Tag: copyright education (page 1 of 2)

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!

Copyright

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]

Libraries

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

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!

Copyright

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]

Libraries

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

 

Open Access Week 2016

To kick off this year’s Open Access Week, we are sharing information on open access workshops offered by The Ohio State University Libraries throughout the week. This blog post first appeared on the Research Commons blog.

*   *   * 

Open Access Week Logo

Open Access Week 2016 by SPARC is licensed under CC-BY 4.0 (cropped).

 

Next week, October 24-30, 2016, we celebrate the 9th International Open Access Week. This year’s theme is “Open in Action” and will highlight ideas for taking action to open research and scholarship.

Open Access Week is a yearly global event to spread awareness of Open Access, a movement that supports free and immediate access to research. The Open Access movement seeks to maximize the impact and accessibility of published research through the removal of financial and use restrictions placed on research. Interested in learning more about Open Access? Peter Suber’s “Open Access Overview” provides a great summary of the Open Access movement and the different forms and vehicles through which Open Access research may be shared.

Join us at the Research Commons and Thompson Library to celebrate Open Access by attending an OA workshop offered by The Ohio State University Libraries next week:

 

Open Access: Know Your Rights, Share Your Research

This workshop will cover the basics of copyright and open access, including understanding your rights as an author, sharing your research to a broader audience, and publishing in open access journals. Presented in conjunction with International Open Access Week, this workshop will feature speakers from the University Libraries’ Copyright Resources Center and Publishing and Repository Services department. Light refreshments will be provided, and our presenters will be available afterward for consultations.

Light refreshments will be provided, and our presenters will be available afterward for consultations.
When: Tuesday, October 25, 11:00am – 12:30pm
Where: Research Commons, 3rd floor of the 18th Avenue Library

Register: go.osu.edu/oa-workshop

 

Open Access Week: Creative Commons

Please join the University Libraries’ Copyright Resources Center for a workshop on Creative Commons (CC). The session will introduce CC and explore how CC licenses benefit creators and users of licensed material. These licenses contribute to affordability and the development and use of Open Educational Resources, a particularly relevant topic for us in light of the university-wide focus on affordable learning. Bring your questions!

When: Wednesday, October 26, 10:00 am-11:30 am

Where: Thompson Library, Room 165

RSVP: http://go.osu.edu/oa-creativecommons

 

Open Data: A Panel Discussion

Curious about Open Data? Want to know more about where to find Open Data to use in your own research, or how to make your data open to comply with funding agency mandates? Have your top concerns and questions addressed by a group of campus experts – all who are interested in Open Data are welcome!

This event is part of Data Analytics Month @ Ohio State. Learn more at: go.osu.edu/dataanalyticsmonth.

 

When: Wednesday, October 26, 2:00 – 3:30pm
Where: Research Commons, 3rd floor of 18th Avenue Library

Register: go.osu.edu/opendata-panel

_____________________________________________________________________________________

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

Debunking Top Copyright Myths: The Myth of the Innocent Infringer

A persistent myth in the world of copyright law is that of the innocent infringer.  This particular myth takes two forms, both of which will be addressed in this post.  The first is the myth of a complete defense, in that if you didn’t know you were infringing someone’s copyright, you can’t be found liable.  The second is a partial defense, in that if you didn’t know you were infringing someone’s copyright, although you may be found liable, you won’t have to pay any damages.

Neither of these is correct.  Where did this myth come from and why does it persist? This is best answered by looking at the history of United States copyright law.  Let’s take a trip in the copyright time machine (CTM)!

The first stop is in 1790.  Back then, being an innocent infringer meant you were not liable for infringement.  The Copyright Act of 1790 required that an infringer be “knowing”[1] with regards to the copyright status of the work.  There was actually a mens rea[2] component to copyright infringement.  Not only would you not have had to pay any damages, but you had not actually committed copyright infringement in the first place.  Which is good, because the statute required that “offenders shall… forfeit and pay the sum of fifty cents for every sheet which shall be found in his or their possession”[3]Translated into 2015 dollars, that $0.50 could be as much as $47,500[4] per page! This protection afforded innocent infringers was incredibly valuable.

