Another quick thought: if you're worried about faculty reacting poorly to
the legalistic feel of a MOU, adapt it! We simply call our document a
"project plan," and while it contains much of the same content of a MOU
and/or SLA, it's in plain English.

Also potentially worth noting—the model of a Collaborators' Bill of Rights:
http://mcpress.media-commons.org/offthetracks/part-one-models-for-collaboration-career-paths-acquiring-institutional-support-and-transformation-in-the-field/a-collaboration/collaborators%E2%80%99-bill-of-rights.
Several institutions (UCLA, UMD, and I'm sure others) have adopted this
language for setting up expectations for working collaboratively.

Sarah

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Renee Reaume <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> These links are extremely helpful. Thank you so much. I am in the process
> of developing a metadata service arrangement with a clinical research unit
> on our campus. I'd be interested in if anyone has had a similar experience
> or other wisdom to share.
>
> Renee
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Sarah Melton
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 10:58 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] memorandums of understanding, copyrights, &
> acknowledgements
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> These are big, important questions! Collaboration is a giant topic in
> digital scholarship, so I'll just offer a few brief thoughts.
>
> I would say that part of it depends on the kind of work. Is it a one-off
> consultation? An ongoing project? Is the library offering long-term
> support, whether through storage, labor, or other expertise? As Kari
> mentions, the question of copyright is likely a question of institutional
> policy. But the other elements you mention—MOUs and attribution—get a
> little murkier.
>
> For ongoing projects or larger-term investments, at least, I think MOUs
> are a great idea. They help define the scope of the collaboration, in
> addition to outlining roles and responsibilities. UT-Arlington has a nice
> collection of MOUs: https://uta-ir.tdl.org/uta-ir/handle/10106/25646.
>
> My view is that if you want to create a culture of collaboration, it helps
> to be explicit about it. As such, I like TaDiRAH's taxonomy of digital
> humanities scholarship activities, objects, and techniques:
> https://github.com/dhtaxonomy/TaDiRAH/tree/master/reading
>
> I'm happy to chat further—I love this topic!
>
> Sarah
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Eric Lease Morgan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > To what degree do any of you enter into memorandums of understanding
> > between yourselves and the people for whom you provide services?
> > Similarly, are the products of your services copyrighted, and if so,
> > then by whom? And finally, if you provide services to your
> > constituents, then to what degree do you require copyright statements
> and/or acknowledgements?
> >
> > I work in a digital scholarship center with a number of other people.
> > [1] As a group, we provide sets of different value-added services to
> > students, faculty, and staff. These value-added services go beyond the
> > packaging and re-packaging of data/information. Instead, our services
> > are analysis against content. We evaluate data given to us and answer
> questions like:
> > what trends can be gleaned from this data, what are the anomalies,
> > when & where did given events occur, what are some of the possible
> > reasons why, etc. In this way, we act more akin to “special
> > librarians” where we essentially "give them the fish as opposed to
> > teaching them to fish." These value added services often manifest
> > themselves in the forms of software systems/scripts, indexes,
> > datasets, as well as charts/graphs. Many of our constituents are
> > humanities and social sciences scholars. As such and in general, they
> > do possess the skills necessary to some of our text mining, GIS, and
> > statistical analysis. Additionally and unlike the hard scientists,
> > they often work in very very small groups of single individuals;
> co-authorship is uncommon.
> >
> > The center’s services are free, as in free beer. But the services
> > represent real scholarly effort. As such there is a desire to make
> > explicit our contributions. Such is part of the academic tradition.
> > After all, our intellectual capital is all we have. To resolve some of
> > these issues, or to bring them to the fore, there is some desire to
> > enter into memorandums of understanding — a sort of contract outlining
> > different party’s roles & responsibilities. There is some desire to
> > add copyright attribution statements to charts & graphs. There is some
> > desire to ensure, at the very least, acknowledgements in articles &
> > presentations. Heck, if we were to go the whole nine yards, then there
> > are also desires to have the whole kits & caboodles deposited into local
> repositories.
> >
> > On the other hand, much of this flies in the face to traditional
> > librarianship, and after all, library services have always been free,
> > and if we require memorandums, copyright statements, and/or
> > acknowledgements, then the scholars may simply do without.
> >
> > How might some of y’all be dealing with these changing roles in your
> > libraries?
> >
> > [1] center - http://library.nd.edu/cds/
> >
> > —
> > Eric Lease Morgan, Digital Initiatives Librarian Hesburgh Libraries
> > University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556
> >
> > [log in to unmask]
> > 574/631-8604
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sarah Melton
> Head of Digital Scholarship
> O'Neill Library
> Boston College
> 140 Commonwealth Ave.
> Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02467
>



-- 
Sarah Melton
Head of Digital Scholarship
O'Neill Library
Boston College
140 Commonwealth Ave.
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02467