based on the subscriber's status or could relate to the usage of the material, such as for a library not carrying out photocopying activities, a library doing modest photocopying or a library doing a large amount of photocopying. Transaction or usage charges.-This should refer to any method by which royalties or payments are directly related to individual instances of photocopying or duplicating material by any means. Such royalties or payments will be according to a specified charge per unit. (These royalties or payments may vary from publication to publication and would be established by the publisher; the royalty charges established for the copying of a particular item or unit would be the same for all libraries.) The transaction or usage charges are independent of any subscription price charged by a publisher. The lists were compiled with awareness of the absence of certain necessary information and the need for some study of the impact of both systems on the future operations of libraries, on the business of publishers, and on the dissemination of knowledge. (See AgenDoc 6) § 2.4 Mechanism for Royalty Payments, Data Collection and Related Criteria.-A document, "Mechanisms and Criteria for Royalty Payments and/or Clearance and Licensing Procedures," was submitted by the Library Component. A document, "Elements in Photocopy Transactions," was submitted by the Publisher Component. A study of the two documents by the WG was assisted by a committee and resulted in the development of 4 major points by the WG (AgenDocs 8, 3 & 5): Point 1.-Any mechanism must provide a method for the user to determine whether the contemplated copying falls within the inclusive dates of a stated fee period. Point 2.-A system based exclusively on duplicate copies of the first page of the copied journal article in "hard copy" does not provide a royalty payment mechanism for copying accomplished in microfilm, telefax, video, etc. Point 3.-It is recognized that there are costs to the library intrinsic to a royalty payment mechanism. If these costs can be clearly defined, it must be determined how the costs shall be borne. Point 4.-The mechanism was evaluated for interlibrary copy transactions. No evaluation was made of either the criteria or the mechanism for other than interlibrary copy transactions. § 2.5 Proposed Statistical Study and Test of a Payment Mechanism. That the Conference recommend to NCLIS that NCLIS assume responsibility for financing and co-sponsoring with the Conference a study such as suggested in AgenDoc 9 with an understanding that such a study would include some testing of a payment mechanism. 83 Queries to Conference.-It is appropriate for the Working Group to ask the Conference: (a) If the present Working Group should continue or if the Conference wishes to designate other members; and (b) To give guidance to the Working Group regarding items not yet resolved; and (c) To define other items to be investigated. Prepared by: RICHARD L. KENYON. AGENDA DOCUMENTS APPENDED TO APR. 17, 1975, REPORT OF WORKING GROUP Actions of the Working Group. Because the WG treated various documents and their recommendations in several different ways, some of the WG actions are reported here in addition to those reports that were accepted (See § 2.2 & 2.5). Adopted Without Vote. Agen Doc 1.-Proposals for Procedures at Meetings of the Working Group (WG– 3/4/75). RECEIVED A REPORT OR RECOMMENDATION AgenDoc 6.-Received the document after amending Disadvantage 7 of Variable Pricing to read: (7) There is no necessary relation between the subscription price and the amount of photocopying. Therefore a single photocopying subscription price causes libraries preparing few photocopies to subsidize those libraries preparing many photocopies. Some publishers may be undercompensated and other publishers may be overcompensated. and after adding Disadvantage 10 to Variable Pricing: (10) The publisher may establish prices that are so high so as to restrict usage of material. and after adding Disadvantage 9 to Transaction or Usage Charges: (9) The publisher may establish prices that are so high so as to restrict usage of material. AgenDoc 8.-Received the document as amended by the Working Group, and noted the 2 Appendixes without prejudice. (Note: This document refers to AgenDocs 3 & 5.) After replacing the text of Point 1 with: Point 1.-Any mechanism must provide a method for the user to determine whether the contemplated copying falls within the inclusive dates of a stated fee period. and replacing the text of Point 3 with : Point 3.-It is recognized that there are costs to the library intrinsic to a royalty payment mechanism. If these costs can be clearly defined, it must be determined how the costs shall be borne. and eliminating Points 4 & 5 and renumbering Point 6 as Point 4 and replacing that text with: Point 4.-The mechanism was evaluated for interlibrary copy transactions. No evaluation was made of either the criteria or the mechanism for other than interlibrary copy transactions. and amending Appendix A, Criterion 4 (c) to read: (4c) Definition of inclusive period needs further work (see Committee Point 1). It was noted that copyright constitutes a bundle of rights and that establishing a specified fee period for single copy copying does not mean publisher gives up other rights in copyright. and amending Appendix B, Items I, IIB & III to read: I. The title of the Flow Charts at p. 2 & 4 and elsewhere should read: "Elements in Photocopy Transactions." IIB. An overlay of the ILL or copy request form which would provide data elements 7 and 10 as well as others. This was the publishers' preferred method, but it would be expected that data element 1 would, in many cases, be obliterated so as to protect the privacy of the user. This method would assure that each document contains reference to data elements 7 & 10. III. An additional data element 12 providing the "inclusive date" for fee payment (see committee Point 1). This, like data elements 4, 