Unfortunately for innocent infringers, those protections have been stripped away over the ensuing versions of United States copyright law.  Jumping back in the CTM, we can skip ahead to 1909, a year of major revision in U.S. copyright law.  The Copyright Act of 1909 removed the “knowing” requirement, making copyright infringement a strict liability offense.  This meant that if someone made an illegal use of a protected work, they had infringed copyright.  Their mental state was irrelevant and innocent infringement was no longer a defense to copyright infringement.  This was the end of innocent infringement as a total defense to liability for copyright infringement.  The 1909 Act did, however, prevent defendants from having to pay any damages if they could show that they were an innocent infringer who was “misled by the omission of the [copyright] notice”[5].  So in that very specific instance of innocent copyright infringement, a defendant could avoid having to pay damages.

Hopping back into the CTM, let’s fast forward to 1989 and the current version of United States copyright law.  Here, we have the Copyright Act of 1976[6], as influenced by the Berne Convention[7].  Copyright infringement is still a strict liability offense under this version of U.S. copyright law, so innocent infringement is no defense to liability.  It’s also harder to avoid paying some kind of monetary award if an individual is found liable.  Yet, innocent infringement does provide a small sliver of relief for some defendants under the 1976 Act.

The first is for an infringer who “was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright”[8].  In this instance, a “court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200”[9].  That might sound great, but let’s look a little more closely.  First, a defendant bears the burden to prove that they were not aware that their work was infringing copyright.  Second, even if they meet that burden, the court still has discretion in reducing damages.  This means the court may not reduce damages, even if the defendant proves the infringement was innocent.  Third, damages are only reduced, not eliminated completely.  Fourth, and finally, this is only an option if the plaintiff in the case chooses to be awarded pre-defined statutory damages, as opposed to actual damages and profits[10]. To add insult to this injury, a defendant may still be on the hook for the plaintiff’s court costs and attorney’s fees[11].  These fees can amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more.  For example, the attorneys who successfully argued that the happy birthday song is not protected by copyright were awarded over four million dollars in fees[12].

The second is for an infringer who “believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment … or (ii) a public broadcasting entity”[13] or an employee of a public broadcasting entity.  If an infringer falls into one of those specific employment categories and reasonably believed that their use was a fair use, then no damages will be assessed.  Of course, just like in the first example, the infringer could still be liable for paying the plaintiff’s court costs and attorney’s fees.

Today, innocent infringement is no longer a defense in a copyright infringement case, and even an unwitting infringer could be liable for what might be extremely high court costs and attorney fees.  Innocent infringement, as a defense to liability or a method of obtaining complete relief from liability for damages, no longer exists and we have come a long way since 1790.  Do you think these changes are an improvement?  Leave a comment and let us know how you feel about the treatment of “innocent” infringers in United States copyright law!

Please visit the other post in our series – If there’s no (c), is it copyrighted?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

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

 

[1] Copyright Act of 1790, 17 U.S.C. §2 (1790).

[2] “Mens rea” means guilty mind.  In order to be found guilty of many crimes, you must commit an illegal act (e.g. copying someone else’s copyright protected work) while having a certain level of intent to do so (e.g. knowing the work is protected by copyright).

[3] Copyright Act of 1790, 17 U.S.C. §2 (1790).

[4] Samuel H. Williamson, “Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount, 1774 to present,” MeasuringWorth, 2016.  Accessed via https://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php on 08/31/2016.

[5] Copyright Act of 1909, 17 U.S.C. §20 (1909).

[6] Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §1 (1976).

[7] The Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-568, 102 Stat. 2853.  Accessible at http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/100/568.pdf

[8] Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2) (1976).

[9] Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2) (1976).

[10] See, generally, Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §504 (1976).

[11] Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §505 (1976).

[12] See, e.g., Andrew Blake, Attorneys awarded $4.6 million over ‘Happy Birthday’ copyright claim, Washington Times August 19, 2016.  Accessed via http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/19/attorneys-awarded-46-million-over-happy-birthday-c/.

[13] Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2) (1976).

