Copyright

“Ask The Lawyer” has touched on this topic a bit before.  In our 9/19/17 RAQ post “Skating the Line Between Helpful Information and Legal Advice,” we discussed the risks posed when patrons and co-workers confuse the helpful attitude and boundless information provided by librarians with legal services. 

The bottom line from that guidance was:

When [asked for legal advice], librarians must emphasize the boundary between good service and legal advice.  Here is a formula for that:

I [the librarian] provide access to library materials based on the law and policy of my profession and institution; you [the user] should consult your own attorney regarding any legal concerns about your use of the materials being provided. 

The current question takes this issue one step further: what if, when asked to play this front-lines role, the librarian is alerted to a potential claim of infringement against their institution?

Here are a few examples of how this can emerge:

Coach to librarian:  “I thought I would check with you…this guy called us and said we used his photo of the volleyball team on fliers without his permission.  But we’re not-for-profit, so copyright doesn’t apply, right?”

Curator to librarian: “We used a photo of the artist to promote the current installation on Facebook and some photographer is claiming we need a license?  But the artist said it was okay!”

HR Director to librarian: “You are our go-to on copyright.  This person says they generated it on their own time, but we own everything our employees create on our computers, right?”

Sound familiar?[1]

Before anything else, it is important to say: many institutions have an established protocol for handling ANY threat of litigation, be it copyright infringement, slip-and-fall, or breach of contract.  So first and foremost, librarians at larger institutions should know their institution’s policy or procedure for when a lawsuit is threatened.[2]  The risk manager, business manager, in-house legal counsel, or the employee who coordinates insurance coverage is often the point person for this. 

When your institution has such a protocol, the reply to questions that reveal a threatened claim of infringement should be “That sounds like it could be a claim of copyright infringement.  You should refer that the XXX, who handles claims.”  And whether or not the inquirer follows through, to protect both the librarian and the institution, the librarian should then e-mail XXX to say “Today I referred Coach/Curator/HR Director to you, as they were contacted by someone who might have a legal claim.”  This makes sure the legal hot potato doesn’t stop at the library, even if the other employee doesn’t follow through.

Of course, not every place will have an XXX, and not every person will seek advice the moment the threat of a claim arises.  Here are some alternate versions of our three scenarios:

Coach to librarian:  “This guy called us about three months ago and said we used his photo of the volleyball team on fliers without his permission.  We also put it on t-shirts.  Can you look at this “cease and desist” letter?”

Curator to librarian: “Remember that awesome installation?  Well, I’m forwarding you some emails between me, the artist, and his photographer.  They say we owe like $2,000.00 in licensing fees, but it’s fair use, right?”

HR Director to librarian: “I need to send this letter about work-for-hire, can you review?”[3]

In these scenarios, institutional debate or engagement with the claimant is well under way.  Even though things might be further along, and tempers hotter, the priority is still to end the engagement and get the matter in the right hands as soon as possible.  So, even if your institution doesn’t have an XXX, and the situation arrives at your door a little more “hot,” the best thing to say to your co-worker is: “This sounds like a legal matter.  We need to connect you with our attorney.”

If your co-worker has been so kind as to refer the (often angry) claimant to you without warning, and you are now on the phone with them, it is generally wise to:

1.  Listen, and make notes of what the claimant is saying.

2.  DO NOT ARGUE, DEBATE, or SUPPLY INFORMATION.

3.  Use your customer service skills to simply say “This sounds very important.  I have made a note, and will make sure someone gets back to you by [date].”

4.  When arranging appropriate follow-up, minimize internal e-mail discussion, which could become discoverable evidence.  Remember, the back-and-forth the employees engage in, unless it involves an attorney providing legal advice, is not subject to attorney-client privilege.

5.  Get that legal hot potato to your attorney or insurance carrier and get out!

I realize that budgets are tight in the not-for-profit world, and not everyone has an attorney in-house or on call.  This is where your insurance carrier could be a key player.  Most bigger institutions have some form of coverage that addresses copyright.  Your carrier does not want you to spend time arguing with a claimant, generating potentially damaging evidence!  So in the absence of a lawyer, your insurance liaison and carrier (who will use a lawyer) might give your institution a place to send the “hot potato.”

The bottom line: every institution has a slightly different way it approaches litigation risk[4], but every institution should have an established way.  Making sure library staff are aware of and comfortable with their institution’s protocols, and are supported in those protocols by trustees, officers and key personnel[5], are the keys to this issue.  The statutory damages and mandatory attorneys’ fees often involved in copyright litigation make this a high risk management priority.

Librarians should be on the front lines of information access and fair use, but not the first line of defense for copyright litigation.  Hopefully your institution appreciates this critical distinction, and supports it.

Or there’s always law school….

[1] I am sorry if any of these fictional scenarios have triggered stressful memories.

[2] If there isn’t one, I pose an alternative in a few paragraphs, but in most instances, there is.

[3] See the helpful script in paragraph two to remind people you are not a lawyer.

[4] Some alert carriers right away, others are wary of having a high claim number.  Some carriers want to know the moment there is even HINT of a claim.  This is something the person responsible for insurance will know.

