may07c.indd


Andy Bridges W a s h i n g t o n  H o t l i n e  

E-reserves threatened at Cornell 
In April, the Association of American Pub­
lishers (AAP) contacted Cornell University, 
believing the school was infringing copyright 
and warning of possible litigation. AAP was 
particularly concerned that some faculty may 
be ignoring the need to seek permission for 
the use of protected works in digital formats 
when making them available via electronic 
reserve, or e­reserve. In response, Cornell 
drafted a new policy—“Cornell Electronic 
Course Content Copyright Guidelines”—to 
provide faculty with guidance on how to 
determine if copyright permission is re­
quired when posting course content (www. 
copyright.cornell.edu/policy/Copyright 
_Guidelines.pdf). 

Along with the course content document, 
Cornell also provided faculty with a modi­
fied version of Indiana University­Purdue 
University Indianapolis’s “Checklist for Fair 
Use,” titled “Checklist for Conducting a 
Fair Use Analysis Before Using Copyright 
Materials” (www.copyright.cornell.edu 
/policy/Fair_Use_Checklist.pdf) to help 
faculty apply the fair use exception. Neither 
of these recent documents address or revise 
Cornell’s existing library reserve policy. 

The two new documents are not a revi­
sion of copyright law, though, and should 
not be considered “safe harbors” or the new 
standard for colleges and universities. These 
new documents have not been endorsed 
by any educational or library associations; 
they are Cornell’s response to its own situ­
ation. Each institution should assess its own 
environment and consider if faculty need 
more information on copyright law, how 
it may or may not apply to both print and 
digital works, and how to apply fair use to 
determine if permission for the use of course 
content is required. Interestingly, we learned 
at the ACRL conference from Tracy Mitrano, 

Andy Bridges is communications specialist at ALA’s 
Washington Offi  ce, e-mail: abridges@alawash.org 

Cornell’s director of IT policy and of the 
computer policy and law program, that E­
reserve requests have dropped by 70 percent 
since the documents were made available to 
faculty, even though the library’s e­reserve 
policy was not modifi ed. 

Libraries have long provided access to 
materials selected by faculty that are required 
or recommended course readings in a desig­
nated area of the library, with materials avail­
able to students for a short loan period and 
perhaps with additional restrictions to ensure 
that all students have access to the material. 
Libraries have based these reserve reading 
room operations on the fair use provisions 
of the Copyright Law (Section 107). 

In the last 20 years, many libraries have 
introduced e­reserve systems to enhance ac­
cess to materials key to course curriculum. 
Enrolled student can now simultaneously 
access materials in the library or remotely. 
Students who wish to have a copy of the 
reading can print it from the e­reserves sys­
tems rather than having to take the original 
volume to a photocopy machine. 

As a result of the increase in licensed 
electronic resources, the percentage of 
print materials requested and digitized for 
e­reserves is diminishing since libraries can 
direct users to online database. E­reserves 
practices for these materials vary widely and 
are influenced by institutional organizational 
structures, the information and technology 
infrastructure, manpower, demand, and the 
copyright law. 

For information on course reserves and 
copyright, see “Applying Fair Use in the 
Development of E­Reserves Systems” at 
tinyurl.com/3c3r4r. 

If you want to talk with other librar­
ians about copyright and reserves, visit 
the Copyright Advisory Network at www. 
librarycopyright.net. Course reserves come 
up frequently in discussion and knowl­
edgeable copyright librarians can provide 
guidance. 

May 2007  317 C&RL News 

http:librarycopyright.net
mailto:abridges@alawash.org
http:www.copyright.cornell.edu