Campus Copyright

Video Copyright Question – How do you Spell Relief?

Edited from Desantis, Nick (1/15/2012) Fair-Use Guide Seeks to Solve Librarians’ VHS-Cassette Problem. Chronicle of Higher Education - http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/fair-use-guide-hopes-to-solve-librarians-vhs-cassette-problem/35151?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en

Fair Use is vague at times, well, actually most of the time.  Four factors help gauge and weigh whether the use is allowed or not.  Using the acronym PANE to recall the fabulous four it helps in making decisions related to copyright questions. Purpose, Amount, Nature and Effect

The article divides the issue of using videos.  I have made efforts to highly recommend NOT purchasing public performance rights for any video in our library and encouraging to apply Fair Use.  However, that being said, there are videos which have been used, though on campus, for other groups and organizations.  I would still argue, this is an instructional use but non-classroom specific use.  The details of the law contribute intentionally to vague interpretation to allow the maximum permissible use.

The article discusses the first case scenario -  An academic library has a collection of video tapes that is slowly deteriorating, thanks to the fragile nature of analog media. A librarian would like to digitize the collection for future use, but avoids making the copies out of fear that doing so would violate copyright law. And the institution’s attorneys have advised the librarian that the fair-use principle, which might offer a way to make copies legally, is too flexible to rely on.  In this case the law allows, for archival purposes, to make copies.  Attorneys are more cautious, much more cautious than the law actually states.  In addition, guidelines or best practices, tend to side with lawyers and publishers but the law actually seems to be written in such a way as allowing far more creative use. 

Second Case -  enabling video to be accessible online.  The ARL committee groups realized self-censoring  online activities would be contrary to the library’s mission.  Some still argue a single copy may fall under fair use, multiple copies probably wouldn't. 

Third Case – Copyright is the law. The new code explicitly states it was not negotiated with rights holders.  The groups agreed on principles scratching the surface of what they really believe. The librarians thought it was essential to articulate some common fair-use principles, even if there are risks involved.  Some suggest contravening the law isn't the solution.  The law is not flawed.  The solutions and recent proposals to combat "piracy" are even worse.  There should be any conflict with the law and what some refer to as the moral high ground.

Fair Use is an allowed exception to the law.  ARL should be applauded with its work to clarify it, as we all should, for the purpose of promoting the creative and useful arts. Libraries via the Internet, digitization, open source, institutional repositories are to become the great benefactors of the information age!

The Association of Research Libraries and a team of fair-use advocates will announce a code of best practices designed to outline ways academic librarians can take advantage of their fair-use rights to navigate common copyright issues.Brandon Butler, director of public-policy initiatives at the Association of Research Libraries, said this guide is different than early fair-use guidelines for libraries, which he described as narrowly crafted “safe harbors” that had the unintended effect of making it more difficult for librarians to do their jobs.  “It’s not meant to be a legal memo handed down from on high telling librarians, We the lawyers have told you here are your rights,” he said. “It’s meant actually to be exactly the opposite of that. It’s meant to be a brief from the librarians to the lawyers saying, We know a little bit about fair use too, and here’s what we think are our rights.”

The new  code identifies eight common library practices to which the fair-use principle can be applied, like making special-collections items available electronically and creating digital versions of library materials for patrons with disabilities. Each principle includes a set of limitations and enhancements that further specify how a fair-use claim can be made. Still there was no general consensus from the group.  Several years ago, after two and a half years, another group came up with the CONFU guidelines.  These guidelines were also overly restrictive but deemed fair, even though Fair Use allows far more rights, that is, exceptions, for copyright.

Another Step Back for Copyright in the Public Domain

Edited from Young, Jeffrey R. (1/18/2012) Supreme Court Upholds Law That Pulled Foreign Works Back Under Copyright.  Chronicle of Higher Education - http://chronicle.com/article/Supreme-Court-Upholds-Law-That/130376/?sid=gn&utm_source=gn&utm_medium=en

Lawrence Golan, music professor at the University of Denver, lost his long legal fight to keep thousands of foreign musical scores, books, and other copyrighted works in the public domain when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against it. In Golan v. Holder, No. 10-545, in a 6-to-2 ruling, the justices upheld the changes in U.S. copyright law.