[5] I am writing this guidance to be shared with such stakeholders, if it can be helpful.

This one is tricky.

It’s tricky because it stands on a no-man’s land comprised of fair use, library law, contract, and licensing.  This is a place where libraries boldly go on a routine basis, but lawyers fear to tread.  But we’ll try and parse it out.

To do so, we need to remember some “Considerations”:

Consideration #1: Section 108 (d) of the Copyright Act allows a library to duplicate and distribute, for non-commercial use, a “small part” of an audio recording based on a request of a patron or another library.

Consideration #2:  Section 108 (e) of the Copyright Act allows a library to duplicate and distribute, again for non-commercial use, the entirety of an audio recording based on a request of a patron or another library, IF a replacement copy cannot be purchased for a reasonable price.

Consideration #3: Disappointingly and tragically (but predictably), musical works are excluded from Section 108.  What does that mean?  Here’s an example: a recording of Robert Frost reading a poem may be duplicated under 108...but a recording of that same poem set to music may not. 

Consideration #4: Although Congress legislated that 108 protections don’t apply to musical works, it has also stated[1]:

…it is important to recognize that the doctrine of fair use under section 107 remains fully applicable to the photocopying or other reproduction of such works. In the case of music, for example, it would be fair use for a scholar doing musicological research to have a library supply a copy of a portion of a score or to reproduce portions of a phonorecord of a work. Nothing in section 108 impairs the applicability of the fair use doctrine to a wide variety of situations involving photocopying or other reproduction by a library of copyrighted material in its collections, where the user requests the reproduction for legitimate scholarly or research purposes. [emphasis added]

Which brings us to…

Consideration #5:  A library can make a partial or complete copy if it is a “fair use.”  Fair use is determined on a work-by-work basis, applying the four factors[2] set out in Section 107 of the Copyright Act. 

Consideration #6:  An initial “fair use” can meet the requirements of 107 (say, 10 bars of music contrasted with another in a documentary film), but a subsequent, related use might not (the same 10 bars in an TV ad for the same documentary).

Consideration #7:  None of this matters if the copy is coming from a license (a contract) that imposes greater restrictions a library.

Bearing these seven “Considerations” in mind, let’s check out the member’s questions in relation to the scenario they provided:

More than once we have received requests to provide digital copies of audio files from institutions that wish to make them accessible either through headphones or as ambient sound as parts of public exhibitions. The exhibitions presumably charge some sort of fee. We have had requests both for commercially released recordings and for archival, unpublished recordings for which we do not own either composer or performers rights, some of them dating prior to 1972.

Question: What do requesting institutions have to do to acquire the necessary rights to play audio at their exhibitions?

Answer: If the work is protected by copyright, and they can’t justify a fair use, they need a license to play the audio at their exhibition.  As the member points out, if the library providing the copy is not also the rights holder, the requesting party needs to work with that third party for permission to play the copy in public (unless it is a fair use).

But that is a secondary consideration for the library who might be providing the copy.  Remember “Consideration #6:” the initial basis for the request could be allowed under 107 or 108, even if a latter use in not allowed. Combine that with what we established in “Consideration #4:” Congress knew that subsequent uses might not be legitimate.  So, to protect libraries, and to protect the sharing of knowledge for purposes of scholarship and creativity, they made it very clear: if the first basis for the copy is legitimate, and the providing library has no knowledge of plans for infringing uses, the providing library will not be liable for infringement.

This is hard, because librarians are both helpful, and tend to be relentless gatherers of information.  If a patron requests a copy and discloses an infringing use for that copy, it cannot legally be provided.  This is true even if the requester subsequently gets a license (since there is no guarantee the license would retroactively extend to the providing library), although at that point, any damage claim would likely be moot. 

Question: Does it matter if audio is provided via headphone or open speakers?

Answer: The number of speakers (headphone or otherwise), the location of the devices, the size of the audience, and the capacity of the venue matter can all matter to an analysis of fair use.  But again, unless the exhibition is the only reason for the request, that information should not impact a providing library’s 108 or 107 analysis, unless the precise use is disclosed as part of the immediate basis of the request.

Question: Does it matter if an entire recording is played vs. an excerpt?

Answer: If the requesting institution is relying on a fair use defense, absolutely, yes.  The amount of the work used is one of the four factors.

Question: Are excerpts of certain duration allowable regardless of securing permissions?

Answer: Recent case law[3] shows that even the tiniest duration can be infringement, if fair use factors are not met.  But don’t let that stop you from providing a 107 copy!  If the fair use factors are met, it is conceivable that a person could use the entire work.  There is no set formula; fair use can only be assessed on a work-by-work basis.

If excerpts of a certain duration are allowed, is it the duty of the holding institution to create the audio files of the excerpted portion rather than providing the audio of an entire work?

