Comments of the Library Copyright Alliance and the Music Library Association.
The June 5, 2000, Request for Public Comment inquires about the effects of the amendments made by title 1 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and the development of electronic commerce and associated technology on the operation of sections 109 and 117 of title 17, United States Code, and the relationship between existing and emerging technology and the operation of those sections. The Libraries would like to address several issues raised by interested parties, as well as respond herein to questions regarding Section 117 of the DMCA.
This memo will address an issue that has arisen regarding interpretation of Section 108(a)(3) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §108(a)(3), as amended in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 ("DMCA").
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), which is the centerpiece of the legislative strategy for the Clinton Administration and Congressional leaders responsible for copyright bills, was passed in the closing days of the 105th Congress. It is a very complex Act, which generated controversy and left unfinished business in its wake. As a result, high on the list of "must-dos" for the 106th Congress will be issues leftover from the DMCA.
Letter from library and higher education organizations thanking Congressional representatives for their attention to assuring that any statute designed to clarify the limit of an on-line service provider's liability for copyright infringement appropriately accommodates the unique nature of libraries.
Comments underscore the need for a change in Section 110(2) "to enable the display and performance of copyrighted works at remote locations at times selected by students" and to ask that "the distinction in current law between types of works that qualify for a distance education performance exemption be eliminated.
Testimony by Robert Oakley on behalf of the American Association of Law Libraries and 17 of the nation's other principal educational and library organizations.
Paper disucssing fair use in digital environments, and particularly about the work of the Conference on Fair Use (or CONFU) to work out guidelines for "fair use" in educational and library settings now that digital, networked communication and publishing is becoming common. Presented at The National Federation of Abstracting and Information Services in Philadelphia, PA on February 27, 1996.
This statement, released on January 18, 1995, outlines the lawful uses of copyrighted works by individuals, libraries, and educational institutions in the electronic environment. The statement was developed by representatives of the following associations: American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, Association of Academic Health Sciences Library Directors, Association of Research Libraries, Medical Library Association, and Special Libraries Association.
This statement of seven principles adopted by the ARL Membership in May 1994 affirms the rights and responsibilities of the research library community in the area of copyright.
image © Lauren SwiecickiIn a long-running legal dispute between Frederick E. Bouchat and the Baltimore Ravens along with the National Football League (NFL), a federal appeals court has ruled that the use of the former Ravens logo by the Ravens and the NFL was fair use. The case involved the incidental use of copyrighted logos in films about historical events—football games, in this instance.
image © Jason PuckettIn 2012, the North Georgia District Court ruled largely in favor of Georgia State University (GSU) in the ongoing copyright lawsuit initiated by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and SAGE Publishers. The decision was the first US federal court decision specifically addressing fair use and electronic reserves. Plaintiff publishers appealed on many points of the ruling.
Does the approach of creating a code of best practices, anchored in professional practice, actually work to expand the utility of fair use? What has happened to others who used codes of best practices to gain access to their rights?
This topic is discussed at length in Aufderheide and Jaszi, Reclaiming Fair Use (University of Chicago Press, 2011), but some specific examples include:
Does your university offer intellectual property education to incoming students, or have an academic integrity policy that addresses copyright issues? These are important areas where librarians can be of service in offering balanced information about copyright and fair use.
The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research Libraries suggests at various points that librarians consider the use of appropriate “technical protection measures” when making digitized materials available on-line, as a way of bolstering their fair use claims. Many libraries already employ such measures as a risk-management strategy.
When teachers bring Stacey, a librarian at a Midwestern private university, their course materials to upload on the university’s e-reserves system, she always checks to make sure that the course material has not been uploaded before—or at least, not in the last three years. If it’s fresh material, and it’s only a small fraction of the original work, she’s pretty sure that uploading it for the students to study could be considered a “fair use.” If it has been uploaded before, she tries to license the material, or have the professor find a substitute that the professor hasn’t used before. She knows that at some universities, e-reserves policies are more liberal, but her institution can’t afford a legal challenge, so she likes to err on the conservative side. After all, you can’t be too careful.
The Fifth Principle in the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research Libraries is entitled "Reproducing material for use by disabled students, faculty, staff, and other appropriate users." It describes in some detail the circumstances in which making and providing copies of collection materials in formats that are accessible to persons with disabilities constitutes fair use, as well as certain limitations to which that general principle is subject.