 Soon after I became a Dean of the River Campus Libraries at the University of Rochester, Don Waters of the Mellon Foundation asked a question, which he asked the most new library deans, which is what keeps you up at night. And so at the top of my list were questions about copyright and fair use. Because really in the library community, with a lot of questions that we have, we could always, for example, put out on a listsurf, considering something in digital humanities. Does anyone have a job description to share or something like that? Well when it came to copyright and fair use, you put a question like that on the listsurf. What are you doing? What are your best practices around eReserves, for example? You would get deafening silence. Because we just knew we could not put that in writing, we couldn't have conversations. And it was very frustrating because it was such a core piece of what we're doing and yet we aren't able to share ideas and have conversations. So when I brought that to Don's attention, he thought that perhaps the Mellon Foundation could help because it could serve as a convening body and it could really bring together individuals to work on this problem without causing attention on any one particular institution, which is really part of the concern. So every other month, the library meets with the University Council and we bring to them the real questions that we're having. And we're looking around fair use and copyright. We look at the law. We look at the code of best practices. We look at past practice at Yale. And we think about on a case-by-case basis which we would be doing. And we use that discussion to be an opportunity to document our decisions, to go through the exercise of thinking about fair use, and hopefully creating what we hope will be a set of decisions that we can look back on and say why did we make the decision that we did and we can document the fact that it was not just a random decision, but it was a really thoughtful process and hopefully build for us a set of decision-making processes. So future decisions, when we look at a particular collection and think about what we can or cannot do, we can look back at our own local sort of case law. Let's say, look at our own local case law and say, well, how is this related? How is it similar? And not have to sort of reinvent the wheel over and over again. So without the code and that as a catalyst, I really don't think we would have made as much progress as we are now. So we have this process in place and we're meeting every other month and we're really starting to pick up some momentum about having these conversations and it's giving us a vehicle for making decisions around copyright and best and fair use at Yale and the libraries in a way that we just couldn't do before. We're working with a lot of special collections, for example, and we're looking at deeds of gifts and we're looking at international law. So we received a collection from overseas. What did the deed of gift look like? What does international copyright law look like? And how might we make a decision about what we can and can't do with that collection? So that's causing us to say, well, we have a lot of ambiguity in the past. But going forward, can we establish a new deed of gift that we're comfortable with and we don't have this ambiguity going forward? So those are sort of two examples. Another one would be materials, again, within special collections that have cultural sensitivity. So thinking about audio recordings from 40 years ago in the field, an anthropologist in Africa, should we digitize this? Should we make this available to the world? Certainly those individuals never thought that their voice would ever be heard by the world and so there wasn't that human subject review piece. How do we think about that problem and who should have access and privacy? So it's a lot of really thorny issues, but at least we feel like now we have a form to be discussing them. So we're going far beyond, I think, what the code was focused on, but it became that vehicle. It got us started and once we got going, it feels like, well, why should we stop here? Why should we stop with copyright and fair use in a more defined sense? Let's think about other intellectual property issues that are really complicated issues and let's get started.