Adequacy of Copyright Information or Documentation, the Need for Training in, and Evaluation of Mechanisms for Delivering Copyright Education in Academic Libraries in Ghana

2.1 Awareness and Understanding of Copyright Laws in Academic Institutions

The essence of copyright education is to improve compliance. Awareness and understanding of copyright laws are fundamental to copyright education in academic libraries, with Adu and van der Walt (2021a) reporting that copyright compliance is generally influenced by awareness of copyright policies and laws. However, Adu and van der Walt (2021b) also indicated that though librarians in Ghana exhibited a high level of awareness of all copyright laws, the same could not be said of their level of understanding of those laws. Adu and van der Walt (2021b) went further to indicate that awareness and understanding of copyright laws by these librarians were also significantly influenced by their work schedule, current position, and work experience, implying that copyright education in academic libraries may not respond adequately to a one-size-fits-all approach.

Adu and van der Walt (2021c) have reported that though librarians who are vested with the authority of copyright administration to promote a balance of stakeholder rights in academic libraries were adept at knowledge of the permitted use clauses in the copyright laws of Ghana they lacked understanding in how users apply these clauses for “Private copying,” “Illustrations for instructions,” and “For the benefit of libraries and archives.” Library users were thus being disadvantaged in the administration of copyright laws and policies in academic institutions. Library staff were also not confident and rather chose to defer the responsibility of interpreting copyright laws to other departments.

This situation is, however, not peculiar to Ghana. Several authors (e.g. Adler et al. 2010; Crews 2008; Charbonneau and Priehs 2014; Ferullo 2004; Fernández-Molina et al. 2017; Morrison and Secker 2015; Todorova et al. 2017) have indicated deep deficiencies in the understanding of copyright laws among librarians, a situation that does not augur well for copyright administration in academic libraries (Adu and van der Walt 2021b).

2.2 Adequacy of Copyright Information or Documentation and Copyright Administration in Academic Libraries

The intention for which library users are provided with copyright information has been stated by Adu and van der Walt (2021d), Fernández-Molina et al. (2017), Horava (2010), as well as Morrison and Secker (2015) as: to educate, inform, and to caution users about copyright restrictions, and also to uphold rightsholders’ rights. Unfortunately, Adu and van der Walt (2021d) indicated that in Ghana, both students and library staff said that information or documentation on copyright policies on their university campuses was not adequate, which significantly challenged copyright administration, with the view to promoting harmony among stakeholders in academic libraries in Ghana. This calls for an urgent need for improvement in the current poor situation in the copyright spectrum.

2.3 Mechanisms for Raising Awareness of Copyright Issues in Academic Libraries

Academic librarians in Ghana and Canada have employed various means such as “faculty liaison/outreach,” “online tutorials,” and “personalized attention through individual assistance” to raise awareness of copyright in reprographic materials usage (Adu and van der Walt 2021d; Horava 2010). Both the Canadian (Horava 2010), and the Ghanaian (Adu and van der Walt 2021d) studies, however, reported that library staff employed different techniques to raise awareness of copyright materials usage. However, whilst the majority (52.9 %) of library staff in Ghana used “faculty liaison/outreach” the most fashionable method in the Canadian study was “personalized attention through individual assistance” (Horava 2010).

2.4 Effect of Training on Understanding of Copyright Laws

Di Valentino (2015), Ferullo (2004), and Weatherley (2014) have all stated that many violations of photocopying rights in academic libraries are due to the fact that either the violators assume that the limitations and exceptions indicated in the various copyright laws grant them “user rights” to those materials or are naive of what the law says (Stokkmo 2019; Weatherley 2014). Adu and van der Walt (2021d) also indicated the lack of avenues for copyright training on university campuses in Ghana as contributing to the poor level of copyright education in academic libraries.

It must, however, be emphasized that the administration of copyright laws in academic libraries is more complicated than meets the eye. Charbonneau and Priehs (2014) in Canada have therefore proposed initiatives with the view to enhancing copyright communication in academic libraries. One such initiative is engaging a dedicated staff or a librarian as the focal person to address queries about copyright. Zafonte and Parks-Stamm (2016) have also reported the efficacy of face-to-face instruction for educating the university community on copyright issues. Franklin et al. (2021), and Norris et al. (2019) have rather proposed initiatives that combine both online tutorials and face-to-face interactions for efficient scholarly communication outreach to faculty and students on copyright issues.

Adu and van der Walt (2021d) have indicated that in Ghana both library staff and students are ignorant about either an expert or a designated center located in the libraries in their universities or colleges devoted to instructing the university community on the proper use of copyright protected materials. This current poor scenario in academic institutions in Ghana where there are no persons in academic libraries specifically assigned to address copyright issues does not promote efficient and effective communication of copyright information to the university community.

In a study on “The Contribution of Staff Training and Development Programmes to Effective Library and Information Services in Selected University Libraries in Ghana” Cobblah (2015) listed such tools as “classroom training,” “job rotation,” “consultant training,” “workshops/seminars/conferences,” “study visits,” “publications and research,” and “professional associations” for training in delivering effective library and information services and concluded that such programs were effective in improving the knowledge, skills, abilities, and experiences of library staff, thereby making them more effective and efficient in the provision of library and information services to the university community. However, the effectiveness of such programs for delivering copyright education in academic libraries is yet to be evaluated. Also, the extent to which copyright education is perversive, and the effectiveness of such copyright training programs as listed by Cobblah (2015) on copyright education in academic libraries is, however, yet to be investigated.

4.1 Copyright Training or Education for Library Staff and Students

Generally, copyright training or education for both staff and students was poor in all the four institutions. Though most students from the private institutions said that they had no formal training on copyright issues (ϕ = 0.117, n = 515, P = 0.070), the situation was different for students from the public universities. For example, students from the University of Ghana who had received copyright education indicated that they had had training on plagiarism and referencing. Other students from University of Cape Coast (21.6 %, n = 264) also indicated that they had received training on permissible use.

The data also shows that 71.4 % of students in the fourth year of their Ph.D. program and 100 % (n = 3) of those at the writing of findings or results stage of their theses development said “yes” to having received some training in copyright. In this regard, the fourth year Ph.D. students who were at the writing of the results stage of their theses (three of them, all from the University of Cape Coast) indicated that they had had training on the Copyright Act 690, 2005 and its administration. About twice as many female students compared to their male counterparts (14.7 v. 7.8 %) also indicated that they had received training in copyright (Kendall’s τ-b = −0.103, n = 515, P = 0.042).

Only 7.7 % of the library staff from University of Cape Coast indicated that they had ever had some training on copyright issues in their workplace (ϕ = 0.225, n = 36, P = 0.611). Except for the current position of staff (ϕ = 1.000, n = 36, P < 0.001), the academic background (ϕ = 0.127, n = 36, P = 0.965), work experience (ϕ = 0.378, n = 36, P = 0.273), and work schedule (ϕ = 0.293, n = 36, P = 0.544) had no influence on the responses of staff as to whether they had had some training on copyright issues at the workplace.

4.2 Adequacy of Information or Documentation on Copyright on University Campus

Only 21.4 % stated that copyright information or documentation on copyright policies on their university campuses was adequate (ϕ = 0.620, n = 530, P = 0.000). More students below 35 years of age were either “not sure” or said “no.” More students (50.7 %) between the ages of 36 and 40 years said “yes” to this question compared to the next highest (i.e. students above 46 years old). There were similar responses to the question as to whether there was enough education about copyright on their university campuses (ϕ = 0.598, n = 530, P = 0.000). Students in the public institutions (61.2 and 67.7 % for University of Cape Coast and University of Ghana respectively) were “not sure” if there was enough information or documentation on copyright laws and policies. However, with those in the private institutions, 44 % in the Methodist University College Ghana and 47.1 % in Valley View University indicated that the information and documentation on policies and laws about copyright on their campuses were enough.

