Fair Use

Sometimes, an instructor will try and solve both these problems by removing the book from the syllabus, while keeping a few choice materials on hand from the instructor copy supplied by the publisher. This seems like a win-win: the students have one less book to buy, while the lecture notes, visual aids, and LMS can carry forward the valuable content retained by the instructor. But is this scenario allowed?

The answer lies in the specific product’s license. And while there are countless publishers with every permutation of license, that answer will probably be: NO.

How can this be? Isn’t it Fair Use? Didn’t the institution or instructor already buy the materials?

This is where things get interesting.

First: how can this be? It is a very deliberate tactic by the publisher. Responding to a market resisting expensive textbooks, academic publishers are always developing new ways to incentivize purchasing. One technique is selling student materials “coupled” to instructor-side materials via a license. The license conveys a copy, rights of duplication, and perhaps digital sharing for instructor-side materials, conditioned on a requirement that the textbook be “adopted” (officially required) in the course syllabus. The instructor, who is getting free materials, adds the book, and the contractual requirement is met (until it isn’t).

This approach is some pretty clever lawyering (and marketing), since it uses copyright, often some trademark, and a lot of contract law to give instructors more rights than they have under copyright law (to duplicate, upload, etc)…and then yanks those rights away, if the book is no longer required. The fact that these rights are financially under-written by students is one of the unsung tensions of higher ed.[1]

Second: Fair Use. There are many circumstances in which limited duplication of instructor-side materials could qualify as Fair Use (teaching a course critically analyzing instructor-side materials would be one of them). But simply continuing to use the rights from a license the purchaser has departed from (by no longer adopting the textbook into the syllabus) is not one a Fair Use…it’s just a violation of the contract, and potentially, of copyright. Both could bring penalties; one contractual, and one statutory.

Finally, “First Sale Doctrine”: Some rights to the instructor-side hard copy might be retained under the “First Sale Doctrine,” which allows purchasers to re-sell, read, and retain physical copies once they are in the market.[2] But beware…the license could contain a contractual requirement to return the instructor-side materials when the license is no longer valid (this would be done through a rental or other restricted acquisition provision).

The answer to a question like this is almost always in the specific license from the publisher.[3] Deviation from those terms, unless there is a very clear case of Fair Use, is not wise.

[1] My tone is cynical, but on the flip side, this is how the authors and creators of instructional works get paid. We can discuss the equities of this system another day!

[2] The First Sale Doctrine is taking a beating from the increasing reliance on digital copies. But that is yet another topic, for another day!

[3] Something our member suggested, when posing the scenario. WNYLRC has savvy members.

When digitizing radio broadcasts for online (not-for-profit, academic) access, there are a number of legal issues to consider: intellectual property, contract, privacy, preservation, etc.  But the question focuses on copyright, so this answer does, too. 

And that answer is…yes, including copyright-protected songs[1] in digitized broadcasts poses a risk of an infringement claim--but that risk does not need to trump the basis for preserving the broadcast in the first place.

How does the law help a digital archive strike that balance?  Here are some options:

Option 1: If the copyrighted songs are not important to the broadcast, and can be removed without affecting the integrity of the broadcast, remove them.

If the basis for preserving and providing access to the broadcasts (capturing a moment in time, showing a spirit, confirming an approach) is not served by the presence of the songs, the best legal option might be to remove them, noting the redactions in a manner appropriate to the archive.

That said, I can only imagine a few scenarios where this is this case.  So, next we have…

Option 2: Ask for acknowledgement of Fair Use, and permission

If not onerous, asking the copyright holder to acknowledge the Fair Use of their valid copyright, and to consent to such use in case later rights holders disagree, can be a wise step. 

HOWEVER, as it can alert an owner to a potential claim, this should only be attempted with careful, customized input by an attorney, with due consideration as to how to avoid making an adverse admission, and what the implications could be if the rights to the song are later transferred (since one person’s Fair Use is another person’s rip-off). 

Most importantly, such acknowledgement should only be sought prior to the recordings being posted.  That is because the library, museum, or archive may want to protect their ability to simply claim…

Option 3: Fair Use

Including the songs could be non-infringing if the use meets the requirements of “Fair Use.”[2]  This is a posture taken by many online archives, and with good reason: Fair Use is a creature of both case law, and convention, so for most scholars and librarians, it is important to hold the Fair Use line, letting the world know that this important exception to infringement is alive and well.

