2018: A Streaming Video Odyssey
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v4i1.13391Abstract
In this case study, we reflect on our journey through a major revision of our streaming video reserve guidelines, informed by an environmental scan of comparable library services and current copyright best practices. Once the guidelines were revised, we developed an implementation plan for communicating changes and developing training materials to both instructors and internal library staff. We share our navigation strategies, obstacles faced, lessons learned, and ongoing challenges. Finally, we map out some of our future directions for improving and streamlining our services.
Metrics
References
Adams, T. M., & Holland, C. C. (2017). Streaming media in an uncertain legal environment: A model policy and best practices for academic libraries. Journal of Copyright in Education & Librarianship, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v1i2.6550
Association for Information Media and Equipment v Regents of the University of California, No. 2:10-cv-09378-CBM, (C.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2012).
Association of Research Libraries. (2011, October 4). A copyright victory: Video vendor case dismissed! ARL Policy Notes. Retrieved from https://policynotes.arl.org/?p=385
Cheung, O., Thomas, D., & Patrick, S. (2010). New approaches to e-reserve: Linking, sharing and streaming. Chandos Publishing.
Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (1976).
Cross, W. (2016). More than a house of cards: Developing a firm foundation for streaming media and consumer-licensed content in the library. Journal of Copyright in Education & Librarianship, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v1i1.5919
Digest of Education Statistics, 2018. (n.d.). Table 311.22. Number and percentage of undergraduate students enrolled in distance education or online classes and degree programs, by selected characteristics: Selected years, 2003-04 through 2015-16. Retrieved January 3, 2020, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_311.22.asp
Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies, 83 Fed. Reg. 54010 (October 26, 2018).https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-10-26/pdf/2018-23241.pdf
farrelly, d., & Hutchison, J. (2014). ATG special report: Academic library streaming video: Key findings from the national survey. Against the Grain, 26(5). https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.6852
Ferguson, C. (2010). Technology left behind—the temptations of Netflix. (2010). Against the Grain, 22(6), 83–84. https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.5721
Healy, C. (2010). Netflix in an academic library: A personal case study. Library Trends, 58(3), 402–411. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.0.0089
Iordanova, D. (2013, Winter). Instant, abundant, and ubiquitous cinema moves online. Cineaste; New York, N. Y., 39(1), 46-50,60.
Myers, C. S. (2019). Online Classrooms: Is the TEACH Act enough? In S. Benson (Ed.), Copyright conversations: Rights literacy in a digital world (159-172). Chicago, IL: ALCTS.
Rodgers, W. (2018). Buy, borrow, or steal? Film access for film studies students. College & Research Libraries, 79(4), 568–591. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.4.568
Russell, C. (2010). The best of Copyright and VideoLib. Library Trends, 58(3), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.0.0095
Towery, S. S., Price, A. N., & Cowen, K. E. (2019). Video streaming licenses: Using a decision tree and workflow chart. Journal of Copyright in Education & Librarianship, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.7483
