Skip to the content of the web site.

Information Services & Resources

Home

Information Services and Resources, Dana Porter Library
Departmental Meeting
August 26, 2011
Dana Porter Library Room 428
10:00am –12:15pm
Minutes


Present: Helena Calogeridis, Nancy Collins, Marian Davies, Jane Forgay (facilitator), Alison Hitchens, Tim Ireland, Christine Jewell, Sandra Keys (recorder), Leeanne Romane, Carol Steele, Janet Wason, Margaret Yuen

Guests: Pascal Calarco, Susan Routliffe

  1. Pascal Calarco "Get to Know You" (10:00am-10:45am)

    Jane thanked Pascal for coming. Introductions all around.

    Pascal asked about the scope of ISR. Jane spoke to this.
    Jane noted that she has also provided Pascal with the spreadsheet compiled when Bill Oldfield was retiring relating to what would be missing with his departure in the Systems area. Pascal noted that the spreadsheet was very helpful and that he would take it back to Systems for updating and status. He spoke specifically to opportunities for possibly bringing together e-theses and open journal systems under a growing UW-Space environment as well as to the fact that [electronic/dynamic] floor plans are being discussed in the context of Primo.

    Pascal also broached the idea of having a process of taking an idea to a group to talk about prioritization and decision-making for projects requiring Systems involvement. He discussed the model set up at the University of Notre Dame. He noted the importance of having a communications venue so that everyone knows what is going on, how priorities are set, status of projects/work, etc. With regards to "the group," he noted that he still needs to get final approval from Mark Haslett and issues to think about include whether it should be a new group or come from an existing with an expanded mandate, etc. If this goes forward, one of the first tasks would be to undertake an environmental scan of what is needed, what tools are on hand, and do these work for us and our needs?

    Pascal informed us that if anyone has an idea requiring Systems involvement, it can be sent to him.

    From the provided "Porter ISR questions for Pascal" (see Appendix 1), he was asked specifically about #7 (Adaptive Technology Centre – Booking System). He responded that Chris Gray is currently looking at the booking system situation. He is doing some analysis on its expansion to include other locations/rooms or, if that does not seem feasible, he will look at the possibility of implementing the Voyager booking system. He also noted that if rooms were for staff or faculty booking only, it may be just as easy to use Exchange. Specific resources (i.e., locations) can be limited to booking by only certain people.

    The question of staffing for Systems was also raised. Pascal responded that it is important to look at the situation wholistically and see what the need is (e.g., librarian? IT person?).

    Action Items:
    1. Jane to send spreadsheet (electronic format) to Pascal
    2. Pascal will take the spreadsheet to the Systems Meeting on Monday for updating/progress report
    3. Pascal will respond back to Jane and Christine

  2. Susan Routliffe on Copyright (11:00am-12:15pm)
    See Appendix 2 for Susan's speaking notes.
    Copyright website: http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/copyright/
    Any questions from faculty, staff, students, etc. can be referred to Susan.

  3. Meeting Adjourned, 12:15pm

    Appendix 1
    Porter ISR questions for Pascal
    August 26, 2011

      Systems Support for ISR Activities
    1. In spring 2010, in anticipation of Bill's retirement, ISR compiled a list of the activities and projects that Bill supported. Have you seen this list, and can you comment?
      https://sharepoint.uwaterloo.ca/sites/LibraryISR/porter/
      Shared%20Documents/SystemsSupport2.xls

      Systems / ISR Communications
    2. The Systems Department needs to be aware of ISR departmental activities and projects. ISR, on the other hand, needs to be aware of Systems priorities and the contacts assigned to ISR activities & projects. Should a list be maintained?

    3. Can you comment on the way/mechanism in which requests may be submitted to Systems for action?

      Organizational
    4. Can you explain the staffing and responsibilities of Library Systems staff? Is there a hope for Systems Liaisons?

    5. Library Systems lost two librarian positions. ISR feels that the vision, professionalism, flexibility, and level of interest in ISR activities & projects is now lost. The last Systems Librarian worked with individual librarians, associates or groups, and connected with other Systems members. He was able to provide immediate action and satisfied the need for consistent support. Apart from his leadership role with UW Space, there are numerous possible initiatives in connection with electronic scholarly communication that require commitment and time. The loss of two Systems Librarians, underlines the need for the position of a digital librarian.

