Fair Use

Friends, lawyers, librarians: as my former law school faculty will tell you, my fair use cup is always half full.  I err on the side of information wanting “to be free.”  And if I wrote copyright law, it would be a very different-looking regime.[1]

That said, for those of you reviewing the Public Statement of Library Copyright Specialists: Fair Use & Emergency Remote Teaching & Research, and considering its application to your institution, I want to urge a very precise caution—a precise caution I do not see in the Statement, and an absence I believe could cause undue risk to many[2].

Before I get into the caution, I want to say:

• I appreciate that “fair use” is in a constant state of warfare akin to a WWI fight for no-man’s land.[3]
• I appreciate that now may be the time to strike a blow against exploitive publishers, whose actions exploit academic professionals providing content, while driving up costs for students.  
• I appreciate that game-changing cases like Hathi Trust don’t happen unless someone decides to be bold.

But I am an in-the-trenches attorney.  I am not (and do not have the qualifications nor patience to be) an academic attorney nor a legislator.  In terms of this battle, I am a mere street-fighter.[4]  So here are my thoughts from the streets:

Fair use is a large concept, but its cases are fought on a case-by-case, content-specific basis.

So, if your institution chooses to accept the gambles posed by the Statement—that sometime in 2023, a court will find that a public health emergency impacts a fair use analysis, OR that in the coming recovery, academic publishers will be too wary of negative pushback[5] to sue a targeted few institutions to teach them a “lesson” about copyright[6]—use your institution’s “fair use checklist”[7] to document that you have made the determination to use a particular work, at a particular time, in that particular amount, in good faith.

Why?  If you are an educational institution, under Section 504 of the Copyright Act, even if the Statement’s arguments for fair use are found not to hold water, your good-faith determination could limit your damages.[8] [9]  That, in turn, will position your lawyers to ensure the case never sees the inside of the courtroom.  This is especially true since for those 504 (c)(2) covers, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (the publisher) to prove the bad faith of the defendant (who will hopefully not be you).  But again, this happens on a use-by-use, work-by-work basis.

I want to emphasize this step because in my experience, many smaller educational institutions and libraries do not have in-house copyright specialists, or lawyers, urging them to use a fair use checklist or similar documentation.  While for some institutions, a fair use checklist might be as assured a factor as, say, the fact that graduation happens in Spring,[10] at other places, the idea of documenting a fair use determination might not even be on the radar.

Of course, reading the signs in the wind,[11] my sense is that some people want this case to see the inside of a courtroom (and they are probably hoping for a 2^nd, 7^th, or 9^th circuit judge). Further, based on past fair use battles, my guess is some institutions have decided they will be the frontline warriors in the fight.  For those warriors, I wish you god speed, a keen eye, and a sharp (legal) spear.

For the rest of you, if you decide to follow the guidance in the Statement,[12] I urge you to go into it with your eyes wide open, to use extreme caution, to show you are fully considering the four fair use factors--and if you decide, on a case-by-case basis, that you have a fair use, save the documentation.

[1] For instance, the exclusive rights held by non-original authors would diminish much, much sooner.  Fair use factors would also be much different.  Oh, and the whole area of law would consider modern technology. 

You know, some simple changes!

[2] Or rather, the select, targeted few the academic publishing companies will choose to teach a lesson.

[3] I am listening to the soundtrack for “Wonder Woman” right now, so trench warfare is on my brain.

[4] Many of the Endorsers and Signatories are Generals, or at least Captains, in this fight.

[5] A consideration for public regard I have not seen them overly cautious about, to date.  But who knows?  Maybe this will be their Ebenezer Scrooge moment.

[6] AKA in the publishing biz as “protecting our rights.”

[7] I have always loved this one: https://copyright.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Fair_Use_Checklist.pdf. Cornell, my friends (maybe it’s because I am from Central New York).

[8] Section 504(c)(2) provides that where an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, infringed copyrighted material in the honest belief that what they were doing constituted fair use, the court is precluded from awarding any statutory damages. It is intended that, in cases involving this provision, the burden of proof with respect to the defendant’s good faith should rest on the plaintiff.

[9]Yes, I am linking to Cornell’s site for the citation to 504, and the Statement has both a Cornell Endorser and a Signatory.  Cornell is a mighty copyright fortress and their participation is one of many signs that this document says “bring it.”

[10] Well, it used to.  We are dealing with uncertain times.

[11] A dramatic-sounding way to say “reading comments online.”

[12] Which many lawyers, including myself, will struggle with.  Lawyers can be creative and bold, but unless our clients tell us they are willing to take a risk, we are creatures of precedent.

