Abstract
PurposeThe aim of this paper is to show that an electronic signature for copyright can be achieved in the UK.Design/methodology/approachThe article outlines, as a case study, the drivers for change that influenced the revisiting of the issue of electronic signatures for copyright by the University of Plymouth (UoP), how that signature has been achieved, and how the process has improved the document delivery service through the establishment of an electronic “request‐to‐delivery” service.FindingsThe article finds that significant improvements in the ability of document delivery services to provide a fast and efficient service, with regard to the delivery of article copy requests, can be made through the utilisation of modern computing technology, current UK legislation, and the alternative delivery methods offered by suppliers, particularly the British Library.Practical implicationsThis article demonstrates that an electronic signature is achievable and that significant improvements can be made in document delivery services as a result, both in terms of request turn around times and in the ability to offer the same standard of service to all users, regardless of their current geographic location.Originality/valueAside from a brief mention in an article published in 2004 by Stephen Prowse, no UK library has openly admitted to using electronic signatures for copyright. This is the first article to describe one University's systems architecture and processes that have enabled an electronic signature for copyright to be achieved and presents evidence that the time spent investigating and delivering an electronic request‐to‐delivery service has a real value – a substantial improvement in document delivery to all users, regardless of where they are based.
Subject
Library and Information Sciences
Reference4 articles.
1. HMSO (1988), Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48), The Stationery Office, London.
2. HMSO (2002), Statutory Instrument 2002, Number 318. Electronic Communications: The Electronic Signatures Regulations 2002, The Stationery Office, London.
3. Pinsent Masons (2006), “Court rules that an e‐mail address is not a signature”, Out‐law News, 13 April, available at: www.out‐law.com/page‐6839 (accessed 26 October 2006).
4. Prowse, S. (2004), “Recent developments in remote document supply in the UK”, Interlending & Document Supply, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 103‐8.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献