ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 129 on the rights o f authors. I t now remains for individuals and groups in the profession to use their professional knowledge and th e ir u n der­ stand ing o f th e in te r n a l ra m ifica tio n s o f th e copyright law on library services to offer guidance and counsel to the interpreters o f the law so that ambiguities can b e eliminated and practice b e ­ come uniform and so that library services will not be seriously hampered. B i b l i o g r a p h y American Library Association. L ib r a r ia n ’s G u ide to th e N ew C o p y rig h t L aw . Chicago: The As­ sociation, 1977. (Reprinted from the W ashin g­ ton N ew sletter, Nov. 15, 1976.) American Library Association and National Edu­ cation Association. T h e N ew C o p y r ig h t L aw : Q u estion s T e a c h e r s a n d L ib r a r ia n s A sk. Wash­ ington: National Education Assn., 1977. Shemel, Sidney. T his B usin ess o f Music. Rev. ed. New York: Billboard Publications, 1974. Special Libraries Association. L ib r a r y P h o to c o p y ­ ing a n d th e U.S. C o p y rig h t L a w o f 1976: An O v er v iew f o r L ib r a r ia n s a n d T h e ir C o u n sel. New York: The Association, 1978. U .S. Congress. House. C o p y rig h t L a w R evision. (HR 94-1476) 94th Congress, 2d Session. Sept. 3, 1976. Washington, D .C .: Govt. Print. O ff, 1976. U.S. Congress. Senate. C o p y rig h t L a w Revision. (SR 94-473) 94th Congress. 1st Session. Nov. 20, 1975. Washington, D .C .: Govt. Print. O ff, 1975. U .S. Copyright Office. C o p y rig h t a n d th e L ib r a r ­ ian. C ircu lar R21. W ashington, D .C .: Govt. Print. O f f , 1977. U .S . C o p y rig ht O ffice. G e n e r a l G u id e to th e C o p y r ig h t A c t o f 1976. W ash in g ton, D .C .: Govt. Print. O f f, 1977. U .S . C op yright O ffice. H ig h lig h ts o f t h e N ew C o p y r ig h t L a w . C ircu la r R 99. W ashington, D .C .: Govt. Print. O f f, 1977. ■■ Some Responses on Copyright E d ito r s n ote: In th e J a n u a r y issue C & R L News in vited r e sp o n s es to C h a r le s M artell’s “C o p y rig h t L aw an d R e serv e O p e r a t io n .” As sp a c e p erm its, w e w ill p rin t th o se resp o n ses. COPYING FOR R ESER V E READING— A D IF F E R E N T VIEW PO IN T Many academic libraries appear to be extend­ ing the use o f the CO N TU G u id elin es to provide a legal basis for reserv e room copying. Some interpret the reserve room as being an extension o f th e c la ss ro o m , thus m u ltip le co p ie s for classroom use could also be for reserve room use. Late last year, and after careful study, North­ ern Illinois University Library chose not to follow such a course. The librarians, with the advice o f the university’s legal counsel, decided that re­ serve copying could not m eet the three criteria e s ta b lis h e d to ju s tify m u ltip le c o p ie s for classroom use; namely, brevity, spontaneity, and cumulative effect. In the library’s experience, re­ serve copying frequently exceeds 2 ,5 0 0 words or 10 percent o f a work. The fact that a professor requests, weeks in advance, that a copy be placed on reserve defeats any pretense o f spontaneity. Some reserve reading lists include many more than th e n in e a rtic le s p e r class term reco m ­ mended under the rubric, “cumulative effect.” A lack of any other guidelines to Section 108 o f the Copyright Law led the librarians to the conclusion C o n tin u ed o n p . 130 A PERSONAL VIEW FROM PENN STATE I found C h a rle s M a r te ll’s Ja n u a ry a r tic le , “Copyright Law and R eserve O p eration s,” in­ teresting but naive. L et me accept your invitation to respond to that article and explain my impres­ sions o f it. I a g ree w ith M a rte ll th at faculty m em b ers should b e made aware of the new restrictions on photocopying and the distribution o f reserve ma­ terials. I disagree that “the individual teacher should … request copyright approval from [its] holder if multiple copying is required.” L ib rarian s, not the teaching faculty, should take the initiative in these dealings with authors and publishers so that they can compile records that prove they have acted in good faith. This ability to prove good faith compliance is necessi­ tated by the fact that libraries act as co-owners and distributors o f the photocopied items for as long as they circulate “for classroom use.” I f the faculty m embers inform the library that they intend to reuse the materials, the reserve li­ brarian should arrange to purchase the reprints and keep accurate records o f these requests and purchases. These records are crucial because the C o n tin u ed on p . 