Copyright

At "Ask the Lawyer," we have tackled "yearbook questions" before: in 2018[1] we addressed patron requests to copy physical yearbooks in a library's collection, and in January of 2020[2] we addressed using scanned yearbook images to illustrate a commemorative calendar. [3]

But I have been waiting for this question for quite some time, and I am sure this scenario has a familiar sound to many readers.

"Yearbook scanning"—the creation of digital versions of yearbooks previously available only in hard copy—has been happening for quite a while now.  However formal or informal such efforts might be, the end result (if made accessible) is a searchable, highly accessible collection of images of people in their formative years[4], who for whatever reason, might see the increased access to their former images as problematic.

Although we don't know the motivation of the person asking the member to remove their name from a digitized yearbook, this scenario shows the apex of this concern: a request to be removed.

At this "apex," a person can make a simple, single request to be removed.  Or, they can be persistent about it--making multiple requests, calls, letters, etc.[5]  Or, if they are available, they can make legal arguments.

I can think of several "legal" arguments a person could bring forward to remove their name from a yearbook in the manner described by the member:

• They are a victim of domestic violence trying to elude an abuser.
• They are a victim of stalking trying to elude their stalker.
• They have specific safety concerns based on the general public's easier access to the content.
• They have legally changed their name and identity for personal reasons.
• They have informally changed their name and identity for personal reasons.
• They feel the use of their image is commercial (not likely if the poster is a not-for-profit library that isn't charging for the content).
• The content is defamatory.[6]
• The content is the result of a crime.
• They have been the victim of identity theft and are attempting to optimize their privacy.[7]

Of course, asking for the "legal reason" a person is requesting removal from a digital, online yearbook puts the library in the uncomfortable position of having to evaluate the validity of the answer.  Let' not go there just yet; instead, let's take a closer look at the member's question:

If the library that scanned and uploaded the yearbook to the internet received permission from the high school to do so (the yearbook is tagged as In Copyright)[8] does the student have a reasonable request? [emphasis added]

The member has used a very, very important phrase to frame this question: "a reasonable request."

"Reasonable requests"—that is to say, requests that might not have slam-dunk legal footing, but still might be a good reason for removal—cannot be analyzed in a vacuum.  In this context, to determine if a request is "reasonable," it must be assessed against the backdrop of the hosting institution's mission, the purpose of the digital collection, and the values and ethics governing both.

That is why for libraries, archives, museums, and historical societies digitizing old yearbooks and other content that can impact living, breathing people, I advise every institution adopt a policy that 1) confirms that the goal of a digitization project aligns with the mission of the institution; 2) confirms how the content will be accessed (will it be added to the catalog to be checked out as an e-book, or be openly accessible as an online archive? etc.[9]; 3) confirms the ethics applicable to the project; and 4) creates an ethics-informed process for raising, evaluating, and acting on any concerns about the content.

For readers out there working in established archives, this ethical framework for selecting, preserving, and enabling access to archival content is already built into your institution's DNA.  However, for many libraries or smaller institutions that are now able to create online collections of easily accessed content through scanning, either to hold on their own servers, or to contribute to a larger initiative--with access unmediated by a library card or on-site access--it may be an area ripe for development. 

For those institutions just arriving at this phase, here is a short sample policy to govern the creation of digital content intended for open access:

Now, with those essential considerations backing us up, here are my thoughts on the member's questions:

A request for removal or redaction of digitized content should be evaluated against the mission and values of the library that created the digital content, the purpose of the digitization project, and the ethics governing the project.

In this case, if the person requested removal without giving a reason aligned with ethics of the library and/or the project, the request should be denied.  On the flip side, if the reason for the request does align with the relevant ethics, it should be redacted or removed.

Here's an easy example of this playing out in the real world:

Every "Code of Ethics" I have seen governing libraries and archives requires that the institution follow the law.  Therefore, if there is a legal reason for removal, it should be done.

Here's a less easy example of this playing out in the real world:

If the request is more vague, like "I just don't want people to be able to find out information about me,"[11] your institution needs to look at the values and ethics it has adopted.  Does personal autonomy and concern for the privacy of living people get a high priority?  If the answer is "yes", there should be a process for redaction or removal.  If the answer is "no," with more priority placed on the integrity of the material, unless there is a legal reason compelling removal, the answer should be, "Sorry, our role is to preserve and make accessible this record in its original form" (or other language regarding integrity of the records, taken from your library’s Code of Ethics).

Personally, although I don't think my yearbooks have anything to hide, I like the option of being able to remove myself from the record until I am dead.[12]  But in saying that, I am expressing a value, not a legal right, and value judgments are harder than legal conclusions.  That is why requests not rooted in solid legal reasons benefit from: a) the library having a strong, consistent guide, like a Code of Ethics; b) applying that guide consistently; and c) ensuring the library has the technical ability[13] to implement your institution's decisions, which are all critical.

Thank you for bearing with me on this answer, I know it is intricate, and perhaps more than you signed on for!  The steps I lay out in this answer are meant to be practical, easy to implement, and designed to help your library document that it is doing its best to balance preservation and access to documents with consideration of privacy and ethics.  That is no simple balancing act, but since requests like the one sent to the member are only likely to increase, it is a good thing to be ready to do.

[1] RAQ #47

[2] RAQ #108

[3] The reply to the 2020 question, after walking the reader through a suggested analysis of the content, states: "This analysis was done because yearbook projects bring up issues of not only copyright risk, but privacy and social issues."

[4] For libraries considering creating a formal archive of digitized yearbooks, this "Ask the Lawyer" answer regarding creating digital archives that include images of children discusses the interplay of legal and ethical issues.  Of course, a yearbook presumes a certain level of both awareness and willing participation, which not all images of minors do.

