University of California Standing Committee on Copyright
November 5, 2004, 10 a.m - 12 p.m.
Conference Call

MEETING NOTES

1. Welcome and introduction: Review of objectives

2. Policies on Use of Copyrighted Materials (Discussion/Action)
a. Draft revised policy
b. Draft revised guidelines
Background:
· University of California Policy and Guidelines on the Reproduction of Copyrighted Material for Teaching and Research (1986) (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/4-29-86.html)
· DRAFT Policy on the Fair Use of Copyrighted Materials for Teaching and Research (11/3/04)
· DRAFT Guidelines for the Fair Use of Copyrighted Materials for Teaching and Research (partial revision) (11/3/04)

After Lawrence introduced the item by summarizing the discussion of this policy at the February 2004 meeting (http://www.ucop.edu/copyright/scc_notes_020404.html), MacDonald began by emphasizing the importance of this policy as a means to indicate to external parties that UC has a considered and balanced position on copyright. A public position on this matter has been shown to be important, for example, in discussions with the entertainment industry regarding file sharing, and with Congress in respect to ongoing discussions about 11th Amendment immunity. This redrafting of the Policy and Guidelines is intended to show that UC (a) respects the law and (b) advocates the fair use of copyrighted material for educational purposes within the limits of the law.
The ensuing discussion focused on how best to inform faculty in this matter. Points included:

• Making the policy and guidelines accessible and "faculty-friendly"
• Ensuring that searches on campus and systemwide Web sites lead easily to relevant policy, guidelines, and authoritative interpretations
• Requiring each campus to designate an officer to handle academic copyright questions and issues (while recognizing and accommodating the existing configurations of copyright responsibilities on the campuses)

Committee members made several general suggestions regarding the revised texts, including:

• Because the policy and guidelines allude to allowable forms of use other than those justified by "fair use," the titles of the revised texts are somewhat misleading (and probably could be corrected simply by striking "fair"). If this change is made, it will be important to provide a full explanation (in both the Policy and Guidelines) of the other forms of permissible use.
• If quantitative limitations continue to be presented in the guidelines, it is important to preface these with a strong statement that these must not be considered maxima. It would also be useful to emphasize the contrast between the national "Ad Hoc Committee" guidelines and the more liberal UC guidelines (as these are represented in the existing 1986 Guidelines document), especially with regard to the "spontaneity" test.

ACTION:

• Committee members will send their comments on the draft texts to MacDonald (with a copy to Lawrence).
• At the next meeting, the Committee will discuss means to effectively and continuously make information about this policy available to faculty.

3. Copyright and library electronic course reserve services (Information)

4. UC Scholarly Communication Initiatives - Faculty Management of their Copyrights (Information/Discussion)
Background:
· Opportunities for UC Response to the Challenges Facing Scholarly Communication: The Case of Scholars’ Management of Their Copyright (OSC 10/20/04)

John Ober provided background for this item, which stemmed from the intensive discussions surrounding the University’s renewal of its contract with Elsevier Science Publishers in 2003, and the resulting commitments by the UC faculty and administration to pursue an aggressive program described on the University’s Reshaping Scholarly Communication Web site (http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/). Faculty management of the copyrights in the scholarly work they create is one of several strategies available to address these issues, and is of increasing interest to the faculty, as demonstrated by a recent joint resolution sponsored by the UCI Libraries and the campus Senate Council on Research, Computing and Library Resources on scholarly communication and faculty copyrights (see http://www.senate.uci.edu/3_DivSenateAssembly/3_DSAAgendas/04_05Agendas/11_4_04agenda/11_4Agenda.pdf, Item 8).

In discussion it was suggested that:

• It would be helpful to faculty to have access to a list of journals that accepted less than full assignment of copyright. Ober noted that information about the policies of journal publishers is available on the Office of Scholarly Communication’s Publisher and Journal Profiles page (http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/journals/).
• It would be helpful to faculty to have examples of successful revisions to publisher agreements, as well as unsuccessful ones. Ober noted that the OSC’s Model Copyright Clauses page (http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/manage/retain_copyrights.html) provides some relevant information of this kind.
• More effective means are needed for faculty to discover the information available on the Reshaping Scholarly Communication site.

5. NIH Proposal for Enhanced Public Access (Discussion)
Background:
·The National Institutes of Health Proposal for Enhanced Public Access to NIH Research Information: Background Information for the UC Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee and Standing Committee on Copyright (SLP, 10/29/04)

Lawrence briefly described the NIH proposal to request that NIH-sponsored investigators deposit at NLM’s PubMed Central the final author’s manuscript of any paper accepted for publication resulting from the sponsored research, where the paper would be available for free access six months after publication (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html), and indicated that he was especially interested in hearing faculty views on the proposal. Blumenthal reported that he had heard of no opposition to the proposal, and Gottfredson noted that it had been discussed at a recent meeting of AAU Provosts, where the discussion focused on possible costs and the importance of the publishers’ role in scholarly communication (note that AAU has endorsed the proposal: http://www.aau.edu/issues/NIHPubAccProp.pdf).

6. File sharing issues (Update)

Hafner reported on the productive partnership between UC, led by UCLA, and representatives of the music and movie industries, to exchange information and perspective and, in particular, to test and implement a "quarantine" approach to responding to Digital Millennium Copyright Act "notice and takedown" requests (see, e.g., http://www.house.gov/judiciary/davis100504.pdf). President Dynes has met with both Bonnie Reiss (Governor Schwarzenegger’s office) and Dan Glickman (incoming president of MPAA) to talk about UC’s positive steps in copyright education, DMCA compliance, and network operations (including a possible systemwide RFI for legal music services), and discussed future options that would be consistent with UC policies; the response to these discussions has been generally positive. Throughout all these discussions, UC has emphasized that it will not implement compliance procedures that inspect or monitor the content of network transactions. Hafner also reported that the entertainment industries are becoming very concerned about the use of Internet 2 to facilitate infringing activities.

Hafner also reported on the Governor’s Executive Order S-16-04, which outlines the hazards of peer-to-peer file sharing programs, charges the State CIO to develop a policy regarding the use of P2P programs on state-owned computers, and requests that UC and CSU comply with that policy. UC has issued a statement generally supportive of the principles of the order, and is working with the State CIO on development of the plan.

7. Legislative issues (Update)
Background:
· Kamala Lyon (UC-FGR) to SCC, Update on Copyright Related Legislation – End of the 108th Congress, 11/1/04

Lyon summarized the status of bills and events covered in her memorandum to the Committee, and emphasized that Congressional action on pending bills in the lame-duck session after the election is uncertain.