ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries In this issue: Copyright and Reserve Book ......... 125 Responses on Copyright ................. 129 Education for Bibliographic Instruction C o m m itte e ..................131 ACRL Southern California Chapter ........................ 132 ACRL 1978 National Conference ..................................... 133 Continuing Library Education . . . . 133 ACRL Materials Available ............. 135 News from the Field ........................ 137 P e o p le .................................................... 147 Publications ..........................................150 Classified Advertising ...................... 153 ISSN 0099-0086 C O L L E G E & R E S E A R C H L IB R A R IE S n e w s NO. 5 • MAY 1978 Copyright and Reserve Books— W hat Libraries Are Doing By M eredith B u tler H ea d o f Public S ervices D ra ke M em orial L ib ra ry State U niversity C o lleg e B ro c k p o r t, New York Although a wealth of information on the new copyright law has b e e n p u b lish ed in re c e n t months, much of what has appeared repeats what is commonly known: It reproduces the law and outlines the changes in it, discusses the concept of fair use, reiterates the various guidelines, and advises librarians (1) not to be too hasty to give up hard-won rights and (2) to seek legal counsel before making policy decisions. Many questions remain unanswered, especially those concerning library reserve operations. As Charles Martell stated in his article, “Copyright Law and Reserve Operations—An Interpretation,” in the January 1978 issue of C o lleg e & R esea rch L ib ra r ies News, “The law contains many ambiguities. In terms of day-to-day library reserve operations, these am­ biguities are especially troublesome (p. 1). How are librarians coping with the ambiguities of the new law? What decisions are they making? Whom are they consulting? Has the law drasti­ cally affected reserve operations? Are teachers and students who use reserve materials unhappy? In order to seek some answers to these and other related questions about the new law and its ef­ fects on library reserve operations, a question­ naire was mailed to the directors of twenty-seven selected university, college, and community college libraries, both public and private, in New York State. Because of the timely nature of the subject, it was arranged to answer the questionnaires by telephone. The directors, or persons designated by the directors, of all twenty-seven libraries re­ sponded to the survey and the results are sum­ marized in these pages. Perhaps a word of caution is necessary at the ou tset. So p h istica ted survey re s e a rch m e th ­ odology was not employed in this study. Rather, an attempt was made to obtain a quick, albeit representational, sampling of current attitudes, practices, procedures, and problems relating to library reserve operations and the new copyright law using academic libraries in New York State as a model. No attempt has been made to determine the “best approach” to reserve problem s, nor do policies outlined in these pages offer unambigu­ ous answers to questions raised by the law. It is hoped, however, that the various approaches to questions and issues discussed here will furnish food for thought, focus thinking about the topic, and perhaps provide several possible models a li­ brary might develop. Because of the sensitive na­ ture of the topic and the confusion and lack of certainty among librarians, it was thought best to preserve the anonymity o f the respondents as well as their institutions. R e s p o n s e t o t h e La w The first part of the questionnaire asked how libraries have responded to the new copyright News issue (A) of College & R esearch Libraries, vol. 39, no. 3 126 law in terms of their current reserve policy and what information they used to help formulate pol­ icy decisions. Results indicate that, although policy does not differ markedly overall, interpretation of basically the same information differs considerably. Faced with ambiguity, most librarians in the sample have been quick to respond with formal policies and sound reasons on which they base their in­ terpretation. But all point out that their policies are flexible and subject to change as more defini­ tive answers em erge in the future. O f the twenty-seven institutions, ten have es­ tablished reserve policies based on the principle of fair use (Section 107) and feel strongly that the G u id elin es f o r C la s sr o o m C o p y in g in N o t-fo r - Profit E d u ca tio n a l Institutions do not apply to the reserve operation since it is not an extension of the classroom. Fifteen libraries have based their policies on both the concept of fair use and the G u idelines and think that the G u id elin es have di­ rect applicability to library reserve operations. O f the remaining two libraries, one has not yet made any changes in its reserve policies but plans to do so in the future. The other library has interpreted the concept o f fair