Orphans’ Home, Atchison, Kansas, 1911, image © Thiophene GuyOn March 10–11, 2014, the US Copyright Office convened roundtables on orphan works and mass digitization. Several participants attacked fair use and libraries, misstated the purpose of the copyright system in the United States, or inaccurately portrayed the activities of HathiTrust. An ARL Policy Notes blog post examines some of these misconceptions, or myths, cited at the roundtables and responds to these inaccuracies. An earlier ARL Policy Notes blog post recaps the roundtable discussions, which covered best practices, fair use, licensing solutions, and the issue of whether orphan works and mass digitization need to be treated separately.
image © CoyauOn Friday, April 11, 2014, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), along with the American Library Association, Association of College and Research Libraries, and other organizations, joined an amicus brief authored by the Electronic Frontier Foundation in Garcia v. Google. The brief urges the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its decision in this copyright case in which a 2-1 panel ruled in favor of Cindy Lee Garcia, one of the actors in the film Innocence of Muslims. Garcia claimed a copyright interest in her performance after being tricked into appearing in a five-second clip of the film and subsequently sought takedown of the film from YouTube, which is owned by Google.
In April 2014, the Association of Research Libraries signed on to the Garcia v. Google amicus brief. In the brief, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) urges a federal appeals court to reconsider its decision to order Google to take down a controversial video while a copyright lawsuit is pending as the decision sets a dangerous precedent that could have disastrous consequences for free speech.
April 11, 2014 EFF Press Release
James G. Neal, Vice President for Information Services and University Librarian for Columbia University in the City of New York, testified at the April 2, 2014 Hearing on Preservation and Reuse of Copyrighted Works for the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet. This is his supplemental testimony, which expands upon some issues that came up in the hearing.
James Neal testifying at House copyright hearingJames G. Neal, Columbia University’s university librarian and vice president for information services, served as the voice of libraries to the US House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet on Wednesday, April 2, 2014, when the subcommittee held a hearing on preserving and reusing copyrighted work. The hearing, “Preservation and Reuse of Copyrighted Works,” explored a variety of copyright issues, including orphan works, mass digitization, and specific provisions of the Copyright Act that concern preservation by libraries and archives.
James G. NealOn Wednesday, April 2, 2014, the US House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet continued its copyright review. This hearing focused on “Preservation and Reuse of Copyrighted Works” with six panelists: Gregory Lukow (chief, Packard Campus for Audio Visual Conservation, Library of Congress), Richard Rudick (co-chair, Section 108 Study Group), James G. Neal (vice president for information services and university librarian, Columbia University), Jan Constantine (general counsel, the Authors Guild), Michael C. Donaldson (partner, Donaldson + Callif, LLP, on behalf of Film Independent and International Documentary Association), and Jeffry Sedlik (president and chief executive officer, PLUS Coalition). Written testimony from each witness is available on the House Judiciary Committee website.
James Neal’s statement (PDF), endorsed by the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA), provides that the “overarching point is that the existing statutory framework, which combines the specific library exceptions in Section 108 with the flexible fair use right, works well for libraries, and does not require amendment.” In reaching this point, the written statement goes through four issues: (1) the importance of library preservation, (2) how the library exceptions under Section 108 supplement rather than supplant fair use, (3) the diminished need for orphan works legislation, and (4) perspective on the HathiTrust case.
James G. Neal, Vice President for Information Services and University Librarian for Columbia University in the City of New York, testified at the April 2, 2014 Hearing on Preservation and Reuse of Copyrighted Works for the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet. This is his written testimony.
image © Rock CohenOn March 3, 2014, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) submitted a response (PDF) to the European Union (EU) consultation on the review of copyright rules. The EU website provided a list of 80 questions for stakeholders to answer; the LCA response focuses on those questions most relevant to the library community. The categories of questions to which LCA responded cover digital transmissions, term of protection, limitations and exceptions, preservation and archiving, e-lending, mass digitization, teaching, research, and access for persons with disabilities.
Yesterday, the US House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held another hearing on copyright review. This hearing focused on the scope of fair use and included five witnesses: Peter Jaszi (professor, American University), June Besek (professor, Columbia University), Naomi Novik (author and co-founder, Organization for Transformative Works), David Lowery (singer/songwriter and lecturer, University of Georgia), and Kurt Wimmer (general counsel, Newspaper Association of America). In advance of the hearing, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) submitted a written statement (PDF) discussing how libraries rely on fair use in order to serve their users and meet their mission, how the federal government relies on fair use for photocopying and in the patent examination process, and how rights holders rely on fair use in developing new works. The LCA statement concludes that no changes are needed to the fair use doctrine.