Publishers Sue Georgia State University Over E-Reserves
Andrew Albanese -- Library Journal, 4/16/2008
- First lawsuit over electronic course content
- No comment yet from university
- Suit claims 6700 works distributed
One of the most contentious issues between libraries and publishers to emerge in the digital age reached a new level of contentiousness, as a group of publishers filed the first lawsuit against a university's system of electronic course content. The federal lawsuit was filed against Georgia State University (GSU) in Atlanta by Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and SAGE Publications, and supported by the Association of American Publishers (AAP). It charges GSU with “pervasive, flagrant, and ongoing unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials” via its “electronic course reserves service, its Blackboard/WebCT Vista electronic course management system, and its departmental web pages and hyperlinked online syllabi available on websites and computer servers controlled by GSU.”
The suit seeks injunctive relief, but does not seek monetary damages. Officials at Georgia State, which is based in Atlanta, have yet to comment on the suit. The university president, provost, library dean Charlene Hurt, and associate provost for information technology are all named defendants.
The suit offers a remarkably detailed view of what the plaintiffs believe to be infringing activity at GSU, including specific examples of uses it considers to be well beyond the scope of fair use and a detailed appendix of alleged infringed materials. The suit charges that, as of February 19, 2008, GSU’s e-reserve system contained “over 6700 total works available for some 600-plus courses,” made them available for electronic distribution, and “invited students to download, view, and print such materials without permission of the copyright holder.”
Notably—and probably not by accident—two of the three plaintiffs listed in the suit are non-profit university presses. OUP publisher Niko Pfund expressed reticence to turn to legal action, but told LJ that the publishers had no choice since Georgia State officials flatly refused to discuss the issue. “I consider this a failure of dialogue,” Pfund said. “It’s a shame. We’ve successfully come to agreements with others over the years. But Georgia State just wouldn’t talk with us.”
Pfund said he was especially troubled by GSU’s refusal to discuss what he considers the university’s overreaching fair use claim regarding its e-reserve content. “Fair use is critically important to university presses,” he noted. “We can’t publish without a liberal interpretation of fair use. But they were extremely unwilling to enter into a conversation about this.”
While the threat of litigation has reportedly loomed over a number of universities regarding e-reserves, previous tensions have not led to lawsuits. In 2003, AAP lawyers targeted the University of California, San Diego, which rejected AAP’s allegations. In 2006, Cornell University and AAP released joint guidelines for electronic content under the threat of litigation. And in January of this year, AAP praised accords with Syracuse, Marquette, and Hofstra universities over their guidelines for the use of electronic content.
