SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

This paper explores the process by which access and use rights for licensed digital resources are co-constructed between owners and users of intellectual property through a longitudinal social process. It describes this co-construction process for the development of digital rights management (DRM) technologies on two digital scholarly resources—the Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE) Digital Library and ARTstor. The ARTstor DRM development process could be seen as “the best of times” where the vendor actively sought stakeholder input and engaged in user testing. In contrast, the SAE DRM development process can be seen as “the worst of times” where the publisher imposed a DRM on a user group with no input and no user testing. While in both cases the DRM were reconfigured after initial user reactions, the reconfiguration in the ARTstor case was relatively managed and positive in tone, and the reconfiguration in the SAE case was chaotic and openly hostile. Differences in the co-construction of the DRM can be explained in part by differences in publisher attitudes toward academic libraries as customers, difference in the publishers' traditional business models, and differences in ownership of the content within the two digital libraries.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

The availability of new technological protection measures such as digital rights management (DRM) systems opens up the possibility that vendors of licensed digital libraries could restrict the use rights that end users experience when they use the product. For example, DRM might block saving to a local disk. This paper describes the recent implementation of DRM on two digital scholarly resources—the Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE) Digital Library and ARTstor. The SAE Digital Library (SAE DL) is a collection of papers, and standards related to mobility engineering created by one publisher. ARTstor is a Mellon Foundation instigated project to provide teaching and research access to high quality images from a variety of sources. While both digital libraries have employed DRM to control how users use their material, the use rights permitted by two DRM are not the same. Further, and more to our focus, the process through which the DRM and its use rights were developed are quite different. The ARTstor DRM/use rights development process can be seen as “the best of times” where the vendor actively sought stakeholder input and engaged in user testing. In contrast, the SAE DRM/use rights development process can be seen as “the worst of times” where the publisher imposed a DRM on a user group with no input and no user testing. While in both cases the DRM/use rights were reconfigured after initial user reactions, the reconfiguration in the ARTstor case was relatively managed and positive in tone; in contrast, the reconfiguration in the SAE case was chaotic and openly hostile. This paper represents a preliminary analysis of the SAE DL and ARTstor case studies. We describe the unique aspects of each set of content, the history of access to scholarly materials in each field, customer/publisher interaction during development of the DRM, the introduction of the DRM to its user community, the user communities reaction to the DRM, reconfiguration of each DRM in response to reaction, and ongoing issues related to each digital library. Through these rich descriptions, we consider how use rights permitted by DRM technologies are developed through interaction between publishers and stakeholders over time and within the constraints of scholarly and professional field norms on what types of access and use controls are implemented by publishers.

Theoretical Framework and Methodology

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

Several intertwined socio-technical theoretical ideas underlie the research. First, we see information systems such as licensed digital libraries and their associated DRM as “emergent” information systems that never reach a final stable form but rather continuously move through different phases of redesign in reaction to changing resources and needs (Truex, Baskerville and Klein, 1999). Further, we employ a theoretical lens from science and technology studies that highlights users' active participation in the co-construction of technologies, such as DRM, with vendors (Oudshoorn and Pinch 2003). This co-construction may consist of invited and managed interaction between stakeholders (ARTstor) or the co-construction may consist of uninvited and unmanaged criticism and product cancellations (SAE DL). But either way, the co-construction occurs as user feedback (along with other factors) influence redesign decisions. While other theorists have raised fears that DRM will impede users information behaviors, or that DRM will shape users' expectations about what they ought to be able to do with digital intellectual property DRM (see Gillespie 2007), this analysis focuses on users actions to influence the use rights allowed by DRM. Users may influence use rights allowed by DRM through formal participation in a design process, or through “antiprograms” or actions that conflict with the original design intention of a system vendor via hacking, license cancellation, political lobbying or other actions (Akrich and Latour 1992; Eschenfelder and Desai 2004; Postigo 2008).

The study employs a qualitative case study design. Given the rarity of TPM implementation in the scholarly digital library field, both cases should be considered “unique” cases where the rarity of the phenomenon justifies its documentation (Yin 2003). Given the differences between the cases however, the two cases also serve as an analytical contrast to one another. A qualitative approach facilitates consideration of the complex economic, disciplinary and legal contexts that influenced the development and reconfiguration of each DL's DRM (Stake 2005). Analysis focuses on stakeholders' perceptions of the digital libraries and their DRM and stakeholder expectations regarding use rights.

