Moral Rights in the United States

If you follow our blog, you may have noticed moral rights come up in a few of our previous posts (“A Primer on Fearless Girl”, “Theories of copyright”, and “Copyright in Campaigns”).  You may have also noticed moral rights in recent communications from the U.S. Copyright Office.  Moral rights are not often raised in the United States, and with good reason.  Moral rights, as distinguished from economic rights, are given only partial protection under U.S. copyright law.  Here, we give an introduction to moral rights and help to distinguish them from economic rights.

Continue reading

Articles of Interest: January-June 2017

This post highlights articles published in the first half of 2017 with a focus on copyright, especially as it pertains to libraries, higher education, and scholarly communication. Links to the full-text articles are provided when available; [OSU full-text] links will connect authenticated users through The Ohio State University Libraries, while [OA full-text] links point to an open access version of the article that should be available to all users.

Did we miss an interesting article? Please share the citation in the comments!


Clobridge, A. (2017). The ins and outs of open licenses. Online Searcher41(2), 62-65. [OSU full text]

Fernández-Molina, J., Moraes, J. E., & Guimarães, J. C. (2017). Academic libraries and copyright: Do librarians really have the required knowledge? College & Research Libraries78(2), 241-259. doi:10.5860/crl.78.2.241. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Harbeson, E. (2017). The Story So Far: Recap and Update on Flo & Eddie. ARSC Journal48(1), 43-49. [OSU full text]

Pike, G. H. (2017). Influence and Independence: Intrigue and the direction of the Copyright Office. Information Today34(1), 21. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Wilkin, J. P. (2017). How large is the “Public Domain”? A comparative analysis of Ringer’s 1961 Copyright Renewal Study and HathiTrust CRMS data. College & Research Libraries78(2), 201-218. doi:10.5860/crl.78.2.201. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Legislation & Policy Developments

Ayris, P. (2017). Brexit – and its potential impact for open access in the UK. Insights: The UKSG Journal30(1), 4-10. doi:10.1629/uksg.336. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Benson, S. R. (2017). Keep copyright in the library: Why the Copyright Office belongs in the Library of Congress. American Libraries48(5), 20. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Peet, L. (2017). Experts on next Register of Copyrights. Library Journal142(3), 14-17. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]


Benson, S. R. (2017). Interpreting Fair Use for Academic Librarians: Thinking Beyond the Scope of the Circular 21 Guidelines. Journal of Academic Librarianship43(2), 105-107. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2017.02.001 [OA full text]

Borchard, L., & Magnuson, L. (2017). Library leadership in open educational resource adoption and affordable learning initiatives. Urban Library Journal23(1), 1-13. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Sims, N. (2017). Rights, ethics, accuracy, and open licenses in online collections. College & Research Libraries News78(2), 79-82. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Tay Pek, S., Lim Heng, G., Ghani Azmi, I. A., & Sik Cheng, P. (2017). The impact of copyright law on the digitization of library collections in academic libraries in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal Of Library & Information Science22(1), 83-97. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Publishing & Scholarly Communication

Badke, W. (2017). Sci-Hub and the researcher. Online Searcher41(2), 56-58. [OSU full text]

Gardner, C. c., & Gardner, G. g. (2017). Fast and Furious (at Publishers): The motivations behind crowdsourced research sharing. College & Research Libraries78(2), 131-149. [OA full text] / [OSU full text]

Myška, M. (2017). Text and data mining of grey literature for the purpose of scientific research. Grey Journal (TGJ)1332-37. [OSU full text]

Rowley, J., Johnson, F., Sbaffi, L., Frass, W., & Devine, E. (2017). Academics’ behaviors and attitudes towards open access publishing in scholarly journals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(5), 1201-1211. doi:10.1002/ASI.23710 [OA full text] / [OSU full text]


By Maria Scheid, Rights Management Specialist at the Copyright Resources Center, The Ohio State University Libraries

A Primer on Fearless Girl

She’s not even five feet tall, but she has been causing quite a stir.  She is the Fearless Girl statue placed opposite the Charging Bull statue in New York’s financial district.  Her placement has caused a stir, not only for the crowds she draws, but also for the claims of copyright infringement raised by Arthur Di Modica, the creator of Charging Bull.