[5] It pains lawyers to hear this, but not every problem is solved by threatening to sue.  Letter campaigns, online petitions, public shaming, reaching out to people in power...these are non-litigious routes to get relief from problems, too.

[6] I don't just mean that the content makes them look bad, I mean it genuinely meets the criteria for defamation in New York, which is very precise.

[7] One thing the information in old yearbooks can do is help with social engineering of scams to defraud and/or commit identity theft.  "Hi, it's me, Angela, from your high school volleyball team!  Remember, with the red hair?  Yeah, it's me! Hey, can you cash a check for me...?"  Yes, this is exactly how it happens.

[8] Just to confirm: this question has nothing to do with copyright (sounds like the library got the right permission to move ahead with digitization), and has everything to do with the "right to privacy," laws barring use of identity-based content, and ethics.

[9] The difference here is critical!  A yearbook that is digitized and available only as an e-book to be checked out by a patron is very different from an open collection that is available to access and search without borrowing privileges.  This is one reason why archivists have different codes of ethics than librarians.

[10] You will note I do not call this content "archival" content.  As every library council member out there knows, libraries are not archives (although they might have some archives).  That said, in this case, the creation of the digital content is likely to end up in an archive—or a collection that functions like one—and the ethical considerations align almost exactly.  For that reason, the Code of Ethics of a body like the Society of American Archivists might be a good go-to for your policy.  It wouldn't hurt to have a professional archivist on board as a consultant for help evaluating concerns, too.

[11] Remember the person faking being on the volleyball team.  This is not an outlandish concern.

[12] I am already ahead on this.  Having a hatred of head shots, I boycotted my senior picture, a decision that only makes me happier as the years go by.

[13] As the member points out, "removal" in this instance poses a challenge.  In this case, it would be good to explore if "redaction" through an addition of a black bar to the PDF, with an appropriate footnote citing the Statement of Ethics, is possible.

There are a few ways a teacher may be able to show the remote-only students a specific video.

First: check the license to the video.  It may expressly authorize that type of use.

If that doesn’t give assurance...

Second: check to see if the school is set up to follow the TEACH Act.[1]

The TEACH Act is Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act.  It allows for the transmission of certain copyright-protected material by accredited educational institutions under certain conditions, if the school is set up[2] to follow the law.

For the viewing of videos, those "conditions" are:

• The video shouldn't be a product intended solely for instruction via digital networks (the product should say this if it is);
• The copy used must have been obtained legally;
• You can't show the entire video (but you can show a "reasonable and limited" amount);
• That the video is part of the curriculum;
• That only the students enrolled in the class, and the teacher, are watching;
• That the school itself takes a few steps to guard against infringement.

If these conditions are met, the remote learning can commence!

The TEACH Act was handy before COVID, but these days, it is invaluable.  This is why every school district, accredited private school, college, and university should have a "TEACH Act Policy"—so learning can continue as strongly as possible.

[1] Other "Ask the Lawyer" TEACH Act commentary is at RAQ #74 and RAQ #155

[2]"Set up" means that the school: institutes policies regarding copyright, provides informational materials to faculty, students, and relevant staff members about copyright and copyright protection, and applies technological measures that reasonably prevent the transmitted material from being duplicated/published.  For the full recital of what must be done, see the law at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110.

In the spirit of the season, and the answer I must give, this answer will be a modified version of a scene from Macbeth.

[Cue sounds of wind, rain, and small children trying to line up while thinking about candy and their itchy "Frozen II Elsa" costume.]

ENTER THREE WITCHES

FIRST WITCH: Educator!  I sense thou wouldst put on a show!  And Zoom it to demesnes beyond thy institution!  But if the music is protected by copyright and the school does not have a license to use the music in that manner it will be a violation of the copyright!!!

SECOND WITCH:  And, Educator, know this, as well! The Zoom terms of use state: "Zoom may deny access to the Services to any User who is alleged to infringe another party's copyright!" So be warned, or you be twice-condemned for the foul deed of infringement, by both the copyright's master, and the Powers of Zoom!!!

[Lightning.  Thunder.]

THIRD WITCH:  Ahem.  Of course, you'd have to get caught, first....

[Pause.  The cauldron bubbles.  FIRST WITCH and SECOND WITCH give THIRD WITCH the side-eye.]

THIRD WITCH:  Ahem.  Of course, you'd have to get caught, first....

FIRST WITCH and SECOND WITCH:  Gasp!

THIRD WITCH: What? We're witches!  We have to be sneaky, why do you think we're camped out here in the woods?  And seriously, do you think in the midst of everything happening on Zoom, someone's going to notice?  The world is going so crazy, I'm expecting it to rain toads at any moment!  Give this poor Educator a break.

FIRST WITCH:  Oh, Alecto, you always were a rebel.

Okay, back in the real world...

Sadly, my three witches are right, and this is the answer I have to give.  Since the parade won't be a part of a class, there is no TEACH Act exception, so transmitting the music via Zoom is just like putting it out over a streaming service or live TV: a no-go without permission[1].

That said, I dug around in my cauldron, and I can offer this possible solution:

Round about the copyright go

In the creative solution throw

Songs that "copyleft" be

Can help thee celebrate Halloween

For works freely used and easy got

Search "Copyleft Halloween Songs," and find a lot.

Not very much toil and trouble

"Copyleft" works make music bubble!

Just in case my Shakespearean verse is too obtuse, what I'm saying is: Hop on your favorite search engine and type "copyleft Halloween songs."[2]

What will this do?

