From BOSTON@macc.wisc.edu Fri Jul 24 10:48:10 1998 Date: Wed, 01 Jul 98 11:44 CST From: Jeanne Boston To: YANDELL@cs.wisc.edu, CNKIERGA@FACSTAFF.WISC.EDU, HENRY.CUTHBERT@MAIL.ADMIN.WISC.EDU Subject: DRAFT MINUTES--pls review Brian, Cleo, Henry Would you all review the following draft minutes and let me know if I misstated anything before I send them out to the list. Thanks!!! Jeanne 6/30/98 Minutes Electronic Dissertation Committee 6/30/98 Attending: Brian Yandell (chair), Cleo Kiergaard-Sorenson, Maggie Brandenburg, Erik Nordheim, Millard Susman, Dieter Zeppenfield, Jeanne Boston (notetaker) Guest: Henry Cuthbert, UW-Legal Affairs --Introductions and brief review of the project to date as a background for the next agenda item. This is a continuation of last meeting's discussion. Chronicle for Higher Education will publish interviews with various Journal editors as it relates to the Virginia Tech ETD project --Legal Issues Discussion --Two of the basic issues relate to copyright if already published and journals not accepting articles for publication if already on the WWW. Currently, the UW requires a dissertation to be published for graduation; this is defined as being sent to UMI. The committee is very concerned that the electronic publishing does not interfere with the student's ability to graduate Henry indicated that issue revolving around publication of the dissertation after a published journal article is one of contract law vs copyright. Most editors require an agreement in which further publication is prohibited or restricted. Students should make sure language allows for dissertation publication or non- exclusive rights to the material for the publisher. This is easier said than done. Any infringement needs to evaluated on case by case basis; not much case law to date. Publications of ideas and facts are not covered by copyright laws; expression of ideas (and facts) are protected by copyright. It was suggested that some draft language and stock phrasing be developed for use by students in modifying an agreement. This should be designed to help educate the students in signing publishing agreements or contracts. The discussion was focused on derivative works and does it matter to the percentage of the original work (70,80% as example). Henry said that this again went back to the contract law --what did the agreement that was signed allow. The other issue of Journals not accepting for publication works that have been published on the web needs short term and long term solutions/workarounds. Long term, critical mass of objections from the academic community and increase in online journals should result in a new publishing environment. Short term (2 to 5 years) is more problematic. Henry is going to look at language in the standard research contract to see if it can be made applicable to allow students to complete their degree; he will also contact his counterpart at Virginia Tech to find out more details of how they are handling the legal issues. Henry also stressed that the policies stay the same with electronic dissertations only the media changes. The paper flow allows for access to the work by the public. Dissertations are available via UMI or interlibrary loan. Restricting to campus reflects a change in policy would need to go to the appropriate committee. Limiting it to campus (restricting access) may make it more palatable to the vendor;but does not resolve the legal issues. The committee had looked at changing the wording to "deliver dissertation in proper format to Memorial Library" would not be of value --it is still publishing in the publishers view (for the short term). Henry felt that we needed to be creative in our own environment but understanding that we might be making a best guess until electronic publishing matures. Concerns on stealing research/ideas because of electronic publishing should be handled as with paper via the academic misconduct procedures. Copyright infringement or contract law problems between the student and the publisher are just that -- and the University legal services does not represent students. Conclusions from the discussion include educating students by developing training materials and brochures, grandfather clauses for students who have started thru their programs. It was also decided that we needed to wait for the Chronicle articles to be published and Henry to check with Virginia Tech. Henry has agreed to be a consultant to the committee and will attend further meetings. --Reaction to the WiscWorld article was mild; one student was interested in submitting with a multimedia format, the re-cycling folks on campus were happy at the thought of less paper. --At a subcommittee's recommendation, it was agreed that in the Fall, a presentation to the Deans/Directors council should be done, followed a technical demonstration by Peter and then later a followup meeting with the Deans/Directors to discuss it in more detail and answers any questions or concerns --The objective of the meeting with Executive Committee of the Graduate School was to discuss the changing of the wording of publishing at Memorial Library instead of UMI. But quickly other concerns/issues arose. This lead to the above recommendation. --The committee agreed to change our name to Electronic Theses and Dissertation Committee to be in sync with other initiatives and projects. From yandell@cs.wisc.edu Fri Jul 24 10:48:21 1998 Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 14:08:08 -0500 (CDT) From: Brian Yandell To: Jeanne Boston Cc: YANDELL@cs.wisc.edu, CNKIERGA@FACSTAFF.WISC.EDU, HENRY.CUTHBERT@MAIL.ADMIN.WISC.EDU Subject: Re: DRAFT MINUTES--pls review Jeanne, Looks very good! Just one paragraph that I would change. Thanks! Brian --The steering subcommittee (Cleo, Brian, Lou) suggested that in the Fall, a presentation to