"Neither the Copyright and Patent Clause nor the First Amendment, we hold, makes the public domain, in any and all cases, a territory that works may never exit," declared the majority opinion, which was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for himself and Justice Samuel A. Alito, faulted the Congressional action. "The fact that, by withdrawing material from the public domain, the statute inhibits an important pre-existing flow of information is sufficient, when combined with the other features of the statute that I have discussed, to convince me that the Copyright Clause, interpreted in the light of the First Amendment, does not authorize Congress to enact this statute," he wrote.

The justices noted the restrictions of copyright law can sometimes help creativity, though, by devising a system allowing authors to collect payment when their work is used. "Congress had reason to believe that a well-functioning international copyright system would encourage the dissemination of existing and future works," Justice Ginsburg wrote.

The ruling could open the door for Congress to craft further changes in copyright law that scholars might consider even more restrictive, said Kenneth D. Crews, director of the copyright-advisory office at the Columbia University Libraries. "It is a grant of sweeping authority to Congress to shape copyright law in almost any way that it chooses," he said of the decision. "This should raise a red flag to be watchful about other developments in congress like SOPA," he added, referring to the Stop Online Piracy Act (HR 3261).

Copyright holders and other owners of content, meanwhile, applauded the ruling.  The Motion Picture Association of America, for instance, issued a statement saying that it is "pleased that the Supreme Court has again ruled that strong copyright protection is the 'engine of free expression' and fully consistent with the First Amendment."

First Sale Doctrine Hits the Courts

(Edited from Reuters news August 2011 and Kelley, Michael (1/6/2012) Supreme Court Asked to Review Significant First Sale Ruling. Library Journal http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2012/01/copyright/supreme-court-asked-to-review-significant-first-sale-ruling)

A book is lawfully made apparently only if in the USA. If the book is also created in another country, and someone purchases it, then resells it, then its not lawfully made? The first sale doctrine, Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act (Title 17), limits the distribution rights of a copyright owner (Section 106) and allows the owner of a copy “lawfully made under” the Copyright Act to sell or loan the copy without permission from the copyright holder. Public Knowledge (PK), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and U.S. Public Interest Research Group asked the Supreme Court today to review a lower court decision in the case John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng.

There are major implications for the first sale doctrine and the ability of libraries to offer foreign-made books on their shelves. Maybe its not just a case of the First Sale Doctrine but also part of John Wiley & Sons other intellectual property rights,trade rights, even moral rights to sell only the best quality in the USA. John Wiley and Sons, after all, are not dummies, even though they acquired the Dummies series.

The Second Circuit, which heard arguments in May 2010, ruled the phrase “lawfully made under” means physically manufactured in the United States, further narrowing the applicability of the first sale doctrine, which underpins numerous secondary markets, including the ability of libraries to loan books.

Please check to see if your books were printed in China. I bet you’ll find many copies! Makes me think of the CBS news series tackling whether you can find items Made in America. Kirtsaeng is now asking the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit’s decision, arguing that copies “lawfully made under this title” include all copies made legally (according to Title 17), regardless of where the copies were manufactured. After all, John Wiley & Sons is a global publisher and recently acquired other global publishers to expand its reach in the lucrative scientific, technological, and medical fields. (Confession: My own book was published by John Wiley & Sons and I have many hits on the Facebook page from all over the world).

The amicus brief filed today by the three organizations supports Kirtsaeng’s argument. The brief reads in part: Libraries, which rely heavily upon the first sale doctrine to lend copies of books to the public, are especially vulnerable under the Second Circuit’s stripped-down version of Section 109(a). Without the protection of Section 109(a) for foreign-printed books, libraries could be forced to affirmatively research the place of manufacture for every book they acquire, even if that acquisition is completed within the United States, and either refuse to stock foreign manufactured copies of books or seek countless licenses from copyright owners to offer those books to the public.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 ruling that Supap Kirtsaeng violated John Wiley & Sons' copyrights when he sold cheap foreign editions of the publishers' textbooks in the United States. In a ruling of first impression, a U.S. appeals court on Monday held illegal to import and sell copyrighted works manufactured outside the United States without the copyright owner's permission. The case turned on the scope of the so-called "first sale" doctrine, the owner of a copy "lawfully made under" the Copyright Act can sell, loan or give away a copy freely without the copyright owner's authorization.