Charging Bull

Di Modica installed the 7,100-pound sculpture on December 15, 1989.  At the time, financial markets were down and the future of the economy was uncertain.  Di Modica created and installed the Charging Bull as a piece of unauthorized guerilla art, intending it to be a symbol of the “strength and power of the American people”.  The piece was inspired by the phrase “bull market”, which occurs when prices are going up and people are investing in stocks.  The piece became so popular that it now has a permanent home in the financial district, and has been there for almost 30 years.

Fearless Girl

At 50” tall, Fearless Girl, created by Kristen Visbal, is about as tall as your average 10-year-old.  Next to Charging Bull, the 250-pound sculpture looks tiny.  Fearless Girl, commissioned by State Street Global Advisors, an investment management firm known for its efforts to bring more gender diversity to financial leadership.  Installed March 7, 2017 (the day before International Women’s Day), the piece was intended to “celebrate the importance of having greater gender diversity in corporate boards and in company leadership positions.”  Currently, Fearless Girl has a one-year permit from the City of New York to remain opposite Charging Bull.

Copyright Claims Continue reading

The Next Register of Copyrights

Recently, in the House of Representatives, a bill was introduced called the “Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 2017” to change how the Register of Copyrights is selected.  Why is this position important? Why might the appointment of the Register of Copyrights be critical in determining the future of copyright law in the United States?

History of the Register

Since the appointment of the first Register of Copyrights, Thorvald Solberg, on July 22, 1897, the Register is appointed by and reports to the Librarian of Congress.  The duties of the Register of Copyrights are enumerated in U.S. law, specifically 17 U.S.C. § 701.  These duties include, but are not limited to, advising Congress on copyright matters, conducting studies regarding copyright, and providing “information and assistance to Federal departments and agencies and the Judiciary” on copyright matters.

Why is the Register of Copyrights important?

The Register of Copyrights is the highest-ranking official in the federal government dealing directly and exclusively with copyright.  This position oversees the U.S. Copyright Office, whose mission is “to administer the Nation’s copyright laws for the advancement of the public good; to offer services and support to authors and users of creative works; and to provide expert impartial assistance to Congress, the courts, and executive branch agencies on questions of copyright law and policy.”

In trying to serve these three groups, the public, creators, and Congress, the U.S. Copyright Office encapsulates the national tension over copyright law.  The public – users and consumers of books, music, media, and other creative works – have one set of expectations of copyright law.  Their expectations may include a well-fed and robust public domain, and a simple process for obtaining and utilizing the fair use defense.  The expectations of authors and other creators of works may be very different.  Their expectations may include longer and stricter protections for their copyrighted works, thus keeping the works out of the public domain for a longer time.  Creators may also expect more stringent protection of their works.  Congress can often find itself in the middle of this argument between the public and creators, looking to the Copyright Office, and the Register in particular, for guidance. Continue reading

Using Active Learning to Teach Copyright

What is active learning?

Active learning can “be defined as anything that ‘involves students in doing things and thinking about the things they are doing.’”[1]  This is a stark contrast to passive learning, where “students passively receive information from the professor and internalize it through some form of memorization.”[2]  Incorporating active learning can lead to “higher student cognitive outcomes on specific material covered in a class … as opposed to one taught with the passive teaching approach.”[3]  In addition, “[c]lassroom approaches that engage students in ‘active learning’ improve retention of information and critical thinking skills, compared with a sole reliance on lecturing.”[4]  In short, active learning moves the focus from the instructor’s teaching to the students’ learning and improves engagement, retention, and critical thinking.

