Present: Michael Tanner, Chair; Peter Berck; John Canny; Mary Corey (by phone); Suzanne Henry; Richard Lucier; Mark Rose; Pamela Samuelson; Kevin Smith; Corynne McSherry (graduate student researcher); Martha Winnacker, staff. Absent: Jeffrey Cole; Stuart Lynn; Irwin Sherman.

It was agreed that Corynne McSherry, a Ph.D. candidate at UCSD, may participate in the Task Force as a researcher on the terms described in her proposal. She will not report names or campus affiliations in writing about the Task Force.

Minutes of the November 21 meeting were accepted. It was agreed that electronic circulation of minutes is adequate so long as hard copies are available at meetings.

The UC working draft entitled "Principles for Copyright Legislation and Scholarly Communication" was accepted as the starting point for the Task Forceās work.

It was agreed that the Task Force should adopt as action goals by the end of the current academic year:

• Completion of a report that identifies and suggests responses to the issues
  The report should be organized in sections on future scenarios, faculty issues, and copyright management.
  Existing subgroups will work on their respective sections, and recommendations may arise from this subgroup work.
• Agreement on recommendations for policy work in 1998-99
  No more than ten recommendations. Work groups should begin to identify the subject of recommendations.
• Maximum exposure for Task Force work
  Both the report and the recommendations will be issued in summary, brief, and extended versions for use in an educational campaign that will raise awareness of copyright issues throughout the University. Both the report and recommendations should focus on key points that may be leveraged to improve understanding. University Relations should be engaged to help prepare a brochure and a publicity campaign based in campus channels of communication.

A list of vexing issues might be used to sharpen the "UC Principles" by applying them to real-life scenarios. The initial list is attached.

Draft early reports were distributed electronically and in hard copy at the meeting and are linked below. The following are responses to the reports.

The work of the Task Force will be more successful if there is general awareness of information issues related to teaching; related to research; and related to scholarly communication. The policy review and issues statement should be framed as follows:

UC policy has not been reviewed for several years, while new technologies and unanticipated circumstances are changing the environment in which they are applied. Policy review is an attempt to be proactive a way that is consistent with the University's mission.

Copyright is invisible to most members of the University community because its norms have been so thoroughly incorporated into routine practices. New technologies disrupt the status quo so thoroughly that old practices will no longer be viable.

The form and style in which the message is disseminated is important:

1. A three-fold brochure. The cover will feature provocative questions that symbolize key change points, e.g.: Will you be able to give your course lecture again? Will you be able to cite your own work? Will you go to jail for sending a multimedia work to a colleague? Who owns your class? Who owns your research? The inside text will explain the questions and use bullets to provide scenarios and examples. It will include urls for further resources. The brochure should be discussed in Senate committees, distributed through departments, and used in courses. It must be sponsored by both the Senate and the administration, and reviewed by Counsel.

2. A concise issues paper on Copyright Policy in Context will expand on the brochure. Both documents should be completed by the end of February. FURTHER COMMENTS SHOULD BE CIRCULATED BY E-MAIL.

The core idea: pilot projects to build a future should accompany and sometimes substitute for policy statements. However, due diligence is necessary before undertaking any project premised on successful competition with commercial publishers. UC should look closely at the pilot projects being proposed by the AAU and ARL to experiment with new ways of publication.

It was agreed that the Task Force should examine potential pilots and formulate hypotheses about how they would change scholarly publishing and the need to control associated intellectual property rights in specific contexts. It would be useful to try applying the "Principles" document to some practical scenarios.

Recommendations might include:

1. Establish an adaptable process to work through issues as they arise in the context of principles and examples. This would require a standing body or a way of assembling one. A similar recommendation emerged from the Library Planning and Action Initiative. The Intellectual Property Advisory Committee (IPAC) of the 1970s and 1980s offers a precedent: it originally considered both copyright and patent issues but was reorganized into the Technology Transfer Advisory Committee.
   
2. Participate in the national publication experiments. Put the AAU decoupling into the communication process now. If the Task Force recommends investments in publishing efforts, there must be a rationale. That decision process should be guided by principles: are the UC "Principles" adequate?

Faculty are becoming "publishers" on the Web but have little knowledge of law or policy. Guidance is needed to help them learn what they can and cannot do and should be directly applicable to routine behaviors. Due process is essential in any institutional action to take down materials that infringe copyright.

It was noted that some campuses have copyright coordinators but that smaller campuses seek advice from one staff person in the Office of Technology Transfer.

The faculty reward system needs to find ways to recognize work in new media. A statement should be prepared that highlights and analyzes impediments to acceptance of new media works as publications. Examples of impediments include the lack of: archiving, review, quality of credentials, and review boards.

Faculty need support in retaining some rights with the assurance that there will be no penalty in promotion processes if journals refuse publication because authors retain rights.

Recommendations might include:

1. Establish a referral service that would direct faculty toward sources of advice.
2. Provide educational services on use of copyrighted material. Either issue guidelines on allowable use of copyrighted material or by explaining the principles of fair use and providing examples of actions that are clearly fair use and actions that are not. Provide special help for dealing with disciplines in which the primary data for research is copyrighted material.
3. Update UC's 1986 policy on reproduction of materials for classroom use.

• Ownership and control of classroom lectures: Does "in-classness" change the claims on a work? Does the faculty employment contract include control over class "performance," including supporting materials? If a UC course were to be taped and distributed beyond the original class, should control over that course rest with the individual faculty member (who could sell it to an outside party) or with the University? What if the faculty member leaves the University? Does use of University resources to create digital materials for classroom teaching invoke a University interest in the resulting materials?

  Suggested solutions: The employment relationship should be addressed by explicit statements that works created as a result of specific assignments will be considered works made for hire while those created as part of the general task of scholarship and without specific direction will be presumed to be works of independent authorship. Expectations of supervision and direction should be clearly spelled out in agreements to create works.

• Boundary between works for hire and works owned by authors.
• What is a "class"? Are assigned Web activities "in class"? Is a syllabus "in class" or merely the speech or performance before an audience?
• Separability of copyright rights: authors need to understand that the rights bundled in copyright can be separated for different purposes and that they can and should negotiate terms with publishers: universities should exercise market power to recover what was believed to be the status quo.