Four Facets of Privacy and Intellectual Freedom in Licensing Contracts for Electronic Journals

This is a study of the treatment of library patron privacy in licenses for electronic journals in academic libraries. We begin by distinguishing four facets of privacy and intellectual freedom based on the LIS and philosophical literature. Next, we perform a content analysis of 42 license agreements for electronic journals, focusing on terms for enforcing authorized use and collection and sharing of user data. We compare our findings to model licenses, to recommendations proposed in a recent treatise on licenses, and to our account of the four facets of intellectual freedom. We find important conflicts with each

Intellectual Freedom in Academic Libraries: Surveying Deans about Its Significance

In this study, deans and directors of academic libraries were surveyed about intellectual freedom. The survey found that most respondents said they rarely think about intellectual freedom yet said it was “somewhat” or “very” important in their libraries. Most did not have formal intellectual freedom policies; they often relied on statements from the American Library Association or other library organizations. Copyright/intellectual property, privacy, plagiarism, and academic freedom were the most important concerns related to intellectual freedom. Although this study shed some light on intellectual freedom in academic libraries, further work remains to be done

Comparing use terms in a Spanish and US research university e-journal licenses: recent trends

This paper describes the results of a study to compare contemporary e-journal licenses from two research universities in the United States and Spain in terms of e-reserves, interlibrary loan, text and data mining, authors´ rights and treatment of copyright exceptions, usage statistics, governing law, data privacy, and obligations entailing security. The data include a higher proportion of scholarly society and academic press publishers than earlier license analyses. This analysis compares license terms over time, across publisher types and between the two libraries, and it compares findings with recommendations from model licenses. The results show progress toward model license goals in some areas, but deficiencies in others including self-archiving, usage statistics clauses, and clauses related to e-resource data privacy and library security and disciplinary obligations. Our findings also raise questions about international ILL and governing venue clauses in library licenses outside the North American context

Comparing use terms in a Spanish and US research university e-journal licenses: recent trends

This paper describes the results of a study to compare contemporary e-journal licenses from two research universities in the United States and Spain in terms of e-reserves, interlibrary loan, text and data mining, authors´ rights and treatment of copyright exceptions, usage statistics, governing law, data privacy, and obligations entailing security. The data include a higher proportion of scholarly society and academic press publishers than earlier license analyses. This analysis compares license terms over time, across publisher types and between the two libraries, and it compares findings with recommendations from model licenses. The results show progress toward model license goals in some areas, but deficiencies in others including self-archiving, usage statistics clauses, and clauses related to e-resource data privacy and library security and disciplinary obligations. Our findings also raise questions about international ILL and governing venue clauses in library licenses outside the North American context

Learning Analytics and the Academic Library: Professional Ethics Commitments at a Crossroads

In this paper, the authors address learning analytics and the ways academic libraries are beginning to participate in wider institutional learning analytics initiatives. Since there are moral issues associated with learning analytics, the authors consider how data mining practices run counter to ethical principles in the American Library Association’s “Code of Ethics.” Specifically, the authors address how learning analytics implicates professional commitments to promote intellectual freedom; protect patron privacy and confidentiality; and balance intellectual property interests between library users, their institution, and content creators and vendors. The authors recommend that librarians should embed their ethical positions in technological designs, practices, and governance mechanisms

Intellectual freedom and social responsibility in library and information science: A reconciliation

This article presents a reconciliation of intellectual freedom and social responsibility in library and information science (LIS). The conflict between traditional intellectual freedom and social advocacy, integral to understanding a range of issues in LIS ethics, juxtaposes a laissez-faire freedom with social intervention. This study, by contrast, engages with conceptions of freedom within philosophical and LIS literatures, presenting a descriptive conceptualisation of both values through the common rubric of freedom. This method, influenced by the later philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, echoes Solove’s (2002) conceptualisation of privacy and provides a conceptual clarity lacking in existing LIS literature. This clarity, it is argued, suggests a path of reconciliation for both values. The argument unfolds in three stages. First, the prominent conception of intellectual freedom within LIS represents an “anti-censorship” conception. This conception, restricted to passive physical accessibility, conflicts with literature promoting social responsibility. Second, an analysis of freedom within philosophical literature picks out three conceptions: negative, positive and republican. These conceptions, it is argued, translate to LIS literature and represent a full spectrum of viewpoints within the “intellectual freedom vs social responsibility” debate. Five conceptions in LIS are identified: “negative conservative”, “negative progressive”, “content neutral”, “republican” and “freedom as moral action”. The conflict within the “intellectual freedom vs social responsibility” debate, therefore, represents conflict between conceptions of freedom. Third, this insight paves the way for a reconciliation that tempers and ameliorates the tension between both values. Dimova-Cookson’s (2003) “producer-recipient” model suggests how a negative intellectual freedom and a positive social responsibility may sit together in a symbiotic relationship. This understanding, illustrated by practical case studies, provides a fresh perspective on the complex interaction of both values within the LIS profession