130 130 C opyin g f o r R eserv e R eadin g, con t. f r o m p. 129 that it is necessary to seek permission from the copyright holder before placing photocopies of published materials on reserve. While this policy has generated extra process­ ing work for the reserve room staff in terms of corresponding with each copyright holder of an item to be copied for reserve, it has revealed the fa c t that very few publishers are interested in col­ lecting royalties for nonprofit, educational copy­ ing o f this nature. Since the program started (from late O ctober 1977 through February 1978), 985 requests for permission to photocopy for re­ serve reading have been sent out. O f the total, a mere 23, or slightly more than 2 percent of the requests, subsequently resulted in the library’s making a royalty payment. The average cost per article was approximately $1.50. As indicated earlier, most o f the publishers and copyright holders contacted have given the li­ brary permission, without charge, to copy their articles. The only requirement is that the library include on the first page of the copy full biblio­ graphic credits. Some even specify the exact way in which this is to be done. O riginally, th e responsibility for co ntacting publishers was entrusted to the library’s Collec­ tions Development Department. The department created a form letter which was filled in with the appropriate inform ation and m ailed, together with a photocopy of the first page o f the article to be copied, to the publisher whose permission to copy was sought. W hen it began to be clear that few transactions involved library funds, the pro­ gram was transferred to the staff of the reserve reading room. T he decision to pay royalty is left up to this staff. Royalty requests considered ex­ cessive prompted staff to discuss the issue with faculty to see if they still want an item copied. One publisher wanted $110 for granting permis­ sion to copy eleven pages o f a book. Needless to say, the library decided to purchase another copy of the title for reserve! Although it has not yet occurred, faculty seek­ ing to place their own photocopies on reserve will not be allowed to do so until the library has ob­ tained permission from the copyright holder. In this way, the library will be able to protect itself from inadvertently placing on reserve photocopies which possibly were obtained in violation of the Copyright Law. As long as faculty continue to place materials on reserve, multiple photocopies of short works, especially o f periodical articles, appear to be the most efficient and least expensive solution for the library. And until there is a definitive interpreta­ tion o f the law in regard to copying for reserve, Northern’s library will continue its policy o f re­ qu estin g p e rm iss io n from th e co p y rig h t h o ld e rs.— L e s t e r K. S m ith , A c t in g D i r e c t o r ‚ N orthern Illin ois U niversity L ib r a r ie s . ■■ A P erson al View , con t. f r o m p. 129 library is far more liable than an individual fac­ ulty m ember to b e cited with violations o f the law. As Martell says, although in a different context, “it certainly would not be prudent to sit back and rely on the good faith of the faculty to abide by the new law.” In fact, his article would have ad­ dressed the problem more directly had he kept this acerb but realistic observation in mind. In addition, the library should (logically) share the c o st o f th e r e p rin ts w ith th e r e s p e c tiv e academic departments since purchasing reprints and maintaining the attendant records will add appreciably to the cost o f offering the reserve service. The reserve system o f the past, while an obvi­ ous convenience for teachers, epitomized ju st the sort o f un fair royalty d e p riv a tio n th e new copyright law attempts to correct: Photocopies, after all, circumvent book, pamphlet, and journal buying. Although I have some reservations about th e CONTU G u id elin es, I certainly endorse the spirit o f the new copyright law. M oreover, in contrast to Charles Martell, I advocate focusing the practical responsibility for this honorable un­ dertaking directly in the library while spreading the financial responsibilities across a campus-wide b a s e .— C o r d e l i a W . S w in to n , c h i e f , L e n d in g S ervices, Pennsylvania S tate University. ■■ R ich ard D o u g h erty E n te rs A LA P resid en tial R ace Richard Dougherty has entered this year’s ALA presidential race. He is university librar­ ian, University o f California, Berkeley, and edits the J o u r n a l o f A cad em ic L ib ra r ia n sh ip . A co u n cilo r sin ce 1969, he served on the executive board in 1 9 72-76. Dougherty was nominated by petition. A C R L C ollege Section P ro g ra m The College Section will discuss future di­ rections for the section at its annual m em ­ bership m eeting in Chicago. Those attending will participate in small discussion/planning group sessions that will focus on membership interests and concerns for future section activ­ ities. M em bers are urged to attend and to send ideas and suggestions for consideration by th e s e c tio n to M ary L o u ise B . C o b b , Chair, 26 Quarry R d., Apt. 3 8 , W aterville, M E 04901. The College Section will also cosponsor the ACRL annual conference program in Chicago.