use to apply only to individu­ als who wish to make a copy o f something for their own use and research and, therefore, thinks that the library is not entitled either to make a copy or to accept a copy from an individual to be placed on reserve. Type o f institution— public or private, commu­ nity college, four-year liberal arts college, univer­ sity, or special library— did not seem a significant factor in establishing policy. Ten libraries have also considered Section 108, Reproduction by L i­ braries and Archives, in developing policy, while two mentioned Section 105, U .S. Government Works. No one knew of published material which dealt specifically with copyright and reserve operations, but several libraries found the information pack­ ets produced by the Special Libraries Association to be particularly com prehensive and helpful. Several other items were mentioned, a complete list o f which appears at the end of this article. How have librarians informed themselves? All m en tion e d m a teria l p u b lish ed by th e U. S. Copyright Office, articles in the professional liter­ ature, discussions with colleagues, conferences, and workshops. O ne librarian telep honed the Copyright Office directly to ask for clarification on several questions and found the staff there very helpful. C u r r e n t Re s e r v e P o l i c i e s N u m ber o f C o p ies W hat is c u r r e n t re s e rv e p o licy in th e s e twenty-seven libraries? An overwhelming major­ ity o f the lib ra rie s , tw enty-one, have lim ited photocopied item s on reserve to one copy, al­ though one library stipulated that there was room for flexibility in its policy, depending on an indi­ vidual’s need. Several libraries, all of large re­ search institutions, indicated that a one-copy limit had been their policy prior to January 1, 1978. (In some libraries, the photocopying is done by the library staff at the request of the instructor. In others, the instructor copies material needed for reserve and subm its it to the library. For purposes o f this discussion, we make no distinc­ tion between the library actually copying material and the library accepting copies for reserve made in a faculty department. W e realize, of course, that the distinction between these two points may be a fine legal distinction and cogent to the ques­ tion of liability.) Three libraries indicated that they will place on reserve one copy supplied by the instructor and one copy made for the library under Section 108, although two libraries restrict the library copy to material currently in the library’s collection. Two lib ra ries have placed no lim itation on photocopied material, stating that if an instructor supplies multiple photocopies for reserve use, the library will assume the instructor is acting in full knowledge o f his or her rights under the new copyright law and the library will, accordingly, accept the material without requiring proof that permission to duplicate has been granted. One library will place no photocopies on reserve un­ less prior permission to copy has been granted. This library, of a large research institution, is re­ lying heavily on a large stock o f material copied prior to January 1, 1978, and on reprints pur­ chased from publishers. R equ ests f o r P erm ission If multiple copies are needed, fourteen librar­ ies will write for permission to copy additional News item s for inclusion in C&RL News should be sent to John V. Crowley. Assistant Director of Libraries, M ilne Library. State University College, Oneonta, NY 13820. Display advertis­ ing should be sent to Leona Swiech, Advertising Office. Am eri­ can Library Association, 5 0 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611. Send classified ads to ACRL. Production and circulation mat­ ters are handled by ALA Central Production Unit, at the above address. News editor: John V. Crowley. Assistant Director of Libraries. Milne Library. State University College, Oneonta, NY 13820. A ssistant news e ditor, Ellen L. Huyler, A ssistant Librarian, Cataloging Department. M ilne Library, State University College. Oneonta, NY 13820. Editor: Richard D. Johnson, M ilne Lib­ rary, State University College. Oneonta, NY 13820. President. ACRL Eidred R. Smith. Executive Secretary. ACRL Julie A. Car­ roll Virgo. College & Research Libraries is published by the Association o f College and Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association. 17 tim es yearly— 6 bim onthly journal is­ sues and 11 m onthly (co m b inin g July-August) News issues— at 120 1-05 B luff St., Fulton, MO 65251. Subscription, $ 25 .00 a year, or to mem bers o f the division, $ 1 2 .5 0 , included in dues. Second-class postage paid at Fulton, Missouri 65251. © A m erican Library A ssociation 1978. A ll m aterial in this jo urnal subject to copyright by the American Library Associa­ tion may be photocopied for the noncom m ercial purpose of scientific o r educational advancement. 