1.  Preliminaries
     1.a. Welcome and introductions
     1.b Review of meeting objectives
 

MEETING OBJECTIVES 1.  Consider a proposal for a pilot program on copyright education/information/services. 2.  Discuss key elements of a potential UC position on S.487. 3.  Review and discuss outstanding issues in the "DRAFT Policies on Course Ownership, Recording of Presentations, Reservation of Rights." 4.  Plan processes to promote effective campus review and dialog on the "DRAFT Policies on Course Ownership, Recording of Presentations, Reservation of Rights." 5.  Reconsider priorities for review and action on existing UC copyright policies. 6.  Establish a tentative committee work plan for 2001-02.

2.  Continuous Universitywide Education on Copyright
     2.a. Pilot project proposal
 

Background Material: The University of California Teaching, Learning and technology Center as a Laboratory for Development of a Universitywide Copyright Information and Services Program: Proposal (DRAFT, 4/11/01)

Before beginning discussion of the proposal included in the background material, Hume once again raised the matter of the Tempe Principles as an important subject for copyright education and dialog with the University community. Lawrence noted that several institutions have now sponsored focused discussion of the Principles, and suggested that this action could be pursued independently of the inquiry embodied in the draft proposal. An extensive discussion touched on issues related to scholarly publishing, promotion and tenure, fair use, the need to educate campus academic and administrative officers, as well as faculty and students, and the possibility of sponsoring a Universitywide conference to address the Principles and other copyright concerns. It was agreed that:

• The Committee would proceed in the Fall with planning for a program of campus dialog regarding the Tempe Principles.
• The Committee would consider a joint meeting of SCC and the UC Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee (SLASIAC) on issues of scholarly communication.
• The Committee endorsed the proposed pilot program on copyright education.

3.  Copyright Legislation
     3.a. S. 487, "Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2001" (TEACH)
 

Background Materials: S.487, Background Document for SCC, w/attachments.

Lawrence summarized the provisions of S. 487. After discussion, the Committee concurred that it saw no significant problems with the bill as drafted, and endorsed in principle a University position in favor of the bill, subject to staff consultation with University academic leadership and the UC Office of Federal Government Relations. Lawrence will prepare a letter from the Chair to Provost King expressing this support.

4.  Universitywide Copyright Policies
     4.a. Draft Policies on Course Ownership, Recording of Presentations, Reservation of Rights
          4.a.i) Committee Comments on Draft Policies…
          4.a.ii) Campus review process
 

Background Material: Hume to King and Cowan, 4/6/01, DRAFT Policies on Course Ownership, Recording of Presentations, Reservation of Rights.  DRAFT Policies on Course Ownership, Recording of Presentations, Reservation of Rights, ANNOTATED

Cowan indicated that he would distribute the draft policies for comment through Senate channels, i.e., to Division Chairs and chairs of Academic Council committees, with particular attention to the committees on Faculty Welfare and Academic Freedom. He would urge Divisions to establish a campus timetable for discussion and comment, and aim for a deadline for submission of comments in late October. He would encourage faculty to think about mechanisms for broadly-based discussion that would bring together all the stakeholders at the campus level.

It was agreed that the transmittal to campuses and faculty should be clear and open about the issues, stress the importance of dialog, and emphasize the Committee’s receptivity to comment.

The committee agreed that:

• The term "faculty" would be changed to "designated academic employee" throughout, and comments specifically solicited on how to redefine or replace this term for the purposes of the proposed draft policy (ACTION: Lawrence)
• Staff would consult with Labor Relations and Labor Counsel on consultation with employee groups (ACTION: Lawrence)
• Staff would coordinate with Provost King and Academic Council Chair Cowan on preparation of letters to Chancellors and Academic Council (ACTION: Lawrence)
• For the letter to Chancellors, it would be appropriate to indicate that comments may be sent directly to Committee staff as well as through designated campus channels (ACTION: Lawrence)

Matkin raised a number of issues related to the external use of UC-developed digital course materials. One is the absence of well-defined means for commercial transfer of such developments; there is no established policy or channel, similar to the UC Press for books or the technology transfer program for patentable discoveries, to serve this purpose. Another is the absence of agreed-upon University technical standards for "e-learning" objects or object repositories.

The Committee re-endorsed the priorities for consideration of UC policies embodied in the April 2000 document.

Hume and Zelmanowitz will take to COVC the issue of strategies for commercialization of course content and standardization of e-learning repositories.

5. Next meeting
 

Background Materials: SCC 2000-01 Work Plan (4/11/01)

The next meeting of the committee should be in late Fall 2001, and will focus on comments received from campuses and the Academic Senate on the draft Polices on Course Ownership, Recording of Presentations, and Reservation of Rights. The following meeting should be planned for early Winter, to allow time for revised draft policies to be formally reviewed by campuses before the end of the academic year.