For those of you who don't know: "Copyleft"[3] is slang for: "I could own and control this copyright, but I am so cool, I am letting you use it, so long as you let others use it, too."  Meaning: "copyleft" work is free to use, by anyone, so long as whatever you generate using the work is also free to use.[4]

Now, as with all clever solutions, this one calls for thorough planning.  I listened to a few of the songs I found this way; not all of them are, as they say, "safe for work" (or at least safe for school) so check out the songs before you Zoom them out to parents. But since this is music the authors have proudly composed and released for free use by a wide audience, I suspect at least some of it will meet your needs.[5]

[NOTE: I don't know if it would work for your school, but this one by Frannie Comstock is hilariously clever[6] (and mentions lawyers)!  If nothing else, give it a listen just for a fun 5 minutes.  Here is that YouTube link written out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzvlAuUiM5s]

Happy Halloween!

[1] I am not weighing if this would be a "fair use."  That said, if the Halloween Parade and the music interacted to make a clever statement or unique medley of work, that could be a possibility.  But I've been to my kids' Halloween parades.  They are darling, they are not ground-breaking, incisive commentary on modern theatre.

[2] Don't search "Copyleft Halloween Music" because for some reason (which I am sure many of you information professionals out there know) it just wasn't as fruitful.

[3] Yes, this is similar to Creative Commons, but it is also different.  For more information, visit https://www.copyleft.org/.

[4] This means that if you make a movie out of the Zoom recording of the parade, using a Copyleft song, that recording needs to be Copyleft, too.

[5] Unless "your needs" involved specifically using the soundtrack to "The Nightmare Before Christmas."  In which case, I cannot help you, because Skellington Productions, Inc. owns all those copyrights, and I don't see them going Copyleft anytime soon.

[6] I don't know Fannie Comstock (is that even a real name?  It sounds like a person who makes candy while panning for gold), and I am not receiving any kickback for this endorsement of her ridiculously clever work.  Which makes sense, since there is no charge to use her highly amusing song.

This question is at the vertex of the law and ethics.  What an institution may be positioned to do with archival images legally might not be what our society demands ethically.  And if the issue impacts real people with real feelings, this conflict can lead to legal claims—regardless of solid footing based on precedent and the law.[1]

When it comes to images of children, who can't legally consent to the use of their images, the ethical issues arising from agency, respect, and self-determination are all the more critical.

The member clearly knows this, and is seeking a direction for assessing how to access, catalog, and use them—if at all. The law is often too blunt an instrument to assess ethical questions, but in this case, I believe the legal steps for assessing the use of such such images can provide a framework for the deeper assessment of the ethical considerations[2] .

Below, I will list the "legal" steps an attorney considers when reviewing a museum or archive's acquisition, but focus on the ethical considerations connected to those factors, especially with regard to use of images of children.

1.  Ownership of the Physical Object

This stage is where an institution looks at the provenance of the object and, if that physical object is to be transferred to the institution, addresses the legal priority of making sure the title is "clear."

Ethical considerations: How did the physical object come into existence?  Was the creator a member of the community being documented, an academic, a journalist, or an "outsider?"  Does it appear that parents or guardians were present?  What was the original purpose of the object?  Does any of that information suggest coercion, exploitation, or invasion of privacy?

Or, as the International Council on Archives puts it in Section 7 of their Code:

Archivists...must respect the privacy of individuals who created or are the subjects of records, especially those who had no voice in the use or disposition of the materials.

2.  Ownership of the Copyright

This stage is where an institution looks at the original ownership of the copyright of the image, any transfers of those rights, the use of those rights, if the rights have expired or been transferred to the public domain, and if any of those rights are to be transferred to the institution.

Ethical considerations: Who "owns" the rights to the image?  Are the rights financially valuable?  Have they been put to non-academic, commercial use before, or are they likely to be?  Can your institution accept the rights in a way that limits future commercial exploitation of depicted minors?

Or, as the Society of American Archivists puts it in Section VI of their Code of Ethics:

Archivists may place restrictions on access for the protection of privacy or confidentiality of information in the records.

3.  Manner of Accession

This stage is where an institution looks at the overall package it is acquiring.  In this case, the member has pointed out that the data collection project may have over-stepped some (formal or informal) boundaries.  Other accession challenges can be donor-imposed conditions, environmental factors, and budget concerns.

Or, as the International Council on Archives puts it in Section 2 of their Code of Ethics:

Archivists should appraise records impartially basing their judgment on a thorough knowledge of their institution’s administrative requirements and acquisitions policies.

...and in Section 5 of that same Code:

Archivists negotiating with transferring officials or owners of records should seek fair decisions based on full consideration – when applicable – the following factors: authority to transfer, donate, or sell; financial arrangements and benefits; plans for processing; copyright and conditions of access. Archivists should keep a permanent record documenting accessions, conservation and all archival work done.

4.  Legal Considerations of Content

This stage is where an institution looks for specific concerns caused by the precise content in the materials.  When it comes to pictures of minors, this means assessing if the content is in any way criminal, contains evidence of a crime, if the information suggests they were a ward of the state, if it originated from sealed criminal records, and if the use will in any way be commercial (and thus require permission).

Or, as the Society of American Archives puts it in Section IX of their Code of Ethics:

Archivists must uphold all federal, state, and local laws.

5.  Identity of Person(s) Portrayed

This stage is where an institution looks at the depiction of the real person portrayed in the material and assesses if it poses any additional challenges.

Or, as the Society of American Archives puts it in Section VI of their Code of Ethics:

Archivists strive to promote open and equitable access to their services and the records in their care without discrimination or preferential treatment, and in accordance with legal requirements, cultural sensitivities, and institutional policies.

6.  Alignment with Mission

An archive or museum will always have a mission—or "charitable purpose"—at its core.  This is how it maintains a tax-exempt status, its charter, and its ability to operate.  Does the contemplated use of the content you are focusing on (the images of children) match up with that mission?  Or it is somehow at odds or unaligned with it?

