Findings and Conclusion As online-only subscriptions become the norm, there is an increased need to secure the right for research libraries to conduct ILL, and to do so in a standard and reasonable fashion. Some licenses forbid ILL and prevent additional users from obtaining the materials they need. As a result, as was done last year with confidentiality clauses, ARL may wish to consider making specific ILL rights a deal-breaker. Research libraries will have to carefully decide when to insist on ILL privileges in new products and for renewal licenses that frequently have variant terms. One approach may be to make this request of publishers where our faculty editors and society officers can best assert their influence. An important part of the strategy will be the definition of a uniform method of dealing with licenses that are silent on the issue. It appears that there is no consistent approach by legal counsel. ARL directors may wish to consult with local counsel as to what constitutes a safe harbor especially as state law and university legal policy may well vary among public institutions. (See Appendix A for further information.) It would be useful to articulate clearly ILL clauses that are consistent with research libraries’ missions, ILL best practice, and ILL management tools. In looking over the variety in licensing language used to describe ILL permissions for e-journals, it becomes clear that there is greater need on the part of publishers and negotiating librarians for understanding of ILL workflow and the tools used to support it. Certain features of ILL permissions are favored by ARL libraries because they replicate best practices established in the print environment. Library-friendly ILL license language may include such features as: Include a licensing provision stating that nothing in the license may restrict exceptions permitted under copyright law. Confine constraints on ILL permissions to the lending libraries. Just as libraries cannot control the behavior of their users, they cannot monitor or control the behavior of the borrowing library. Do not restrict ILL to same country. Restricting to the same country was not a condition governing print ILL, and it imposes a needless constraint at exactly the moment we are entering into an increasingly global information age. A better response to create shared understandings of what constitutes a responsible ILL transaction is to develop international standards. RLI 275 21 White Paper: Trends in Licensing ( C O N T I N U E D ) JUNE 2011 RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUES: A QUARTERLY REPORT FROM ARL, CNI, AND SPARC
Previous Page Next Page