The author is a staff member of Loughborough University’s Pilkington Library. Despite the title this research was confined to the UK higher education sector. The report points out that it went to press before the publication of both the European Directive on Copyright (EU Copyright Directive), and the UK Copyright Tribunal ruling and the subsequent agreement between Universities UK (UUK) and the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA). It was, nevertheless, felt that it contained sufficient valuable information and opinion to justify its issue.
Although one might agree with the general findings and the narrative comment in what is a thorough and readable coverage of the whole gamut of copyright clearance the methods used prevent it from representing a true picture of the situation in higher education in the UK – as is acknowledged in the report (p. 5). The findings are derived from a self‐selected group replying to a Web mounted questionnaire advertised through five e‐mail listings. Some 30 per cent of the 169 relevant institutions responded. The findings can, therefore, only be seen as describing the situation within the responding institutions. The report acknowledges that “estimates were encouraged”, and that “the results are indicative rather then categorical” (p. 21).
The report covers the whole range of systems, mechanisms, problems, pitfalls and desirable improvements required in the copyright jungle. It covers, inter alia, the number of staff with rights responsibilities, the agreements under which they operate, time taken to obtain permissions, the various charging mechanisms and who pays what, the mean number of items cleared per annum per unit, chasing policies, the proportion of requests granted with no charge, and so on. There are 38 useful pages of sample forms. The subtleties in the relationships between the CLA, the “library” (where most rights clearances appear to take place and which tends to be “blamed” both for the need to clear and the consequences) and academic staff are well described.
It was a wonder to this reviewer why any academic staff bothered to pursue copyright clearance given the difficulties involved – every hurdle could put at risk hours of work.
If any publisher was ever mystified as to why the university sector was so opposed to various “agreements” then this publication should answer them. To the extent that “study packs” were a major problem then some of the difficulties have now been removed following the UUK and CLA agreement. Both parties seem satisfied with the outcome (UUK, CLA).
Yet difficulties remain. It states “that just as licences did not solve the difficulties arising from the 1988 Copyright Act, clearing houses have not proven a panacea …” (p. 2). There is still a multiplicity of licences involved that are added to every day, not least by agreements for electronic/digitised items together with electronic journals. The report contains a well‐argued justification for the establishment and retention of copyright clearance staff. It also makes suggestions for improvements to the system.
It is an interesting report but not one that can be relied on to give an accurate picture of the position in UK higher education. Parts of the report are now of historic interest only. Yet the comments made by respondents are highly pertinent – we have all been there. The document describes the scene very well. One particular use for this report would be to remind institutions that all is not now resolved since the signing of the new licence and that there is a range of intellectual property rights issues that still need to be addressed. It should suggest ways in which universities might rationalise their responsibilities – from short loan items, through data protection to patents.