The appeals court ruled the right of first sale under Section 109(a) of the Act only applies to products physically manufactured in the United States. Kirtsaeng's lawyer Sam Israel criticized the court's ruling for "writing the first sale doctrine out of the statute." He said the decision allows a company to exert complete control over the resale of its products by outsourcing production to foreign locations -- a concern swaying the dissenting Judge J. Garvan Murtha. William Dunnegan, a lawyer for the publisher, said the company was "very pleased" with the 2nd Circuit's decision.

Both the 9th Circuit and five other district judges in New York had previously ruled in favor of copyright holders in similar cases. But the circuit courts do not agree on whether the first sale doctrine applies to works produced abroad, according to Jonathan Moskin, an intellectual property lawyer at Foley & Lardner who was not involved in the case. Both the 2nd and 9th Circuits have said it doesn't, while the 3rd Circuit has said it does. Moskin said the conflict comes down to statutory interpretation of whether copies "lawfully made under" the Copyright Act include copies made abroad. "There's very little guidance on that," he said.

Kirtsaeng moved to the United States from Thailand in 1997 to pursue a mathematics degree at Cornell University and later a doctoral degree in California. To subsidize his education, Kirtsaeng's family shipped him foreign editions of textbooks printed abroad by Wiley Asia, which he sold on eBay.com at a discount. The textbooks, mostly scientific, had soft covers, thinner paper and lower-quality printing than the more expensive U.S. editions. They also were marked with a legend forbidding their sale beyond a particular county or geographic region.

After the publisher sued for copyright infringement, Kirtsaeng argued the first sale doctrine gave him the right to resell the textbooks. But the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sided with John Wiley and awarded the publisher $600,000 in statutory damages. The 2nd Circuit agreed the first sale doctrine does not apply to goods manufactured outside the United States. "If we have misunderstood Congressional purpose in enacting the first sale doctrine, or if our decision leads to policy consequences not foreseen by Congress or which Congress now finds unpalatable, Congress is of course able to correct our judgment," the majority wrote.

The case is John Wiley & Sons Inc v. Supap Kirtsaeng d/b/a Bluechristine99, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, No. 09-4896.

Rolling Back Public Access by Research Works Act

In a step backward, A new bill, The Research Works Act (H.R.3699), is intended to cease the the NIH Public Access Policy and block the development of similar policies at other federal agencies.  This will shift the efforts of transparency and add limits to open access payed by taxpayers.  It is also a step in the wrong direction on copyright protection for federal research, noting again, the research was payed by tas payers funds.  The Act has been introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives. Co-sponsored by Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), it was introduced on December 16, 2011, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

Essentially, the bill seeks to prohibit federal agencies from conditioning their grants to require that articles reporting on publicly funded research be made accessible to the public online. 

The bill text is short and to the point. The main point reads: 

"No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that -- (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher of such work; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work."

Copyright Office Making Records More Accessible

Burke, Mike (12/8/2011) Who Owns the Copyright for that Book, Song or Photo You Want to Use? – Making pre-1978 Copyright Office Records More Accessible. Copyright Matters.  http://blogs.loc.gov/copyrightdigitization/2011/12/who-owns-the-copyright-for-that-book-song-or-photo-you-want-to-use-making-pre-1978-copyright-office-records-more-accessible/

Generally, works created prior to 1923 are considered in the public domain – free from copyright restrictions.  However, from 1870 to 1977 there were 16.4 million works registered in the Copyright Office, some may have been renewed.  The goal of the Copyright digitization and public access project is to convert the records and make them available online via the web. Many are still under protection of the Copyright law.  The assignment or transfer of rights was recorded for more than 1.7 million works.  To determine if a particular work is still under copyright and who the owner is the only way to answer is by searching in the paper and microfilm records in the Copyright Office. 

As with many historical records, the public records of the Copyright Office do not exist comprehensively in one set or in one format. Rather, for any particular research, there may be several kinds of records that will together show the history and provenance of a copyrighted work. To obtain the most complete and most reliable information, these records must be consulted in combination.