That said, a “Fair Use” defense is assessed via a four-factor analysis (see the footnote); in this type of case, each broadcast recording and song would be subject to its own analysis.

While there is no case law directly on point, the recent case of Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ltd. P’ship, 737 F.3d 932 (4th Cir. 2013), which involved the use of a proprietary logo during a documentary film, states “[f]air use…protects filmmakers and documentarians from the inevitable chilling effects of allowing an artist too much control over the dissemination of his or her work for historical purposes.” [emphasis added].

Using option 3 will require some clear-eyed assessment by the project leaders and institutional decision-makers.  Is the entire song truly necessary to preserve the integrity, spirit and tone of the original?  Does the overall recording transform the song into something different than its original?  Does the manner in which the recording is presented make is difficult for the new version to supplant the market for the original? If not, the library, museum, or archive might want to consider…

Option 4: Fair Use “Lite”

With the Fair Use “Lite” approach, the institution would redact all but the first and last moments of the copyright-protected song (leaving any parts the hosts/guest are talking over) claiming Fair Use for the remaining portions.  This could be done by a fade-in, fade-out technique, or another aural cue that the recording is departing from the original.

If it doesn’t destroy the integrity of the project, “Fair Use Lite” is worth considering, because the smaller the portions of the songs, the stronger your Fair Use claim might be, since factor 3 will weigh more in your favor.  If there is any original dialogue over the song, that, too, can be left, with a claim that the content is “transformative” (factor 1).

If the decision is made to keep the recordings intact, or to use at least part of them, it may be helpful to have the basis for the claim available to the public; something like:

These recordings capture an important moment in time.  The songs played, content shared, and material included in these revealing broadcasts were all selected by the original broadcasters for a reason; these digital versions are valuable because they paint an accurate and complete picture of the sound and feel of the times.

To the extent any proprietary material is present, its inclusion in this larger work is a Fair Use, warranted by the importance of presenting the material as a whole.  Critically, please note that this use is not-for-profit, for educational purposes, and no commercial use of this content is made, nor allowed.  If any content or restriction in this archive concerns any person, please contact NAME, at EMAIL.

And finally: prior to posting any digital archive, if it is an option, an institution should consider registering the copyrights to the MP3 files.  This will position the institution to enforce any restrictions it places on use of the sound recording (like disallowing commercial use)…even if the purpose of the digital archive is to promote access and dissemination of the material!

As more audio content is archived and stored for cultural, historic, and academic purposes, this issue will grow.  I expect we may have some case law directly on point soon.

[1] When confronted with this issue, it is worthwhile to take a close look at the songs involved.  Some pre-1972 sound recordings do not have copyright protection, an issue playing out in what is known as the “Flo & Eddie” line of cases (just look up Floe & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., and you’ll see what I mean).  Of course, the underlying musical composition might be protected, even when the recording is not…but the recording may be less protected than you think!

[2] Congress provides a list of four factors that guide the determination of whether a particular use is a fair use. Those 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. 17 U.S.C.S. § 107. These factors cannot be treated in isolation from one another, but instead must be weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright. This balancing necessitates a case-by-case analysis in any fair use inquiry. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's precedents have placed primary focus on the first factor. A finding of fair use is a complete defense to an infringement claim: the fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright. 17 U.S.C.S. § 107.

LIBRARIAN:  We have that copy Moulin Rouge you wanted!

PATRON:  Thank you!  I am planning to generate a version of it with my commentary over it. 

LIBRARIAN:  How interesting.  Are you planning to get permission, or claim Fair Use?

PATRON:  Um…?

LIBRARIAN:  Perhaps you would be interested in this book on copyright, too.   

It is professionally appropriate for librarians to promote awareness of copyright, trademark, and the other laws that govern the use of content.  But what can happen next can be risky:

PATRON:  Thank you for the copyright book!  I am pretty sure my use will be considered “Fair.”  What do you think?

LIBRARIAN:  I am so glad you found the book helpful.  As to any use of the DVD we provided…that is a question for your lawyer.

Unfortunately, the most attentive librarians are often the closest to this exposure, since they are the most dogged about providing access—exploring the furthest reaches of Fair Use and Section 108 to do it.  However, it also means that the pressure to go one step beyond, and advise the patron about what they intend to do with the materials, may be frequent.  When it occurs, 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. 

