Present: Michael Tanner (Chair, UCSC); Peter Berck (Committee on Educational Policy, UCB), John Canny (Committee on Academic Freedom, UCB); James Clark (UC Press); Mary Frances Corey (UCI); Terry Feuerborn (OTT); Richard Lucier (UCOP); M. Stuart Lynn (UCOP); Mark Rose (UCSB); Pamela Samuelson (UCB); Irwin Sherman (UCR); Kevin Smith (UCD); Martha Winnacker (staff). Absent: Jeff Cole (UCLA); Suzanne Henry (Committee on Libraries, UCSF).

1. The Task Force has been convened against a background of concern about the consequences of faculty transfer of copyrights to commercial publishers (e.g., the rising cost of for-profit journals considered essential for sub-fields) and about the destabilizing effects of digital technologies on a status quo for scholarly communication that "worked." The digital environment presents opportunities to do new things at the same time that it increases liability for the things we do. It also provides a context for relationships with new players who see the intellectual property developed in the University as a valuable commodity. Proposed changes in the laws governing copyright exacerbate the uncertainties arising from the digital transition. Universities across the country are grappling with these issues, and various proposals are circulating. Individuals from UC are participating at the national level, but there is not a widespread awareness of the consequences--for individuals and the institution--of individual decisions about copyright.

2. University-based scholarly communication using electronic communications capabilities seems to many to offer a viable alternative to dependence on commercial publishers whose prices are set at rates geared toward a for-profit marketplace rather than non-profit institutions. A proposal is currently circulating within the American Association of Universities to experiment with a system of peer review committees that would certify scholarly works outside of the journal framework. Certified works could be distributed by their authors or institutions or submitted to journals for publication. Institutions would need to agree that certification under this system would be as acceptable for career advancement as publication in prestigious journals. Although this proposal does not address the full range of copyright issues, it provides a microcosm within which to examine key problem areas.

3. Internal discussion is necessary to heighten awareness and understanding of the issues within the University, develop a consensus on what the University's copyright policy should accomplish, and formulate an institutional position that can be represented by UC's representatives in the national arena. The Task Force is asked to develop statements of principle and policy objectives that are clear enough to guide policy formulation.

4. It was agreed that the Task Force should define major issues and open a discussion that would involve many on the campuses, and would take place between January and April. The intent is to produce a report in time for review by key Senate committees in 1997-98, but this is seen as identifying priority issues for early action within a larger framework that should be considered over a longer time.

   A major component of policy deliberations should be educational:
   
   

   • Educational efforts are needed within the University community so that faculty and others understand how they and the institution are affected by way they handle intellectual property. For creators of intellectual property, individual and institutional owners, and users of intellectual property created by others, its value both within and outside the University requires that it be handled with respect and care.
     
     
   • Members of the University community need to understand that contracts are negotiable. Guidance and support are needed to assist individuals in their dealings with third parties, e.g., publishers and research sponsors, on copyright issues.
     
     
   • Members of the University community need help in understanding what uses of online material belonging to others are legal.
     
     
   • Attention to practice is needed to develop conventions of what is "fair" in the digital context. These need to be perceived as legitimate and equitable for users and owners in the same way that current practices are in the print environment.
     
   
   Among the key issues that might be addressed in policy:
   
   
   • Ownership of classroom expression.
     
     
   • Ownership of online material related to courses.
     
     
   • Ownership of collaborative efforts, particularly those involving faculty, students, and staff, in a context where individual authorship is the prevailing norm.
     
     
   • Clarification of what uses of material online should remain available to authors after transferring rights to a publisher.
     
     
   • Determination of what policy elements would support alternative channels of scholarly communication.
     
   
   Feasible interventions within a year might include:
   
   
   • Develop University templates to provide guidance at the point of transfer of rights from authors to publishers. Target a participation rate. Identify provisions that would address problems of rights transfer, e.g., license for one-time use instead of transfer, retain right to reproduce in UC (or any university) course.
     
     
   • Join in the AAU’s "Decoupling certification" experiment with certification of scholarly works by peer reviewers not tied to journal publication or transfer of copyright. (Copies distributed at the meeting.)
     
     
   • Update 1986 policy on reproduction of materials for teaching.
     
     
   • Outline principles for determining when material should be removed from UC networks because its posting infringes the rights of owners.

5. As a next step, it was agreed to examine the assumptions about the future that drive the copyright discussion. A framework statement should be developed under the rubric of: Technology, Law, and the Future of Scholarly Communication with four components:
   
   
   • Future models for scholarly communication (changes in the legal, technological, and business environments)
     
     
   • An educational program/community strategy to explain the "big picture"
     
     
   • Faculty issues (UC policy review focused on guidelines and rewards)
     
     
   • Copyright management (UC investment, classroom expression in the digital environment)

    

6. Working groups were established to develop initial statements on future models, faculty issues, and a community strategy by January 6. Consideration of copyright management will follow. Initial outlines for each topic were developed. Each group is to: (1) define the issue areas; (2) review existing policies for coverage of these areas; (3) propose guidelines; (4) propose strategic interventions. These early drafts should provide the basis for discussion within the task force and the larger community.
   
   Planning a community strategy: Michael Tanner (convenor), Terry Feuerborn, and Martha Winnacker. Product: Timeline and identification of key communications channels.
   
   Future models: Richard Lucier (convenor), Stuart Lynn, Pam Samuelson, Kevin Smith, Peter Berck. Product: Discussion draft
   
   Faculty issues: John Canny (convenor), Mary Corey, Irwin Sherman, Mark Rose, Jim Clark. Product: Discussion draft
   
   Copyright management: To be addressed after initial drafts are discussed.

7. Members of the task force who were absent should volunteer for a working group.