Search

Objective–The aim of this study is to update our understanding of how Canadian post-secondary institutions address copyright education, management, and policy matters since our last survey conducted in 2015. Through the new survey, we seek to shed further light on what is known about post-secondary educational copying and contribute to filling some knowledge gaps such as those identified in the 2017 statutory review of the Canadian Copyright Act.Methods–In early 2020, a survey invitation was sent to the person or office responsible for oversight of copyright matters at member institutions of five Canadian regional academic library consortia. The study methods used were largely the same as those employed in our 2015 survey on copyright practices of Canadian universities. Results–In 2020, respondents were fewer in number but represented a wider variety of types of post-secondary institutions. In general, responsibility for copyright services and management decisions seemed to be concentrated in the library or copyright office. Topics covered and methods used in copyright education remained relatively unchanged, as did issues addressed in copyright policies. Areas reflecting some changes included blanket collective licensing, the extent of executive responsibility for copyright, and approaches to copyright education. At most participating institutions, fewer than two staff were involved in copyright services and library licenses were the permissions source most frequently relied on “very often.” Few responded to questions on the use of specialized permissions management tools and compliance monitoring.Conclusion–Copyright practices and policies at post-secondary institutionswill continue to evolve and respond to changes in case law, legislation, pedagogical approaches, and students’ learning needs. The recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling on approved copying tariffs and fair dealing provides some clarity to educational institutions regarding options for managing copyr

This session will share results of a Spring 2020 survey that follows up on our 2015 survey of copyright practices at Canadian universities. The new survey expanded the scope of participants to include a somewhat broader range of post-secondary institutions. The aim is to provide an update on how Canadian post-secondary institutions address copyright education, management, and policy matters. We hope to shed light on some gaps in what is known about educational copying in the Canadian post-secondary education sector. These may include gaps identified in the 2019 INDU report on the statutory review of the Copyright Act.

Objective–The aim of this study is to update our understanding of how Canadian post-secondary institutions address copyright education, management, and policy matters since our last survey conducted in 2015. Through the new survey, we seek to shed further light on what is known about post-secondary educational copying and contribute to filling some knowledge gaps such as those identified in the 2017 statutory review of the Canadian Copyright Act.Methods–In early 2020, a survey invitation was sent to the person or office responsible for oversight of copyright matters at member institutions of five Canadian regional academic library consortia. The study methods used were largely the same as those employed in our 2015 survey on copyright practices of Canadian universities. Results–In 2020, respondents were fewer in number but represented a wider variety of types of post-secondary institutions. In general, responsibility for copyright services and management decisions seemed to be concentrated in the library or copyright office. Topics covered and methods used in copyright education remained relatively unchanged, as did issues addressed in copyright policies. Areas reflecting some changes included blanket collective licensing, the extent of executive responsibility for copyright, and approaches to copyright education. At most participating institutions, fewer than two staff were involved in copyright services and library licenses were the permissions source most frequently relied on “very often.” Few responded to questions on the use of specialized permissions management tools and compliance monitoring.Conclusion–Copyright practices and policies at post-secondary institutionswill continue to evolve and respond to changes in case law, legislation, pedagogical approaches, and students’ learning needs. The recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling on approved copying tariffs and fair dealing provides some clarity to educational institutions regarding options for managing copyr

Objective–The aim of this study is to update our understanding of how Canadian post-secondary institutions address copyright education, management, and policy matters since our last survey conducted in 2015. Through the new survey, we seek to shed further light on what is known about post-secondary educational copying and contribute to filling some knowledge gaps such as those identified in the 2017 statutory review of the Canadian Copyright Act.Methods–In early 2020, a survey invitation was sent to the person or office responsible for oversight of copyright matters at member institutions of five Canadian regional academic library consortia. The study methods used were largely the same as those employed in our 2015 survey on copyright practices of Canadian universities. Results–In 2020, respondents were fewer in number but represented a wider variety of types of post-secondary institutions. In general, responsibility for copyright services and management decisions seemed to be concentrated in the library or copyright office. Topics covered and methods used in copyright education remained relatively unchanged, as did issues addressed in copyright policies. Areas reflecting some changes included blanket collective licensing, the extent of executive responsibility for copyright, and approaches to copyright education. At most participating institutions, fewer than two staff were involved in copyright services and library licenses were the permissions source most frequently relied on “very often.” Few responded to questions on the use of specialized permissions management tools and compliance monitoring.Conclusion–Copyright practices and policies at post-secondary institutionswill continue to evolve and respond to changes in case law, legislation, pedagogical approaches, and students’ learning needs. The recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling on approved copying tariffs and fair dealing provides some clarity to educational institutions regarding options for managing copyr