127 copies at the request of the instructor. Nine li­ braries indicated that the instructor requesting materials must write for permission and furnish proof o f permission granted to the library before multiple copies are placed on reserve. Two librar­ ies, again both of large research institutions, rely on reprints and accept no multiple photocopies. As stated earlier, two libraries place m ultiple copies on re s e rv e and re q u ire no p ro o f that copyright permission has been granted. Six libraries mentioned that they sent out mass mailings to publishers, either for all journal titles in their collections or for most frequently used ti­ des, requesting permission for multiple copying. Results have been positive, although one librarian observed a change in publishers’ attitudes after January 1: “As publishers refuse permission, or referrals to the Copyright Clearance C enter be­ come more frequent, satisfying reserve demands will become a more acute problem .” R ep ea ted Use The question of whether reserve material may be used sem ester after sem ester has troubled many librarians. Three libraries in the sample are restricting all photocopied materials to one-term use while fifteen libraries are not. Three libraries are asking permission to keep material on reserve for longer than one term. Two libraries are re­ stricting only the use of multiple copies to one term, and four libraries have not yet determined their policy on this issue. Several librarians felt strongly that there was no need to restrict items to one-term use since the copyright law and G u idelin es forbid the re­ peated c o p y in g o f material but nowhere forbid the repeated use of material. For those libraries restricting use to one term, the most common control mechanism is to date the photocopy and stamp it with a copyright notice. M aterial C o p ie d at an E a r lie r D ate Another issue on which opinion and practice is divided is the question o f the application o f the copyright law to material on reserve prior to Jan­ uary 1, 1978. Thirteen libraries replied that the law is not retro activ e, and they have not r e ­ viewed or removed photocopied material on re­ serve prior to January 1. E leven libraries re ­ moved multiple copies and eith er destroyed them or returned them to faculty members. Three li­ braries have not addressed the issue as yet. Sev­ eral libraries are dating photocopies, and some are adding requesting faculty member’s name to indicate individual rather than library ownership of the material. C opying L im ited to M aterial in C ollection Twenty-two libraries said that reserve requests need not be limited to material already in their collections. Two libraries stipulated that only one fair use photocopy o f material not in the library’s collection would be permitted for reserve. One library said that it would not request reserve ma­ terial on interlibrary loan in lieu of purchasing it. Two libraries required reserve requests to be for material in their library’s collection. Spontaneous Copying How will these libraries respond to the d e­ mand for spontaneous copying? Five o f the ten libraries not using the Guidelines said that the spontaneous demand question was not applicable to them. Twelve libraries would respond favora­ bly to the demand to place spontaneous photo­ copies on reserve, although some libraries stated conditions such as: 1. “Faculty member must show proof of having begun the process o f writing for perm is­ sion.” 2. “ Material must be very current and have immediate relevancy.” 3. “W e would put only one spontaneous copy on reserve.” 4. “We would put multiple copies on reserve but for only one sem ester.” Ten libraries would not respond favorably to the demand for spontaneously copied material to be put on reserve. Reasons given include: 1. “The library would not be able to document the spontaneity of the request. ” 2. “We demand a two-week lead time on re­ serve requests, so would not honor a spon­ taneous request.” 3. “Use of reserve is planned for and deliber­ ate; can’t be spontaneous.” What are librarians suggesting to faculty as al­ ternatives to the past practice of multiple photo­ copying? The variety of answers given are listed below (in order o f frequency with num ber of times mentioned in parentheses, some librarians offering more than one suggestion): 1. Plan ahead and write for permission (13). 2. Purchase reprints (7). 3. Purchase additional copies of material (3). 4. Revise teaching methods, get away from use of reserve (2). 5. Distribute material in classroom (2). 6. E n co u rag e stu d en ts to make individual copies (2). 7. M ake paym ents to C opyright C learan ce C enter (2). 8. Put personal copies and bound journal vol­ umes on reserve (1). 