C WESTERN COPYRIGHT ALLIANCE REPORT ON A 2020-21 STUDY OF COPYRIGHT EDUCATION NEEDS WESTERN OF LIBRARY PERSONNEL COPYRIGHT ALLIANCE IN 13 WESTERN STATES California State University, Chico • Portland Community College • Arizona State University California State University, Chico • Portland Community College • Arizona State University WESTERN COPYRIGHT ALLIANCE California State University, Chico • Portland Community College • Arizona State University Contributors1: Rachel Bridgewater (conceptualization, funding acquisition, writingoriginal draft), Donna Gauthier (project administration), Karen Grondin (conceptualization, funding acquisition, writing-original draft), Jordan Jedry (investigation, writing - review & editing), Cassandra Lane (formal analysis), Patrick Newell (conceptualization, funding acquisition, project administration, writing-original draft), Jaclyn Noble (formal analysis, methodology, visualization, writing - original draft), Irina Okhremtchouk (formal analysis), Anali Maughan Perry (conceptualization, data curation, funding acquisition, writing-original draft), Max Robinson (investigation, writing - review & editing), Lori M. Weber (data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, methodology, supervision, writing - original draft) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would not have been possible without the engagement and support from a large number of people and organizations. First and foremost, we would like to acknowledge and thank the Institute for Museum and Library Services for their support of this study; this entire project was made possible by a grant from the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program of the Institute of Museum and Library Services, RE-246437OLS-20. The initial survey was improved significantly by a group of dedicated librarians and researchers who took the initial survey and provided crucial feedback on introductory prompts, question wording, question logic, and each section of the survey. Thank you to Carla Myers (Miami University, Ohio), Jeff Corrigan (CSUMB), Michael Perry (Siskiyou County Library), Kyle Morgan (Humboldt State), Lori Weber (Chico State), Anthony Davis (CSU Fullerton), Carmen Mitchell (CSU San Marcos), Lorrie McAllister (Arizona State University), and Chad Deets (Arizona State University). Project support came from a number of educators, copyright specialists, and copyright education specialists through conversations that helped improve the project as well as letters of support. We would like to thank Matthew Bloom, Kyle Courtney, David Hansen, Justin Harding, Amy Hofer, Carrie Russell, and Michelle Simon for their engagement during the planning phase and their support for the project work. In order to engage with a wider audience of copyright experts once the data was collected, we consulted with the librarians who serve on the American Library Association’s Copyright Legislation, Education, and Advocacy Network (CLEAN) and appreciate their active engagement with the study and the insights they shared on our approach to collecting data and the data we collected. 1 Contributor roles in parentheses align with the CRediT Taxonomy This project was made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services - RE-246437-OLS-20 The views, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent those of the Institute of Museum and Library Services. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License which can be viewed at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Final Report Final Report on a Study of Copyright Education Needs of 13 Western States INTRODUCTION The seeds of this project were planted in 2018 at the Kraemer Copyright Conference when the founding members of what became the Western Copyright Alliance (WCA) went out for drinks and started a conversation about the need for copyright education. These librarians all have responsibility for copyright in their institutions and all live and work in the Western United States (Arizona, California, and Oregon). The conversation continued after the Conference as we discussed ideas for potential collaboration and shared assumptions about the need for and perceived barriers to copyright education for those living and working in the Western United States. We realized that there was a lack of data to support our assumptions, and determined that gathering this data would need to be the first step for any successful partnership. We identified a survey as the best medium to gather the information we needed. As the plan developed further, we determined that a series of focus groups following the survey could help us put some of the survey results into context. Ultimately, we plan to use the results of this study to inform future projects to develop copyright professional development opportunities and communities in our region, and to continue to gather data about copyright education to inform advocacy efforts and policymaking. BACKGROUND Libraries, with their strong commitments to both the creators of copyrighted works and the users of those works, are places where copyright issues abound. As library work increasingly encompasses open educational resources (OER), digital collections, electronic reserves, streaming media, scholarly publishing, makerspaces, storytime and non-traditional online educational opportunities, the volume and complexity of copyright-related issues in library work continue to expand. The recent COVID-19 pandemic aimed a spotlight upon this increased need as evidenced by the number of blog posts, webinars, and statements that emerged shortly after many locations when into lockdown, discussing the application of copyright and fair use by libraries and educational institutions in times of emergency. 1 Previous studies have demonstrated that library personnel often feel unprepared to make routine copyright decisions 2 and that 80% of library professionals received no copyright/IP-specific training as part of their graduate curriculum. 3 In addition, there is a gap in these national-level surveys evaluating copyright literacy as they have primarily focused on academic and public libraries. 4 5 Other types of libraries, including public, special, and tribal libraries, tend to be overlooked and underrepresented in copyright education opportunities or assessments. Significant strides have been made toward increasing access to high-quality professional 1 https://tinyurl.com/tvnty3a 2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.03.009 3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.08.004 4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.03.009 5 https://doi.org/10.1080/15228959.2016.1184997 3 development for library personnel around copyright. Free or low-cost online offerings like MOOCs, webinars, and webcasts and in-person one-time training sessions at conferences and workshops are widely available, as are more costly options including leadership training and certificates which may exceed library training budgets. In recent years, programs of in-depth, in-person copyright education have been developed in response to specific needs, such as the Library Copyright Institute 6 (LCI) in North Carolina and the Copyright First Responders 7 (CFR) network at Harvard University in Massachusetts. While the programs differ in their particulars, the premise of each is that front-line library personnel benefit from both deep, systematic training in copyright and from the opportunity to participate in local or regional communities of practice in which they can maintain and continue to develop their copyright practices. Both are also responsive to specific regional or institution needs. CFR was developed to facilitate communities of practice within large, multi-library academic institutions. LCI was developed to serve smaller, underresourced institutions that might not have a copyright expert on staff. Adding to the copyright education landscape, in September 2020, LYRASIS and Columbia University Libraries announced a pilot for the Virtual Copyright Education Center. Through the Lyrasis Learning platform, the Virtual Copyright Education Center 8 will provide online courses in copyright that are focused on the copyright needs of libraries, archives, museums, and community cultural heritage organizations. While these online options do provide access to training, they are usually not coordinated into synthetic or scaffolded learning experiences and may not be sufficient to build copyright competency at scale. It may be difficult to make time in one’s schedule to attend a webinar/ webcast, or to receive the support and encouragement to work through an uncredentialed MOOC. These one-time trainings are difficult to incorporate into a training plan, although recent assessments of in-person copyright workshops show that even a one-shot training session can show a demonstrated increase in both confidence and ability to cope with copyright decisions 9. Additionally, while most libraries in the U.S. are able to offer internet access no matter how remote, many rural areas and rural public libraries still lack the infrastructure needed to provide the high-speed internet access 10 11 12, needed for webinars, webcasts, or MOOCs. At the 2013 Continuing Education Summit hosted by IMLS and OCLC 13, a group of library professionals in leadership positions met to discuss continuing education strategies, needs, and barriers for library personnel nationwide. Some of the barriers they identified represent many of the same barriers we wished to test, such as lack of available time, resources, funding, and/or support; but they also included possible difficulties with staying abreast of trends and topics and the challenge of remaining motivated to continue learning. Administrators identified leadership 6 http://library.copyright.institute/ 7 https://osc.hul.harvard.edu/programs/copyright/first-responders/ 8 https://lyrasisnow.org/press-release-lyrasis-and-columbia-university-libraries-announce-virtual-copyright-education-centers-pilot-project/ 9 https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2018.0045 10 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/31/digital-gap-between-rural-and-nonrural-america-persists 11 https://doi.org/10.6017/ital.v33i1.5141 12 http://www.ala.org/tools/research/plftas/2011_2012 13 https://www.webjunction.org/content/dam/WebJunction/Documents/webJunction/CE-Summit-Report-wit -Addendum.pdf 4 challenges based on resource limitations and lack of knowledge regarding who is responsible for learning policy enforcement. By documenting the barriers and preferred methods of learning about copyright in this region, we believe that the findings of this research help inform the national conversation about the state of and need for copyright education among library personnel. This project serves as a model for other regions that want to perform a similar assessment. METHODOLOGY As the first large multi-state study on copyright education, needs, and confidence, we designed this study both to gather data to address our current questions, as well as to determine what data would be useful to inform future, more comprehensive, studies. We used a survey to gather basic data followed by focus groups to provide more in-depth responses to our questions. The survey, developed using an iterative process over several months by the four leading members of the Western Copyright Alliance team, collected basic data and copyright confidence ratings from multi-type libraries in the 13 western states; focus groups were then held to allow the team to dive deeper into the data collected from the survey and allowed the researchers to ask for more information from practitioners regarding their needs, barriers, and desires for copyright training. Knowing that the survey would provide basic data, the focus group conversations allowed us to confirm the findings from the survey, to learn new information not collected by the survey, and to understand the needs of practitioners through a deeper conversation about the nuances of copyright education in their organizations. After an initial survey instrument was created, the principal researchers refined the instrument twice through conversations with library personnel whose jobs involved copyright. These practitioners were asked to talk through each of the questions with the researchers. By discussing the questions with practitioners, the survey team was able to refine the questions to use terms familiar and widely in use in libraries; these new terms provided the research team the opportunity to capture ideas and potential responses not already on the survey. After the survey questions were reformulated in response to this feedback, the survey was launched again with practitioners. Using a test-retest strategy, we were able to confirm reliability for the questions to ensure that the questions were measuring what we were hoping to measure. The copyright confidence ratings questions took the most time to develop as we worked to ensure we could develop a rating that was understandable and could be self-administered. We reviewed the entire survey with our social science research team member, Dr. Lori Weber, to assure the questions we asked allowed users to report clearly their experiences, knowledge, and needs. The final survey consisted of 35 questions, with a variety of different question types (Yes-No, Multiple Choice, Estimated Percentages Sliders, Confidence Rating Sliders, and Fill in the Blank). The survey instrument appears as Appendix A. In late September, 2020, we spent several weeks collecting information about all known state and regional library email lists in the 13 targeted Western states. In addition, we gathered contact information for many individuals that we hoped to contact directly, such as State Librarians and library directors. It was our goal to reach as many library personnel, from as many kinds of libraries, as possible during our outreach campaign. We organized this contact information into a spreadsheet, broken down by state and with a separate sheet for multi-state organizations and contacts. With our collection of target email lists and individual contacts, the two graduate students who spearheaded our campaign divided the states between them and began sending emails from our project-specific Gmail account. We quickly discovered that states varied significantly in how libraries organized themselves, how those groups presented themselves online, and how easy it was to find the contact information for groups and individuals. Some states, including California, Oregon, and Idaho, had large library organizations that were easily located and contacted. It was harder to locate information about library organizations in other states, such as Arizona, Hawaii, 5 and Montana. The state with the most barriers to contacting library groups was Arizona. Many library groups within this state, including the Arizona Library Association, could only be contacted by members. This prevented the graduate students from connecting directly to librarians in this area. State library organizations were not the only groups that presented this difficulty. For example, the Black Caucus of the American Library Association (BCALA) is only reachable through their Facebook page or via a “Contact Us” page listed on their website and we were not able to locate a public listing of Executive Board member email addresses. This experience, along with our understanding that there are many good reasons for groups to restrict posting to members and to protect the contact information of their members, made us curious about the possibility of using social media, in addition to email contact, to promote future surveys. Finally, our outreach campaign was flagged as a potential “phishing” scam by Google several times due to our use of a Gmail account created for this project. We believe future research would benefit from the use of the institutional email account of one of the investigators. We wonder if, in addition to the automated flagging we received from Google, some recipients were uncertain of the legitimacy of our campaign because the announcement was not coming from an “.edu” email account. We recognize that the COVID-19 pandemic greatly impacted the academic and library world 14, interrupting research projects, and ours was no exception. The survey was distributed from October 12 through December 11, 2020 to thirteen Western states in the United States using the Qualtrics online software platform. Outreach efforts resulted in 869 respondents to our survey, with 792 usable responses across the thirteen Western states. Figure 1 depicts the percentile breakdown of the respondents from each state. For comparison, data obtained from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Employee and Wage Statistics (OEWS), which details the approximate number of library personnel within each state, provides some perspective on the national scope compared to the number of individual responses we received from each state. The comparison data highlight that a proportional amount of feedback from each of the nationally reported library personnel population within these states was acquired in the two-month time frame of the survey administration. 