Law Librarian Blog

Preteens Like eBooks (and some of them will be applying to law school in about ten years)

According to recent surveys connduct by RR Bowker’s PubTrack Consumer in October and November of last year, preteens find eBooks "fun and cool." Apparently, some are introducted to eBooks in the home when their parents hand down their eReaders after they upgrade to new ones. Unlike teenagers surveyed, preteens are not as concerned about the restrictions on sharing digital content or on e-Books not being a social technology. For a recap of the survey results, see paidContent's Laura Hazard Owen report, New Stats: Kids Find E-Books ‘Fun And Cool,’ But Teens Are Still Reluctant.

One should also note that preteens are more likely to be exposed to enhanced e-textbooks than any other pre-college age group because the interactivity and multimedia being embedded in enhanced e-textbooks for grade schoolers improves the learning process. No doubt this will have a trickle up effect all the way to enhanced law eBooks used in legal education. Apparently, TR Legal doesn't want to take a long-term perspective on the law school publishing market.

TR Legal did make a stab at offering some unenhanced law school eBooks to students by way of law library purchasing last year. My understanding is that it was a flop because the cost to academic law libraries approached the prices some (many, most, all?) paid for Weslaw. Oops. Haven't the gurus in the Land of 10,000 licenses who are running TR Legal into the ground heard about academic law library budget cutbacks yet? My bad, it's all about the "guaranteed revenue stream" at TR Legal. Just keep repeating that mantra as if it is working as well as now as it formerly did before the recession. 

Whoa. Any chance TR Legal wants to unload its current law school publishing assets now and then use the proceeds to develop a new product line of enhanced law school eBooks that could be launched in several years? Perhaps we will be seeing student editions of practitioner-focused ProView-ed editions in the not too distant future. Pure speculation on my part but when one can't trust what a legal publisher like TR Legal says, such speculation is warranted. Potential buyers of TR Legal's academic legal publishing assets, if there are any, beware. [JH] 

Robert Hu Elected to the American Law Institute

Quoting from the ALI's Membership Overview page:

To further its law-reform work, the Institute seeks individuals who reflect the excellence and diversity of today's legal profession. ALI membership is a distinct professional honor, and the number that can be admitted is limited to 3000 (not including life, honorary, and ex-officio members).

Our elected membership consists of eminent judges, lawyers, and law professors from all areas of the United States and from many foreign countries, selected on the basis of professional achievement and demonstrated interest in improving the law.

Recently ALI announced the names of 52 newly elected members, including Robert Hu, Professor of Law and Director of the Sarita Kenedy East Law Library at St Mary's University School of Law. Congratulations! [JH]

Right-sizing Academic Law Library Print Collections in and for the 21st Century: Cornell substituting print with digital like "all other top law schools are doing" but consequences need to be addressed

Most every academic law library director knows that when their institutions need more space, the law library's big footprint on the blueprint becomes an attractive target for a land grab. Law firm directors too. At least since the hiring boom of the 1990s, many firms have cut back firm library square footage to build new offices. One could argue the case that is why private sector electronic information budget spend increased proportionately higher than print info budget spend a decade ago and has continued to escalate.

Law firms led the way. Commercial leasing costs for increasing space was trumped by e-spend increases but that was back in the bill-back to client days. The new normal is for clients to view e-spending as law firm overhead (like p-spending for a law library collection was). Eventually, no client will pay for firm e-research spending. But I digress... . However, law firm e-spending is a leading indicator of where all law libraries are heading. Government and academic e-spend as a percentage of total information budget spending has reached record highs according to a recent survey of AALL reporting libraries. In terms of academic law libraries, reported e-information spend is largely based on virtual wholesale pricing for WEXIS and some other commerical vendors for near "total package" offerings. Imagine what it would be if academic law libraries had to face pricing options offered in the private and public sectors.

Substituting commercial e-Law access for law library square footage. At one time, the academic land grap of library space was fairly small ... a study room here, a nook there. No longer. A case in point is Cornell. Cornell Law School is enacting a three phrase renovation and expansion construction plan that will cost between $55 and $60 million. The project will be completed by 2014 at the earliest. Student, faculty, administrative and academic program spaces will be constructed. The law school's dorm will be re-purposed. Most of the Cornell Law Library's stacks on the bottom five floors of Myron Taylor Hall will be removed to accommodate other space needs.

About the law library, The Cornell Daily Sun quotes Law Dean Stewart Schwab: “As the world goes digital, libraries everywhere, including here, are replacing print collections with digital ones in order to reallocate space. Frankly, all other top law schools are doing this as well.” Indeed that is the case with respect to major (and minor) law school libraries. It's the Shed West Era. Who really needs print reporters, digests, Shepard's, legal encyclopedic sets, law reviews, federal and state statutory and administrative codes in print anymore? In the context of academic law libraries, why maintain lightly used practice-oriented sets of BNA, CCH and Matthew Bender loose-leafs in print?

The difference between academic libraries, particularly ones which other law librarians hold an antiquated tradition-bound perception that assumes our "great academic law libraries" will provide extensive research collections, and law firm libraries is the 21st century transformation of academic law library collection development mission statements. Academic law libraries are becoming just as insititional user focused as law firm and corporate legal department libraries have always been. Today the legal academy defines its user "community" much more narrowly. In The Cornell Daily Sun story Cornell Law Library director, Femi Cadmus, is quoted: "Both print and digital collections, important to the research and scholarship of our faculty and students, will continue to be maintained." In and of itself, I find this to be appropriate objective and not a radical departure in academic law librarianship as practice today, so no criticism of Cornell is intended or implied. However big-picture consequences do need to be addressed.

