1. Preliminaries
 

Background materials: Standing Committee on Copyright Roster (4/10/00) Appointment Letter and Charge UCOP Working Group on Copyright Issues, Draft Charge, 4/17/00 Standing Committee on Copyright, 2000-2001 Work Plan (Draft, 4/25/00).

1.a. Welcome and introductions. Hume convened the meeting at 10:10. Members and guests introduced themselves.

1.c. Review of Committee Charge. It was agreed to recommend striking the word "Initiate" from the first bullet in the charge, so that it reads "Encourage and monitor projects that make innovative use of copyrighted works…." Action: The chair will report to the Provost that, with this editorial change, the Committee is happy with the charge as drafted.

1.d.ii. Presentations by outside experts. Members were encouraged by the chair to suggest names of possible guest presenters to him at any time. Borgman mentioned the recently-released National Research Council study, The Digital Dilemma, and noted that two UC faculty members, Pamela Samuelson (UCB) and Howard Besser (UCLA and UCB) were involved in that effort.

1.d.iii. Communications. Lucier suggested a formal monthly communication to the committee in months when a meeting was not scheduled. Cowan recommended the development of a public Web site to share information about the committee’s work with the broader community.

1.d.iv. UCOP Copyright Working Group. Lucier discussed the formation of the group described in the background material, noting that it could be expected to provide valuable support to the work of the Committee.

1.d.v. Draft 2000-01 Work Plan. Hume suggested that the committee plan for 3-4 major issues for each full-day meeting. Borgman and Cowan noted that copyright issues as applied to teaching (and e-teaching) are not the same as those applied to scholarship and e-scholarship, and encouraged that these not be inadvertently conflated in the work plan.

The letter of appointment to committee members from Provost King noted that "an important Task Force [on Copyright] outcome was its endorsement of the draft document entitled ‘Copyright Legislation and Scholarly Communication: Basic Principles,’" and encouraged the committee to "regard the draft ‘Principles’ as a foundation for its work and continue the effort toward their adoption as a framework for policy and practice within the University." Winnacker provided an overview of the Principles, emphasizing that their primary purpose was to guide University officials in responding to a number of federal copyright initiatives pending at the time. Subsequent discussion centered on a number of copyright issues not touched upon by the Principles and the feasibility of revising the document to include these additional issues and perspectives. The committee concluded that it would be preferable to endorse the current document for its intended purpose without revision, and to convey this finding to the Provost in a letter that a) conveys the historical context and intended audience, b) acknowledges that the work of the committee will be informed by the Principles, and c) affirms that the committee will return to this after a year or so of additional experience with the issues. Action: Winnacker will prepare a draft letter for review by the committee.

3. Universitywide Copyright Policies

Berck, a member of the Task Force, summarized the Task Force recommendations for the committee, adding several personal observations.

• There are numerous issues surrounding rights of students as authors that have not been formally addressed in UC policy. The Task Force was strongly motivated by the desire to protect our students
• Education programs should focus particularly on three areas: 1) faculty assignment of rights in their writings; 2) clear explication of ownership and allocation of rights in cases that involve collaborative authorship, both among and across groups and across time; and 3) the meaning of "infringement."
• It is important that cases of alleged copyright infringement by faculty, especially those involving Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) "notify and takedown" procedures, be isolated from University academic assessment and discipline procedures (i.e., not be allowed to influence promotion and tenure decisions). The Committee strongly concurred in this view.
• With regard to class materials and presentations, it was the general sense of the committee that without the consent of faculty, students, and academic administration: a) no third-party commercial use be permitted, b) the University should not appropriate classroom materials, and c) instructional materials and presentations should not be published.
• When considering UC as a "publisher," the two most pressing issues are a) managing UC’s copyrights, and b) ensuring persistent access to ("archiving") publications.
• New forms of scholarly communication engender new variants of the traditional "journal price problem" and the oft-suggested solution of having faculty retain copyright in their publications: a) cases in which, owing to operation of policy or mutual agreement, both the faculty member and the institution share in the "ownership" of a publication, and b) the emergence of new publication forms and business models that confound traditional concepts of copyright assignment.

Winnacker introduced the discussion by noting that the most pressing copyright-related issues for UC at present revolved around the potential for allegations that UC in its role as an Internet Service Provider (ISP) may be facilitating infringing activities. Examples include the currently-raging Napster debate, the content on student-created Web home pages, and the use of fragments of protected graphic content by students in digital arts courses. These issues are clearly related to the "notification and takedown" provisions of the DMCA, and raise a significant question about the University’s responsibility and ability to assess the likely validity of DMCA infringement claims before takedown. In response to a question from the group, Winnacker promised to share the existing UC DMCA implementation guidelines with the Committee. A second priority issue in Winnacker’s view is copyright education; and third, issues arising from collaborative works (whether among UC faculty, with UC staff and/or students, or with colleagues from other institutions).

In discussion, Rzeszutko noted that sponsored research agreements often address copyright issues and should be considered in the policy development framework. Borgman noted that faculty are increasingly interested in donating to the University for ongoing maintenance and access the datasets and primary source collections (in many formats) that they develop in the course of their research, raising new issues of ownership and its conveyance as well as possible conflicts with the terms of the research agreements that supported the creation of those works (particularly relevant for priorities 8, 9 and 10 of the background document). Hume noted that Priority 8 in the background document ("Address ambiguities in ownership surrounding classroom materials…") most likely deserved a higher priority in light of AB 1773. Action: The Committee affirmed the priorities set forth in "UC Copyright Policies: An Assessment of Coverage," subject to elevation of the priority of the current number 8.