This consideration warrants a repeat of Section 7 of the International Council on Archives Code of Ethics:

Archivists should take care that corporate and personal privacy as well as national security are protected without destroying information, especially in the case of electronic records where updating and erasure are common practice. They must respect the privacy of individuals who created or are the subjects of records, especially those who had no voice in the use or disposition of the materials.

7.  Alignment with Collection Purpose

Just as an archive or museum will always have a mission—or "charitable purpose"—at its core, so will a particular collection have a description that sets out its scope, methods, and purpose.  Does the contemplated use of the content you are focusing on (the images of children) match up with that description?  Or it is somehow extraneous or not quite consistent with it?  If sensitive material is not squarely within the scope of the collection, it shouldn't be there at all.

Or, as the Society of American Archives puts it in Section III of their Code of Ethics:

Archivists should exercise professional judgment in acquiring, appraising, and processing historical materials. They should not allow personal beliefs or perspectives to affect their decisions.

That's great...but what to do?!?

When faced with a sensitive decision like the one posed by the member, a subject-focused analysis based on the above factors is the right way to move ahead, in one of three directions:

• If there is a decision to accession the materials and facilitate access, a written protocol for handling the sensitivities should be made part of the policies of the collection.
• If there is a decision to accession but limit access (something archival values generally counsel against) there should be a clear path through the restrictions and a well-documented justification for the limitations.
• If there is a decision to decline accession, the basis of the decision should be documented in light of the factors impacting the decision.

In this particular case, any of the three above-listed options might be appropriate.  From the brief description provided by the member, it sounds like the photos were joyful documentation of a community by its own members—not exploitive or rooted in dubious practices. 

But even under a "best case scenario"[3] like the one provided by the member, it is appropriate to develop a checklist based on the mission of the institution, and the goals of the collection, to be assured any archival images with minors:

1) will not be subject to commercial exploitation by the institution or a third party accessing the collection (unless there is properly executed permission allowing such use);

2) were not created in a manner inconsistent with the mission, values, and ethics of your institution; or if they were, the collection parameters address those concerns;

3) are included in a manner consistent with the purpose of the collection; and

4) there is a process[4] for any individual or relative to request removal of an image of a depicted minor.  Since such a request would only come after there was a determination that the image was consistent with the values of the institution and fit within the scope of the collection, any evaluation of such a request should be made based on the reasons for the request.

The good news is, the same documentation that shows careful assessment of the ethical factors will help you with any future legal concerns.

And finally, there is one more option for this particular scenario, which is to ask each church to include in their weekly bulletin or routine outreach:

Our church has been selected for inclusion in the ABC institution's online archives. As part of this work, we have provided numerous photos of our events over the years, which include pictures of many of our congregants when they were children. If you have any concerns with your childhood image being included in such a collection, please alert us.  Otherwise, please know that our community records are being preserved for the future!

That way, the church as the original provider of the records can "claw back" any photos that a person might object to, and your archive will have another step in its own records to show it did everything it could to respect people's agency and privacy.

Thank you for a thoughtful question.

[1] A critical example of this issue—use of a person's image in ways that raise question of agency and ethics (to say nothing of basic human decency) is found in the saga of the images of people named Alfred, Fassena, Jem, Renty, Delia, Jack, and Drana, all subjected to enslavement in the 19th century.  The images are commonly called the "Zealey Daguerotypes" and the disputes about them start with how they come into being, as well as how they are used in the present day.  For a good summary of this saga, see https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/books/to-make-their-own-way-in-world-zealy-daguerreotypes.html.

[2] "Established" by recognized authorities, not by me.  My go-to for this will be the Code of Ethics of the Society of American Archivists, found at https://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-core-values-statement-and-code-of-ethics#code_of_ethics, and the Code of Ethics of the International Council on Archives, found at https://www.ica.org/en/ica-code-ethics.

[3] This "Ask the Lawyer" is only addressing the question about minors...I am not tackling the fact that the rights to the relatively recent photos may be held by still living people, or relatives!

[4] This does not need to be a flagrant "notice and takedown" process; it can be accomplished through a simple statement like: "The ABC Archive [is accredited by/follows the ethics of DEF]; if you are concerned that the depiction of any individual or the inclusion of certain content in this collection is contrary to those ethics, please contact GHI at ### to share your concern."

As the use of online tools for tracking use of copyright-protected content becomes more widespread, this is happening to schools, libraries, museums, and other cultural/educational institutions with greater frequency.

While these threats will vary based on the circumstances, here is a step-by-step "Copyright Threat Diffusion Guide" to help you de-escalate the tension and figure out what to do, from the moment an infringement threat hits your in-box.

Step 1

Breathe.  It's going to be okay.  Make some tea, or go for a walk if you feel nervous.

Step 2

Print the threat, and save a copy as a PDF with the document name "CopyrightClaim[DATE]."  DO NOT FORWARD IT.

Step 3

DO NOT REPLY to the threat.

Step 4

DO NOT take any of the steps it demands (removal of content, paying money, saying you’re sorry, etc.).  Just stay cool for a few more steps, first.

Step 5

Within one business day of its arrival, appoint a "copyright claim buddy"[2] to work with you on this.  If you are a director, this is a good role for your second-in-command.  If there is no other employee who can help out, loop in a board member (all of this should be over the phone, no e-mails).  Just "Hello, we got a claim of copyright infringement we need to assess, I read this thing that says an organization should always have at least two people work on that type of thing, can you work with me on it?"

Step 6

Hopefully, you now have a "copyright claim buddy" and you are ready to make your first decision: alert your institution's lawyer, or alert your institution's insurance carrier.  Either is good.

