Lapas attēli

For many years, the National Library of Medicine has indexed the articles contained in your journal and we would be pleased to continue to do so in the future. However, if we are not able to obtain a regular subscription this will no longer be possible unless some other means of acquiring your journal is found.

I thought you should learn in advance why we may no longer be able to index your journal rather than have you discover this after the fact. Sincerely yours,





Baltimore, Md., October 2, 1972. TO OUR CUSTOMERS AND FRIENDS: After many discussions with librarians, administrators, scientists, and scholars, The Williams & Wilkins Co. has arrived at an arrangement concerning the photocopying of copyrighted material which we hope you and the rest of your library staff will find appropriate.


First, let us say that we have been publishing medical journals since 1909 and it is our hope and intention to continue doing so for as long as we are able. In most instances, the journals we públish have made modest earnings for their societies as well as a fair margin of profit for The Williams & Wilkins Company. This, we feel, is a reasonable and proper situation. We also feel, and have always felt, that our function as publishers is an important and necessary one to the rapid dissemination of scientific information. Neither the medical society nor The Williams & Wilkins Company is in the publication business to make a quick killing or exorbitant profits. But as publishers and businessmen, we would be remiss if we did not consider all the factors that influence the economic viability of our journals. For when this economic viability is threatened, so too is the very existence of the journals and their role in the spreading of vital medical and scientific information. Over a period of time, an exhaustive analysis of the situation convinced us that uncompensated photocopying could lead to the demise of the scientific journal as we know it. We did not, and do not, wish to discourage scholars and physicians from photocopying journal articles. In fact, we encourage this as a most logical and practical method of disseminating information. It is our contention, however, that the costs of the journal must be spread equitably among all its users to offset the losses in revenue due to dwindling subscriptions.

W&W VERSUS THE UNITED STATES To establish this principle, we eventually found it necessary to bring suit against the federal government. In February 1972, Commissioner James Davis of the U.S. Court of Claims ruled in favor of The Williams & Wilkins Co., thereby upholding our contention that we are entitled to “reasonable and entire compensation for infringement of copyrights." Our action following this decision has been consistent with our long term objectives, which are to continue publising journals and thereby serve the scientific community, while earning revenue for their societies and a reasonable profit for ourselves.

W&W'S FIRST PROPOSAL Instead of resolving the copyright situation, however, Commissioner Davis' ruling seemed only to generate hostility and confusion. Part of this confusion, we must confess, was brought about as a result of our own action. Since we deemed it desirable to implement the ruling as soon as possible, The Williams & Wilkins Co. established a plan that would spread the cost of our journals among all of their users while continuing to allow the unimpeded flow of knowledge. As you know, our plan called for a modest rise in the journal subscription rate to institutions which would include a reproduction license. In return for this license—which, incidentally, averaged less than four dollars for the 56 year term of the copyright-we proposed to allow unlimited single-copy reproduction of all articles, current and past, in journals published by The Williams & Wilkins Co. carrying an institutional rate. (For a complete list of these journals, please see enclosure.) In addition, the plan called for a five-cents-per-page fee for interlibrary loan reproductions. Since it is our position that a Commissioner's ruling, unless reversed, has the full weight of law, it seemed logical that we proceed from his decision by requesting that the institutional reproduction fee be paid. Perhaps naively, we did not anticipate the strenuous objections by some seg. ments of your library community. Until the government's appeal has been processed, it is their contention that the ruling does not have the weight of law and that compliance with our new procedures would imply acceptance of our position.

REACTION TO THE PROPOSAL To further complicate the situation, during the months following our proposed plan announcement, much confusion and conflicting reports circulated as to our intentions. Some exaggerated charges stated that our subscription rates would soar to four or five times what they are at present; it was charged that burdensome bookkeeping would be required by librarians; some claimed that we even wished to curtail the practice of photocopying altogether. As a result of these charges, an atmosphere of distrust was created with both sides maintaining that they could not compromise their legal positions. In a letter to The Williams & Wilkins Co. of July 31, 1972, the National Library of Medicine, stated that it is its position that it would accede to a rise in price based on an institutional rate to all libraries, great and small, but could not accept the implication that a license for photocopying is necessary.