This is not a binary question, it is an algorithm.  Here we go:

• The holding institution should try to ascertain if the work is still protected by copyright.  As the member points out, this depends on dates and publication status.  If it is still protected…
• The holding institution should establish what type of copy it is providing: 108(d), 108(d) or 107. 
• If it’s a 108 (d) copy, the institution should document that the 108 (a) and (d) factors are met, and if they are, may copy a “small part” (but remember, 108 doesn’t apply to a musical work).
• If it’s a108 (e) copy, the institution should document that the 108 (a) and (e) factors are met, and if they are, may copy the entire work (by now, you surely remember that 108 doesn’t apply to a musical work).
• If it’s a 107 (fair use) copy, after applying the factors, only copy what’s justified; when in doubt, seek legal advice.  This is tough to give guidance on, because “fair use” can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis.  For the example provided, there is no clear answer.  Sometimes, even if the access to the work is free, the use isn’t “fair,” while sometimes, even if money is charged, the fair use factors are met.  So if you go down the 107 road, be sure to get information relevant to the factors, stick to the use at hand (not potential later uses), and apply the factors.  This is true for both commercially released recordings and for archival, unpublished recordings (although publication status is part of the second fair use factor).

Question: As many exhibitions occur at locations remote to the holding institution, actual on-site checks for compliance are prohibitive. Does this change anything in terms of how permission forms should be crafted?

Answer: As quoted above, it was the intent of Congress that a library not be liable for subsequent unlawful use.

For a 107 copy, this starts and ends with the library’s assessment of the fair use for the copy at the time of the request.  Your forms should solicit information only about the immediate need for the copy, and assess if the request is within your institution’s comfort zone.  Your forms should not ask about prospective future uses, which may be beyond your control, nor should you feel any obligation to police the use, which is impossible.

Here is food for thought: forms should promote making a 108 copy whenever possible.  108 protection, while narrower, is far less subject to debate; 108 factors are clear and easy to document.  “Fair use,” on the other hand, is often in the eye of the beholder.  Judges must not only apply four factors of analysis, but as recent case law has recently re-affirmed[4], the four factors are not so much weighed, as considered in relation to each other.  It’s a tough analysis that unfortunately inspires erring on the side of caution.  So use 108 whenever it can apply.

A lot of questions, a lot of answers, and a lot of food for thought.  This is a rapidly evolving area of law, so check back in on this issue in a year or so.  The Copyright Office, various library organizations, and Congress all know that the law isn’t quite up to the challenge of technology (108 still uses the word “phonorecord,” which my Spellcheck actually refuses to recognize), so this complex web will continue to evolve. 

And in the meantime, if someone requests a copy of audio by Anthony Barré, use it as an excuse to read Estate of Anthony Barré and Angel Barré v. Carter, et al.  (a/k/a Beyoncé and Jay-Z), because it’s a good illustration of why this response is so very, very convoluted!

[1] House Report 94-1476.

[2] The factors are:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

[3] Estate of Anthony Barré and Angel Barré v. Carter, et al. No. 17-1057 (E.D. Lou. July 25, 2017).  In this case, pop star Beyoncé used very small clips from Anthony Barré’s recorded spoken word performances in the song “Formation;” the court ruled that while the amount of Barré’s work used very small, and was but a small part of the song, the overall factors did not make the use fair.

[4] Cambridge University Press v. Mark P. Becker No. 1:08-cv-01425-ODE (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2016)

This is a great question, since it shows how libraries not only provide access to information, but serve as patrons for the arts.  This nurtures local culture, spurs community creativity, and brings special attention to a library.

As the member points out, though, this role also comes with its own set of legal issues, including copyright concerns.

“Ask the Lawyer” was created to provide practical guidance and tips to libraries, museums and archives on the front lines of culture.  So, while there are many excellent treatises out there on copyright, fair use, contributory infringement, estate law, and contract law—all of which are showcased in this question—rather than wax philosophical, this answer will try, above all, to be useful to a librarian as they work with their community to nurture new art. 

With that in mind, here is a checklist flowchart of “red flag” issues, and potential solutions, to help you find the smoothest legal road for bringing custom art to your library.

Bringing Custom Art to Your Library

Contract Development Flow Chart

Step 1: Establish the vision and shared goals for the projectWork with the artist[1] to develop a carefully description of the project.

• What media is it in? 
• What is the title?
• Is the artist ready to provide contract assurances about copyright, image rights, or trademark?

NOTE:  In other words, is the artist considering any permission they might need, or fair use they need to make?  In this exercise, they should rely on their own lawyer (sometimes provided pro bono by an arts organization), and never on input from the library.

• What is the location of the display?
• Will the library promote the work through a special event?
• Will there be special conditions to prevent wear and tear?
• Are any library employees assisting with the production and/or installation?
• Is this project wholly or partially funded by a grant?  If so, does the grant have any special requirements?
• Confirm the artist’s name, address, and if relevant, get their 1099 form.
• Every project is unique; what special considerations does this one have?

NOTE:  All discussions should make it clear that until a formal written agreement is reached, discussions are just speculative, and not a contract for services.

Step 2: Establish how it is being paid for

• Make sure all the financial details are clear.
• Who is paying for supplies?
• Is the artist being compensated?
  • If so, how much?
  •  When are the payments to be?  Are they tied to project progress or completion?