8 and 11, would be preprinted on the first page of each article by the publisher. Thus, the mechanism is understood to call for the publisher to preprint data elements 4, 8, 11 and 12 on the first page of each article to signify its participation in the mechanism. SPECIAL LIBRARIES ASSOCIATION, New York, February 19, 1976. To: Working Group, Conference on Resolution of Copyright Issues. Subject: Proposals for Procedures at Meetings of the Working Group. Because I criticized the apparent lack of procedures at past meetings, I am presenting the following for agreement or modification to serve as a guide for future meetings. (1) That it be understood that no specific action by any one individual or group of individuals at a meeting of the Working Group be binding on his constituents; that such a statement be made at the beginning of each meeting and appear in the Minutes of each meeting (instead of repetitious statements to this effect during the course of each meeting). (2) That discussion be limited to one Agenda Item at a time rather than the past practice to recognize speakers in the sequence of their signals to the chairman (which ultimately prevents an orderly sequential discussion of every topic). (3) That comments on any one Agenda Item be limited to one presentation per member until all members desiring to comment have each made one presentation; and that each member be restricted to one additional comment of not more than 5 minutes, unless there is general consent for other comments. (4) That when action on a specific topic can be presented in the form of a motion for action by the Working Group, that a vote be taken. Suggested sample limitations on such motions are: (a) Motion to Approve/Disapprove/Take no action. (b) Motion to Amend. (c) Motion to Postpone Consideration until a later Agenda Item or until the next meeting of the Working Group. (d) Motion to Refer to a Subcommittee of the Working Group and/or external technical experts; the motions to include a date for report back to the Working Group. (e) Because new information presented at a future time may affect an earlier decision, it may be necessary to reconsider such an earlier decision. (f) Motions should be presented in writing. (g) Because the two components of the Working Group may not agree on an action or a specific topic, the corresponding Minute should show a division. (5) That the Minutes of meetings of the Working Group not be narrative accounts of comments by individuals (that is, like a transcript); but that a Minute be recorded for each Motion, plus a Minute recorded for each topic discussed or report considered without specific action. Examples are: M.1. Voted to Approve a Motion that ... M.2 Voted to Refer to a Subcommittee . . . to... and to report on . . . M.3. Considered Without Action a report. etc. (6) That Draft Minutes of the Working Group be circulated to members of the Working Group for comment as soon after the meeting as possible (but no more than 7 working days); and that copies of the Draft Minutes and copies of the finally approved Minutes (each suitably identified) also be sent to the Copyright Office and to NCLIS SPECIAL LIBRARIES ASSOCIATION, To: Working Group Conference on Resolution of Copyright Issues. Paragraph (a) of the "Summary Report and Recommendations of the Working Group . . ." as submitted and approved by the members of the Conference states: applicable to library photocopying of periodical and journal articles. Therefore it seems essential that the Working Group agree on the materials included in the words, "periodical and journal." Limitations as to the subject coverage of the publications were not included in the recommendation as submitted Within the total library community, and for many years, it has been difficult to reach an acceptable definition of "periodicals" and/or "journals." The term, "serials," has found a more readily and commonly acceptable definition. Even though some variations in definitions have been put forth for "serials," such variants are closer to one another than proposed definitions for "journals," etc. The significance of terms in publishers' titles are often in apparent conflict with the actual contents. Further, most libraries have a "Serials Department." Therefore the use of such a term will probably be more readily understood and accepted by library staffs. Recommendation 1. That discussions of the Working Group use the term, "serials," rather than journals, periodicals, etc. Recommendation 2. That the following qualifications be accepted as the basis for categorization as a serial. A serial must meet all four qualifications: 1 (2a) Must be published periodically and/or issued in successive parts;1 (2b) Must not be superseded by forthcoming editions; 2 1 Thus irregular or non-periodical issues are included. 2 Thus monographs are excluded. (2c) Must have a definite system of consecutive numbering; and (2d) Must not have a stated or logical predetermined ending." The above automatically excludes 1) publishers' monograph series, and 2) progress reports of individual projects or contracts. Internal house organs are to be excluded. Also excluded are government documents (local, state, federal, foreign or international) which do not meet the 4 above qualifications for serials. Loose-leaf business services may or may not meet all 4 qualifications. Near-print statistical reports (daily or weekly) are excluded. Possible categories of serials.