|
 | Final Numbers: ALA Attendance Off Last Year’s Pace
With the final attendance figures in, total attendance at the American Library Association Annual Conference in Anaheim was 22,047, down from 2007 in Washington, DC (28,288) but up from 2006 in a recovering New Orleans, when attendance ebbed at 16,784. The downturn might be blamed on economic belt-tightening or the presence of a Public Library Association conference in the same year. While opinions are decidedly mixed on the virtues of Anaheim as a conference center—some liked being near Disney, while others hated it—Anaheim is again scheduled to host the conference in 2012. Despite the lower attendance, ALA was nevertheless a vibrant meeting. For our complete coverage, including interviews and staff videos, visit the Library Journal 2008 ALA Annual Conference page.
|
|
Predictable Irrationality and Academic Libraries
Economist Dan Ariely, author of Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions keynoted the June 30 President’s Program of the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) at the American Library Association Annual Conference in Anaheim, CA. His address, while not specifically geared to libraries, engaged the audience and stimulated some thoughtful responses from a panel of librarians, some of whom said they’d go back and streamline their lists of databases so they don’t overwhelm users. Here’s another account, from ACRLog.
“Mistakes we make in daily decisions are not random,” said Ariely, suggesting that the configuration of choices can shape our behavior. For example, the differences in organ donation rates around the world reflect less on national character than whether the default decision to donate is opt-in or opt-out.
So what does this mean for libraries? Ariely, who had spoken about how people often chose something free (a Hershey’s kiss) even over a better bargain (a truffle) that nonetheless costs something, was asked why people don’t use libraries. “I think that free is quite a complex number and has multiple effects,” he said, musing that Hershey’s kisses are of commonly known quality. When we don’t know the exact quality of a service or item, that may have an impact. He pointed to the power of regret. “People hate wasting things, but if they don’t pay for something, letting it go doesn’t feel like a big loss,” he said, noting that those paying for a gym membership often try to belatedly use it. He mused about whether fees might change people’s perception of libraries.
One audience member later suggested that fees can destroy a sense of trust. Ariely acknowledged that was possible, but that price is the easiest way to assess value. Perhaps, he suggested, libraries could issue users one voucher a month, good to talk to with a librarian.
Mario Ascencio, Visual Arts Librarian at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, and REFORMA President, asked whether telling students how much libraries spend on databases might spur more use of such products. That could be a step forward, Ariely suggested, “but even better, is how to get people to think if they don’t use it, they’re wasting this money?” He suggested the issue could be framed as an “allowance” to search for things that evaporate if not used. Then again, if students are spending their parents’ money, “it doesn’t feel as personal.”
Ellie Collier, Reference Librarian, Austin Community College, South Austin Campus, TX, asked Ariely how best to convince funders of a library’s worth, given that the value of libraries is generally not quantifiable. Ariely suggested that librarians come up with “other measures of value,” including ones that show how valuable the library is to a campus even if some students don’t go there.
|
| In Another Landmark Copyright Case, Court Finds for Publishers
In a closely watched copyright case, the 11th Circuit Court of the United States has ruled that transferring entire print editions of works to electronic format is allowable under copyright law. The landmark ruling, which is good news for those engaged in digitization projects, came in the case of Greenberg v. National Geographic Society, which mirrored the “collective work” issues raised by the landmark Tasini case—and, the Tasini case, while still ongoing (), played a role in deciding the outcome.
On June 30 the full court ruled 7-5 that NGS had the right to fully reproduce its issues, including photos and works provided by freelancers, within the context of the magazine issues in electronic format. “National Geographic has the privilege of reproducing these individual magazine issues in print as often as it wishes, and Greenberg retains his copyrights in his individual photographs,” wrote Judge Rosemary Barkett, for the majority. “At the same time, National Geographic has a copyright in the collective work as a whole—to wit, the individual magazine issues.”
The epic case began in 1997, when Jerry Greenberg, a freelance photographer, sued the National Geographic Society (NGS) over inclusion of his photographs in a CD-ROM version of The Complete National Geographic (CNG). A district court initially ruled for NGS, but in 2001, a three judge panel of the 11th Circuit reversed the ruling and sent the case back to the lower court, where a jury awarded Greenberg $400,000. Last spring, the 11th Circuit vacated the Greenberg jury award, noting that the Tasini verdict, had established a “new framework” setting the stage for the 11th circuit’s June 30 ruling.
So what’s the new framework of Tasini? “The conversion of magazine issues from print to digital form,” Barkett wrote, “does not create a different balance of copyright protection.” The majority noted that the text of the Tasini ruling distinguished digital databases, which separate articles from their original context, from reproductions, like microfilm. Additionally—and importantly—the court also found that the addition of functionality, like search boxes, was not enough to change the nature of the work, because the pages of the magazine are still being presented in their original layout and context.