      Future Trends
    6. As library information services become more dependent upon information technology, there is a corresponding need for more involvement from the systems staff. We already experience a shortage of immediate support in some areas. How can you remedy this?

      Adaptive Technology Centre
    7. Could Systems staff help expand the MBS booking system to allow for self-service bookings of the 2 study rooms in the Adaptive Technology Centre? Currently booking these rooms requires staff intervention to: verify eligibility, check room availability, and enter the booking info on to the website.

    8. Attempts have been made for over two years to make adaptive software available in the Davis Centre Library. Could Systems staff consult/advise on how to best make this integration happen?

    Appendix 2
    Access Copyright license: some background

    Access Copyright, formerly CanCopy, was established in 1988 as a copyright collective to represent the reproduction rights of Canadian authors, visual artists and publishers

    About 15 years ago, AUCC and Access Copyright negotiated a license outlining rights and obligations related to day-to-day copying and course pack production at Canadian Universities for publications included in Access Copyright's repertoire, i.e. the rights holders who they represented

    The license was intended to ensure that copyright was respected and that rights owners were appropriately compensated for use of their work

    This was done in two ways: limiting the amounts that could be copied, e.g. one chapter of a book, but not an entire book, and by charging flat fees for copying that was permitted

    For the most part, the terms, conditions and fees seemed reasonable and Waterloo became a signatory to the license

    There were two financial components to the license:
    1. An annual fee to cover day-to-day copying done by all members of the University, including students, faculty and staff; for the past several years that fee was $3.38 per student FTE, for a total of about $84,000 per year. This fee was paid by students as part of their mandatory fees
    2. A flat rate of $.10 per page for copies made for course packs from material in Access Copyright's repertoire; this fee was included in the cost of the course packs that the students purchase. We have been paying about $400,000 to AC annually for course pack copies.
      In total, we were paying a little under $500,000 annually

    Reasons for pulling out:
    1. When the licence was last scheduled for renewal Access Copyright changed the pricing model and amounts
    2. Instead of one fee for day-to-day copying and one for course packs they introduced one new fee to cover both types of copying: the fee was $45 per student FTE
    3. Based on Waterloo's FTEs our amount would have been approximately $1,200,000--more than twice what we have been paying
    4. This seemed like an unreasonable increase especially when the rights holders represented by AC are declining and because universities are investing millions in electronic resources licensed by their libraries and available to the entire campus
    5. In addition, AC was introducing some new elements that are viewed as intrusive, i.e, universities who signed on would be expected to give AC access to their records and systems so that they could conduct annual surveillances of copying activity undertaken by faculty, staff and students

On behalf of its members, AUCC challenged the new terms and fees

AC, in turn, applied to the Copyright Board for the introduction of an Interim Tariff, i.e. something that would be put in place until the dispute between AUCC and AC is resolved

The Copyright Board agreed to an interim tariff until this dispute is resolved and the fees revert to those in place under the previous license

But one concern is that when the dispute is settled, those who chose to sign on to the Interim Tariff would have to retroactively pay whatever amount the Copyright Board deems appropriate

Taking all of this into account, the Waterloo decided to pull out of the license
Implications of pulling out

All copying done on campus must now be done under one of four sets of circumstances:

  1. We seek permission directly from the rights holder and pay any fees that they assess (rights holders may give us permission to copy and charge nothing; so even when permission must be sought, we don't always pay)
  2. The work must be in the public domain or otherwise freely available, through for example, Open Access
  3. The copying is done under the Fair Dealing section of the Copyright Act, or some other exemption in the Act, e.g. alternate formats for people with disabilities
  4. The University has a license for the material and the copying that someone wants to do is consistent with that license; the Library spends millions on licenses for electronic resources
Fair Dealing
Geoff's July 28 message notes that we are all to abide by provisions in the Copyright Act and that mostly means that copying must comply with the Fair Dealing exceptions in the Act

To help us understand what kind of copying is probably acceptable under Fair Dealing, AUCC's legal counsel prepared a guide, the Fair Dealing Advisory, that Geoff also referred to

A key activity not covered by Fair Dealing is making multiple copies to hand out to students; instructors may display copyright protected material in class but they may not make copies for distribution and they may not include copies in electronic course notes

Worth mentioning that the AC license did not provide for any copying in electronic format—so all along, instructors should have been getting permission before making copies available electronically unless, of course, the material came from licensed resources or was in the public domain or available as open access
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUR database: http://waterloo.scholarsportal.info/licenses/


October 7, 2011