REVISED 6/26/02

University of California Standing Committee on Copyright
December 19, 2001
10 a.m. - 3 p.m.
Crowne Plaza
Los Angeles International Airport



 
 
Members Present Acanfora, Borgman, Butter, Campbell, Hume, Kurtz, MacDonald, Matkin, Viswanathan, Zelmanowitz
Members Absent Hecht, Klein, Wienhausen 
Staff Lawrence

Agenda items are presented in the order discussed.

1. Preliminaries
   1.a. Welcome and introductions
   1.b Review of meeting objectives
 
MEETING OBJECTIVES
1. Review and discuss comments on the Spring Draft Policies
2. Determine how to respond to comments and revise Draft Policies
3. Advise on incorporation of Draft Policies into existing framework of UC Presidential Policies
4. Get an update on the “Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2001” (TEACH)
5. Discuss and plan for campus dialogs on the Tempe Principles
6. Consider a joint meeting of SCC and the UC Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee (SLASIAC) on issues of scholarly communication and innovative uses of scholarly works.

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

Lawrence updated the group on the status of S. 487, noting that the bill has passed the Senate, but had not been heard in the House prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11.  It is expected that the bill will move forward once the Congress is able to return its attention to it.

Acanfora distributed information (http://www.cogr.edu/restricted/Sov.%20Immunity%20Paper%20Rev.%2011.doc) on two new bills (S. 1611, HR 3204), entitled the "Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act," dealing with issue of sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and its relation to the copyright liability of public research universities.  The Office of Technology Transfer is working with the Council on Government Relations (COGR) (http://www.cogr.edu/#info), the UC Office of General Counsel, and the California Office of the Attorney General to coordinate a response.

4. Continuous Universitywide Education on Copyright
   4.b. Pilot project proposal (Update)

Background Material: Extract from 4/20/01 SCC meeting notes, Agenda Item 2.a.
Zelmanowitz recounted the history of SCC actions related to copyright education and information, including unsuccessful requests to UC senior management for (a) a full-time staff appointment to lead and coordinate such efforts, and (b) funding for a one-year pilot study focusing on the copyright concerns of campus grant recipients from the UCOP Teaching, Learning and technology Center (TLtC) competitive grant program.  Senior management has responded in both cases that the scope of the problem and the UCOP role are not well enough understood to justify an investment at this time.  In order to “test the traffic,” Zelmanowitz has committed temporary funds for a limited period of time to hire a contract staff person who will be charged to (a) track, compile, respond to, and refer to appropriate sources copyright-related questions received through the TLtC program (including both the grants program and the recently-launched TLtC Webzine <http://www.uctltc.org/>) and (b) begin to identify issues and strategies for the purpose of program planning.  Zelmanowitz confirmed that the intention was to make use of and leverage the existing network of UC responsibility and expertise in the copyright area, and to make use of the TLtC Webzine as one channel for communication of copyright guidance.  Matkin suggested that an online instructional program might be devised along the lines used by Irvine for mandatory instruction in protection of human and animal subjects.  The Committee advised that this effort should be carefully scoped, that communications and expectations should be well managed, and that the attention should be given to soliciting campus suggestions as well as inquiries and problems.

5. Innovative Use of Scholarly Works
   5.b Strategies for commercialization of course content and standardization of e-learning repositories (Update)

Background Material: Extract from 4/20/01 SCC meeting notes, Agenda Item 4.b.
Hume and Zelmanowitz reported that this topic had not yet been explored in depth with the Council of Vice Chancellors.  Hume expressed the view that there is most likely not enough experience in this area to support a consensus.  Matkin, citing the open courseware initiatives at MIT and Stanford, noted that the problem with a cautious approach is the possibility of being left behind as the open courseware movement gains momentum.  Zelmanowitz noted that the TLtC inventory of UC-developed courseware serves as a kind of repository, and believes that its metadata are consistent with the Merlot repository.  Borgman referred to NSF’s National Science Digital Library and the Open Archives Initiative as examples of standards-based interoperable initiatives, and emphasized that experiences with these kinds of projects shows that metadata tend to be specific to particular subject domains.  Matkin agreed, observing further that there are no national standards in part because there is no venue in which to develop them, while the number of digital learning objects continues to proliferate.  The emerging view is that there is no market at the highly granular level of individual learning objects, but there may well be a market for systems and services to assemble objects from a variety of sources into course sequences, emphasizing the importance of standards and interoperability.  Viswanathan noted that it will be important to understand the role of faculty in this “market” for learning objects and courseware.  Hume suggested that this topic might be raised at the next COVC meeting in the South (perhaps with Matkin and Borgman as invited guests), and that the discussion might most fruitfully be cast in the open courseware framework.