In a blistering dissent, however, Judge Stanley Birch said publishers’ arguments were “bereft of logic, legal merit and are totally disingenuous.” He wrote that NGS and its co-plaintiffs, had “changed their legal position and rationales as the Tasini case worked its way through the courts,” and dismissed publishers claims that a decision for Greenberg would punch holes in their electronic archives.
Copyright lawyer William Patry, Google senior copyright attorney and author of the Patry Copyright Blog, said, however, that the court got it right—finally. “Judge Barkett rightly focused on NGS’s contextual nature: the CNG used the identical selection, coordination, and arrangement of the freelancer’s contributions as found in the hard copy magazines, and was an image-based reproduction just like microfilm, even down to reproducing the magazine fold in the middle of the page and the exact same page numbers as placed originally.”
Greenberg can still appeal to the Supreme Court, but, Patry noted, it is a longshot the court will hear the case. “I seriously doubt the Supreme Court will grant certiorari if petitioned,” he blogged. “There is no split in the circuits, and the issues are very close to those decided in the Tasini case.”
|
| Tasini Parties Ask Supreme Court To Overturn Settlement Rejection
Parties to the Tasini v. New York Times case recently filed a petition for certiorari, meaning they will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a November 2007, decision by the Second Circuit that rejected a proposed settlement. In a surprise decision, the Second Circuit rejected the settlement proposal last year, ruling that the federal courts could not approve payments of claims to those holding unregistered copyrights. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal, the Justices will see a rare sight: both parties to the case will argue to reverse the lower court ruling. The deadline for the parties to file their petitions is August 13, 2008.
Although a group of “objectors” still opposes the settlement terms put forth, and would like to see the settlement fail, all parties agree that the Second Circuit ruling rejecting the case, which essentially leaves freelancers with unregistered copyrights with no standing to resolve their complaints—was wrong. “Neither the appellants (objectors) nor the appellees (defendants plus plaintiffs) raised the issue the [Second Circuit] addressed in its ruling,” objector Irv Muchnick told the LJ Academic Newswire in an interview last year. “In fact, we all argued against it when the Second Circuit asked for a briefing on it.”
If left to stand, the current ruling would leave both parties in legal limbo, Muchnick explained, with publishers unable to get the “complete peace” they seek, and with unregistered claimants unable to settle through a class-action. “I think the current ruling is terribly inconvenient and inefficient for all concerned, as well as for information consumers and for society,” Muchnick added. “A failure to reverse would mean not only that this settlement is rejected but also that no other settlement could include unregistered claims.” That would mean that some publishers would likely remove articles by unregistered writers from their databases rather than “face a potential wave of lawsuits even greater than they might have budgeted to handle earlier,” Muchnick noted.
|
| Library Journal Politician of the Year Deadline Extended To July 25, 2008
Library Journal Politician of the Year deadline has been extended to July 25, 2008. Is there a political figure making a difference in your library community? The editors of Library Journal (LJ) want to know about them and what they've achieved for libraries in your area. Please send nominations, including a description of the politician's efforts on behalf of libraries, to Ann Kim via email at akim@reedbusiness.com, by mail to: Library Journal, 360 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10010; or by FAX at 646-746-6734.
|
Library Journal Academic Newswire
Contributing Editor: Andrew R. Albanese
Phone: 646-746-6852 E-mail: aalbanese@reedbusiness.com
Editor: Francine Fialkoff
Phone: 646-746-6807 E-mail: fialkoff@reedbusiness.com
Executive Editor: Rebecca Miller
Phone: 646-746-6725 E-mail: miller@reedbusiness.com
News Editor: Norman Oder
Phone: 646-746-6829 E-mail: noder@reedbusiness.com
TO UNSUBSCRIBE
To unsubscribe send an e-mail to Unsub_Academic_Newswire@email.libraryjournal.com
TO SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to Academic Newswire or our other newsletters
Subscribe to Library Journal magazine
ARCHIVE
Read past issues
PRINT
You must change your print settings from portrait to landscape to print this page.
VIEW OUR PRIVACY POLICY
Click here
QUESTIONS?
If you need further assistance with your newsletter subscription, please contact our Online Support Staff.
Send editorial questions about this newsletter to: aalbanese@reedbusiness.com.
RBInteractive: onlineads@reedbusiness.com, (888) 7RBI-WEB.
PRIVACY MANAGER: privacymanager@reedbusiness.com
Reed Business Information 2000 Clearwater Drive Oak Brook, IL 60523 | Fax: 630-288-8394
© 2007 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
© 2008 Library Journal. All rights reserved.
"Library Journal" is a registered trademark. "Library Journal Academic Newswire" is a trademark.
|
