AAU/ARL Intellectual Property Task Force Convened In Spring of 1994, the presidents of the Association of American Universities (AAU) institutions and the directors of ARL libraries approved the report of the AAU Task Force on Intellectual Property Rights in an Electronic Environment. The Task Force recommended that university campuses explore new models for owning copyrighted information, examine and update their current copying and copyright ownership policies as appropriate, educate and inform the members of their communities more fully about copyright rights and responsibilities, and build closer ties with their own university press publishers and with scholarly and scientific societies in order to manage better the complex information environment that so powerfully impacts institutions of higher learning. Last December, a follow-up IP Task Force was named, with Peter Nathan, Provost of the University of Iowa, continuing as Chair. The group met for the first time in mid-February, agreed to its charge, and began to shape activities and articulate outcomes for the two year phase of the follow-up. Responsibilities of the New IP Task Force Most of the elements of the charge derive from the recommendations of the April 1994 report. The first element in the Task Force charge is to provide resources and support to AAU and ARL member institutions to examine IP policies and practices and to develop new and different models that can be shared throughout AAU and ARL. The group began this task by inviting representatives of research institutions that are rewriting intellectual property ownership policies to meet with them on February 17th. Some of the overarching themes from that discussion were: - Sense of isolation in preparing policies for whole campuses or systems. Faculty may not like the outcomes, but the committee process may not make it easy for many to participate in the creation of the new policies. - Sense of volatility. Faculty care immensely and will not respond well to any sense that any rights to publish as they choose could be affected. - Sense of complexity. Many diverse interests and concerns have to be met in producing IP ownership policies. In consequence, such policies can become very complicated and fail to meet one of their purposes: education and information for the campus. - Finances may be implicated. Some copyrights produce revenue. To whom should the revenue belong? Often, a criterion for shared ownership of copyright between faculty and universities is Rsignificant use of university resourcesS in creating the work. How does one judge Rhow manyS university resources were needed to bring the work to fruition? Policies drafted in the 1970Us and 1980Us say that software created in universities is shared property. Now that software and computers are much more ubiquitous, is this appropriate? - Increasing importance of materials within the copyright period. More and more works are, or will be, or can be available in electronic form. More and more works are extant within the copyright period. The university representatives agreed that a great deal of support is needed on campus for interpreting and using copyrighted works, beyond current written policies. - Education about copyright was mentioned repeatedly, and that theme generated a tentative Task Force outcome: creation of a multi-media or hyperlinked resource for AAU/ARL campuses. % Working on a license can take a lot of time. What can be done to facilitate the information license-negotiating process on university campuses? - In none of the policies under review by discussants, was mention made of the important relationship between the assignment of copyrights by faculty and the terms and conditions under which university libraries subsequently purchase or license that information later. Another charge to the Task Force is to explore the feasibility of universities conducting more of their publishing programs, with a particular emphasis on early or informal publishing. A third task assigned to the Task Force is to advise the President and officers of the AAU on copyright issues as they affect other AAU programs. This charge arises from the increased activity on the national level, particularly the draft report of the Clinton AdministrationUs Working Group on Intellectual Property in the National Information Infrastructure (RGreen PaperS of July 1994) and the final report and legislative agenda that are expected in 1995. For example, in the fall of 1994, the Working Group convened a continuing RConference on Fair UseS to which Laura Gasaway, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, IP-TF member in both the initial and follow-up phases, is the AAU delegate. A last and general assignment is to continue exploring new IP property arrangements that can exploit the potential of the electronic environment to enhance scholarly communication and advance teaching and research. Initial Task Force Plans On the subject of educating campuses and campus officers about current developments in copyright issues vital to university interests, the IP-TF began: - Drafting a brief report for AAU/ARL institutional presidents (as well as provosts and others) outlining such developments in national legislation, highlighting key issues, explaining why they are important, and urging campuses to act appropriately (e.g., inform legislators). The report will be prepared after the Working Group on Intellectual Property in NII releases its final report, expected shortly. - Creating an introduction/education tool for key leaders in higher education, initially a three-page overview of current copyright concerns for a wider (beyond AAU/ARL) academic audience and will identify the appropriate distribution venue. - Probing more deeply the matter of university relationships with their university presses as well as with scholarly and scientific societies by designing a conceptual framework that will be developed over 1995 in collaboration with the AAUP, with initial work by the two university press members of the Task Force. - Starting an electronic discussion list for campus copyright committee members. The list will be private/closed, with membership by recommendation. - Discussing additional project ideas including creation of an electronic educational copyright tool for campus faculty, students, staff, etc. with FAQs and support documents in areas such as: what it means to own and transfer copyrights; model policies for copyright transfers; models for electronic license; copying rights within the law. A study of numbers, types, and transfers of campus copyrights was proposed as a topic for the next Task Force meeting. AAU/ARL Intellectual Property Task Force Membership Peter Nathan, Provost, University of Iowa, Chair Scott Bennett, University Librarian, Yale University Colin Day, Director, University of Michigan Press Laura Gasaway, Director of the Law Library and Professor of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Jane Ginsburg, Professor of Law, Columbia University Kent Hendrickson, Dean of Libraries, University of Nebraska James O'Donnell, Professor of Classics, University of Pennsylvania Bernard Rous, Director of Electronic Publishing, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Pamela Samuelson, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh Robert Shirrell, Journals Manager, University of Chicago Press Dieter Soll, Professor of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry, Yale University Hal Varian, Professor of Economics, University of Michigan Ann Okerson, Director, Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing, ARL John Vaughn, Executive Officer, AAU Duane Webster, Executive Director,ARL * Lynn Brindley, London School of Economics, ex-officio * Charles Oppeneim, Strathclyde University, ex-officio (* representing the UK Higher Education Funding Councils) by Ann Okerson ------- ARL 180 A Bimonthly Newsletter of Research Library Issues and Actions Association of Research Libraries May 1995