Data will stem from four sources within each case: digital library website information, interviews with librarians, publishers, and users of the two digital libraries, secondary data analysis of the literature, and analysis of professional blog and listserv conversations related to the two cases. SAE interviews to date include seven engineering librarians, seven ME researchers and several ME graduate students. Secondary literature on SAE is small. Analysis of lists and blogs included two years of conversation about SAE on an engineering library listserv “ENGlist” and occasional commentaries on engineering librarian blogs “ENGblog.” In accordance with accepted standards for scholarly inquiry involving blog and listserv data, pseudonyms are used for the names of the blogs or listservs employed because explicit permission has not been obtained from all the blog/list authors and because drawing attention to the lists may harm their value as a group communications device (Ess, 2002). Further, quotes from lists have been altered slightly to further protect the privacy of the listserv (King, 1996). ARTstor interviews to date include five visual resource librarians and two publisher representatives. An extensive secondary literature, including the VRA (Visual Resources Association) Bulletin, Art Documentation and Art Library Bulletin, describe the development and implementation of ARTstor. In addition the listservs, ARTliblist and SLIDEliblist, employed by art and visual resources librarians, were analyzed. Data collection for this project is ongoing.

Table 1. Data Sources to Date
Data sourcesSociety for Automotive Engineers Digital LibraryARTstor
Interviews7 engineering librarians 7 engineering researchers5 visual resource librarians 2 publisher representatives
Professional listservs and blogsENGlist (2005 to present) ENGblogARTliblist, SLIDEliblist (1998 to present)
Secondary literatureLittle available: one poster at American Society for Engineering Education Conference 2007.Extensive discussion in secondary literature including VRA (Visual Resources Association) Bulletin, Art Documentation and Art Library Bulletin

The analysis presented in this paper is preliminary and data collection and analysis are ongoing. Analysis to date has been inductive in style but guided by the socio-technical theoretical frames outlined above. Analysis has been iterative in that one source of data often raised new questions that required a return to other data sources for further inspection, demanded further follow up interviews with informants or required the seeking out of new sources of data to triangulate results or bound results through alternative explanations (Stake 2005).

To prepare this preliminary analysis, each author analyzed data from each source for her case individually and then presented her case to the co-author who acted as devil's advocate – raising new question or demanding explanations of assumptions. This paper organizes the descriptive data into parallel sections for each case study: unique aspects of the content, the history of access to scholarly materials in each field, customer/publisher interaction during development of the DRM, the introduction of the DRM to its user community, reaction to the DRM, reconfiguration of each DRM in response to reaction, and ongoing issues related to access and use of materials in each digital library. It then summarizes each case's key points and discusses the most interesting similarities and differences between the cases that have emerged to date.

Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

The Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE) is an over 100 year old scholarly and professional society. It has a celebrated history – for example it was closely involved with technology development during World War I and II and war recovery periods (Post 2005). As a combination scholarly and professional society, SAE's leadership includes both industry and academic faculty members. Several academic researchers are on the SAE Board of Directors, but most board members stem from industry. SAE has long published its own technical paper and standard series in the form of individual papers -first on paper, then on microfiche, CDROM and since the mid 2000's, the SAE DL. It is considered a niche engineering society, focusing solely on mobility engineering within the broader mechanical engineering field. The SAE DL includes technical papers presented at conferences since 1998, thousands of standards, technical books, and a variety of reference materials.

The SAE DL was originally introduced with an aggressive pricing structure, but with use terms similar to other scholar digital libraries. But in 2006 a DRM was implemented that severely restricted use rights within the DL. User reaction to the DRM was very negative and the DRM was modified and then officially removed in November of 2007.

The nature of SAE content

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

SAE papers are different from many other types of scholarly material. As engineering librarians and researchers explained, some papers have almost immediate commercial applicability as opposed to primarily theoretical or basic science value. Most users of SAE papers are researchers in industrial development: Academic libraries are a secondary market for SAE. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, SAE has historically treated its papers as individual units for organizational and transactional purposes. SAE does not publish traditional journals; rather, SAE papers are presented at conferences, and then gathered together as a conference collection. Papers are organized by, found through, and sold by their SAE paper number as opposed to a journal volume and issue number.

While SAE papers have commercial value, they have long been used within mobility engineering (ME) and related research in universities and industry. Many academic ME researchers have concerns about the overall quality of the SAE paper collection and complain that much of the DL is comprised of low quality papers that are little more than ads from industry researchers. They emphasize however, that SAE papers are still important because SAE is the only publisher that focuses entirely on mobility engineering, and the only publisher whose papers apply theoretical engineering knowledge to real life mobility design problems. Further, academic ME researchers believe that SAE papers are widely read in industry; so, publishing in SAE is seen as key to getting industry grants. Finally, engineering researchers explained that presentation of papers at SAE events is key to networking with both industry and academic mobility engineers.