The Ohio State University’s University Center for the Advancement of Teaching maintains a list of active learning strategies that can be employed in both workshops and courses.  The listed strategies range from simple (brainstorming) to complex (simulations), providing ample options to suit an instructor’s teaching style.  We encourage including an active learning strategy into a workshop or class to see how it fits with your teaching style.  While the list of potential active learning activities is almost limitless, there are a few that seem to fit particularly well within the copyright context.  Below are a few examples of those activities and how they can be woven into copyright education.

Active Learning in the Copyright Context

In a copyright workshop, Think-Pair-Share can help participants actively engage with the material.  For example, in a workshop for participants developing online courses, give them time to write down up to three works that they would like to incorporate.  Then have folks pair up and share their copyright challenges, and what they think is the most viable solution.  Finally, ask for a volunteer pair to share their thoughts with the group.  At this point, you could open the discussion up to the whole group, potentially teasing out confusion or misunderstandings.  Then make a few closing comments, clearing up any misunderstandings and offering the sharing pair additional thoughts or suggestions.

If discussion seems too passive, or doesn’t fit with your presentation style, have the students get hands-on with the material.  A presentation on fair use might work best with this style.  Break the group into pairs or smaller groups and give them a scenario and accompanying problem to analyze.  If you can contact attendees in advance, have them bring in works they are using, or would like to use, in their teaching.  The small groups can then walk that particular work, or your provided scenario, through the fair use analysis.  This strategy has the added benefits of 1) allowing attendees to get some of their work done in the workshop and 2) ensuring attendees have gone through at least one fair use analysis on their own.

Readers in the U.K. can utilize Copyright the Card Game in their teaching.  If you live in the U.K., it is a great way to gamify copyright education.  Available for download under Creative Commons’ CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, the game “takes delegates from copyright basics through to real world scenarios which explore the relationship between licences and copyright fair dealing exceptions.”[5]  Participants use game cards in four suits (Works, Usages, Licenses, and Exceptions) along with pre-made PowerPoint slides to “work through the scenarios presented.”[6]  While there is currently only a version for U.K. law, the idea of gamifying copyright law is incredibly intriguing, hopefully we will see a U.S. version soon.

What active and creative strategies have you used in your copyright education efforts?  Let us know with a comment on this post.  We would love to hear about your successes!



By Marley C. Nelson, Rights Management Specialist, Copyright Resources Center, The Ohio State University Libraries


[1] Bonwell, Charles; Eison, James (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. Information Analyses – ERIC Clearinghouse Products (071), p. 3.  Accessed on 3/8/17 via

[2] N. Michel, J. Cater, and O. Varela, Active Versus Passive Learning Styles: An Empirical Study of Student Learning Outcomes.  Human Resources Development Quarterly, vol. 20, no.4, Winter 2009.  Accessed 3/17/17 via

[3] N. Michel, J. Cater, and O. Varela, page 64.

[4] President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Retrieved from on 3/6/17.

[5] Chris Morrison, Naomi Korn, and Jane Secker.  Copyright the Card Game – Instructions.  Copyright 2015 by Chris Morrison, shared via CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

[6] Id.

A Fair Use Week Interview with John Muir

At the Copyright Resources Center, our job is to help members of the Ohio State community understand copyright law and how it affects their work.  This week, we are focusing on Fair Use – because it is Fair Use Week!  If you’d like an introduction to Fair Use Week, check out our earlier blog post for a quick rundown of Fair Use and why we spend an entire week celebrating it.

For Fair Use Week 2017, we wanted to educate ourselves on how Fair Use affects some of our closest clients.  In particular, I spoke with John Muir, a veteran Instructional Designer (ID) who helps design awardwinning online courses for The Ohio State University.  He has almost a decade of experience designing online courses, with the last four years spent in the Office of Distance Education and eLearning at OSU.  As an ID, John not only counsels faculty on designing online educational experiences, but also assists them with populating those online classrooms with content. It is the content piece that has John in frequent communication with the Copyright Resources Center.  John sat down with me to talk about how Fair Use impacts his work as an Instructional Designer.