NOTE:  if the artist is being paid (and they should be), or is selling anything based on the end result, and the materials are not becoming part of the library (like a mural or a custom Narnia-inspired wardrobe that is actually a built-in bookcase), the library should not purchase the materials…but the artist can factor the cost into the final price.[2]

Step 3: Establish ownership

This step controls a lot of the latter considerations.

• Is the library to be a co-author or co-owner of the work?

NOTE:  If the answer is “yes,” a plan for jointly managing the asset should be developed.  Generally, to avoid this complication, you want the answer to be “no.”

• Who will own the physical object?
• Who will own the copyright(s)?
• If the library won’t own the copyrights, what permission does it have to duplicate or use the work?  (examples include: put a copy on the website, make fund-raising t-shirts, display it in a window, digitization and inclusion in online archive, or any use the library wants).
• Will the author be using an alternative form of copyright licensing (like Creative Commons) to ensure community access to the work?

Step 4: Establish clear boundaries

This can help avoid confusion and stress later.

• Whose workspace is being used to create the work?
• What support is the library providing during creation?

NOTE:  “Nothing except moral support” is a great answer.

• Who is transporting the work to the library?
• If it requires installation or hanging, who is doing that?
• What are the mutually-agreed methods of promoting the work, and what methods (if any) are forbidden?  For example, some libraries might encourage promotion via Facebook, while others might regard that as less than desirable.

Step 5: Confirm critical responsibilities

• When is the work to be completed by?
• When is payment due?
• Who is responsible for securing any necessary copyright permission or image rights?

NOTE:  Unless you are co-authors on an exciting joint venture with a very well-developed contract and express insurance provisions, clearance and permissions should never be done by your library.  Further, when you develop a final agreement for the work, it should contain a clause stating that the artist is the sole author of the work, the artist is responsible for obtaining necessary permissions, that all necessary permissions have been secured, and that the artist will hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the library (and its trustees, employees and volunteers) in the event a third party claims the work is infringing any copyright, trade mark, image right, or right to privacy.

• Who is responsible for organizing any promotional events?
• Who is responsible for damage to the work during display at the library?
• Who is removing the work from the library when complete?

Step 6: Protect the library!

You can tell by the questions on the worksheet that my final guidance on is this: when developing a public art project, be picky about the details, and turn them into a good contract.

Because there are too many variables amongst the libraries (public libraries, college/university libraries, hospital and prison libraries, museums, private archives), I cannot offer a standard template for this.  A public library is in a different place than a library within a college or museum; they all live in different regulatory universes, have different vulnerabilities, and have different rules and obligations.  This is why simply “borrowing” a template from another institution is often a bad idea.

However, I can say that any good contract will address the above-raised issues, and if you have used this worksheet in advance, assembling such a contract will be easier.

Step 7: Promote Culture, Enjoy Art

I know: nothing kills inspiration faster than the word “indemnification.”  This worksheet brings up a lot of messy details that, if brought up at the wrong time, can hamper creativity. 

But I have found that addressing these details early actually helps a project move forward.  It gives the library and the artist clarity about their roles.  It gives the security of assurance about vital details.  Most importantly, by inspiring forethought about possible impediments, it makes challenging projects possible.

So revel in the details, make room on the walls, and let the art flow!

[1] You’ll see that throughout this checklist I also refer to the artist as the “author.”  The copyright law uses “author” as a catch-all term for the creator, whether they are a writer, photographer, sculptor, etc…

[2] I know, if the library can buy the materials, they’re tax free!  But both the state of NY and the IRS are pretty clear on this.

I wandered lonely as a cloud…wondering “is there a way to create our own custom array of poems by Wordsworth, Keats, and Burns?”

The answer is: Yes.  If a poem was published before 1923[1], or meets certain other criteria, it is in the public domain.  Being in the “public domain” means it is free from copyright protection, and that any would-be publisher may generate, duplicate, and sell their own version of it—with or without  new illustrations, new original commentary, and other non-infringing works.

When taking on such a project, the critical factor for worry-free re-use is publication before 1923.  For such poems, status in the public domain is assured.

For poems published after 1923, the analysis is a bit trickier.  There is no hard-and-fast rule; the place of publication, the manner of claiming copyright protection, and the life of the author are all relevant.  Cornell maintains an excellent chart that breaks down the factors to consider when assessing if a work is in the public domain.[2]

Public domain status, or permission from the copyright owner, is something a would-be publisher should verify on their own.  It should not be assumed, even if the poem is free for download on the internet.  Even Project Gutenberg puts terms and restrictions on its content (see the Project Gutenberg License), and does not guarantee that a work is in the public domain (check out PG’s statement on this issue).

Once a would-be publisher has a method for confirming that the poems are in the public domain, it does not matter how many poems they use.  When working with public domain material, there is no limit on how many works can be assembled, duplicated, and distributed. 

That said, there are a few serious caveats. 

First, a publisher must truly verify that each and every poem was published (not written, but published) before 1923, or that any post-1923 publication meets the factors on the chart. 