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)

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.

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!

Some of the trickiest copyright questions I get relate to student work.

Why are they tricky?  Because of a self-imposed rule I have: find a way for the work to be done;  don’t let copyright interfere with art and science.[1]  In other words, our copyright glass of scholarship should be half full…of scholarship, not fear of lawsuits.

That said, most readers of this column will know that “educational use” does not justify the wholesale infringement of works, even if the purpose is scholarship.  To use a work without permission, the use must meet the criteria of “fair use.”[2]

But I’m getting ahead of the question.  Let’s bring it back to the beginning.

What’s the tricky issue here?  In this scenario, the band “released various music videos,” and asked the public to create new works based on the old, for entry into a contest.[3]

The band was essentially asking the public to create “derivative works,” which are new works based around a copyright-protected original (think movie sequels, musicals based on books, and paintings of paintings).

The faculty member plans to retain copies and direct students to use them after the completion of the contest, both for assignment and portfolio purposes.  Is that cool?

Now, if the band’s videos were expressly put into the “public domain” for the contest (meaning: no copyright protection) the question ends here. If the clips aren’t protected by copyright, the faculty member’s plans are just fine (it’s cool).[4]

Further, if the band gave a perpetual, irrevocable permission to any person who generates a new video using the clip, to use the clip for whatever reason they want, the question also ends here (again, retain the copy and using it as planned is cool).

But if instead, the band kept the videos protected by copyright,[5] and gave the public permission for only a limited amount of time (say, the duration of the contest), for a limited amount of purposes (say, for entering the contest), then yes, we are in a “danger zone” (not cool).[6]

However, before I agree that the ideal solution is to get the copyright owner’s position, I do want to make a case for fair use, which allows people to use copyrighted works in way that would otherwise be infringing (make copies, make derivative works, and even at times to sell them).

Based on the scenario described, it is not clear if the retention of copies as described in the scenario would be a fair use.  It would have to be justified under the four fair use factors, with the school and student being able to show that the retention of a complete copy and use of the clip for assignment and student portfolio purposes was justified.

The way for a school to do this is to use their fair use assessment form[7] and retain a copy.

To me, aside from the legal concerns, this is also an ethical issue.  A faculty member should not encourage a student to unknowingly infringe another’s copyright, especially if they know that student might include that work in an online portfolio of work.  This could put the student in legal trouble that is independent from the liability of the school.

Students, as individuals, do not have the same protections that higher education professionals have.  Schools, if they conduct a bona-fide fair use analysis, can limit the damages from alleged infringement.  Schools also usually have insurance for this stuff.  Newly-minted B.A.’s and M.F.A’s typically do not have the same resources.  This means, when the student gets sued, they are in a much riskier place than the school or the faculty member.

All that said, remember the mantra: find a way for the work to be done;  don’t let copyright interfere with art and science.  What does this mean?  While being cautious to not promote infringement, a faculty member in a medium such as film, or music, should not let students operate in ignorance of fair use, which is so important to both mediums.  Without sampling, without artistic call-and-response, we suffocate creative innovation.

If that sounds complicated, it is!  I will be reaching out to this member to talk the specifics through (that part is confidential).

[1] Promotion of “science and the useful arts” is the reason we have IP law in the first place (see U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section I, Clause 8).

[2] Or Section 110(a) or (b) of the Copyright Act. But you can read out that here https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110.

[3] As gimmicks go, I like this one.  I wish my favorite author, Umberto Eco, had invited me to write a chapter of “The Name of the Rose.”  I would have had Adso and William fire-proof…uh, sorry, spoiler.

[4] I speak legally, not pedagogically.  I have no idea if this would be a good film class assignment; I was a Russian History/U.S. Constitutional law major at an experimental school with no grades or tests (Hampshire College).  Other than once attending a class on the classic film “Battleship Potemkin” and whatever skills can be gleaned from serially watching the musical “1776,” I have zero credentials to evaluate the curriculum of a film course.

[5] Which, by the way, the band might not even own.

[6] For the record, if I were the lawyer advising this band, the contest terms would have contained a clause allowing my client to revoke permission to use the clip and participate in the contest in the event an entry was contrary to their values (racist, sexist, transphobic, etc.). 

[7] More information using a Fair Use Assessment form can be found here: https://copyright.cornell.edu/fairuse

This question came in from a school system, and it triggered a lot of memories for me.