The Ohio State University Libraries and the Health Sciences Library Announce a Pilot Program to Combine Copyright Services

The one-year pilot program, beginning September 1, 2016, will consolidate services across the two offices, making the University Libraries’ Copyright Resources Center the single access point for copyright questions and copyright consultation requests from faculty, staff, and students of the university. The Health Sciences Library will provide financial support to the Copyright Resources Center to offset the costs of adding services for Health Sciences Library patrons. The pilot program will be evaluated at the six and twelve month mark.

The partnership is an extension of the existing collaborations between the Health Sciences Library and University Libraries’ copyright units. The pilot program aims to minimize patron confusion on where to go with copyright questions, supporting the university’s value of collaborating as “One university.”

For further information about the pilot program, please contact libcopyright@osu.edu.

Articles of Interest: January-June 2016

This post highlights articles published in the first 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 in the comments!

Copyright

Albanese, A. (2016). Google case ends, but copyright fight goes on. Publishers Weekly263(17), 4-6. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Aufderheide, P., & Sinnreich, A. (2016). Documentarians, fair use, and free expression: Changes in copyright attitudes and actions with access to best practices. Information, Communication & Society19(2), 178-187. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1050050 [OSU full text]

Hellyer, P. (2016). Who owns this article? Applying copyright’s work-made-for-hire doctrine to librarians’ scholarship. Law Library Journal, 108(1), 33-54. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Hess, J., Nann, A., & Riddle, K. (2016) Navigating OER: The library’s role in bringing OER to campus. The Serials Librarian, 70:1-4, 128-134. doi:10.1080/0361526X.2016.1153326 [OSU full text]

Pike, G. H. (2016). Trans-Pacific Partnership: The devil in the details. Information Today33(1), 1-25. [OSU full text]

Libraries

Banks, M. (2016). What Sci-Hub is and why it matters. American Libraries47(6), 46-48. [OSU full text]

Dygert, C., & Barrett, H. (2016) Building your licensing and negotiation skills toolkit. The Serials Librarian, 70:1-4, 333-342. doi: 10.1080/0361526X.2016.1157008 [OSU full text]

Enis, M. (2016). Please rewind. Library Journal141(10), 45-47. [OSU full text]

Finley, T. K. (2016). The impact of 3D printing services on library stakeholders: A case study. Public Services Quarterly, 12(2), 152-163. doi:10.1080/15228959.2016.1160808 [OSU full text]

Graham, R. G. (2016). An Evidence-Informed Picture of Course-Related Copying. College & Research Libraries77(3), 335-358. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Lipinski, T. A., & Chamberlain Kritikos, K. (2016). Copyright reform and the library and patron use of non-text or mixed-text grey literature: A comparative analysis of approaches and opportunities for change. Grey Journal (TGJ), 12(2), 67-81. [OSU full text]

Luo, L., & Trott, B. (2016). Ethical issues in reference: An in-depth view from the librarians’ perspective. Reference & User Services Quarterly55(3), 189-198. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Nilsson, I. (2016). Developing new copyright services in academic libraries. Insights: The UKSG Journal29(1), 78-83. doi:10.1629/uksg.276 [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

Publishing & Scholarly Communication

Beard, R. M. (2016). An investigation of graduate student knowledge and usage of open-access journals. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship28(1), 25-32. doi:10.1080/1941126X.2016.1130453 [OSU full text]

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]

Schlosser, M., (2016). Write up! A study of copyright information on library-published journals. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication. 4, p.eP2110. doi:10.7710/2162-3309.2110 [OA full text]

Sims, N. N. (2016). My unpublished research was scooped? College & Research Libraries News77(6), 296-301. [OSU full text] / [OA full text]

_____________________________________________________________________________________

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

Articles of Interest: July-December 2015

This post highlights articles published in the second half of 2015 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!

