| |
|---|
Accessibility review document, next steps | |
Contract language feedback
| Feedback received touched on user privacy concerns, which are covered elsewhere and are a continuing topic of interest; a request to see an example of the CSU standard template; and availability of COUNTER usage data, which small publishers often don't have. We will add a copy of the standard contract to the appendix to the contract. Based on discussion during the SRDC Steering Committee meeting, we revised the “recommendation” language to clarify that the contract provisions are suggestions only; the committee cannot enforce usage of any particular language. We are not recommending other changes to the document. COLIN will send to SRDC chairs to send to COLD.
|
AI/data mining contract provisions | Kirstie G. provided an example of a new contract prohibiting AI data mining. Some language suggestions have been made, but it’s a new area, and controversial. (People want to be able to mine data for research, but authors also don’t want their scholarship mined for AI.) Not clear exactly how we could prevent AI mining anyway, since it’s outside our control. Will ask to put on SRDC agenda for discussion.
|
JSTOR and electronic reserves | The most recent JSTOR contract language specifically prohibits putting material into electronic reserves and instead encourages direct links. Some CSU libraries still maintain electronic reserves systems. In order to spread the word that there are other options, the group suggested multiple communication channels, including the ULMS Access Services listserv & Slack channel, SRDC, informing COLD, and perhaps the ULMS ERM group.
|