« Chart summary of orphan works proposals | Main | Church Meetings in the Library »


It is interesting that CCC in their best practices document claims under "E-Reserves Require the Same Permissions..." that "there are obvious savings--financial and environmental--from eliminating paper copies...." Is that why they usually charge a significantly larger amount to use an article electronically vs. in paper? Someone has to recoup the supposed savings that the library is experiencing, lord help us if it's the libraries themselves though.

I did E-Reserves work for over 4 years and we were a pretty conservative institution as to what we posted. So, I see some good things in the CCC best practices, but even then I disagree with some parts of it.

And that section, "Know What You Paid For," is far easier said than done when it comes to electronic databases.

I don't think it's quite accurate to say that the CCC sees e-reserves as being the same as traditional print. They say specifically that one should treat e-reserves the same as course packs, which means that permission is required (as well as any payment that goes along with that permission). Paper reserves are not established on a permission basis, but make use of a fair use analysis. The argument that AAP is making is that professors are using e-reserves like course packs -- that is, they are primary reading for the course, not "supplemental" reading. Based on this, the e-reserves are a substitute for the purchase of reading materials, and permission should be obtained. The libraries are arguing that the items on e-reserve are the same as the items that would have been on reserve in the paper environment. So the issue is kind of a "he said, she said" one until we see an analysis of the actual nature of the e-reserves that AAP is protesting.


The comments to this entry are closed.