Copyright

Datig, I., & Russell, B. (2015). “The fruits of intellectual labor”: International student views of intellectual property. College & Research Libraries76(6), 811-830 [OA full text] [OSU full text]

Franklin, T. (2015). Copyright and fair use in the digital age. EContent38(7), 8-10. [OSU full-text]

Gordon-Murnane, L. (2015). Copyright tools for a digitized, collaborative culture. Online Searcher39(6), 28-52. [OSU full-text]

Muriel-Torrado, E., & Fernández-Molina, J. (2015). Creation and use of intellectual works in the academic environment: Students’ knowledge about copyright and copyleft. Journal of Academic Librarianship41(4), 441-448. [OSU full-text] ­­­­

Owen, L. (2015). Fair dealing: A concept in UK copyright law. Learned Publishing28(3), 229-231. doi:10.1087/20150309 [OSU full-text]

Shan, L. (2015). Conditional access to music: Reducing copyright infringement without restricting cloud sharing. International Journal of Law & Information Technology23(3), 235-260. doi:10.1093/ijlit/eav008 [OA full-text]

Smith, D. (2015). Finding parents for orphan works: Using genealogical methods to locate heirs for obtaining copyright permissions. Journal of Academic Librarianship41(3), 280-284. [OSU full-text]

Libraries

Christou, C. (2015). Mass digitization and copyright. Information Today32(10), Cover-29. (Periodical) [OSU full-text]

Kawooya, D. k., Veverka, A. a., & Lipinski, T. t. (2015). The copyright librarian: A study of advertising trends for the period 2006–2013. Journal of Academic Librarianship41(3), 341-349. [OSU full-text]

Riley-Reid, T. D. (2015). The hidden cost of digitization – things to consider. Collection Building, 34(3), 89-93. doi:10.1108/CB-01-2015-0001 [OSU full-text]

Schmidt, L., & English, M. (2015). Copyright instruction in LIS programs: Report of a survey of standards in the U.S.A. Journal of Academic Librarianship41(6), 736-743. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.08.004 [OSU full-text]

Wang, Y., & Yang, X. (2015). Libraries’ positions on copyright: A comparative analysis between Japan and China. Journal of Librarianship & Information Science47(3), 216-225. [OSU full-text]/[OA full-text]

Publishing & Scholarly Communication

Quinn, M. M. (2015). Open access in scholarly publishing: Embracing principles and avoiding pitfalls. Serials Librarian69(1), 58-69. [OSU full-text]

Sims, N. (2015). It’s all the same to me! Copyright, contracts, and publisher self-archiving policies. College & Research Libraries News76(11), 578-581. [OA full-text] / [OSU full-text]

Wassom, B. (2015). Navigating the rights and risks in social reading. Publishing Research Quarterly31(3), 215-219. doi:10.1007/s12109-015-9415-6 [OSU full-text]

Wilson, V. v. (2015). The open access conundrum. Evidence Based Library & Information Practice10(3), 116-118. [OSU full text] (From recurring Research in Practice column)

Legislation & Policy Developments

Christou, C. (2015). Copyright independence. Information Today32(7), 1-25. [OSU full-text]

Epperson, B. (2015). Copyright & fair use. ARSC Journal46(2), 293-300. [OSU full-text] (Recurring column in non-traditional academic journal)

Stannard, E. (2015). A copyright snapshot: The impact of new copyright legislation on information professionals. Legal Information Management15(4), 233-239. [OSU full text]

_____________________________________________________________________________________

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

New iTunes U Course on Copyright

Copyright can be a difficult area of the law to navigate for instructors and can at times serve as a barrier for instructors who are reluctant to include content in their courses or teaching materials for fear of infringement.  To help provide guidance in this area, we have created Copyright in the Classroom, a self-paced iTunes U course that introduces basic copyright concepts all instructors should know. Topics include fundamental principles of U.S. copyright law, rights reserved for instructors as content creators, and permissible use of copyrighted content in different teaching contexts.

At the completion of the course, participants should be able to utilize the resources and information provided to:

  • Recall the requirements for copyright protection;
  • Recognize the exclusive rights provided to a copyright owner;
  • Identify the copyright owner of a work;
  • Assess which statutory exceptions may permit an intended use of a copyrighted work;
  • Locate public domain and openly licensed works and summarize the conditions for the use of such works;
  • Evaluate whether an intended use may constitute fair use and explain the ways in which a fair use argument could be strengthened; and
  • Outline the process for seeking permission to use a copyrighted work.