In the event any of the service happens in writing, it is helpful to confirm this in writing.  This doesn’t have to read like an official “notice,” but can simply be a nice note:

Hi [NAME].  We were glad to help you find [RESOURCE].  As I mentioned, if you have legal concerns about the material you borrowed, you should consult an attorney.

By that way, I am not suggesting that every patron question needs a disclaimer! But for those areas where librarians are actively applying intellectual property law, or providing access to law-related resources, the boundaries of excellent service and legal advice can blur.  Users, who have a high-trust relationship with their librarians, might not appreciate that boundary. Tightening the focus and emphasizing it protects the patron, protects the institution, and protects the librarian.

[Note:  The syllabus, which set out the basis for compiling recipes from a variety of regions and cooking styles, was also provided as part of this analysis.]

At first glance, this looks like a simple “Fair Use” question: is it okay, for use in a class, to copy and compile recipes from different sources and regions?  But this scenario is also a stealth “Section 102” [1] question: what exactly constitutes copyrightable subject matter?

We’ll take the “102 Question” first: is what the instructor duplicated entitled to copyright protection by a potential plaintiff? 

Answer: Since the duplicated materials are very simple recipes, without photos, lengthily narratives, or illustrations, probably not.  Per well-established case law [2], a plain, unadorned recipe, which is effectively a set of instructions with very little creative expression, is not sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection. [3]

We’ll take the Fair Use question next: if any of the recipes do have enough original expression to be protected by copyright (let’s say one has a cool picture of Jacques Pepin in the background), is copying them and compiling them together a Fair Use?

Librarians know, perhaps better than anyone, that Fair Use is a shifting exception to copyright infringement where the purpose, character, amount, and effect of the use all must be weighed to arrive at an answer.  In this case, with the recipes taken from a variety of sources, and arranged to support a compare-and-contrast cooking experience at a not-for-profit educational institution, if only very little from each original source was taken, there is a strong Fair Use argument to be made.  And of course, that argument would only need to be in defense of a claim based on content meeting the requirements of Section 102!

So, back to the original questions: is the posting permissible?  The answer is: most likely, yes!  However, the safest thing for the faculty member and the institution to do, going forward, would be to generate newly typed, bare-bones versions the recipes [4] (it’s one thing to know you’re right, it’s another to not get sued in the first place).  I would also advise they leave any maps, images, or other separately copyrightable materials that can easily be sued on, out, unless they have permission to use them.

And finally, regarding the issue of acknowledgment: unless the original author or publisher used a “Creative Commons” license allowing duplication with attribution, there is no need to attribute the source…if anything, attribution is helpful evidence for a plaintiff, and not particularly helpful to a defendant.  So there is most likely no benefit to crediting the source…although in academia, of course, citation is at the very least a professional courtesy, as well as a gateway to credibility.

[1] 17 U.S.C. Section 102 is the section of the Copyright Code that defines and lists copyrightable subject matter.

[2] Publications International, Limited, v. Meredith Corporation, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7^th Circuit…a case is worth reading both for its clear explanation of the idea/expression dichotomy, and for the Judge’s commentary on the yogurt-based recipes allegedly infringed by the defendant.

[3] This is why cookbooks often have photos, fun commentary, and a stylized way of giving instructions…the author and publisher are making sure they can protect the work.

[4] This is rather liberating advice to give.  In most cases, I can’t advise generating re-typing versions of a publication to avoid a claim of infringement.  But if you’re just listing “required ingredient and the directions for combining them to achieve final products,” (see the above-cited case) without taking someone’s original narrative, pictures, or other creative elements, and not copying their web site or other digital elements, you’re home free.

You are not wrong in your thinking.  You are protecting your institution.   Further, by educating your faculty, you are helping them educate students.

That said, you are up against a tough issue.  It is one of the strongest copyright myths out there: the strident belief that if a copy is for educational and/or a not-for-profit use, it can’t be an infringement. [1]

Of course, all myths come from somewhere, and the origin of this one is easy to pinpoint: Fair Use—an exemption from infringement—considers educational and commercial factors. 

But librarians and other information professionals know that Fair Use involves additional factors, and requires case-by-case analysis.   To Illustrate this (and helping faculty), many larger higher education institutions maintain excellent, easy-to-use guides. 