Here's how you notify your attorney: If you have lawyer, e-mail them the pdf of the threat (cc your buddy), and write "The [library] received this on [DATE].  [NAME] and I are responsible for handling it.  Are you available to help us this week on this, and if so, can you propose a budget for helping us with this?  And if you can't help right now, can you recommend someone who can?  We know we need to handle this promptly."[3]

Here's how you notify the insurance carrier: If you have an agent or broker, e-mail them the pdf of the threat, and say "The [library] received this on [DATE].  [NAME] and I are responsible for handling it.  Is there coverage for this, and if so, does the carrier want to respond?"

It is reasonable to expect replies within three business days.

Step 7

With Step 6 done, the matter is either out of your hands as the driving force of resolution (you and your buddy will remain engaged with the carrier or the lawyer, but they will be the interface with the claimant...if they decide the threat is even worth responding to), OR you have confirmed you have no insurance coverage for this, and you haven't found a lawyer who can help you.[4]  Which brings us to...

Step 8

Step 8 is the time for all the initial responses that likely hit you in an adrenalized rush when you first opened the threatening message.  It includes things like:

• Conducting an inventory of your institution's alleged use of the material[5];
• Establishing how the material came to be used as it was (if it was);
• Assessing if your institution's use of the material was "fair use";
• Assessing if any internal policies were violated when the material was used (again, if it was);
• Assessing if your institution's use of the material was under a license;
• Determining if a third party supplied the material to the institution;
• Determining if it is wise to remove the material now;
• Determining if the material listed in the threat letter is protected by Copyright;
• Determining if the copyright to the material listed in the threat letter is registered with the Copyright Office;
• Seeking any other factors that would weaken the threats on the claim;
• Using all the above-bulleted information to assess your institution's unique position in this matter.[6]

Whenever possible, everything in "Step 8" should be either conducted by an investigation by your insurance carrier, or with the participation of your library's attorney so the findings are protected by attorney-client privilege. 

Step 9

Step 9 is the course of action developed based on the information established in Step 8.

Because so many variables impact it, there is no one answer or outcome to Step 9, but here are some real-world resolutions I have seen:

Taking a close look at the content, it was determined that the material in the threat and the material used by the institution weren't actually the same thing. Result: case closed with no credible threat of litigation having been made.

Taking a close look at the content, it was determined that the Copyright was not registered, and thus there was no credible threat of litigation at that time.  Also, there was some room to claim fair use. Result: to be cautious, the institution removed the content, but without acknowledging the threat and with no money paid.

Taking a close look at the content, it was determined that...Oops, this institution made a mistake and used someone's content without permission to advertise a small, free event.  Further, the content was properly registered, so the threat of litigation was credible. Result: insurance carrier took over and negotiated a very small settlement.

These are just a few examples, but they show the range of resolution possible when a systematic analysis of threatened copyright infringement is conducted in a calm and rational manner.

I do want to emphasize the importance of bringing in your institution's attorney.  Determining the facts that position an institution to take Step 9 requires a full and frank discussion of what might have happened during Step 8.  That means that unless the process is protected by attorney-client privilege, getting to Step 9 can create discoverable evidence that would have to be turned over during a lawsuit.  Depending on what happened, that could be to your institution's disadvantage.

Finally: I know I started this with the admonition to "stay calm," but then included some fairly alarming things in this answer! For anyone who has read this and is now worried about content your institution has posted on its website or on social media, a nice way to allay a panic attack is to casually reach out to your insurance carrier or agent and say: "Hey, do we have coverage for alleged copyright infringement? We don't plan on infringing anybody, but it would be good to know what to do if someone claims we have."

That way, you know who to call just in case you get one of these letters. 

Call it "Step Zero."

[2] Why do I recommend a "copyright claim buddy?"  Several reasons.  First, this type of thing is no fun.  Second, this is a chancy world, and any one of us can suddenly get sick, in an accident, or win the lottery and quit our job.  For critical matters like threatened litigation, an organization's response team should be at least two people deep.  Further, it is a good development opportunity for future leadership.

[3] If your lawyer does not regularly handle copyright matters, they are welcome to call my office at (716) 464-3386.

[4] Keep trying!  Don't go it alone.

[5] Are the facts asserted in the letter even accurate?

[6] If you are a state institution, there are certain protections you have; if you are a not-for-profit educational institution, there are certain protections you have; if a third party posted the material, there are certain protections you might have.

There are four ways it can be permissible:

1.  Check the license[1] from the publisher and see if the purchase of the physical copies came with any digitization/duplication permission.  You'd be surprised how many rights you buy (or don't buy) when you make that hard copy purchase.  Publishers take a variety of approaches on this, and an individual publisher's permissions may change from work-to-work, so confirm (or rule out) this approach for each work.

2.  If the license does not allow making digital copies, contact the publisher, and see if it can be expanded.  Publishers are now getting many requests like this and may be ready with a simple (and affordable) solution.

3.  I am not a fan of them (they are as outdated and as risky as the Ford Pinto), but the "CONTU" guidelines speak to this issue.  I am including the relevant guidelines, as presented in Copyright Office Circular 21, under this answer.  If one of your precise needs fits one of the "permissible uses" listed in Circular 21, you are all set.

4.  Speaking of CONTU, the first "permissible use" listed in the guidelines may help you out here, with a slight twist on your scenario.  In the event that the physical copies listed in the question are mailed out and not returned as feared, the guidelines allow for emergency copying after the fact (of course, they also require that at some point, you purchase more physical copies, but at least you can get the copies to the students).

Those are my four solutions, based on conventional approaches and current case law.

I'll also throw out a "fifth option" based on a slightly different approach, which, depending on some precise facts, could work for faculty teaching choral classes:

The 110 Solution

Copyright Section 110 allows an academic choral group (if meeting as part of a class) to display "a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of a live classroom session," during an online class/rehearsal.

How can that help with the member's scenario?

