SPEC Kit 310: Author Addenda · 45
Copyright/Licensing personnel.
I serve as the copyright counsel for the University in liaison role with Office of General Counsel.
Librarians do their best and refer to each other first — then institution legal counsel is next place to turn.
Library Copyright Specialist.
Our Electronic Resources librarian also serves as a copyright advisor in general. Most questions tend to come
directly to subject librarians and are referred either to the Electronic Resources librarian or to Assistant Dean, or
both.
Repository manager and librarians with copyright knowledge can give general guidance will direct specific
questions to legal counsel.
Special assistant to the provost.
The library staff only provide advice. For legal opinions, we refer them to the University System Legal Counsel
(institution’s legal counsel is not a copyright expert and refers to system) or to their own lawyer.
We have posted a job ad for a campus copyright officer.
Additional Comments
21. Please enter any additional information about library activities to promote the use of author
addenda that may assist the author in accurately analyzing the results of this survey. N=13
Selected Comments from Respondents
Again, the use of and promotion of author addendum is so tied up in author rights generally and negotiation of
copyright that it is VERY difficult to pull these apart. I have also found that in general addendum have not been
useful except as an education tool for faculty and graduate students. Because we are not consistently collecting
information on use of the addendum (something that should have been coordinated at the start of the consortium
addendum we are using), it’s very difficult to claim to faculty that it is an effective tool — I’ve yet to hear of a
successful use of the CIC addendum at Illinois.
All activities occurred in early 2008. Little activity after May 2008.
Faculty don’t understand that they can deposit in the campus IR and still publish in journals, or that we can harvest
from journals. They always question it.
In general we have focused most of our attention in this area on the NIH mandate, rather than the CIC Addenda.
We believe that the NIH mandate has greater potential to increase awareness precisely because it *requires*
adoption. We thought that the Faculty Senate’s hesitant acceptance of the CIC Addenda was surprising. While
these voluntary addenda provide a useful tool in discussions with faculty, we don’t believe that active promotion
of the addenda will result in substantial adoption on our campuses. Thus we have taken an approach of discussing
author rights and copyright in the context of other services we offer, e.g., publishing, instructional support, reserves.
Copyright/Licensing personnel.
I serve as the copyright counsel for the University in liaison role with Office of General Counsel.
Librarians do their best and refer to each other first — then institution legal counsel is next place to turn.
Library Copyright Specialist.
Our Electronic Resources librarian also serves as a copyright advisor in general. Most questions tend to come
directly to subject librarians and are referred either to the Electronic Resources librarian or to Assistant Dean, or
both.
Repository manager and librarians with copyright knowledge can give general guidance will direct specific
questions to legal counsel.
Special assistant to the provost.
The library staff only provide advice. For legal opinions, we refer them to the University System Legal Counsel
(institution’s legal counsel is not a copyright expert and refers to system) or to their own lawyer.
We have posted a job ad for a campus copyright officer.
Additional Comments
21. Please enter any additional information about library activities to promote the use of author
addenda that may assist the author in accurately analyzing the results of this survey. N=13
Selected Comments from Respondents
Again, the use of and promotion of author addendum is so tied up in author rights generally and negotiation of
copyright that it is VERY difficult to pull these apart. I have also found that in general addendum have not been
useful except as an education tool for faculty and graduate students. Because we are not consistently collecting
information on use of the addendum (something that should have been coordinated at the start of the consortium
addendum we are using), it’s very difficult to claim to faculty that it is an effective tool — I’ve yet to hear of a
successful use of the CIC addendum at Illinois.
All activities occurred in early 2008. Little activity after May 2008.
Faculty don’t understand that they can deposit in the campus IR and still publish in journals, or that we can harvest
from journals. They always question it.
In general we have focused most of our attention in this area on the NIH mandate, rather than the CIC Addenda.
We believe that the NIH mandate has greater potential to increase awareness precisely because it *requires*
adoption. We thought that the Faculty Senate’s hesitant acceptance of the CIC Addenda was surprising. While
these voluntary addenda provide a useful tool in discussions with faculty, we don’t believe that active promotion
of the addenda will result in substantial adoption on our campuses. Thus we have taken an approach of discussing
author rights and copyright in the context of other services we offer, e.g., publishing, instructional support, reserves.