4. Innovative Uses of Copyrighted Works

Lucier began by noting that the California Digital Library (CDL) has always been conceived as having a key role in the entire cycle of scholarly information transfer, from creation to access. In its first two years, the CDL has focused on building digital collections of "traditional" material, chiefly published journal literature in digital form. The CDL is now entering a new phase of development that focuses on creation of new digital collections and fostering of new forms of scholarly communication. The CDL’s electronic scholarship initiatives are designed to support scholar-led initiatives in formal digital communication that respect the cultures and conventions of their respective disciplines. Intellectual property issues will inevitably arise in the course of these activities, and Lucier will bring these to the Committee as they emerge. Lucier noted that they have already uncovered one difference in culture and preference among the projects already underway (see background material): the policy of the Los Alamos arXiv e-print service is that authors retain rights in self-archived material deposited there, but the group of UC International and Area Studies scholars prefers that rights in their "publications" be transferred to UC. Matkin noted that most faculty do not have a vested interest in the business models of their current publishing outlets, but merely wish to have their research and scholarship reviewed and endorsed by their peers and disseminated widely; if there’s a channel within UC that can accomplish this, faculty will most likely voluntarily use it.

5. Continuous Universitywide Education on Copyright

Lucier began by articulating three assumptions for the Committee to consider and validate:

1. The Task Force recommendation #5 that "UC should provide copyright education and services on every campus…" is agreed to as very important to pursue.
2. There is substantial lack of knowledge about copyright issues, and huge amounts of disinformation.
3. It is therefore important to begin work on this recommendation immediately, with the aim of bringing to the Committee in Fall 2000 a draft program proposal for implementation in January 2001.

• A complete program includes both education and service, with adequate staff support at appropriate levels. Faculty and students need to know to whom to go for advice and assistance with copyright questions.
• Copyright issues are complex, emotional, and in constant flux; the target audience is pressed for time, highly critical, and somewhat suspicious of the administration. It will therefore be necessary to plan and implement a high-quality program that meets user needs, and to invest significant dollars in the effort.
• It will be necessary to be clear about learning objectives, and to use practical examples – the audience is not interested in becoming copyright scholars.
• As part of this program, the University needs to make it clear to the audience what it can and cannot do in providing advice and assistance in various situations.
• "Education," as we understand it in this context, includes formal courses, provision of information, and communication within and outside the University
• Relevant, high-quality resources developed outside the University should be identified and employed in this effort.
• To the extent that faculty publishing choices are tied to promotion and tenure, faculty show little willingness to change behaviors to satisfy abstract principles (this has been shown repeatedly in CDL-sponsored faculty focus groups and forums). The belief that an education program will or should change faculty behavior in this area is probably misplaced.

Action: As the Academic/Executive Vice Chancellors are responsible for the resource commitments that would be required for a copyright education and support program, Hume will discuss with COVC at this month’s meeting the resource and organizational issues involved. Action: Staff will prepare a proposal for the Committee’s consideration at their Fall 2000 meeting.

6. Copyright Legislation

Cowan, on behalf of Coleman, provided introductory remarks, including a summary of the legislation, the administration’s position, and the Academic Council’s views. While there are legitimate unresolved issues surrounding the question of "ownership" and control over faculty presentations and course materials, the Committee generally supported the administration’s position, particularly with regard to the issue that these are matters central to the academic process and inappropriate for legislation. Matkin pointed out that course presentations are embedded in a context that proceeds from the definition of a degree, to design of a curriculum, specification of learning objectives, development and approval of a course syllabus, and finally the narrative expression of the course content by a particular faculty member. This is a continuum, with the interests of the institution (administration and Senate) most evident at one end, and the interests of the individual faculty member most evident at the other.

The Committee endorsed the view, first articulated by Cowan, Lucier and Lawrence, that, while it might not be possible for the Committee significantly to affect the course of AB 1773 given the legislative timetable and political forces involved, it was critically important to send the message to faculty that the Committee was actively addressing the underlying issues and listening carefully to the faculty’s concerns. Lucier reported that Academic Council Chair Coleman had, some months back, suggested the use of faculty focus groups as a means to obtain input on copyright issues. That strategy might be especially appropriate in this case, both as a means to identify and explore faculty concerns about copyright in the instructional context and as an educational strategy. The Committee was receptive to this idea.

Hume suggested that it might be possible to quickly set forth a statement that a) affirms current UC policy on faculty ownership and control of their works, b) affirms and extends this principle to the instructional context, and c) articulates some considerations (e.g., joint works, student contributions, use of the University’s name, etc.) affecting the interpretation of this principle in the classroom setting. This statement is envisioned as a basis for dialog, and as a possible seed for faculty focus group discussion. Action: in order to make it possible to have something ready for Academic Council next week, Hume will write up his suggestion and forward via Lawrence to the Committee for review and comment.

Discussion deferred to a future meeting due to lack of time.

7. National discussions and initiatives

8. Next meeting

Action: The Committee will meet again in late September or early October. The staff will explore the availability of dates in July and August, should an earlier meeting prove necessary to deal with AB 1773.

Action: The Committee endorsed the idea of regularly monthly communications (see Item 1.d.iii., above).

The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.