To view a course description and subscribe (you’ll need to download iTunes), visit https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/copyright-in-the-classroom/id1071533208.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

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

Copyright in Campaigns

Election Day may still be over a year away but the 2016 Presidential campaign is already underway. As a battleground state, Ohio will experience a lot of political activity over the next 14 months.  Among the anticipated barrage of political ads, full calendar of rallies, and around-the-clock media coverage of campaign activity, we will see our friend: copyright. Copyright protects a wide variety of works—speeches, websites, marketing materials, etc.—so long as the work is original and fixed in a tangible format. This blog will highlight some of the many areas you will see copyright pop up during the campaign season.

Political Speeches:

Original political speeches written by candidates (or speechwriters) receive copyright protection, meaning the author of the speech may exercise control over the reproduction, adaptation, distribution, and performance or display of the speech. Two categories of works are not covered by copyright, however: works that fail to meet the fixation requirement and works created by federal employees within the scope of their employment. This means that speeches made at town hall meetings or political rallies may not be protected by copyright, unless those speeches were recorded or transcribed. It also means that works created by incumbent presidents or U.S. Senators or Representatives, if made within the scope of their employment, lack copyright protection and are free to use. For example, a speech made and recorded by Bernie Sanders within his role as Senator or a report written by Hillary Clinton as U.S. Secretary of State may be used without permission. A work created by a non-federal employee (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous “I Had a Dream” speech), however, may still be protected by copyright.

When speeches are televised, the broadcasting entity televising the speech (e.g., CBS, Fox News, C-SPAN, or CNN) may hold a separate copyright in the broadcast recording. This is true even if the speech itself is made by a federal employee within the scope of their employment or is otherwise in the public domain.

Continue reading

Copyright and Accessibility

Many educational institutions, including Ohio State, share the mission of advancing and encouraging the spread of knowledge. At times, however, the exclusive rights of copyright owners can impede this mission by conflicting with the important objective of making works accessible to all, particularly to individuals with disabilities. Even with the emergence of new technologies that facilitate instantaneous copying and dissemination of materials, owner control over reproduction and distribution of works has continued to create an obstacle to the growth of works in formats accessible to individuals with print, hearing, or other disabilities. Statistics from the World Blind Union reveal, for example, that of the approximately 1 million books published per year, less than 5% are made in formats accessible to the print-disabled.[1] Given the significant societal benefit that is achieved by promoting equal access, it is important to understand the provisions of copyright law that currently support the growth of works in accessible formats and identify opportunities for further change.

Current U.S. copyright law lacks a blanket exception for accessibility, relying instead on a patchwork of statutory exceptions and the doctrine of fair use. This blog will cover some of these current key exceptions, as well as potential developments under national and international law.

The Chafee Amendment and Performance of Literary Works under §110

One important provision in copyright law that promotes accessibility to copyrighted works is the Chafee Amendment. The Chafee Amendment (17 U.S.C. § 121) permits an authorized entity to reproduce or distribute copies of previously published nondramatic literary works if the copies are reproduced or distributed in specialized formats exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities.

Authorized entities include nonprofit organizations or governmental agencies “whose primary mission is to provide specialized services relating to training, education, or adaptive reading or information access needs of blind or other persons with disabilities.” The vagueness surrounding the definition of “authorized entity” has contributed to confusion and reluctance to rely on the protections set forth in the Chafee Amendment. Do educational institutions like The Ohio State University, who are bound to comply with the provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),[2] qualify as authorized entities? Publishers assert that only institutions who specialize in promoting accessibility (e.g., the National Library Service for the Blind), not educational institutions in general, qualify as authorized entities. Educational institutions, on the other hand, argue that their work and legal obligations under federal law establish them as authorized entities under the Chafee Amendment.

The Copyright Act also provides narrow exceptions for the performance of literary works. Section 110(8) permits certain eligible entities to perform nondramatic literary works by or in the course of a transmission specifically for the print or hearing disabled when the transmission is noncommercial. Section 110(9) permits an authorized radio subcarrier to make a single transmission of a dramatic literary work for the print disabled if the performance is noncommercial and the work was published at least 10 years before the performance.