History of access to SAE papers

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

Membership in SAE has never provided a subscription to SAE publication. Rather, membership only provides a discount on purchase of SAE papers and standards. Prior to the creation of the DL, SAE papers were sold in paper, fiche, and CD-ROM format by SAE at conferences and from SAE's document delivery service. Academic engineering libraries tended to have standing orders for collections of SAE papers and standards most relevant to their faculty research, and an engineering library collection would be comprised of a mix of bound SAE conference proceedings, fiche papers and (more recent) CD-ROMs. In the mid 2000's SAE moved to an all CD-ROM or DL publishing strategy, removing the paper and fiche purchase options for many products. Access to the DL has been priced using a steep annual subscription fee plus a bucket/pay-per-download method. In this model, a library pays a set subscription price, and then an advance fee for a set number of downloads (the bucket) in advance. Different bucket sizes are available. Each paper downloaded counts against the bucket amount, and once the bucket limit is reached, further access is blocked. In addition, access to the DL is restricted by IP range to authorized users of the institution. The pay-per-view/bucket method of pricing was feasible assuming users could save the papers and reuse them at will, although librarians on engineering lists complained of SAE's high subscription and bucket prices.

While DRM are unusual in DL marketed to academic libraries, they are more commonly employed within commercial document delivery services. The DRM was implemented on the SAE document delivery service before it was implemented on the DL. Libraries that do not subscribe to the SAE DL may employ this document delivery for SAE papers.

Development

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

In February of 2005, SAE announced that it had purchased a DRM, and that all upcoming license renewals for the SAE DL would include a DRM requirement. SAE stated that use of a DRM was necessary because “Managing access to documents based on copyright ownership and protecting content rights is imperative to the continued development and distribution of technical documents and standards. Many users simply don't know when they are in violation of copyright laws and this technology protects both the user and the publisher of technical information.” (SAE 2006) SAE's strategic expansion into developing-nation mobility manufacturing markets with fewer copyright control traditions may have also encouraged acquisition of a DRM tool. According to SAE's intellectual property statement “SAE's intellectual property is its most valuable asset. As such, the Society expends considerable resources maintaining and protecting its rights to its intellectual property.” (SAE 2008)

Introduction of the DRM

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

While SAE announced its intention to implement a DRM on the DL product in 2005, it did not publish documentation about the DRM until February 2006, and many libraries were not forced to renew licenses with the new DRM terms until later in 2006. The DRM, as initially announced, had very restrictive use terms. It employed the File Open plug in for Adobe PDFs. The DRM required that users install the plug-in in order to view any protected SAE documents. The DRM was set to only allow viewing of the document when a valid session was open with the SAE DL; therefore no offline viewing was permitted, and users were required to re-establish connection to the DL to get renewed permissions to view previously viewed documents. Documents could not be copied, saved, or emailed. They could only be printed once per viewing. The only way a user could retain a paper for off line or long term use was to print off a paper copy (SAE 2006).

The combination of the DRM and the pay-per-view/bucket pricing method was particularly troublesome. Under this pricing model, each download of a paper counted against a library's total bucket count. Because the DRM disallowed saving, it increased the number of downloads libraries would experience because any reuse of a paper would count as a new download unless a user had printed out documents they intended to reuse.

Engineering researchers showed the authors how SAE had also implemented the DRM on at least some of its CD-ROM products that restricted copying the contents of the CD to hard drives.

Reaction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

Reaction to the DRM among librarians was very negative, and in spring 2006 ENGLIST members began to discuss various strategies to convince SAE to remove the DRM including motivating faculty SAE members to complain to the society, starting an open access alternative publication source (this was rejected), publishing the names of the society publications board's contact information, organizing a group to write and circulate a petition to the publisher, and perhaps most importantly – explicit calls to refuse the new license terms. As one poster noted, 'if everyone ‘just said no’ it might get their [SAE's] attention.' Another proclaimed, “I strongly urge everyone to reject these new license terms.”

