Management of e-resources in academic libraries in Ghana: Copyright implications

Abstract

This study investigated the copyright issues surrounding the management of e-resources in academic libraries in Ghana. Forty-seven library staff and head librarians from four academic libraries were engaged using questionnaires and qualitative interviews in a sequential mixed-methods approach to generate data for this study. The findings indicate that in all four institutions copyright issues arose with the provision of distance learning, online courses and e-reserves services. All the respondents stated that they or their colleagues had had faculty ask questions on copyright issues. However, the professional librarians indicated that the library was not consulted and the instructors for online courses or distance education programmes did not cooperate with librarians; rather, the department posting the materials made the decisions on copyright regarding the usage of digital resources for distance learning, online courses or e-reserves. This does not augur well for the management of copyright of e-resources in academic libraries in Ghana.

Keywords

Academic libraries copyright issues distance education programmes electronic resources management Ghana online courses

Introduction

The increasing popularity of electronic resources (‘e-reserves’ – i.e. e-books, e-journals, etc.) as a means by which librarians are meeting the information needs of their patrons (i.e. students and faculty) is due to the ease of retrieving, displaying and printing these materials for patrons compared to traditional print reserves. Many academic libraries are therefore making the conversion to this service a priority for sharing knowledge goods. This includes making available to their patrons electronically scanned paper documents and other original electronically formatted content (Copyright Clearance Center, 2011).

Armstrong et al. (2010) state that the popularity of digital materials as the learning tools of choice has largely been driven by the proliferation of information and communications technology (ICT) tools and devices. The deployment of ICT tools in information-sharing has also aided the provision of education to currently marginalised people and communities, whether on the basis of socio-economic status, ethnicity, gender, remoteness or other factors (Armstrong et al., 2010). ICTs can aid both in overcoming the physical infrastructural challenges that serve as barriers to acquiring learning tools and open access to knowledge not previously obtainable.

The current trend in academic librarianship, according to Carter (2007), is for patrons to be able to access quality information from wherever they find themselves – their homes, coffee shops, their offices and other areas with Internet connectivity. Digitisation and electronic communication offer such a possibility. Academic libraries are therefore under pressure to improve their electronic holdings and service delivery (Ferullo, 2004). Laughlin (2010), however, raises two major legal issues regarding the use of electronic resources. As the contents of e-books, unlike printed books, are usually transferred to the purchaser by the vendor without a physical container, the first question that arises is: Can libraries copy the content of their electronic holdings to different e-readers without infringing the exclusionary right of the copyright owner(s) to reproduction? The second question is: Can libraries lend their electronic holdings to clients without infringing the exclusionary right of the copyright owner(s) to distribution? These questions bring to the centre of the copyright debate issues about the management of e-resources in academic libraries.

Over the years, various public and private initiatives have been launched to provide some framework to ensure some degree of balance in stakeholder rights in information provision and utilisation through the application of such clauses as the fair use doctrine in a more predictable manner. For instance, during the enactment of the 1976 Copyright Act in the USA, while the American fair use provision was being debated in the US House of Representatives, Congress approved guidelines for educational users – ‘Classroom Guidelines’ – which are a set of guidelines for classroom copying of books and periodicals negotiated by a group of publishers and educational administrators in an effort to simplify the process of determining whether a classroom use is a fair one (Internet Policy Task Force, 2013). Adler et al. (2010) and Ferullo (2004) have both indicated that, included in the issues that create the greatest copyright concerns for academic librarians, are fair use and e-reserves usage. This study sought to investigate the copyright issues that surround the management of e-resources in academic libraries in Ghana.

Research objectives

The objectives of the study were to investigate:

The authority structure in decision-making about copyright on the usage of digital resources for online courses, distance education or e-reserves;

The level of cooperation between instructors of distance education courses in the university and library staff in making materials available for online courses or distance education programmes;

The copyright competency of instructors or tutors of distance education courses or users of e-reserves;

The dynamics in the evaluation of copyright materials for e-reserves, the planning stages of an online course or distance education programme, and who is held responsible for breach of copyright laws;

The role of the library in making materials available for e-reserves and the planning stages of an online course or distance education programme.

Literature review

Library automation, e-resources and copyright

The advent of the Internet has afforded consumers with the ability to increasingly access different kinds of creative content in different formats. It has also allowed different kinds of creators to reach a wide audience without the services of mainstream intermediaries. Libraries using online services have witnessed a phenomenal growth. Some of the technological developments driving this growth, however, have also brought in their wake new methods of mass infringement (Kende, 2014). The question at the forefront of the policy debate currently is: Can there be a meaningful copyright system that guarantees the continuous production of creative works without hampering the innovative power of the Internet as well as the free flow of information?

It is vital to address this problem in order to maintain a meaningful reward system for producing creative works and to ensure a level playing field for legitimate services, as well as promote the broadest offerings of online content. There is no doubt that, in the current knowledge-based economy, a good grip on how intellectual property rights function is critical to policy formulation in all spheres of human development (Chapdelaine, 2018; Weatherley, 2014). Thus, all stakeholders (i.e. creators, intermediaries and consumers) have an interest in ensuring the development of a robust online ecosystem. The principal question that arises therefore is: What is the best means to achieve this?