Current & Proposed Exemptions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) prohibits any individual from circumventing technological protections measures placed on a work. For example, you cannot decrypt DVDs protected by Content Scrambling System (CSS). The law, however, provides exemptions to this anti-circumvention rule. One current exemption, in effect from 2012-2015, allows for the circumvention of electronically distributed literary works that are protected by technological measures when those technological protection measures prevent the enabling of read aloud functionality or interfere with screen readers or other assistive technologies. Literary works must be lawfully obtained by a blind or other person with a disability (for nondramatic literary works the work must be lawfully obtained and used by an authorized entity under the Chafee Amendment) and the rights owner must be appropriately remunerated for the price of the mainstream copy of the work. A renewal of this exemption has been requested in the 2015 triennial review.[3]

Another current exemption permits the circumvention of motion pictures and other audiovisual works that are on DVDs protected by the Content Scrambling System (CSS) or distributed by an online service that is protected by technological measures, in order to facilitate research and development of players that are capable of providing captioning or descriptive audio.

The Important Role of Fair Use

The statutory exceptions listed above are relatively narrow in their applications, including limitations on who may reproduce or transmit a work, the type of work that may be reproduced or transmitted, and who may benefit from such activities. One exception in copyright law that has been instrumental in filling in the gaps left by these narrow exceptions and promoting accessibility for copyrighted works has been fair use.[4] A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reinforced the significant role of fair use in increasing the accessibility of copyrighted works.

In Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust,[5] HathiTrust created a shared digital repository of collection materials from academic and research member institutions, allowing full access to patrons with qualifying disabilities. The district court held this activity was permissible under the Chafee Amendment, stating that educational institutions “have a primary mission to reproduce and distribute their collections to print‐disabled individuals…[making] each library a potential ‘authorized entity’ under the Chafee Amendment.” The court held, however, that HathiTrust was not precluded from relying on the defense of fair use in the event that they were not authorized entities or did not otherwise fall within the permissible categories of the Chafee Amendment. On appeal, the Second Circuit held that providing full digital access to print-disabled patrons was protected under fair use. [6]

International Considerations: Adoption of the Marrakesh VIP Treaty

U.S. copyright law may also be influenced by international agreements. One international treaty directed to making works more accessible is the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works by Visually Impaired Persons and Persons with Print Disabilities (“Marrakesh VIP Treaty”). The Marrakesh VIP is an international treaty administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) which would obligate signatory countries to create mandatory limitations and exception to their copyright laws pertaining to “the right of reproduction, the right of distribution, and the right of making available to the public…to facilitate the availability of works in accessible format copies” for the benefit of people with print disabilities.[7] The treaty would also permit exchange of accessible works across borders by authorized entities serving the blind, visually impaired and otherwise print disabled. Finally, the Treaty provides that contracting parties take appropriate measures to ensure that any anti-circumvention restrictions do not prevent the blind, visually impaired, or print disabled from enjoying any of the exceptions provided for in the Treaty.

The Treaty, adopted on June 27, 2013, will go into force three months after 20 eligible entities have acceded to or ratified the Treaty. There is currently accession or ratification from ten nations. The United States signed the Treaty on October 2, 2013 but has not yet ratified the Treaty.

In Conclusion

Making copyrighted works available in accessible formats can present a challenge to the exclusive rights of copyright owners. Absent a blanket exception that would allow for the creation of accessible formats for all persons with disabilities, individuals and educational institutions must navigate the existing narrow statutory exceptions or rely on a fair use defense in order to make works accessible. While society recognizes the importance of incentivizing creators to create new works, we must also recognize the importance of establishing equal access to those works in order to advance public knowledge and encourage further creation of works.

Accessibility Resources

_____________________________________________________________________________________

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

[1] Limitations and Exceptions: Access to Books for the Visually Impaired – Background Brief, World Intellectual Property Organization, http://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/briefs/limitations.html (last updated January 2014).

[2] Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides that no qualified individual with a disability, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from participating in, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal funding. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires public entities to make reasonable modifications when necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability. 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.130(b)(7).

[3] 79 FR 73863 (December 12, 2014).

[4] The House Report on the Copyright Act of 1976 also identifies making accessible copies of works for the blind as an illustrative application of the fair use doctrine (“…the making of a single copy or phonorecord by an individual as a free service for a blind persons would properly be considered a fair use under section 107.” H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976).

[5] 902 F. 22 Supp. 2d 445, 460‐64 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).

[6] 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014).

[7] Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled art. 4, June 27, 2013, TRT/MARRAKESH/001.

Older posts