[Metadata] Metadata - rightree

[Sally Morris <smorris@wiley.co.uk>]

Here are some very helpful comments from Macmillan.   Jill has also sent an
alternative tree, which unfortunately is not emailable.   I will fax copies
to those involved in the rights metadata project pilot, and hope that will
suffice!

Sally


>Return-Path: <j.lake@macmillan.co.uk>
>Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:23:23 +0100
>From: j.lake@macmillan.co.uk (Lake Jill)
>Subject: Metadata - rightree
>To: smorris@wiley.co.uk
>Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
>
>     Dear Sally
>     I'm sorry to have been slow getting back to you with 
>     comments, but I have been through your document and the 
>     draft tree with our permissions assistant here and we 
>     have come up with some suggestions about restructuring. 
>     I can't reproduce them on an e-mail attachment so we 
>     will post them tomorrow - could you possibly remind me 
>     of your address for documents?
>     I'll also send a copy of our homegrown licence that I 
>     use when dealing with SCOPE etc re electronic delivery 
>     of chapters within HE.
>     
>     I'd just like to make a few general points about the 
>     decision tree.
>     1. Our office doesn't handle journal requests and 
>     rarely deals with any film, TV or broadcasting requests 
>     so we've left those  to people who know more about 
>     them.Maybe some of the suggestions below haven't taken 
>     those areas into account? Nor do we as yet have 
>     electronic products for extracting, so I've based our 
>     response on experience with licensing textbook and 
>     monograph rights ..
>     
>     2. Yes and No answers don't always cover the situation 
>     and occasionally could positively mislead - there 
>     should be  an option button at any stage where the 
>     enquirer can be referred back to the 'publisher' if the 
>     circumstances don't quite fit the case etc
>     
>     3. It's desirable that the enquirer should go through 
>     as few stages as possible before geting a decision- I 
>     think the tree as currently drafted makes some people 
>     go through stages  that aren't relevant to them before 
>     they hit one that is - so we have gone for a 'flatter' 
>     system of choices - e.g. type of use. Also I think the 
>     question re modification of the material is probably 
>     only relevant to some types of use, so we've put that 
>     at a later stage
>     
>     4. I'm not sure  an automated system could handle all 
>     sort of rights - I'd make the distinction between 
>     EXCLUSIVE licences and non-exclusive ones. For example 
>     translation licences would be given exclusively and 
>     would be difficult to handle.In theory you could have 
>     10 simultaneous requests being processed and it would 
>     be easy to agree deals with more than one ( costly 
>     consequences) or give simultaneous options by mistake - 
>       it would require wonderfully/unattainably up to date 
>     entry by the publisher's staff of options out/deals 
>     done  It's also the nature of the beast  that it's not 
>     an instant transaction but rather  a system of 
>     optioning with time to check through reading copies 
>     etc..I think it  would be possible to get a certain way 
>     but then to refer back to publisher...
>     
>     4.Older titles - the 'define object' stage would 
>     probably get the answers'it's ours, proceed' or it's 
>     not ours... but we probably need an option which says 
>     'it MAY be ours' - to cover especially older books that 
>     may be o/p and won't be up on current publishers' 
>     systems and can't therefore be linked in . I'd guess 
>     that a half of requests to us for re-use or 
>     photocopying of monograph material are of this kind, 
>     and a smaller proportion of textbook requests.We need 
>     to refer them to the publisher rather than cut them 
>     off.
>     
>     5. Need for publisher's parameters to be displayed at 
>     various points, e.g. on photocopying requests, no of 
>     pages x no of copies the publisher allows ( rather than 
>     just anegative response if the enquirer specified too 
>     high a number); on re-use of material in another 
>     product it might be that the author has to be 
>     consulted...
>     
>     6 Also need for some standard displays - e.g. suppose 
>     type of user is personal and type of use study and 
>     research - display the definition of fair use from the 
>     CDPA 'exceptions'  or elsewhere and require the user to 
>     agree that that accords with his use or to go on to 
>     some other part of the process. There is ignorance as 
>     to what people can do..I think the term'personal use' 
>     may be a bit ambiguous - 
>     Another example would be a statement of moral rights 
>     displayed at the point you ask if changes are envisaged
>     
>     7. How do we cope with people who come back for several 
>     items within a book at different times - would there be 
>     any memory device that could recognise when , say. 
>     college x is asking for five chapters from the same 
>     textbook  over a period to slot into its modularised 
>     course, when the publisher's terms are a maxmimum of 
>     one chapter? Or with the applicant who wants lots of 
>     bits from a database product but doesn't ask for them 
>     all in one request so the publisher is unaware of 
>     exactly how much material will end up in the new 
>     product?
>     
>     8 Before something is agreed, there should be a way of 
>     gathering together the 'agreed' information as a 
>     statement for corroboration  and as a record for the 
>     publisher  to link to an invoice or whatever - and for 
>     the applicant to have a 'proper' statement.
>     
>     9 Finally-we need to put some onus on the enquirer re 
>     third party material. If I work through as an enquirer, 
>     I might answer under 'define object'
>     Author and title
>     Author and title and pub date
>     ISBN......
>     Assuming there is some way of the publisher verifying 
>     that the info the enquirer puts in corresponds to its 
>     book..the publisher could display a list of DOIs 
>     relevant to that product ( or part product if that 
>     question applies). In principle the publisher is saying 
>      'the following bits are available from us but these 
>     other bits belong to someone else...'
>     I think it needs a statement  to the effect
>     'Whatever follows applies only to the bits identified 
>     as ours- we are not implying permission to use these 
>     other bits, you have to go to XX for those...'
>     On our electronic permssion, and as part of  our CLARCS
>     agreement we put the onus on the applicant in this way 
>     because it otherwise requires getting copies of the 
>     books up and checking acknowledgement pages etc, 
>     whereas the applicant presumably has that information 
>     to hand.Perhaps on the 're-use' table the applicant 
>     could confirm that s/he has checked the 
>     acknowledgements pages of the book and that none of the 
>     material requested is credited elsewhere..
>     
>     These are  first thoughts - I hope we haven't strayed 
>     too far from the question. Please say if there is 
>     anything unclear. We have sketched in a few panels but 
>     assumed that the content is for the other working party 
>     to tease out...
>     
>     And congratulations on your new job!
>     All good wishes
>     Jill Lake
>     RIGHTS MANAGER
>
>

Sally Morris
Director of Copyright and Licensing
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Baffins Lane, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1UD
Tel:    01243 770365     Fax:    01243 770429      Email:  smorris@wiley.co.uk


------------------------------------------------------
Metadata maillist  -  Metadata@doi.org
http://www.doi.org/mailman/listinfo/metadata