This session will share results of a Spring 2020 survey that follows up on our 2015 survey of copyright practices at Canadian universities. The new survey expanded the scope of participants to include a somewhat broader range of post-secondary institutions. The aim is to provide an update on how Canadian post-secondary institutions address copyright education, management, and policy matters. We hope to shed light on some gaps in what is known about educational copying in the Canadian post-secondary education sector. These may include gaps identified in the 2019 INDU report on the statutory review of the Copyright Act.

This session will share results of a Spring 2020 survey that follows up on our 2015 survey of copyright practices at Canadian universities. The new survey expanded the scope of participants to include a somewhat broader range of post-secondary institutions. The aim is to provide an update on how Canadian post-secondary institutions address copyright education, management, and policy matters. We hope to shed light on some gaps in what is known about educational copying in the Canadian post-secondary education sector. These may include gaps identified in the 2019 INDU report on the statutory review of the Copyright Act.

Objective–The aim of this study is to update our understanding of how Canadian post-secondary institutions address copyright education, management, and policy matters since our last survey conducted in 2015. Through the new survey, we seek to shed further light on what is known about post-secondary educational copying and contribute to filling some knowledge gaps such as those identified in the 2017 statutory review of the Canadian Copyright Act.Methods–In early 2020, a survey invitation was sent to the person or office responsible for oversight of copyright matters at member institutions of five Canadian regional academic library consortia. The study methods used were largely the same as those employed in our 2015 survey on copyright practices of Canadian universities. Results–In 2020, respondents were fewer in number but represented a wider variety of types of post-secondary institutions. In general, responsibility for copyright services and management decisions seemed to be concentrated in the library or copyright office. Topics covered and methods used in copyright education remained relatively unchanged, as did issues addressed in copyright policies. Areas reflecting some changes included blanket collective licensing, the extent of executive responsibility for copyright, and approaches to copyright education. At most participating institutions, fewer than two staff were involved in copyright services and library licenses were the permissions source most frequently relied on “very often.” Few responded to questions on the use of specialized permissions management tools and compliance monitoring.Conclusion–Copyright practices and policies at post-secondary institutionswill continue to evolve and respond to changes in case law, legislation, pedagogical approaches, and students’ learning needs. The recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling on approved copying tariffs and fair dealing provides some clarity to educational institutions regarding options for managing copyr

This session will share results of a Spring 2020 survey that follows up on our 2015 survey of copyright practices at Canadian universities. The new survey expanded the scope of participants to include a somewhat broader range of post-secondary institutions. The aim is to provide an update on how Canadian post-secondary institutions address copyright education, management, and policy matters. We hope to shed light on some gaps in what is known about educational copying in the Canadian post-secondary education sector. These may include gaps identified in the 2019 INDU report on the statutory review of the Copyright Act.