Let's say I am in a class that is working up an a capella performance of "36 Chambers,"[2] as arranged by the composers of the original work.[3]

If the class was still meeting physically, Copyright Section 110(a) would allow us to perform the song and to display the music on the in-class smart board.  In the online environment, the same performance and display could happen via the internet, as allowed by 110(b) (the "TEACH Act")—again, so long as only the amount "typically" displayed in class was shown. 

Whether in-person or online, the rehearsal would include review of the different parts for bass, tenor, alto and soprano,[4] with the relevant music displayed on the screen.  While an academic institution can't tell people to take screen shots of the music displayed for rehearsal purposes, students who want to snap screenshots of a class to take notes is a fact of modern-day academia.  If a student who was told to purchase a copy of their part uses this method to ensure they are practicing on an incremental basis, that's out of the school's control, and the student can make their own claim to fair use.

This type of solution should never be used as a deliberate alternative to the purchase of individual copies.  But so long as the display is incremental and truly a part of the in-class experience, it is a viable option.

I wish all music faculty approaching the Fall 2020 semester many good performances, whether virtual, or face-to-face.  These are tough days for people who love to sing, who enjoy the community of a choir, and who need to hone their vocal art in collaboration with others.  Hunting for music should not add to the burden, and with a few tricks and an awareness of the limits of the law, it doesn't have to.

------------------------

Guidelines for Educational Uses of Music

The purpose of the following guidelines is to state the minimum and not the maximum standards of educational fair use under Section 107 of H.R. 2223.

The parties agree that the conditions determining the extent of permissible copying for educational purposes may change in the future; that certain types of copying permitted under these guidelines may not be permissible in the future, and conversely that in the future other types of copying not permitted under these guidelines may be permissible under revised guidelines.

Moreover, the following statement of guidelines is not intended to limit the types of copying permitted under the standards of fair use under judicial decision and which are stated in Section 107 of the Copyright Revision Bill. 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.

Reproduction of Copyrighted Works

Permissible Uses

1 Emergency copying to replace purchased copies which for any reason are not available for an imminent performance provided purchased replacement copies shall be substituted in due course.

2 For academic purposes other than performance, single or multiple copies of excerpts of works may be made, provided that the excerpts do not comprise a part of the whole which would constitute a performable unit such as a section¹, movement or aria, but in no case more than 10 percent of the whole work. The number of copies shall not exceed one copy per pupil.

3 Printed copies which have been purchased may be edited or simplified provided that the fundamental character of the work is not distorted or the lyrics, if any, altered or lyrics added if none exist.

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

5 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.)

Prohibitions

1 Copying to create or replace or substitute for anthologies, compilations or collective works.

2 Copying of or from works intended to be “consumable” in the course of study or of teaching such as workbooks, exercises, standardized tests and answer sheets and like material.

3 Copying for the purpose of performance, except as in A(1) above.

4 Copying for the purpose of substituting for the purchase of music, except as in A(1) and A(2) above.

5 Copying without inclusion of the copyright notice which appears on the printed copy. (iv)

Discussion of Guidelines

The Committee appreciates and commends the efforts and the cooperative and reasonable spirit of the parties who achieved the agreed guidelines on books and periodicals and on music. Representatives of the American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Law Schools have written to the Committee strongly criticizing the guidelines, particularly with respect to multiple copying, as being too restrictive with respect to classroom situations at the university and graduate level. However, the Committee notes that the Ad Hoc group did include representatives of higher education, that the stated “purpose of the … guidelines is to state the minimum and not the maximum standards of educational fair use” and that the agreement acknowledges “there may be instances in which copying which does not fall within the guidelines … may nonetheless be permitted under the criteria of fair use.” The Committee believes the guidelines are a reasonable interpretation of the minimum standards of fair use. Teachers will know that copying within the guidelines is fair use. Thus, the guidelines serve the purpose of fulfilling the need for greater certainty and protection for teachers. The Committee expresses the hope that if there are areas where standards other than these guidelines may be appropriate, the parties will continue their efforts to provide additional specific guidelines in the same spirit of good will and give and take that has marked the discussion of this subject in recent months

[1] Checking a license is not an exact science.  Some publisher's use a catch-all that is included on their invoices.  Others put the information right on the music.  Others like to make you really hunt for it, but it is usually part of the sale transaction.  This is why, when making a purchase of music, it is good to take a screen shot or save the paperwork related to the purchase.

[2] Note: To my knowledge this work does not exist, but it is on my wish list of music to hear.  I love it when genres collide.

[3] This new version would be a "derivative work" based on the original, and have its own copyright protection as a musical composition.

[4] We have reached the limit of my choral knowledge.  Is there separate sheet music for mezzo-soprano and counter-tenor?  Probably.  I am sorry, I quit choir in 7th grade.

Since the onset of pandemic restrictions, "Ask the Lawyer" has written a lot on different variations of this topic.[1]

Since I am tired of being the party pooper on this issue,[2] I am offering up something new.  Here it is:

Don't do it...unless you make it something new.

What do I mean by "something new"?  I mean a use that is so clever, so additive, that even though it uses a copyright-protected work, it creates a work with independent meaning.

Examples of this "something new" are:

• Extensive[3] "color commentary" combined with the reading.
• Replacing the characters in the books with people in your town to make a witty commentary about town life.[4]
• Combining the reading with a special talent, such as reading each sentence of a travel book while traveling to a different yoga position, or reading a baking scene in a book while making a cake. 
• Humorous juxtaposition, like reading the first scene of Moby Dick[5] while fishing, or reading a book about puppies to your cat.[6]

Despite all the wishful writing out there, the cloud of the pandemic did not bring us the silver lining of automatic expansion of fair use.  That said, it hasn't diminished fair use.  So, if your library:

• Isn't using the event as a fund-raiser;
• Is using the event to educate and engage the public;
• Requires readers to not use the entire work; and
• Requires a transformative use, like the examples given above...

