Michael asks several questions about adaptations of works in the AMICO Library (Section 8 of the AMICO Library University Agreeement).

 Section 8.1: Requires a record to be kept of all 
 "institutionally created or systematic adaptations of AMICO
  Works."  Are we correct in assuming that "institutionally 
 created" adaptations are those made on some official capacity 
 by institutional employees (e.g. copies for a course home 
 page)? 

Yes - the agreement refers to "institutionally created or systematic adaptations". These are adaptations that are created, maintained or made available (e.g.on a course home page, or in an insitutional database or collection) by the university subscriber, or designated user in an official capacity (e.g. a faculty member during a course).

 And does 8.1 permit, for example, the drawing of moustaches 
 on portraits of women if the adaptation fits the parameters 
 of a course assignment? Is this a type of "systematic 
 adaptation" for which a record must be kept? Could you 
 provide definitions for "institutionally created"  and 
 "systematic adaptations"? We're unclear if, for example, a 
 student adapts a work for an assignment, whether  this is 
 "institutionally created" and if it is a "systematic 
 adaptation" as opposed to just an adaptation? 

It does permit annotations and alterations, such as sketching compositional or perspective lines overtop of an image, or manipulating colour to compare two states of a print. "Drawing moustaches" moves into the question of "Moral Rights' of the artist whose work is represented in the image.

  Section 8.1 Would a rescaling of an image be considered an 
 alteration, or if not an alteration, an adaptation of any
  kind? 

Reversing, cropping, and altering the aspect ratio of a work are all considered adaptations [some of which could be systematically made to groups of images]. Sampling, or rescaling with the same aspect ratio, is not an adaptation, but an institutionally maintained copy.

  Section 8.3: Whether or not we could in fact certify this 
 depends on the definition of "institutionally created 
  adaptations". If this is broadly interpreted to include all 
 adaptations made by anyone at this institution, it is unclear
 how we could in good faith claim that we can certify 
 destruction of all such works. How definitive is the 
 certification to  be, or to what lengths are we required to 
 go to inform Designated Users of the provision in the 
 Agreement (a general statement on an AMICO page, or tracking 
 down anyone who has ever downloaded an AMICO image ... which 
 RLG would be more likely to know, than us?) 

You are asked to certify the actions of the "university Subscriber" not all "Designated Users". You are explicitly not required to track down "adaptations for student assignments and for faculty of student portfolios".

Your obligations for notification are the same for this clause as they are for all other aspects of the agreement.

jt