THE SOLUTION In order to allow the NLM and all libraries to subscribe to W&W journals at increased rates and include them in Index Medicus, we now accept the NIH-NLM position. Our new institutional rates, which we shall continue to request, shall have no connection whatever with a license to photocopy, implied or otherwise. In short libraries may continue to supply their uses with royalty-free, singlecopy reproductions of W&W journal articles as they have done in the past.

As stated many times, we have no desire to obstruct the dissemination of scientific information between library and scholar, which would certainly be the result of cancellation of subscriptions. Further, in the same spirit, we are, again without prejudice, withdrawing our proposal for the five-cents-per-page inter-library loan fee until the appeal of our case has been heard. In the meantime, we hope to work with libraries in an effort to develop a solution which will be mutually acceptable. Both of these concessions have been made with a sincere desire to see that there is no interruption whatever to the flow of scientific information between you and your patrons which would result from subscription cancellations. We are sure this desire coincides with your own objectives.

To facilitate greater cooperation, please feel free to call Mrs. Andrea Albrecht collect, c/o The Williams & Wilkins Company, with any questions, comments, or suggestions you may have. Sincerely,


Chairman of the Board.


Journal of Trauma ($27.00) American Journal of Physical Medicine Journal of Urology ($40.00) ($14.00)

Laboratory Investigation ($45.00) Current Medical Dialog ($11.00) Medicne ($15.00) Drug Metabolism and Disposition Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey ($42.00)

($29.00) Fertility and Sterility ($33.00)

Pediatric Research ($32.00) Gastroenterology ($35.00)

Pharmacological Reviews ($18.00) Investigative Urology ($22.50)

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology ($30.00) and Police Science ($18.50)

Radiological Technology ($11.00) Journal of Histochemistry and Cyto- Soil Science ($23.00) chemistry ($33.00)

Stain Technology ($12.00) Journal of Immunology ($58.00)

Survey of Anesthesiology ($13.00) Journal of Investigative Dermatology Survey of Ophthalmology ($26.00) $ (43.75)

Transplantation ($43.00) Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Urological Survey ($16.00)

($23.00) Journal of Pharmacology and Experi

mental Therapeutics ($70.00) NOTE.-Institutional rate in ( )


Cancer Research ($50.00)

British Veterinary Journal ($20.00) International Journal of Gynaecology Clinical Radiology ($18.00) and Obstetrics ($10.00)

Community Health ($12.15) Journal of Neurosurgery ($35.00) Comparative and General PharmaJournal of Biological Chemistry

cology ($40.00) ($120.00)

Dental Practitioner ($12.15) Applied Spectroscopy ($15.00)

Injury ($17.85) British Journal of Plastic Surgery Insect Biochemistry ($40.00) ($14.00)

International Journal of Biochemistry British Journal of Surgery ($28.50) ($40.00) British Journal of Urology ($16.50) Tubercle ($19.85)

NOTE.—Non-Institutional rate in ( )



Baltimore, Md., Jan. 11, 1973. DEAR LIBRARIAN: On October 2nd, 1972, we sent you a detailed account of our changed thinking about licensing the photocopying of copyrighted materials, in light of the unfavorable responses generated by our original position. That letter covered the background of our beliefs about photocopying; our suit against the Federal Government; Commissioner Davis's opinion; our first proposal; and the reaction to that proposal from members of your profession. We concluded with a solution to the problem which, to the best of our knowledge, has proved acceptable to the entire library community.

However, we should like to re-state that solution, as there are still some misconceptions about our changed position.

1) We accept the position advocated by the NIH-NLM.

2) Our new institutional rates (see enclosed rate sheet), have no connection with a license to photocopy, implied or otherwise.

1 These journals are published by The Williams & Wilkins Co. and in most cases the copy. right is in the name of W&W.

2 These journals are published by others for which the Williams & Wilkins Co. performs certain services under contract. Policy is set for those journals by their proprietors and is not within the province of W&W. The exception is the International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics which is published by W&W but carries no institutional rate. 3) Libraries may continue to supply their users with royalty-free, single-copy reproductions of our journal articles.

4) We have withdrawn, without prejudice, our proposal for the five-cents-perpage inter-library loan fee for copying.

We hope that this will help clear up any doubts that you may have had about our subscription rates and our attitude toward photocopying. Sincerely yours,


Subscription Manager.