14 https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/24975 6 Figure 1. Outreach Responses Western Copyright Alliance Survey State Frequency Bureau of Labor Statistics OEWS Survey % Frequency % Alaska 40 4.6 820 1.3 Arizona 92 10.6 4,380 6.9 California 197 22.7 30,400 47.6 Colorado 29 3.3 5,730 9 Hawaii 54 6.2 1,010 1.6 Idaho 45 5.2 1,540 2.4 Montana 27 3.1 1,160 1.8 Nevada 9 1 1,750 2.7 New Mexico 4 0.5 1,970 3.1 Oregon 100 11.5 4,230 6.6 Utah 60 6.9 2,960 4.6 Washington 103 11.9 6,790 10.6 Wyoming 32 3.7 1,130 1.8 Not employed in any of these states 77 8.9 869 100 63,870 100 Total Data Source: Authors’ survey and Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov/oes. The focus group script was developed early in the study with small changes made in response to the survey data. The script (appearing in Appendix NN) was designed to, and did, allow an open, guided, conversation among the participants. The focus groups added nuance to what we had learned from the survey data and allowed the respondents to provide their experiences and thoughts about training and copyright. By collaborating with a trained focus group analysis team that did not have any subject specialization in copyright or libraries, we were able to use the findings from their analysis to support our findings from the survey data and to underscore our findings about barriers to learning about copyright, what training is needed, and how library personnel wanted to be trained on copyright. We held eight different focus groups (Administration; Academic/Research Libraries; Copyright Educators; Government/Law/Medical Libraries; Other Academic Libraries; Public Libraries; School Libraries; and Tribal Libraries) from which we gathered input. Recognizing the inherent biases of the research group members, all of whom worked in academic libraries, the focus groups were chosen to provide views from across diverse populations to represent the copyright education needs. Recruitment of participants began in a section at the end of the main survey instrument. Survey respondents were asked if they would be interested in participating in a focus group; in order to ensure confidentiality of responses, the sign-up information for the focus groups was collected separately from the main survey instrument, and both sets of responses were kept completely separate. No surveyant contact information or directly identifiable personal information, such as name or organization, appeared in the survey data. The focus group volunteers were placed into one of the groups that corresponded to their library type, job or position. Volunteers were contacted in January and February, and the one hour focus groups scheduled in March 2021. Targeted outreach was necessary in some cases in order to recruit enough volunteers from specific types of libraries. During the focus group sessions, Otter. 7 ai speech recognition and transcription software transcribed the focus group interactions as they occurred. The transcript for each group was compared to the audio recording to produce an accurate and clean transcription of each focus group conversation. Once each focus group transcription was completed, information that might directly identify the speakers was removed, and an absolutely anonymized transcript was created. The anonymous transcripts were provided to our focus group analysis team whose methodology and findings appear in Appendix C. FINDINGS A summary analysis of the data derived from the questions in the survey appears as Appendix B. In addition to the summary data presented in the appendix, we analyzed the data to find patterns of behavior among library personnel and to determine how these might impact library work. Below we provide selected analyses of selected measures that indicate areas for future training for library personnel. Focus group responses are included in more detail throughout the analysis of our findings. The complete report on the Focus Group appears as Appendix C. In this study, we sought to understand where users need more training or support to deal with copyright issues by asking respondents separate, multipart survey questions where they could rate their “level of confidence in dealing with copyright issues related to the following general library/information services” and their “level of confidence in dealing with copyright issues related to the following content categories”. We asked about respondent confidence, their belief in how well they are dealing with copyright issues (which can be self-assessed and reported), rather than knowledge about copyright or certainty about their decisions for particular service and content type. Anticipating that most of the library personnel who responded would not have a law degree, we wanted respondents to evaluate their own abilities whether they’d received formal copyright training or had learned their copyright skills on the job or through self-study. In measuring confidence we were not attempting to measure knowledge, which is difficult to measure, especially in a study population with a wide range of specializations and backgrounds. Self-assessed confidence allows participants to indicate, in an operational way, their ability to interact with copyright in their varied routine library work. This provides a record of applied knowledge measured through the self-reported certainty of participants. Figure 2 shows the range of confidence levels reported by our respondents with various job responsibilities. It depicts the mean responses by job function (job functions were taken from the American Library Association Joblist 15 categories). The analysis included questions about their level of confidence in dealing with copyright issues related to 12 general library/information services and 14 content categories (see Appendix NN). Using the respondent rating data, the means for all responses were calculated to determine differences in confidence level by primary job function. 15 https://joblist.ala.org/jobs/ 8 Figure 2. Mean Confidence by Primary Job Function Mean Confidence 0–10 (across Q48 & 49) by Primary Job Functions Mean N Std. Deviation Library Vendors & Suppliers 3.8333 2 1.64992 Public Library 4.3966 224 2.42557 Youth Services 4.5405 108 2.43434 Access Services/Circulation 4.5906 185 2.37994 Government (Federal/State) Library 4.6201 30 2.2034 Resource Sharing/Interlibrary Borrowing and Lending 4.7002 71 2.46531 Outreach and Public Programs 4.7175 154 2.41022 Preservation/Conservation 4.7403 29 2.24732 Other/Not Listed/I’m a unicorn! 4.8198 42 2.34075 Technical Services 5.0038 89 2.31371 User Experience 5.1068 62 2.33219 Reference 5.1365 308 2.14144 Residency or Fellowship 5.1455 5 1.39521 Research 5.1633 151 2.25575 Administration/Management 5.1686 214 2.28059 Marketing/Communications 5.231 88 2.40893 Distance and Online Learning 5.2648 84 2.11908 5.325 226 2.03266 Medical 5.3402 28 1.94521 Instructional Design and Technology 5.3468 43 1.91613 Special Collections/Archives 5.3602 64 2.15156 Information Literacy and Instruction LIS Education Faculty 5.3611 4 3.00593 Electronic Resources 5.4153 125 2.14339 IT/Systems/Web 5.4346 48 2.3472 Library Cooperative/Consortium 5.4349 21 2.12317 Subject Specialist/Liaison 5.5274 74 2.03014 Government Documents 5.5577 34 2.28316 GIS 5.6231 6 2.42195 School Librarian/Teacher 5.6492 76 2.26485 Publishing 5.9962 2 0.98451 Museum 6.1671 4 0.61162 Scholarly Communication 6.4025 58 1.6278 7.373 3 2.05595 Library and Information Science School 9 This analysis showed a four point range in copyright confidence level (from a high of 7.37 to a low of 3.83) between the job function with the highest confidence level (Library and Information Science School) and that with the lowest (Library Vendors and Suppliers). Given the zero-to-ten range available for each question, the compiled means indicate an overall low level of copyright confidence across the 33 different job functions represented. Those who identified themselves as working in Scholarly Communications rated their confidence significantly higher (6.4) than those in other job functions (except the small number of library school respondents). Those who identified themselves as working in Public Libraries rated their confidence the lowest (4.39) except the small number of library vendors who responded. The proportionally large number of respondents rating themselves as low on copyright confidence may be a cause for concern for administrators or those interested in assuring front line library personnel are properly trained to resolve patron issues and perform routine library work. Further research should examine the interaction between library personnel confidence and real world library operations. In addition to looking at aggregated numbers across job functions, we also analyzed how respondents who work in different library/service types rated their confidence in copyright-related issues in different job functions. We expected that there would be patterns of higher confidence where library/service type and job function converge. For example, we expected that those who worked in Makerspaces would be more confident about copyright-related issues related to Makerspaces than for those who rarely encounter those issues. The copyright confidence ratings from general library/information service types seen in Figure 3, below, seems to support these expectations, as most of the confidence ratings given by those performing job functions align, conceptually if not directly, with the type of service being rated. The high confidence ratings of Scholarly Communication respondents stand out and may indicate that, since their primary job functions require knowledge of policy and legal issues regarding different services and material types, they learn copyright as part of their job and develop a high level of confidence for many areas of library work. 10 Figure 3. Copyright confidence ratings for general library services by job function General Library / High Means by Job Information Service Type Functions [select low means in brackets] Notes Interlibrary Borrowing or Lending Medical 7.1; Resource Sharing 6.2 Medical libraries actively borrow and lend through interlibrary services; Resource Sharing units perform Interlibrary functions. Digitization of Library Collection ScholComm 6.0; Special Collections and Archives 6.0; School LibrarianTeacher 6.0 All listed job functions engage in (or consult on) digitization efforts and report relatively high confidence about their ability with this information service. Course Reserve/Course Packs ScholComm 6.1; Electronic Resources 5.4 Electronic Resources personnel actively engage with Course Reserve materials; ScholComm librarians may be involved in clarifying copyright issues for these services. Archives/Special Collections Special Collections and Archives 6.1 Unsurprisingly, as these positions provide these services, Special Collections and Archives workers report relatively high confidence about their copyright ability with this information service. Author Rights ScholComm 7.2; GIS 7.0 Uncertain regarding the connection between these job functions and providing these services (and why the confidence level reported by people in these job functions are so high). Instructional Materials - Use ScholComm 7.0; Electronic Resources 6.4 A high level of confidence for these job functions makes sense as these are the positions that provide these services. Instructional Materials – creation ScholComm 7.4; Residency/Fellowship 7.0; Instructional Design 6.3 A high level of confidence for these job functions makes sense as these are the positions that provide these services. Events/Programming/ Story Time School Librarian/ Teacher 6.2; Makerspace 6.2; Marketing/ Communications 6.1 The listed job functions with high confidence ratings offer or engage with public programming events. Open Access/OER ScholComm 8.2; LIS Faculty A high level of confidence for these job functions 7.8; GIS 6.8; Subject makes sense as most of these positions provide Specialist/Liaison 6.6 these services. Uncertain regarding the connection between GIS personnel and providing these services (and why the confidence level reported by people in GIS job functions are so high). Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) School Librarian/Teacher 5.2; Data Services 5.1; Instructional Design/ Technology 5.0; IT/ Systems/Web 4.9 The somewhat low mean confidence ratings, combined with the number and types of job functions that indicate confidence in delivering these services, suggest an active exploration of CDL in schools and higher education. Makerspace Makerspace 5.4 A high level of confidence for these job functions makes sense as these positions provide these services. Licensing Resources for Library Medical 6.4; GIS 6.2; GovDocs 5.9; ScholComm 5.7 A high level of confidence for these job functions make sense as these positions obtain specialized content (or data sets) for their institutions. 11 When looking at the means by job function via different content types seen in Figure 4 below, it becomes difficult to make direct connections between the type of material (content type) and the job function that interacts with it for several content types. In some cases, such as copyright issues involved with architecture or paintings/artwork, the copyright confidence ratings are among the lowest recorded. Content types such as paintings or architecture may not routinely be encountered by library personnel; as a result practitioners do not have the opportunity to develop confidence in working with copyright issues for these materials. 12 Figure 4. Copyright confidence ratings for content types by job function Content Type High Means by Job Functions [select low means in brackets] Notes Text ScholComm 7.7; Medical 7.0; LIS Education Faculty 6.8; Digital Projects & Initiatives 6.7 [Paraprofessional/Support Staff 5.1; Paraprofessional Running/In Charge of Library/Branch 5.1] The high means for the confidence of those performing these job functions are not surprising; that the lowest means are found in paraprofessionals (and those in charge of running a branch/library) raises concerns. Sound Recordings Medical 6.0; School Librarian/ Teacher 5.9; ScholComm 5.8 Uncertain regarding the connection between Medical library job functions and providing these services, but personnel working as a School Librarian/Teacher or in ScholComm routinely provide these services. Sheet Music Makerspace 5.2 – [GIS 1.0] Uncertain regarding the connection between Makerspace job functions and providing these services. Sheet Music (a specialized content type not often encountered by library personnel) confidence seems limited. Video/Film LIS education faculty 6.3; School Librarian/Teacher 6.1; ScholComm 6.0; Makerspace 6.0 A high level of confidence for these job functions make sense as most of these positions that provide these services; Makerspace personnel may engage with patrons wanting to use video/film images, logos, (or 3d print characters or models from a video/film) in their work. Gov Docs ScholComm 7.9; GovDocs 7.4; GIS 6.7 GIS ratings of confidence may be high because many GIS centers developed in or from the Gov Docs unit of libraries; the regular use of GIS datasets or aerial photographs and topographical maps produced by government agencies may also be a factor in the high confidence rating for GIS personnel. Open Access Materials ScholComm 8.4; LIS education faculty 7.5; subject specialist/ liaison 7.3 With the highest confidence ratings across all job functions, Open Access Materials appear to be well understood by library personnel who deal with it regularly. Open Educational Materials ScholComm 7.9; LIS education faculty 7.5; subject specialist/ liaison 7.0; instructional design/ technology 6.9 Most job functions listed appear in academic libraries, suggesting that academic organizations have shared information about copyright for Open Educational Materials to make their personnel confident in their use. Other Openly Licensed Materials or Software ScholComm 7.6; LIS Education Faculty 7.3; GIS 7.2 With high confidence ratings among those listed, Open Licensed Materials and Software appear to be well understood by library personnel who deal with it regularly. Photographs ScholComm 6.3; Makerspace 5.8; LIS Education Faculty 5.8; Digital Projects & Initiatives 5.7; School Librarian/Teacher 5.7; Special Collections/Archive 5.7 The listed job functions encounter photographs regularly in their work and seem to be confident dealing with their copyright issues. Paintings/Art Work LIS Faculty 7.0; ScholComm 6.1 Uncertain regarding the connection between these job functions and providing these services; this would seem a specialist topic in many cases. Architecture ScholComm 4.6 Apparently, not routinely encountered so low confidence among most jobs functions; specialist topic. Computer code/Software GIS 5.5; Makerspace 4.8; IT/ Systems/Web 4.8; Data Services 4.7; ScholComm 4.6; Digital Projects & Initiatives 4.6 The job functions listed encounter and use software in their work, and their high confidence scores reflect this. Data Sets GIS 5.8; ScholComm 5.6; Data Services 4.9 Those who work with data sets (which GIS work heavily involves) rate confidence higher than those in other job functions. Web Sites ScholComm 6.2; School Librarian/ Teacher 6.0; Makerspace 5.8; User Experience 5.3 People performing the listed job functions do work that involves using (or making) Web Sites and express high copyright confidence for this work. 13 Overall, the data support the idea that those who spend more of their routine job function with a specific content type(s) or library service(s) develop more confidence in dealing with copyrightrelated issues relevant to that specific content type or library service. A look at the lowest confidence ratings revealed that Paraprofessional/Support Staff rated their confidence as lowest for most library services and content types. These low copyright confidence ratings, to the extent that they translate to an actual knowledge gap or to a reluctance to interact with copyright, may impact service to patrons as libraries of all types rely on paraprofessionals and support staff to operate library branches on evenings and weekends by themselves. Extending copyright training to paraprofessionals would assure that patrons receive confident support and reliable information when a librarian (or other staff with knowledge about copyright) is not available to patrons. CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS Our assumptions related to challenges and barriers to copyright education were that the biggest barriers would be related to geography limiting access to training. Instead, we learned that time and lack of awareness of training opportunities were the most often reported challenges or barriers at 51% and 46% respectively. These were followed by training schedules that were inconvenient or incompatible with work schedules (29%), lack of funding (26%), and distance from available options (23%). Distance and geographical barriers, while not at the top of the list, ranked 5th and 7th out of 13 specific barriers. When asked about what prevented or limited receiving or participating in copyright training in the past two years, one person responded in an optional free text field “Due to location, travel is extremely time consuming and expensive and there are rarely local opportunities. Time zone issues are also an issue. Online opportunities scheduled before 12:15 pm, East Coast US time, are very difficult to attend.” The focus groups also brought the distance and geographical barriers to the forefront as participants spoke about their inability to travel during certain seasons due to impassable roads, limited flights (which could end up cancelled due to weather), and long distances that must be traveled to get to a municipality large enough to host an event. Other focus group participants expanded on this, one noting the fact there are few major universities (where training events are often held) in their state and that those universities are geographically dispersed making travel to attend training unreasonable. Participants in the focus groups also spoke about the challenges faced by small libraries. One focus group participant shared that their library had closed and ceased operations for the hour in order for the participant to be able to attend the focus group for this study. This prompted us to consider including questions related to the size of the library staff in future data collection efforts. Data from the Public Libraries Survey 16 shows that the data from the Public Libraries Survey could be useful in future research to better under-stand the scope and scale of this challenge. While COVID definitely presented challenges for many in terms of training opportunities, it also presented the opportunity to make training more easily accessible for some as virtual training eliminated the need for travel. However, a number of participants noted that they expect that COVID will have long term impacts on their ability to attend training, either due to continued travel restrictions or budgetary and staffing issues. It is still too early to tell the long term impacts on budgets and travel. 