My junior high school music teacher was a very nice man.  From deep within mid-1980's Central New York, he tried to cobble together an orchestra from an array of students whose skills and practice habits ranged from "Julliard-bound," to "who is torturing that cat in the third violin chair?"

Back in 1986 (when I was 13), I saw this guy as "old."  Because of the way he tirelessly started the music over (and over) until the brass section[1] entered at the right bar of "Star Wars", I also saw him as a font of endless tolerance.

Now that I am older, my memory portrays my former teacher as a pretty young guy (I think he was in his early 30's).  And by now I have worked with enough educators to know that his tireless tolerance of our incompetence was passion.

So, this question has stirred a feeling of nostalgic gratitude.  Because of that,[2] I want to give this member an answer that is really solid, helpful, and clear.  But as they say in the construction biz when people ask for a job that is quick, quality, and cheap: I can give you a combination of any two, but not all three.

Here is the part of the answer that is solid and clear: Making a recording of a copyright-protected composition, unless the recorder has the permission of the copyright owner, or the recording falls under an exception, is copyright infringement…even for educational purposes.

Is there helpful and solid authority on that?  Yes. Circular 21, the long-standing guidance on the relevant copyright laws,[3] makes it clear that for educators, only the following recording of musical compositions is allowed under "fair use":

A single copy of recordings of performances by students may be made for valuation or rehearsal purposes and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher.

[AND]

A single copy of a sound recording (such as a tape, disc, or cassette) of copyrighted music may be made from sound recordings owned by an educational institution or an individual teacher for the purpose of constructing aural exercises or examinations and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher. (This pertains only to the copyright of the music itself and not to any copyright which may exist in the sound recording.)

So, at first blush, the answer to the member's first question (and thus, all the following questions) is: NO.

Now, the core guidance in Circular 21 is OLD.[4]  It pre-dates streaming, it pre-dates file-sharing, and depending on what start date you give the web, it pre-dates the Internet.  But insofar as case law and legal commentary is concerned, it abides.[5]

So, while I have to answer a resounding NO to the question just as it is asked, I can offer a few helpful and clear solutions.

First, it never hurts to ask.  Depending on the copyright holder, you may be able to get a "limited license" for the very thing you want to do.  Some owners might even be charmed.  Others, of course, will just refer you to their manager.  You never know until you try.  Just make sure you get it in writing.

Second, while the Circular 21 guidance quoted above gives clear examples of what fair use permits, on page 7 of Circular 21, just before listing those guidelines, it states "There may be instances in which copying which does not fall within the guidelines stated below may nonetheless be permitted under the criteria of fair use."

So, if a version has been recorded for performance as part of a clever mash-up, for purposes of commentary and criticism, or another use that might meet fair uses' four factors, this approach is worth considering.  Sadly, since that is a case-by-case analysis, I can't say what precisely when that is allowed!  An education institution should perform such an analysis using its fair use form.[6]

Third--and I can't believe I am suggesting this--it may be that a combination of different licensing can arrange this precise permission for you.

We'll call this the "Two-Step Shuffle" solution.  It is meant to be helpful, and it is solid, but I am concerned it might not be too clear.  But let's give it a go.

NOTE: to use the "Two-Step Shuffle" solution, your institution MUST have a public performance license from a licensor like ASCAP or BMI.  So, if your school doesn't have one, just stop reading, right now.  But if you do…

Step one: see if the song you want to record is licensed for "covers" on a publicly accessible "host site" like YouTube.[7]  If the host site[8] has the license, you can record the accompaniment as a "cover," and put it on the host site.

Step two:  With your "cover" recorded, you can then play it from YouTube at any premises that has a license for public performance (this is why you need that license from ASACP or BMI…which is also what covers playing music at a high school dance, music over the loudspeaker during halftime, etc.).

Of course, this being an Internet solution, the "Two-Step Shuffle" solution could disappear at any moment!  But this being the Internet, something else will take its place.

Now, in suggesting a school to make use of a commercial video hosting service (like YouTube), I would like to take a moment to discuss those two important legal concepts: "Coulda," and "Shoulda."

Just because a school can upload content to a site like YouTube, and get a license for a cover, doesn't mean it should.  After all, when using a service like YouTube, an institution agrees with these terms:

By providing Content to the Service, you grant to YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use that Content (including to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, display and perform it) in connection with the Service and YouTube’s (and its successors' and Affiliates') business, including for the purpose of promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service.

In other words, you're feeding the beast; you're commodifying the content you've chosen to share.  If it's student work, there are privacy and further intellectual property concerns (students own their copyrights, after all).  None of these are things an educator should take lightly.