the Deans/Directors council should be done, probably preceded by a technical demonstration to the divisional Deans. Later a followup meeting with the Executive Committee of the Graduate School would address any questions or concerns. The intent is to educate the administration of the benefits, costs and uncertainties in this process, and to build consensus for the eventual shift from paper to electronics. On Wed, 1 Jul 1998, Jeanne Boston wrote: > Brian, Cleo, Henry > > Would you all review the following draft minutes and let me know > if I misstated anything before I send them out to the list. > > Thanks!!! > Jeanne > > 6/30/98 > > > Minutes > Electronic Dissertation Committee > 6/30/98 > > > Attending: Brian Yandell (chair), Cleo Kiergaard-Sorenson, > Maggie Brandenburg, Erik Nordheim, Millard Susman, Dieter > Zeppenfield, Jeanne Boston (notetaker) Guest: Henry Cuthbert, > UW-Legal Affairs > > > --Introductions and brief review of the project to date as a > background for the next agenda item. This is a continuation of > last meeting's discussion. > Chronicle for Higher Education will publish interviews with > various Journal editors as it relates to the Virginia Tech ETD > project > > --Legal Issues Discussion --Two of the basic issues relate to > copyright if already published and journals not accepting > articles for publication if already on the WWW. Currently, the > UW requires a dissertation to be published for graduation; this > is defined as being sent to UMI. The committee is very concerned > that the electronic publishing does not interfere with the > student's ability to graduate > Henry indicated that issue revolving around publication of the > dissertation after a published journal article is one of contract > law vs copyright. Most editors require an agreement in which > further publication is prohibited or restricted. Students should > make sure language allows for dissertation publication or non- > exclusive rights to the material for the publisher. This is > easier said than done. Any infringement needs to evaluated on > case by case basis; not much case law to date. Publications of > ideas and facts are not covered by copyright laws; expression of > ideas (and facts) are protected by copyright. > It was suggested that some draft language and stock phrasing > be developed for use by students in modifying an agreement. This > should be designed to help educate the students in signing > publishing agreements or contracts. > The discussion was focused on derivative works and does it > matter to the percentage of the original work (70,80% as > example). Henry said that this again went back to the contract > law --what did the agreement that was signed allow. > The other issue of Journals not accepting for publication > works that have been published on the web needs short term and > long term solutions/workarounds. Long term, critical mass of > objections from the academic community and increase in online > journals should result in a new publishing environment. Short > term (2 to 5 years) is more problematic. Henry is going to look > at language in the standard research contract to see if it can > be made applicable to allow students to complete their degree; he > will also contact his counterpart at Virginia Tech to find out > more details of how they are handling the legal issues. > Henry also stressed that the policies stay the same with > electronic dissertations only the media changes. The paper > flow allows for access to the work by the public. Dissertations > are available via UMI or interlibrary loan. Restricting to > campus reflects a change in policy would need to go to the > appropriate committee. Limiting it to campus (restricting > access) may make it more palatable to the vendor;but does not > resolve the legal issues. The committee had looked at changing > the wording to "deliver dissertation in proper format to Memorial > Library" would not be of value --it is still publishing in the > publishers view (for the short term). Henry felt that we needed > to be creative in our own environment but understanding that we > might be making a best guess until electronic publishing matures. > > Concerns on stealing research/ideas because of electronic > publishing should be handled as with paper via the academic > misconduct procedures. Copyright infringement or contract law > problems between the student and the publisher are just that -- > and the University legal services does not represent students. > Conclusions from the discussion include educating students by > developing training materials and brochures, grandfather clauses > for students who have started thru their programs. It was also > decided that we needed to wait for the Chronicle articles to be > published and Henry to check with Virginia Tech. > Henry has agreed to be a consultant to the committee and > will attend further meetings. > > --Reaction to the WiscWorld article was mild; one student was > interested in submitting with a multimedia format, the re-cycling > folks on campus were happy at the thought of less paper. > > --At a subcommittee's recommendation, it was agreed that in the > Fall, a presentation to the Deans/Directors council should be > done, followed a technical demonstration by Peter and then later > a followup meeting with the Deans/Directors to discuss it in more > detail and answers any questions or concerns > > --The objective of the meeting with Executive Committee of the > Graduate School was to discuss the changing of the wording of > publishing at Memorial Library instead of UMI. But quickly other > concerns/issues arose. This lead to the above recommendation. > > --The committee agreed to change our name to Electronic Theses > and Dissertation Committee to be in sync with other initiatives > and projects. > > > > > > > > >