Law and technology have a complex relationship. Technology shapes legal development, while it is also shaped by law. The unfolding of copyright law confirms these dynamics as its development and enforcement have always been closely inspired by the technological state of the art. (77)

Finck and Moscon also write: ‘Copyright law has long leveraged the power of computer code to create binding norms for those that engage with related enforcement systems’ (78).

The global public interest and the impact of digitisation

Chapdelaine (2018), Finck and Moscon (2019) and Neal (2013) all state that the application of new communications technology tools, which have enabled the digitisation of information, has largely destroyed the effects and importance of territorial boundaries, and has enabled owners of knowledge goods to assert rights that are increasingly becoming detrimental to the consumers of goods, at both the international and domestic levels, that otherwise could be classified as a public good.

Ferullo (2004), in an article titled ‘Major copyright issues in academic libraries’, reports that the most common reasons for violating copyright in the USA include confusion and concern about issues of fair use, licensing, e-reserves and document delivery. Weatherley (2014: 10), in a discussion paper on ‘Copyright education and awareness’, indicates that the most common reasons for illegally accessing content are ‘because it is free’, ‘convenient’ and ‘quick’. Another reason given by Weatherley (2014: 10) is that ‘it allows users to try before they buy’. Weatherley (2014) also states that young people in the European Union were apathetic towards copyright issues, and tolerant of counterfeiting and illegal downloading. Di Valentino (2015) also cites ignorance of the finer points of copyright law as a reason for violating copyright on academic materials.

Ferullo (2004) and the Internet Policy Task Force (2013) have both indicated that the advantage of fair use is its flexibility and its high adaptability to new technologies. The application of the fair use doctrine has resulted in a number of copyright litigations. However, the courts have applied the doctrine in such a way that it has allowed users to put their accrued talents to work, and to encourage creative ‘progress’, which is the basic constitutional objective of copyright itself (Internet Policy Task Force, 2013: 21; Supreme Court of the United States, 2021), and this has enabled innovations such as ‘the use of thumbnail images in Internet search results, caching of web pages by a search engine, and a digital plagiarism detection service’ (Internet Policy Task Force, 2013: 21).

Control of digital content usage: the case of digital rights management

Advances in technology have made the copying of online information sources much easier. However, the widespread engagement of users in such behaviour has necessitated the creation of ‘intentional and artificial information usage barriers’ by some rights-holders, known as digital rights management. Puckett (2010) comments that digital rights management refers to a set of technologies that some rights-holders use to control the ways in which some aspects of digital content, such as electronic texts, video or music, can be used by consumers such as library users. Digital rights management usually employs the encryption of digital objects such as text, video or audio files, and the provision of a method by which a user can decrypt the same, in order to have access in ways that the rights-owner specifies. For example, publishers can permit usage only on specified devices or for a set number of times, or allow usage only on-screen but disable printing or reading via screen-reader software.

Digital rights management is a form of cryptography, which is the process of protecting information from unauthorised use by transforming it in such a way that only the authorised receiver can have use of it (Puckett, 2010). The sender (i.e. the vendor or provider of the information in this context) employs some kind of a ‘key’ to encrypt the digital object, which the recipient (i.e. the information user) may automatically decrypt in order to gain access using a copy of the same key. The information is protected from ‘attackers’ – unauthorised uses or users – without the key (IFLA, 2004). Finck and Moscon (2019) have, however, described digital rights management as a behaviour-constraining force that can enforce existing legal and contractual rules ex ante, thus compromising free access to information, as well as infringing on the freedom of users to make their own determinations about how that information can be ethically and appropriately used.

The academic librarian and management of copyright

How an academic library is managed is informed, among other things, by the mission of its parent institution. Academic institutions exist to promote the discovery and self-actualisation of the communities they serve. Academic institutions are therefore critical in the socio-economic development of, first, the citizenry of their local communities and, second, the global community as a whole. Thus, academic libraries exist to support teaching, learning and research in the parent institution they serve by facilitating access to various kinds of knowledge goods (IFLA, 2015).

Technological advances in librarianship are, however, shifting the dynamics of the availability, accessibility and delivery of information in such a way that electronic resources (e-books, e-journals, etc.) are now popular means of information delivery to information users. Indeed, the increasing use of ICT tools to facilitate the use of electronically formatted information has made it easier to copy online information sources, either from one computer to another or even from an internal hard drive to the external memory of a user’s computer. However, the constant engagement of users in such behaviour brings to the fore the importance of copyright in our daily use of information (Puckett, 2010: 12). This situation has necessitated the creation of intentional and artificial information usage barriers, or digital rights management, by some rights-holders (Chapdelaine, 2018; Finck and Moscon, 2019).

In 1998, the USA passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This has made digital rights management even more significant in digital copyright. Rights-holders are only permitting access after the acquisition of an appropriate licence. There is also an emerging trend of librarians increasingly being made responsible for the management of these licensing agreements, to the extent that in some instances these licensing agreements hold the library legally responsible to educate users about the terms of the agreements (Copyright Licensing Agency, 2019). In such cases, librarians are obligated to be well informed, particularly on digital copyright issues, to be able to take on this role (Secker et al., 2019).