16 https://www.imls.gov/research-evaluation/data-collection/public-libraries-survey 14 INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT We did not have initial assumptions about whether institutional support would place barriers to professional development, other than the lack of institutional support would obviously make it more difficult. We explored not only whether institutions provide financial support for professional development (such as for registration fees and travel) but also whether they approve the use of work time for attending professional development where travel is not required, such as webinars or local training sessions. We divided up the responses to also get a sense of which types of professional development get more support than others, whether financial or the use of paid time. The majority of respondents indicated that they receive at least some financial support from their institutions - only 13% said they received no financial support at all. Overall, institutions tend to support certain types of training more than others. Types of training that receive the most financial support (overall): • One-time online training (54%) • Local training (51%) • Training that requires travel (44%) • Any modality (42%) An even greater percentage of respondents indicated that their institution supports the use of paid time to attend training - in particular, two-thirds of respondents said they would receive support for using work time to conduct self-directed learning or to attend free online training. Only 4% of respondents said they do not get any support for using work time to attend training. Approval of use of work time (overall): • Self-directed learning (66%) • Free online training - one-time (66%) • Attend free local training (61%) • Free online training - ongoing (57%) Institutions are less likely to support the use of work time for ongoing commitments, for example, only 29% support use of work time for attending for-credit courses. Based on these responses, many institutions in general support professional development opportunities for their personnel, particularly one-time online training (whether free or for a fee), and training offered locally. However, many recipients specifically mentioned lack of available time (over half, 52%), lack of funding (27%), and lack of support from my organization/institution (12%) as reasons that prevented them from participating in copyright training. Indeed, lack of available time was the most prevalent barrier among all survey participants as a whole. When comparing responses among participants of different library types, however, Academic/Research Library personnel indicate a much higher percentage at 68%, followed closely by School Library/Media Center/ School District personnel at 64%. A higher percentage of School Library/Media Center/School District personnel indicate a lack of support from their organization/institution than the mean (12%), at 19%. Our focus groups provide more context and support for these responses. Since lack of available time affects the majority of respondents, we’ll look at that first. Lack of available time could merely be a scheduling conflict or conflict with other work priorities. One participant referred to a regular copyright training offered in the fall, which consistently conflicts with the more demanding schedule for their regular annual responsibilities: 15 “That is just incompatible. I do some teaching of legal research as well, in my capacity as a reference librarian, and in the fall semester, once school starts, I just don’t have a lot of time for that training.” More concerning, however, was a common theme around overwork. While theoretically there may be institutional support for taking time for professional development, in reality there’s no time to take. Several focus group participants spoke of struggling to “carve out time” to focus on professional development, or juggling other staffing needs to allow time to focus on professional development. Even while expressing a desire for professional development and learning, several participants described low morale and burn out. These barriers are hard to overcome since they indicate structural challenges or weaknesses in the institutional culture or a persistent lack of personnel that prevents the ability to focus on professional development opportunities. This quote most directly represents many other similar comments by focus group participants: “So I’m doing my job, which is already two people’s jobs, plus covering for people who have left. So, lack of available time is totally true, but it’s just burnout, complete and total burnout.“ Several focus group participants discussed the need to prioritize copyright training in particular over other professional development needs. Given that both time and funds are limited, participants feel the need to understand the return on investment that a training will bring. Will it be immediately applicable and put into practice at their institution? Will it be worth the institutional funds? Why should copyright education be prioritized higher than more interesting or more relevant topics? • “It’s second to other things that are higher in priority. Yeah, so I guess it’s more of a lack of making time for myself.” • “Yeah, it’s just funding on my end, funding and time and not being a priority.” • “What is worth your time? How can you tell in advance when committing to a one hour or several week long course, you know, what do you recommend? And the stuff that I would recommend to people is a pretty big time investment most of the time.” Whether or not an institution itself would prioritize training in copyright is also an important consideration. Several survey and focus group participants mentioned their institution displays a lack of understanding or awareness of the importance of copyright knowledge and expertise outside of a unit such as General Counsel or aside from protecting the institution’s own intellectual property. One participant mentioned a lack of support from their organization because of a lack of understanding of “just how important this copyright work is.” “And I think it’s a perceived issue of importance. I feel like copyright doesn’t come up as the most important thing to an administrator on what their staff should be learning, and if that doesn’t come across, then it loses out each and every time.“ “I just think there needs to be more buy-in at the administrative levels...their mind automatically goes to intellectual property and money, when 90% of it is not that. ... there’s this weird resistance or barrier there, of understanding [that] the needs of students and faculty, and librarians, versus the financial interests of an entity or university or something else, are very different than what the average person needs, and I think if a university doesn’t see it as separate things, but also important, [then] they don’t get the same attention.” 16 Even though many survey respondents indicated they receive at least some financial support from their institutions for professional development, focus group participants again provide some deeper context. For example, while financial support may be available, it may not be distributed equally among personnel. Paraprofessional staff, in particular, may not receive professional development funds: “Staff [don’t] get funding for conference travel anyway...to get the opportunity for those in-person copyright trainings.” “There are some people who get to do it, and some people who don’t, particularly if it’s something that requires money.” And several focus group participants mentioned that funding is a challenge in general, particularly in areas where library support is unstable, such as counties where the libraries have been defunded. The need to prioritize professional development opportunities when making financial decisions was also mentioned, again indicating a need to realize a return on investment for funds. “But on a larger scale, I think lack of funding, lack of opportunities, and maybe a limited amount of concern over the topic. I mean, there’s a lot of different trainings that our staff can do, whether [copyright] would make the cut is doubtful, in my opinion.” But there were several focus group participants who indicated they have good institutional support, whether for time or money: “Our institution is really good about training, and I have the opportunity to choose a training at least once a year and, if needed, I could go twice a year and that would include traveling out of state, and I just choose which one I want to go to.“ “I think for me I have a very supportive administration, they’re super happy that I decided [copyright] was a big problem this year, because of remote learning, and that I want to take it on and get better at it.” “I have a lot of support from the administration here to do professional development, so that isn’t the block, it’s that sometimes I just don’t hear about them.” It’s also worth mentioning that responses to questions around institutional support rely on respondents being knowledgeable about their employer’s policies or procedures for supporting professional development. As one focus group participant mentioned: “I am sometimes surprised when a new employee isn’t aware that their employer kind of would support self-directed attending of professional development, that’s free and that they can fit into their schedule.” 17 TRAINING PREFERENCES Because one of our driving questions behind this work was “how can we best support copyright education in the West?”, we asked about respondents’ preferences with regard to training modality. Favored modalities with our survey respondents included webinars, conference workshops, and formal training opportunities (both in person and online) while social media, blog posts, and credit-bearing courses were not preferred. Focus group participants were varied in their responses regarding their preferred modalities, with no clear single modality emerging as a favorite across the groups. Within that variety, however, there was strong interest in what we could refer to as “hybrid” learning. Some participants referred directly to their preference for “hybrid approaches” or “hybrid classes”. Others didn’t use the word “hybrid” but expressed the importance of being able to “follow up” after a webinar or being able to “refer back” (to written and/or recorded material) after an in-person event. This interest in hybridity evident in both the survey and the patterns of response in the focus groups seemed to point to a lack of agreement among participating library staff about preferred modality, which might be discouraging news for would-be designers of copyright-related professional development. However, we found it illuminating when several focus group participants stated directly that modality didn’t matter to them (beyond practical considerations around travel and budget), rather the content and presentation of the material mattered most. “...I don’t think the modality matters as much, I think, for the average person, it’s how it’s taught, and it needs to be situational. I feel like when talking about copyright, and they start mentioning all these weird, obscure things and looking at everything, they just shut down, where I think if you just go scenario through scenario about like, can I put this up, here’s a scenario, can I do this, can I do that, here’s a legal case, here it went, I feel like as long as whatever the modality is, as long as it’s all situational, I think you get people more engaged because now they understand, ‘oh these are the questions I might ask’....” This preference for practical, scenario-based educational material emerged repeatedly in the focus groups. Several participants went further and indicated that they would prefer content that is specifically tailored to their library or their professional speciality. This preference will be important for developers of copyright education to keep in mind. Multiple focus group participants went further and expressed a frustration with how “obscure”, “theoretical”, and “uncertain” most copyright education is and indicated a desire to attend trainings that provide clear “yes” or “no” answers about common copyright situations, especially as regards fair use. While this frustration is understandable, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the subject. Copyright educators avoid providing specific answers to questions like, as one participant suggested, “how much of a book can be copied?” because those answers do not exist. As one participant stated, “...I think that lack of a copyright safe harbor is why people sort of avoid the topic to begin with”. The conversations in the focus groups suggested that copyright educators should be mindful of library staff discomfort with and/or lack of understanding about the nature of copyright as a subject of study as they design educational opportunities. 18 SURPRISES While we assumed that copyright training is important, we were surprised at the overwhelming support for this assumption: 94% of survey respondents indicated that copyright is moderately important to extremely important for themselves and their colleagues, with 65% choosing either very or extremely important. The vast majority of survey respondents indicated that copyright touches on their work: 88% of all respondents said they needed to answer questions, consult, or make recommendations on copyright in their capacity as a library professional or paraprofessional. Unsurprisingly, 94% of respondents who specifically indicated that copyright is a function of their position indicated that they make copyright decisions. What stands out, however, is that 75% of respondents who report that copyright decisions are NOT a function of their position must also make these decisions. Copyright training tends to be more recent for respondents, if they have attended it. For example, 64% of respondents have received copyright training within the last 3 years–that number goes up to 84% within the last 6 years. The pandemic beginning in 2020 was certainly not something that we had anticipated or included in our assumptions. However, the impacts of COVID-19 on the work of libraries, particularly with respect to copyright, have been widespread, touching on all aspects of our work. In the early days of the pandemic, a group of copyright librarians and professionals released a Statement on Fair Use and Emergency Remote Teaching and Research 17. There were also numerous emergency posts, 18 19 20 on topics such as online story times 21 as public libraries scrambled to provide services to their communities. Professional development opportunities moved online and many copyright webinars were provided, such as the Resilient Digital Materials for Teaching and Learning: Copyright and Open Education Strategies Webinar Series 22 addressing both K-12 and Higher Education. Within this context, 28% of our survey respondents indicated they had taken copyright training within the last year. Several of our focus group participants also mentioned the increased awareness of copyright’s impact on library work, and expressed considerable concern about whether support for developing copyright expertise will continue moving forward. “Copyright has become more, like, in your face, with COVID and with remote learning and remote teaching, I think. And that involves a lot of different things, like trying to license materials, trying to answer more questions about fair use, trying to support people around building open educational resources and, you know, I think one thing that hasn’t caught up yet, is like, support, and administrative support, and campus support for those sorts of things. I think everyone’s still scrambling and sort of doing the best that we can, but like, thinking into the future, like, there should be more support on those issues.” Lack of awareness of training opportunities is a more significant barrier than we assumed, particularly with public library and school library respondents. 