Golan v. Holder: A Farewell to Constitutional Challenges to Copyright Laws
On January 13, 2012, the Supreme Court by a 6-2 vote affirmed the Tenth Circuit decision in Golan v. Holder. The case concerned the constitutionality of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), which restored copyright in foreign works that had entered into the public domain because the copyright owners had failed to comply with formalities such as notice; or because the U.S. did not have copyright treaties in place with the country at the time the work was created (e.g., the Soviet Union)
In the Matter of Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies: Comments of the Library Copyright Alliance and the Music Library Association
Comments of the Library Copyright Alliance and the Music Library Association.
Re: Federal Copyright Protection of Sound Recordings Fixed Before February 15, 1972
The Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association provide reply comments on the desirability of bringing under federal protection sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972.
A Guide For the Perplexed Part IV: The Rejection of the Google Books Settlement
On March 22, 2011, Judge Denny Chin rejected the proposed settlement in copyright infringement litigation over the Google Library Project. Judge Chin found that the settlement was not "fair, reasonable, and adequate" as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Chin issued the decision over a year after the fairness hearing he conducted. His opinion agrees in large measure with the objections to the settlement asserted by the U.S. Department of Justice at the hearing and in its written submissions. This paper discusses the opinion and where it leaves Google Books Search.
Letter to Tracey L. Armstrong re: Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) underwriting litigation (Nov. 11, 2010)
Letter expressing ARL's disappointment with the decision by the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) to underwrite 50% of the plaintiffs' costs in the litigation by three publishers against Georgia State University.
UMG Recordings v. Veoh Networks: Amicus Brief in Support of Veoh
Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Internet Archive, American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, Association of College and Research Libraries, Computer and Communications Industry Association, Public Knowledge, Center for Democracy and Technology and Netcoalition in Support of Appellees and Affirmance
Letter to Julius Genachowski re: A National Broadband Plan for our Future, GN Docket No. 09-51; Preserving the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 09-191 (May 10, 2010)
EDUCAUSE, the American Library Association, and the Association of Research Libraries applaud your "third way" proposal to ensure that students, educators, and the general public can benefit from broadband services.
Letter to Julius Genachowski re: Preserving the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 09-191; Broadband Industry Practices, WC Docket No. 07-52 (Mar. 1, 2010)
Letter from higher education organizations regarding preserving the open Internet.
Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens: Amicus Brief
Motion of International Documentary Association, American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, Association of College and Research Libraries and The WGBH Educational Foundation For Leave To File An Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Defendants-Appellees' Petition For Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc
In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices
Comments from ARL, ALA, and EDUCAUSE in support of rulemaking to preserve the openness of the Internet.
In the Matter of Global Free Flow of Information on the Internet
Comments from the Center for Democracy and Technology highlight the importance of liability protections for online intermediaries and the way these protections serve to maintain the Internet as a robust platform both for the free flow of information and for trade.
Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T: Amicus brief in support of FCC
Brief of Amici Curiae Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics In Washington, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, the National Security Archive, and Openthegovernment.Org in Support of Petitioners.
Costco v. Omega: Amicus brief in support of Costco
Brief Amici Curiae of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries, and the Association of Research Libraries in Support of Petitioner.
The Impact of the Supreme Court's Decision in Costco v. Omega on Libraries
On December 13, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Costco v. Omega in a manner that eliminated none of the uncertainty caused by the lower court's ruling in that case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had ruled that the copyright law's "first sale doctrine" did not apply to copies manufactured abroad. This ruling cast doubt on a library's ability to circulate books and other materials manufactured outside of the United States.
GSU Fair Use Order
This is a copyright infringement case brought against various officials of the University System of Georgia, including officials of Georgia State University. Plaintiffs are three publishing houses who claim that Defendants are responsible for infringement of their copyrighted works. They complain of Georgia State's practice of allowing professors and other instructors to utilize electronic systems to reproduce and distribute excerpts from copyrighted works for academic use by Georgia State students, without paying copyright fees to them. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief.
Summary of Antitrust Lawsuit: SkyRiver & Innovative Interfaces v. OCLC
On July 28, 2010, SkyRiver Technology Solutions joined with Innovative Interfaces to file suit in San Francisco federal court against OCLC Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) alleging numerous anticompetitive business practices and antitrust violations. SkyRiver, a bibliographic services company, and Innovative Interfaces, a library automation company, claim that OCLC is "unlawfully monopolizing the bibliographic data, cataloguing service and interlibrary lending markets and is attempting to monopolize the market for integrated library systems by anticompetitive and exclusionary agreements, policies and practices." (p. 1) The outcome of the lawsuit could have significant impact on the library software and technology services industry by opening up OCLC's services, such as WorldCat, to use by commercial competitors. ARL members have asked for a review of the current state of the suit.
A Guide for the Perplexed Part III: The Amended Settlement Agreement
On Friday, November 13, 2009, Google, the Authors Guild, and the Association of American Publishers filed an Amended Settlement Agreement (ASA) in the copyright infringement litigation concerning the Google Library Project. The amendments proposed by the parties are designed to address objections made by the U.S. Department of Justice and copyright holders to the original proposed settlement agreement. While many of the amendments will have little direct impact on libraries, the ASA significantly reduces the scope of the settlement because it excludes most books published outside of the United States. This paper describes the ASA's major changes, with emphasis on those changes relevant to libraries.
Supplemental Library Association Comments on the Proposed Google Books Settlement
The American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Association of College and Research Libraries (the Library Associations) submit these comments to address developments relating to the proposed Settlement that have arisen since the Library Associations filed their initial comments with this Court on May 4, 2009. In particular, these comments discuss the amendment Google and the University of Michigan (Michigan) entered into on May 20, 2009 that expanded the 2004 agreement that allowed Google to scan books in the Michigan library for inclusion in Google's search database.
In the Matter of Mandatory Deposit of Published Electronic Works Available Only Online: Comments of ALA and ARL
The ALA and ARL thank the Library of Congress (LOC) for proposing to amend its regulations governing mandatory deposit of electronic works published in the United States and available only online under 37 CFR § 202.19(c)(5). ALA and ARL recognize that significant technological advances have been made and as such, believe this initiative to preserve and provide access to journal literature is extremely important, especially in light of the increasing number of journals being published only online.
Oral Testimony of Jonathan Band on Behalf of ALA, ACRL, and ARL on Renewal and Expansion of the Film Clip Compilation Exemption to the DMCA Section 1201 Prohibition on Circumvention of Access Control Technologies
The Authors Guild, Inc., Association of American Publishers, Inc., et al., v. Google Inc.
Library association comments on the proposed settlement.
How Fair Use Prevailed in the Harry Potter Case
In a highly publicized decision issued on September 8, 2008, US District Court Judge Robert Patterson ruled that Steven Vander Ark's Harry Potter Lexicon infringed J.K. Rowling's copyright. Although J. K. Rowling prevailed in the litigation, the big winner actually was fair use.
A Victory For Media Neutrality: The Eleventh Circuit's En Banc Decision in Greenberg v. National Geographic Society (Jul. 9, 2008)
Sitting en banc, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on June 30, 2008, decided Greenberg v. National Geographic Society, finding that the CD-ROM set, "The Complete National Geographic" (CNG), was a privileged revision of a collective work under 17 U.S.C. § 201(c) and not a "new collective work" in violation of Mr. Greenberg's copyrights. This case is in line with the Second Circuit's decision in Faulkner v. National Geographic Enters., further clarified the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in New York Times Co. v. Tasini, and importantly, upheld the "long embraced doctrine of media neutrality" that the "transfer of a work between media does not alter the character of that work for copyright purposes."
Greenberg v. National Geographic Society: Amicus Brief in support of National Geographic Society
Two photographers claimed that the inclusion of their photographs in the National Geographic Society's (NGS) CD-ROM version of the NGS magazine violated their copyrights and that the NGS was not exempt under Section 201(c) of the Copyright Act.
Greenberg v. National Geographic Society, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Jun. 13, 2007)
This case presents the question of whether Section 201(c) of the Copyright Act accords a magazine publisher a privilege to produce a digital compilation that contains exact images of its past magazine issues.
In the Matter of Digital Broadcast Copy Protection
Comments arguing that a broadcast flag rule adopted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could effectively limit the public's access to information, and impair its ability to use content in new and innovative ways.
Letter to Deborah Platt Majoras re: In the Matter of Consumer Fair Use and Related Rights (Aug. 1, 2007)
Letter from library associations in support of the the request for investigation and complaint for injunctive relief filed by the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) in the matter of Consumer Fair Use and Related Rights.
In the Matter of Petition for Expedited Rulemaking to Establish Technical Requirements and Standards Pursuant to Section 107(b) of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act: Joint Comments
Joint Comments Submitted on Behalf of American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, Center for Democracy & Technology, Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Media Access Project, The Rutherford Institute, and the Voice On The Net (Von) Coalition.
Amicus Brief in Support of Tasini
Brief Amici Curiae of ALA and ARL.
Eldred v. Ashcroft: Amicus Brief in support of Eldred
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("DC Circuit") erroneously held that Congress' grant of twenty additional years of copyright protection as set forth in the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) 2 is constitutional.