Methods

Research approach

This study adopted a mixed-methods approach to address the research objectives. Mixed-methods research is defined as the

type of research in which a researcher or team of researchers combine elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches (e.g., use of qualitative and quantitative viewpoints, data collection, analysis, inference techniques) for the broad purposes of breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration. (Johnson et al., 2007: 123)

This was to help minimise the effects of the inherent biases in both the quantitative and qualitative research approaches, as well as to harness the advantages of the similarities and differences in qualitative and quantitative methods.

According to Creswell (2014), Teddlie and Tashakkori (2010) and Yin (2016), the mixed-methods research approach is a pragmatic alternative to either the qualitative or quantitative approach to research. Molina-Azorin and Fetters (2019) also say that the strength of the mixed-methods approach is that it is a complete methodological tool kit, and integrates expertise across other methodologies. It also engages stakeholders and involves them in the creation of knowledge, and produces evidence that resonates, as well as disseminating, evaluating and demonstrating the impacts of the research.

To explain the strong quantitative drift in this field, the study used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods research approach in the data collection process. This involved collecting and analysing the quantitative data first, which was followed by the qualitative data collection phase (Creswell, 2014).

Research design

A survey research design was used in the first phase of this study to collect the quantitative data. Thus, data was collected from individuals using questionnaires. This involved the total population of librarians within each of the selected institutions, since there were generally few librarians within an institution (i.e. between 4 and 24). The advantages in the survey method are its versatility, cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Surveys also make it possible to generalise the results generated using probability sampling from large populations. The study used both open- and closed-ended questions to account for the weaknesses in the survey method, which included a lack of flexibility in the questions asked to accommodate participant biases.

The educational levels of the respondents in this study made it easier to use self-administered questionnaires for the data collection. Self-administered questionnaires have been reported as an excellent tool where the literacy and educational levels of the target population are relatively high, and respondents can complete the questionnaire by themselves without help from any people other than the official research team (Kumekpor, 1999). It took five weeks to complete the questionnaire administration and collection. Out of the total of 47 questionnaires administered, 38 were returned, giving a response rate of 80.9%.

It was assumed that head librarians were better positioned to influence the striking of the right balance in copyright laws among the stakeholders. Thus, head librarians were engaged in one-on-one qualitative interview sessions to collect the qualitative data. Qualitative interviewing has been described as ‘an in-depth, semi-structured or loosely structured form of interviewing’, and distinguishably different from the use of open-ended questions in an otherwise structured interview schedule such as a survey (Mason, 2002: 62). According to Mason (2002: 83), qualitative interviewing tends to be seen as involving the construction or reconstruction of knowledge more than the excavation of it. It is also said to be an appropriate and practical way of getting at the ‘central ontological components of social reality’ (Mason, 2002: 83), and offers an opportunity to clarify ambiguities in the answers obtained during the quantitative phase of the study and, when appropriate, seek clarifications in follow-up questions with the participants.

Data collection instruments

Both primary data and secondary data were collected for this study. This involved the use of questionnaires and qualitative interviewing sessions. Secondary data was obtained through relevant literature sources such as books, journal articles, newspapers and other documentary evidence at CopyGhana, libraries and various websites. The qualitative interviews were done with head librarians. The interviews, which were held in each head librarian’s office, lasted between 45 minutes and 1 hour 30 minutes.

Data analysis

The responses were entered and processed using the statistical package SPSS for Windows, version 23, after the questionnaires were screened for accuracy and completeness, and coded. The quantitative data was analysed using simple frequencies and percentages, with the view to making interpretation of the data easier, and the qualitative data was analysed using the thematic analysis method (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2012). The strength and significance of the relationship between the row and column variables of the cross tabulations were tested using ϕ (for nominal × nominal, and nominal × ordinal relationships) and Kendall’s τ-b (for ordinal × ordinal relationships) at p ≤ .05.

The thematic content analysis method was used to analyse the qualitative data (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2012). This involved the transcription of the responses from the interview sessions, then coding for emerging themes to give meaning to particular topics. The themes were then assessed for patterns and common attributes to make meaning out of the data.

Results

Demographic characteristics of library staff respondents

Figure 1 shows the age distribution of the respondents. The results show that less than 20% of the respondents were aged below 30, with the majority being between 31 and 45 years old. Only 23.7% were aged 46 and above.

Figure 1.

Age distribution of library staff respondents (n = 38).

There was no significant difference in the age distribution of the respondents across institutions (ϕ = 0.754, n = 38, p = .118). However, the Methodist University College of Ghana had a higher percentage of respondents who were aged 46 years and above (75%, n = 4; see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Age distribution of staff respondents according to academic institution (n = 38).

Females constituted 39.5% of the entire staff respondents (n = 38), with the University of Ghana having the highest proportion of female respondents (64.7%) and the University of Cape Coast having the lowest (15.4%; ϕ = 0.470, n = 38, p = .039; see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Gender distribution of staff respondents according to academic institution (n =38).