67% of public library respondents and 68% of school library respondents indicated lack of awareness of training opportunities, 17 https://tinyurl.com/tvnty3a 18 https://kylecourtney.com/2020/03/11/covid-19-copyright-library-superpowers-part-i/ 19 https://kylecourtney.com/2020/03/16/covid-19-copyright-and-library-superpowers-part-ii/ 20 https://kylecourtney.com/2020/04/01/covid-19-copyright-library-superpowers-part-iii/ 21 https://programminglibrarian.org/articles/online-story-time-coronavirus-it%E2%80%99s-fair-use-folks 22 https://www.wcl.american.edu/impact/initiatives-programs/pijip/impact/best-practices-in-fair-use/best-practicesin-fair-use-for-open-educational-resources/ 19 which was their biggest barrier to receiving or participating in copyright training in the past two years. This is in contrast to 55% of respondents as a whole, and only 45% of academic library respondents. Additionally, there is a tendency for library personnel (particularly those employed in educational institutions, such as K-12 or college/university libraries) to be placed in or assume the role of copyright enforcer or educator for the institution. While this is not a surprise per se, it was interesting to see how many focus group participants brought it up, particularly with respect to understanding the urgency of increasing copyright expertise. This work goes beyond the scope of consulting regarding the use of library materials and moves into the realm of decision-making regarding course materials or textbooks, and policing the sharing of student-created content. Library personnel feel responsible for educating instructors about how copyright applies to their teaching activities. They may be in the position of telling instructors that their activities may be infringing copyright, without any institutional authority, or trying to convince instructors that copyright should be considered. We think this might be an area worth exploring for future study. How did library personnel become the de facto copyright experts or enforcers in an institution? “I’m kind of between, you know, librarians we help with scanning, making, making sure everything is cited, that teachers provide and supposedly ensure the legality of what they’re doing” “[We need something to] help us convince colleagues who might not understand why this is important. How do you convince a teacher [who has] maybe been used to just making PDF copies of books? My attempts at trying to get them to change their ways by explaining things like “author’s rights” and “blah blah blah, intellectual property,” it’s not always successful. So, what do we do to get other audiences on board?” IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE COPYRIGHT TRAINING AND RESEARCH As we have stated throughout this report, our findings strongly demonstrate a need for copyright training across all types of libraries and library work. As described above, even in the areas where library personnel describe themselves as most confident, the mean copyright confidence ratings are not high. Our research clarifies many considerations to keep in mind when planning professional development opportunities for library personnel moving forward. A further implication is that library leaders and administrators themselves need to develop more awareness of the importance of copyright knowledge as a core competency for library personnel. This was implied throughout survey and focus group responses but was expressed by one focus group participant very clearly: “And what I think would be really beneficial is just some understanding and some movement among library administrators to recognize that copyright is present through almost all of the work that’s happening in libraries...we have to all move past that and see that copyright touches all parts of our work, and talk more about it.” 20 TRAINING An analysis of the data shows some preferences for training. Participants expressed strong interest in both virtual and in-person training. This points to the need for a multi-pronged approach regarding training modality. Unfortunately, this could be difficult to scale. As mentioned elsewhere in this report, the survey and focus groups took place during a pandemic in which many people worked remotely and may have suffered from Zoom fatigue, leading some focus group participants to indicate that they simply did not have the capacity for more virtual work. It would be beneficial to do further research into desired training modalities to see if this changes when more people have returned to working on site and virtual meetings may be less frequent. Nevertheless, there will always be a subset of people who will find it difficult to travel due to a variety of reasons whose only or best option may be virtual training. Unfortunately, for some of those who find it difficult to travel, they may also not have the infrastructure in place to support virtual training. Further research into barriers specific to virtual training would help bring these issues to light. One concern for future research is how we ensure that our survey reaches library personnel who do not have reliable internet access? If virtual training will be the raining of the future, then copyright educators, just like any other type of educator, will need a solid foundation in the pedagogy of virtual training. Related to pedagogy, participants, especially in the focus groups, expressed a desire for initial training followed by ongoing support or education. The Copyright First Responders model fits this approach. Our research seems to uncover a need to make this type of training more widely available and sustainable. In addition, research into the effectiveness of this training, as well as other copyright training, is a logical next step. Focus group participants expressed a clear desire for training that directly relates to and applies to their day-to-day work; the types of copyright issues encountered by a person working in a public library will differ from those encountered by a person working with course reserves in an academic library. Because an overall basic understanding of U.S. copyright law is necessary in order to understand how copyright applies to specific issues, a balance will need to be struck between providing enough in-depth training of the broad strokes of copyright to enable participants to understand and make sense of the more granular aspects of copyright as it applies narrowly to specific circumstances. One focus group participant explained that their state required Continuing Education Units (CEUs) and that copyright courses are not included in those state-approved CEUs. Upon further investigation, we learned that certification of some sort is required for public library employees in more than half of the 50 states 23. State requirements also vary for school library workers, some states requiring teacher certification in addition to an MLIS degree 24 25. This may point to an opportunity to begin work with states to get copyright on the CEU training menu. Given that requirements vary greatly by state, this could be a very long-term project. 23 https://ala-apa.org/certification-news/stateregional-certifications/ 24 https://www.everylibraryinstitute.org/requirements_to_become_a_school_librarian_by_state 25 https://schoollibraryconnection.com/Glossary/StateCertifications/1959400?topicCenterId=1955261 21 RESEARCH The data collected in the survey (and confirmed in the focus groups) points to strong need for and interest in copyright education in the West. It would be valuable to create a national survey that would allow regional comparisons and that would provide copyright educators around the country with similar data to inform their programs; expanding the development of the survey to include the communities of archives and museum personnel would more fully represent the fields whose personnel must grapple with copyright issues. At the same time, smaller regional surveys could be useful to confirm our findings and to determine local needs and training priorities. The data collected in our study, especially the focus groups, pointed to a desire for copyright education tailored to the particular needs and interests of the potential participants. Smaller, more focused surveys could help further identify and refine these needs. Additionally, we feel that research is needed on the special needs of archivists and museum personnel, which likely vary significantly from those of library staff. More research is also needed to uncover and understand the needs of special libraries, especially tribal libraries due to the complex legal, ethical, and cultural issues surrounding ownership of indigenous intellectual property, including tribal knowledge and language preservation resources. Some survey questions included an “Other” answer option with a free text field. In answering a question about barriers we heard from some respondents that staffing levels made it difficult to attend training. This was reinforced during one of the focus groups when a participant shared that their library had to be closed so they could participate. A future survey question related to staffing levels in a participant’s library could provide additional useful information. In addition, it may be beneficial in a future survey to ask questions specifically related to the technology infrastructure in the library and local community. Regions without reliable high speed internet access will be less likely to be able to take advantage of online and even hybrid training opportunities. Looking for correlations between staffing levels, technology infrastructure, and barriers to travel and how that impacts the ability to attend training could help fuel innovation in training modalities and help provide support for increased equity and inclusion. LESSONS LEARNED During the project, we learned several important lessons that we will take into future project work and hope will assist others. As mentioned previously in this report, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted every part of the research plan and added stress to the research team as each member dealt with local, and quickly changing, pandemic issues. We persisted with the project in order to complete the work within the original timeline. In retrospect, we should have discussed and requested an extension for the project to reduce the stress of completing the project within the original timeline. In future projects, we will establish the project website well prior to the start of the funded project and designate updates monthly. With the survey being sent out closely after the start of the project, our project website was built shortly before the survey was distributed; at survey distribution time, it held sparse information about the project, raising some questions from participants about its legitimacy. We also will use institutional email accounts rather than Gmail accounts for all communication with participants in future projects. Our project team, spread across three states, used a Gmail account for emailing listservs and participants; some organization’s email filters either marked the email as spam or junk and moved it from the inbox to a junk folder, and several participants and listserv owners contacted the primary investigators to alert them that their name was being used to promote a survey and determine the legitimacy of the project. Having the initial email come from a university .edu mail domain would have significantly reduced these problems. 22 When managing future projects, we plan to create a protocol for managing and organizing project files, including file-naming conventions, at the beginning of the project. This will help to avoid confusion among team members, particularly when working across multiple time zones. An issue that we seek to improve in future studies involves the scheduling of focus groups for specific subpopulations. We did not schedule the focus groups until after the survey was completed, which proved to be a difficult undertaking with a small population of respondents given the number of schedules needing coordination. Providing information to surveyants about the scheduled times for sub-population focus groups when they sign up to participate might increase participation while removing a significant amount of work for the survey scheduler. NEXT STEPS As the first large-scale study to gather data from library personnel about copyright, this report contains useful data for the states surveyed. Further work that gathers data about copyright training from library personnel needs to occur on a larger scale, and we encourage (and are happy to work with) others to gather this data in order to better understand the training and educational needs of library professionals and paraprofessionals who are answering questions about copyright. In the coming months, the research team will be preparing an article for publication. In addition, we plan to publicize our shared data to relevant groups. We will continue to present our findings at relevant conferences and meetings. During the 2021/2022 academic year, we plan to begin developing training opportunities for library staff in the West based on our findings. This may initially involve exploration of the best ways to facilitate collaboration between the various existing Copyright First Responder networks in the West (CFR Pacific Northwest, CFR California, CFR Arizona, and CFR Alaska). Working with a variety of partners, we will work to raise awareness for the need for copyright education as demonstrated by our findings. APPENDICES: Appendix A Western Copyright Alliance – 2020 Copyright Study • Survey Instrument Appendix B Western Copyright Alliance –- 2020 Copyright Study • Summary Data Appendix C Western Copyright Alliance – 2020 Copyright Study Focus Groups • Script Focus Group Session Moderators • Thematic Analysis Methods Report • Overall Analyses • Focus Group-Specific Analyses 23 Appendix A Western Copyright Alliance Survey Instrument (ADMINISTERED ONLINE OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2020) INFORMED CONSENT The purpose of this research is to understand the needs of all types of library personnel from all types of libraries for copyright education. This is a research project conducted by library faculty and administrators at California State University, Chico; Arizona State University; and Portland Community College. All individuals who wish to join the study must be at least 18 years of age. You are invited to participate in this research because you work in a library. Your participation in this research study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate. If you decide to participate in this research survey you may withdraw at any time. If you decide not to participate in this study or if you withdraw from participating at any time, you will not be penalized. The procedure involves completing an online survey that should take no more than 8–12 minutes. Your responses will be confidential, and we do not collect identifying information such as your IP address, name, or email address. The survey questions will be about your institutions’ approach to training (about copyright and other topics), your comfort in resolving copyright issues, and your desire for future training about copyright. There are no foreseeable risks associated with the study. Possible direct or indirect benefits may include the development and delivery of additional resources for training on copyright. At the conclusion of the online survey, participants can voluntarily enter a drawing for one of four $500 gift cards; voluntarily entering the drawing requires providing identifying information on a separate web site (no identifying information will be collected through the Qualtrics survey nor associated with the survey data). Apart from this online survey, we will be holding several one-hour focus groups via Zoom (in January and February, 2021) to gather more information; you will be able to sign up for these focus groups at the end of this survey. These focus groups are optional and will compensated with a $50 gift card upon completion; no identifying information will be included in the transcripts of the focus groups. If you have any questions about the research study, please contact Patrick Newell via email (pnewell@csuchico.edu), and he will respond in a timely manner. This research has been reviewed according to California State University, Chico Institutional Review Board (IRB) procedures for research involving human subjects. If you have any questions about your rights as a participant, you may contact the Human Subjects in Research Committee at 530-898-3145 or IRB@csuchico.edu ELECTRONIC CONSENT  Clicking on the button to proceed indicates that: You have read the above information. You voluntarily agree to participate in the research study. Thank you. 24 STATE In which state are you employed? (If more than one job, please answer for the primary job.)  Alaska (1)  Arizona (2)  California (3)  Colorado (4)  Hawaii (8)  Idaho (9)  Montana (10)  Nevada (11)  New Mexico (12)  Oregon (13)  Utah (14)  Washington (15)  Wyoming (16)  I am not employed in any of these states (17) Skip to end of survey if you have selected none of these. Thank you for your interest in this survey, but we will not be able to include you at this time. We are currently including only responses from those employed in the states of Alaska, Arizona California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming . We hope to survey more states in the future and hope you will participate at that time. COPYRIGHT AND YOUR WORK The next set of questions seek to understand how copyright applies to your position or work. Is copyright a function of your position?  Yes (1)  No (2) Are you responsible for providing either formal or informal copyright education to others at your library/organization/institution?  Yes (1)  No (2) Do you ever need to make copyright decisions in your capacity as a library professional or paraprofessional?  