Here are some of the better ones I couldn’t presume to improve upon:

NYU

Columbia

Stanford

Harvard

Given the wealth of excellent material out there already, I have nothing new to add, unless you would find posting this short, punchy bit of doggerel helpful:

When it comes to coursepacks, here’s the rule:

Copyright applies in school.

Sure, not-for-profit education

Can help a “Fair Use” designation,

But articles, books, and chapters used

Without a license can get us sued.

Ten percent is no sure guide…

Fair Use factors slip and slide!

So if the work’s not satirized,

Nor juxtaposed, nor criticized--

But copied just to help them learn--

Then I’m afraid we must be stern.

Don’t become some lawyer’s mission!

Let us help you get permission.

(After all…

If someone used your dissertation,

Perhaps you’d want some compensation?)

You have a license from me to post this, if it will help.  Sometimes a short couplet can succeed where charts and paragraphs fail (but maybe leave off that last part). 

I wish you a strong heart, and much support, as you protect and guide your institution.

Comments and shaky poetry © Stephanie Adams (2017)

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

[1] This is unfortunate, because Fair Use does offer a great deal of protection to academia, as can be seen in the recent case https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/cambridgeuniv-becker-11thcir2016.pdf.  But it is not a simple or over-arching protection!

This question starts with 17 USC 108(c), which allows for duplication of “obsolete,” formats, but limits the accessibility of digitized copies “to the premises” of the library. 

The inquiring library set out the other 108(c) factors: the obsolescence of VHS (manufacture stopped in 2016), the lack of commercially available copies, and the published nature of the work.  So as you say, what’s left to determine is:  Does the “premises” of a library in an educational institution include the whole campus?

“Premises” is not defined in the Copyright Code, nor is it commented on in the lawmaking notes (vis-à-vis this question).  I found no case law directly on point.  So we’ll go to the lawyer’s last resort: common sense.

Section 108’s bar on digitized preservation copies leaving the premises of the library is very rigid, and it is likely the boundaries of your library are, too.  If the library has a finite space that is reported in things like strategic plans, accreditation reports, and campus maps, then the “premises” would most likely be deemed to end at the door, not flow throughout the campus.  A quick search on this issue show this is the emerging consensus.  So yes, the DVD’s you make as a result of this format shift are, at first, trapped in your library [1].

This creates a ridiculous conundrum: you need to shift the format so the educational material may be accessed, now that the format is no longer supported.  But in transferring the information to a digital format, you are shackling it to the premises.  How can you provide access?

You have two options:

First, it is important to remember that the shift of format does not necessarily change the license your institution purchased when it first acquired the VHS tapes.  This is a point strongly emphasized in both 108, and the lawmaker notes accompanying it.  If your institution had a license to use the copies for classroom room, directly from the owner/publisher, that license might survive the shift.  That could be determined from the purchase records or license text on the video itself.

Second, the Association of Research Libraries’ “Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research Libraries” was drafted, in part, to address this situation (see page 18).  In the Code, the ARL posits that when a preservation copy is made, further access can be granted under Fair Use.  This does come with limits however: “off-premises access to preservation copies circulated as substitutes for original copies should be limited to authenticated members of a library’s patron community, e.g., students, faculty, staff, affiliated scholars, and other accredited users.”  Further, the Code states that preservation and Fair Use copies should not be accessed simultaneously, and technology controls should be used both label the copy as required by 108, and to restrict further duplication.

This Fair Use solution to your problem has been adopted into the published policies of many institutions (here are a few examples [2]).   As there is no case law on point, I cannot say it is a slam-dunk defense, but I can say that if you adopt your own policy for carefully following this emerging standard practice, and then document that you follow it as you embark on this journey to ensure continued access to educational material you rightfully purchased, you will be in good company if content owners decide to sue for infringement, and recent case law about fair use will likely weigh in your favor.

There is a good deal of writing and advocacy on this issue, and hopefully in another few years, I will have a more definitive answer to give you!

[1] The Section 110 exemption for “classroom use,” requires that the viewed copy be “lawfully made,” and your digital copy, to be “lawfully made,” must stay on site.  So I do not feel safe advising you to use that route…although it is uncharted territory.

[2] http://www.library.unt.edu/policies/copies-printing-and-copyright/applying-copyright-section-108c-unt-media-library-collection

http://www.uccs.edu/Documents/copyright/Copyright%20and%20Video%20in%20Libraries_v2.pdf

http://www.stonehill.edu/library/about-the-library/library-policies/vhs-digitization-procedures/

Aside from my general admiration of libraries, one of reasons I relish “Ask the Lawyer” is the chance to answer questions that might never otherwise come my way.  This question is one of those!

Could duplication of an entire copy of a work for use in a court case meet the requirements of Fair Use?

Case law says… yes, it could. In a 2003 case [1], a court found that duplicating an entire copy of a plaintiff’s autobiography, so it could be submitted as evidence of his bad character (he admitted to intentional homicide), was a Fair Use. In 2014, it was found that duplication of extensive content from a blog, introduced as evidence of an alleged ethics violation, was Fair Use.[2] And back in 1982, bootleg copies of erotic films, created to bolster a nuisance claim, were also found to be “fair.” [3]

These cases, and others like them, draw from legislative history and precedent stating that the reproduction of copyright-protected works for litigation or other judicial proceedings often meets the “Fair Use” criteria.  So…the lawyers who have made this request of your archives, if they make this copy, should be able to defend their actions.

That said, Fair Use depends on the complex interaction of four separate “factors” which in this case will largely out of the library’s control.  What if the firm posts the content online?  What if it is used in PR material related to the case?  As a part of the chain of duplication, the library could then be implicated in an action based on a use not previously disclosed to them.

The right of libraries and archives to make whole copies, without worrying if the Fair Use criteria are met, is governed by Section 108 of the Copyright Code.  Section 108 provides a precise formula for making—and providing—one hard copy of a published work:

[T]hat the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;

AND

[That] the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price;

AND

[That] the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.*

Applying these criteria is tough.  While the advantage to be gained from the duplication is unlikely to be a direct “commercial advantage” (although perhaps there will be a commercial benefit to the court case), is the proposed use for litigation “private?”  Can it be determined if another, commercial copy is available? Further, the request that it be in digital format speaks to ease of further duplication, and this part of 108 is not about format-shifting.

The bottom line: unless you are satisfied that this “108 criteria” are met, since the Fair Use factors will be out of your archive’s control, the best bet is just what you suggest: let the attorneys make the copy themselves! 

*NOTE:  Different criteria would apply if this work was unpublished, or if the duplication was for preservation or ADA access purposes.

[1] Bond v. Blum, 317 F.3d 385 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 540 U.S. 820

[2] Denison v. Larkin, 64 F. Supp. 3d (N.D. Ill. 2014)

[3] Jartech, Inc. v. Clancy, 666 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1982)

It’s 2017.  Digital access to academic resources having been a factor in academic life for over 20 years, it would be reasonable to think I would have clear, well-established guidance to give you.

However, as of 2016, the United States was still struggling with Fair Use, and the law doesn’t give us the bright-line rules we are hoping for.   Rather, particularly with regard to textbooks and digital access, recent case law has diminished them.

Very comparable to the circumstances you described is the case Cambridge University Press v. Mark P. Becker No. 1:08-cv-01425-ODE (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2016).  In Cambridge, a court in Georgia, after trying to use a simpler, equally weighted Fair Use analysis, and relying on the ill-fated “10% standard” of duplication, ruled that when creating digital copies/excerpts of textbooks:

(1) the first factor, purpose and character of the use, weighs in favor of fair use because [a university] is a nonprofit educational institution;

(2) the second factor, the nature of the work, is “of comparatively little weight…particularly because the works at issue are neither fictional nor unpublished;”

(3) the third factor, the amount of work used, must be viewed through the lens of “the impact of market substitution as recognized under factor four, in determining whether the quantity and substantiality . . .of [d]efendants’ unlicensed copying was excessive;” and

(4) the fourth factor, the effect of the use on the potential market for the work, “concern[ed] not the market for Plaintiffs’ original works . . . but rather a market for licenses.”

This case shows that a when it comes to textbooks, while courts will give strong deference to educational institutions, there is no “magic formula” (like 10% of the content) they will apply to ensure Fair Use.  Rather, courts will apply a nuanced analysis that changes from work to work, and from use to use—making general guidance a challenge.

With all that in mind, my answer to the inquiry is:

First, the ability of the student/patron to physically access or check out the book is a great service by your library; with the required copyright notices posted, and no attempt by the library to collude with students in making prohibited copies, you are taking good advantage of section 108’s exemptions of libraries from liability for infringement.  In addition, providing access to textbooks within the structure outlined above is a great incentive for students to visit the library.