Objective–The aim of this study is to update our understanding of how Canadian post-secondary institutions address copyright education, management, and policy matters since our last survey conducted in 2015. Through the new survey, we seek to shed further light on what is known about post-secondary educational copying and contribute to filling some knowledge gaps such as those identified in the 2017 statutory review of the Canadian Copyright Act.Methods–In early 2020, a survey invitation was sent to the person or office responsible for oversight of copyright matters at member institutions of five Canadian regional academic library consortia. The study methods used were largely the same as those employed in our 2015 survey on copyright practices of Canadian universities. Results–In 2020, respondents were fewer in number but represented a wider variety of types of post-secondary institutions. In general, responsibility for copyright services and management decisions seemed to be concentrated in the library or copyright office. Topics covered and methods used in copyright education remained relatively unchanged, as did issues addressed in copyright policies. Areas reflecting some changes included blanket collective licensing, the extent of executive responsibility for copyright, and approaches to copyright education. At most participating institutions, fewer than two staff were involved in copyright services and library licenses were the permissions source most frequently relied on “very often.” Few responded to questions on the use of specialized permissions management tools and compliance monitoring.Conclusion–Copyright practices and policies at post-secondary institutionswill continue to evolve and respond to changes in case law, legislation, pedagogical approaches, and students’ learning needs. The recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling on approved copying tariffs and fair dealing provides some clarity to educational institutions regarding options for managing copyr

This session will share results of a Spring 2020 survey that follows up on our 2015 survey of copyright practices at Canadian universities. The new survey expanded the scope of participants to include a somewhat broader range of post-secondary institutions. The aim is to provide an update on how Canadian post-secondary institutions address copyright education, management, and policy matters. We hope to shed light on some gaps in what is known about educational copying in the Canadian post-secondary education sector. These may include gaps identified in the 2019 INDU report on the statutory review of the Copyright Act.

Objective–The aim of this study is to update our understanding of how Canadian post-secondary institutions address copyright education, management, and policy matters since our last survey conducted in 2015. Through the new survey, we seek to shed further light on what is known about post-secondary educational copying and contribute to filling some knowledge gaps such as those identified in the 2017 statutory review of the Canadian Copyright Act.Methods–In early 2020, a survey invitation was sent to the person or office responsible for oversight of copyright matters at member institutions of five Canadian regional academic library consortia. The study methods used were largely the same as those employed in our 2015 survey on copyright practices of Canadian universities. Results–In 2020, respondents were fewer in number but represented a wider variety of types of post-secondary institutions. In general, responsibility for copyright services and management decisions seemed to be concentrated in the library or copyright office. Topics covered and methods used in copyright education remained relatively unchanged, as did issues addressed in copyright policies. Areas reflecting some changes included blanket collective licensing, the extent of executive responsibility for copyright, and approaches to copyright education. At most participating institutions, fewer than two staff were involved in copyright services and library licenses were the permissions source most frequently relied on “very often.” Few responded to questions on the use of specialized permissions management tools and compliance monitoring.Conclusion–Copyright practices and policies at post-secondary institutionswill continue to evolve and respond to changes in case law, legislation, pedagogical approaches, and students’ learning needs. The recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling on approved copying tariffs and fair dealing provides some clarity to educational institutions regarding options for managing copyr

This session will share results of a Spring 2020 survey that follows up on our 2015 survey of copyright practices at Canadian universities. The new survey expanded the scope of participants to include a somewhat broader range of post-secondary institutions. The aim is to provide an update on how Canadian post-secondary institutions address copyright education, management, and policy matters. We hope to shed light on some gaps in what is known about educational copying in the Canadian post-secondary education sector. These may include gaps identified in the 2019 INDU report on the statutory review of the Copyright Act.

Objective – The purpose of this study is to understand the practices and approaches followed by Canadian universities in copyright education, permissions clearance, and policy development in light of major changes to Canadian copyright law that occurred in mid-2012. The study also seeks to identify aspects of copyright management perceived by the universities to be challenging. Methods – In 2015, an invitation to complete an online survey on institutional copyright practices was sent to the senior administrator at member libraries of Canada’s four regional academic library consortia. The invitation requested completion of the survey by the person best suited to respond on behalf of the institution. Study methods were largely adapted from those used in a 2008 survey conducted by another researcher who targeted members of same library consortia. Results – While the university library maintained its leadership role in copyright matters across the institution, the majority of responding institutions had delegated responsibility for copyright to a position or office explicitly labeled copyright. In contrast, respondents to the 2008 survey most often held the position of senior library administrator. Blanket licensing was an accepted approach to managing copyright across Canadian universities in 2008, but by 2015 it had become a live issue, with roughly half of the respondents indicating their institutions had terminated or were planning to terminate their blanket license. Conclusion – In just seven years we have witnessed a significant increase in specialized attention paid to copyright on Canadian university campuses and in the breadth of resources dedicated to helping the university community understand, comply with, and exercise various provisions under Canadian copyright law, which include rights for creators and users.

