NOTE: The process described herein so far excludes the Beinecke and Walpole Libraries, which work according to practices established by them

Background
The Yale Library houses rich collections throughout numerous locations and on many topics. While some of these are esoteric, a number are thought to be of interest to a readership beyond Yale, or even beyond academia, and thus they have come to the attention of outside organizations or publishers who may wish to utilize such collections in order to make them available as a viable "product" (the phrase "viable product" can have diverse meanings.) Yale has engaged in such relationships for many decades, though much more cautiously in the last decade or so. This may be because the marketplace for the standard reproductions in facsimile and microform has shrunk and prospective newer digitizing relationships or partnerships are being handled with extra care at this time.

Yale Library resources have been of interest for some of the following purposes: reprinting of materials in traditional bound formats; reproducing materials into microformat (e.g., periodicals, special collections); inclusion of full text traditional formats into digital products; inclusion of catalog records or metadata into online database projects; and the like.

The possible relationships and partnerships for content deployment are very diverse. Some of Yale's resources have been of interest to not-for-profit organizations (for example, JSTOR for digitizing into its collections; RLG for Cultural Materials Initiative) and others to for-profit companies (for example, Scholarly Resources for microfilming of Divinity periodicals; Primary Source Media for the digital Sabin, A Dictionary of Books Relating to America, from its Discovery to the Present Time.). Yale Library chooses to work with some of these projects according to the process described herein.

Decision-Making
Individually, case by case, decisions are made about participation with outside partners in making collections available, taking into account a variety of factors and in consultation with Library staff with interest and expertise in the potential arrangement. In general (and with the exception of the Beinecke and Walpole Libraries), the AUL for Collections is key in, or will convene, discussions and decisions. The AUL studies the contracts, consults with General Counsel when legal advice is wanted, and usually signs the contractual agreements. NOTE: systemwide or substantial resources or partnerships may move the negotiating role to the University Librarian.

Who is Involved
Consultation about moving forward (or not) and how to do so, is most likely to include the following. "It takes a Village."

* Curator or subject specialist(s) with responsibility for the resource(s). (For example, not infrequently the responsibility is shared between the subject specialist plus Manuscripts & Archives).

* Preservation Director and staff who may be needed for expertise re. condition and handling of materials. These staff certify that materials can be reproduced.

* AUL for Collections.

* Technical specialists (systems and others as needed) regarding materials that are to be photographed and/or digitized either in house or outside.

* Other expertise as needed (finance, development, etc.).

* High visibility projects will be brought to University Librarian or LMT as appropriate and a decision may be made at that level, taking into account recommendations of a team or teams that have given careful consideration to a resource.

* Some projects may require consultation or at least an FYI with other campus parties, such as General Counsel, ITS, Secretary's Office, Provost, etc. The UL will be instrumental in making those contacts.

Factors in Decision-Making
Factors to be taken into account in discussions about whether to engage in an outside relationship are likely to include many of the items below:

1. Does the project fit the Library's goals of information access and dissemination. (For example, will it benefit Yale's users first and foremost? Is there some reason to *not* make the materials accessible? Does the project enhance teaching, learning, and/or research?)

2. What human resources needed and available in the Library to do engage in the project?

3. Where will the work be based; who will take responsibility overall?

4. What funding sources will be part of this relationship; i.e., partner may offer funds, labor, digitizing, royalties. Are the financial agreements acceptable?

5. Are there any intellectual property concerns? What are they? (For example, does the Library have rights to authorize reproduction? Who owns the property? Who will own the resulting product and is this acceptable?).

6. What is the condition of the materials? What effect will the project have on the physical condition of the materials? Is the wear and tear, if any, acceptable?

7. Are the requirements of the partner(s) for, e.g., restricted access, or free access, acceptable to the Library? Will the partner privatize the public domain in a way that is not acceptable to the Library?

8. What will the Library receive in return? If analog format, a free set, or? If digital, a free digital copy? In what format? Can the Library specify format?

9, If the investment that the Library will make is substantial, might it wish to recoup its investment and if so how?

10. Time frames: Is this a one-time relationship or is it ongoing? How long is the contract; what time periods does it stipulate for any work being done? Are these satisfactory?

Not all resources will require consideration of all the above factors; some resources may involve additional factors; these will need to be identified and considered.

The amount of time and the number of people involved in a decision should be somehow commensurate with the scope and scale of the proposed project or partnership or relationship. For example, digitizing faculty photos for ELI is likely *not* to take a village at all -- course support may in many instances become fairly routine, after initial prototypes are developed. Participation in a large project with, for example, Amazon.com or Google, or even ArtStor, is likely to demand a broader decision-making process.

****

Initial Draft by Ann Okerson, 3/22/04

Discussed, amended, approved by the Library management Team, May 2004

Discussed, amended, approved by the Collection Development Council, May & June 2004

© 2006 Yale University Library
This file last modified 10/06/06

Send comments to ann.okerson@yale.edu