Second, your actual question—can my library use digital access to help students who were late registrants or otherwise unable to secure a physical or full digital copy?—requires application of the Fair Use factors on a work-by-work basis, which as we can see, is an increasingly intricate and fact-specific exercise.   You must apply the four factors not just on a work-by-work basis, but while considering the specific purpose of a particular use.

There are also some practical tips that can help you avoid being sued for infringement.

Tip #1: To answer questions like this, I always put myself in the shoes of the potential plaintiff.

· If I were the publisher, would I view the digitized access as cutting into my potential revenues? 

· Is there an easily obtainable license for the excerpt, that the library is just choosing to ignore?

· Can I, as the publisher, easily put a price on the damages? 

All these factors, if the answer is “yes,” can lead to the publisher instructing their lawyer to file suit. 

However, even if all of these are true, I, the publisher, would also ask…did every person who accessed the digital copy already have a copy on back-order (and not return it)?   If they bought my book, and were only using the digitization as a place-holder, I, the publisher, would tell my lawyer to look elsewhere for damages…especially since when I, the publisher lose, I am responsible for the legal fees of the other party (in the Cambridge case, the publisher was told to pay the fees of the university).

Tip #2: It is unfortunate that, like the courts, I can’t give a simple formula for Fair Use.  However, one way you can sometimes get a bit of “free” advice on this is to consult with your institution’s insurance carrier.  It is very likely your institution is insured for copyright infringement, and that they have a list of best practices they would like to ensure you, the insured, are following.  As a professional within the library, it is good to also confirm that this coverage will cover not only the institution, but you as an employee.  That can help you sleep at night.

Tip #3: And finally, if ever an entity notifies you that they are suing you for infringement, notify your insurance carrier right away.  Often times, they can provide counsel, and help you reach a quick, low-stress resolution.

This is a great question, as it occupies the crossroads of the specific exceptions for libraries and archives in the copyright code, the elements of fair use, and an essential aspect of a library’s mission: dissemination of information. So, I am a bit sorry to say the answer is most likely: NO.

That said, there is a “YES” along the way, and with careful analysis, the two answers can be kept separate.

How is that?  First, you have to see the query as not one question, but two.
 

•  FIRST QUESTION:  Is a library allowed to provide a copy of an article to a patron? 
   
   ANSWER:  YES. With careful attention to the factors that apply only to libraries and archives (Section 108 of the  Copyright Code), a copy of the article can be provided.
   
•  SECOND QUESTION: Is it a fair use for the patron to then distribute a digital copy via an access-restricted portal?
  
  ANSWER:  NO.  Even when the user is a not-for-profit trying to stretch budget dollars and educate its workforce, when a patron is essentially trying to provide broad access but circumvent a licensing fee [1], the elements of fair use are not met.

LIBRARY COPIES V. FAIR USE

Part of this analysis depends on appreciating the subtle differences between Section 108 (exceptions for libraries and archives), and Section 107 (fair use).

Here is the formula for a library to provide an authorized copy of an article under Section 108:

• The copy must become the property of the user;
• The library or archives has had no notice that the copy would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and
•  The library or archives displays a warning of copyright as required by law.

Here are the factors used to analyze fair use under Section 107:

• The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• The nature of the copyrighted work;
• The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Note the difference between Section 108’s simpler, formulaic elements (providing a bright-line rule for providing an authorized library copy), versus the complex, inter-connected fair use factors (which most will agree provide anything but a bright line). Commentary on the Copyright Code shows this is a deliberate difference, and the effect is a positive one for libraries: whether or not subsequent patron duplication of a “Section 108 copy” meets the elements of fair use, a section 108 copy is authorized so long as Section 108’s much simpler elements are met.

A library’s provision of an authorized copy does NOT depend on the patron’s subsequent fair use.  Section 108’s provisions stand alone, and on much easier-to-analyze ground.  However, absolutely key to Section 108 is the library’s lack of notice regarding a patron’s intent to use the copy for anything more than private study/scholarship.  

If, during the consultation, the patron discloses intent to use the copy to create their own mass distribution, the use will not qualify under Section 108, and infringement could be found. Just as critically, providing a copy once the library was aware of a further intent to copy could also run afoul of the fourth commitment in the Code of Ethics of the American Library Association: “We respect intellectual property rights and advocate balance between the interests of information users and rights holders.”

