[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Clarification on SERU proposal
I'd love to know if anyone on this list, whether publisher or
librarian, has ever been involved in legal proceedings because of
infringement of an e-journal licence? The publisher always has
the 'ultimate sanction' of cutting off access - indeed, how many
of you have even encountered this?
Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
Email: sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Katharine E Duff
Sent: 27 March 2007 22:42
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Clarification on SERU proposal
As a point of clarification, the University of Chicago Press's
Terms & Conditions of Use is not a click-through document; that
is, we don't require subscribers to assent to the T&Cs (whether
in writing, by e-mail, or by clicking an "I accept" button)
before they receive access. For those subscribers -- a minority,
in our experience -- who for whatever reason cannot agree to
implied acceptance of the T&C, we are happy to execute a formal
license.
We'll leave the lawyers to determine if the traditional licensing
approach, our approach, or the SERU approach is the most likely
to stand up in court, since, in the 12 years that Chicago has
published electronic journals, we have never had to resort to
legal action to resolve an infraction of our T&Cs by our
institutional subscribers. At some point, common sense and
respect for the various stakeholders in the scholarly
communication process -- good faith -- have to trump the need to
dot all the legal i's. We believe that our experience is not
unique, but if other publishers and librarians on the list have
encountered a more litigious environment, we hope they will add
their comments to this discussion.
Sincerely,
Kate Duff
Licensing & Permissions Manager, Journals Division
The University of Chicago Press
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sandy Thatcher
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:20 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Clarification on SERU proposal
But doesn't this "agreement," whether it takes the form of a
"written license" or not, still come with "terms and conditions,"
which is what the recent post from the University of Chicago
Press mentioned. And if one must accept these "terms and
conditions" through some sort of click-on procedure, isn't that
still a "license" fully valid in a court of law? Our officials
at Penn State frown on such click-on agreements, and we at the
Press have had to negotiate individually a number of them anyway
with the vendors offering them.
Sandy Thatcher
Penn State University Press
>Hi Joe,
>
>One of the defining discoveries in this process was to learn
>that as long as there was a written license agreement, it would
>be normal for each state institution to require that their own
>specific language be included, thus precluding any standardized
>agreement. In part to avoid this situation, we sought to develop
>a true alternative to a license agreement - rather than an
>alternative license agreement. Librarians and publishers have
>noted that often we are comfortable with an implied contract
>just as with a verbal agreement. Where there is general
>consensus, by avoiding the paperwork, we can streamline the
>process for anyone involved. Realistically, in many transactions
>there isn't a potential loss of substantial revenue for the
>publisher or risk for either publisher or library. With new
>publishers who would not take issue with terms supported by
>librarians, the SERU approach actually shortens the sales cycle
>and eliminates the delay of processing paperwork that isn't
>used.
>
>Further comments are welcome on SERU which is available now in
>draft form with FAQs on the NISO website.
>http://www.niso.org/committees/SERU
>
>Judy Luther MLS, MBA
>www.InformedStrategies.com
>610-645-7546 EDT
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph J.
>Esposito
>Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 3:19 PM
>To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>Subject: Clarification on SERU proposal
>
>I am struggling to understand the following. Can anyone help?
>
>>This document, "The SERU Approach to E-Resource Subscriptions:
>>Framework for Development and Use of SERU," presents a shared
>>set of understandings to which publishers and libraries can
>>point when negotiating the sale of electronic content. The
>>framework offers publishers and libraries a solution to the
>>often burdensome process of bilateral negotiation of a formal
>>license agreement by allowing the sale of e-resources without
>>licenses if both parties feel their perception of risk has been
>>adequately addressed by current law and developing norms of
>>behavior.
>
>JE: This is a legal matter, and I am not a lawyer. My layman's
>understanding is that there is a distinction between a license
>(a form of contract, which in this case is between copyright
>holders and organizations that want to use their material) and
>the codification of that contract, typically in a hardcopy
>document, which is confusingly also called a license. There is
>a difference, in other words, between the agreement (the
>license) and the codification in the form of a document (the,
>er, license), just as there is a difference between a marriage
>and a marriage certificate.
>
>Is SERU addressing license #1 or license #2? If #2, as I
>suspect, then calling this the elimination of licenses is
>terrribly confusing, as many people would confuse #2 with #1 and
>thus think there is no binding agreement between the parties
>simply because no document had been signed.
>
>My understanding is that SERU is seeking to reduce
>administrative costs by eliminating paperwork and many aspects
>of negotiations (a worthy goal) and is working to improve the
>terms of licenses for its constituency by pointing to "best
>practices" (meaning good for libraries), also a worthy goal,
>though whether the proposal will have the intended effect is
>unknown.
>
>Any clarification of this situation would be appreciated.
>
>Joe Esposito