There are five primary sets among the 1870 to 1977 records:

1. Copyright Record Books containing the early records of copyright ownership

2. Bound volumes containing applications for copyright registration

3. Copyright Card Catalog

4. Published Catalogs of Copyright Entries (CCE’s)

5. Copies of documents pertaining to transfer and assignment of copyrights

Copyright records are not only a reference to works that are or were under copyright protection but also an irreplaceable piece of Americana. The records provide a perspective on the evolution of our great nation from its very founding to the present day. Preservation and increased availability are strong arguments for digitizing the records and the digitization priorities of the Office must reflect the priorities and expectations of the public and the value of the records for their use.

The technology now exists to convert the non-digital records of the Copyright Office and to make the information widely available through electronic access. There is growing interest both within and outside the Copyright Office to apply this technology to these records sooner rather than later. 

Beginning in 1900, the numbers assigned to registrations have included an alphabetic prefix indicating the class of material such as books, periodicals, music, and visual arts. That data will be used to enable a faceted search of the records by category. Stanford has a database online for records – http://collections.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals/bin/page?forward=home

With the tens of millions of cards and record book pages to process, it’s difficult to say when the digitization, indexing and public access will be completed. However, as the Copyright Office work backward through the six multi-year time bands in the catalog, they will make the records available online as they are completed. As an interim measure, they are also considering making the images of the catalog cards available through drawer level indexes enabling online searching that mimics a search of the actual card catalog. Copyright Office Circular 22: How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work, available at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.pdf and provides guidance on determining the status of a work. On page 3 of the circular it states “Searches of the Copyright Office catalogs and records are useful in helping to determine the copyright status of a work, but they cannot be regarded as conclusive in all cases. The complete absence of any information about a work in the Office records does not mean that the work is unprotected.” The circular cites examples.

Finding Your Authorship on Google Scholar



Google Releases Google Scholar Citations, a simple way for authors to compute their citation metrics and track them over time. Quickly identify articles by a specific author by selecting one or more groups of articles statistically computed. Citations to the articles are collected, graphed over time, and the citation metrics computed using an h-index; the i-10 index, the number of articles with at least ten citations; and, the total number of citations. Each metric is computed over all citations and also over citations in articles published in the last five years.

Citation metrics will update automatically as new citations are located. Automated updates for the list of articles can be created or choose to review the suggested updates. Manual updates to a profile can be added to any missing articles including editing bibliographic errors and merging duplicate entries.

Profiles of colleagues, co-authors, or other researchers using their name, affiliation, or areas of interest can also be retrieved. Links to co-authors, if they already have a profile, can be added or an invitation can be sent to create one.

Profiles can be made public. A public profile can appear in Google Scholar search results when someone searches for the name. This will make it easier for colleagues worldwide to follow someone’s work.

Copyrights for Course Content

A student told a faculty member the other day they had sold their course notes to an Internet company called NoteHall.  An interesting article on publisher's textbooks is related to the value of the material produced by faculty and their copyright protection.  Rice, Alexander (11/9/11) QuickWire: Tutoring Company Removes Copyrighted Materials From Web Site, Wired Campus, Chronicle of Higher Education, describes the company, Student of Fortune, recently acquired by textbook vendor Chegg Inc.. Student of Fortune has reached a settlement over the claims of copyright and trademark infringement. The claims come from five publishers—McGraw-Hill, Wiley, Cengage Learning, Pearson Education, and Elsevier. Copies of textbooks and other learning materials were uploaded to the Student of Fortune Web site and sold for a profit without the publishers’ consent. Chegg Inc. worked with the publishers to remove these materials and will take measures to prevent future copyright and trademark infringement for its Web site.

For other Internet sites, such as NoteHall, faculty have every right to request items to be removed and taken down. Fair Use may be claimed. Usually I am on the more liberal end of Fair Use, but sometimes the use truly is not fair.

PANE (Purpose, Amount, Nature, Effect)

Purpose – purpose of posting faculty notes to an internet site is so other students in similar fields of study may benefit from this.  Faculty from other institutions may also benefit from the lecture plan. However, the company, NoteHall, also has profit motivation from other’s intellectual property.  The creator of the material may not receive recognition nor attribution for their work nor royalty.