Because of this “notice factor,” Section 108 might be easier in theory than it is in practice. Patrons seeking information often use librarians as co-strategists in whatever project they are working on [2].  During such quests, a librarian’s awareness of the full extent of patron needs can be helpful, so there is often a discussion of not only what is sought, but why. This type of discussion may lead to better service, but if it leads to notice of a patron’s intent to put an article on an intranet or portal, the librarian can be put in a legally and ethically awkward position. 

So…you are right to be cautious! Thank you for a great question.

[1] If the article isn’t commercially available, or the article is being parodied or provided as an example of “what not to do”--basically anything other than its simple face value as an educational tool--the fair use analysis would be different. But we’d need the precise factors from the patron.

[2] There is one other complication worth mentioning on this FAQ forum. For academic or other libraries operating within a larger institution, if the requesting party is simply another part of your organization, Section 108 is more difficult to credibly apply, so caution is needed. 

We’ll start out with the best advice: unless you stand on the legal high ground of a disability accommodation or a crumbling single copy unavailable in the original medium, when it comes to creating a new format of a work, written permission from the copyright owner is always best.  That is the gold standard.  If you have permission, the blood, sweat, and tears (or stress, more likely) of a Fair Use analysis are not needed.

This scenario does not occupy any legal high ground.  For a library in this position—dealing with the increasing rarity of VHS players—there is great guidance out there from the Association of Research Libraries’ “Code of Best Practices in Fair Use”: Here is what the code has to say on this issue…

Even when libraries retain the originals of preserved items, digital surrogates can spare the original items the wear and tear that access necessarily inflicts. Section 108 of the Copyright Act authorizes some preservation activities, but does not address some of today’s most pressing needs…[including] the transfer to new formats of materials whose original formats (such as VHS magnetic tape) are not yet obsolete (as the term is narrowly defined in section 108(c)) but have become increasingly difficult for contemporary users to consult.

Case law also acknowledges this VHS problem, but gives no relief: “Fair use has never been held to be a guarantee of access to copyrighted material in order to copy it by the fair user's preferred technique or in the format of the original.” (University Studios et al v. Corley, U.S. Court of Appeal 2nd Circuit, 2001).  This case is 15 years old, which means a lot has happened in the world of technology, but is still good law.

So the answer is, for now, unless you are making a disability accommodation, or faced with a crumbling copy, there is no iron-clad loophole or clear precedent to allow the proposed conversion to be a “fair use.” 

That said, if you have a deteriorating copy, a good-faith effort to re-purchase it in the original medium will certainly contribute to a fair use defense if you duplicate it to preserve this resource.

To help both you and your institution show that you have gone through this exercise, when you address such questions, I advise that you compose short emails to yourself, documenting the question, process, and conclusion.  A simple:

“Instructor stopped by today and asked if we could convert VHS in the collection to DVD for ease of access.   I let her know we’ll try to purchase a copy on DVD or seek permission of the copyright holder to make a copy on DVD.” 

 OR

 “Instructor stopped by today and asked if we could convert VHS to a format that would allow Deaf student to view closed-captioned version; we are arranging conversion solely to allow reasonable accommodation under the ADA.”

 OR

“Instructor pointed out that VHS tape in collection was not working right.  [Co-worker] and I verified the condition.   As best practices state it is fair use to make digital copies of collection items that are likely to deteriorate, or that exist only in difficult-to-access formats, for purposes of preservation, and to make those copies available as surrogates for fragile or otherwise inaccessible materials, the library will create a back-up copy, UNLESS a fully equivalent digital copy is commercially available at a reasonable cost.  We will of course not provide access to or circulate original and preservation copies simultaneously.”

This July, various news outlets reported that the world’s last manufacturer of VCR’s has cease production.  Please check back on this issue; we’ll update this entry in the FAQ when we have better guidance, which should be coming soon.  Congress is working on new guidelines, and was recently told by the Register of Copyrights, Susan Pallante: “In its current state, Section 108 is replete with references to analog works and fails to address the ways in which libraries really function in the digital era, including the copies they must make to properly preserve a work and the manner in which they share or seek to share works with other libraries.”

U.S. Copyright Office. (2015, April 29). Maria A. Pallante United States Register of Copyrights and director of ... Testimonies. https://www.copyright.gov/laws/testimonies/042915-testimony-pallante.pdf