Reconfiguration

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

Reconfiguration of the DRM began by May of 2006, just a few months after implementation, and stretched through November 2007 when SAE announced it would no longer seek to apply the DRM in academic settings. Reconfiguration was chaotic and (seemingly) not uniform across academic library experiences. For example, in May of 2006, ENGlist posters reported that some universities had convinced SAE to remove the save restriction within the DRM; however, other users may have continued to experience the save restrictions up through spring of 2007. In January of 2007 SAE was still sending out emails to some subscribing libraries stating that access to the DL would be cut off unless the File Open plug in was installed. And some interviewed graduate student users of the DL during this period report remembering that the save button disappeared from the interface.

The next major reconfiguration event occurred in March of 2007 when the MIT engineering library cancelled their subscription to the SAE DL. In canceling, the library posted an extensive article on their library news blog, the MIT student newspaper and the MIT faculty newsletter. The story of the cancellation included quotes from MIT faculty/SAE members expressing discontent with SAE's DRM policy. MIT's cancellation was significant because the MIT engineering library is seen by other engineering librarians as a peer leader, because MIT faculty have historically been very involved in SAE, and because the MIT engineering program is seen as a peer leader. By summer of 2007, all but 7 of the 27 academic libraries that subscribed to the SAE DL had cancelled subscriptions (Thompson, 2007). Further, of those seven remaining libraries, interviews or listserv conversations suggest that many had restricted access to a small number of supervised computers in the library in order to better control downloading by users.

On April 19, 2007 SAE sent out emails temporarily suspending the DRM and announced review of the DRM strategy in a press release entitled “SAE Publications Board to Review Digital Rights Management Controls for Students, Faculty”. Announcement of the cancellation occurred directly after an early April SAE spring conference where several faculty made a presentation to the SAE publications board and (as reported on ENGlist) “read SAE the riot act” about the DRM.

More data collection with SAE representatives is needed to identify the motivations behind SAE's suspension of the DRM. We can speculate that given libraries low status as SAE customers, the library cancellations alone may not have compelled SAE to suspend the DRM. Cancellation of the SAE DL alerted SAE faculty to the problematic DRM and pricing scheme. It is likely that faculty SAE members complaints, combined with continued complaints from librarians and the high profile cancellation of MIT, encouraged SAE to suspend the DRM. Other currently unexplored factors however may also have been important. For example, the SAE publications board chair changed at this time. Further, SAE may have had difficulty managing the DRM technical infrastructure – several subscribing libraries reported having access problems during the period when the DRM was active.

The DRM story did not end with the suspension announcement. As part of the suspension, SAE created a task force of faculty SAE members, staff publishing specialists, librarians and publications board members to come up with a new DRM policy. ENGlist participants complained that the task force was largely ceremonial. They pointed out that the task force did not include any ENGlist members who had been actively complaining about SAE, and that the board was dominated by SAE publishing specialists who might not understand current academic publishing norms.

The task force did include several engineering librarians however, and it met throughout the summer and early fall 2007. The librarian members joined the ENGlist community and posted meeting notes and commentary to ENGlist. Drafts of initial proposals posted on ENGlist emphasized continued use of the DRM with some concessions including allowing saving for up to 180 days (after which the paper would “expire” disappearing from the computer), movement of papers between up to five computers, developing a “view” mode that would allow on-screen reading without incurring a download charge, and increasing the minimum bucket size for a library license. The proposals also suggested providing a DRM free option – but only for a premium subscription charge (SAE Task Force Memo 2007). The reporting librarian noted on ENGlist that much of the discussion likened SAE papers to iTunes music files, and that publishing representatives on the task force noted that the same Big 10 schools that cancelled their SAE DL subscriptions were the ones being targeted for music downloading problems.

In a surprise move, the SAE Publications Board voted October 31, 2007 to remove the DRM from academic DL contracts, despite the task force report's call for continued use of DRM. Further data collection is needed to explain the Publications Board's turn away from DRM; however, faculty interviews to date point to personal visits with and lobbying of SAE Board members as influential.

Current status – ongoing issues

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

ENGlist librarians were pleased with the Publications Board decision to remove the DRM from the SAE DL; MIT resubscribed to the SAE DL in March of 2008. Many however, express skepticism about SAE's continued aggressive pricing and whether or not they will be able to afford the SAE DL. Many libraries that moved to document delivery after canceling the SAE DL have saved considerable money. Some participants who maintained their description to the DL are reported considering moving to document delivery due to the unpredictable and non-transparent nature of the DL pricing.