Amount – The entire collective work of faculty course material was submitted to the NoteHall site

Nature – The content is factual information but has an element of timeliness, since information thought to be true may be proven unsafe upon further examination.  Examples exist everyday related to potential nutritional harms and benefits.  Just today, a report mentioned salt may be beneficial with strong reaction from others in the medical field who have promoted a low salt diet.

Effect – What is the impact of the availability of faculty course material and the future demand to potential future publications of articles, chapters, books, presentations, conferences, etc of the  coursework notes being made available for sale on NoteHall? Fact is, Notehall.com not only buys, it also sells!  So they are obtaining content they do not own and then selling it.  Again faculty receive limited if any attribution and definitely no royalty.

Course Hero http://www.coursehero.com provides lecture notes and course related materials uploaded by students or faculty.  Trouble is, not everyone knows this is happening and some are pretty angry about it.  For example, there are several course notes from West Chester University -http://www.coursehero.com/sitemap/schools/2046-West-Chester/.  Course Hero intends to provide access to the best learning materials with more than 6,500,000 study documents from over 5,000 universities around the world, Students and educators tag these study documents with relevant information like school, department, course and professor making them easy to find.  Experts are always available to discuss a complicated homework question. You can Ask an expert or get Textbook help, find study guides, chapter summaries, solutions, practice tests and notes for your textbooks. Course Hero's materials help understand and complete textbook assignments.  Geographic barriers are eliminated from research materials published by world-class educators available all the time.  Some institutions have created special consideration to this topic.  A sample of information related to student conduct - http://learning.colostate.edu/integrity/faqs/notehallCourseHero.cfm

Sources Used in Plagiarism

Plagiarism and the Web: A Comparison of Internet Sources for Secondary and Higher Education Students is available from Turnitin.com, http://pages.turnitin.com/PlagiarismSECvsHE.html, and contains data on the most frequently used sites and services by students.

From David Nagel (11/03/11) Wikipedia Tops List of Plagiarized Sources, Campus Technology, http://campustechnology.com/articles/2011/11/03/wikipedia-tops-list-of-plagiarized-sources.aspx

More than 33.5 million papers (9 million secondary students and 24 million post-secondary students)--submitted to the Turnitin service were analyzed from iParadigms over a one-year period (June 2010 to June 2011). In those papers, iParadigms' researchers found 128 million "content matches" from a wide variety of Web sources. Among papers submitted by students in higher education, Wikipedia was by far the most plagiarized individual site, at 10.74 percent. Yahoo Answers was a distant second at 3.9 percent. Slideshare came in a close third at 3.87 percent, Answers.com at 3.57 percent, and Appapers.com at 3.11 percent.

The bulk of "matched content" in papers came from social and content sharing sites - 26 percent in higher education. Sites in this category included Facebook, Yahoo Answers, Answers.com, SlideShare, and others.

Cheat sites and paper mills made up the third most popular category for plagiarists, according to the report. These were more popular among students in higher education, at 20 percent. Traditional online publications (magazine and news sites) came in fourth at 17 percent among higher education students.

And encyclopedias (including Wikipedia, Britannica, and Encyclopedia.com) rounded out the top five at 12 percent in post-secondary education.

Other sources included shopping and review sites, accounting for 3 percent from college students.

A Call to Action

The report offered three suggestions to help curtail plagiarism, including:

1.Designing writing assignments that focus on personal experience or current events and that are submitted in stages;

2.Instructing students in proper citation; and

3.Using plagiarism detection in a formative manner to allow students to see where their references are improperly cited and to make those corrections before the final paper is submitted.

The FH Green Library has a guide on Plagiarism - http://subjectguides.wcupa.edu/plagiarism

University D2L system has instructions - http://www.wcupa.edu/infoservices/d2l/Assignments_Guide.pdf

Provost has recently announced information on Academic Integrity related to plagiarism and intellectual propert, including copyright - http://www.wcupa.edu/_admin/associateprovost/academicintegrity.asp

 

Wrong Ruling for Copyright - First Sale Doctrine

From  http://acrlog.org/2011/08/30/nothing-right-about-this-copyright-ruling/

During the meeting of the Atlantic Chapter of the Music Library Association  (ATMLA), held in West Chester, Pa. Oct 14-15, 2011 we discussed copyright for music using examples of files which would require some circumvention of technology protection measures.  This is a hot topic but also another topic came up related to the First Sale Doctrine. 