Objective – The purpose of this study is to understand the practices and approaches followed by Canadian universities in copyright education, permissions clearance, and policy development in light of major changes to Canadian copyright law that occurred in mid-2012. The study also seeks to identify aspects of copyright management perceived by the universities to be challenging. Methods – In 2015, an invitation to complete an online survey on institutional copyright practices was sent to the senior administrator at member libraries of Canada’s four regional academic library consortia. The invitation requested completion of the survey by the person best suited to respond on behalf of the institution. Study methods were largely adapted from those used in a 2008 survey conducted by another researcher who targeted members of same library consortia. Results – While the university library maintained its leadership role in copyright matters across the institution, the majority of responding institutions had delegated responsibility for copyright to a position or office explicitly labeled copyright. In contrast, respondents to the 2008 survey most often held the position of senior library administrator. Blanket licensing was an accepted approach to managing copyright across Canadian universities in 2008, but by 2015 it had become a live issue, with roughly half of the respondents indicating their institutions had terminated or were planning to terminate their blanket license. Conclusion – In just seven years we have witnessed a significant increase in specialized attention paid to copyright on Canadian university campuses and in the breadth of resources dedicated to helping the university community understand, comply with, and exercise various provisions under Canadian copyright law, which include rights for creators and users.

Objective – The purpose of this study is to understand the practices and approaches followed by Canadian universities in copyright education, permissions clearance, and policy development in light of major changes to Canadian copyright law that occurred in mid-2012. The study also seeks to identify aspects of copyright management perceived by the universities to be challenging. Methods – In 2015, an invitation to complete an online survey on institutional copyright practices was sent to the senior administrator at member libraries of Canada’s four regional academic library consortia. The invitation requested completion of the survey by the person best suited to respond on behalf of the institution. Study methods were largely adapted from those used in a 2008 survey conducted by another researcher who targeted members of same library consortia. Results – While the university library maintained its leadership role in copyright matters across the institution, the majority of responding institutions had delegated responsibility for copyright to a position or office explicitly labeled copyright. In contrast, respondents to the 2008 survey most often held the position of senior library administrator. Blanket licensing was an accepted approach to managing copyright across Canadian universities in 2008, but by 2015 it had become a live issue, with roughly half of the respondents indicating their institutions had terminated or were planning to terminate their blanket license. Conclusion – In just seven years we have witnessed a significant increase in specialized attention paid to copyright on Canadian university campuses and in the breadth of resources dedicated to helping the university community understand, comply with, and exercise various provisions under Canadian copyright law, which include rights for creators and users.

Objective – The purpose of this study is to understand the practices and approaches followed by Canadian universities in copyright education, permissions clearance, and policy development in light of major changes to Canadian copyright law that occurred in mid-2012. The study also seeks to identify aspects of copyright management perceived by the universities to be challenging. Methods – In 2015, an invitation to complete an online survey on institutional copyright practices was sent to the senior administrator at member libraries of Canada’s four regional academic library consortia. The invitation requested completion of the survey by the person best suited to respond on behalf of the institution. Study methods were largely adapted from those used in a 2008 survey conducted by another researcher who targeted members of same library consortia. Results – While the university library maintained its leadership role in copyright matters across the institution, the majority of responding institutions had delegated responsibility for copyright to a position or office explicitly labeled copyright. In contrast, respondents to the 2008 survey most often held the position of senior library administrator. Blanket licensing was an accepted approach to managing copyright across Canadian universities in 2008, but by 2015 it had become a live issue, with roughly half of the respondents indicating their institutions had terminated or were planning to terminate their blanket license. Conclusion – In just seven years we have witnessed a significant increase in specialized attention paid to copyright on Canadian university campuses and in the breadth of resources dedicated to helping the university community understand, comply with, and exercise various provisions under Canadian copyright law, which include rights for creators and users.