Yes (1)  No (2) Do you ever need to answer questions, consult, or make recommendations on copyright in your capacity as a library professional or paraprofessional?  Yes (23)  No (24) In an average work year, what percentage of your time would you estimate you focus on copyrightrelated issues? 0 1 2 3 Estimated percentage () 25 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Please rate your level of confidence in dealing with copyright issues related to the following general library/information services. No Confidence 0 1 2 3 Interlibrary Borrowing or Lending () Digitization of Library Collection Items (e.g., digitization of library collections, archives, special collections, audiovisual collections, etc.) () Course Reserves and/or Course Packs () Archives/Special Collections () Author Rights () Instructional materials (using existing materials such as textbooks, articles, video, etc. for instruction) () Instructional materials (creating new instructional materials) () Events/Programming/Public Performance Rights/Read Alouds/Story Time/Film Screenings, etc. () Open Access and/or Open Educational materials (use or creation) () Controlled Digital Lending () Makerspace () Licensing Resources for the Library () 26 Highest Level of Confidence 4 5 6 Not Applicable 7 8 9 10 Please rate your level of confidence in dealing with copyright issues related to the following content categories. No Confidence 0 1 2 3 Text/Documents () Sound recordings () Sheet Music () Video/Film () Government Documents () Open Access Materials () Open Educational Resources () Other Openly Licensed Materials or Software (e.g., Creative Commons, GNU licenses, etc.) () Photographs () Paintings/Art works () Architecture () Computer code/software () Data sets () Web sites () 27 Highest Level of Confidence 4 5 6 Not Applicable 7 8 9 10 What do you do when a copyright issue arises that is beyond your expertise? Select all that apply.  Panic (1)  Consult on my campus/at my institution (2)  Consult my personal/professional network (3)  Refer the issue to our institution’s legal counsel (4)  Refer the issue to an expert (other than legal counsel) at my institution (5)  Research the issue/educate myself (11)  If in response to a question, provide general information and encourage them to decide the correct answer (6)  If in response to a question, provide general information and advise them to seek other counsel (7)  Do nothing (8)  Other (please specify) (9) ________________________________________________ Do you maintain a resource that you share with others to inform them about copyright? (For example, a LibGuide, information sheet/handout, website, or other resource that you created or maintain.)  Yes (1)  No (2) In the last five years, have you offered training (such as a seminar, workshop, or formal class— not one-on-one interactions, such as occur at the reference desk) about copyright to any of the following? Check all that apply.  Administrators (1)  Authors/Creators (7)  Professional Groups (e.g., at a conference/preconference or meeting) (8)  Library personnel (2)  Teachers/instructors/faculty (3)  Other instructional personnel (e.g., instructional designers, educational technicians, etc.) (9)  Students (4)  General public (10)  Other (please specify) (5) ________________________________________________  I have not offered any training (6) 28 INSTITUTION/ORGANIZATION QUESTIONS The next questions seek to understand your institutions’ or organizations’ approach to copyright. We want to distinguish between your library and your larger institutional context. If you work in a library at a university, in a city or county, in a school district, at a hospital, or any other larger institution, we want to differentiate between the library (e.g., the school library where you work) and the larger institution (e.g., the school district). From your viewpoint, rate your institution/organization’s risk tolerance regarding copyright. No Tolerance 0 1 2 3 Highest Level of Tolerance 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Risk tolerance regarding copyright () Are you a designated person (or member of a group) in your organization that answers copyright questions?  Yes (23)  No (24) Skip To: End of Block If Are you a designated person (or member of a group) in your organization that answers copyright qu... = Yes My institution/organization has a designated person or group that answers copyright questions.  Yes - Within the library (1)  Yes - Within the larger institution/organization (2)  Yes - Within both the library and the larger institution/organization (3)  Uncertain / Not Sure (4)  No (5) Are you able to directly ask them questions about copyright?  Yes (1)  Uncertain/Not Sure (2)  No (3) Skip To: Q24 If Are you able to directly ask them questions about copyright? = Yes Skip To: Q24 If Are you able to directly ask them questions about copyright? = Uncertain/Not Sure Skip To: End of Block If Are you able to directly ask them questions about copyright? = No 29 Have you asked them questions about copyright?  Yes (1)  No (2) Skip To: Q25 If Have you asked them questions about copyright? = Yes Skip To: End of Block If Have you asked them questions about copyright? = No Generally speaking, do their responses provide the information you need?  Yes (1)  No (2) TRAINING OPTIONS These questions seek to understand what copyright training options are available to you and your preferences for receiving training. Have you ever attended any copyright training/education?  Yes (1)  No (2) Skip To: Q39 If Have you ever attended any copyright training/education? = No What types of organized copyright training/education have you attended? Check all that apply.  In a library school course (general course that included copyright) (1)  In a library school course (course focused on copyright/intellectual property) (2)  In a law school course (general course that included copyright) (3)  In a law school course (course focused on copyright/intellectual property) (4)  A MOOC such as CopyrightX or Copyright for Educators and Librarians on Coursera (5)  Copyright education webinars (8)  Copyright First Responders program (9)  University of North Carolina Copyright Institute (10)  Professional association conference presentation, workshop, or preconference (e.g. ALA, ACRL, ABA) (11)  Copyright-specific conference (e.g., Kraemer Copyright Conf; Miami Ohio Copyright Conference) (12)  Any training for which I received continuing education credit or certification (13)  A training provided by my institution/organization (14)  Other (please specify) (15) ________________________________________________ 30 How many years has it been since you last attended copyright training?  I have never attended copyright training (9)  Less than 1 year (10)  1 to 3 years (16)  4 to 6 years (11)  7 to 10 years (12)  11 to 15 years (13)  16 to 20 years (14)  More than 20 years (15) How important do you think it is for you and/or your colleagues to attend copyright training?  Not important at all (6)  Slightly important (7)  Moderately Important (8)  Very Important (9)  Extremely Important (10) Ideally, how do you prefer to learn about copyright? Please categorize the items listed. I prefer these modalities most  For-credit course (1) I’d be OK doing these  For-credit course (1) I will not pursue these options  For-credit course (1)  Formal training (in person)(workshop/bootcamp) (2)  Formal training (in person)(workshop/bootcamp) (2)  Formal training (in person)(workshop/bootcamp) (2)  Formal training (online)(MOOC/CopyrightX) (3)  Formal training (online)(MOOC/CopyrightX) (3)  Formal training (online)(MOOC/CopyrightX) (3)  Webinar (4)  Webinar (4)  Webinar (4)  Conference workshop (5)  Conference workshop (5)  Conference workshop (5)  Copyright-specific conference (6)  Copyright-specific conference (6)  Copyright-specific conference (6)  Reading professional literature (7)  Reading professional literature (7)  Reading professional literature (7)  Reading blog posts (8)  Reading blog posts (8)  Reading blog posts (8)  Copyright.gov (9)  Copyright.gov (9)  Copyright.gov (9)  Social media, i.e. Facebook, Twitter, etc. (10)  Social media, i.e. Facebook, Twitter, etc. (10)  Social media, i.e. Facebook, Twitter, etc. (10)  Informal discussion/networking (11)  Informal discussion/networking (11)  Informal discussion/networking (11)  Ongoing community of practice (12)  Ongoing community of practice (12)  Ongoing community of practice (12) Are there ways (not listed above) that you prefer to learn about copyright? Please input below. 31 I would like to attend more copyright training in the following areas. Please categorize by order of importance. Training on this is critical to me/ my job  Interlibrary borrowing and lending (1) Training on this would be helpful to me (relevant to my job/not critical)  Interlibrary borrowing and lending (1) Training on this is not relevant to me/my job  Interlibrary borrowing and lending (1)  Digitization (2)  Digitization (2)  Digitization (2)  Course Reserve materials (3)  Course Reserve materials (3)  Course Reserve materials (3)  Archives/Special Collections (4)  Author Rights (5)  Archives/Special Collections (4)  Author Rights (5)  Archives/Special Collections (4)  Author Rights (5)  Instructional Materials (using  Instructional Materials (using  Instructional Materials (using materials for instruction) (6) materials for instruction) (6) materials for instruction) (6)  Instructional Materials (creating instructional materials) (7)  Instructional Materials (creating instructional materials) (7)  Instructional Materials (creating instructional materials) (7)  Events/programming/Public Performance Rights (8)  Events/programming/Public Performance Rights (8)  Events/programming/Public Performance Rights (8)  Open Access materials (use or creation) (9)  Open Access materials (use or creation) (9)  Open Access materials (use or creation) (9)  Open Educational Resources (10)  Open Educational Resources (10)  Open Educational Resources (10)  Streaming Media (11)  Paintings/Graphic Arts/Art (12)  Streaming Media (11)  Paintings/Graphic Arts/Art (12)  Streaming Media (11)  Paintings/Graphic Arts/Art (12) If there is any area not listed above for which you would like to receive more copyright training, please specify it below. 32 SUPPORT FOR EDUCATION/TRAINING These questions seek to understand your ability to receive or participate in copyright education or training. How well does your institution/organization support training/education opportunities for you? No Support 0 1 2 3 Highest Level of Support 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Support for training/education () Regarding training, my organization/institution supports me by providing (select all that apply):  At least some financial support to attend training online (one-time) (1)  At least some financial support to attend training online (ongoing or MOOC) (2)  At least some financial support to attend training locally (3)  At least some financial support to attend training that requires travel (4)  At least some financial support to attend for-credit courses (5)  At least some financial support for training in any modality (6)  No financial support (7) Regarding training, my organization/institution supports me by providing (select all that apply):  Use of work time for self-directed learning (1)  Use of work time for free online training (one-time) (2)  Use of work time for free online training (ongoing or MOOC) (3)  Use of work time to attend free training locally (4)  Use of work time to attend for-credit courses (5)  Use of work time to pursue training in any modality (6)  No support to use work time for training (7) 33 Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which of the following (if any) have prevented or limited you from receiving or participating in copyright training in the past two years? Select all that apply.  Lack of awareness of training opportunities (1)  Lack of funding (2)  Lack of available time (3)  Lack of support from my organization/institution (4)  Inability to commit to ongoing/recurring training (5)  Available options are inconvenient or incompatible with my schedule (6)  Lack of accessibility accommodations for people with disabilities (7)  Language barriers (8)  Distance from available options (9)  Geographical barriers to travel (10)  Local or State policies that restrict travel (11)  Inability to travel due to personal reasons/family commitments (12)  Other (please specify) (13) ________________________________________________ DEMOGRAPHICS These questions seek to understand your place of work, your work functions, and your educational background. What is your job title? ________________________________________________________________ How many years have you worked in libraries/education? If you have worked under a year, please input 0 (zero). Please input an integer. ________________________________________________________________ What degrees have you earned? Select all that apply.  HS diploma/GED (1)  AA/AS/Associate’s Degree (12)  BA/BS/Bachelor’s Degree (2)  Master’s Degree (non-library) (4)  MLIS/MLS/MIS (or other library-related masters degree) (5)  PhD (6)  JD (7)  Other doctoral degree (please specify) (9) _________________________________________  Other degree (please specify) (10) _______________________________________________ 34 Year library degree (MLIS/MLS/MILS/etc.) conferred or anticipated (if applicable; if not applicable, please leave blank). Please enter a four-digit integer for the year. ________________________________________________________________ What type of organization do you work in? Select all that apply.  Academic/Research (College/University) (1)  Professional Association (2)  Government (Federal/State) Library (3)  Library Cooperative/Consortium (4)  Library Vendors & Suppliers (5)  Library and Information Science School (6)  Medical/Hospital Library (14)  Museum (7)  Public Library (8)  Publishing (9)  School Library/Media Center/School District (K-12) (10)  Special Library (11)  Tribal Library (12)  Other (please specify) (13) ________________________________________________ What are your Primary Job Functions? Select all that apply.  Access Services/Circulation (1)  Administration/Management (2)  Adult Services (3)  Assessment (4)  Cataloging/Metadata (5)  Children’s Services (6)  Collection Development/Acquisitions (7)  Data Services (8)  Digital Projects and Initiatives (9)  Distance and Online Learning (10)  Electronic Resources (11)  GIS (12)  Government Documents (13)  IT/Systems/Web (14)  Information Literacy and Instruction (15)  Instructional Design and Technology (16) 35  LIS Education Faculty (17)  Makerspace (35)  Marketing/Communications (18)  Medical (19)  Outreach and Public Programs (20)  Paraprofessional/Support Staff (38)  Paraprofessional Running/In Charge of a Library/Branch (36)  Preservation/Conservation (21)  Reference (22)  Research (23)  Residency or Fellowship (please specify) (24) _____________________________________  Resource Sharing/Interlibrary Borrowing and Lending (25)  Scholarly Communication (26)  School Librarian/Teacher (27)  Special Collections/Archives (28)  Subject Specialist/Liaison (29)  Technical Services (31)  User Experience (32)  Youth Services (33)  Other/Not Listed/I’m a unicorn! (please specify) (34) ______________________________ WE’RE DONE–THANK YOU! Thank you for taking the survey. We greatly appreciate your input and participation in this study. All who completed the survey are eligible to be included in a drawing for one of four $500 Amazon gift cards. We are also interested in learning more about your thoughts about copyright and copyright education, and we will be holding several one-hour focus groups via Zoom (in January and February, 2021) to gather more information from respondents. Those selected to participate in the focus groups will receive a $50 Amazon gift card after the focus group concludes. All survey submissions and prize raffle entries are collected anonymously. None of the information given here on this survey can be linked to your prize raffle entry. The password to enter the drawing is COPYRIGHT in all uppercase letters. → Click here to enter the drawing and/or the focus group. ← 36 Appendix B Western Copyright Alliance SURVEY QUESTIONS In which state are you employed? (If more than one job, please answer for the primary job) Frequency Percent Alaska 40 4.60 Arizona 92 10.59 California 197 22.67 Colorado 29 3.34 Hawaii 54 6.21 Idaho 45 5.18 Montana 27 3.11 Nevada 9 1.04 New Mexico 4 0.46 100 11.51 Oregon Utah 60 6.90 Washington 103 11.85 Wyoming 32 3.68 I am not employed in any of these states 77 8.86 869 100.00 Total Is copyright a function of your position? 64.42 Yes 35.58 No Are you responsible for providing either formal or informal copyright education to others at your library/organization/institution? 62.35 Yes 37.65 No Do you ever need to make copyright decisions in your capacity as a library professional or paraprofessional? 86.13 Yes 13.87 No 37 Do you ever need to answer questions, consult, or make recommendations on copyright in your capacity as a library professional or paraprofessional? 87.71 Yes 12.29 No In an average work year, what percentage of your time would you estimate you focus on copyrightrelated issues? Mean 10.33 Percent Time Focused on Copyright Issues Please rate your level of confidence in dealing with copyright issues related to the following general library/information services. • • On a Scale of 0–10, 0 being No Confidence, 10 being Highest Level Of Confidence Not applicable is also an option Mean 5.75 Interlibrary Borrowing or Lending 4.92 Digitization of Library Collection Items (e.g., digitization of library collections, archives, special collections, audiovisual collections, etc.) 4.99 Course Reserves and/or Course Packs 4.41 Archives/Special Collections 5.02 Author Rights 5.65 Instructional materials (using existing materials such as textbooks, articles, video, etc. for instruction) 5.49 Instructional materials (creating new instructional materials) 5.42 Events/Programming/Public Performance Rights/Read Alouds/Story Time/ Fil, Screenings, etc.) 5.78 Open Access and/or Open Educational materials (use or creation) 4.07 Controlled Digital Lending 3.54 Makerspace 4.81 Licensing Resources for the Library 38 Please rate your level of confidence in dealing with copyright issues related to the following content categories. • • On a Scale of 0–10, 0 being No Confidence, 10 being Highest Level Of Confidence Not applicable is also an option What do you do when a copyright issue arises that is beyond your expertise? Select all that apply. 12.12 Panic 31.69 Consult on my campus/at my institution 54.17 Consult my personal/professional network 18.43 Refer the issue to our institution’s legal counsel 24.12 Refer the issue to an expert (other than legal counsel) at my institution 69.19 Research the issue/educate myself 32.7 If in response to a question, provide general information and encourage them to decide the correct answer 36.62 If in response to a question, provide general information and advise them to seek other counsel 1.3 Do nothing 2.9 Other Do you maintain a resource that you share with others to inform them about copyright? (For example, a LibGuide, information sheet/handout, website, or other resource that you created or maintain.) 35.43 Yes 64.57 No In the last five years, have you offered training (such as a seminar, workshop, or formal class— not one-on-one interactions, such as occur at the reference desk) about copyright to any of the following? 4.29 Administrators 7.20 Authors/Creators 4.17 Professional Groups (e.g. at a conference/preconference or meeting) 13.64 Library Personnel 15.53 Teachers/Instructors/Faculty 4.04 Other instructional personnel (e.g., instructional designers, educational technicians, etc.) 15.03 Students 3.03 General Public 1.89 Other 56.57 I have not offered any training From your viewpoint, rate your institution/organization’s risk tolerance regarding copyright? • On a Scale of 0–10, 0 being No Confidence, 10 being Highest Level Of Confidence Mean 15.18 Institution/organization’s risk tolerance regarding copyright 39 Are you a designated person (or member of a group) in your organization that answers copyright questions? 39.05 Yes 60.95 No My institution/organization has a designated person or group that answers copyright questions. 7.70 Yes, Within the library 7.8 Yes, Within the larger institution/organization 7.07 Yes, Within both the library and the larger institution/organization 15.66 Uncertain/Not Sure 13.38 No Are you able to directly ask them questions about copyright? 42.39 Yes 36.04 Uncertain/ Not sure 21.57 No Have you asked them questions about copyright? 43.09 Yes 56.91 No Generally speaking, do their responses provide the information you need? 91.67 Yes 8.33 No Have you ever attended any copyright training/education? 68.05 Yes 31.95 No 40 What types of organized copyright training/education have you attended? Check all that apply 27.53 In a library school course (general course that included copyright) 8.84 In a library school course (course focused on copyright/intellectual property) 2.02 In a law school course (general course that included copyright) 1.26 In a law school course (course focused on copyright/intellectual property) 9.98 A MOOC such as CopyrightX or Copyright for Educators and Librarians on Coursera 36.74 Copyright education webinars 3.79 Copyright First Responders Program .063 University of North Carolina Copyright Institute 23.99 Professional association conference presentation, workshop, or preconference (e.g., ALA, ACRL, ABA) 6.94 Copyright-specific conference (e.g., Kraemer Copyright Conf; Miami Ohio Copyright Conference) 6.82 Any training for which I received continuing education credit or certification 15.78 A training provided by my institution/organization 4.04 Other How many years has it been since you last attended copyright training? 0.66 I have never attended copyright training 28.17 Less than 1 year 36.24 1 to 3 years 21.18 4 to 6 years 7.42 7 to 10 years 4.80 11 to 15 years 0.87 16 to 20 years 0.66 More than 20 years How important do you think it is for you and/or your colleagues to attend copyright training? 0.5 Not important at all 5.23 Slightly important 29.15 Moderately important 43.80 Very important 21.38 Extremely important 41 Ideally, how do you prefer to learn about copyright? Please categorize the items listed. • Categorized as: I prefer these modalities most, I’d be OK doing these, I will not pursue these options. I PREFER THESE MODALITIES MOST (40_0_Group_1–12) % 16 For-credit course 4 Formal training (in person)(workshop/bootcamp) 47 Formal training (online)(MOOC/CopyrightX) 65 Webinar 49 Conference workshop 22 Copyright-specific conference 38 Reading professional literature 20 Reading blog posts 34 Copyright.gov 6 Social media, i.e. Facebook, Twitter, etc. 28 Informal discussion/networking 26 Ongoing community of practice I’D BE OK DOING THESE (40_1_Group_1–12) 31 For-credit course 28 Formal training (in person)(workshop/bootcamp) 28 Formal training (online)(MOOC/CopyrightX) 19 Webinar 29 Conference workshop 28 Copyright-specific conference 41 Reading professional literature 45 Reading blog posts 44 Copyright.gov 23 Social media, i.e. Facebook, Twitter, etc. 45 Informal discussion/networking 44 Ongoing community of practice I WILL NOT PURSUE THESE OPTIONS (40_2_Group_1–12) 38 For-credit course 13 Formal training (in person) (workshop/bootcamp) 10 Formal training (online) (MOOC/CopyrightX) 1 Webinar 7 Conference workshop 35 Copyright-specific conference 6 Reading professional literature 20 Reading blog posts 6 Copyright.gov 55 Social media, i.e. Facebook, Twitter, etc. 12 Informal discussion/networking 14 Ongoing community of practice 42 Are there ways (not listed above) that you prefer to learn about copyright? Please input below. • Written Answers I would like to attend more copyright training in the following areas. Please categorize by order of importance. • Categorized as: Training on this is critical to me/my job, Training on this would be helpful to me (relevant to my job/not critical), Training on this is not relevant to me/my job. 24.12 Interlibrary borrowing and lending 31.57 Digitization 19.82 Course Reserve materials 17.55 Archives/Special materials 36.24 Author Rights 42.93 Instructional Materials (using materials for instruction) 35.23 Instructional Materials (creating instructional materials) 32.83 Events/Programming/Public Performance Rights 36.49 Open Access materials (use or creation) 33.84 Open Educational Resources 35.73 Streaming Media 12.12 Paintings/Graphic Arts/Art If there is any area not listed above for which you would like to receive more copyright training, please specify it below. • Written Answers How well does your institution/organization support training/education opportunities for you? • On a scale of 0–10. From No Support to Highest Level of Support. Mean 6.4 Support for training education Regarding training, my organization/institution supports me by providing: Select all that apply 54 At least some financial support to attend training online (one-time) 38 At least some financial support to attend training online (ongoing or MOOC) 51 At least some financial support to attend training locally 44 At least some financial support to attend training that requires travel 26 At least some financial support to attend for-credit courses 42 At least some financial support for training in any modality 13 No financial support 43 Regarding training, my organization/institution supports me by providing: Select all that apply 66 Use of work time for self-directed learning 66 Use of work time for free online training (one-time) 57 Use of work time for free online training (ongoing or MOOC) 61 Use of work time to attend free training locally 29 Use of work time to attend for-credit courses 47 Use of work time to pursue training in any modality 4 No support to use work time for training Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which of the following (if any) have prevented or limited you from receiving or participating in copyright training in the past two years? Select all that apply. 46.72 Lack of awareness of training opportunities 26.64 Lack of funding 51.64 Lack of available time 11.62 Lack of support from my organization/institution 22.47 Inability to commit to ongoing/recurring training 28.91 Available options are inconvenient or incompatible with my schedule 0.38 Lack of accessibility accommodations for people with disabilities .13 Language barriers 23.36 Distance from available options 16.67 Geographical barriers to travel 6.94 Local or State policies that restrict travel 12.88 Inability to travel due to personal reasons/family commitments 7.58 Other What is your job title? • Written Answers How many years have you worked in libraries/education? • Written Answers What degrees have you earned? 37.63 HS diploma/GED 9.85 AA/AS/Associate’s Degree 50.25 BA/BS/Bachelor’s Degree 21.97 Master’s Degree (non-library) 58.21 MLIS/MLS/MIS (or other library-related masters degree) 1.01 PhD 1.52 JD 1.64 Other doctoral degree 3.03 Other degree 44 Year library degree (MLIS/MLS/MILS/etc.) conferred or anticipated (if applicable; if not applicable, please leave blank). • Written Answers What type of organization do you work in? Select all that apply. 37.12 Academic/Research (College University) 0.51 Professional Association 3.79 Government (Federal/State) Library 2.78 Library Cooperative/Consortium .38 Library Vendors & Suppliers .38 Library and Information Science School 2.65 Medical Hospital Library .51 28.54 .25 Museum Public Library Publishing 10.61 School Library/Media Center/School District (K-12) 2.15 Special Library .63 Tribal Library 1.64 Other 45 What are your Primary Job Functions? Select all that apply. 23.48 Access Services/Circulation 27.27 Administration/Management 12.63 Adult Services 8.97 Assessment 17.17 Cataloging/Metadata 14.27 Children’s Services 30.3 Collection Development/Acquisitions 7.07 Data Services 12.12 Digital Projects and Initiatives 10.61 Distance and Online Learning 15.78 Electronic Resources .76 GIS 4.41 Government Documents 6.06 IT/Systems/Web 28.54 Information Literacy and Instruction 5.43 Instructional Design and Technology .51 LIS Education Faculty 6.61 Makerspace 11.11 Marketing/Communication s 3.54 Medical 19.44 Outreach and Public Programs 6.94 Paraprofessional/Support Staff 2.40 Paraprofessional Running/In Charge of a Library/Branch 3.66 Preservation/Conservation 38.89 Reference 19.07 Research 0.63 Residency or Fellowship 8.97 Resource Sharing/Interlibrary Borrowing and Lending 7.32 Scholarly Communication 9.6 School Librarian/Teacher 8.21 Special Collections/Archives 9.34 Subjects Specialist/Liaison 11.36 Technical Services 7.96 User Experiences 13.64 Youth Services 5.42 Other/ Not Listed/ I’m a unicorn! 46 Appendix C Script Focus Group Session Moderators The Zoom room opens 15 minutes before the Focus Group begins. Chat with participants while the group gathers, talking with each person to assure that each person can be heard and that Otter.ai is transcribing their speech. Please ask them to adjust their sound levels (or move closer to their microphone) if needed. As participants arrive, the following information will be on a slide that they can see: 1. Please change your Zoom screen name to only your first name if you would like. The transcript will be edited for anonymity later. 2. Please keep your cameras and microphones ON during the Focus Group Discussion. 3. Please put Zoom into “Gallery Display” so that you can see all of the participants on your screen. This should help the conversation flow more naturally. 4. Please silence your mobile phones. 5. Please note Otter.ai will be recording and transcribing notes for the duration of the focus group, and we will use this output as the basis for our transcript of this focus group. It can be distracting to have the Otter.ai window open, so please keep it closed if you do not need it. 6. Donna will be reaching out to you after the focus group to help process the $50 Amazon Gift card we are offering as a premium for your participation. MODERATOR: Good morning/afternoon. My name is [Max/Jordan] and I am a graduate student in the Master of Library and Information Science program at Emporia State University. I am working with the Western Copyright Alliance on the copyright survey and focus group research. Please press the raised hand reaction icon or raise your hand, and I will call on you to briefly introduce yourself; please state your first name and institutional affiliation. (You can raise your hand using the Reactions Tab in Zoom; otherwise, just raise your hand.) This research, funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program award, is seeking to come to a better understanding of copyright education needs of library personnel in the western United States. This focus group is being conducted as a complement to our survey that was administered from October through December of 2020. You need not have participated in the survey to participate in these focus groups. Thank you for agreeing to take part in this focus group. We appreciate your time and willingness to participate. As part of the Western Copyright Alliance research, we are conducting this focus group to gather information on how to better support library copyright education needs. We appreciate your input and would like you to share your 47 honest and open thoughts with us, so that we may gather data that helps us better understand the copyright needs of librarians in the western US, as well as any challenges faced. We have a few guidelines and/or rules to go over to facilitate our discussion today: 1. We want you to do the majority of the talking, and we would like everyone to participate as fully as possible. I may call on you if I haven’t heard from you in a while. We have 8 questions to cover in about 50 minutes, so please be brief and concise in your answers. 2. When you would like to speak, please utilize the raise hand reaction icon or physically raise your hand on screen and wait to be called on. 3. There are no right or wrong answers, and each person’s own experiences and opinions are equally as important to our research. Please speak up if you agree or disagree with something stated or highlighted. We expect, and want, to hear a wide range of opinions, and we do not anticipate consensus – just the sharing of perspectives. 4. We would like to emphasize confidentiality, and that what is said in this room should remain here. You should feel comfortable enough to share your thoughts, even if sensitive issues arise. Please refrain from disparaging another participant’s remarks. 5. The entire discussion should last for approximately 50 minutes. Please give everyone the opportunity to express their opinions by speaking one at a time whenever possible. Additionally, you may address each other directly if you would like; I am only here to assist in the discussion when necessary. 6. We are recording this session and will create an anonymized transcript of our conversation today. We will be correcting this transcript for accuracy, and we will not identify anyone by name in our written transcript or findings. When you respond, please try to avoid any identifying remarks in order to remain anonymous. After the transcription has been completed, the video recording will be destroyed, and the transcript given to an independent researcher for thematic analysis (which we will include in our final report). 7. We will be sending our report to IMLS in July, and we will put a copy of the report on our website. We will email you when we have done this if you would like to review the report. Are there any questions? Great, let’s get started… QUESTION #1 (Opening the door to a comfortable conversation, finding common ground) Considering your work and experiences in libraries, what type of copyright-related inquiries do you receive most often? If possible (after the second or third response), mention any commonalities shared by respondents while calling on the next person to respond. 48 QUESTION #2 [Slide will show brief Q41 results] When asked on our survey, respondents identified these as areas in which they would like to attend more copyright training. The results we are showing were responses which indicated this type of training as being “critical to me/my job.” Please take a moment to review the question we asked on the survey and the answers given. –Which of these items or areas seem most important for your library? –Followup: What makes this training important for your library? QUESTION #3 [Show brief Q48 results with means] Those we surveyed rated their level of confidence from 0 (no confidence) to 10 (most confident) in dealing with copyright issues for these general library services. Please take a moment to review the question we asked on the survey and the answers given. - Which of these items seem most important for your library? –Followup: What makes this training important for your library? –Followup if needed: Are there any issues that you expect are growing in importance and will require more attention in the future? –Followup if needed: Are there any issues that are diminishing in importance at your library? QUESTION #4 [Slide shows brief Q49 results with means] Those we surveyed rated their level of confidence from 0 (no confidence) to 10 (most confident) in dealing with copyright issues for these specific content categories. Please take a moment to review the question we asked on the survey and the answers given. - Which of these items seem most important for your library? –Followup: What makes this training important for your library? –Followup if needed: Are there any issues that you expect are growing in importance and will require more attention in the future? –Followup if needed: Are there any issues that are diminishing in importance at your library? 49 QUESTION #5 [Show brief Q47 result] Those we surveyed identified these issues as having prevented or limited them from receiving or participating in copyright training in the past two years. Please take a moment to review the question we asked on the survey and the answers given. –What barriers or impediments have you encountered at your institution (we’ll be asking about region later) to access, attend, or take advantage of copyright education? –What would help you overcome these barriers? (Make sure people mention this if they haven’t already) QUESTION #6 [Show brief Q47 result] –What barriers or impediments have you encountered in your state or region to access, attend, or take advantage of copyright education? –What would help you overcome these barriers? (Make sure people mention this if they haven’t already) QUESTION #7 (Data no longer shown at this point) In the previous five questions, we presented information on barriers to copyright education. If these barriers did not exist, how would you (or librarians at your institution) want to learn about copyright? Followup question: Are there any particular types of instruction (such as in-person or online distance education) that you would find more effective than others? QUESTION #8 Closing/Exit Question As we reach the end of this hour, is there anything else you would like to add to our discussion today? CLOSING OF MEETING As this focus group draws to a close, I’d like to thank you all for your participation and feedback. We have heard about copyright education from a number of perspectives today, and each of your comments are an important part of the data we are gathering. Thank you! This focus group is now complete. Donna is available on this Zoom call if you have any questions about the gift card we are offering as a premium for participation. 50 Thematic Analysis Methods Report I was engaged to provide a thematic analysis of focus group transcripts for this study. I have no formal connection to academic libraries or copyright education which allowed me to analyze patterns and find themes without personal bias or expectation. I was given access to the transcripts from each focus group as Word documents, which I uploaded into Atlas.ti web software; using the software, I searched the text transcripts for words and phrases to code for analysis. While working through the first focus group transcript, I realized that analyzing all the responses by question would provide the ability to better identify and explore themes across focus groups. I was given access to the question-by-question transcripts and uploaded those to Atlas.ti as well. Since I did not come into this project with any themes in mind, I decided to develop codes for themes while reading the transcripts. While reading each response, I summarized the sentiment expressed by the participant. When similar sentiments were repeated, I used the same code. This allowed me to analyze the frequency with which similar ideas were expressed. After coding each transcript, I created a report showing the coding frequency within each transcript and then wrote analysis notes based on those codes as well as my impressions of the responses. After finishing the question-by-question transcripts, it became clear that the questions could be grouped into two larger sections: Questions one through four deal with the needs of the participants—the questions they field, the areas in which they feel the most unsure about their copyright education , and the patterns they are seeing at their institution. Questions five through eight discuss barriers to accessing copyright training and the participants’ desired methods for future training. I developed overall analyses for these two sets of questions before moving on to the focus-group transcripts. Analyzing the focus-group transcripts allowed me to refine my analysis based on the unique needs of each group of library personnel, from administrators to public librarians, to tribal librarians. Because each of these responses had already been coded during the question-by-question transcripts (and additional codes seemed unnecessary), I chose to not create any new codes, and instead used the dominant themes from each question’s analysis. This allowed me to understand those themes expressed in each of the different focus groups. After coding questions one through four for each group, I wrote analytical notes about the group members’ expressed needs and then continued to code questions five through eight and then writing analytical notes about the issues discussed in response to those questions. 51 Overall Analyses QUESTION 1–4 Training Needs and Frequent Questions In Q4, many respondents hinted at or expressly stated that most copyright training needs are situationally related to the work undertaken by library personnel. If you ask a music librarian what they need to know about copyright to resolve routine questions that arise as part of their work, the response they give will be different than if you ask a law librarian or a general education librarian or a librarian whose job involves responding in writing to requests from incarcerated individuals. The need for specific copyright education and information seemed to rise in importance due to the significant amount of distance education that took place during COVID. Were these focus groups conducted in any other year, streaming media and sharing media with a defined group may not have come up as clearly and prominently as it did in these conversations, since many of the librarians were comfortable answering questions about showing videos in a physical classroom. Moving to distance learning seems to have caused those working in the world of education to need to think about posting assignments on learning management systems, streaming videos through Zoom, prerecording classroom projects, experiments, or events that would have been done in person with physical materials (i.e. children’s libraries and story time), and creating digital versions of physical materials in lieu of course reserves, etc. Now that the pandemic is subsiding, some of these questions may lessen in importance as online work is replaced with in-person classes. The pandemic also raises the question that a participant mentioned in one of the focus groups about specific rules being “softened” during COVID. Some children’s authors, for example, or publishing houses even have allowed librarians and teachers to record read-alouds of their books during COVID but now need to regain better control over the use of their copyrighted materials as the pandemic subsides. Digitizing physical media, though, is an issue unlikely to go away anytime soon. Some of the participants talked about digitizing their collections’ archival materials but recognized the important distinction between digitizing it and keeping access fairly restricted, or digitizing and publicizing it. One tribal librarian mentioned tribal libraries’ additional protocols of allowing members of the tribe to access archival materials freely but restricting access outside of the tribe due to concerns about it being misused by non-tribal individuals. It also appears, after reading the responses to questions 1-4, that there might not be one clear training need across librarians in different contexts; a training menu could help librarians select the trainings they and their staff need most: library personnel at a law library would be able to access certain professional development areas (such as training around government documents and private publishers “editorial enhancements”) while librarians in an art institute could spend their time learning about the use of trademarked logos in student projects, or the rights of the creator vs. the institution for which the art was created. 52 There are many interwoven layers within each question of copyright, and the ‘what if’s’ encountered by library personnel seem endless. For example, “I know I can’t post this movie on YouTube, but what if I just play it on my computer and then share my screen on Zoom and disable recording?” Or “what if I stream it on Facebook and require participants to use a password?” Or “What if the case law itself is a public document, but I really want to use the editors comments to direct my students to the correct passage?” Or “what if I don’t post it on my website, but I post it in Google Classroom, is that okay? How much can I post if I do that?” In summary, the library personnel from these focus groups seem to be saying very clearly that copyright is complicated and that they want copyright education opportunities that respond to the questions that arise in their daily work situations. For copyright training, one size does not seem to fit all. QUESTION 5–8 Training Formats and Barriers In my analysis of questions 5-8, respondents reported the primary barriers to accessing copyright training involve awareness of training opportunities, time, money, or a general lack of understanding of the importance of copyright. Most of the participants mentioned being either isolated in rural communities, or just working in a region that is less densely populated than the northeast (with communities distant from universities and other traditional training locations and opportunities). When I connect those comments to the fact that almost all of the existing training models that people were excited about came out of Harvard, I think anyone looking to create more copyright training opportunities in the west should look to the ways institutions in the northeastern United States engage and prioritize copyright education. Another thread that came up throughout the responses, through all the questions, is a sense that the participants are either self-conscious about their own lack of expertise, worried about getting in trouble for not knowing an answer, or are one of the sole people on campus with a perceived expertise and are overwhelmed by questions. This suggests that there is a hunger for more information and copyright training, but people want to feel safe making mistakes while learning, and they want to work with groups who face similar challenges to themselves. One preferred method for this training would have been in participants’ library degree programs, but that there is an understanding that copyright education needs to be ongoing, since the law and how it applies in libraries is constantly evolving. 53 Focus Group-Specific Analyses FOCUS GROUP 1: ADMINISTRATION QUESTIONS 1-4: PRIMARY NEEDS The purpose of this research is to understand the needs of all types of library personnel from all The administration group focused primarily on copyright issues pertaining to sharing media with a closed group, either a private Facebook group or a virtual classroom in a learning management system. They were also concerned with copyright issues around creating Open Educational Resources (OER); at least one of the administrators worked within a statewide mandate to create more OER offerings. As far as specific needs discussed, members of this group seemed more concerned with copyright issues related to digitizing materials or sharing digital media rather than concerns about text documents, although one participant did mention having issues related to using a picture book during virtual story times (being uncertain if showing the pictures on the book pages over the internet was prohibited by copyright). QUESTIONS 5-8: TRAINING PREFERENCES The main barriers to library personnel receiving copyright training identified among the administration group members were lack of time, lack of funding, and that learning about copyright isn’t really a priority for their organization. Two participants worked in the same state and mentioned that they faced some logistical challenges arranging travel from their remote regions. When it came to the group’s preferred method for training, there wasn’t a clear preference for in-person or remote options, although a few individuals had their own opinions. Four of the respondents mentioned (and others sounded excited about) the Copyright First Responders model, and many liked the idea of working with a small cohort that would allow them to access ongoing networking and professional development in a safe environment where they could ask questions and solve problems collaboratively. When asked if they had anything else to say, multiple participants lamented that copyright education did not play a larger role in MLIS graduate programs, and a couple said they felt that one of the first steps should be to help institutions and the people who work at them understand the importance of copyright so that it could become a priority for library personnel. FOCUS GROUP 2: ACADEMIC LIBRARIES QUESTIONS 1-4: PRIMARY NEEDS The academic research librarian group members stated frequently their needs for guidelines around sharing media with a closed group (through a digital course reserve, sharing video with a class, or digitizing physical media to share). The second highest need they discussed was for copyright education regarding Open Educational Resources and Open Access materials. Three participants mentioned that any training needs to be based on the specific situation or job being performed in the library (for example a librarian who deals primarily with course reserves might have different copyright knowledge needs than a reference librarian would have). A few conversations about interlibrary loan services recognized the copyright implications in providing the service (and the need for personnel in those departments to be careful to follow the rules regarding copyright). 54 This group discussed an issue that did not arise in the administrators’ group: the fact that some library personnel still follow potentially outdated copyright rules of thumb, and how perception of the need for understanding copyright issues are changing or have already changed, partly as a result of COVID, but also just as the internet grows in importance in communication and education. QUESTIONS 5-8: TRAINING PREFERENCES The primary barriers mentioned among these group members were a lack of funding and/ or a lack of interest in the topic. One participant directly linked the two in saying, “if they [the audience] see that the need is there and that it is that important, they will make the time, and they will find the money for it.” One participant struggles with travel since they are in a rural area, and two said that they aren’t aware of any training opportunities. When asked about their preferred format for training, many mentioned the benefits of having online trainings, either synchronous or recorded and on-demand, but then at least two people followed that up by saying that they personally preferred to learn in person. The concept of small cohorts was less important in this group, but it did come up, and one person specifically mentioned being in a small listserv that is only open for “university, information, intellectual property, officials” so they can feel safe asking questions without worrying that “a publisher [was] going to get mad at” them. A couple of participants expressed interest in a hybrid training model, where some learning was either in-person or synchronous online, and then another part was on-demand and could be accessed when needed. FOCUS GROUP 3: GOVERNMENT, LEGAL, MEDICAL The three library personnel in this focus group come from only two libraries. Please keep the small sample in mind when reading this analysis. QUESTIONS 1-4: PRIMARY NEEDS The library personnel in this group seem more familiar with the intricacy of copyright law than those from other groups and also seem more aware about the personal risks they would take by advising patrons about scanning or copying physical materials, especially materials on reserve that can’t leave the library. This quote captures this concern for any personal risk on the part of library personnel very well: “I never give advice on that I just… say you can go…refer to copyright law on your own…I am not a copyright librarian…I’m not qualified to give you advice on that at all…All of our scanners they do also say you are responsible for maintaining copyright.” Most of the concerns in this group relate to digitizing or scanning physical materials. Two participants are most interested in copyright trainings related to government documents, since the use of those materials is contingent upon who published it; if the federal government published the document, it is in the public domain, but if a publishing company reprinted them with “editorial enhancements” then the rights (and how the work can be used) might change. One participant mentioned the fact that people (patrons, students, faculty) often just use (and scan or digitize) what they have access to without thinking about those specific copyright layers. This group also discussed the concept of a specific amount of printed media a person is 55 legally allowed to reproduce, which came up as an urban legend or myth in other groups. They also talked about controlled digital lending, and how properly implementing it seems complicated. QUESTIONS 5-8: TRAINING PREFERENCES The legal ramifications for those giving copyright advice came up again in this section of the focus group while the group discussed the importance of providing information about the copyright law rather than giving users guidance on what is a legal use of copyrighted materials. “I know it’s a little bit of a hard issue with copyright, with giving specific guidance, because you don’t want to be liable for telling somebody they can do something that they really can’t do.” The library personnel seem to be aware of that liability and the fact that copyright is complicated, but they also want to be able to provide useful information to library users. Interestingly, though the participants in this group demonstrated an understanding of how complicated copyright is, and how specific laws matter, they also reported that copyright wasn’t a priority for themselves or their institutions for training purposes. One participant mentioned that when going to a national or regional conference, even if sessions on copyright are available, they would rather go to sessions that are more relevant to their job than any copyright training. All three participants said they would prefer hands-on training, but that didn’t necessarily mean in-person. If they could have synchronous online webinars with small groups where they could interact and tackle specific concerns they would be interested in pursuing that type of training resource. This group also wants some kind of central database or quick reference guide to refer to when questions arise. “My experience has been…’catch as catch can’ wherever you can find [information about copyright]…There isn’t really a central place where you can go… to get a quick answer or…some quick guidance on something.” But they don’t just want the information to exist on a website, they want it to be easily accessible. “Whatever central location [must] also [be] equipped with a good searching service, a good amount of metadata, or tags, so that it’s not just there, but it’s also easy to find.” One participant tried to use the information on the American Library Association’s website and from LibGuides from Cornell, but they reported that they had to “do hours of research” to find an answer to their question. FOCUS GROUP 4: PUBLIC LIBRARIES QUESTIONS 1-4: PRIMARY NEEDS Unsurprisingly, as public library personnel, the participants in this group are largely concerned about sharing media with the public, either as virtual story times that are posted online, film festivals, or using media like photos or videos on websites or posters. They also want to learn more about open access materials. The public library personnel don’t seem to get very many questions from patrons around copyright, other than the occasional inquiry about photocopying materials. This suggests that many public patrons aren’t concerned about copyright, and one participant also mentioned that their staff doesn’t really care about it either. “The important idea is that 56 nobody here actually cares about it. So I know that we have staff members that are, you know, intentionally using whatever they want, not worrying about different things.” Multiple participants cited the fact that many of their staff members do not have formal library trainings or degrees, and therefore are less mindful of those concerns. QUESTIONS 5-8: TRAINING PREFERENCES The main barriers to accessing copyright training for public library personnel include their belief that it is less important and interesting than other training opportunities and less relevant to their daily jobs, and they have a hard time finding (or even learning about) trainings. One mentioned how this lack of importance interacts with their staffing and operational needs. “Copyright would be one of those topics where, you know, if two people call in sick, then whoever was scheduled to go to that training is probably not going that day. It just wouldn’t be high enough on the priority list.” A proposed solution to this apparent lack of interest was some printed materials explaining its importance, although another participant cited the fact that for their non-MLS staff, copyright is so dense and complicated that engaging their interest in the topic would be difficult. The participants in this group seemed to think that if trainings were incorporated into a larger training, like a statewide conference, it might help draw people in, but at the same time one of them said earlier that often those large conferences have other sessions that are more exciting or relevant to their specific job duties. They seemed to prefer online or on-demand trainings over in-person learning for specific, directed copyright trainings. This group also discussed the idea of a “quick reference guide” or centrally accessible database with answers to copyright situations that occur regularly in libraries with information that could help people feel safer learning about the topic of copyright. “I think that lack of a copyright safe harbor is why people sort of avoid the topic to begin with.” These public library personnel also talked about the need for having a guide available at the copy machines for the public patrons of the library, “because a lot of times we don’t even know that they copied an entire book until they come up to pay for it.” FOCUS GROUP 5: SCHOOL LIBRARIES Please note that all of these participants teach secondary grades (6-12). QUESTIONS 1-4: PRIMARY NEEDS Due to the pandemic, this group had spent months primarily focused on sharing media with a defined group of students as instructional materials. This could take the form of streaming a video to a live virtual class, printing an article from a library database for all the students in a class, or scanning a physical text so all students are working off of the same material. One participant said that teachers they support often find PDFs online and aren’t sure if they can then use those in classes, which follows the theme in the general analysis about library personnel knowing that materials are accessible but that they may not necessarily be legal to distribute. Another participant said that when they tried to research copyright law about sharing media with a group, they were able to find information about posting things on publicly accessible websites but weren’t sure if or how the laws change when posting to a closed learning management system. Two library personnel also mentioned the use of sheet music in classes, a common 57 occurrence at a secondary school. Many secondary schools have music programs, and these library personnel said that while they often don’t directly have an impact on the use of sheet music, they often witness “kids…running in the library to make photocopies of music to share with people” and how “the teachers just kind of copy and pass it out extensively.” They both mentioned that this was an area that they knew very little about and were wondering if they should know more. These library personnel mentioned fielding questions from students and faculty who want to use media in projects and aren’t sure how to properly cite it. These personnel sit in a position to educate the people they interact with, if given the opportunity. QUESTIONS 5-8: TRAINING PREFERENCES This group indicated their own lack of awareness about training opportunities as the primary barriers to copyright training, especially those copyright trainings relevant to their specific jobs (or trainings populated by peers who are going through similar challenges, a training preference echoed by other focus group participants). They also talked about a lack of awareness of how important copyright can be and how ignorance of copyright can carry costs for users. One participant said that they don’t know what they don’t know, and therefore aren’t actively seeking out new information, while another said that they personally were interested in copyright, but would have a hard time convincing others to join any copyright training. “Beyond saying ‘it’s the law,’ or like, how do you convince a teacher that’s maybe been used to just making PDF copies of books, my attempts at trying to get them to change their ways by explaining like ‘author’s rights’ and ‘blah blah blah, intellectual property,’ it’s not always successful. So, what do we do to get other audiences on board with us, seeing it?” One of the participants preferred in-person training, but the other two prefer online training, either synchronous or asynchronous. They, like other groups, talked about the concept of a central database or interactive flowchart that one could consult to find information to respond to copyright questions as they arise. FOCUS GROUPS 6 AND 9: TRIBAL LIBRARIES QUESTIONS 1-4: PRIMARY NEEDS This group, like most of the other groups who deal with education, were concerned about the needs for digitizing physical materials caused by the COVID pandemic. They also had some overlap with the public libraries around story time and determining what actions (such as showing the pictures from the books on camera) were permitted under copyright law. Their tribal archival materials were mentioned multiple times, and the need to digitize them for posterity, but the speakers mentioned their cultural concerns of assuring that they digitize them in a way that does not violate the rights of the person who originally created the items. Their work indicates a greater need for creating, storing, and sharing video and audio recordings while understanding the rights of the organizations in digitizing and sharing the content. “Sound recordings would be big. The [LANGUAGE NAME] language [NOTE: Identifiable, removed name of language], there’s an effort to preserve it, so being able to do stories, and language classes, and language learning has, especially with COVID and with the, the loss of a lot of tribal elders over the last year, not just here but, you know, in Indian country. So that’s, videos and sound recordings have gone up, or being able to archive them.” 58 This group also deals with government documents and at least two participants work within the area of computer code or STEM education and wanted to learn more about open access materials. Art was also an area of interest to this group, both sharing art created within their tribe and using published characters (like Cat in the Hat) in a school mural. One participant also mentioned various levels of sharing digitized media, and the concern of upholding cultural sovereignty by giving tribal members more access to digitized archival material (or sole access to certain, culturally important materials) than non-tribal members. QUESTIONS 5-8: TRAINING PREFERENCES The primary barrier for the participants in this group is a lack of awareness of specific copyright trainings. One participant said repeatedly that they pay attention to trainings when they are facing a specific challenge, but otherwise they don’t take the time to seek them out. A couple participants wished that there was a specific training outreach effort focused on rural and/or tribal libraries, since their needs are more unique and they aren’t part of a county or state system. Those participants also wished that they had an opportunity to concentrate on Tribal Librarianship in library school, since the needs of their tribal patrons differ significantly from those of the general American public. One participant said they preferred in-person learning, while the others, either due to travel logistics, job demands, or personal preference said they would prefer an online or ondemand training. One participant, who works in a K-12 environment, mentioned that offering course credit might encourage participation because the library personnel in that field are certificated and need to demonstrate ongoing professional development to renew their credentials. FOCUS GROUP 7: COPYRIGHT EDUCATORS QUESTIONS 1-4: PRIMARY NEEDS This group is focused on copyright as their main jobs, which makes their answers to these questions more specific than those given in other groups. Where the general questions they receive from the public are still, “can I use this?” like the other groups, the participants in this group talked more about those as fair use questions. “It’s sort of a fair use question in terms of instructional materials, is Canvas a classroom or not…? If we were on campus…this program would show this film class, but [if] not, can we digitize it?” Members of this focus group also seem to be more confident engaging their patrons in conversations around ways to read and appropriately cite media and how to use materials found on the internet. They are also involved in conversations with faculty and students who are publishing research and concerned about their own rights after publishing. In general, these participants seem eager to educate their patrons about copyright. One works with departments and offices on campus to do so. “There’s various levels of education, and connecting with other university partners on campus, such as our IP Office, and we’re working with students having to educate the faculty on that relationship of copyright, and licensing, and technology transfer at the university, and so that’s a major part of our conversations and copyright.” Lastly, multiple participants talked about the copyright need in a Makerspace, a set of issues which only came up sporadically in other focus groups. They gave specific examples 59 of projects students might make using copyrighted materials and discussed the concept of transformative use. QUESTIONS 5-8: TRAINING PREFERENCES Once again, this group was different than the other groups due to their jobs being directly involved with copyright education. These respondents are primarily responsible for delivering training or information about copyright to library users, so when thinking about barriers to access training, they weren’t talking about themselves but rather about the people to whom they try to deliver copyright training. They echoed what a lot of the other groups said about how copyright isn’t really a priority for people on campus. “I think it’s a perceived lack of time, because if your supervisor or administrator doesn’t think that you deal with it, or there’s already someone on staff that, that that’s just the ‘go-to person,’ there’s no incentive for them to take up somebody’s time or anything else, in their minds, that this is needed” One interesting theme in this section was that a lot of the participants mentioned that people on their campuses don’t prioritize copyright training because someone else (in most cases, the participant) is a copyright expert, and, therefore, they don’t need to learn about it. In institutions where a copyright expert has been identified, library personnel refer the patron or questions to the expert; having an expert at an institution seems to relieve others at the institution of any sense that they need to learn about copyright since they can refer the questions to the subject expert (which the respondents mentioned happens routinely with other subject specialties in libraries). Members of this focus group didn’t have a strong preference for the modality of the trainings, although more than one of them has had positive experiences with the Copyright First Responders model. But one thing they all seemed to agree on was that any training delivered to their patrons should be run by an outside expert. “The other thing I would say is, I would like to have…an external speaker come in. Because when you’re talking about people who have been working in a place for 25 or 30 years, they may, you know, I’m their colleague, and so they may not, that, some of them may not see me as necessarily an expert on something, so having an external person come in and talk about this subject, and it may be the same things I’ve been telling them for five years, but that will kind of give some extra cachet to this topic, and make it a little more, you know, hey, this is something different than the library personnel just yammering at us…” This group echoed sentiments and ideas from those shared in other focus groups. People in other groups said that when offered limited training opportunities or time, they often chose something other than copyright because it wasn’t as relevant or interesting to their daily work. They also cited copyright offices on their campuses who could help when they didn’t know an answer, as demonstrated by this person in Focus Group 8: “I’ll say that an issue for us is, kind of, whose wheelhouse is it? We have a dedicated copyright librarian, so even though a lot of us in the library are impacted by copyright, it’s one of those areas where, well, that’s not my sole role, so should I actually be spending time on professional development in that area?” 60 FOCUS GROUP 8: OTHER ACADEMIC QUESTIONS 1-4: PRIMARY NEEDS Since these participants are in academic fields, they, like so many other participants, were focused on sharing media with defined groups, through streaming in Zoom or scanning materials to post in a learning management system. One participant seemed frustrated at the lack of attention given to copyright issues at their institution. “I think there is a level of, I would say arrogance, in the way that, at least in my experience, that some academic institutions approach, how they feel that academic freedom defines copyright, and that, you know, if [the material is] used for anything in academia, copyright law doesn’t apply to them.” This attitude, when generalized among academic personnel, may make the need for copyright training in academic institutions seem not urgent or necessary. This group was also interested in learning more or educating others more about open access materials, licensing, and authors’ rights. “The libraries are often called upon to act as an advocate, and to help give guidance there to our authors, especially you know, we were always trying to steer more toward open access, but even then, it was incredibly important to teach our faculty the importance of reading those author agreements before they published.” QUESTIONS 5-8: TRAINING PREFERENCES This group identified as their biggest barriers to accessing copyright training both a lack of funding and a lack of awareness of training opportunities. They also agreed with many other groups that copyright isn’t really a priority to those on their campuses/ institutions, either because someone else on campus is already a copyright expert, it isn’t an interesting topic, or there are other trainings they would rather go to in order to better do their primary work. Two of the participants are in remote/rural areas, so travel logistics and time come into play for them. This group mentioned a desire for having an active network of copyright peers and talked about multiple trainings or models that come out of the densely populated northeast (headed by Harvard). One mentioned Copyright First Responders and was excited about getting to participate in it soon. Another talked about a hybrid model with some asynchronous pre-work followed by a synchronous session and then ongoing Professional Development. Multiple participants also liked the idea of an on-demand service that could serve to answer questions as they arise (which has been referred to in previous groups as a quick guide, a central database, and a flowchart); this group called it a chat box. 61