Respondents with Master of Arts (MA) or Master of Philosophy (MPhil) degrees constituted the highest proportion (63.2%), and diploma-holders constituted the lowest (2.6%). Respondents with PhDs constituted only 5.3% of the total population (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Academic background of staff respondents (n = 38).

Only the Methodist University College of Ghana had equal numbers of staff with degrees from diploma to PhD, while all the respondents from Valley View University had MAs or MPhils. Also, only the University of Cape Coast had respondents with other degrees (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Academic background of staff respondents according to academic institution (n = 38).

The majority of the respondents (52.6%) had been in their posts for between 6 and 10 years (Figure 6). Only the public institutions had staff who had been in their posts for more than 20 years. No respondent from Valley View University had been in their post for more than 15 years (ϕ = 0.962, p < .001; Figure 7).

Figure 6.

Distribution of staff respondents by number of years of work experience (n = 38).

Figure 7.

Distribution of staff respondents in the various academic institutions by number of years of work experience (n = 38).

Also, the majority of the respondents were either Senior Library Assistants (36.8%) or Assistant Librarians (31.6%). Head Librarians and Deputy Librarians together constituted only 10.5% of the respondents (Figure 8).

Figure 8.

Distribution of staff respondents according to current position in the library (n = 38).

However, the distribution of the different positions of staff did not differ significantly between institutions (ϕ = 0.721, n = 38, p = .182). Only 7.9% of the respondents were working in the acquisitions section of the library, with the majority (36.8%) working in departmental libraries (Figure 9). The distribution of staff working in the different sections of the library did not differ between institutions (ϕ = 0.620, n = 38, p = .263).

Figure 9.

Distribution of staff respondents according to the section of the library they worked in (n = 38).

Management of electronic resources

There were no significant institutional differences with regard to the electronic resources services being offered. Some staff in all the institutions indicated that their institutions offered e-reserves services, distance learning and online courses. All the respondents also indicated that, in the provision of resources for distance learning courses or e-reserves, they or other library staff had had faculty ask questions about copyright issues.

Opinions of library staff on freedom of library clients to use electronic resources such as e-journals, databases and e-books contracted by the library without any restrictions

Table 1 shows that Assistant Librarians and Senior Assistant Librarians were the only categories of staff where 100% of them indicated that their clients were not free to use electronic resources such as e-journals, databases and e-books contracted by the library without any restrictions (ϕ = 0.896, n = 38, p < .001) when the data was disaggregated according to the current staff positions. With the exception of staff with a diploma (0%) and MA/MPhil (33.3%) degrees (ϕ = 0.549, n = 38, p = .022), Table 1 indicates that the majority of staff agreed that their clients were free to use electronic resources such as e-journals, databases and e-books contracted by the library without any restrictions (ϕ = 0.896, n = 38, p < .001). Also, only staff in the acquisitions and cataloguing/classifications sections had a 100% response rate indicating that their clients were not free to use electronic resources such as e-journals, databases and e-books contracted by the library without any restrictions (ϕ = 0.824, n = 38, p < .001).

Table 1.

Opinions of library staff on freedom of library clients to use electronic resources such as journals, databases and e-books contracted by the library without any restrictions.

Category of respondents	Freedom to use electronic resources (%)
Category of respondents	Yes	No
ϕ = 0.896, n = 38, p < .001
Library Assistant	3 (60.0)	2 (40.0)
Senior Library Assistant	14 (100.0)	0 (0.0)
Assistant Librarian	0 (0.0)	12 (100.0)
Senior Assistant Librarian	0 (0.0)	3 (100.0)
Deputy Librarian	1 (100.0)	0 (0.0)
University Librarian/Head Librarian	1 (33.3)	2 (66.7)
ϕ = 0.549, n = 38, p = .022
Diploma	0 (0.0)	1 (100.0)
Bachelor of Arts (BA)/Bachelor of Science (BSc)	4 (80.0)	1 (20.0)
Master of Arts (MA)/Master of Philosophy (MPhil)	8 (33.3)	16 (66.7)
PhD	1 (50.0)	1 (50.0)
Other	6 (100.0)	0 (0.0)
ϕ = 0.824, n = 38, p < .001
Reference section	3 (50.0)	3 (50.0)
Acquisitions section	0 (0.0)	3 (100.0)
Administration	2 (22.2)	7 (77.8)
Cataloguing/classification section	0 (0.0)	6 (100.0)
Departmental library	14 (100.0)	0 (0.0)

Authority for making decisions about copyright regarding usage of digital resources for online courses, distance education or e-reserves

The majority (54.5%) of library staff in all categories said that the decisions about copyright regarding the usage of digital resources for e-reserves, distance education or online courses were made by the academic department that posted the materials (Table 2).

Table 2.