This savings, combined with shrinking budgets, SAE's refusal to guarantee perpetual access, and the reported continued aggressive nature of SAE's pricing make the SAE DL a difficult product. As one ENGlist participant noted “While I'd like to go back to online access…I am not going to rush right in and sign the non-DRM license. Once bitten by a lousy license, we are not likely to make the same mistake again.” In Spring 2008, SAE moved away from the pay-per-view/bucket pricing model, but retained a very high annual subscription fee that ENGlist members found discouraging. One engineering librarian described the new subscription price as “unbelievable, especially for a single site license…” SAE also angered librarians by instituting a new rolling backfile. Previously, subscription to the DL provided access to all papers digitized within the DL. Under the new rolling backfile plan, DL subscription would only provide access to a set of current papers, and all historic papers that fell outside the current period would need to be purchased under a different backfile license. One ENGlister vented “Rolling subscription plans are bizarre and antiquated. Who still offers such things? Why can't SAE leave well enough alone this time? We all subscribe to the DL from 1998-present. Leave that as is, and then start to offer access to previous time periods as needed.” ENGlist posters report that SAE is working on less obtrusive forms of DRM more commonly employed by other academic publishers such as digital watermarking and server monitoring devices that they can employ to track unauthorized copying and distribution of papers and block systematic downloading from the DL (Eschenfelder 2008).

Interviewed academic SAE members/engineering researchers also remain disgruntled. They are unhappy with the perceived profit orientation of their society and feel insulted that SAE would make such strong claims to the intellectual property that they as researchers create and then donate to the society. They feel their efforts to create papers, review papers and organize conferences have been slighted by the DL's onerous terms. Further, they wish that SAE would take steps to increase the quality of its papers, perhaps by establishing a formal journal or subset of papers that would be subject to greater peer review.

Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

ARTstor is a growing digital library of more than 550,000 images in the areas of art, architecture, the humanities, history, and social sciences along with a set of DRM and other tools to view, present, and manage images for research and pedagogical purposes. It is aimed at non-profit institutions in the US and selected countries overseas including universities, colleges, museums, public libraries, and K-12 schools. Access to ARTstor is typically via a license through the participating institution's library. Site licenses to ARTstor allow unlimited number of simultaneous authorized users to access the digital library, both on-site and remotely via username/password within an IP range. The pricing model for ARTstor is elaborate, based on type and size of institution, along with other considerations such as total library size and budget.

ARTstor access is controlled by requiring authenticated users to register with ARTstor for more sophisticated use and manipulation of images. Unregistered users can perform such basic functions as search and browse for low-resolution images, analyze, save and print data and images, and view content of public shared folders. Registered users can access higher resolution images, create image groups, add personal notes, register to view the contents of password-protected shared folders and download the Offline Image Viewer (OIV) which is ARTstor's digital rights management system. Instructor privileges access, the highest level, is administered via the library's ARTstor administrator, generally the art librarian. It must be regularly re-authenticated. This level of access allows for creation of shared folders, addition of commentary, and creation of personal collections including audio-visual files and images imported from outside of ARTstor.

The nature of ARTstor content

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

Images included in ARTstor come from a wide range of museum collections, individual artists, foundations, academic institutions, scholarly societies, and others. These images include photographs, paintings, drawings, sculpture, historical materials, artifacts, etc.

Art images are contentious because much of the content is copyrighted, and much of contemporary copyright law is based on text, not images. Living artists are very concerned about internet piracy and unauthorized use of their work. In the case of older materials, while the actual item may be in the public domain, an image created by a museum or family foundation may be licensed for re-use commercially and may constitute a significant source of revenue, especially for small family foundations or institutions (Hamma 2005). In a further layer of complexity, legal decisions have created a distinction between images or photographs of flat works such as paintings, which are not considered “creative” reproductions, and three dimensional works such as sculpture and architecture, where reproduction in the form of a digital image or photograph may have a copy right through shading of the object, positioning, lighting, etc. (Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. V. Corel Corp, 1999).

History of access to art images

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

Before the digital era, the need for art reproductions for teaching purposes was addressed by the growth of institutional collections of slides (“slide libraries”) Because relatively few commercial sources of art slides were available, in addition to purchase of slides commercially available via museums and for-profit companies, faculty and slide librarians would create visual arts images through their own photographs of objects, or through photography of reproductions of these objects in books, postcards, and other sources. Slide librarians explained that although these slide images might be shown in classrooms, other physical access to these slides was closely controlled in order to avoid copyright complaints.