APRIL 30, 1973. Dr. MARTIN CUMMINGS. Director, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Ma.

DEAR DR. CUMMINGS: We at Williams & Wilkins are most anxious to see a solution to the interlibrary loan problem. We realize that the problem must be solved to the satisfaction of the medical libraries as well as to ourselves. Since my last visit with you, I and my colleagues have given much thought to the subject.

Let me tabulate some of the requirements which in our opinion must be met if a plan is to be mutually satisfactory.

1. It should not require record keeping or accounting on the part of the libraries over and above what they are doing at present.

2. It should recognize that photocopying is a valuable library tool which should be utilized whenever the professional librarian believes that it is useful.

3. It should compensate the scientific journals for the loss of subscription income which is the result of the interlibrary loan procedure.

4. Our established institutional rate should include this compensation and our permission for reprography for interlibrary loan and over-the-counter copying.

5. The monies collected under the plan should be built into the subscription price of the journals and should be related to the basic institutional rate so as to assure that future variations will be in direct proportion to changes in that basic rate.

To satisfy these requirements we have developed the following plan:

The subscription price to the 11 Regional Libraries for the 1974 journals will be no greater than twice the institutional rate and for the Medical School Libraries and the 500 + medical libraries involved in the interlibrary loan operation no greater than one and one half times the institutional rate.

In all instances where libraries of any size subscribe to two or more copies of a journal the additional copies will be billed at the individual subscriber rate. This is with the understanding that the additional copies are for intramural use and are not to be turned over to a branch of the parent library or any other separate institution.

We fully realize that the success of this (or any other) plan is primarily dependent on its meeting with the approval of NLM and upon NLM's willingness to recommend it to the medical libraries throughout the country. The details of the plan (but not its principles) should be subject to adjustment as industrywide surveys make available additional knowledge of interlibrary loan operation.

It is our firm belief that you and we agree on the realities of this situation and that there is a genuine desire on both sides to arrive at an amicable and satisfactory solution to the problem. We offer this as such a solution and we await with interest your reaction to it. Most sincerely,

President, Publishing Services Division.

Chairman of the Board.

Mr. BRENNAN. The next witness and the last witness on this issue is the president of the Authors League.




Mr. WEIDMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Jerome Weidman. I am president of the Authors League of America, a national society of professional authors and dramatists. The Authors League appreciates this opportunity to present its views on problems of library photocopying related to the copyright revision bill.

The Authors League has submitted a statement on the problem of library photocopying and I respectfully request that it be included in the record.

Senator MCCLELLAN. It will be included.
Mr. WEIDMAN. Thank you.

With your permission, I would like to summarize my statement, and comment very briefly on it. I am accompanied by Mr. Irwin Karp, who is counsel of the Authors League of America.

Senator McCLELLAN. Very well.

Mr. WEIDMAN. This morning, spokesmen for the publishers of scientific and technical periodicals, discussed the effects of uncompensated library copying. The Authors League shares their view that such uncompensated reproduction of their articles is damaging and that the damage will increase. Much of their testimony naturally focused on how library copying of scientific articles affected publishers.

However, library photocopying has also an adverse economic effect on professional authors. These authors earn all of or a substantial part of their income from writing. After their works first appear in periodicals or books, they are often reprinted—with the author's permission--in anthologies and textbooks. Many authors earn much of their income from such reprinting.

Poets and essayists, for example, receive very little when a poem or essay is published in a periodical. But they may license several different publishers to reprint it in anthologies, or collections. And although each fee is small, the accumulation of fees can produce a modest reward for work of substantial literary value.

Under the proposed exemption, libraries could reproduce single copies of poems and articles without compensation to the author. These copies can replace several copies of an anthology or book in a library or college book store. Authors must be compensated for uses of their works by audiences reached by this new process. Otherwise, they will be deprived of substantial portions of their incomes.

It must be emphasized that this one-time reprinting involves unlimited copying. Under the libraries proposed exemption, any library could reproduce many copies of an entire article-one copy for each of the several individuals who orders it.

Our dispute with the libraries does not involve all library copying. The controversy centers on the libraries' claim that they must be permitted to reproduce reprints of entire articles on any subject. Moreover, the heart of controversy, is not whether they should be permitted to engage in this copying—but whether copyright owners should be compensated when libraries reproduce copies of their works.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »