Strategically Managing Streaming Media Licensing Challenges
While many libraries experienced a surge in requests for streaming video during the pandemic, as we move into a post-pandemic world, it appears that this may have actually just accelerated the trend of streaming media playing an increasing role in library collections. As demand continues, libraries will experience issues with licensing content. The issues are not always solely unique to streaming media as licensing electronic resources is often, at the least, not simple, but streaming media can present particular and compounded licensing concerns.
Licensing and negotiation is time consuming
Deciphering and managing license terms can be a complex specialty and not all libraries have the staff to dedicate to the role. Even librarians experienced with licensing electronic content may find that the process takes considerable time and resources.
License agreements are legal contracts, making it necessary to understand the basics of contract law, especially since there are no industry standards for licensing streaming content. While there has been development in model licenses, guidelines, and best practices for resources like databases and e-books,within the library community, those templates have not evolved as extensively for streaming media. Licensing streaming video is often further complicated by the experiences and expectations that are well-established by home consumer streaming video services. Experience will increase the ease of working with a license, but librarians will need to evaluate and consider every element, including the structure, terms and conditions, and definitions. It’s imperative to ensure certain fundamentals are clear and understood by both parties, including access details, permissions, and lengths of terms. Not only that, each agreement needs to be examined for its own unique circumstances due to the different needs and requirements individual libraries may have.
Larger, established distributors have more standard licensing and with a continuing agreement, libraries may be able to move through a new streaming acquisition process more quickly. But when working with smaller distributors and independent filmmakers, an agreement may need to be developed and negotiated iteratively, and this more than likely will increase the timeline. For titles that are not a part of streaming packages nor offered in streaming format from any vendors, a library may be in a situation where they choose to rip a DVD that is purchased or is already in the collection. Locating the copyright holders to obtain streaming permissions can be a considerable endeavor and may not always end in a successful outcome for the library.
Licensing Models
There are a number of ways streaming media may be licensed and they each have their own issues and benefits.
Limited Term and Subscription Licenses
Limited term licenses provide the library with the right to access/provide access to the content, but this right will expire after a specified period. One or three year licenses are typical, though they may be offered at shorter or longer time periods. If a title is requested frequently for a course, year after year, or by more than one instructor, perpetual access may be more cost-effective for the library and also save staff time by eliminating the re-licensing work, adjusting access dates in the LMS and Discovery, and correspondence with the requestor. These types of licenses will usually mean that the library will need to evaluate titles and usage at the end of the term and then pay additional fees or a higher rate to renew.
Subscription licenses are a form of term licenses and provide access to a collection of videos or media and could include access to additional titles added to the collection during the term. The cost per title may be lower, but the total cost may exceed some libraries’ available funds. There are also the constraints of the limited term license of a subscription.
Perpetual Licenses (or “Life of Format”)
With perpetual licenses, a library owns the content for the life of the file/format. This is similar to owning a book or ebook or a DVD. And just like owning the physical item or ebook, the library does not own the copyright.
Perpetual licenses may not require re-licensing but will often cost more money upfront, and may have ongoing access fees. Libraries should consider the file type and life of the file format (consider what happens if the file type becomes obsolete? Do we expect the file type to be stable long enough for our use? How will the file be hosted?). While perpetual rights will be more expensive, they will often enable the library to save money in the long run and sometimes even more importantly, the staff time.
One-time money spent on perpetual access allows for funds to be potentially freed up in the next fiscal year for use on other expenditures.
Time does not need to be spent on re-negotiating the license and terms.
Demand-Driven Models
Demand-driven models may offer perpetual access licenses or limited terms depending on the vendor. These models can allow libraries to offer broad access to content for their patrons.
A pay-per-view licensing model requires the library or the viewer to pay for instantaneous access, but for a short period of time.
With Patron Driven and Demand Driven Acquisitions (PDA/DDA) there is a predetermined threshold and once that is reached, either a subscription or perpetual access purchase is triggered. Many libraries have found these unmediated models to be unsustainable due to high use by patrons and high cost by the vendors. A mediated option may offer the same access to browse titles, but requires patrons to fill out a request form before the title is triggered,thus allowing the library to mediate the requests and have more control over how money is spent.
Evidence Based Acquisitions (EBA) allows libraries to use the “evidence” of usage to determine whether to purchase titles and build their own customized collection. This gives the library control over the collection development, but still will require a certain amount of money upfront.
Independent Filmmakers and Distributors
Sometimes, the only option to obtain a particular title is through an independent filmmaker or smaller distributor. Although they may be available via one or more of the above license models, these often present additional issues. Larger distributors provide platforms which include features like transcripts, captions, tools to create playlists and clips, integrations with learning management systems, citation managers, and more. Independent filmmakers and smaller distributors may not even be equipped to host the file for the library. This means the purchasing library needs to ensure they have the technical resources, including servers, to store the files and other related assets like captions and thumbnail images. Libraries will also require staff time to manage authentication and access, all of which typically costs additional money. Lastly, there is also often the additional work of getting the filmmaker or distributor to agree to the library’s license terms, if they do not already have an established license agreement template.
Tracking Licenses and Expiration Dates
Keeping accurate records of licenses and expiration dates allows libraries to ensure that they are in compliance with license terms and to know when content will no longer be accessible. Because removing access to a streaming media file in a library discovery system, on an A-Z page, or possibly in a learning management system may often be a manual process, having accurate records of expiration dates is imperative. Staying ahead of expiration dates can also allow librarians to contact liaisons and faculty ahead of time and potentially avoid user frustration due to attempting to access media no longer accessible. However, tracking licenses and expirations dates can present difficulties. Licenses may be acquired at different times of the year and be for varying time periods. For a small volume of licenses, tracking using resources like spreadsheets and other manual systems may suffice but often libraries benefit from using ILS related systems. Vendor communications around expiring licenses can be unreliable, so most libraries develop their own tracking systems and procedures.
Suggestions for managing these issues
Develop efficient workflows and document them. The licensing process is time-consuming and requires a number of important steps. Determining who, how and what for steps like: receiving requests for streaming media, researching the content and determining license terms and costs, negotiating licenses, obtaining purchase agreements, and working with the digital files.
Create or adapt a licensing checklist/audit sheet for reviewing licenses
Create or adapt a model license agreement to help guide your reviews and negotiations. It may also be used with those independent filmmakers and smaller distributors that do not have their own agreements. Many model licenses do not specifically call out streaming media.
It may be an option to track expiration dates using renewal reminders in the Library Services Platform (LSP). Another option may be using email tickler files as an alternative to tracking on spreadsheets or relying on vendor communication.
There are a number of companies that libraries can use for self-hosting though they will require some configuration and set up for authentication. Larger distributors also offer the ability to use their hosting platforms (for example, Alexander Street’s AVON subscription comes with a free media hosting module). LSPs have modules to manage digital files like streaming media and make them discoverable and accessible to users (ExLibris’s Alma has Alma Digital which is an add-on and has an ongoing fee for the digital storage space).
Attend conferences like ER&L. Ask questions and follow issues and developments on relevant listservs like VIDEOLIB and LIBLICENSE. Consider memberships with the Film and Media Round Table (FMRT) of ALA and Video Trust.
Share solutions with other colleagues and libraries including best practices and checklists you have found success with.