...[7] there is a strong chance your event can go on as (virtually) planned. [8]

Good luck and happy reading!

[1] See Audiobooks and Copyright Laws in a Pandemic, Phone recordings of stories and copyright, Comments on Fair Use During COVID-19 and Online Library Programming (Any Type of Program).

[2] The answer is "Don't do it, unless you have permission or the work is in the public domain."

[3] "Extensive" means incisive comments at least every paragraph.

[4] Since I don't want to help you avoid a copyright claim only to wind up with a defamation law suit, if you do this, avoid using books that take deep and honest looks at human nature (No William Faulkner, no Maya Angelou, and certainly no Zadie Smith).  Use sunny books that make the best of things!

[5] This is a bad example because Moby Dick is in the public domain.  Which reminds me: you can also try using books in the public domain (published before 1924).

[6] Puppies and a cat?! 50% chance to go viral on day 1. 

[7] Which just happen to line up with the four factors of fair use.

[8] Just in case this suggestion appeals to readers, here is some suggested event recruitment text, based on the member's question:

It's time for our annual 24 hour read-aloud!  Usually, we have people camped on the front lawn but due to our work this year to keep everyone healthy, we can't hold this event in person.  Instead, we will do it virtually.

Here are the details for this year's readers: instead of reading an entire book, please work with us to film you reading from the first chapter from one of your favorite books, along with comments or a special related activity by you!  The final product will help us celebrate reading AND the personalities in our town.  Be as creative as you like, but the added content has to be related somehow to the book.

“Slippery slope,” indeed.  The member has identified a battleground in the “1201 wars.”

“1201” is a Section of the Copyright Act.[1]  It bars working around the anti-duplication protections built into certain types of copyrighted works (software, digital entertainment).  It also bars “trafficking” in the technology that can perform those work-arounds.  DVDSmith appears to sell this technology.

For those of you who don’t want to follow the link in the question, I checked out the DVDSmith,[2] and here is their “About” description:

“DVDSmith Inc. (www.dvdsmith.com) is a multimedia software company that develops and markets DVD copy, DVD ripper programs for both Windows and Mac platforms. DVDSmith products will circumvent the copy-protection schemes used on commercial DVDs and enable you to make copies of store-bought DVDs.”

I puttered around the site a bit, not just taking their word for what they are.  And while I didn’t delve too deep,[3] as the member points out, the particular product linked to the question does boast the ability to enable streaming of non-supported formats to HDTV via the Roku 3.  It claims to do so by enabling the conversion of those files from other formats, a process that can require getting around (“circumventing”) access control technology.[4]

Is such conversion and duplication always wrong?  No.  While 1201 can bar the type of copyright “circumvention”[5] described by DVDSmith, and can also bar anti-circumvention tech,

1201 also creates permanent and temporary[6] exemptions to one or more of the statute’s prohibitions, including exemptions for educators and libraries. 

Here is the text of the permanent exemption for libraries:

(d) Exemption for nonprofit libraries, archives, and educational institutions.

(1) A nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution which gains access to a commercially exploited copyrighted work solely in order to make a good faith determination of whether to acquire a copy of that work for the sole purpose of engaging in conduct permitted under this title shall not be in violation of subsection (a)(1)(A). A copy of a work to which access has been gained under this paragraph—

(A) may not be retained longer than necessary to make such good faith determination; and

(B) may not be used for any other purpose.

(2) The exemption made available under paragraph (1) shall only apply with respect to a work when an identical copy of that work is not reasonably available in another form.

…

Is your head starting to hurt?  You’re not alone.

This combination of strong prohibitions and well-defined exceptions creates the “1201 contradiction,” where some circumventions of copyright controls are expressly allowed—but selling to enable them may be illegal. 

There is a ton of thorough analysis out there on “1201,” and this “contradiction.”  It comes from a range of perspectives: the entertainment and software industries (whose general position is that the rules aren’t strict enough), the innovation, information, and academic sectors (whose general position is that the rules are too strict) and government (whose general approach is to try and please everybody, and as usual, makes nobody happy).  

To sample the variety of 1201 analysis, try reviewing the materials at:

https://www.copyright.gov/1201/

…and then reading the materials at:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/new-exemptions-dmca-section-1201-are-welcome-dont-go-far-enough

Once you recover from the whiplash of these diverging priorities and opinions, you’ll realize anew that just like the Marvel Universe, the Copyright Universe has numerous alternate realities.

To answer the member’s question: what is my take on this?

The member is right to feel cautious about the products offered by DVDSmith, since under 1201, the capability described could violate the law.  But there ARE exceptions to what 1201 bars, and libraries should be ready to exercise them, advocate for them, and make sure they are meeting their needs.

My deepest feeling is that like Section 108, the basics of Section 1201 should be taught in library school, and each librarian ready to advocate for the position they feel serves the public.

Thanks for a great question!

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

[2] How about a question about copyright protections for the mountain vistas of the Adirondacks, or a trademark on the culture of Martha’s Vineyard? 

[3] It had the same vibe as a site for dubious herbal remedies.

[4] Hello, FBI. No, I did not download the software and do a test run with my “13^th Warrior” DVD.

[5] As defined in the statute, to “circumvent” generally refers to acts such as avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or impairing tech that prevents copying. See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(3)(A), (b)(2)(A).

[6] The current temporary (triennial) exemptions are here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/10/26/2018-23241/exemption-to-prohibition-on-circumvention-of-copyright-protection-systems-for-access-control

For this answer, we are again joined by Jessica Keltz, associate attorney at the Law Office of Stephanie Adams, PLLC.