Objective – The purpose of this study is to understand the practices and approaches followed by Canadian universities in copyright education, permissions clearance, and policy development in light of major changes to Canadian copyright law that occurred in mid-2012. The study also seeks to identify aspects of copyright management perceived by the universities to be challenging. Methods – In 2015, an invitation to complete an online survey on institutional copyright practices was sent to the senior administrator at member libraries of Canada’s four regional academic library consortia. The invitation requested completion of the survey by the person best suited to respond on behalf of the institution. Study methods were largely adapted from those used in a 2008 survey conducted by another researcher who targeted members of same library consortia. Results – While the university library maintained its leadership role in copyright matters across the institution, the majority of responding institutions had delegated responsibility for copyright to a position or office explicitly labeled copyright. In contrast, respondents to the 2008 survey most often held the position of senior library administrator. Blanket licensing was an accepted approach to managing copyright across Canadian universities in 2008, but by 2015 it had become a live issue, with roughly half of the respondents indicating their institutions had terminated or were planning to terminate their blanket license. Conclusion – In just seven years we have witnessed a significant increase in specialized attention paid to copyright on Canadian university campuses and in the breadth of resources dedicated to helping the university community understand, comply with, and exercise various provisions under Canadian copyright law, which include rights for creators and users.

Objective – The purpose of this study is to understand the practices and approaches followed by Canadian universities in copyright education, permissions clearance, and policy development in light of major changes to Canadian copyright law that occurred in mid-2012. The study also seeks to identify aspects of copyright management perceived by the universities to be challenging. Methods – In 2015, an invitation to complete an online survey on institutional copyright practices was sent to the senior administrator at member libraries of Canada’s four regional academic library consortia. The invitation requested completion of the survey by the person best suited to respond on behalf of the institution. Study methods were largely adapted from those used in a 2008 survey conducted by another researcher who targeted members of same library consortia. Results – While the university library maintained its leadership role in copyright matters across the institution, the majority of responding institutions had delegated responsibility for copyright to a position or office explicitly labeled copyright. In contrast, respondents to the 2008 survey most often held the position of senior library administrator. Blanket licensing was an accepted approach to managing copyright across Canadian universities in 2008, but by 2015 it had become a live issue, with roughly half of the respondents indicating their institutions had terminated or were planning to terminate their blanket license. Conclusion – In just seven years we have witnessed a significant increase in specialized attention paid to copyright on Canadian university campuses and in the breadth of resources dedicated to helping the university community understand, comply with, and exercise various provisions under Canadian copyright law, which include rights for creators and users.

This session [jointly presented by R. Graham and C. Winters] describes findings of a 2015 national survey of copyright practices and approaches at Canadian universities. It takes a look at what appears to have changed in the areas of copyright education, permissions management and policy development since 2008 when a similar survey was conducted by a different research team.

This session [jointly presented by R. Graham and C. Winters] describes findings of a 2015 national survey of copyright practices and approaches at Canadian universities. It takes a look at what appears to have changed in the areas of copyright education, permissions management and policy development since 2008 when a similar survey was conducted by a different research team.

This session [jointly presented by R. Graham and C. Winters] describes findings of a 2015 national survey of copyright practices and approaches at Canadian universities. It takes a look at what appears to have changed in the areas of copyright education, permissions management and policy development since 2008 when a similar survey was conducted by a different research team.

This session [jointly presented by R. Graham and C. Winters] describes findings of a 2015 national survey of copyright practices and approaches at Canadian universities. It takes a look at what appears to have changed in the areas of copyright education, permissions management and policy development since 2008 when a similar survey was conducted by a different research team.

This session [jointly presented by R. Graham and C. Winters] describes findings of a 2015 national survey of copyright practices and approaches at Canadian universities. It takes a look at what appears to have changed in the areas of copyright education, permissions management and policy development since 2008 when a similar survey was conducted by a different research team.

