RE: Clarification on SERU proposal

["Ivy Anderson" <Ivy.Anderson@ucop.edu>]

Sally, Kate, and others -

As a member of the group that drafted the SERU document, I'd like 
to add my perspective on this thread.  SERU takes its inspiration 
in part from exactly this insight - that license disputes rarely, 
if ever, result in a legal proceeding.

The real difference between SERU and the approach taken by the 
University of Chicago is between a unilateral and a 
community-based approach.  SERU attempts to set forth a community 
standard ('standard' in the generic sense of a body of 
commonly-accepted practice) that has been developed and can be 
endorsed by both libraries and information providers. We agree 
with the Chicago folks that, at least in some cases, our industry 
may be mature enough to risk transactions based on "common sense 
and respect for the various stakeholders in the scholarly 
communication process -- good faith."  SERU aims to test that 
hypothesis.  It is unlikely that unilateral terms can engender 
that level of trust.  A community standard (or 'shared 
understanding' as we have expressed it), developed with input 
from both libraries and publishers, just might.

Ivy Anderson
Director of Collections
California Digital Library
University of California, Office of the President
ivy.anderson@ucop.edu
http://www.cdlib.org

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sally Morris (Morris Associates)
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:45 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: 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