There were, however, no significant institutional differences (ϕ = 0.433, n = 38, P = 0.309) in the responses of the library staff as to whether information and documentation on copyright policies and laws is enough. Paraprofessional staff were more inclined (between 60 % and 100 %) to think that the information and documentation on copyright laws and policies was not enough whereas the professional librarians either said “yes” or “not sure” if information and documentation on copyright policies and laws was enough (ϕ = 1.208, n = 38, P < 0.001).

There was neither a significant institutional difference (ϕ = 0.221, n = 34, P = 0.645) nor influence of academic background of staff (ϕ = 0.129, n = 34, P = 0.967) on whether there is enough education about copyright on campus. All the staff respondents answered “no” to the question on whether there was enough education about copyright on campus except one person from University of Cape Coast who was “not sure” whether there was enough education about copyright on campus. With the exception of 14.3 % of respondents who had more than 20 years’ experience in the library the rest stated that they think there is enough education about copyright on their university campus (ϕ = 0.342, n = 34, P = 0.410).

Also, the students either thought that there was not enough education or were not sure if there was enough education about copyright on campus (only between 0 to 16.8 % of the students across institutions indicated that there was enough education on copyright on campus). In assessing the copyright policy available in their institutions or libraries a student said: “The library, for instance, is a staunch advocate of fair use and protection of intellectual property rights. I am, however, unable to clearly speak in terms of the university as a whole.”

However, in all four institutions, none of the student respondents could proffer any explanation on whether their university or college has an expert or a center assigned to handle copyright issues. Again, they were unable to say if this expert or center is located in the library.

4.3 Effect of Gender on Receipt of Training, and Need of Staff and Students for Extra Training in Copyright

Though a small number, about twice as many female students compared to their male counterparts (14.7 vs. 7.8 %) indicated that they have received training in copyright in their institutions (Kendall’s τ-b = −0.103, n = 515, P = 0.042).

Many student respondents from University of Ghana (43.2 %) and University of Cape Coast (57.2 %) wanted general training in copyright whilst students from the other institutions were more specific in their request for extra training in copyright when they were asked the question: “What extra copyright training would you like to receive in your institution?” For example, one student from the Methodist University College Ghana said: “training on photocopying of print materials and how institutions can support authors to deal with the challenge of infringement [of] their copyright.” Another respondent said: “training on institutional copyright policies as well as training on copyright exceptions and limitations.”

All the students in the focus group discussions also indicated the need for general education on copyright issues. One staff respondent wanted extra training on fair use and public domain goods.

The library staff indicated that the library or the library in collaboration with some other academic department or center should be responsible for educating the university community on the use of copyright-protected materials. This was corroborated by one head librarian, viz:

HL2: I think that in even developing and designing our job description as librarians, copyright should be one of the issues that should be brought to our attention because if I work as a university librarian, I must ensure that the copyright of authors is also protected. It should be part of my responsibilities to ensure that our users, our community, is educated. So, the university must ensure that at least that role is performed…

Yesterday my VC called me at 7 o’clock in the evening on a copyright-related issue. He knows that copyright [queries] in the university should be [addressed] to the librarian… So, we have that institutional responsibility to ensure that within our academic community, we respect [copyright]… So it is good that we take it up and educate people about it.

A student also said:

S10: I think it should be the library [which should have responsibility to educate the university community on copyright]. You see, the library holds all documents… In the University for example, the library is holding the intellectual property for the institute. The departments can organize the training, but they should use expertise from the library to do that.

The only Library and Information School in Ghana at the time of this study was, however, criticized for not providing adequate training for librarians:

HL1: I do not know at which level they [the Library and Information School] teach it… but I do not think that it is adequate [even if they do]. They just tell you about the number of years that a book can be put on the shelf, then after a particular number of years, after the death of the rightsholder… How would the person even know that the writer is living or not? Sometimes they [the users] do not even look at the date of publication…

4.4 Effect of Training and Development Programs on Understanding of Copyright Issues by Library Staff and Students

No institutional differences were found regarding the effect of training and development programs on the understanding of staff of copyright policies or laws. In this regard, the respondents indicated that the various training and development programs had had “moderate” to “high” effects on their understanding of copyright laws/policies. The responses were similar for all the other categories of staff. One head librarian had this to say:

HL4: For me personally, I have had a few opportunities to [participate in] the training, to receive presentations on copyright and fair use. What we used to do here is that every year, we have about two days, and we invite people from outside – seasoned librarians… A couple of people have been here, they spent some time with us… When they come, they share with us some of these issues, customer-related issues, fair use and copyright…, so yes, we’ve had training regularly but we have not had a specific training [solely] on copyright. But it has been, as it were, added to whatever package we have [had].

Table 1 shows that whilst female students indicated that the various copyright training programs have had “moderate” effects on their level of understanding of copyright laws and policies their male colleagues indicated that these had had “no effect” on their level of understanding.

Also, with the exception of students who were 21–25 years old who indicated that the various copyright training programs had had “moderate” effects on their level of understanding, all others indicated that the various copyright training programs have had “no effect” on their level of understanding of copyright laws and policies. From the perspective of the students, however, various copyright training and development programs, as listed in Table 2, have had “no” to “moderate effect” on their understanding of copyright policies and laws. “Classroom training” was the only program which had over 40 % of students indicating that it had had a “high” impact on their understanding of copyright policies and laws (Table 2). Preference for “classroom training” was emphasized during the focus group discussion sessions with the students:

S1: …[when] it is in a classroom, it [is] better because we are forced to learn it, and … be examined on it.

Contrary to expectations, more students indicated that professional associations (71.5 %, Kendall’s τ-b = −0.307, n = 515, P < 0.001) and study visits (71.5 %, Kendall’s τ-b = −0.260, n = 515, P < 0.001) had “no effect” on their understanding of copyright policies and laws (Table 2).

4.5 How Comfortable Library Staff and Students are with Their Current Knowledge on Copyright Issues

As expected, students who had had copyright training were “comfortable” (67.3 %) with their knowledge on copyright issues whilst those who had not received any training were either “uncomfortable” (49.1 %) or “very uncomfortable” (27.3 %) with their current knowledge on copyright issues. The academic institution did not significantly influence how the students felt about their current knowledge of copyright issues. However, whilst a small proportion of respondents from the public institutions (4.1 % for University of Cape Coast and 7.7 % for University of Ghana) were “very comfortable” with their current knowledge of copyright issues, none of the students from the private institutions were in this category. The Methodist University College Ghana had the highest number of students (36 %) stating that they were “comfortable” with their current knowledge of copyright issues.

Most of the library staff stated that they were either “comfortable” or “very comfortable” with their current level of knowledge on copyright issues (there were no significant institutional differences [Kendall’s τ-b = −0.178, n = 33, P = 0.261] in their responses). There were also no gender differences in how comfortable students were with their current knowledge on copyright. However more students between the ages of 41 and 45 years were “very uncomfortable,” with less than 30 % of respondents between the ages of 36 and 40 years indicating that they were “very comfortable” with their current knowledge on copyright (Kendall’s τ-b = 0.136, n = 530, P = 0.000).

Contrary to expectation, however, whilst the professional library staff were only “comfortable” the paraprofessional staff indicated they were “very comfortable” with their current level of knowledge on copyright issues (Kendall’s τ-b = −0.585, n = 33, P < 001). Academic background, however, did not significantly influence these responses (Kendall’s τ-b = 0.143, n = 33, P = 0.390). Also, early-stage staff (≤10 years in service) rather indicated that they were “very comfortable” with their current level of knowledge on copyright issues (Kendall’s τ-b = −0.521, n = 33, P < 0.001) compared to longer serving staff (>10 years in service) who were either “comfortable” or “neither comfortable nor uncomfortable” with their current level of knowledge on copyright issues. One head librarian thought this was due to the reading culture and the use of technology between the two groups.

Contrary to their earlier statement on awareness and understanding of copyright issues, staff working in the Departmental libraries and Reference section of the library said they were “very comfortable” as against the rest who said they were either “comfortable” or “neither comfortable nor uncomfortable” with their current level of knowledge on copyright issues (Kendall’s τ-b = 0.545, n = 33, P < 0.001).