Second, a publisher must make sure they are not infringing someone else’s updated version of a public domain poem.  All of Chaucer’s works may be in the public domain, but a new translation, or a copy with new cartoon illustrations, is not.  To avoid any charge of copying, it would be best to re-type the poems.  Do not copy a recently annotated version.  Do not scan a newly illustrated version.  Do not simply cut-and-paste.  For the final compilation[3] to be owned and then sold by the new publisher, the typing should be done by an employee, as part of their work.

Third (but very important!), if preparing copies of public domain materials for sale, take care that trademarks are not a part of the newly compiled content.  As an example…a publisher can re-print a pre-1923 poem about Coca-Cola, but can’t use the Coca-Cola logo to sell the copies (unless its for commentary/criticism, but that’s a fair use question…).  Make sure the school has the rights to any images that are used.

Overall: The member’s question models the sense of caution when using previously published material.  But with the above caveats in mind, a new publisher can relax, share some poetry, and say:

For oft, when on my couch I lie

In vacant or in pensive mood,

Poems flash upon that inward eye

Which is the bliss of solitude;

And then my heart with pleasure fills,

Thinking I will have no legal bills.

[1]When "Ask the Lawyer" started in 2016, the author was not thinking about how, just a few years later, the "Public Domain" date would change.  To preserve this shameful lack of foresight, but also ensure accurate information, as part of the "2021 ATL Audit" we are adding this footnote:  Please substitute "1923" with [whatever year it is minus 95].   For instance, if it is 2021, the year should be 1926. When in doubt, visit the excellent chart at https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain.

[2] While rare, some copyright owners simply announce that their work is free to use, or free to use with very limited restrictions.  Such an announcement should be verified and documented before being relied on.

[3] If the end product is simply a gathering of public domain material, it might not have sufficient originality to be subject to copyright.  But if new illustrations or instructional materials are included, it might.

The short answer is: no, this scenario is not a “fair use.”

But that’s not the end! “Fair use”—which is found in Section 107 of the Copyright Act—is not the only exception to copyright infringement.

There is another way.  Section 110 of the Copyright Act provides:

[T]he following are not infringements of copyright:

(1)performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made[.] [emphasis added].[1]

In the cold, scary, expensive world of copyright infringement, section 110 is breath of fresh air.  Unlike section 107, which creates a four-factor “fair use” formula so esoteric, you can consult three lawyers and get six opinions, Section 110’s exceptions are well-defined and clear. [2]

So, can a gathering of instructors and students in a theater on a college campus meet these clear 110 requirements?  Yes! 

But.

The problem is, as used in 110, the term “students” is not broad enough to apply to the member’s precise scenario.  While the 110 term “instructors” includes guest lecturers (if their instructional activities remain confined to the class location and syllabus), the 110 term “pupils” is generally regarded as meaning only enrolled members of a class.  [3]  In addition, it is best if the syllabus for the course, whether for credit or a certificate, supports a conclusion that the viewing context really is a class—not recreation (even if it is enlightening recreation) masquerading as academia.  110 is a powerful exception to infringement, but it has its limits.

107 and 110 exceptions to infringement can sometimes get conflated.  Here are some examples of how they do (or do not) apply, using one of my new favorite movies:

1.  “Black Panther” uncut and shown on campus as part of an open-to-all, educational film series about would not be allowed under either fair use or 110.  Any such showing must be licensed.  

2.  “Black Panther” partially evoked in very small, carefully-chosen selections for an open campus forum on “Women in Major Motion Picture Fight Scenes” could be allowed under “fair use,” but film stills and excerpts must be limited to only what is needed to make a point.

And finally…

3. “Black Panther” shown in its entirety to students enrolled in a “Comics and Society” class would be allowed under 17 U.S.C. 110 (1)…so long as the movie genuinely contributes to the substance of the course, is shown only to enrolled students, and the copy they watch is not pirated. 

What’s the take-away?  Educators should apply “fair use” when needed, but remember that section 110(1) creates exceptions to infringement, too.  It’s no vibranium[4], but is a powerful part of an educator’s arsenal.

[1] Care must be taken to ensure there is no re-transmission of the content.  Another section of 110 does allow for limited re-transmission for online learning, but to qualify, the institution must adhere to all TEACH Act requirements.

[2] There are more than this, and of course, they all come with rules.  Read the statute before relying on 110 to protect you from infringement.

[3] See House Report 94-1476

[4] Special rare metal in “Black Panther;” also, what Captain America’s shield is made from.

It is frustrating to know just the right resource for a class—and be unable to access enough classroom copies. 

Just as vexing is going the extra mile to seek permission to make your own…only to be told that you’ve reached a dead end.

And yet, class must go on.  We tried to ask…now can we just make those copies?

Unfortunately, a “good faith effort to receive permission” is not a defense from liability for copyright infringement.   Further, introducing evidence of the “good faith effort” to doing things the right way might work against a defendant, since it might limit their ability to claim they are an “innocent infringer” (someone who has no basis to know they are infringing, or made a reasonable but erroneous assumption of fair use). 