While many major (and smaller) academic law library collection development practices, if not official policies, can be viewed as format neutral, the reality is that many decisions are being made on the basis of whether or not the resource is available on WEXIS, HeinOnline and other e-vendors. Due to print price inflation vis-a-vis virtual wholesale pricing for WEXIS online, for example, one can expect more and more secondary titles to fall into this cancel-print-and-substitute-WEXIS-access decision. This has sometime been called the "law library without walls" approach. However, in many instances, there is the invisible wall of license-restricted access only to institutional users. What about the 21st century equivalent to good old interlibrary loan, namely document delivery fulfillment by way of a fair use provision in e-licensing?

Consequences: we are all pirates now. Aargh, a case in point. In response to an out-of-state public law library request for a practice-oriented overview on an Ohio state law topic, I downloaded and emailed my colleague a section of a Matthew Bender Ohio secondary resource we have on Lexis in both or user account and patron access plans (so sue me Lexis, if you think I violated our license; ah ... well, it is very rare indeed that I do any "ILL" work). In the good old days, we would have photocopied and mailed or faxed the material if we had it on our shelves. Those good old days are history.

(Note to Lexis: we have two copies of the title on our shelf but, you know what, when this aging and decrepit law library director is filling in for other staff, I'm not wasting my time to photocopy and fax p-text because I have to review my annual renewal notices. Note to readers: I didn't check my Lexis licenses to see if the Company accommodates "fair use;" perhaps it does. Note to self: Am I publishing this adverse interest admission today because it is just ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday weekend and I am hoping that Lexis forgets it next week? Plus I am taking today off as vacation time to extend the holiday weekend. Oops, my bad, some Lexis senior executives and my Lexis online and print account managers know how to contact me at home. Wendy and Jen, hope you enjoy Thanksgiving! Please note, I haven't shown my staff how to download multiple sections of an online title in one click but that doesn't mean they don't know how to do it. Loop back up to how we have two print copies of the title on our shelves for text I "ILL-ed" in 21st century.)

The notion that major academic law libraries are supposed to maintain the greatest print collections accessible to all researchers does not reflect the realities of the 21st century now and that will probably most certainly increase in the near future to encompass more substitute e- for p- secondary materials. Think possible eBook licensing restrictions. Yes, I know many current law library patrons inside and outside the legal academy don't like law eBooks but two factors will change that: (1) enhanced law eBooks, when they come to market in mass, will convert some users and (2) more importantly, generational shift from a user population that has not be exposed to enhanced eBooks to one that has been exposed to enhanced e-textbooks in grade and high school will change user attitudes.

Earlier this year, the Cornell Library System announced that it was rejecting all NDAs in publisher and vendor agreements because "an open market will result in better licensing terms." Perhaps Cornell will take the next step by insisting on a fair use provision in all e-licensing. Someone has to. [JH]

Palfrey Appointed Headmaster of Phillips Academy (Updated)

John G. Palfrey Jr., Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law and Vice Dean for Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School, has been named the 15th Head of School of Phillips Academy. According to the press release, he will begin his new appointment in July 2012. See also the HLS announcement and coverage in the Boston Globe.

Update: From a recent post to the dpla-discussion list

We wanted to let you know about a change in John Palfrey's professional life that you may read about.  John is becoming the head of school at Phillips Academy in Andover, MA.  His agreement with Andover includes a written commitment to continuing to chair the DPLA's steering committee and supporting the work of our initiative through the Berkman Center's secretariat.  DPLA will be adding a further sensibility toward K-12 issues to the project through John’s change in day-job, which will take effect next summer (July, 2012).  Please feel free to contact either of us if you have any questions.

We look forward to continuing to work with all of you toward this important public-spirited goal.  (And we look forward to seeing some of you in LA for the public librarians' gathering about digitization efforts, too.)

Best,

Doron Weber, Vice Chair
John Palfrey, Chair
of the DPLA Steering Committee

Granted, the DPLA is one very "big picture" initiative that has presented many diverse and critical opinions that need to be addressed. However, John has also been very actively involved in academic law library issues in the 21st century by utilizing the public perception of HLS ' standing in the legal academy. In a very short time our adopted son in our profession has been a major player on this stage. John has left very big shoes to fill at HLS and academic law librarianship generally. Some of HLS library's collection development policies borrowed heavily from previously enacted academic law library policies that did not garner the attention they deserved because they did not come for Harvard.

While I congratulate and wish John well on his new gig, I wonder about who will replace him at HLS and also wonder if his replacement will be up to the task of being an opinion leader like John has been.  [JH]

Over 175 AALL Members Support the Consumer Advocacy Caucus Petition

According to the recently filed amended petition reported on the Library Consumer Advocacy Caucus blog [download petition with attachments]:

57 AALL members signed the petition of which 19 are law firm librarians, 30 are academic law librarians, 6 are county and government law librarians, and 2 are other law librarians.

70% of 198 PLL-SIS members approved the petition in a survey conducted between September 29th and October 7th which means that about 120-140 private sector law librarians, give or take some or all of the 19 law firm librarians who may be counted as signatories, support the petition.

PLL-SIS Endorsement. Based on the PLL-SIS survey results, the PLL-SIS Board unanimously endorsed the petition stating in part:

[Caucus petitioners] regard their Association as their best ally during a time of unprecedented challenges to the long-term sustainability of law libraries. For decades law libraries have straggled with anti-competitive and unfair business practices in the legal information industry. The cumulative impact of anti-consumer practices has been devastating to law libraries, both individually and collectively. The ongoing economic crisis has only accelerated the fallout, with layoffs and substantial reductions in law library collections and services. Under these circumstances, Caucus organizers find that AALL has untapped promise to champion consumer advocacy for the benefit of law library users.

Quoting from Attachment 1 to the Petition.