Had to look up the recent article, Nothing Right about This Copyright Ruling. Recently a court struck down an appeal of a NY case involving reselling books from overseas in the U.S. Essentially, first sale doctrine applies only to works manufactured in the United States.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in John Wiley & Sons Inc v. Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai man studying in the United States, infringed upon John Wiley & Sons’ copyrights when he had his family send him cheaper foreign editions of Wiley textbooks, printed by Wiley Asia, and then resold on eBay for a profit.

The article quotes Kevin Smith on the Scholarly Communications@Duke blog of the implications for libraries:

One of the problems the Wiley decision creates is uncertainty about library lending. Libraries do not even know how much of their collections are manufactured abroad. In the Second Circuit, however, lending anything manufactured outside the U.S. is now in question, regardless of where it was purchased (even directly from the publisher).

Even more disturbing are the potential effects this ruling could have on students:

If libraries are in a difficult position, students may be even worse off under the Second Circuit’s ruling. Again, publishers now have an incentive to manufacture their textbooks abroad and sell them to U.S. students. Such students would no longer have the right to re-sell their textbooks or to purchase used texts.

The takeaway is libraries may not be able to loan out books manufactured outside the United States, and students may not be able to buy or sell used textbooks. As Smith and others point out, there are dissenting opinions in the case, and perhaps the ruling will be challenged again in the future. But nonetheless this court ruling creates a potentially awful situation for higher education.

Please Submit Comments Related to Anti-Circumvention

From: Carrie Russell <crussell@alawash.org>
Subject: it's anti-circumvention time!!

I know it’s hard to believe but already we must prepare for the triennial 1201 rulemaking on circumvention of technological protection measures employed by rights holders.  

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-09-29/html/2011-25106.htm

Every three years, the Copyright Office (CO) conducts a “rulemaking” which is a process initiated by a government agency to create or amend a rule or regulation. This process generally begins with a chance for the public to comment on the issue. ALA provides comments for a number of Notices for Public Rulemakings. 

When Congress drafted the DMCA they included a new chapter 12 of the Copyright Act that talks about anti-circumvention of TPMs.  It is a violation to break a TPM to gain access to a protected work.  Congress asked that the CO to conduct a rulemaking to discover if this law inferred with one’s rights to exercise a fair use or some other non-infringing use.  A good example of this is that people with print disabilities can circumvent e-books to enable text-to-speech functionality.  They have lawfully acquired the work but they can’t use it because of TPMs.

At the last rulemaking, it was determined by the Librarian of Congress (under the recommendation of the CO and Commerce) that faculty in all subject disciplines could break CSS on encrypted DVDs in order to make clip compilations for instruction or research purposes.  In addition, college students enrolled in media or film studies could also circumvent CSS to extract clips for educational purposes.  ALA made this recommendation based on a lot of feedback that we received from members.

This rule must be fought for again because the exemptions only last for 3 years.

Do faculty at your institutions use clips in the classroom?  Why?

Are faculty less worried about the legality of using clips in the classroom?

Do you have examples of how the exemption helped an educator or student?

Currently this use is lawful so there is no reason to hide -- any examples you send to me should include faculty name, discipline and institution would be very helpful.

Some rights holders will argue that this exemption is no longer necessary because now one can obtain movie clips through lawful services on the Internet. Is this true?  Do existing clip services meet faculty needs?

I would appreciate any examples you could send my way via e-mail by November 15^th, 2011.  Let me know if you have questions.       

Many thanks!

-Carrie

Carrie Russell, Director

Program on Public Access to Information

American Library Association

Office for Information Technology Policy

1615 New Hampshire  Avenue NW, First Floor

Washington, DC 20009

202.628.8410/800.941.8478

202.628.8419 (fax)

crussell at alawash dot org