This session [jointly presented by R. Graham and C. Winters] describes findings of a 2015 national survey of copyright practices and approaches at Canadian universities. It takes a look at what appears to have changed in the areas of copyright education, permissions management and policy development since 2008 when a similar survey was conducted by a different research team.

The Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries (COPPUL) Scholarly Communications Working Group (SCWG) surveyed COPPUL member libraries with a short questionnaire in November 2012. The stated purpose of the survey was to inform both the educational efforts of COPPUL with regard to scholarly communications, as well as the agenda of a proposed meeting of scholarly communication practitioners in COPPUL libraries. This paper discusses the results in the context of the formation of a Community of Practice (CoP) since conducting the survey. The paper concludes that a CoP has not yet formed; however, it presents the challenges with the formation of the CoP, identifies some of the actions taken so far, and makes recommendations for future direction for continuing to develop the CoP among COPPUL institutions.

The Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries (COPPUL) Scholarly Communications Working Group (SCWG) surveyed COPPUL member libraries with a short questionnaire in November 2012. The stated purpose of the survey was to inform both the educational efforts of COPPUL with regard to scholarly communications, as well as the agenda of a proposed meeting of scholarly communication practitioners in COPPUL libraries. This paper discusses the results in the context of the formation of a Community of Practice (CoP) since conducting the survey. The paper concludes that a CoP has not yet formed; however, it presents the challenges with the formation of the CoP, identifies some of the actions taken so far, and makes recommendations for future direction for continuing to develop the CoP among COPPUL institutions.

The Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries (COPPUL) Scholarly Communications Working Group (SCWG) surveyed COPPUL member libraries with a short questionnaire in November 2012. The stated purpose of the survey was to inform both the educational efforts of COPPUL with regard to scholarly communications, as well as the agenda of a proposed meeting of scholarly communication practitioners in COPPUL libraries. This paper discusses the results in the context of the formation of a Community of Practice (CoP) since conducting the survey. The paper concludes that a CoP has not yet formed; however, it presents the challenges with the formation of the CoP, identifies some of the actions taken so far, and makes recommendations for future direction for continuing to develop the CoP among COPPUL institutions.

The Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries (COPPUL) Scholarly Communications Working Group (SCWG) surveyed COPPUL member libraries with a short questionnaire in November 2012. The stated purpose of the survey was to inform both the educational efforts of COPPUL with regard to scholarly communications, as well as the agenda of a proposed meeting of scholarly communication practitioners in COPPUL libraries. This paper discusses the results in the context of the formation of a Community of Practice (CoP) since conducting the survey. The paper concludes that a CoP has not yet formed; however, it presents the challenges with the formation of the CoP, identifies some of the actions taken so far, and makes recommendations for future direction for continuing to develop the CoP among COPPUL institutions.

The Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries (COPPUL) Scholarly Communications Working Group (SCWG) surveyed COPPUL member libraries with a short questionnaire in November 2012. The stated purpose of the survey was to inform both the educational efforts of COPPUL with regard to scholarly communications, as well as the agenda of a proposed meeting of scholarly communication practitioners in COPPUL libraries. This paper discusses the results in the context of the formation of a Community of Practice (CoP) since conducting the survey. The paper concludes that a CoP has not yet formed; however, it presents the challenges with the formation of the CoP, identifies some of the actions taken so far, and makes recommendations for future direction for continuing to develop the CoP among COPPUL institutions.

The Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries (COPPUL) Scholarly Communications Working Group (SCWG) surveyed COPPUL member libraries with a short questionnaire in November 2012. The stated purpose of the survey was to inform both the educational efforts of COPPUL with regard to scholarly communications, as well as the agenda of a proposed meeting of scholarly communication practitioners in COPPUL libraries. This paper discusses the results in the context of the formation of a Community of Practice (CoP) since conducting the survey. The paper concludes that a CoP has not yet formed; however, it presents the challenges with the formation of the CoP, identifies some of the actions taken so far, and makes recommendations for future direction for continuing to develop the CoP among COPPUL institutions.