That said, if approached with the right balance of attention to legal details and commitment to artistic excellence, the "Two-Step Shuffle" can also show future artists and performers how to respect copyright law and engage in self-promotion (which seems to be a critical skill  nowadays).  So "woulda, coulda, shoulda?"  If you undertake the "Two-Step Shuffle" solution, do it with an "ethics buddy" (preferably an administrator who has your back).

And of course, a "Two-Step Shuffle" solution can only be used if you can answer these questions in the affirmative, and you preserve the documents from which you derive your answers:

1. Do you have express permission from the host site to make and post the recording on the host site?
   1. If "yes," keep a copy of that permission.
2. Do you have express permission to perform the recording at the premises?[9]
   1. If "yes", keep a copy of that permission, too.

That second part pertains to any other school or place that wants to publicly use your recording, as well.

So, there you have it.  Was this solid and/or helpful and/or clear?  In keeping with my Junior High memories, I give myself a "B."

I do wish this answer was a little less like trying to get the brass to come in at the right bar of "Star Wars," but copyright, fair use, and licensing take time and attention to detail to get right.

That said, with enough passion to fuel the effort, I am confident you'll hit the right note.

[1] That was me.  I played trumpet.  And had braces. NOT a good combo.

[2] And because I have high standards.

[3] Circular 21, "Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians," which has been in use since my days playing trumpet, and arguably, could use some updating.  You can find it here: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf

[4] How old? It was first contained in a joint letter written by representatives of the Music Publishers’ Association of the United States, Inc., the National Music Publishers’ Association, Inc., the Music Teachers National Association, the Music Educators National Conference, the National Association of Schools of Music, and the "Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision" on April 30, 1976.  Of course, if I tell my younger sister that something from 1976 is "old," I'll catch hell, but fortunately, she teaches religious education, not music.

[5] A scenario such as the one depicted by the member doesn't even get any slack from educators' other great copyright reprieve: section 110.  While 110 does allow a variety of exceptions for musical performances, it doesn't extend its tolerance to recording.

[6] Something no not-for-profit educational institution should be without, since it can help your institution limit damages under Section 504 of the Copyright Act.

[7] As of January 13, 2020, YouTube maintains a list of licensed songs you can record and upload at https://www.youtube.com/music_policies?ar=1578920053089&nv=1.  And, also as of this January 13, 2020, YouTube (unlike Netflix or HULU) enables businesses to use their services (rather than restricting them for "personal" and "home" use).

[8] Insofar as I know, only YouTube does this.  But I need to get out more, and of course, this type of thing evolves quickly in cyberspace.

[9] This is different than permission to perform the musical composition!

Yes, I can point you in the right direction…but I can’t take credit for drawing the map!

Since it pertains to a local “Music Educators Association,” this question brought me on a pleasant journey into the chartered territory of the “New York State School Music Association,” a/k/a “NYSSMA.”

NYSSMA is the organization for school music educators in New York.  Its mission is to “advance music education across New York State for its membership and students in member school programs.” 

Like libraries, schools, and BOCES, NYSSMA is chartered by the Regents of the State of New York.  To enable meaningful participation on a local level, NYSSMA is broken into 15 zones. 

In the member’s question, it sounds like a local zone of NYSSMA is asking a local BOCES for assistance.

Since both entities are chartered by the Regents, this makes sense; it’s like your cousin asking if she can store tools in your garage.  Except in this case…you aren’t sure where your cousin got the tools.  Or who might ask to borrow them.

As the member points out, this uncertainly could be cause for concern.  This is particularly true because under copyright law, a license is required to not only duplicate music, but to perform it, so an entity providing unauthorized copies could experience more than one type of liability.

Fortunately, there are many helpful resources to address this, and the basics are set out in plain language on the page of NYSMMA’s national affiliate, the “National Association for Music Educators (“NAfME”).

On their helpful page, found at https://nafme.org/my-classroom/copyright/, NAfME outlines the basics of managing a music library for NYSSMA members. 

As stated by NAfME:

“Unlike most educators, music educators must face copyright compliance frequently throughout their career. Although the thought of copyright can be intimidating and a complex subject, NAfME has a multitude of resources that can help you better understand U.S. copyright law.”

How does an institution considering providing this service get started? Any institution considering housing a music library (or script library, or an architectural plans library, or anything that will be licensed and/or loaned under particular conditions) for another entity needs to do these three things:

            1.  Research and assess the full scope of what will be required;

            2.  When the full scope is known, develop a budget, policies, job descriptions and a contract (or term sheet) to support what is needed; and

            3.  Finalize the arrangements in a way that mitigates risk,[1] and makes the service effective and sustainable.

Since this type of analysis can reveal the complexities of what may seem like a simple service, it is not surprising to hear that at one point a fee was required for it!