Of course, there are some exceptions to this rule.  If the purpose of the copies is to enable commentary and criticism, excerpts sufficient to illustrate the instructor’s point (and no more) may be duplicated.  And a library making an archival or preservation copy under §108 of the Copyright Act might duplicate the entire book (once, but not for classroom use).  But copies for students, whether or not they are sold, do not fall into these categories.

The best solution in this situation may be to find a stalwart staff member who likes to play detective, who can hopefully track down the actual copyright owner.  This can sometimes be determined on copyright.gov, can sometimes be determined from author’s websites, and can sometimes only be distilled by triangulating the information from about five different sources. 

And sometimes, even after a herculean effort, the answer cannot be found.  But no matter what, unauthorized duplication of copyright-protected work without permission can lead to liability and damages…and a defendant showing they tried to ask for permission before doing the copying might make things worse.

This is a complex issue (although not nearly as complex as assessing a library wing full of dramatic and musical works).  To unpack this, I will take advantage of a form suggested by the topic: the opera libretto.

[Cue overture…]

ALTO:  Can works with no copyright notice before 1978 be safely digitized?

BASSO:  Beware, if they were previously unpublished or the trademark is still monetized.

ALTO: What about text works with multiple works inside them?

BASSO:  A compilation notice may protect the whole system.

ALTO: What about a work included in an unregistered collection?

BASSO:  Beware!  That work may have a separate protection.

ALTO:  If a theatre organization has folded, can their work be duplicated?

BASSO:  The copyright could have been transferred, so…it’s complicated.

SOPRANO:  So you’re saying…[crescendo] you DON’T KNOWWWWWW?

BASSO: ….no. 

[triangle]

Okay, enough of that.

The bottom line:  There is no bright-line rule I can provide to give assurances for works that are post-1923[1] (and, for unpublished works like journals or private recordings, items authored prior to that date).  Between image rights, trademark, privacy, and overlapping copyright terms, projects like the one described in the question can bring an array of legal considerations.  Adding music to the equation—which is exempted from §108, the law that allows certain copying at libraries—only heightens the concerns.

The key to designing a digitization project that can survive this type of risk assessment resides in the question: why does the collection, and the particular items in it, need to be digitized in the first place?

If the answer is, “for preservation,” then documenting, on a work-by-work basis, that either there are no protected elements in the work, and that all 108 factors have been met, is the key (NOTE: this would likely involve restricting some of the collection to on-site access only).

If the answer is, “for ADA adaptability,” then documenting, on a work-by-work basis, that the digitization was only for purposes of making an accommodation is the key.

If the answer is, “so the whole world has easy access to high-resolution, searchable, meta-tagged copies of the material,” then verifying, on a work-by-work basis, that no valid copyright or other bar to duplication and online publication is the key.  Materials still under copyright could not be available for download, but could be listed as on-site and available for copying if allowed per §108. 

If the answer is, “so the whole world has internet access to low-resolution, water-marked, searchable, thoughtfully meta-tagged copies of representational selections of each title (whether under copyright, or not), presenting the bare minimum of what’s needed for researchers to determine what we have on site and available for §108 copying,” then carefully following the four “fair use” factors is the key.

If the answer is, “so the whole world has internet access to our carefully curated, scholarship-oriented, presented-with-commentary-and-criticism, non-market-disrupting, selective array of material carefully culled to represent the breath and scholarly value of our larger collection of theatrical and musical materials available for §108 copying” then designing an end product that meets the four “fair use” factors is the key.

I realize this is a chicken-and-egg reply: if you can’t clear answers on what you can do with the material, how can you envision what to do with it?  My reply to that is: trust that your mission to provide access to information is supported by the law.  Think about the materials, develop a theme as to why access to them is important, acknowledge any potential boundaries, and a legal solution can be found.  Bring in a lawyer to advise on specifics when needed,[2] like a decision to invoke “fair use,” to set up clear parameters for copyright determinations, or how to best document use of §108. 

Since access is your mission, copyright should only inform, not deter it.

[1] When "Ask the Lawyer" started in 2016, the author was not thinking about how, just a few years later, the "Public Domain" date would change. To preserve this shameful lack of foresight, but also ensure accurate information, as part of the "2021 ATL Audit" we are adding this footnote: Please substitute "1923" with [whatever year it is minus 95]. For instance, if it is 2021, the year should be 1926. When in doubt, visit the excellent chart at https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain.

[2] Sometimes, you just need a lawyer.  This RAQ can cover a lot of helpful general ground, but some things—like designing a particular fair use, or crafting the legal parameters for a specific project—can only be done through confidential legal advice based on viewing the precise materials and circumstances.

Putting the tapes on the cloud: it is great that educational institutions are saving and promoting their accumulated knowledge this way.  But aside from the copyright issues the member asks about (which we’ll get to at the bottom of this reply), the transfer and publication of legacy instructional material[1] can bring some additional legal considerations.

Here are some “red flags” for converting video of your past lectures for digital re-sale.