The advent of digital libraries raised many problems for transformation of these slide collections. The Art library literature and personal accounts describe how pioneering libraries experimented with digitized slide collections on closed servers but numerous issues perceived as too great for individual educational institutions to handle alone led to discussions of collaboration. According to the literature and interviews, issues included securing copyright clearance for slide images, cost and technology for making high quality images, redundancy of images across many institutions, the need for a variety of commonly-available digital images, desire to reduce redundant metadata creation across institutions, and the desire to get access to others' slide collection images.

One influential attempt at creating a collaborative digital image collection was AMICO, a project begun in 1997 among major art museums and the Research Libraries Group, a consortium of research libraries. According to the literature, for museums, such collaboration was envisioned as a new venture among institutions which traditionally had been rivals, in which affiliation with an established library consortium would build on library success in collaboration, database management, licensing, and archival storage. For libraries, it provided the introduction of a path towards the necessary collaboration in building collections of digital art images. The AMICO collections have since been absorbed into ARTstor as well as into other competing products. Interviews with librarians suggest that AMICO failed because it did not have the images that academic librarians needed, while the traditional atmosphere of competition among museums may have hampered development of a sufficiently broad collection.

Creation of ARTstor

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

Work on ARTstor was begun in 1999, and it received its public launching in 2001. It was sponsored by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, a non-profit philanthropic foundation dedicated to supporting education and the arts, whose two primary constituencies are higher education and cultural institutions. From the beginning, ARTstor was envisioned as a parallel resource to JSTOR, the highly successful full-text journal database created earlier under the auspices of the Mellon Foundation (Mellon, 1999).

Development of the DRM

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

Development of ARTstor was attuned to securing acceptance from constituents and included an elaborate process of user input involving both sides of the equation: educational institutions and contributors of images. An individual, Max Marmor, who was well-respected in the art library world and known for his ability to bring groups together and secure consensus was chosen to lead the library initiative. While it was still in development, ARTstor was presented in art library and visual resources conferences and gatherings and written about in a range of professional literature as well as discussed in listservs. Development included user group input and testing as well as institutional test beds.

As ARTstor representatives described, the contributor side included a similarly intense process of securing collaboration, including approaching potential collaborators with respect for their concerns and careful, sometimes very lengthy, negotiations to alleviate their varying concerns. For example, contemporary visual artists, extremely concerned about internet music downloading but nevertheless interested in being part of the art canon and having their work presented in classroom and education settings, were gradually satisfied that the existence of the ARTstor DRM would provide the protection their work needed, while museums needed to be convinced that their revenue stream would be respected by the ARTstor DRM.

Introduction of the DRM

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

By the time ARTstor was introduced, it was already very much in the minds of art librarians and highly anticipated. The rollout included demonstrations at conferences, targeting of likely participants with information and trial access and corresponding response and discussions on listservs and in additional gatherings. By this point, expectations were high that ARTstor would solve many of the problems described earlier. In this climate, ARTstor received a fairly enthusiastic reception, but with significant reservations because, even with its relatively high cost, it did not solve all the pressing problems. Librarian reactions voiced in 2001–2002 included such issues as: it doesn't include all needed images, there are still onerous limitations on lecture and presentation use, quality of images is variable and some are of unacceptable quality, faculty could not include their own images in classroom or research packages, for-profit education institutions have no access to ARTstor, there is a need to take the images outside of ARTstor, there is a need for larger images.

Reconfiguration

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

In keeping with its earlier approach ARTstor took constituent concerns seriously and after the launch reaction they stepped up efforts to acquire and develop software to allow better projection and viewing of images, including features such as zooming which are particularly desirable for art images. Better ways were developed to allow for faculty research and creation of teaching collections. Low-quality images, especially where redundant, were pruned from the database and attempts to provide larger and higher-resolution images were increased. Larger images were introduced.

Ongoing issues

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

Ongoing issues with ARTstor's use rights include continuing efforts to secure cooperation and collaboration from rights holders in order to add additional content and higher resolution content (Wagner 2007). Further, faculty who expend significant effort creating class collections by adding their own images, annotating images, and organizing images for teaching purposes are not able to take the product of their efforts with them if they move to a non-ARTstor institution. Discussion and presentation of ARTstor continues in conferences and listservs, and librarian feedback continues to shape further development.

ARTstor is now expanding into Europe, both for securing new contributions to the database and securing new institutional members. This has brought a new array of legal issues regarding digital reproduction of artworks within EU law. Also, for-profit educational institutions are still excluded from access to ARTstor, however some competing products do offer some access to art images to this market. For example, the H.W.Wilson Company has attempted to enter this market, but they are having trouble getting images that for profit institutions need. For example, librarians argue that the collection lacks images needed to teach design. In spite of the existence of ARTstor, which was always conceived of as a “campus-wide” product, closed collections of digitized art images are still developed for art history and other departments on university campuses because of the need for extensive and wide-ranging image collections for classroom teaching, and because faculty want to have digitized images of their own collections which they may not have permission to use widely.