As the resources on the NAfME site show, housing and managing a music library is potentially a very detailed endeavor.  And while technology has made some aspects of the tasks involved easier, any institution providing such a service will need to make it a part of someone’s job.

So, after reviewing the basics on the NAfME site, it would be good to have a forward-thinking and specific discussion that addresses the following:

• Whose property are the copies to be housed and managed?
• Are there copies of the original purchase agreements and licenses?
• How is the collection to be searched?
• How is the music loaned out?
• Who tracks copies on loan?
• What is the approach for unreturned copies?
• Who arranges for performance licenses, and who keeps copies of permission granted?
• How are new works accessioned?
• How are copies de-accessioned?
• How are damaged copies replaced?
• What is the value of the collection?
• What is the cost of the service?

In addressing these questions, it is important to note that NYSSMA has access to numerous copyright-related resources as a member of NAfME.  For instance, as noted on the NAfME “copyright” page: “Through an agreement with ASCAP and BMI, NAfME (or MEA) sponsored groups are granted performance rights of music managed by these organizations. (This covers only performances sponsored by NAfME or federated state associations of NAfME.) However, if members wish to record their students’ performance of any work, permission must be obtained through Harry Fox Agency.” 

So awareness of NYSSMA’s rights, as parties explore how they could assist with housing and managing a NYSSMA-owned collection, would be critical.  Solid and well-coordinated compliance with license terms would also be important.

I know this is just the overture to a full answer, but thank you for a well-composed question.[2]

Yes, syllabi and assignments can be protected by copyright, so long as they are of sufficient substance and originality.  

Of course, there is no precise formula for what constitutes “sufficient substance and originality.” However, a freshly-composed assignment of more than a paragraph or two should be enough to qualify for protection, and a typical syllabus—setting forth the course purpose, assignments, means of grading, and class-specific policies—should almost always qualify (even if wrapped up inside a larger institution-wide template to cover academic integrity, ADA accommodations, and grade appeal).

The trick, however, is know who—or what—owns that copyright.  Some institutions will claim ownership, since the content was generated by their faculty (a concept called “work for hire”).  But other institutions will expressly let their faculty own their work-product.  So, there is no one rule for determining ownership, and that means there is not one method for obtaining permission.

But do you need permission?  While that is always nice, in academia (just like anywhere else), not everyone is eager to have their own work assessed, and yet, there must be some way for analysis, commentary, and criticism of that work to be conducted.  Which bring us to every information professional’s favorite copyright concept: fair use.

Fair use is the ability to use copyright-protected materials for purposes of education, commentary, and criticism.  It was designed for projects like the one in this question.  But just like with determining ownership, there can be no cookie-cutter answer, for as one court put it: “Determining fair use is a mixed question of fact and law.”[1]

How can a project like the member’s address this “mixed question?” In a situation like the one presented by the member, here is a good approach:

Step 1:

Generate a careful summary or abstract of the project (which the member has done here), and the data collection methods. 

Step 2:

Consider how many copies of assignments/syllabi the project will need to make, how they will be stored, and the use your project will make of them.  If stored in hard copy, where will the copies be, how many must you create, and how will you restrict further duplication?  If digital, consider how the electronic copies will be accessed and secured, perhaps warning users on a user-limited shared drive to only use the copies for the purposes of the project, and to not disseminate them further. 

Step 3:

With all that assessed (but no copies yet made!), conduct and document a “fair use assessment,” using your institution’s policy and form for fair use (any research institution, or educational institution, should have these; for example, the great library team at Cornell has a well-developed checklist[2] for their faculty and staff to use when contemplating the use or partial use of copyright-protected materials).

Step 4:

If you determine the use will be “fair,” and decide to proceed with making only those copies you need for your project (and include only the content needed to prove your point in any final product) save the fair use assessment documentation, because under Copyright §504, a good-faith belief by a library, archives, or higher ed institution that it is making a fair use of protected materials can limit the damages in the event it is accused of infringement.[3]

So, to reiterate the answer to the core question: yes, assignments and syllabi can be protected.  But to expand from there: that protection should not be a roadblock to an academic work assessing them. While it might present a small “speed bump,” the law of fair use provides options that are consistent with good scholarship practices and rigorous inquiry.

I am curious to see your project’s conclusions.