Category of respondents	Sector with authority to make decision (%)
Category of respondents	Library	Academic department posting the materials
ϕ = 0.937, n = 33, p < .001
Library Assistant	2 (50.0)	2 (50.0)
Senior Library Assistant	13 (100.0)	0 (0.0)
Assistant Librarian	0 (0.0)	10 (100.0)
Senior Assistant Librarian	0 (0.0)	3 (100.0)
Deputy Librarian	0 (0.0)	1 (100.0)
University Librarian/Head Librarian	0 (0.0)	2 (100.0)
ϕ = 0.565, n = 33, p = .032
Diploma	0 (0.0)	1 (100.0)
Bachelor of Arts (BA)/Bachelor of Science (BSc)	4 (80.0)	1 (20.0)
Master of Arts (MA)/Master of Philosophy (MPhil)	7 (31.8)	15 (68.2)
PhD	0 (0.0)	1 (100.0)
Other	4 (100.0)	0 (0.0)
ϕ = 0.692, n = 33, p = .003
1–5 years	2 (40.0)	3 (60.0)
6–10 years	13 (76.5)	4 (23.5)
11–15 years	0 (0.0)	1 (100.0)
16–20 years	0 (0.0)	3 (100.0)
> 20 years	0 (0.0)	7 (100.0)
ϕ = 0.924, n = 33, p < .001
Reference section	2 (40.0)	3 (60.0)
Acquisitions section	0 (0.0)	3 (100.0)
Administration	0 (0.0)	7 (100.0)
Cataloguing/classification section	0 (0.0)	5 (100.0)
Departmental library	13 (100.0)	0 (0.0)

Cooperation of tutors or instructors of distance education courses with library staff in making materials available for online courses or distance education programmes

Generally, the respondents in all categories felt that, in making materials available for online courses or distance education programmes, the instructors or tutors did not cooperate with librarians. Where there were significant differences in the responses, only 33.3% of head librarians and 50% of PhD degree-holders said that, in making materials available for online courses or distance education programmes, instructors or tutors cooperated with librarians (Table 3).

Table 3.

Cooperation of instructors of distance education courses with library staff in making materials available for online courses or distance education programmes.

Category of respondents	Cooperation of instructors of distance education courses with library staff (%)
Category of respondents	Cooperate	Do not cooperate
ϕ = 0.562, n = 38, p = .035
Library Assistant	0 (0.0)	5 (100.0)
Senior Library Assistant	0 (0.0)	14 (100.0)
Assistant Librarian	0 (0.0)	12 (100.0)
Senior Assistant Librarian	0 (0.0)	3 (100.0)
Deputy Librarian	0 (0.0)	1 (100.0)
University Librarian/Head Librarian	1 (33.3)	2 (66.7)
ϕ = 0.697, n = 38, p = .001
Diploma	0 (0.0)	1 (100.0)
Bachelor of Arts (BA)/Bachelor of Science (BSc)	0 (0.0)	5 (100.0)
Master of Arts (MA)/Master of Philosophy (MPhil)	0 (0.0)	24 (100.0)
PhD	1 (50.0)	1 (50.0)
Other	0 (0.0)	6 (100.0)

The following is a comment from one of the head librarians with regard to the neglect of the library in making decisions on the types of materials made available for online courses or distance education programmes:

It is one of the issues I always raise when I happen to be at academic board meetings. Because they bring these courses that they want to mount…and sometimes you look at the references, then you ask them where they got the reference from…sometimes they are references they [the instructors] have in their own collection and they start with that…which is not possible for the students to find…It is an issue that we are grappling with, and I do not know whether it is because they do not know or they are refusing to cooperate…I do not know…But then, at the end of the day, they want the students to come to the library. And they have not even come to check whether the materials they are referring the students to are available.

Copyright competency of instructors or tutors of distance education courses or those using e-reserves

There were no institutional differences with regard to the copyright competency of instructors or tutors of distance education courses or those using e-reserves (ϕ = 0.236, n = 38, p = .547). Paraprofessionals tended to think that all instructors or tutors of distance education courses or those using e-reserves understood copyright laws, compared to professional librarians, who thought that only ‘some of them’ understood copyright laws (ϕ = 0.896, n = 38, p < .001; Figure 10).

Figure 10.

Current position of library staff and their opinions on the understanding of copyright laws by instructors or tutors of distance education courses or those using e-reserves.

Although the academic background of staff significantly influenced responses to whether instructors or tutors of distance education courses or those using e-reserves understood copyright laws (ϕ = 0.594, n = 38, p = .009), this did not follow any particular pattern (Figure 11).

Figure 11.

Academic background of library staff and their opinions on the understanding of copyright laws by instructors or tutors of distance education courses or those using e-reserves.

Respondents who had been in service for 16 years and above thought that only some of the instructors or tutors of distance education courses or those using e-reserves understood copyright laws, compared to staff in the early stages of their career, who thought that all instructors or tutors of distance education courses or those using e-reserves understood copyright laws (ϕ = 0.631, n = 38, p = .004; Figure 12).

Figure 12.

Work experience of library staff and their opinions on the understanding of copyright laws by instructors or tutors of distance education courses or those using e-reserves.

The library department in which staff were working significantly influenced the staff’s response to whether instructors or tutors of distance education courses or those using e-reserves understood copyright laws (ϕ = 0.865, n = 38, p < .001). Those working in departmental libraries or the reference section of the library tended to indicate that all the instructors or tutors of distance education courses or those using e-reserves understood copyright laws, compared to the rest, who thought that only ‘some of them’ understood copyright laws and policies (Figure 13).