Nevertheless, ARTstor has established itself as accepted and well-regarded bedrock of collections of digital images in a variety of educational settings. Librarians' reaction to ARTstor continues to be generally positive and enthusiastic.

Comparison of cases

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

This paper contrasts the development of the DRM in ARTstor and the Society of Automotive Engineers Digital Library in order to illustrate how in both cases users influenced the development and reconfiguration of the DRM through a co-construction process. In the ARTstor case, the involvement of users was generally planned, managed and positive in tone, while in the SAE case, the involvement of users was generally unplanned, unmanaged and hostile in tone. While users were formally invited to participate in the development of ARTstor, some user reaction was still negative. Limitations and problems with ARTstor were freely discussed on the professional listservs and at conferences, and some of these complaints were addressed in reconfiguration. In the SAE case, users (both librarians and mobility engineer end users) were never formally invited to participate in the process of DRM/use rights design, but librarians began an “anti-program” of license cancellation and faculty enlistment which eventually led to the cancellation of the DRM.

Table 2. Comparison of Cases
Points of ComparisonSociety for Automotive Engineers Digital LibraryARTstor
Nature of ContentTechnical papers and standards with, in some cases, near immediate applicability to commercial developers as well as academic interest to engineering researchers and students.Visual resources: historic and contemporary images which some intellectual property owners wish to control use in order to ensure ongoing licensing value.
History of AccessPublications of papers historically controlled by SAE via paper, microfiche, CD-ROM and DL. Access historically available via subscription, but also via individual paper purchase and e-delivery.Institution level collections of slides accessible only to instructors and staff; earlier failed attempt at digital collaboration.
Development of DRMCommercial DRM product employed and implemented with little or no consultation with users.Mellon Foundation driven custom software development process; both image owners and potential users invited to provide requirements for development.
IntroductionLibraries told they would need to download DRM viewer in order to continue to provide access.Announced at user conferences and via institutional visits by ARTstor staff. Libraries initially disappointed that ARTstor did not meet all needs.
ReconfigurationLibraries cancel subscriptions and faculty SAE members complain to society. SAE temporarily suspends DRM and then cancels it.ARTstor develops additional software functionality to address some unaddressed needs.
Ongoing IssuesLibraries unhappy with aggressive pricing, lack of perpetual access rights and with rolling backfile pricing plans. Faculty unhappy with SAE's claims to their papers as IP.Some unaddressed needs remain unmet including desire for more images, better sharing capability, portability of personal images uploaded into ARTstor across institutions. Librarians complain that faculty still need to maintain personal image collections on departmental servers.

Early data analysis points to differences between the two cases that help explain variation in user involvement in the DRM configuration and reconfiguration. First, the two digital libraries differed in terms of their perception of academic libraries as target communities for their products. ARTstor always considered educational institutions, including academic libraries, as a primary customer group. Accordingly they and tried to craft a DRM that would satisfy both users in this market. In contrast, academic libraries were a less important customer group for SAE. Accordingly, academic library needs were not considered at all until late in the reconfiguration process, and then perhaps just as a byproduct of faculty SAE member needs. The difference in the two publishers' attitudes towards academic libraries likely influenced decisions regarding involving libraries and other stakeholders in the DRM development and reconfiguration process.

Further, differences exist between the two organizations that help explain differences in the DRM development process. SAE has historically sold individual papers via mail or email delivery to a membership largely composed of corporate engineers and researchers. This traditional corporate-oriented “document delivery” model matched

with the original configuration of the DRM which assumed that customers would print papers out for long term access. In contrast, the Mellon Foundation's established philanthropic reputation in education and the arts, its historical involvement with other educational digital projects (e.g., JSTOR) meant that it was very familiar with academic library expectations, and likely more aware of potential problems. Further, it had good contacts within stakeholder communities.

Differences in who owned content in each DL also help explain differences in the DRM development process. SAE was the sole publisher of the information contained in the SAE library. While faculty and industry researchers created the content, SAE (like most other publishers) required authors to sign over copyrights to SAE as part of the publication process. As sole owner of its publications, SAE likely believed it could unilaterally change the use rights for its publications without consulting with stakeholders. In contrast, ARTstor's job was to gather content from multiple artists, museums and collectors and make them available in one place. As a mediator between different IP sources, ARTstor always had to be attuned to the demands of its stakeholders, negotiate and be flexible.