-A number of different "family trees" can be constructed for "serials." The different trees depend on the mode of classification selected (see p. 3). Because requests for photocopies are normally handled at a clerical level without individually supervised decisions, the simplest generalized category should be chosen to avoid the need for intervention for decisions by non-clerical library staff (i.e. higher salaried supervisors or administrators). Serials (I) will normally come from serials collections or documents collections to the photocopying service. Therefore there should be a minimal decision process by clerical personnel. Serials (II) requires a recognition of 28 years, 56 years, author's lifetime, or the like. Because a publisher's numbered volume may have so many pages that the library will bind one publisher's volume as two or more physical bindings, the library-bound volume (containing the item ordered by the library user) may not contain a copyright notice and date. Even more frequently, the copyright notices in issues of a serial are printed on preliminary pages of each issue (together with postal forwarding instructions) that such preliminary pages (small Roman numerals) are removed by the binder-and no copyright notice may appear in any bound volume. On the other hand, a library binding may encompass more than one publisher's volume or one year. Serials (III)-Attempts to subdivide man's knowledge into discrete packages or cells have always failed. This is the cause of dissatisfaction of library users who expect to find all titles to a specific subject area shelved next to one another. It is also one cause of librarians' dissatisfaction with each classification scheme (e.g., Dewey, Library of Congress, Universal Decimal Classification). Perhaps an extreme example is "thermodynamics" which (depending on focus) could be considered as physics, chemistry, or mechanical engineering (among others). Emerging subject areas also result in extreme uncertainties; for example, publications in neuropsychobiology. Here again, clerical personnel (who rarely are more than high school graduates) cannot make independent judgments as to subject area. Recommendation 3.-That the most general definition of "serials" be used (that is Recommendation 2) rather than any categorization by subject area. SPECIAL LIBRARIES ASSOCIATION, To: Working Group Conference on Resolution of Copyright Issues. There are general assumptions that the internal procedures of libraries are very similar, if not identical. Such assumptions are held by some librarians themselves. In actual existence there are almost as many variations in purchasing procedures or in billing procedures for services rendered (for example, the preparation of photocopies, literature search services, etc.) as there are libraries. Financial procedures, such as purchasing or billing (and their costs), are most frequently defined by the library's parent organization: a city or state government, an academic institution, an endowment, a corporation, etc. To attempt to define a uniform reporting mechanism for photocopy royalty purposes based on existing billing processes may well be self-defeating because the wide range of parent organizations will not want to change established procedures (which are also used in nonlibrary activities of the parent organization). To insert the reporting mechanism at the point of preparation of the photocopy may be possible, but the reporting mechanism must meet some minimum criteria by libraries. Some of these criteria have been mentioned in earlier discussions, but additional criteria may become evident as discussions become more specific. When discussed in broad terms, there are frequent admonitions to plan to use new technology (usually implying computers). It must be remembered that only a small fraction of libraries today have either their own computers or access to a computer located in another part of their parent organization. At present and in the foreseeable future, library budgets are at minimum levels to maintain their collections. Unless large additional sums are forthcoming from the federal government, it is difficult to foresee the general availability of computers in all types and all sizes of libraries. Criterion 1.-The interface between libraries and publishers in the mechanisms for the reporting and paying of photocopy royalties must be able to accommodate both manual input and computer input. Note: Because there are already unfortunate misunderstandings attached to "system" and "systematic," it is suggested that the word "mechanism" be used in these discussions rather than "system." Criterion 2.-That the development of possible new mechanisms be the initial responsibility of the publishers recognizing the need to meet the criteria for the mechanism's interface with libraries. The preponderance of photocopy requests go directly to a clerical employee (a stack-boy to pull the volume and a photocopy machine operator to prepare the copy) without direct intervention of a supervisory or administrative librarian (unless there is uncertainty of the identity of the item requested). Unless the library's administrative costs are to be inflated, royalty payment identification must be easily understood by the library clerical personnel who normally process photocopy requests from users. Criterion 3.-To achieve proper reporting and payment of royalties, individual items (e.g., any one article in any issue of a copyrighted serial) must be clearly identified that such photocopies are subject to royalty payments. The actual act of publication is under the control of the publishers; and the final stage of receiving royalties will be within the control of the publishers. Thus with both ends of the cycle under the control of the publisher, it seems logical that the entire new mechanism be planned by the publishers with such allowance that the interface of the mechanism with libraries for royalty payment purposes meet the criteria delineated by libraries. Because such a mechanism is new in the operations of publishers, it would seem easier to define the parameters of such a new mechanism within the domain of the publishers, rather than to attempt to define parameters in terms of the variable and long-established procedures in and among libraries. Criterion 4.-That the following specifications for the mechanism's interface with libraries be considered in developments resulting from Criteria 1, 2 and 3: (4a) Ready and timely access by the user to materials which he requires. |