Figure 13.

Workstation of library staff and their opinions on the understanding of copyright laws by instructors or tutors of distance education courses or those using e-reserves.

Involvement of the library in the evaluation of copyright materials during the planning stages of a distance education programme or online courses, or for e-reserves, and the opinions of patrons and library staff on who to hold responsible for infringement of copyright laws

All the categories of respondents indicated that they believed in the involvement of the library in the evaluation of copyright materials during the planning stages of a distance education programme or online course, or for e-reserves. In the words of a head librarian:

The acquisitions librarian is always on them [the coordinators of online courses]. So now, [the acquisitions librarian] liaises with them so that if there’s anything new, it will be picked up fast, because at the end of the day the library will be blamed.

Also, all the categories of respondents assigned some liability to library patrons for breach of copyright laws. Whilst paraprofessionals did not think that the educational institution and the institute’s librarians (ϕ = 0.896, n = 38, p < .001) could be absolved of any blame, the professional librarians thought otherwise (Table 4).

Table 4.

The current position of staff and their opinions on who to hold responsible for breach of copyright laws in academic libraries in Ghana.

Category of respondents	Response (%)
Category of respondents	Responsible	Not responsible
The educational institution (ϕ = 0.896, n = 38, p < .001)
Library Assistant	2 (40.0)	3 (60.0)
Senior Library Assistant	0 (0.0)	14 (100.0)
Assistant Librarian	12 (100.0)	0 (0.0)
Senior Assistant Librarian	3 (100.0)	0 (0.0)
Deputy Librarian	0 (0.0)	1 (100.0)
University Librarian/Head Librarian	1 (33.3)	2 (66.7)
The institution’s librarians (ϕ = 0.896, n = 38, p < .001)
Library Assistant	2 (40.0)	3 (60.0)
Senior Library Assistant	0 (0.0)	14 (100.0)
Assistant Librarian	12 (100.0)	0 (0.0)
Senior Assistant Librarian	3 (100.0)	0 (0.0)
Deputy Librarian	0 (0.0)	1 (100.0)
University Librarian/Head Librarian	1 (33.3)	2 (66.7)

A head librarian summarized the situation thus:

I think it is the institution…or the college [which should be held responsible for breach of copyright], because before you mount any course…you plan these things; they have to go through accreditation so it does not take even one year…So if they give us enough time, and then we know that this year a particular course will be mounted in this college, we get them the needed materials. Otherwise, we will never get the materials…and they [the library users] will continue breaching the law.

Role of the library in making materials available during the planning stages of a distance education programme or online course, or for e-reserves

There were no significant differences in the responses of staff to whether the library was consulted with regard to the availability of materials during the planning stages of a distance education programme or online course, or for e-reserves (ϕ = 0.264, n = 38, p = .448). Paraprofessionals generally thought that the library was consulted with regard to the availability of materials during the planning stages of a distance education programme or online course, or for e-reserves, compared to the professional librarians who thought that it was not (ϕ = 0.896, n = 38, p < .001; Figure 14).

Figure 14.

Current position of library staff and their opinions on whether the library was consulted regarding the availability of materials during the planning stages of a distance education programme or online course, or for e-reserves.

Although academic background significantly influenced responses as to whether the library was consulted with regard to the availability of materials during the planning stages of a distance education programme or online course, or for e-reserves (ϕ = 0.583, n = 38, p = .012), this did not follow any particular trend (Figure 15).

Figure 15.

Academic background of library staff and their opinions on whether the library was consulted regarding the availability of materials during the planning stages of a distance education programme or online course, or for e-reserves.

Respondents in the early stages of their career (less than 16 years of experience) tended to agree that the library was consulted with regard to the availability of materials during the planning stages of a distance education programme or online course, or for e-reserves, in contrast to those with 16 years of service or more, who tended to ‘disagree’ (ϕ = 0.565, n = 38, p = .016; Figure 16).

Figure 16.

Work experience of library staff and their opinions on whether the library was consulted regarding the availability of materials during the planning stages of a distance education programme or online course, or for e-reserves.

Furthermore, the respondents in departmental libraries and reference sections thought that the library was not consulted with regard to the availability of materials during the planning stages of a distance education programme or online course, or for e-reserves, compared to staff in the other sections of the library, who thought that it was (ϕ = 0.865, n = 38, p < .001; Figure 17).

Figure 17.

Workstation of library staff and their opinions on whether the library was consulted regarding the availability of materials during the planning stages of a distance education programme or online course, or for e-reserves.

A professional librarian, who indicated that the library was consulted in such matters, commented: ‘The library is involved for the purpose of accreditation, and during this process all materials acquired are governed by the copyright provisions’.

Discussion

The findings of this study indicate that all the different institutions studied offered e-resources services, such as e-reserves services, e-journals, distance learning and online courses. Although the increasing use of e-resources in academic libraries today has resulted in a continuous process of improvement in service delivery to the academic community, copyright issues arise with the provision of these services, as all of the respondents indicated that, in the provision of resources for e-reserves services or distance learning courses, they or their colleagues had had faculty ask questions about copyright issues.

