Recently Asked Questions

In April 2024, the Federal Register published the US Department of Justice’s final rule on Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The rule includes specific requirements for state and local governments to ensure that web content and mobile applications are accessible to people with disabilities. My question is related to the applicability of Title II to the online collections of public academic libraries, and more specifically, to born-digital archival collections, i.e., archival collections consisting of materials originating in a computer environment.

According to the rule, state and local entities must follow the technical standard outlined in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 level AA. However, this rule allows for five exceptions: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/section-35.201.

I understand the updated regulation does not override the existing obligations under Title II to make reasonable modifications on an individual basis, but it is unclear if Title II applies to born-digital archival collections, or if these collections fall under the exceptions linked above.

Students in a school are reading a simultaneous use eBook. The students with IEPs[1] have access to a screen reader but this feature is very robotic and doesn't meet their needs. The school librarian and the School Library System searched for an audio version of this book but could not find one for purchase. Several students need a high-quality audio version of the book that is not robotic because of their learning needs. Would the school library be covered under fair use if they recorded a reading of the book for the students and posted it in Google Classroom for the students? This would be in a closed platform and not open to everybody on the internet.

[1] IEP stands for "Individual Education Program, “which is a tool used in elementary and secondary schools to effect ADA accommodations for students.  For more info on that, see https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html.

If a signed license says that authorized users for remote access include "current students, faculty, and staff only" or "active faculty, students, and staff only" or even "bona fide current faculty, staff, and students only" can we conclude that terminated faculty would not be legally allowed to have remote access after their termination? (Walk-ins are a separate matter; here we are looking at remote access). Some licenses allow "affiliates" and some even say that it's up to the institution to determine who gets credentials to allow remote access, but we have more than 20 licenses that state in one way or another "current faculty" only. I would take that to mean that former faculty, regardless if the institution allows them to keep their credentials for a year after termination, would NOT be legally allowed to continue to access those resources.

Am I right?

I received a request from a former student of [a local high school] in which her name appears on a yearbook page citing student activities. As the page is part of a whole PDF of the entire yearbook, "removing her name" would require taking down the entire yearbook.

If the library that scanned and uploaded the yearbook to the internet received permission from the high school to do so (the yearbook is tagged as In Copyright) does the student have a reasonable request?

In the spring, it was clear academic libraries providing digital resources were in a state of emergency and fair use restrictions were loosened.

This fall, we are asked to plan for face to face learning, but we may be asked to turn on a dime and provide digital resources overnight if a student or faculty member in a course is unable to attend class.

We are hearing mixed messages from other institutions. What is our situation today, emergency or status quo?

Thank you