2. Universitywide Copyright Policies
   2.a. Review of comments on Spring 2001 Draft Policies

Background Material:
· DRAFT Policies on Course Ownership, Recording of Presentations, Reservation of Rights
· Copyright Policy Draft Comments
· Copyright Comments Table – Campus Comments
· Copyright Comments Table – Academic Senate
Hume began the discussion by observing that comments were generally supportive of the approach taken by the Committee.  In Matkin’s view, the comments suggested that concerns about commercialization of course content tend to overpower the conversation, detracting from discourse focused on the question of what specific protections the University needs in this area; Hume felt that a preamble to the policies could be framed to address this point.  It was agreed that the Committee’s overall direction had been affirmed by the comments, and today’s discussion would focus on assessing and accommodating the comments in order to move these proposals into policy.  To help frame the discussion, Lawrence set out a list of key issue areas that, in his analysis, had emerged from the comments. A summary of the Committee's conclusions in each of these areas follows.

POLICY ON OWNERSHIP AND USE OF COURSE MATERIALS

Exceptional University Resources

Consensus:
§ Include a Committee report recapitulating the group’s deliberations on this issue, and summarizing the practices of peer institutions in this regard;
§ Provide examples, recognizing that the definition of EUR will vary among campuses and disciplines, and over time as technology changes;
§ Re-emphasize the processes provided in the policy for determination of EUR issues, in preference to attempting a static definition.

Course Syllabi, and the University's rights thereto

Consensus: make use of the following description in Section B.1:

“The University retains a cost-free, perpetual license to any Senate-approved course description, consisting of a statement of learning objectives and a topical outline, for the internal University use for the purpose of continuing to teach an approved course of instruction, with the non-exclusive right to revise and update as required for this purpose.”

Designated Academic Appointee

Consensus: as this definition entails considerations much broader than copyright policy, make no changes in the definition embodied in the current Policy on Copyright Ownership.  Leave the matter of changes to the definition to other and more appropriate deliberative processes.

Course Materials Policy Committee

Consensus:

§ Change second sentence of Section C. to read, “The committee shall consist of at least five members, a majority of which shall be appointed by the divisional Academic Senate and advisory to the Chancellor.”
§ Independently from the policy, arrange to charge the Standing Committee on Copyright with the task of maintaining consistency among campus CMPC determinations as needed.

Use outside the University

Consensus:

§ Revise Section D to clarify that “applicable policies include but are not limited to….”
§ Otherwise, no fundamental changes are required in this area.

Joint Ownership

Consensus: No changes required.

POLICY ON RECORDING OF … PRESENTATIONS

Consensus:

§ Regarding the question of whether the provisions of Section A (Distribution and Publication) and Section B (Capture of Sounds and Images) should both require explicit consent by the University, it was agreed that the current draft adequately represents the sense of the Committee. However, committee member MacDonald recalled that the original consensus of the Committee was that University permission would be required under Section A, and noted that, as the consensus at this meeting was that the Committee would not be recommending adoption of the policy, there would be opportunities for changes at a future date.
§ This draft policy, which was developed for compliance with AB 1773, does not address copyright issues, and it should therefore not be the responsibility of this Committee to make policy recommendations in this area.  The Committee will forward the results of its deliberations to the Provost with the recommendation that the issue be referred to the appropriate official within UCOP for further action.

POLICY ON RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Consensus:  This topic is not yet ready for promulgation of policy.  The Committee will take its deliberations and the comments received into its planning for Systemwide discussion of the Tempe Principles (q.v.).
 

   2.b Consideration of incorporation of Draft Policies into the existing framework of UC Presidential Policies
   2.c Next steps

Background Material:  University of California Policy on Copyright Ownership, 8/19/92 (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/uwnews/copyr.html)
Staff will prepare these documents in time to allow initial review by the Committee during the period prior to the next meeting.


Owning to the press of time, the following agenda items were not discussed:

4. Continuous Universitywide Education on Copyright
   4.a. Campus dialog on the Tempe Principles (Preliminary Discussion)

Background Material:
· Extract from 4/20/01 SCC meeting notes, Agenda Item 2.a.
· Principles for Emerging Systems of Scholarly Publishing (“Tempe Principles”), 5/10/00 (http://www.arl.org/scomm/tempe.html)
· Williams, J., and C. Alire, "Research Libraries in Colorado "Create Change," ARL Bimonthly Report 211, August 2000 (http://www.arl.org/newsltr/211/colorado.html)
· Ferriero, D.S., "A View from the Scholarly Communication Trenches: 'Tempe Principles' Stir Faculty Discussion," ARL Bimonthly Report 212, October 2000 (http://www.arl.org/newsltr/212/scholcom.html)
· Alexander, A., "Living the Principles — A Return to Tempe," ARL Bimonthly Report 215, April 2001 (http://www.arl.org/newsltr/215/tempe.html)


5. Innovative Use of Scholarly Works
   5.a. Joint meeting with Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee (SLASIAC) on scholarly communication and publishing (Preliminary Discussion)

Background Material: Extract from 4/20/01 SCC meeting notes, Agenda Item 2.a.