Image rights

In New York, the commercial use (including sales of instructional DVDs, as mentioned in the question) of a person’s image, likeness, and name must be with written permission.  Of course, for employees whose routine duties include being recorded (like newscasters), that consent is addressed at the start of the job.  But for instructors who may have been aware they were being taped in 1988, but weren’t aware that the tape could be acquired by paid viewers later via the Internet, there could be some risk that a past instructor might object to being included.

Further, in the event the instructor was an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement or other employment contract at the time of filming, they could have some rights you need to consider.  A quick check with a Human Resources department should be able to confirm if any past or current agreement poses any complications.

And finally, in the event the instructor who was filmed was not an employee, but under a speaker agreement--perhaps speaking for a small fee—an institution must exercise caution, since awareness of being filmed does not constitute permission to mass-produce the product and sell it in the marketplace.  If possible, sending a note to the former speaker, thanking them for their past participation and offering a small fee in exchange for their signature on written permission for the new use, is best.

The bottom line: there are a lot of possible permutations to the “image use” issue. To avoid them, whenever possible, verify that your institution has written, signed permission to use a person’s image before selling any newly converted recordings.

Accuracy and Reliability Disclaimer

In the event any of the instructional materials relate to a trade, profession, or other topic governed by prevailing standards, law, or regulations, a disclaimer that carefully clarifies that the content was generated in 1988 (or whatever year applies), might be wise. 

Of course, if the content is opinion-based, that is not an issue.  But if the person is relating an objective best practice, regulation, or law, making sure a viewer is warned that the information could be out of date is critical.

Here is an example: If the speaker was commenting generally on the value of meditation in daily life, that is an opinion, and needs no warning.  If, however, the speaker is commenting on Education law Section 3029 (“Silent Meditation in Public  Schools”) then making sure the law as described in the legacy video is current, and/or adding a disclaimer reminding the viewer that the content dates from an earlier time, might be appropriate.

Trademark

It’s a long shot for the scenario posed by the member, but in the event there is any trademarked material (for instance, a set of instructional booklets with a prominent logo) be wary before digitizing and charging for access.  The incidental use of another entity’s trademark could create an alleged infringement.  Fortunately, as can be seen in a lot of reality TV, this can be avoided by simply blurring the mark!

And finally….Copyright

The member is correct; if the institution (through its employees) is the entity that created the recording, and there is no written agreement to the contrary, the institution owns the copyright, and can duplicate, sell, and create derivative works based on the content. 

However, care should be taken to verify that no independently owned content is contained within the video (a person reading a poem, for instance).  While under many circumstances such inclusion can qualify as a “Fair Use,” that is not always the case (for more on this caveat, see the “Recently Asked Question” posted on Saturday, January 27, 2018).

[1] Please note: this issue is different from digitization projects by libraries who own, but did not produce, the content!

For the record, as I write this response, the following message runs across the top of the U.S. Copyright Office’s web site:

Operations Updates During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Out of an abundance of caution, all Library of Congress buildings, which includes the U.S. Copyright Office, will be closed to the public until Wednesday, April 1, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19 coronavirus. If you are a user of U.S. Copyright Office services, submit your applications online, browse FAQs, and submit emails with questions through copyright.gov. You may also reach the Copyright Office by phone at (202) 707-3000.

Despite that announcement, no deadline, fee, or change in copyright law or regulation has been announced.[1]  That said, even the Copyright Office is switching things up as we respond to a global pandemic, and I have received many questions asking if the normal copyright laws still apply (they do).

This question, too, is about pandemic response; the member’s colleague is working to provide content for students whose education is making a quick, unplanned transition to distance learning.  That calls for flexibility, ingenuity—and appropriate online content.

The member’s institution is not alone in this need for new resources.  As I write this, my staff is working from home, and my kids (ages five and fifteen) are handling packets from school and electronic transmissions of homework.  Everyone I know now wishes they had bought stock in Zoom.  We are all seeing how vital solid online content can be.

The member wants to know if simply providing links to content that might not be posted with the permission of the copyright holder will expose their school to liability.

As of this special moment in time,[2] the clearest[3] case law on linking and academic texts found in an array of cases pen-culminating[4] in Pearson Education, Inc. v. Ishayev, a 2014[5] ruling from the one of the federal courts located in New York City (the “SDNY,” if you want to sound cool about it).

In the “Pearson” line of opinions, academic publisher Pearson Education accused two Brooklyn residents of (among other things) providing a hyperlink to a file-sharing website where a person could (allegedly) obtain copies of the Plaintiff’s materials.[6]  Pearson’s law firm even had one of their legal staff pay for the links from the defendant! (This is the kind of sneaky thing that makes people not like lawyers.)

As pointed out in the line of Pearson rulings, sending an email containing a hyperlink to a site facilitating the sale of a copyrighted work does not itself constitute copyright infringement; it’s viewed as “the digital equivalent of giving a recipient driving directions to another website on the Internet.”  But that doesn’t mean that sending a link to infringing content is always okay.

