|
SCOPE is administered by the Follett Implementation |
Stage 3 was more successful than Stage 2; many of the publishers approached had been approached at Stage 2 and thus, the issues raised by the project were not new. Also, the lead time between receipt of a reading list and course pack delivery was reduced.
Delays resulting from mistargetted permissions requests (see Stage 2 Copyright Clearance Document [S2 CCD] 20/09/95) were significantly reduced. Before sending permissions requests to publishing houses LH requested by fax that publishers identified as rights holders either confirm that they held rights or identify the current rights holders.
Royalty rates for materials used at Stage 3 were reduced by approximately 2 pence/page and permissions were granted to digitize > 50% of material. However, a significant proportion of rights holders granted permission to digitize by letter preferring to delay negotiation on the detail of the SCOPE model contract for licensing on-demand publishing in academic libraries (hereafter referred to as the Contract).
Some publishers, inundated with requests to reproduce material in electronic form and unable to process requests within existing permissions departments have opted to refuse permissions requests pending development of their electronic rights policies. SCOPE may have a role in informing such policies if the SCOPE contract is referred to during development but ultimately, SCOPE negotiations do not progress quickly while policies are being devised.
Efficiency gains predicted on introducing the Contract (see S2 CCD) were not realised. In an attempt to clear permissions to digitize material for print production in the short term whilst negotiating on issues of network transmission and on-line delivery the SCOPE copyright unit offered publishers a short contract for print production only. Generally, this was unsuccessful; a single publisher signed the short contract. Although issues raised by network transmission are important to publishers, several clauses, common to both the full contract and the short contract, raise issues requiring debate and deliberation, often at the highest level within publishing houses . Where the Contract has been passed to, e.g. the managing director for a decision, negotiations have been slow as senior personnel are able to devote very little time to SCOPE. There is evidence also that the Contract has delayed the copyright clearance process within permissions departments.
Several permissions managers told LH that the contract itself presents a problem because of its complexity and length, and thus the time required to consider our terms. One Rights Manager who works for both trade and academic publishers reinforced LH's suspicion that delays are due not only to backlogs and understaffing but to procrastination. This equates with LH's experience; permissions staff for several publishers claimed to have misplaced the request when LH followed up the initial correspondence and often, despite promises to process SCOPE's request, no progress was made between calls from LH. SCOPE efforts to negotiate terms with publishers may be more efficient if our initial correspondence is addressed to, e.g. the Publishing Director or where appropriate, the Head of Electronic Publishing, rather than the permissions controller.
The average number of communications required from LH at Stage 2 before permission was granted or refused was 10 and of the 27 rights holders approached at Stage 3, eight signed the Contract; five of these were authors holding rights in their own material. Several publishers, have not signed the contract but are negotiating on its detail and thus generating feedback for the project. These tend to be academic and scholarly publishers and university presses. A pattern has emerged that differentiates trade publishers from academic publishers on this issue: the latter are interested in the debate currently engaging stakeholders in the academic information delivery chain; the former are less interested. LH was advised by a rights manager who works for both trade and academic publishers (RM) that owing to its length and complexity, the Contract is unsuitable for either trade or academic publishers; both deal with licenses that are simple and to the point. However, RM advised LH that as major stakeholders in the academic information delivery chain, the latter are more prepared to negotiate on the terms of a license.
The important issue for trade publishers is security. Because trade publishers believe that they stand to gain little in terms of revenue from SCOPE, their interest in negotiating on price is negligible. They are prepared to view SCOPE as a threat to sales of originals however, and refuse permissions on these grounds whereas an academic publisher with more to gain in terms of revenue and more to lose in terms of opportunity is prepared to debate this issue before making a decision.
There is resistance to the pay-per-use model proposed by SCOPE from both academic and trade publishers . Some publishers have made clear that a site license is preferable to pay-per-use as transactional pricing is untried. Journal publishers, it seems, prefer a site license also because it 'protects the printed journal by basing everything on it' (Anthony Pearce, Institute of Physics, Learned Publishing, 8 (4), p. 203). Trade publishers do not favour pay-per-use because projected revenue from SCOPE for these publishers does not balance the cost of administering such a system.
A few publishers are unhappy about payment only for printing/downloading. If material is supplied for viewing free of charge students may choose not to print or download but may read items on screen. Thus, unlike traditional library provision where material is available to read only when the library purchases one or more copies, publishers receive nothing if students do not make copies. Evidence from other eLib projects suggests that students choose not to read on screen but select materials on-screen and make copies for study purposes. However, publishers are concerned that technological and cultural changes will make on-screen study more acceptable. This issue is particularly important with regard to new universities where students tend not to buy books but depend on library provision; in these institutions sales to the library are a mainstay of the book trade. For this reason, one publisher is considering a dual pricing mechanism whereby institutions pay a fixed fee to make material available electronically and charge a further fee for printing/downloading.
If publishers insist on this dual pricing mechanism it will introduce problems for SCOPE re. making all material on the resource bank available to all institutions. It is unlikely that institutions will pay a fee to make available to view, material that has not been specifically selected for a course at that institution. A similar problem would arise if, as some publishers insist, institutions supplied with material on-line must make hard copies available to students, thus protecting sales of original publications.
The SCOPE team will be modelling further pricing mechanisms with a view to resolving the perceived differences between publisher interests and those of SCOPE.
The SCOPE copyright contract would appear to be hindering progress with publishers. Many of the clauses considered to be unnecessary or unreasonable by publishers are essential to protect Stirling University from liability for content of material over which it has no control. The royalty rate offered by SCOPE continues to be unacceptable to some British publishers. Sociology was selected as a suitable subject area for SCOPE because classes require such a range of study materials and thus, tend to buy few books and to rely on library provision for core reading materials. Ironically, our reason for selecting sociology has made copyright clearance difficult because a large proportion of materials selected for sociology classes are published by trade publishers. Senior personnel at several academic publishers are now considering the detail of the Contract but progress is slow. As the Project is reading-list based, progress depends on agreeing terms with a very wide range of publishers many of whom are not concerned with the academic information delivery chain.
Go to the SCOPE Annual Report Table of Contents