Jill -----Original Message----- From: jilloneill at nfais.org Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 1:07pm To: nfais-l at lyralists.lyrasis.org Subject: Thinking the Unthinkable: A Library Without a Catalogue Those NFAIS members with an interest in discoverability in the library environment and discovery services may have an interest in reviewing this speaker abstract and the accompanying Powerpoint accessible at: [http://utlib.ee/liber2012/presentations/n/Kortekaas_thinking_the_unthinkable_IV_2.ppt] http://utlib.ee/liber2012/presentations/n/Kortekaas_thinking_the_unthinkable_IV_2.ppt. Of particular interest is Slide #9 regarding patron behaviors (student, faculty). My thanks to Lorcan Dempsey whose tweet this morning pointed me towards this item. Thinking the Unthinkable: A Library without a Catalogue In 2011 this very idea was the starting point for reconsidering the future of discovery tools for Utrecht University Library. Like every other library, we have always offered our users a catalogue. In 2002 we built our own discovery tool aimed at finding electronic journal articles. We called it Omega and it immediately became a huge success. We were able to explain this division to our users. Looking for print material? Search the catalogue. Looking for electronic journals? Search Omega. In the last few years, things have been changing rapidly. New commercial discovery tools such as Primo and Summon entered the library market and we lost our pioneering role. Meanwhile more and more users are finding their way to our licensed journals through larger and stronger search engines like Google Scholar: freely available on the Internet and containing massive amounts of scientific material. But our users also switched to databases we paid for such as Web of Science and Scopus. Statistics showed that the use of our library catalogue and Omega was decreasing whereas the use of our licensed journals was still growing. The time had come to rethink the future of our library discovery tools. In the summer of 2011, a small study group was formed to start investigating the succession of the catalogue and Omega. Instead of looking for commercial discovery tools, we tried to view the situation from the perspective of our users. They are on the Internet and use Google or Google-like discovery tools. There they find the content they need and next expect the library to deliver the goods. If this is the world of our users, if this is the reality, if big commercial companies are able to offer freely accessible search engines containing scientific content, why then should we do our best to pull our users back to our library catalogue? What will our users be missing if we should decide to leave the discovery side of our services to parties that are far better equipped to build, keep up and constantly update their products? What would happen if we, as a library, should focus on the delivery part of the job? Starting the investigation from this point of view turned into a thrilling voyage of discovery leading to a bold and unconventional outcome. Speaker Information: Simone Kortekaas is Head of the Information & Marketing Department at Utrecht University Library since 2008. The department includes Reference Staff, Special Collections and the Open Access Publishing Team. Jill O'Neill Director, Planning & Communication NFAIS Email: jilloneill at nfais.org Voice: 215/893-1561 Web: [http://www.nfais.org] http://www.nfais.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jilloneill at nfais.org Thu Jul 26 12:53:05 2012 From: jilloneill at nfais.org (jilloneill at nfais.org) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 12:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [nfais-l] NFAIS Enotes, 2012 Message-ID: <1343321585.95819746@webmail.nfais.org> NFAIS Enotes, #4, 2012 Written and Compiled by Jill O?Neill The Georgia State University Decision The issue of E-reserves has been a source of tension for research communities and those that serve them for some time. Content providers have held that permissible use of digital content for classroom instruction requires licensing of that content apart from the licensing of content done by the academic library, citing as precedents American Geophysical Union v. Texaco and Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services. Librarians and professors have held that content licensed or purchased by the library or by the professor for instructional use would be a fair use of digitized versions for access by students without specific permission from the rights holder. Long under debate, it is not an area of easy agreement, as both Library Journal and Publisher?s Weekly coverage recognizes. ?In 2003, AAP lawyers targeted the University of California, San Diego. In 2006, Cornell University and AAP released joint guidelines for electronic content, which Cornell officials say were in fact drafted under an implicit threat of litigation. And in January of 2008, AAP praised new accords with Syracuse, Marquette, and Hofstra universities regarding new guidelines for the use of electronic content, also, reportedly, with the stick of litigation.?(see: [http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/43500-a-failure-to-communicate.html] http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/43500-a-failure-to-communicate.html). The 2007 coverage by Library Journal of the tension over e-reserves also references the Cornell guidelines, but makes it clear that there was no true consensus as to what constituted best practices in this area (see; [http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6483876.html] http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6483876.html). By the time, Cambridge University Press, Sage Publications and Oxford University Press sued Georgia State University (GSU) in 2008, even the New York Times recognized that the issue had become a long-simmering pot that clearly needed watching. (see: [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/technology/16school.html?pagewanted=print] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/technology/16school.html?pagewanted=print). When I surveyed Internet conversations published in the period between 2009 and 2011 about the Georgia State University e-reserves case, it was clear that anxiety levels within academic circles were