Continue reading

Fair Use Week 2017

In the United States, copyright law grants a limited monopoly to the owner of a copyright.  While that limited monopoly is in effect, others may not utilize any of the six exclusive rights of a copyright owner.  Unless, of course, they have permission from the copyright owner or they can rely on an exception.  Fair use is just such an exception.

A popular common law defense for over 100 years, fair use was codified in the Copyright Act of 1976.  While some criticize fair use for being too vague, that same flexibility gives the exception the ability to cover many types of works in many contexts.  In fact, proponents of fair use are so enamored of it that they host an entire week of events to celebrate it and educate the public on its use.

Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week 2017 is February 20th-24th.  At The Ohio State University, we’ll be celebrating with blog posts, Tweets, and a workshop at the Research Commons on Tuesday, February 21st, all focusing on fair use.  In addition, the Association of Research Libraries keeps a running list of all Fair Use Week events, which can be viewed at

The first piece in The Ohio State University’s celebration of Fair Use Week is this blog post.  It gathers almost all of our previous posts regarding fair use into one place, creating a wonderful primer on fair use news and updates over the past several years.  Stay tuned later in the week for a second blog post highlighting how Senior Instructional Designer John Muir has utilized fair use in his work with faculty.

We invite you to browse our collection of fair use blog posts and follow us on Twitter for more fair use events and information (@OSUCopyright).

Continue reading

Articles of Interest: July-December 2016

This post highlights articles published in the second half of 2016 with a focus on copyright, especially as it pertains to libraries, higher education, and scholarly communication. Links to the full-text articles are provided when available; [OSU full-text] links will connect authenticated users through The Ohio State University Libraries, while [OA full-text] links point to an open access version of the article that should be available to all users.

Did we miss an interesting article? Please share the citation!


Bailey, L. (2016). How Copyright Law is Promoting Cultural Amnesia. Copyright & New Media Law20(2), 1-5. [OSU full text]

Kristof, C. (2016). Data and Copyright. Bulletin Of The Association For Information Science & Technology42(6), 20-22. [OA full text]

Matulionyte, R. (2016). 10 years for Google Books and Europeana: copyright law lessons that the EU could learn from the USA. International Journal Of Law & Information Technology24(1), 44-71. doi:10.1093/ijlit/eav018 [OA full text]

Menard, G. (2016). Copyright, digital sharing, and the liberal order: sociolegal constructions of intellectual property in the era of mass digitization. Information, Communication & Society19(8), 1061-1076. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1069872. [OSU full text]

Price, D. (2016). Stop Using Our Songs!. Copyright & New Media Law20(3), 5-9. [OSU full text]

Reymond, M. J. (2016). Lenz v Universal Music Corp : Much ado about nothing? International Journal Of Law & Information Technology24(2), 119-127. doi:10.1093/ijlit/eav021 [OA full text]

Tehranian, J. (2016). Constitutionalizing Infringement: Balancing Copyright and Free Speech. Copyright & New Media Law20(3), 1-4. [OSU full text]

Copyright Education

Estell, A., & Saunders, L. (2016). Librarian Copyright Literacy: Self-Reported Copyright Knowledge Among Information Professionals in the United States. Public Services Quarterly12(3), 214-227. doi:10.1080/15228959.2016.1184997 [OA full text]

Jaszi, P., Remington, M., Ivins, O., & Dyas-Correia, S. (2016). Copyright and Intellectual Property: What You Need to Know. Serials Librarian70(1-4), 34-43. [OA full text]


Ensign, D. (2016). What is Kirtsaeng and Why You Should Care. Kentucky Libraries80(3), 27-28. [OSU full text]

farrelly, d. (2016). VHS Copyright and Due Diligence. Library Journal141(20), 16. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Miller, R., & Homol, L. (2016). Building an Online Curriculum Based on OERs: The Library’s Role. Journal Of Library & Information Services In Distance Learning103(3/4), 349-359. doi:10.1080/1533290X.2016.1223957 [OSU full text]