The advances in the use of digital technology in academic libraries have made it easier to share information. The Copyright Clearance Center and Outsell (2019) report a dramatic upward trend in information-sharing among professionals in 2019 compared to 2016. In 2016, one employee shared information 5.5 times per week with 9 people; in 2019, one employee shared information 5.9 times per week with 21 people. The implication of this trend is the increasing possibility of copyright violation. The Copyright Clearance Center (2017) reports that a senior executive who routinely forwarded copies of digital materials to two other executives ended up causing their employer US$500,000 in copyright lawsuits.

As librarians move to satisfy the information needs of their clients, one primary challenge that arises is the ever-changing face of copyright law – the imprecise, inconsistent, gyrating judicial interpretation of the existing copyright laws. For instance, in Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., No. 18–956 (Supreme Court of the United States, 2021), Oracle America Inc. sued Google for US$9 billion for breaching copyright on the use of a computer software code – the Java application programming interface – which Google had copied to develop its Android platform. Oracle America Inc. had earlier acquired the copyright to the code from Sun Microsystems in 2010, but Google appealed to the doctrine of fair use in using the code in the manner it did.

Although a jury had earlier ruled in favour of Google, this verdict was reversed by the Federal Circuit under a de novo standard of review (Snow, 2020). However, the Supreme Court recently reversed the court of appeals’ decision. Justice Stephen Breyer, in writing the majority opinion in the case, agreed that Google’s use of the code was protected under fair use, noting that Google took ‘only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program’ (Supreme Court of the United States, 2021: 4).

Digitisation and the application of new communications technologies have also largely eroded the importance and effect of territorial boundaries, thus enabling copyright owners to assert increasing rights over such goods that could otherwise be classified as a public good, to the detriment of information consumers (Chapdelaine, 2018; Finck and Moscon, 2019; Neal, 2013; Puckett, 2010). Weatherley (2014), however, reports the apathy of young people in the European Union towards copyright issues, and their tolerance of counterfeiting and illegal downloading.

Hart and Slater (2019) also state that compliance with the Copyright Act goes beyond merely the replication of copyrighted material; an often-overlooked issue is the performance of copyrighted material, which makes business owners, and for that matter academic libraries, liable for any copyright violations on their premises. The Copyright Act of 1976, 17 US Code § 101, defines a ‘performance’ as any

means to recite, render, play, dance, or act, either directly or by means of any device or process, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible (United States Copyright Office, 2011: 4)

Such an all-encompassing definition can easily make one be in copyright violation when using information. Thus, academic librarians have a greater responsibility to safeguard their institutions against being sued for copyright violations as a result of improper or inadequate supervision of copyright information use in the library.

Thus, the belief of the professional librarians that the library was not consulted with regard to the availability of materials during the planning stages of a distance education programme or online course, or for e-reserves, coupled with the fact that the majority (54.5%) of staff said that the academic department posting the materials made decisions on copyright regarding the use of digital resources for distance education or online courses, or for e-reserves, does not augur well for the leadership role of the library in copyright matters on campus.

This is contrary to the situation in Canada, where Horava (2010) reports that the majority of librarians felt that they led in copyright issues in their institutions. An emerging trend in modern librarianship is to make libraries legally responsible for the management of licensing agreements, and educate users about the terms of these licensing agreements (Copyright Licensing Agency, 2019; Secker et al., 2019). Librarians are therefore obligated to be well informed, particularly on digital copyright issues, to be able to take on this role, and to be actively involved in the copyright debate on campus.

Ferullo (2004) comments that librarians stand to gain by actively contributing to the discussions of the copyright debate, and in the drafting and implementation stages of university copyright policies. Ferullo (2004) also advocates for the active involvement of librarians during the drafting and negotiation of licensing agreements that impact the operations of their libraries at the very stage when copyright can be defined and the limits of the rights can be negotiated.

Although the courts have applied the fair use doctrine in such a way as to encourage users to apply their skills in new and transformative ways that benefit, and not hinder, society’s progress in innovation and creativity (Supreme Court of the United States, 2021), academic librarians would do well to heed the advice of the Copyright Clearance Center (2011). In the confusion surrounding the application of the fair use doctrine with digital copyright in academic libraries, the Copyright Clearance Center offers the following advice on knowing how to navigate the labyrinth of copyright compliance in using e-resources:

It is important for librarians, instructors, and students to remember that, from a copyright law perspective, there is no distinction between paper reserves and e-reserves. The same fair use guidelines apply to e-reserves; if the particular use of content doesn’t meet the fair use criteria in hard copy form, it is unlikely to be considered fair use in digitized form (Copyright Clearance Center, 2011: 1)

Norris et al. (2019) expect all librarians to have a general understanding of the concepts and challenges associated with copyright law, as modern librarianship is intrinsically tied to a good appreciation and application of copyright.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of all the participants in this study and also the staff at Wisconsin International University College Library, who made this study possible.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Theresa L Adu

References

Adler

Butler

Aufderheide

, et al. (2010) Fair use challenges in academic and research libraries. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries. Available at: https://www.arl.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/arl_csm_fairusereport.pdf (accessed 5 December 2017).