high. Paul Courant wrote in June of 2011, ?As a faculty member, I do not know that I could comply with the restrictions in the proposed injunction for using copyrighted material in my classroom; they are too onerous and much too expensive.? (see: [http://paulcourant.net/2011/06/09/the-georgia-state-filing-a-declaration-of-war-on-the-faculty/] http://paulcourant.net/2011/06/09/the-georgia-state-filing-a-declaration-of-war-on-the-faculty/). While Chief Scholarly Communications Office Kevin Smith of Duke University feared that if the plaintiffs? proposed injunction were to be found acceptable to the court, ?It would make GSU responsible for every conceivable act of copying that took place on their campus. In short, administrators at Georgia State would have to look over the shoulders of each faculty member whenever they uploaded course material to an LMS or any other web page. (see: [http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/05/13/a-nightmare-scenario-for-higher-education/] http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/05/13/a-nightmare-scenario-for-higher-education/). Background on the history surrounding the litigation of this case is fairly readily found. Sandy Thatcher (then with Penn State University Press) wrote an 2010 article for Against the Grain (see:[http://www.against-the-grain.com/2010/03/v-22-1-from-the-university-presses-georgia-state-and-unfair-use-a-rebuttal-to-kenneth-crews/] http://www.against-the-grain.com/2010/03/v-22-1-from-the-university-presses-georgia-state-and-unfair-use-a-rebuttal-to-kenneth-crews/ ) about some of the wrangling that had gone on in the state of Georgia over establishing guidelines for use in the state?s public institutions of higher education. While his article is not entirely objective in its tone, there are sufficient links to opposing points of view contained within the article to make it useful background on the on-going tensions surrounding copies made for e-reserves as well as the disputed Georgia State University practices. Thatcher noted that GSU had a very broad interpretation of what might be used without specific permission from the publishers. So it was somewhat startling when the ruling handed down in 2012 actually appeared to confirm in large part the fair use nature of the e-reserve practices in place at Georgia State. In a lengthy examination of 75 instances where publishers had claimed infringement, the court found that only five of those instances truly represented inappropriate copying, exceeding the bounds of fair use. Beginning on page 47 of the ruling, Judge Orinda Evans couched her final decision in an examination of four well-known factors ([http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html] http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html) in determining whether something was fair use or not. There is a useful overview that analyzed the ruling from an uninterested legal perspective: (see: [http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/179770/Copyright/The+Devils+In+The+Details+Dissecting+The+350Page+Georgia+State+University+Electronic+Reserve+Copyright+Ruling] http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/179770/Copyright/The+Devils+In+The+Details+Dissecting+The+350Page+Georgia+State+University+Electronic+Reserve+Copyright+Ruling). Donald A. Kruft, a litigator with Foley & Hoag, provides for the general reader an overview of the case and the particular points in the ruling that may be considered controversial by legal practitioners. Speaking in the most general terms, the judge broadly favored copying for e-reserve use for education in non-profit academic environments (factor 1 ? character of the use) relying on a particular exception claimed by Justice David Souter in the context of classroom distribution. With regard to the second factor, the nature of the copyrighted work, the judge held that content that might be deemed criticism and comment deserved greater exposure for purposes of education, a point which Kruft notes may be a misreading of the original statute. With regard to the amount and substantiality of the portion used (factor 3), Judge Evans laid down a relatively specific ?bright line? for purposes of determining boundaries of appropriate copying, differing substantially from the U.S. Copyright Office?s previously published guidelines for classroom use. Finally, the court looked at the effect of the copying on the potential market (Factor 4) and determined that this would depend on the availability of a licensing mechanism for specific digital excerpts. In this the judge ignored previous court rulings regarding photocopying of content and Krufts writes, ?This ruling arguably leaves open the danger that defendants by choosing an alternative medium in which to make unauthorized copies can manipulate the fair use analysis in their favor.? The remaining pages of the court document were devoted to examining each of the 75 instances of unauthorized copying by Georgia State faculty in the light of the court?s analysis of the four factors. ARL?s Director of Public Policy Initiatives, Branden C. Butler, issued an 8-page brief that also covers the nature of the decision (see: [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/gsu_issuebrief_15may12.pdf] http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/gsu_issuebrief_15may12.pdf). It is important to reiterate that from the perspective of many content providers, this case was about maintaining protection surrounding course reserves. Note the positioning by Peter Givler, Executive Director of the American Association of University Presses, in this May 2011 Chronicle of Higher Education opinion piece (see: [http://chronicle.com/article/Whats-at-Stake-in-the-Georgia/127718/] http://chronicle.com/article/Whats-at-Stake-in-the-Georgia/127718/). Despite the fact that the academic presses involved in the suit are, by university-press standards, large, it is perhaps the smaller university presses that have the most to lose in a world where digital course packs, provided gratis and without compensation to authors or publishers, replace book sales and permissions income. The court?s finding suggests that the onus is on the small university presses to make their content readily available for licensing. Much was made in the mainstream press of the fact that the