Difference between revisions of "Graham and Winter (2017)"
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
|Discipline=O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital | |Discipline=O34: Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital | ||
|Intervention-Response=Whilst the authors do not make any explicit policy recommendations, they identify that the major changes in Canadian copyright law in 2012 has caused more institutional-level changes in academic libraries. Following the grant of user rights and broadening fair dealing permissions for educational uses, libraries have identified an increasing need for copyright expertise, leading to delegation and policy review. This has resulted in a shift in resource allocation to ensuring (through education and otherwise) the exercise of the new provisions for user’s rights and exceptions. | |Intervention-Response=Whilst the authors do not make any explicit policy recommendations, they identify that the major changes in Canadian copyright law in 2012 has caused more institutional-level changes in academic libraries. Following the grant of user rights and broadening fair dealing permissions for educational uses, libraries have identified an increasing need for copyright expertise, leading to delegation and policy review. This has resulted in a shift in resource allocation to ensuring (through education and otherwise) the exercise of the new provisions for user’s rights and exceptions. | ||
| − | |Description of Data=The research involves the re-run and adaptation of a survey issued by Horava in 2008. The most recent study produced 48 responses from senior administrators at Canadian libraries which were members of academic library consortia. The survey sought to investigate changes in librarian practices since the 2012 shift in Canadian copyright law, namely in relation to user rights and expansion of fair dealing exceptions for educational uses. | + | |Description of Data=The research involves the re-run and adaptation of a survey issued by Horava in 2008. The most recent study produced 48 responses from senior administrators at Canadian libraries which were members of academic library consortia. The survey sought to investigate changes in librarian practices since the 2012 shift in Canadian copyright law, namely in relation to user rights and expansion of fair dealing exceptions for educational uses. TK GLAM |
|Data Year=March – April 2015; October – November (2015); | |Data Year=March – April 2015; October – November (2015); | ||
|Data Type=Primary data | |Data Type=Primary data | ||
Revision as of 10:13, 5 January 2021
Contents
Source Details
| Graham and Winter (2017) | |
| Title: | What Happened After the 2012 Shift in Canadian Copyright Law? An Updated Survey on How Copyright is Managed across Canadian Universities |
| Author(s): | Graham, R., Winter, C. |
| Year: | 2017 |
| Citation: | Graham, R. and Winter, C. (2017) What Happened After the 2012 Shift in Canadian Copyright Law? An Updated Survey on How Copyright is Managed across Canadian Universities. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, 12:3 |
| Link(s): | Open Access |
| Key Related Studies: | |
| Discipline: | |
| Linked by: | |
| About the Data | |
| Data Description: | The research involves the re-run and adaptation of a survey issued by Horava in 2008. The most recent study produced 48 responses from senior administrators at Canadian libraries which were members of academic library consortia. The survey sought to investigate changes in librarian practices since the 2012 shift in Canadian copyright law, namely in relation to user rights and expansion of fair dealing exceptions for educational uses. TK GLAM |
| Data Type: | Primary data |
| Secondary Data Sources: | |
| Data Collection Methods: | |
| Data Analysis Methods: | |
| Industry(ies): | |
| Country(ies): | |
| Cross Country Study?: | No |
| Comparative Study?: | No |
| Literature review?: | No |
| Government or policy study?: | No |
| Time Period(s) of Collection: |
|
| Funder(s): |
|
Abstract
"Objective – The purpose of this study is to understand the practices and approaches followed by Canadian universities in copyright education, permissions clearance, and policy development in light of major changes to Canadian copyright law that occurred in mid-2012. The study also seeks to identify aspects of copyright management perceived by the universities to be challenging.
Methods – In 2015, an invitation to complete an online survey on institutional copyright practices was sent to the senior administrator at member libraries of Canada’s four regional academic library consortia. The invitation requested completion of the survey by the person best suited to respond on behalf of the institution. Study methods were largely adapted from those used in a 2008 survey conducted by another researcher who targeted members of same library consortia.
Results –While the university library maintained its leadership role in copyright matters across the institution, the majority of responding institutions had delegated responsibility for copyright to a position or office explicitly labeled copyright. In contrast, respondents to the 2008 survey most often held the position of senior library administrator. Blanket licensing was an accepted approach to managing copyright across Canadian universities in 2008, but by 2015 it had become a live issue, with roughly half of the respondents indicating their institutions had terminated or were planning to terminate their blanket license.
Conclusion –In just seven years we have witnessed a significant increase in specialized attention paid to copyright on Canadian university campuses and in the breadth of resources dedicated to helping the university community understand, comply with, and exercise various provisions under Canadian copyright law, which include rights for creators and users."
Main Results of the Study
The study discusses three elements of copyright practice concerning academic librarians:• Copyright education: Whilst the 2008 survey found that libraries alone were responsible for copyright education, the 2015 survey finds that central administrations and designated copyright offices are now primarily responsible for this. 77% of respondents agreed that their institution’s approach to copyright education had changed appreciably since 2008, with both users and rightsholders now primarily obtaining their copyright education via webpages. The authors ascribe the increasing delegation of responsibilities to a perceived need for more copyright expertise, following the 2012 shift in copyright law.• Copyright policy and blanket licensing: Approximately 70% of libraries have policies which discuss fair dealing, which is primarily communicated via a webpage. 44% of respondents confirmed that blanket licensing had been terminated, with a further 10% of respondents confirming that such a termination would take place in future. The authors note that this shift in practices relating to fair dealing exceptions is evidently a “live” issue, particularly as the 2008 survey assumed a 100% likelihood of libraries holding blanket licences.• Permissions management for copied course materials: Whilst over half of libraries benefit from some kind of tool to help them determine licensing permissions, 77% of respondents note that “effective and comprehensive communication of copyright information” is the primary institutional challenge for libraries. The authors identify that this concern overlaps with other issues, such as administrative matters for permission clearances etc., which are now more of a concern than in 2008.
Policy Implications as Stated By Author
Whilst the authors do not make any explicit policy recommendations, they identify that the major changes in Canadian copyright law in 2012 has caused more institutional-level changes in academic libraries. Following the grant of user rights and broadening fair dealing permissions for educational uses, libraries have identified an increasing need for copyright expertise, leading to delegation and policy review. This has resulted in a shift in resource allocation to ensuring (through education and otherwise) the exercise of the new provisions for user’s rights and exceptions.
Coverage of Study
Datasets
{{{Dataset}}}