Peet, L. (2016). Sci-Hub Sparks Critique of Librarian. Library Journal141(15), 14-17. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Publishing & Scholarly Communication

Bennett, L., & Flanagan, D. (2016). Measuring the impact of digitized theses: a case study from the London School of Economics. Insights: The UKSG Journal29(2), 111-119. doi:10.1629/uksg.300 [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Laakso, M., & Lindman, J. (2016). Journal copyright restrictions and actual open access availability: a study of articles published in eight top information systems journals (2010-2014). Scientometrics109(2), 1167-1189. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2078-z [OA full text]


By Maria Scheid, Rights Management Specialist at the Copyright Resources Center, The Ohio State University Libraries


How to Find a Copyright Owner

Between fair use, the TEACH Act (for online education), and Section 108 (for libraries and other cultural heritage institutions), a sizable network of exceptions is built into United States copyright law.  In addition to the ability of users to rely on statutory exceptions for their use of copyrighted works, some copyright owners have already granted permission for certain uses of their works through the adoption of an open license, such as a Creative Commons licensing scheme.  These exceptions and licenses allow many people to use copyrighted materials, thereby informing and enriching their own works.  But what if your potential use of another’s copyrighted work is covered by neither an open license nor an exception?

You may need to contact the copyright holder for permission to use the work.  This entails two separate steps:  First, identifying the copyright holder; and second, writing a request for permission.  The second step may be the easier of the two, with template letters and drafting advice available from numerous sources.  The Copyright Resources Center has a page on our website dedicated to requesting permission:

However, identifying and locating a copyright holder can be a complex endeavor.  Because copyright is transferrable, the original author or creator of a work may not be the current copyright holder.  For example, an author or creator of a work may choose to transfer their copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher, during their lifetime. If the creator held the copyright until they died, the copyright may have passed to an heir or beneficiary.  And in some situations, even if the copyright was not transferred, the creator of a work may not hold the copyright because the work is a work for hire.  In that instance, the business, University, or other entity that employed the creator of the work when the work was created may be the holder of the copyright.  This post will walk through some important questions to ask when trying to locate a copyright holder and provide some good ideas regarding who should be your first contact.   Continue reading

Public Domain Day 2017

Today on January 1st, we celebrate Public Domain Day—the day each year where works enter the public domain for many countries around the world following the expiration of their term of copyright protection.

Public domain works are works free of copyright restrictions; works capable of being freely reproduced, shared, and built upon by users. As we have discussed on this blog before, a robust public domain supports the underlying purpose of U.S. copyright law to promote the progress of knowledge and learning.[1]

But while many counties will see new works added to the public domain this year, there will be no published works entering the public domain in the United States. In fact, no published works will be added to the public domain in the United States until 2019.

Why the delay? The U.S. Constitution states that copyright protections may exist only for “limited times,” but our copyright law has been amended several times to extend the length of the term of protection. Under our first federal copyright statute, copyright protection lasted for an initial term of 14 years, renewable for another 14 years. The current term of protection for copyrighted works is the lifetime of the author plus an additional 70 years. As a result of this extension of copyright and Congress’s decision to apply the extension of copyright protection retroactively to existing works, works published in the United States from 1923 to 1977 will remain protected for 95 years after their date of publication. This means that works we would normally expect to enter the public domain today (i.e., published works whose author died in 1946) will not enter the public domain until much later.

For more information on Public Domain Day and works entering the public domain in other countries this year, visit:


By Maria Scheid, Rights Management Specialist at the Copyright Resources Center, The Ohio State University Libraries


[1] For this reason, authors today may chose to dedicate their work to the public domain through means such as the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedicator (CC0) tool rather than wait for the term of copyright protection to expire.

« Older posts