Armstrong

De Beer

Kawooya

, et al. (eds) (2010) Access to Knowledge in Africa: The Role of Copyright. Claremont, CA: UCT Press.

Carter

(2007) Copyright, permissions and fair use in interlibrary loan and electronic reserve: Introduction. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve 18(1): 2–6.

Chapdelaine

(2018) Copyright user rights and remedies: An access to justice perspective. Laws 7(3): Article 24.

Copyright Clearance Center (2011) Using electronic reserves: Guidelines and best practices for copyright compliance. White Paper. Available at: http://www.copyright.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Using-Electronic-Reserves.pdf (accessed 15 January 2021).

Copyright Clearance Center (2017) The risky business of information sharing: Why you need to care about copyright. White Paper. Available: https://www.copyright.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Risky-Business-of-Information-Sharing.pdf (accessed 28 December 2018).

Copyright Clearance Center and Outsell (2019) 2019 information seeking, consumption and use survey. Available at: http://www.copyright.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Report-2019-Information-Seeking-Consumption-and-Use-Survey.pdf

Copyright Licensing Agency (2019) User guidelines: Higher education licence, 1 August 2016 – 31 July 2019. Available at: https://www.cla.co.uk/sites/default/files/HE-User-Guidelines.pdf (accessed 15 January 2021).

Creswell

(2014) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. London: SAGE.

10.

Di Valentino

(2015) Awareness and perception of copyright among teaching faculty at Canadian universities. Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 10(2): 1–16.

11.

Ferullo

(2004) Major copyright issues in academic libraries. Journal of Library Administration 40(1–2): 23–40.

12.

Finck

Moscon

(2019) Copyright law on blockchains: Between new forms of rights administration and digital rights management 2.0. IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 50: 77–108.

13.

Hart

Slater

(2019) Think your company is in compliance with the Copyright Act: Listen carefully. Journal of Corporate Accounting and Finance 30(1): 169–174.

14.

Horava

(2010) Copyright communication in Canadian academic libraries: A national survey/Les modes de communication concernant les droits d’auteur dans les bibliothèques universitaires canadiennes: Une enquête nationale. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science 34(1): 1–38.

15.

IFLA (2004) Limitations and exceptions to copyright and neighbouring rights in the digital environment: An international library perspective. Available at: https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/clm/position_papers/ilp.pdf (accessed 21 April 2016).

16.

IFLA (2015) Toolkit: Libraries and the UN post-2015 development agenda. Available at: https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/topics/libraries-development/documents/ifla-post-2015-a2i-libraries-toolkit-v2.pdf (accessed 2 March 2017).

17.

Internet Policy Task Force (2013) Copyright policy, creativity, and innovation in the digital economy. Available at: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/news/publications/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf (accessed 20 May 2016).

18.

Johnson

Onwuegbuzie

Turner

(2007) Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 1(2): 112–133.

19.

Kende

(2014) Global Internet report 2014: Open and sustainable access for all. Available at: https://www.internetsociety.org/doc/global-internet-report (accessed 4 March 2017).

20.

Kumekpor

TKB

(1999) Research Methods and Techniques of Social Research. Accra, Ghana: Sonlife Press.

21.

Laughlin

(2010) Digitization and democracy: The conflict between the Amazon Kindle license agreement and the role of libraries in a free society. Baltimore Law Review 40(1): 3–52.

22.

Mason

(2002) Qualitative Researching. 2nd ed. London: SAGE.

23.

Molina-Azorin

Fetters

(2019) Building a better world through mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 13(3): 275–281.

24.

Neal

(2013) The copyright axis of evil: The academic library must confront threats to user rights. In: Association of College and Research Libraries 2013 conference, Indianapolis, USA, 10–13 April 2013. Available at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2013/papers/Neal_Copyright.pdf (accessed 3 March 2017).

25.

Norris

Tierney

Dubach

(2019) Why every librarian should know about copyright: Creating copyright training opportunities for librarians at your institution. Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works 866. Available at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/ucfscholar/866

26.

Onwuegbuzie

Leech

Collins

(2012) Qualitative analysis techniques for the review of the literature. Qualitative Report 17(28): 1–28.

27.

Puckett

(2010) Digital rights management as information access barrier. Progressive Librarian 34(35): 11–24.

28.

Secker

Morrison

Nilsson

(2019) Copyright literacy and the role of librarians as educators and advocates: An international symposium. Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship 3(2): 1–19.

29.

Snow

(2020) Fair use in Sayre v. Moore: A reply to Oracle. University of Illinois Law Review Online 284 . Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3703897

30.

Supreme Court of the United States (2021) Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc, No. 18–956, 593 US ____. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf

31.

Teddlie

Tashakkori

(2010) Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori A and Teddlie C (eds) SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 1–41.

32.

United States Copyright Office (2011) Copyright Law of the United States and related laws contained in Title 17 of the United States Code. Available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/us/us352en.pdf (accessed 31 May 2021).

33.

Weatherley

(2014) Copyright education and awareness: A discussion paper. Available at: https://www.mikeweatherley.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/11.pdf (accessed 15 November 2018).

34.

Yin

(2016) Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.