9. Put reserve material on shorter loan period (1). Several libraries stated that they were not of­ fering advice either because no problems had oc­ curred, or they considered it the faculty respon­ sibility to find answers to the problem. C a m p u s Re a c t i o n s What have libraries done to inform their staff and their users about copyright? Memos, news­ 128 letters, and Copyright Office information have gone out to faculty and staff. Some libraries have held information sessions on copyright, widely publicized on campus (and generally poorly at­ tended). One community college library held a workshop paid for by the college administration. Most libraries have issued formal policy state­ ments, some backed up by reprints of sections from the law or other relevant materials. Some library administrators have written letters to the faculty, and several library directors have met with administrators and department chairpersons to inform them about copyright and library pol­ icy. Some libraries have relied on more informal means of communication, personal contact, and telephone calls to dissem inate inform ation. A small m inority o f the lib raries surveyed have done nothing to date because they are waiting for further clarification and more specific informa­ tion. O f the twenty-seven libraries, sixteen reported that they received strong support from the ad­ ministration of their institution, while six admit­ ted their institution s lack o f interest in the topic of copyright. The sixteen libraries supported by their administration took a very active role in in­ forming their public and were seen as an informa­ tion resource in their community. One librarian complained that she had been too successful in h e ig h ten in g in te r e s t in co p y rig h t b e ca u se everyone was reading, talking about, and inter­ preting the law differently, and one department had even issued incorrect guidelines! T hree li­ braries w ere involved in adm inistratively ap­ pointed co m m ittees to estab lish campus-wide copyright guid elin es, while two lib raries had nothing to report on this matter. A frequently repeated caution in most of the recent material on copyright urges librarians to seek legal counsel for solutions to difficult or am­ biguous problem s. Yet the reality is that legal counsel well versed in the intricacies of copyright law is hard to find and expensive. Twenty-five li­ braries believed they did not have lo c a l access to legal counsel well versed in copyright law! Given that statistic, it is perhaps encouraging to see that seventeen libraries reported they have M ichael G orm an E le c te d Michael Gorman, director of technical serv­ ices at the University o f Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, has been elected a Fellow of The L ib rary A ssociatio n (B ritis h ). A ssociation bylaws limit the number o f such fellowships to fifty at any on e tim e. T h e r e are cu rren tly about twenty-five living Fellows. Nomination and election for this honor is based on evi­ dence o f a significant contribution to librar­ ianship. Mr. Gorman is editor of AACR I I . had no problem s since the new copyright law went into effect. Six libraries indicated that they have had minor problems and complaints from faculty and students. Publishers have been slow in answering permission letters, students find it difficult to obtain reserve m aterial, faculty are unhappy about multiple copying restrictions, etc. One librarian identified a dual reaction on the part of many faculty members he had talked to. “They feel that the new law is interfering with their teaching, but those who do research and publish are sensitive to protecting the rights of creative people.” Several librarians expressed concern about the extra costs that will be absorbed by shrinking li­ brary budgets if it becom es necessary to buy many duplicate copies. They were also concerned about the wear and tear on journals that will be used more frequently if multiple photocopies are not available. Many librarians admitted to uncer­ tainties about the law and the desire for more specific information on reserve and copyright. Do these librarians plan to respond to congres­ sional review of the law in five years? Only five libraries answered with a definite yes and indi­ cated that they were keeping statistics on costs, work load, publishers’ responses, and recording problems and complaints. Seven libraries said they would not respond. The remaining fifteen libraries either were undecided or would respond only if they had something significant to report. C o n c l u s i o n s What conclusions can we draw from this sur­ vey? Most of the libraries in the survey have taken a fairly conservative approach to the problems of reserve and copyright. Practice and interpretation vary considerably from one library to the next, and this should be a cause for serious concern in the profession. There is confusion and disagree­ ment on such important questions as: 1. Do the G u idelin es apply to reserve opera­ tions? 2. In terms of reserve demands, what consti­ tutes fair use copying? 3. Should the law be retroactively applied? 4. Can p h otoco p ied m aterials b e used r e ­ peatedly? 5. Is photocopied material placed on reserve the library’s property, or must it belong to the individual instructor? 