• Allow the use of a digital copy of the electronic article without printing prior to sending through Ariel or Ariel-like software. Ariel and Ariel-like software degrade the electronic image whether that image is made from a print or an electronic copy. There is no additional security gained by first printing then scanning the article. • Medical and veterinary libraries may want to secure the right to include the use of LoansomeDoc®, a library-to-clinician lending software that is commonly used in these fields, and more expansive than fair use. 1 Lynn Wiley, “License to Deny? Publisher Restrictions on Document Delivery from E-Licensed Journals,” Interlending & Document Supply 32, no. 2 (2004): 94–102. In 2004, Lynn Wiley surveyed Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) institutions on their policies and practices for including ILL in e-journal license negotiations. All 13 schools reported that they ask for ILL rights, but 9 of them accepted “total prohibition of ILL” (69%), while the other 4 schools had “no knowledge of licenses” (meaning ILL could potentially be prohibited at all 13 schools, i.e., no one in the CIC considers this a deal-breaker). Almost half of the schools (6 out of 13) reported that ILL was “[f]orbidden to some borrowers, i.e., commercial or foreign forbidden.” When faced with the issue of canceling print copies of a journal, over half of the schools (7 out of 13) said a resulting lack of ability to loan from the remaining e-version “was important but not the first consideration, those responding no said it wasn’t a large issue or that the budget was a larger priority.” Wiley reported that CIC ILL departments sometimes canceled ILL requests due to restrictions in the license “[t]he numbers were not large, no higher than 600 over a six-month period, but bear watching for any increase.” In the eight years since this survey, more CIC schools have undoubtedly canceled print versions, a move that may well have resulted in less ability to provide loans to peers and a corresponding lessening in ability to obtain loans from peers. 2 North Carolina State University: ILL information from 80 publishers was used in an informal sample, including information from 27 of the approximately 100 members of the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers. University of Minnesota: the ILL clauses of its 241 e-journal licenses were examined. 3 At the University of Minnesota, the success rate is 89% (214 out of 241 licenses). 4 In those licensing agreements between publishers and the University of Minnesota that allow ILL, if requested by a library in the US, (note the library usually needs to be a non-profit) this represents ~12 % (25/214) of the allowing publishers. In the sample of 27 STM publishers, the percentage requiring same-country restrictions was slightly higher, though still a minority (19%). 5 From the Elsevier ScienceDirect ILL policy: “A note on national boundaries: Interlibrary loan and document delivery activities and the legal basis for such activities vary from country to country. As an international publisher, Elsevier has worked hard to establish an international level playing field, where all libraries can provide documents to libraries on the same terms and conditions. Those terms are intended to support domestic ILL. They are also intended to reign in those libraries who have abused ILL and provide what is more accurately described as document delivery to anyone anywhere in the world in the name of ILL.” Last updated April 1, 2011, http://www.elsevier.com/wps/ find/intro.cws_home/SD interlibrary loan. 6 For example, “The Licensee may, subject to clause 6 below, supply to an Authorized User of another library (whether by post or fax [or secure transmission, using Ariel or its equivalent, whereby the electronic file is deleted immediately after printing]), for the purposes of research or private study and not for Commercial Use, a single paper copy of an electronic original of an individual document…” (Licensing Models, “Academic Single Institution License,” accessed May 13, 2011, http://www.licensingmodels.org/ SingleAcademicInstitutionLicense.html.) This language, on the one hand, permits secure e-transmission on the other hand, it requires delivery of a paper copy. It also makes a request of the lending library (the licensee) that they do not have the ability to enforce, as the format delivered to the patron by the requesting library is beyond the lending library’s control. 7 At University of Minnesota, 29% of allowing publishers refer to the CONTU Guidelines that were established by the Library of Congress in 1979. CONTU Guidelines place the burden of tracking the number of requests on the requesting library. ILL software widely used in ILL transactions facilitates compliance with this guideline the software does not provide the mechanism for the lending library to keep track of this data. RLI 275 22 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