The Cost of Copyright Compliance in Further and Higher Education Institutions

Citation

Revill, D. (2002), "The Cost of Copyright Compliance in Further and Higher Education Institutions", New Library World, Vol. 103 No. 4/5, pp. 184-185. https://doi.org/10.1108/nlw.2002.103.4_5.184.2

These “survey” results are based on a census of all higher education institutions in the UK (some 168), all colleges of further education in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and half of those in England using the Higher Education Statistics Agency’s listings and those of BUBL for FE colleges (299 colleges). A total of 48 per cent of HE and 25 per cent of colleges responded, giving a somewhat disappointing overall response rate of 33 per cent. This probably reflects the fact that copyright seems not to have a high profile in most educational establishments. It tends to be seen as a distracting problem. The questionnaire was addressed to the librarian. The survey found that only 22 per cent of HE and 7 per cent of FE colleges had copyright officers “which suggests that responsibility for copyright is far from centralised” (p. 13).

Some of the questions were found to be “complicated and difficult to complete” (p. 4). For example, the question: “Are clearance costs recovered by the sale of study packs?” might, to an outsider, appear simple, but with responsibility so dispersed one might well need a thorough internal survey of every member of academic staff to discover anything like the truth of the matter.

On study packs, the report’s discussion and conclusions note that many found “the process difficult to understand and time consuming” (p. 20). Licensing agencies seem unaware that academic staff may not have, or may not plan to have, the several months preparation time necessary to get clearances for all the items they wish to reproduce. Indeed, seldom is one able to clear all the items wanted and then the rest might be at an unacceptable price given student numbers (which are not necessarily known in advance) on some modules. So there are at least three difficulties per attempt. No wonder many academics abandon efforts and do not try again. The study did mention resistance to securing clearance for study packs in some instances (p. 9)[1].

Although reported spending on copyright in general did not amount to even 1 per cent of institutional expenditure (even though the CLA licence costs an average of some £30,000 per university), and therefore persuades managements that it is not an important issue, this is not to say that copyright costs them less than 1 per cent. If HE institutions in particular were to explore the full costs to them of not retaining copyright for their research and scholarly articles, the costs of buying back academics’ efforts in the form of periodicals, the costs of having to recreate, reinvent, items that otherwise they might be able to obtain and adapt from elsewhere, they might find the loss of value to them to be vastly greater. Some respondents mentioned such matters. It is estimated that at least £5.6 millions in direct and indirect costs can be attributed to copyright in the UK educational sector (p. 16).

There is a discussion on cost recovery. No one could really say whether they recover in full or part – probably because they do not know what the full costs are. This issue exemplifies both sectors’ inability to cost operations except on a very broad, gross, level. As the authors observe: “There are issues in terms of the general point regarding the capacity and willingness of managers to quantify operational inputs accurately … ” (p. 16). The survey did find that 33 per cent of HE institutions did charge or “sometimes” charge for study packs. In both sectors, 20 per cent were not sure. This also raises the difficulty in defining what course fees cover and what is legitimately seen as extras charged to the student.

The conclusions are fair and include pleas for a greater awareness of copyright costs and its possibilities and for putting copyright on a formal basis as a management issue (p. 21). There is also a plea for simplification, uniformity and a better relationship between the parties involved. The devil is always in the detail. One can hardly blame academic staff for avoiding the issues and pointing students to the photocopier instead. The survey did not go into who actually pays for the licences and whether, if they are not charged to the library’s materials budget, they affect, or do not affect, this budget even if only subtly and perhaps in unacknowledged ways.

It is an interesting publication yet a partial one. Perhaps we should not be too worried about the response rate but, to this reviewer, it does not sufficiently cover the subtleties in the relationships and the costs involved, and who bears them. For most readers it will not tell them much that they did not already know. There may be some uses for it in raising issues internally and making managements take the problems more seriously as, it would appear, the Americans do (Lee, 2000).

Note

1. 1.

   1 The Copyright Tribunal ruling of 13 December 2001 has changed the requirement to seek approval.