Month: December 2010

First Sale Doctrine: Costco, Hawthorns, and the Big Fuzzy Line

The first sale doctrine has been on my mind recently.  It all began with the Supreme Court ruling in Costco v. Omega and ended with a paperback novel I’ve been reading.

The first sale doctrine is codified in 17 U.S. C. §109.  It is also called the doctrine of exhaustion, because under this rule, the copyright holder’s right of distribution is exhausted after the first sale.  This is the law that allows a library to lend materials; allows me to buy a book, read it, and pass it on to my father; and allows my neighbor to sell his vinyl record collection of cheesy 1980s hits at Half Price Books.

The issue in Costco was the application of the first sale doctrine to copies not made in the U.S.  The Ninth Circuit had decided that the doctrine only applies to copies made in the U.S. and to copies made abroad and sold in the U.S. with the rights holder’s permission.  Citing the many problems this decision was likely to cause libraries, the Library Copyright Alliance had argued against this interpretation in an amicus brief when the case went to the Supreme Court.  However, in a 4-4 decision, the Court (with Justice Kagan abstaining) let the lower court ruling stand.

In a recent blog post, Kenny Crews has ably discussed some of the likely ramifications, given the amount of material we buy overseas or that may be manufactured overseas.  He concludes that libraries are unlikely to have problems importing materials, but that lending or selling the material may become problematic.

This led me, in the rambling way that minds work, to a book I’ve been reading for pleasure.   Sybil Marshall’s Sharp Through the Hawthorn is part of a sprawling, out-of-print trilogy about the changing mores in an East Anglian village in the 1960s.  The copy that I am reading was printed and published in the United Kingdom, and I bought it from an out of print dealer that operates internationally.  I don’t know the route that took it from the original printer to the second-hand dealer to my mailbox and so I do not  know whether, under Costco, selling the book to me was legal or whether I can now sell it again.  It seems possible that I cannot.  Perhaps I will live dangerously and send it to my brother if he would like to read it.

The first sale doctrine is growing smaller.  This is most evident to the everyday consumer through the “spectrum of transactions that range from license to sale, with a big fuzzy line dividing the two” for various sorts of electronic media, including ebooks.    But it seems likely that its contraction will also be felt through limits on imports such as a recent textbook case winding its way through the courts.

Digital Media Collective: A Three-Part Meeting

Where: Thompson Library 165
When: Tuesday December 14, 11:00-12:30
What: Two system overviews and some planning
Food: Coffee, Tea, and Fruit provided by CSTW, Brown bag your lunch

GO.OSU: (Presentation and discussion, 30 min.)
Eric Schnell and the GO.OSU development team will talk about how the project was conceived and launched, will be looking for feedback on the service, and hope to inspire others to consider taking on small projects that can impact digital media at Ohio State.

Media Manager: (Presentation and discussion, 30 min.)
Allen S. Coleman and Mike Kaylor will present the roadmap for the realignment of the Media Manager tool, with a strict focus on teaching and learning and the development of Media Manager for Groups (MMG) sites for colleges, schools, departments and programs. They would also like feedback from the DMC community.

Informational Links:
Media Manager Roadmap
Media Manager for Groups

Cross-system work @ OSU: (Full-group discussion, 20-30 min.)
Because we will have a great deal of expertise in the room, we will begin a broader discussion about how we might encourage the development of an application (for those looking for or linking to media) or a workflow (for those creating media) that will allow media to be discovered across systems at OSU.

Recording Termination of Transfer Notices in “Gap” Situations

Under U.S. copyright law, there are some situations where a creator can transfer his or her copyright and later get it back.  Section 203 of the Copyright Act (17 USC  §203)  gives the requirements for a termination of transfer of copyright when the author executed the transfer on or after January 1,1978. (Other sections of the law govern termination of transfer when the author executed the transfer prior to January 1, 1978.)

The termination provisions are also called “recapture rights” or “the second bite of the apple.”  They are designed to give equitable relief when an author transferred copyright in a situation where there was an imbalance of power between the author and another entity, such as a publishing house or a recording company.  After time has elapsed—it is 35 years for works governed by §203—the author or his or her heirs (as defined by the statute) has a chance to take back the copyright.  This right does not apply to works for hire, derivative works the grantee made, or non-U.S. rights.  The provisions of §203 are due to take effect in 2013, but starting next year in 2011, authors may begin filing notices of termination.

A number of formalities must be observed in order to accomplish the termination of transfer, including filing a notice of termination with the Copyright Office.  Without the formalities, the termination of transfer cannot occur.

One issue that is causing controversy is the situation where the creator signed a transfer agreement before January 1, 1978, but created the work on or after that date.  Is that work governed by §203, with its 35-year termination clause or by the earlier provisions with longer periods before termination can be accomplished?  In March, the Copyright Office sought comments on the issue .  Many of those who submitted comments argued in favor of treating the “gap” works under §203, with the argument that copyright cannot vest until a work is created  The Recording Industry Association of America argued otherwise, asserting that Congress’s intent was to use the terms “executed” and “signed” interchangeably and analyzing the way the terms were used in the previous Copyright Act.

Although the courts will decide litigation around termination of transfer under §203, the U.S. Copyright Office is in charge of regulations around the filing of notices.  The Copyright Office must decide how to handle recording notices of termination for works created in this “gap” situation, and it must make the decision soon, before the courts have acted.

Under the proposed rule making, the Copyright Office is planning to allow notice of termination of transfer agreements in this gap situation to be recorded and indexed.  The authors will use the date of creation as the date of the execution of the grant, but may, for the purposes of clarity, also include the earlier date when the grant was signed.

The Copyright Office is taking comments on this proposal until December 27, 2010.

In the longer term, it is clear that, as the RIAA pointed out in their comments last spring,  “assessing the impact on authors and grantees with interests in multiple works from different time periods under different agreements is very complex” and “significant money is clearly at stake, because many works remain commercially important 35 years after their publication and many works are first published more than five years after the relevant contract is signed.”