Re: diglib: Fwd: [DIGLIB] licensing

["Faye A Chadwell" <chadwelf@uoregon.edu>]

Sure, I can bring those to the meeting.  There are principles I can think of that are more relevant to us as the provider or content source rather than the licensee or customer.  I will try to get the original principles out to the list and offer up some others if that is amenable to the group.

Faye





On Tue, 09 May 2006 08:24:52 -0700, Carol Hixson <chixson@darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> Sounds like a good approach to me, rather than us
> handling every discussion on an ad-hoc basis. Do you
> have those principles so we could use them as a
> starting point?
> 
> Carol
> 
> At 08:06 AM 5/9/2006, Faye A Chadwell wrote:
> >Once upon a time, Sara, John Helmer, Deb and I sat down to develop 
> >some basic principles if you will to guide our contractual 
> >agreements.  I think we could do the same for engaging in contracts 
> >like the Proquest deal so there is no need to reinvent the 
> >wheel.  We have a base to present to every potential vendor that 
> >establishes clearly our "deal breakers."
> >
> >Faye
> >
> >On Tue, 09 May 2006 06:47:40 -0700, Carol Hixson 
> ><chixson@darkwing.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> > > It seems we are not the only ones being approached by
> > > commercial vendors wanting to "partner" with us to digitize
> > > some of our collections. Perhaps this merits a broader
> > > discussion on philosophical grounds before we go much
> > > farther down this road.
> > >
> > > BPL seems to be the Boston Public Library.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > > >Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 20:39:41 -0400
> > > >From: "Blake, Tom" <tblake@bpl.org>
> > > >To: <diglib@infoserv.inist.fr>
> > > >
> > > >I have a rather complicated, predictable, and pressing issue that we
> > > >are dealing with at our library. As our digital collections are
> > > >growing and our budgets are shrinking, there is increasing pressure
> > > >to engage in licensing agreements with vendors who might realize the
> > > >apparent commercial potential of our digital assets. I once thought
> > > >this was a great idea, but as I've worked in the field longer and
> > > >thought about it harder, I have become more convinced that the
> > > >licensing of intellectual property (public domain, orphaned, and in
> > > >copyright) is at best, a contrivance and at worst, outright illegal.
> > > >As a public library with a stated mission of offering the broadest
> > > >and best possible access to its holdings how can we justify applying
> > > >"usage fees" to the dissemination of our images? I understand the
> > > >necessity of charging for the discovery, production, and proper
> > > >recording and preservation of a requested image, but beyond that --
> > > >I don't see that we would have the right to license usages. I would
> > > >rather see our stuff get out there in any and all possible forms
> > > >(within the bounds of copyright legality) and thereby watch our
> > > >circulation, citations, attendance, and reference requests increase
> > > >-- the circulation business model that the publishing industry has
> > > >historically relied on for revenue generation.
> > > >
> > > >I'm thinking you all might have some fun and interesting comments.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks.
> > > >
> > > >-Tom Blake
> > >
>