As we noted in our March 24 Ask The Lawyer answer (Audiobooks and Copyright Laws in a Pandemic), copyright law does still apply despite the pandemic and the many needs it has created for alternative outlets, resources and programming.

For a public library, unless the service is an adaptation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, any recording of a copyrighted work needs to be made with the permission of the rights holder. Under fair use doctrine, limited excerpts can be read, interspersed with commentary. But a full work presented alone in its entirety or in substantial excerpts, without the permission of the rights holder, may not be. This doctrine remains in effect.

One solution to consider is reading either works that are in the public domain, and/or works whose rights holders have given permission for this type of use during the pandemic or otherwise. Readers may have heard about LeVar Burton Reads, a pandemic podcast from the iconic Reading Rainbow host, in which Burton encountered this exact struggle and was given permission by noted authors including Neil Gaiman and Jason Reynolds. While most local libraries will not have Burton’s star-studded cast of Twitter followers from which to draw partnerships, they may find folks in their own communities who are happy to freely share their own works.

A list of ideas for children’s books in the public domain is here: https://concretecomputing.com/thoughts/list-of-public-domain-free-books-for-kids-by-grade-level/

Project Gutenberg is also often recommended for searching for works in the public domain: http://www.gutenberg.org/

For this question, the Law Office of Stephanie Adams, PLLC used a ringer--experienced publishing law and published author Sallie Randolph, who works in our office, advising authors on publishing contracts.  We asked Sallie for her take--as both a copyright attorney and an author--on this intriguing question. Here is her reply:

A library program aimed at sparking the interest of college students in writing fiction is a great idea!  Encouraging them to try their hands at fan fiction is good way to give them a jump start. Fan fiction writing can build skills related to such fiction elements as plot and character, and writing fan fiction is widely acknowledged as an effective way to build writing skills, but it is also highly controversial.

I share your concern about the legal risks involved with writing fan fiction. Most college students don’t understand enough about the nuances of copyright law to truly “get” the reasons why they probably shouldn’t share their work online. Absent the consent of the copyright owner, there is no right to create fan fiction. It’s that simple. But the reasons why are complex.

Under copyright law, a work that is “based on” another work is defined as a “derivative work.” The  right to create a derivative work is reserved by law to the author of the original work. In the process, a derivative work becomes an independently copyrightable new work. However, the right to write a derivative work requires permission of the original author. Fan fiction is a derivative work, and, therefore, if unauthorized, is infringing.

Writers who want to create fan fiction should do so with extreme caution. Swirling around in cyberspace are myriad justifications for copyright infringement. Many copyright myths also circulate in cyberspace. People may think it’s OK to post their fan fiction on the web because they’re generating  publicity for the original author, or because they don’t make money, or because  writing fanfic is paying a compliment to the author, or because the original work is out of print. There are dozens of excuses.

Copyright is literally the right to copy. Copyright infringement is what lawyers call a “strict liability tort.” If you copy without permission you are infringing. Assumptions, excuses, and myths are dangerous. Only the copyright owner has the right to decide what others can or cannot do with her work. Copyright owners have no obligation to explain their motives for granting or withholding permission. They have no obligation to even reply to permission requests. There is no such thing as default consent. The obligation to get permission falls squarely on the shoulders of the writer fan.

There are authors who don’t mind fan fiction, a few who actually encourage it, and many others who are solidly against it. Sometimes infringers get away with it because of what I call “author exhaustion.” Such authors are against fan fiction and other forms of infringement, but they’re tired of trying to assert their rights against the infringers. Trying to get infringing material taken down from YouTube, for example, has been compared to playing whack-a-mole.

We’ve all heard stories about how authors feel – about how Fifty Shades of Gray started out as fan fiction, or how a sequel to Catcher in the Rye resulted in the “fan” losing big time in a major lawsuit. The fan author is almost always the party at legal risk, and the misunderstood defense of fair use almost never applies to fan fiction. There was a rare case in which a retelling of Gone with the Wind from a black character’s point of view was held not to be infringing because of the important historical point that it made.

I have read online that J.K. Rowling reads and enjoys speculative fiction about Harry Potter and his fellow characters. I have also read that J.K. Rowling is highly protective of the Harry Potter brand and has threatened to sue fans for including Harry in their writing. I have seen her name on lists of authors who encourage fans to write about Harry and on other lists of authors who do not allow such use.

I know a number of authors who hate the idea of fan fic but have decided not to engage in this particular copyright war. I know of more than one author who have asked fans for plot suggestions from their readers, only to be threatened with lawsuits when they published a story vaguely similar to a reader suggestion. Well intentioned people can argue in circles about the legal and ethical risk. Fan fiction has become a volatile topic.

But what if the all that volatility and copyright debate can be avoided? Many  people seem to think that lawyers are impractical, and I acknowledge that we can often get distracted into theoretical debates. In this case, however, I am happy to offer a piece of  practical advice. It’s simple: focus your event on encouraging students to base their fan fiction on public domain works.

Literature of the past has often inspired new works. Classic stories could similarly spark the interests of the students attending your event. A famous example is West Side Story – a retelling of the Shakespeare classic Romeo and Juliet.  Kiss me Kate is based on Taming of the Shrew. Fairy tales (the original ones, not the Disney versions), fables, and folk tales are interesting to adapt. Bible stories are fair game. Even some of the Sherlock Holmes stories are now in the public domain. Classic novels such as Pride and Prejudice, A Tale of Two Cities, Little Women, Kidnapped, or Huckleberry Finn, are just a few examples of fanfiction possibilities. One word of caution: New fan fiction should be based on the original public domain work, not on another fan’s adaptation of that work.

Using public domain works to encourage fan fiction will let you meet the goal of your event by kicking that can of worms on down the road.

Many thanks to Sallie for lending us her insights and experience!