Data collection and analysis for this project are ongoing as the authors seek out additional sources of data to triangulate their preliminary descriptions and analysis. In particular, interviews with publishers are planned to provide a contrasting set of explanations of the observed phenomena (Stake 2005).

Conclusion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources

This paper presents preliminary analysis of a comparative case study of how the use rights permitted by DRM technologies are developed through interaction between publishers and stakeholders over time and within the constraints of scholarly and professional field norms. It compared the configuration, implementation and reconfiguration of two scholarly digital libraries, ARTstor and the SAE DL and illustrates how the co-construction of the DRM between vendors and users occurred in both cases, but in radically different manners. In the ARTstor case, the involvement of users was generally planned, managed and positive in tone, while in the SAE case, the involvement of users was generally unplanned, unmanaged and hostile in tone. Differences in user involvement with development and reconfiguration of the DRM can be explained in part by differences in publisher attitudes toward academic libraries as customers, difference in the publishers' traditional publishing models, and differences in ownership of the content within the two DL.

Sources

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
  5. Case 1: The Society for Automotive Engineers Digital Library
  6. The nature of SAE content
  7. History of access to SAE papers
  8. Development
  9. Introduction of the DRM
  10. Reaction
  11. Reconfiguration
  12. Current status – ongoing issues
  13. Case 2: ArtSTOR Digital Library of Fine Art Images
  14. The nature of ARTstor content
  15. History of access to art images
  16. Creation of ARTstor
  17. Development of the DRM
  18. Introduction of the DRM
  19. Reconfiguration
  20. Ongoing issues
  21. Comparison of cases
  22. Conclusion
  23. Sources
  • Akrich, M., Latour, B. (1992) ”A Summary of Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies”. in W.Bijker and J.Law (Eds.) Shaping Technology/Building Society. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  • Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. V. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm
  • Eschenfelder, Kristin R., Desai, Anuj (2004) ”Software as Protest: The Unexpected Resiliency of U.S. Based DeCSS Linking and Posting” The Information Society 20 (2) 101116.
  • Eschenfelder, K. R. (2008) Every Library's Nightmare? Digital Rights Management, Use Restrictions, and Licensed Scholarly Digital Resources. College and Research Libraries 69 (3), 205226.
  • Ess, Charles and the AoIR ethics working committee (Nov 2002) Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Recommendations from the aoir ethics working committee. Available online: <http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf>
  • Gillespie, Tarleton (2007) Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  • Hamma, Kenneth (2005) ”Public Domain Art in an Age of Easier Mechanical Reproducibility”, D-Lib Magazine, vol. 11, No. 11, November http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november05/hamma/11hamma.html
  • King, S. A. (1996) Researching Internet Communities: Proposed Ethical Guidelines for the Reporting of Results. The Information Society, 12, 119127. Mellon Foundation Annual Report for 1999: http://www.mellon.org/news_publications/annual-reports-essays/annual-reports/content1999.pdf/view?searchterm=artstor
  • Oudshoorn, Nelly.; Pinch, Trevor. (2003) How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
  • Post, Robert C. (2005) The SAE Story: One Hundred Years of Mobility. SAE International.
  • Postigo, Hector. (2008) ”Capturing Fair Use for the YouTube Generation: The Digital Rights Movement, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the User-Centered Framing of Fair Use” Working Paper.
  • Society of Automotive Engineers (2006) DRM Overview and FAQ. Available at http://store.sae.org/drm-overview.htm Last viewed 10/2006.
  • Society of Automotive Engineers DRM Task Force memo (2007) ”Solutions for Increasing ‘Ease of Use’ of Digital Library of SAE Technical Papers—Academic Applications” June 11, 2007, version 2 June 28, 2007, version 3 August 20, 2007.
  • Society of Automotive Engineers (2008) SAE Intellectual Property Policy. http://www.sae.org/about/intelproperty/
  • Stake, Robert E. (2005) Qualitative Case Studies in Denzin, N.K. & LincolnY.S. (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Thompson, Larry (2007) Survey of Engineering Academic Libraries Regarding the SAE DL. Poster presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Honolulu Hawaii.
  • Wagner, Gretchen (2007) ”Sharing Visual Arts Images for Educational Use” EDUCAUSE review, November/December, 85104
  • http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/SharingVisualArtsImagesfo/45225