As put by SDNY Judge Paul Englemeyer’s March 24, 2014 ruling on the case:

The publishers assert that Ishayev is liable for contributory infringement because he knowingly sold access to hyperlinks, which allowed other individuals to download eight of the publishers' copyright protected works from a website. If proven with competent evidence, such conduct would lead to liability for contributory copyright infringement—sending hyperlinks that permit others to download protected materials would plainly amount to conduct that encourages or assists in copyright infringement. [emphasis added]

Unfortunately, as can be seen in the Pearson opinion, deciding possible liability in matters like this doesn’t come down to a simple question of “links, or no links?”

What does it come down to?  The sender’s awareness of infringing copies, and their state of mind and intentions when they sent the links.[7]  In other words: if you know it’s wrong, don’t do it.

That’s the cold letter of the law, and it’s not very helpful or comforting, I know.  I give you something that might be a better guidestart on this one: professionalism and respect.

We are living in a very odd Spring Semester, here in 2020.  As the State of New York issues Executive Order after Executive Order, I am struggling to find solid guidance for clients.  People need to know what they can do (and not do).

While not quite on par with trying to education students, I can relate: we need content to get the job done, and the content we are finding at this precise moment might not be the most reliable.  It’s scary and inconvenient and hard.

I think, more than ever, that means it is time for us to do what we know is right.  If we know an audiobook is available from an unauthorized source, don’t direct innocent kids to go download it from a known infringing source.  It’s just not the right thing to do (and some day, those students might be copyright holders themselves, deserving of the same respect).

And finally, even if you’re willing to take the risk for your institution (we’ll take our chances, it’s a pandemic!), think of it this way: publishers and content owners track infringements by IP address, so the person who might get in trouble might not be the school, but rather the student.[8]

So, did the case law on linking “change?”  Not quite.  But it has evolved.  And who knows, maybe as a result of the current crisis, it will evolve some more.  But for now, knowingly linking to known unauthorized content brings risk.

Thank you for a great question.  I wish you health, energy, and ingenuity in this time of national emergency.

[1] Registration fees went UP this month, but that’s another story!

[2] March 22, 2020, and what an odd day it has been. 

[3] In my opinion.

[4] Welcome to my new word, “penculminating,” which means, the next-to-last thing before the end result.

[5] There are actually quite a few judicial opions on “Pearson Education.”  Make sure you look at the final rulings from 2014.

[6] This is a very bare-bones summary.  For the full story, check out the opinion here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2045770819331774838&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr. (Note my intrepid linking without fear of liability!).

[7] I am not even going to attempt to go down the fair use road on this one!  But in different circumstances (not using the materials simply to teach from, for instance, or using tactical excerpts) such a claim could be made.

[8] Okay, let’s get real: it would be the parent whose name the IP address resolves to.  But you get my point.

You, reader, will never know my answer to this question.

That’s because to truly answer it, I had to contact the member and get some more information.  The information I received, and the answer I gave in return, were so specific, the content was no longer suitable for a general-audience response.[1]

It had become legal advice, not just “guidance,” or “commentary,” or “analysis.”  It was confidential, tailored to one entity, and protected by attorney-client privilege.

This is the challenge with fair use questions: they turn on numerous precise details.

That said, I can say that the bare-bones scenario above gives a few reasons to be cautious.  The use of the entire work, and the display in a public area, are red flags.

But I also want to caution you about too much caution.  Both those risk factors: use of the entire work, public display—could be easily balanced by an exercise in compare-and-contrast, substantive criticism, or in-depth analysis.

This is why an educational institution should always use a “fair use checklist”[2] to address questions of fair use.  An educational institution that uses a checklist has a good chance of determining that a use is “fair,” and while doing so, also creates documentation showing that their conclusion—even if later ruled to be erroneous—was in “good faith.”  This exercise can limit damages, later.

The most recent case law involving use of a photograph in an academic setting, Reiner v. Nishimori,[3] did result in a finding of fair use, and is an instructive example.  In that case, students used the plaintiff’s copyright-protected stock photograph to practice making advertisements.

Here is the court’s analysis of the case, using the fair use “four factor” test:

1. The first factor is “purpose and character of the use.”  For that factor, the court held that because the photo was not being used as instructional material, but rather as raw content for the generation of mock advertisements, the factor was in favor of fair use.
2. The second factor, however, “the nature of the copyrighted work,” was found to weigh slightly against fair use, since the original work was “creative,” and the student use was also “creative.”[4]
3. The third factor, “the amount of work used,” was against fair use because the students used entire photograph.
4. The fourth factor, “the effect on the market for the copyrighted work,” was found to support a fair use claim.  Basically, in this precise instance, it was found by the court that no one who would have purchased or licensed the original would choose not to do so based on the students’ use.

That’s Reiner v. Nishimori, where fair use carried the day.  But with a few tweaks of the facts, it could have had a different outcome.

And that’s while you may never know the real answer to this question.

[1] This makes it sound like it was rated “R.”  I assure you, the content was PG.  It was just legal advice.

[2] A very good example can be found here: https://copyright.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Fair_Use_Checklist.pdf

[3] Reiner v. Nishimori No. 3:15-cv-00241 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 28, 2017)

[4] This factor routinely messes up judges, and I personally disagree that “creative” works might qualify for more protection that laboriously and carefully assembled facts.  But I am not a judge!