The Consumer Advocacy Caucus Petition is now in the hands of AALL's Executive Board. The motion for Executive Board action during the upcoming meeting states:

That the Executive Board approve the creation of the Caucus on Consumer Advocacy, with the following statement of purpose: "The AALL Caucus on Consumer Advocacy will recommend to AALL that it petition appropriate government bodies for specific remedies to anti-competitive and unfair business practices by legal information sellers."

The LISVendor wiki page Legal Information Industry: Anticompetitive and Unfair Business Practices offers some background information and links. [JH]

Law Library Information Budget Estimates Decline by 21.7% According to 2011 AALL Findings

The 2011 edition of The AALL Biennal Salary Survey and Organizational Characteristics is now available. While the salary survey findings may not be very useful in the private and government sectors, the findings of organizational characteristics with respect to information budgets has some information value. Because of the differences in AALL survey response rates over the years one cannot say how much more than $1 billion on print and online resources is spent by institutional buyers each year. So firm conclusions cannot be reached about total information spend. However, some insights about trends can be drawn from information budgets provided by AALL institutional buyers as long as one is mindful of this limitation.

Based on reporting AALL law libraries, total 2011 information budgets declined from $1,389.118,580 in 2009 to $1,086,993,2226 in 2001. That's a 21.7% decline since the last reporting period two years ago. Based on available data -- meaning based on prior biennal reports I have readily available, namely the 2009 and 2005 editions in additon to the current 2111 editon -- this year's reported decline is more than three times higher than any earlier reported decline on a percent basis. Between 1999 and 2011, the previous largest decline reported was 6.5% in 2007 compared to 2005 reported total information budgets. See graphs below.

The major sector contributor to the 2011 decline was private law libraries although academic and government library sectors also reported declines. The difference in total information budgets reported between 2009 and 2011 was -$302,125.544. The private sector contributed -$212,017,438 or some 70% to the total decline. This, of course, is no surprise since institutional buyers in the private sector drives this market. Even using the less than comprehensive stats based on AALL reporting law libraries, private sector law libraries represents about 70% of all institutional buyers' spending.

Viewed from this perspective and taking the limitations of the survey response rate into account, it is still noteworthy that the average 2011 information budget for the major market player, private law libraries, declined by 13.3% compared to 2009. The average 2011 total information budget declined by 20% for government libraries and by 4.1% for academic libraries. But for academic law libraries receiving online legal search at what has to be viewed as a discounted wholesale price, one can assume in my opinion that the average academic library's total information budget would have declined more substantially in 2011.

All institutional market sectors reached record highs in terms of their electronic information budgets as a percent of total spend. Even at its discounted rates, electronic information budgets in law schools have increased to 27% of total spend, up from 23% in 2009. In the Government sector the increase was to 21% from 17%. In the private sector, spending for electronic resources rose from 64% in 2009 to 69% in 2011. No doubt, online legal search price inflation played a factor. No doubt print cancellations in the Shed West Era played a role too.

Providing information budgets every two years by AALL, even taking into consideration its limitations, is a "good thing" in a sort of least amount of effort to use the findings sort of way. AALL acting upon the findings in any sort of public forum for all to read leaves much to be desired. [JH]

Click to enlarge.

Are We/They Worth It? Collective Bargaining for Public Employees

In the October 14th Chronicle of Higher Education article "Faculty Unions Ponder New Strategies in Changed Political Climate," author Schmidt reports on the largely successful campaigns in both Ohio and Wisconsin to defeat the right of faculty unions to engage in  collective bargaining. 

I was particularly dumbfounded by this quote from Connie Werkamp, the press secretary for Building a Better Ohio, a campaign organization formed to ensure Ohio legislation (SB 5) which defeated collective bargaining rights for public employees in Marc h 2011 was not repealed by referendum next month:

"The issue here is that these are public employees who are paid by the taxpayer to educate our kids at our universities.  They are making good salaries and they get good benefits - often better benefits than those in the private sector."

(According to Schmidt, tenured faculty earn over $70,000 annually while the median household income in Ohio is about $46,000.)

Maybe I am reading too much into this quote, but the alternative to Werkamp's description would be that Ohio should pay their faculty less than what they would be worth in the private sector.

So I am a little biased because I am a unionized public employee, and I don't have "kids" of the two legged kind, but if I did, I would want their fine, dedicated educators to be well compensed for their work - if for no other reason than to secure their continued presence at that university.  And, although this is total conjecture, my guess is that most of the tenured and untenured faculty members spent many years earning doctorates, masters, and performing field work, empirical analysis, and living a rather meager lifestyle.  I just don't see many of us living la vida loca.

To be fair, the debate about collective bargaining for educators is just part of a larger movement to trim budgets and stem spending.  Executive branches from California to Massachusetts are cutting staff, salaries, and benefits in an effort to stay solvent during the economic crisis.  Public employees, like private, do have to shoulder their fair share of the burden; however, insinuating that educators are not worth their money is insulting. 

There is always the ONE who gets away with "it," but most of us are dediated and hardworking and hardly feel overpayed.  I am assuming that most of us "public employees" like to believe that we do make a difference in the lives of our students and appreciate being compensated for that hard work.  In fact, a study published in 70(4) Harvard Education Review 437 (Winter 2000) compared standardized test scores to union representation found a statistically significant and positive relationship between student test performance and teacher union representation. (Do Teacher Unions Hinder Educationalal Performance.)

Summary of the situation:  In Ohio, the legislation which undid the collective bargaining rights of faculty is going to be put to a public vote on November 8th.  In Wisconsin, the legislation had a more colorful path.  After being passed into law, a state court set it aside and declared it unconsitutional.  Then, the state Supreme Court reversed the lower court and reinstated the legislation.  In addition to the situations in Ohio and Wisconsin, there are five states that prohibited all collective bargaining for their public employees: Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. It is hard to believe that the 50 years of labor law history I studied at law school is being turned on its head.(VS)

And the Winner in ATL's Shed West Print Era in Academic Law Libraries Photo Caption Contest Is

Having catalogued the total number of volumes, microfilm, microfiche, and titles, this dumpster is hereby accredited.

– ABA

Details on ATL here.

Image suitable for framing in Lexis, Fastcase, Bloomberg Law and Wolters Kluwer executive offices below (click to enlarge) as a remainder of what not to do in the 21st century to maintain a subscription base.

It's not just about West's print reporters but also all of West's traditional print titles -- digests, general and state-specific legal encyclopedia, massive sets of generic form compilations, plus many acquired secondary source titles being treating editorially as commodities while pricing them as golden opportunities to maintain some sort of high profit margin revenue stream. Not exactly working out as planned, now is it.

With each round of Shed West print cancellations, pricing increases to reflect lower demand. If TR Legal substantially discounted its pricing now, would subscription start flooding in or would institutional buyers just toss the offers in the dumpster because "no one is complaining" about the titles that were cancelled? [JH]

Authors Guild Sues HathiTrust Over Orphan Books

Readers of this blog may have come across news stories of the Authors Guild suing various university libraries comprising the HathiTrust for digitizing copyrighted works and their plan to make orphan works available to their user communities.  It was merely a matter of time after the universities in question made their announcement that some legal action would be filed to stop it.  

The complaint is available here, and a press release from the Author’s Guild on the suit is here.  They both bristle with indignation that the universities would do this.  The press release has statements in it such as:

“I was stunned when I learned of this,” said Danièle Simpson, president of UNEQ. “How are authors from Quebec, Italy or Japan to know that their works have been determined to be ‘orphans’ by a group in Ann Arbor, Michigan? If these colleges can make up their own rules, then won’t every college and university, in every country, want to do the same?”

Indeed.  

The complaint’s focus is on §108 of the Copyright Act that allows libraries to perform, with limitations, some level of archiving of the physical materials in their collection.  The libraries’ activities are alleged by the Authors Guild to be beyond the scope of the section’s permissions.  Even digitizing books sans permission from any rights holders is beyond the scope of Act.  For the record, §108 begins with the words “Except as otherwise provided in this title…” which might allow for the defense of fair use as vaguely defined in §107.  The universities’ had stated in their various announcements that their legal analysis of fair use principles and precedent prior to their decision to make orphan works digitally available justified that decision.  That’s for the vigorous answer, however.

The relief sought suggests the Authors Guild considers the academic libraries as no better than pirates:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that:

(a) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, this Court declare that:

(i)      Defendants’ systematic digitization and distribution of copyrighted  materials without authorization constitutes unlawful copyright infringement in violations of Section 106 and 108 of the Copyright Act;

(ii)     Defendant’s distribution and display of copyrighted works through the HathiTrust Orphan Works Project will infringe the copyrights of Plaintiffs and others likely to be affected;

(b)Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502, this Court issue an injunction enjoining Defendants from:

(i)     systematically reproducing, distributing and/or displaying Plaintiffs’ or any other copyrighted works without authorization except as specifically provided by 17 U.S.C. § 108;

(ii)     providing to Google for digitization copyrighted works without authorization;

(iii)      proceeding with the HathiTrust Orphans Work Project, including without limitation, from displaying, distributing or otherwise making available any so-called orphan work protected by copyright.

(c) Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 503, this Court order the impoundment of all unauthorized digital copies of works protected by copyright within Defendant’s possession, custody or control, including works whose copyrights are held by Plaintiffs, to be held in escrow under commercial grade security, with any computer system storing the digital copies powered down and disconnected from any network, pending an appropriate act of Congress.

(d) Pursuant to 17 § 505, this Court award Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs; and

(e) Plaintiffs be granted such other relief as may be deemed just and equitable.

The only thing missing is a final statement of “And may God have mercy on your wretched librarian souls.”  Or will that be something they’ll want in the proposed final order.

One question I have comes from paragraph 15 of the complaint, where the Guild et al. state:

Securing te copyrights and integrity of all copyrighted works – including so-called orphan works whose authors or owners cannot be readily found to speak for themselves – is fundamental to the Associations’ missions.  Individual participation of each author is not required to determine whether the Universities’ systematic digitization of their libraries and planned dissemination of orphan works violates the Copyright Act or to grant injunctive relief for the benefit of all members of the Associations and other authors and owners of copyrighted works.

If I remember correctly, one of the reasons Judge Chin turned down the Google Book Settlement was that the classes the corporate plaintiffs proposed weren’t able to represent the interests of those who could not be located.  In fact, that’s why he suggested making the Settlement opt-in rather than opt-out.  So I’ll ask:  does this mean the Guild can represent unknown plaintiffs and get relief on their behalf in this action?  Just asking.

What I don’t understand is why the Guild doesn’t try to work something out with the universities.  My rationale is this:  I went to Bing (yes, the MS search engine) and put in the terms “harry potter download book” and found numerous hits on the first page where I can get unencumbered copies of the books in PDF format.  I’m sure other search engines will do the same and better.  I did not download these as I am not going to break the copyright laws, at least not over these books.  But I’m afraid others might not be as law abiding.  

The libraries are not the problem for the publishers.  They will follow the law and stick to agreements whereas an individual who scans text or breaks DRM won’t care.  The authors and publishers may be stunned, but they won’t see a licensed dime.  Work out a form of distribution that the market will handle, or nothing short of a completely DRMed Internet will protect the current distribution model.  I’ll wager there isn’t enough money to buy that result from Congress.  And if the publishers can't work it out, well, they better hope they get the result they seek.  [MG]

Thank you AALL for Listening and Being Flexible

I want to publicly thank AALL.  I received an email today from Kate Hagan letting me know that while AALL was adhering to the September 15th deadline they were also going to provide members affected by the earthquake and hurricane the opportunity to request an additional five days to complete their proposals. 

If you were adversely affected by the August earthquake or hurricane on the East Coast and will be unable to meet the September 15 submission deadline, contact proposalhelp@aall.org prior to the deadline.

Thank you AALL and particularly, Kate Hagan, for recognizing the hardships we East Coasters have and are encountering over the last week, and for allowing us the ability to request additional time to complete our program submissions and make this a great Boston conference.  This law librarian much appreciates that you listened and were flexible.

Caren Biberman

So what that there was a Hurricane and Earthquake--Adherence is More Important

I will start this post by admitting that after the events of the last week I have zero patience.  We, on the East Coast, have dealt with two very unusual events for us, an earthquake and then a hurricane.  I can only speak for myself but those two events have caused me to lose at least four days between work and personal time.  Days when I might have otherwise accomplished things.  Like perhaps in my spare time writing the two program proposals I personally have committed to for the next AALL Conference.

With the deadline looming (September 15th) and work about to ramp up with first year associate training planning and other projects and some personal commitments I thought, let me suggest to AALL that they give us a little more time to complete these proposals.  I didn't think an extra 5 days would be such an unreasonable request.  That would have given me (and of course everyone else) an additional weekend to finalize everything. 

I took it upon myself to write Kate Hagan (AALL Executive Director) and Darcy Kirk (AALL President) an email requesting that AALL extend the deadline to September 20th to give us that additional weekend and suggesting that "I think it would be viewed as AALL being very compassionate and flexible if you were to do this."  I pointed out that while academic librarians are encouraged to submit proposals for programs by their employers, private law librarians are not.  In fact for private law librarians anything done for the profession is generally outside their job and as a friend said to me tonight a  "labor of love." 

Now I will say that I received a very swift and nice phone call from Kate Hagan asking if there was anything she could do short of extending the deadline.  And she did make her case that the Committee meets in October and has usually 300 proposals to review.  So that would put more of a burden on them.  According to the Important Dates to Remember on the AALL Annual Meeting Site that meeting is in late October.  And I am certainly not trying to minimize the work done by the AMPC, I do recognize its a huge job.  But I truly believe, given the circumstances, extending the deadline would be the right thing to do.  I made my case to Kate during our phone call and she said she would discuss with others and get back to me.

I received an email this evening telling me my request had been considered but that AALL would not change the deadline.  Why?  What I was told was that they had been advertising the date since early June and they want to adhere to the date.

So I leave it to my colleagues to decide if adherence is more important then flexibility.  Not in my book.  And yes, I am sure this blog post will make me persona non grata.  And I am sure some will suggest I could be writing a proposal instead of this blog post.  But as I said I have little patience left.

Caren Biberman

Duke, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, and Emory To Offer Orphan Works Electronically

I wrote at the end of June about the decision by the University of Michigan Libraries to give campus access to electronic versions of orphan works scanned by Google from the school’s collection.  See University of Michigan To Allow Campus Access To Digital Orphan Works for more information.  Paul Givler, executive director of the Association of American University Presses, was not happy with the move.  The Michigan access has not been challenged so far and there are no reports of orphan works owners storming the campus with torches, pitchforks, or subpoenas.

That may or may not have encouraged what comes next.  Duke University, along with Cornell, Johns Hopkins, and Emory University are about to do the same thing according to a report in the Charlotte News and Observer.  The books to be made available are copies of orphan items that appear in the print collection.  The plan is to post a notice about titles for 90 days.  The titles will remain online if no one comes forward.

I like the idea that libraries are pushing the issue of electronic access to orphan works.  Google can’t do it because the pending settlement issues concerning orphan works are unresolved.  As Judge Chin rejected the last settlement, he stated that Congress needs to act to allow Google to display orphan works.  Google wants to play nice with the publishers so it can’t push the issue unless all talks break down and the case actually goes to litigation. 

While I can’t see a lot of pent up demand for an electronic copy of "Lecture On Bees," a 1925 title by E.R. Root, cited in the News and Observer story, I like the idea of the collective libraries’ decision to go forward with access.  The source libraries are not part of the litigation.  They can be independently sued by a rights holder and will defend by claiming fair use, should that happen.  Universities are risk-averse by nature.  The fact they are willing to do this means the university and library administrations believe fair use allows this.  [MG]

Consumer Advocacy to Start on July 25: Library Consumer Advocacy Caucus to Meet during AALL Philly 2011

The Library Consumer Advocacy Caucus will meet during AALL's annual meeting to start the process of engaging in real advocacy. From Caucus Chair Michael Ginsburg's recent Library Consumer Advocacy Caucus blog post's open invitation to participate:

Please join us for our 12-1 p.m. meeting on July 25th at the Philadelphia office of Drinker Biddle (One Logan Square, Ste. 2000, at the corner of 18th & Cherry Streets). We will discuss the status of our registration with AALL, decide our form of organization, and consider our initial priorities.

A recent On Firmer Ground blog post, A Call To Support Consumer Advocacy For Law Libraries, reports:

Earlier this year, AALL hosted a Vendor Colloquium that left consumer advocacy almost entirely unaddressed. ... A Colloquium Working Group developed an Action Plan to implement AALL’s “Shared Principles For Law Librarians and Legal Information Vendors.”  The Working Group invited AALL members to comment on the Action Plan. In response, twenty Caucus members have signed the ... comment to encourage more vigorous consumer advocacy by AALL.

Do note that since the above July 13th On Firmer Ground post, I have heard that the number of signatories has increased from 20 Caucus members to 32 and the library institutional demographics are:

• Academic Sector (public and private): 56%
• Private Sector: 31%
• Public Sector: 6%
• Other: 6%

Quoting from the Caucus response to the Vendor Colloquium Working Group as published in On Firmer Ground: 

Dear Vendor Colloquium Working Group:
 
Thank you for inviting AALL members to comment on your Action Plan.  The undersigned are among AALL members who want AALL to revitalize its commitment to consumer advocacy. Some of us bring to our recommendation many years of experience as AALL members and law librarians.

We appreciate your dedication to improving librarian-vendor relations, and we support goals designed to aid communication. However, the Action Plan has a serious shortcoming: it falls far short of AALL’s promise as a consumer advocate. The “partnership” ideal endorsed in the Action Plan appears to apply to all legal information vendors, whether or not they have extensive histories of anti-consumer practices. In fact, you do not define “partnership” or “consumer advocacy,” and appear to limit consumer advocacy to discussion during an Annual Meeting program. At any rate, we support the idea of engaging smaller legal publishers, under Goal II-C, and any other legal-content vendors who follow consumer and antitrust law in their business practices.

Even before the ongoing economic crisis, law libraries could not afford the cumulative costs of anticompetitive and unfair business practices by some vendors of legal and law-related information. In 2006, an attorney for the Information Access Alliance testified on skyrocketing subscription prices and unreasonable contractual constraints from single-firm, anticompetive conduct. Although his testimony concerns harm to research libraries from “bundling” of scholarly journals, the same type of conduct has harmed law libraries when they renew their subscription contracts. As described in a recent Library Journal interview, evidence also abounds of unfair business practices. A few of the many examples include:

• opaque, confusing, and deceptive pricing models for online subscriptions and for “bundled” portfolios of print or print-and-online subscriptions;
• non-disclosure demands in contracts;
• inclusion of more or fewer titles than requested in bundled subscription contracts, with inadequate or no options for correction;
• serious, widespread failures in editing, indexing, updating, and revising of publications

The business misconduct has reached a scale of devastating impact on law libraries. It has imperiled not just the quality and integrity of their services, but also, in many cases, their long-term sustainability.

Law libraries and allied consumers of information services should work together to remedy anti-consumer practices within the industry. They can do so without violating antitrust law. They may act in coalition to petition appropriate governmental bodies for remedies vital to their collective interests, and to the public interest.

We would rally behind AALL if it did everything possible to advance  this vision of consumer advocacy. We would welcome collaboration with AALL’s leaders. So we recommend, as a first step, that AALL’s Executive Board embrace our proposal of a more robust consumer advocacy than AALL has pursued. At your request, we would be happy to elaborate on the proposal. We also ask that a future Colloquium focus on the means and goals of  consumer advocacy, with digital or phone-conferencing access to all members, and a full, open record of proceedings.

Go to On Firmer Ground's A Call To Support Consumer Advocacy For Law Libraries for links to supporting references and take the blog's RSS feed while you are there. Remember this blog is a collaborative effort of SLA's Legal Division, AALL's Private Law Libraries Special Interest Section, CALL/ACBD and BIALL. I'm thinking both AALL and some of our more very expensive vendors are anxiously monitoring the blog's posts because the blog's primary audience spending is what moves the market. However, academic and public sector law librarians should also take the blog's RSS feed IMHO.

It's about time to engage in vigorous consumer advocacy. Many members of the Caucus hope their professional association would whole heartedly support their efforts. If not, AALL will once again find itself trying to catch up to the pack to justify its "leadership" role.

Of course the July 25th Caucus meeting is not sanctioned by AALL and will be conducted off-site, but not too far off-site. Interested? Even if the meeting is standing room only, you can bring your brown bag lunch. No doubt like-minded law librarians will rotate from sitting to standing for all. [JH]

New Academic Law Library Directorship Appointments: Vicki Szymczak (Hawaii) and Teresa Stanton (Florida International)

Vicki Szmczak, Library Director at Brooklyn Law (and long-time LLB contributing editor) has accepted a faculty appointment at the Richardson School of Law, University of Hawaii, and will serve as the Law School's library director. Vicki will be making the 5,000 mile trek to Hawaii to start her new gig on September 26, 2011. Congratulations Vicki. Gonna have a guest bedroom? I can be there on September 27th. (An announcement for the library directorship at Brooklyn Law is posted below.)

Also, congratulations to Teresa Stanton. She has accepted an appointment as Associate Dean for Information Resources at Florida International University Law School. For the last two years she has served as Director of Collections at Berkeley Law, previously as Berkeley Law's Foreign and International Law Librarian. During her 20-plus year career of moving up the ranks in law librarianship, she has also worked at UNC Law Library, U of Miami Law Library and the Dade County (FL) Law Library. She will be making the 2,500 mile trek back to Miami to after leaving Berkeley Law at the end of July.

Have Expertise, Law Librarians Will Travel. By my rough estimate, we are talking about a total of approximately 7,500 miles traveled. [JH]

Sign of the Times and Trust in Law Library Relations with HeinOnline: No Shelving Units Required for Law Review and Journal Runs

Both Washington State Law Library and Case Western Reserve Univ. Law Library are offering law review and journal runs for the cost of shipping. For Case Western the scope of titles being removed from the collection can be measured by the the number of spreadsheet pages -- 11. Check this week's AALL law-lib archives, if interested. One might say because we trust HeinOnline, no shelving units are required for past volumes of law reviews and journals. Perhaps, someday, there will be no need for current issues either, at least at those law libraries that still see a need for them.

If Not Retained on Law Library Shelves, Why Publish in Print? In his FoLL presentation, Dick Danner (Duke) reviewed the current status of transitioning to digital-only publication of law reviews in the context of the Durham Statement on Open Access to Legal Scholarship. See his Open Access session presentation (Video 2, accessible from the Conference wiki main page). Despite some current resistance from members of the law review community (and academic law library community), does anyone really believe that law review articles will be published in print ten years from now? [JH]

Susan Nevelow Mart Appointed Director of Univ. of Colorado's Wise Law Library

From the press release:

Susan Nevelow Mart has been named director of the William A. Wise Law Library at the University of Colorado Law School. Mart will begin her new role on July 15, 2011.
 
Mart comes to Colorado Law with more than ten years of library experience and 16 years as a practicing attorney. Most recently, she was the Faculty Services Librarian at the University of California Hastings College of Law, where she was also an adjunct professor teaching advanced legal research.  Mart began her career at Hastings College of the Law as a reference librarian and adjunct professor.
 
“Susan brings not only an extensive background in library sciences, but also an extensive background in the practice of law,” said Dean David Getches. “She is a wonderful complement to our outstanding library faculty.”
 
Mart was an associate attorney at Bell, Rosenberg & Hughes in Oakland, Calif. from 1984 to 1991, a law firm specializing in business, real estate, construction and insurance litigation. She then opened her own practice, where she worked from 1992 to 2000, focusing on real estate, business and construction disputes.
 
Mart obtained  a Masters in Library Science from San Jose State University in 2003. She received her Juris Doctor in 1983 from the University of California, Berkeley –Berkeley Law and a B.A. in Anthropology from University of California, Santa Cruz in 1979.
 
She replaces Barbara Bintliff, who was director of the William A. Wise law library and a member of the faculty at Colorado Law for 25 years.  She retired from the law school in fall 2010 to become the director of the Tarlton Law Library and Jamail Center for Legal Research at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, where she is also Joseph C. Hutcheson Professor of Law.

Not too many academic law library directors with much practitioner experience. In fact, I can't think of one with more than Mart's 16 years of experience as a practicing attorney. No doubt that experience along with obtaining an MLS and 10 years law library experience will result in many valuable new contributions at Colorado.

Congratulations! [JH]

Innovative Solution to Closure of Camden Public Library's Main Branch May Point the Way for Struggling County Law Libraries

The downtown "branch" of New Jersey's Camden City Public Library was closed in February when Mayor Dana Redd decided the city could no longer afford its 100-year-old public library system while facing a $26.5 million budget deficit. "As soon as the closure of the libraries was announced last year, county and city officials started brainstorming with Rutgers-Camden Chancellor Wendell Pritchett on how to provide library services downtown." The result: "Construction has begun on the basement of the Paul Robeson Library to make room for a 5,000-square-foot downtown Camden branch [of the public library]."

"This project is a manifestation that we are a state university," Pritchett said, adding that the library will help connect Camden residents to a higher-education campus.

Snips from and details here. Perhaps the best statement in the article is the opening paragraph:

Sometime this fall, Camden's youngest residents will be able to walk among Rutgers-Camden students and faculty on their way to the Camden County's newest branch library.

Perhaps struggling county law libraries trying to survive can align structurallly in a similar manner with local law school libraries. I believe at least one has done so (but damn if I can remember it) and perhaps there are more instances.

Win-Win-Win.This could a "win-win-win" solution. Academic law libraries typically have resources for their state jurisdictions (albeit many cannot afford the sort of practitioner resources most state litigators and some state transactional practitioners use in their law practice.) County law libraries are under budgetary pressures that oftentimes result is downsizing federal and comprehensive secondary sources.

So imagine a county law library structure administrating and financing an academic law library's in-state collection (cut those costs from the academic law library collection development budget) while the academic law library supports the federal and general secondary sources (cut those costs from the county law library collection development budget). That's could be a win-win. Then there is a possile third "win." State law pracitioners working in the same law library as law school students.

Such an innovated solution would probably work best in a public law school library for state financing bean-counter reasons but also for public access requirements. It would, IMHO, require the employment of county-state public law librarians for reference assistance -- meaning, some job security in addition to collective development savings by both law libraries through a "merger" of sorts. It most definintely could improve legal research instruction provided by county-state public law librarians expert in what state practitioners actually use in the the "real world."

In these fiscal times that are impacting both academic and county law libraries, it is not only do-able but is an opportunity that ought not be ignored is some situations because of the public sector law library-academic law library professional divide that certainly exists. It may look like a desperate move but it may yield very positive structural changes. Let's face, except for the top 10 (perhaps top 20) law schools, one hellva lot more law grads will be looking at state-focused law practices now and in the future than in the past.

Where there is a will, there is a way. The Rutgers-Camden and Camden public library system is showing that this is do-able. The article reports on how financing is being worked out. Obviously the downtown locations of Rutgers-Camden and the closed Camden public library was an important factor, too.

Thinking Outside the Box. With a hat tip to LISNews, the article about the public library-public university library solution in Candem was published in the Philadephia Inquirer, site of AALL's Cream Cheese Cheesesteak or Karaoke. Not exactly a forum for thinking outside the box. The more likely forum for similiar innovative solutions may be local AALL chapters.

A Very Small Illustration. At ORALL 2010, NKU Chase Law Library offered to participate in the county law library's pocket-part exchange program (read county law libraries who can't afford to maintain print continuation standard orders for pocket parts make do with the latest out-of-date pocket parts). NKU Chase Law Library's generous offer came on the heels of massive print cutbacks-in-process by many Ohio county law libraries. The Shed West Era threatened to substantially reduce the number of titles offered in the pocket-part exchange program. (NB: at the time, my little county law library had participated but last year we could not make any commitments whatsoever because we were still in the midsts of our Shed West era of cancelling print continuations).

While is this a small illustration? Because it is not a structural reformation. However, there is no doubt in my mind that NKU Chase Associate Dean for Law Library Services & Information Technology Mike Whiteman's impromptu offer to help out by contributing to the ORALL County Law Library SIG's program was (and is) very much appreciated. {JH]

Femi Cadmus Appointed Cornell Law Librarian

Congratulations to Femi Cadmus who has accepted the position of Law Librarian and Associate Dean for Library Services at Cornell Law School and will succeed Claire Germain later this summer. For the past three years, Femi has served as the Associate Librarian for Administration at Yale Law School. Yale's loss is Cornell's gain.

No doubt Yale will do just fine. Teresa Miguel, Yale’s Associate Librarian for Foreign and International Law, is taking over Femi’s role as Associate Librarian for Administration. And, no doubt, Femi will build upon Claire Germain's contributions at Cornell.

While the stand up and take a bow tradition at AALL's annual meeting for academic law library directors includes the usual perfunctory acknowledgment for "welcome the new directors" (as in ever notice who do and who do not clap their hands?), Femi's appointment is IMHO well-deserved.

Watch for an announcement from Yale for an opportunity to apply for the position of Associate Librarian for Foreign and International Law. [JH]

ARL Publishes Stats for 2008-2009 Academic Law Libraries (and Academic Health Sciences Libraries), Plus General Stats for ARL Member Libraries

Nothing beats a weekend for pondering law library stats without distractions. Thanks to Gary Price's close monitoring of what's going on by way of his recent INFOdocket blog posts here and here, there is plenty of data to ponder. While readily available to ARL member librarians, it might also make for interesting reading outside of that community.

• ARL has published its 2008-2009 Academic Law Library and Academic Health Sciences Library Statistics (pdf); and
• It's more general ARL Statistics for 2008–2009 (pdf), which describes the collections, staffing, expenditures, and service activities of ARL’s member libraries.

[JH]

Following Successful Law School Student Indoctrination Practices: Time for Non-WEXIS Publishers to Seize the Moment Because the ROI May Be Substantial Now that Editorial Quality Matters

Editorial content quality now matters in the Shed West era of widespread cancellations. Thank you economic downturn and its resulting budget cuts for changing the traditional status quo inertia in collection development wherein we continued inherited collection development decisions made years and years, decades and decades, ago. Some institutions didn't question what, if any, value there was to renewing subscriptions or maintaining standing orders. This has been pervasive across all law library sectors but in the context of academic law library collection development policies and practices, bang for limited budget bucks has been trans-formative by way off collection re-balancing.

Will Vendors Other Than WEXIS See the 2011-2012 Academic Year as an Opportunity Just Waiting to Be Maximized? If premium legal vendors like BNA and CCH (hell, perhaps even Bloomberg Law) don't see this as an opportunity to follow law school indoctrination strategies that have been widely successful by WEXIS, they are missing one hellva a chance. They ought not assume that after the economy improves and law school budgets increase, academic law librarians will automatically re-subscribe to WEXIS print and online services even at discounted pricing. Word is that few law school students (and law faculty) are complaining all that much since cutbacks in traditional titles have been made. Out of sight, out of mind.

In Sight, in Mind. Times they have already changed. There are opportunities available now in the legal academy for legal publishers who have a long track record of publishing high quality content to "sell" their products and services to law students. Those vendors certainly include the likes of BNA and CCH but also include smaller legal publishers. It's one thing to provide cost breaks for the entire catalog of print and online products and services to law students. But that is not enough. In fact it is wasteful if vendors don't do what WEXIS has done for decades to expose and indoctrinate law school students namely, boots must be on the ground at law schools.

While optional ALR courses may feature some of these non-WEXIS titles in print and online services in the legal academy's courses, it has not yet been a focus of required 1L LRW courses and, worse, it is not reinforced by having student reps on hand and company instructors regularly available. A marketing strategy following such a course of action can convince law students that these once also-rans in law student indoctrination are now important because of the collection re-balancing that has taken place in academic law libraries and because these non-WEXIS products and services are what many law school students may find once they graduate.

Hopefully, the introduction to quality produces and services offered by non-WEXIS publishers will be institutionalized in the legal academy before law school grads face the realities of the "real world." It will require "boots on the ground" by these premium content vendors who so far haven't executed regular on-site representative programs designed to introduce (read addict law student). Why? It's damn expensive but the return on investment is worth it because quality now matters.

Boots on the Ground -- How? Perhaps this can be accomplished collectively -- think a rep and student rep regularly on site with the mission of introducing and educating law school students to "alternatives to WEXIS for legal research." I'm thinking something along the lines of independent manufactoring reps who pitch for multiple companies and typically get a 5-to-10% commission on sales. While the sales commission component is irrelevant for strategic law school indoctrination purposes, hiring and, of course, compensating some laid-off or retired professional law librarians as independent contractors to make regular visits to law schools and to offer training sessions to students for "points" like WEXIS law school reps is something non-WEXIS legal publishers collectively or individually ought to give serious consideration. This is not a sales rep function but it certain may increase sales in those instances where law grads introduced to such resources find them not available were they work but consider them essential to practicing law.

This is all about stimulating demand by investing corporate resources to call law school students attention to supply. Simply making products and services available in the legal academy at discounted costs is not enough. It has to be reinforced by having "boots on the ground" to educate law school students. Offering the occasional workshop hasn't and isn't going to product those results. Time for non-WEXIS legal vendors to seize the moment because WEXIS is vulnerable. [JH]