[LIBRARYDIR] Updated version of Kanopy message from yesterday

[Guidry, Wade]

Hi all,

My apologies for sending what I now realize was a nebulous message yesterday on the topic of Kanopy.

What I had imagined I was communicating was not very clear, I now realize.

As was pointed out to me, some of you are fairly recent to your directorships and deanships, and may not possess the background knowledge I was assuming. And, for those longer tenured, the most recent meaningful group discussion on the topic of electronic resources dates back a couple of years.

So, to set some context...

In the first half of 2018, WACTCLC (the consortium formed to implement a shared contract for Alma / Primo for the 26 participating institutions) sponsored a working group to explore the possibility of group purchasing or licensing of electronic resource content.

Both the working group's executive summary report, delivered to the LLC in October 2018, as well as the full report, are available on the WACTCLC web site<https://sites.google.com/view/wactclc/open-access-and-eresources>, and linked below for convenience.

§  Electronic Resources Report to Library Leadership Council<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wyJQdjpNCv0Vtyq5IhF-o5yUBkZ6d2ycVKs5lmqjbxA/edit?usp=sharing> - October 2018
§  Electronic Resources Working Group Report 2018<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FpUWRY2C7Y1VsLd6G8r3ct0GAuCNY6tFjcUCy96U1sE/edit?usp=sharing> (in its entirety)

The takeaways and recommendations of the group are summarized in the October 2018 report to LLC. The full report contains a summary of survey results.
The basic gist was that:

·         a number of extra-consortial group licensing venues already exist (WALDO, CCLC, Orbis Cascade, etc)

·         the needs, budgets and timing of ER licensing within WACTC varies widely

·         the time-and-attention costs of staffing a standing working group to pursue WACTC-specific group licensing would be pretty high, relative to potential benefits.
So, no follow-on working groups or efforts have thus far been convened or considered.

That's the basic context of content licensing in the recent past.

With that in mind, what I was trying to communicate yesterday...

Via my ongoing work with the institutions participating in the shared Alma / Primo contract which I support, I became aware of concerns expressed about recent changes to Kanopy licensing.

My message yesterday was an attempt to highlight the existence of those concerns among those of you with Kanopy subscriptions. Since, within the Alma / Primo group, while staff had individually noted and were concerned about Kanopy changes, no one was really aware that other institutions were as equally aware or concerned.

I thought perhaps those of you who are Kanopy licensors, recognizing a common concern, might want to discuss the topic together, via listserv or Zoom. And perhaps even have a shared conversation with the regional Kanopy rep, to allow everyone to get the same story from Kanopy at the same time.

My apologies if I gave an impression that some action was already being taken or that such a group was already formed.

I hope this doesn't muddy the waters further :)










Wade Guidry
WACTCLC
Library Consortium Services Manager
wadeg at bigbend.edu<mailto:wadeg at bigbend.edu>
http://www.wactclc.org<http://www.wactclc.org/>
509.760.4474

Pronouns: he/him/his


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ctc.edu/pipermail/librarydir_lists.ctc.edu/attachments/20200630/75356ae8/attachment.html>