6. What rights does a library have to satisfy its need for reserve material if permission to copy is denied or delayed? However, we can also conclude that librarians in the sample have been quick to respond to the challenges presented by the new law and have worked hard to inform their public and satisfy re­ serve demands. These librarians have asserted their rights to get information to their clients and fulfill their educational mission while not infringing 129 on the rights o f authors. I t now remains for Special Libraries Association. L ib r a r y P h o to c o p y ­ ing a n d th e U.S. C o p y rig h t L a w o f 1976: An O v er v iew f o r L ib r a r ia n s a n d T h e ir C o u n sel. New York: The Association, 1978. U .S. Congress. House. C o p y rig h t L a w R evision. (HR 94-1476) 94th Congress, 2d Session. Sept. 3, 1976. Washington, D .C .: Govt. Print. O ff, 1976. U.S. Congress. Senate. C o p y rig h t L a w Revision. (SR 94-473) 94th Congress. 1st Session. Nov. 20, 1975. Washington, D .C .: Govt. Print. O ff, 1975. U .S. Copyright Office. C o p y rig h t a n d th e L ib r a r ­ ian. C ircu lar R21. W ashington, D .C .: Govt. Print. O f f , 1977. U .S . C o p y rig ht O ffice. G e n e r a l G u id e to th e C o p y r ig h t A c t o f 1976. W ash in g ton, D .C .: Govt. Print. O f f, 1977. U .S . C op yright O ffice. H ig h lig h ts o f t h e N ew C o p y r ig h t L a w . C ircu la r R 99. W ashington, D .C .: Govt. Print. O f f, 1977. ■■ individuals and groups in the profession to use their professional knowledge and th e ir u n der­ stand ing o f th e in te r n a l ra m ifica tio n s o f th e copyright law on library services to offer guidance and counsel to the interpreters o f the law so that ambiguities can b e eliminated and practice b e ­ come uniform and so that library services will not be seriously hampered. B i b l i o g r a p h y American Library Association. L ib r a r ia n ’s G u ide to th e N ew C o p y rig h t L aw . Chicago: The As­ sociation, 1977. (Reprinted from the W ashin g­ ton N ew sletter, Nov. 15, 1976.) American Library Association and National Edu­ cation Association. T h e N ew C o p y r ig h t L aw : Q u estion s T e a c h e r s a n d L ib r a r ia n s A sk. Wash­ ington: National Education Assn., 1977. Shemel, Sidney. T his B usin ess o f Music. Rev. ed. New York: Billboard Publications, 1974. Some Responses on Copyright E d ito r s n ote: In th e J a n u a r y issue C & R L News in vited r e sp o n s es to C h a r le s M artell’s “C o p y rig h t L aw an d R e serv e O p e r a t io n .” As sp a c e p erm its, w e w ill p rin t th o se resp o n ses. COPYING FOR R ESER V E READING— A D IF F E R E N T VIEW PO IN T Many academic libraries appear to be extend­ ing the use o f the CO N TU G u id elin es to provide a legal basis for reserv e room copying. Some interpret the reserve room as being an extension o f th e c la ss ro o m , thus m u ltip le co p ie s for classroom use could also be for reserve room use. Late last year, and after careful study, North­ ern Illinois University Library chose not to follow such a course. The librarians, with the advice o f the university’s legal counsel, decided that re­ serve copying could not m eet the three criteria e s ta b lis h e d to ju s tify m u ltip le c o p ie s for classroom use; namely, brevity, spontaneity, and cumulative effect. In the library’s experience, re­ serve copying frequently exceeds 2 ,5 0 0 words or 10 percent o f a work. The fact that a professor requests, weeks in advance, that a copy be placed on reserve defeats any pretense o f spontaneity. Some reserve reading lists include many more than th e n in e a rtic le s p e r class term reco m ­ mended under the rubric, “cumulative effect.” A lack of any other guidelines to Section 108 o f the Copyright Law led the librarians to the conclusion C o n tin u ed o n p . 130 A PERSONAL VIEW FROM PENN STATE I found C h a rle s M a r te ll’s Ja n u a ry a r tic le , “Copyright Law and R eserve O p eration s,” in­ teresting but naive. L et me accept your invitation to respond to that article and explain my impres­ sions o f it. I a g ree w ith M a rte ll th at faculty m em b ers should b e made aware of the new restrictions on photocopying and the distribution o f reserve ma­ terials. I disagree that “the individual teacher should … request copyright approval from [its] holder if multiple copying is required.” L ib rarian s, not the teaching faculty, should take the initiative in these dealings with authors and publishers so that they can compile records that prove they have acted in good faith. This ability to prove good faith compliance is necessi­ tated by the fact that libraries act as co-owners and distributors o f the photocopied items for as long as they circulate “for classroom use.” I f the faculty m embers inform the library that they intend to reuse the materials, the reserve li­ brarian should arrange to purchase the reprints and keep accurate records o f these requests and purchases. These records are crucial because the C o n tin u ed on p . 130