losses totted in the judge?s opinion were slightly less than $800.00 for the five instances of infringement, an interpretation deemed questionable by content providers and their legal advisors. Emerging from the 2012 meeting of the AAUP were more in-the-trenches assessments of just how much of a loss such permissions revenue represented to operating presses. From the coverage by Inside Higher Ed: ?If I lost my permissions income, two people would lose their jobs,? said one press director. ?If we lost our permissions income, that would be two fewer monographs per year we?d be publishing,? chimed in another. ?We buy our equipment with our permissions income, like computers and upgrades and stuff like that,? said a third. ?And we don?t have a budget line for that otherwise.? (see: [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/06/21/university-presses-debate-how-reconcile-libraries-wake-georgia-state-copyright] http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/06/21/university-presses-debate-how-reconcile-libraries-wake-georgia-state-copyright). From the perspective of these smaller presses, the loss of permissions revenue is hardly on the level of the judge?s few hundred dollars. If the various parties can?t agree on the scope of fair use of digital content when it applies to textual materials, how slow will those same parties be when it comes to determining fair use of other materials such as images, video, and data sets? Very early in 2012, the Visual Resources Association (VRA) recently issued a formal Statement Regarding the Fair Use of Images For Teaching, Research and Study ([http://online.vraweb.org/vrab/vol38/iss1/5/] http://online.vraweb.org/vrab/vol38/iss1/5/). It offers the position that fair use would protect (among other things) the use of images (both large, high resolution images and thumbnails) on course websites and in other online study materials. Such a position might be a context for legitimate use where rights holders might disagree. The Motion Picture Association of America, always sensitive to issues of infringement and piracy, has raised concerns over the handling of videos and DVDs on campuses. The handling of data-sets is perhaps still too new to be subject to wrangling over rights and protections, but it seems likely to be only a matter of time. The VRA Statement was endorsed by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) as the VRA positioning statement aligns well with ARL?s Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research Libraries ([http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/codefairuse/index.shtml] http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/codefairuse/index.shtml), issued in January 2012. The ARL Code had been developed as a set of principles that the research library community could refer to in making judgment calls as to the legitimacy of a particular activity in copying or digitizing a particular piece of content for classroom use. Following the decision in the Georgia State University case, the FAQ for the Code noted that Judge Evans was slightly dismissive of the library community?s general thinking and practice surrounding fair use. Hence Evans? development of a ?bright line? regarding the specifics of how much material from a book might be included in electronic reserves before it became infringing. Because the library communities? view had always been that there was a certain flexibility in determining fair use, Judge Evans? ?bright line? -- despite its generosity -- was deemed (at least publicly) as something of a constraint. The Art Libraries Society of North America, and the Center for Social Media endorsed ARL?s Code of Best Practices In Fair Use For Academic and Research Libraries. Libraries worry about how their environment is changing on a variety of levels, but the legal frameworks surrounding basic library services surrounding lending and support of users? requirements are particularly fruitful ground for growing anxiety. As Jonathan Band, legal counsel to various Internet companies, providers of information technology, universities, and library associations, in speaking for an interview with Publishers Weekly put it: ?...the tension isn't just over digital. Rulings in cases like Wiley v. Kirtsaeng, which is now before the Supreme Court, and Costco v. Omega would eliminate the first-sale doctrine with respect to print copies manufactured abroad. That would mean that libraries conceivably could not lend books that were printed abroad?not only books from foreign publishers, but American-published books that are merely printed overseas. That would be a blow right to the heart of the library enterprise. We raised this concern in Costco v. Omega, and what's interesting is that I don't recall any publisher ever coming to us and saying, "don't worry, we're never going to challenge your ability to lend foreign-printed books." It's a little troubling that no one's ever said that.? (see: [http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/52123-public-defender-pw-talks-with-jonathan-band-lawyer-to-the-library-community-ala-2012.html] http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/52123-public-defender-pw-talks-with-jonathan-band-lawyer-to-the-library-community-ala-2012.html). Rights holders who believe that they have been burned by user behaviors may not be feeling overly sympathetic to the various library communities? needs, and earlier reports noted in this piece included statements that recognized that suing one?s customers is always problematic. Libraries are not, however, sitting and gloating over what some have called their victory over publishers in the GSU case; they know very well that this is only a breathing space before the next bout. ***************************************************** 2012 NFAIS Supporters Access Innovations, Inc. Accessible Archives, Inc. American Psychological Association/PsycINFO CAS CrossRef Data Conversion Laboratory, Inc. Defense Technical Information Center EBSCO Publishing Getty Research Institute The H. W. Wilson Foundation Information Today, Inc. IFIS OCLC Philosopher?s Information Center ProQuest RSI Content Solutions Silverchair Information Systems TEMIS, Inc. Thomson Reuters IP & Science Thomson Reuters IP Solutions Unlimited Priorities LLC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: