Copyright

VHS-to-digital conversion can open up options for accessibility under the ADA. 

Many people have treasured family memories they need to convert a more accessible format.

A converter can also help with the creation of critical and new works.

This converter will be a really valuable service for your patrons.  But your staff member is right to be cautious.

“Ask the Lawyer” has previously addressed the issue of libraries and patrons making copies under various circumstances (search the “Ask the Lawyer” archives).  In those previous answers, among other things, we reviewed the special rights libraries have to make and convert copies under Section 108 of the Copyright Act, which applies specifically to libraries and archives. 

Those previous answers cover some of the fundamental elements of this question.  They also each include a careful emphasis that patron duplication of audio-visual works (like movies) are mostly excluded[1] from the protections of Section 108, even when the copy is being converted from a medium that is obsolete. 

What does all this mean?  The staffer is absolutely right—commercial movies might be a resource patrons are eager to convert using the library’s equipment. . . And that could create an infringement a concern

Fortunately, Section 108[2] has a remedy for this problem.  So long as the converting machine displays a notice that “The making of a copy may be subject to copyright law,” the library will meet the requirements of 108 to avoid the imposition of liability for unsupervised patron use of the equipment.

The “unsupervised” requirement is critical, here.  If a patron’s use of the equipment is supervised by an employee, or the patron’s behavior makes it obvious that systematic infringement is going on, 108 might not apply[3].

So, a few things to help you be cautious:

1.When setting up the new equipment, select a place where patron privacy can be honored and employees can’t “supervise” the use of the equipment.

2) Posting “The making of a copy may be subject to copyright law” is a requirement to limit the library’s liability for a patron’s “unsupervised” use.

3)  Keep in mind that any obvious copyright violations (like someone stacking an entire collection of BBC miniseries next to the converter and generating multiple DVDs[4] of each one) should be promptly addressed through your patron code of conduct.

Which brings us to the final part of the member’s question: what language, both posted and in a code of conduct, can position a library to observe that last bullet?  Patron codes of conduct generally have copyright infringement sections, but if your library does not, a good start is:

The [NAME] library is committed to maximum content access through the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 108 of the Copyright Act, Section 110 of the Copyright Act, and Section 107 of the Copyright Act (Fair Use).  However, use of library resources to generate or access copies beyond those rights cannot be supported by our library.  Although patron use of such resources is unsupervised, reproduction equipment such as photocopiers, scanners, 3-D printers, and VHS converters are all marked “The making of a copy may be subject to copyright law.” 

Any observable use of library equipment to access or make multiple copies in violation of copyright, trademark, or patent law is prohibited under this policy and will be addressed as a violation of this Patron Code of Conduct.

Thank you for this insightful question. I hope many weddings, graduation ceremonies, and birthday parties recorded in the 1990s find a new digital life in your library!

As the member shows here, there are a lot of questions within the big issue of “contributory infringement” via use of the internet in libraries.  And because they all relate to legal liability, they are scary for library staff and leadership.

To take the edge off that fear while defining “contributory infringement,” please enjoy this bad joke:

“Knock-knock.”

“Who’s there?”

“Contributory infringer.”

“Contributory infringer who?”

“Contributory infringer who is liable if, knowing of infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to infringing conduct of another.”

Ouch.  Sorry.  I know that really wasn’t funny.  I have been teaching knock-knock jokes to my 5-year-old daughter, and they are harder to write than you’d think. 

But while the joke was bad, the definition was good.  So, what is “contributory infringement?”  All (bad) jokes aside, contributory infringement—when a person/entity aids to infringement—is a recipe for serious liability, with the contributor “jointly and severally” liable along with the main infringer.

And yes, as the quote from the MPLA says, unlicensed exhibitions of movies in a library can result in a finding of liability for the library. However…

The MPLA is representing an industry.  This “warning” statement is a good example of an industry taking advantage of the complexity of the law to issue a statement that, unless carefully unpacked, will make the reader fear assertions that are grossly overbroad. 

Deconstruct the statement.  As the member fears, at a superficial level it seems to state that every copy of motion picture content accessed through a library’s wi-fi and played on any device might be a “contributory infringement” without a license.  Ouch.  That would be a recipe for disaster, indeed. 

But this is a typical industry over-step.  Fortunately, we fight such over-steps with information, and information is the librarian’s stock-in-trade.

Entire books, law journal articles, and Supreme Court opinions have been written on this topic, but I am going to focus on three bits of practical information that address the member’s concerns.

First, there are obviously sections of the Copyright Act that allow performances of audio-visual works in a library that would otherwise be infringing: Section 107, 108, and 110,[1] depending on the circumstances (including the type of library) can all apply.  I won’t unpack these sections here—the applications are too fact-specific—but let’s just say: “There are ways.”

Second, a user accessing content on a library computer may be doing so under their own personal license (Hulu being a possible example).  There is no requirement[2] in the Hulu license that a user access their personal Hulu account on a device they personally own; in other words, there is no concern if they access it on a library computer (so long as it is only for personal use).  On the flip side, there is no permission from Hulu to use my personal account, via my personal computer, to show a movie to 20 unrelated people and charge admission. So, it’s not so much about the streaming, as what I do with it.  This will vary from platform to platform, but the conditions of use will be in the license.

The third factor is the most important for this question, and is what the rest of this response is about, since it applies to the majority of the member’s hypothetical concerns.

To combat the fear that any re-posting or access to audio-visual copyrighted material via a library user account, website, database, or wi-fi connection is a potential infringement the library could be contributing to, every library should register under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), and have a policy for responding to reports of infringement.

Why?  Because under the DMCA, service providers may avoid liability for copyright infringement that occurs "by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider." [3]

This arrangement allows services like news aggregators (think Huffington Post), content providers (think YouTube) and internet access providers (think Verizon) to function without performing a chilling gate-keeping function, giving them what’s called a “safe harbor” from contributory infringement. 

To qualify for this “safe harbor,” a library must be ready to show that it:

(A) (i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;

(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and

(C) upon notification of claimed infringement . . ., responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

So powerful is this “safe harbor,” that sites hosting infringing content are routinely found non-liable, so long as they designate a DMCA “agent” with the Copyright Office and meet the above elements[4], and can show they acted promptly when the agent was notified of alleged infringement.

Of course, any library considering this approach must do so with its eyes wide open.  The DMCA is not beloved by libraries; the ALA has some choice criticism of the advantages the “notice and takedown” process gives content owners, and the rough road the process presents to fair use.[5]  Nevertheless, the DMCA remains a legal tool that addresses all of the member’s hypothetical concerns and solutions.

To illustrate, let’s run through the member’s examples a bit. 

First, the member lists the different types of technology access and use that could be used as a basis for a claim of contributory infringement.  The member is right to be concerned, because regardless of the ownership or type of device used in the library (library computer, or patron-owned device, phone, tablet, desktop computer), if an unlicensed movie is being shown at the library (with or without the use of library wi-fi), it runs the risk of being an infringing performance.[6]  But so long as the library is not aware of someone using the library’s wi-fi or website to show, post or share infringing content (or the use is not so flagrant that the library “should have known”), and the library meets the other elements listed above, DMCA “safe harbor” can apply.

Of course, this means the library must be able to show it does not have “actual knowledge” that an infringing performance is happening.  If the library is hosting obviously infringing activity (like a person sitting on top of the reference desk ripping movies in plain view while singing “I am pirating a copy of “Lego Batman, hooray!”), “safe harbor” might not apply.  But if the library is hosting someone quietly accessing a copy of “Lego Batman” on their personal computer (perhaps with a future fair use defense due to using the content in a documentary on deconstructing traditional notions of masculinity via comic-book-based animated children’s movies), and the library has no knowledge of the action, it would be tough to show “actual” knowledge. 

NOTE: again, this tension, and the fact that what looks like infringement can often be a fair use, is one reason the ALA and others have an issue with the DMCA.

How does a library relying on the DMCA determine the line between genuine lack of awareness and what it “should know”?  A library’s bar on using library resources for obvious and intentional copyright infringement should be in both its internet use policy, and its patron code of conduct.  “Obvious and intentional” use of library resources to infringe copyright can include:

• Making multiple unauthorized copies of articles;
• Screening movies to a group without a license;
• 3-D printing patent-protected medical devices.

These examples all bring serious intellectual property concerns, and libraries must be positioned through policy to deal with them.  But through a combination of the DMCA and respecting patron privacy, libraries do not need to consider blocking access or specifically restricting specific content to avoid contributory infringement.[7]

It’s an imperfect balance, to be sure.  The ALA and others are right to hold the line on concerns with the over-use of the “notice and takedown” provisions of the DMCA.  But within that imperfect system is the secret to the member’s concerns.

The member’s final three questions are:

Does this mean that we have to block access to these sites or provide proactive messaging at each computer, and/or monitor their computer use?

Should messaging that addresses this issue be included in our wi-fi and/or computer use policy?

Is this something that if we provide computer screens or privacy walls we would reduce or eliminate our role as a contributory infringer?
The answers to these questions are:

• To limit liability under the Copyright Act, there is no requirement to block, seek out, or repeatedly warn against infringement.[8]
• That said, outright theft of intellectual property should be prohibited through library policy and internet/computer access agreements, and observable violations should be addressed through a patron code of conduct.
• Liability for contributory infringement can be reduced by following the DMCA.
• Policies and design that ensure the privacy of users and the confidentiality of patron records can contribute to the reduced liability brought by the DMCA.

Thank you for a good, complex question.  For libraries that have not yet done so, a DMCA policy and registered agent are worth (very carefully) considering.

It's a musical double act at “Ask the Lawyer” today!

Libraries are hitting their stride as community centers and curators of cultural experience, so it is no surprise that live musical performances are being offered as part of their programming and outreach.

These two members’ questions arrived within one week of each other. 

The first question is like a good pop song: a straightforward premise, with an array of practical (but catchy) sub-questions. 

The second is more like the best jazz performance: concerned with the “notes that aren’t there,” and basically asking: “what could go wrong?”[1]

To address both submissions, Ask the Lawyer presents: “Ask the Lawyer Library Live Musical Performance Matrix,” and some additional guidance, below.

There are a few things I am sure you’ll notice in this chart:

First, I keep mentioning having a “contract.”  No performance should be given in a library (or at a venue with sponsorship by the library) without a contract that confirms the date, performance fee (even if free), intellectual property considerations, public relations/promotion/image release, contingencies for cancellation, and clauses that address liability for any injuries or legal claims based on the performance. 

This need for a performance contract applies to any library arranging for a speaker, musical act, magician, artists or other third party (non-employee) to bring programming to your library.  For acts that bring risk (of alleged infringement, personal injury, etc.), the contract should require the contracting party to provide a certificate of insurance, and to indemnify the library for any damage caused by the performer.  

The contract does not have to be extensive, but it should cover the fundamentals listed above.  It can require that the performer obtain all necessary permissions, or can provide that performance licensing be covered by the venue (with a license from ASCAP or BMI).  A good general practice lawyer who handles performance and liability issues should be able to develop a template for your library (although even a good template will need to be adjusted from time-to-time).

Second, you’ll see an array of factors in the chart above, like “performer not paid,” or “it’s a musical!?!”  These factors are drawn from 17. U.S.C. 110 (4) (a part of the copyright law), which allows certain charitable uses of non-dramatic literary or musical works without a license.

Here is the complete text of 110(4):

[The following is not an infringement of copyright]

(4) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work otherwise than in a transmission to the public, without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and without payment of any fee or other compensation for the performance to any of its performers, promoters, or organizers, if—

(A) there is no direct or indirect admission charge; or

(B)the proceeds, after deducting the reasonable costs of producing the performance, are used exclusively for educational, religious, or charitable purposes and not for private financial gain, except where the copyright owner has served notice of objection to the performance under the following conditions:

(i) the notice shall be in writing and signed by the copyright owner or such owner’s duly authorized agent; and

(ii)the notice shall be served on the person responsible for the performance at least seven days before the date of the performance, and shall state the reasons for the objection; and

(iii)the notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation;

This section of the Copyright Act was crafted with just the members’ type of event in mind.  As usual with Copyright law (which giveth and taketh away, when it comes to fair use and other infringement exceptions) careful reading and careful attention to details is important before relying on an exception.  But if you document meeting all the factors, 110(4) is a great boon to libraries (and other charitable organizations and efforts).[3]

So as you see, with some careful attention to details, a show can go on.  Or as these slightly modified lyrics (fair use!) from the great Shannon (circa 1983![4]) summarize:

Let the music play.

But what’s the venue say?

If there’s a license you

Can play other people’s tunes.

Let the covers play

If your library doesn’t pay,

and don’t transmit your groove

Then the tunes are free to use.[5]

When this question came in, I called the member library to get a bit more information: What was the song?  Would the video would be used for fund-raising?   How is it being put together?

You know…boring lawyer questions.

Since libraries are NEVER boring, I of course got interesting answers and more information than I bargained on.  With the permission of the member, and since this answer is not confidential legal advice, I am going to share a dramatic re-creation of our discussion here:

LAWYER:  Hi!  I am Stephanie Adams, the attorney for the council’s “Ask the Lawyer” service.  I wanted to check in on a few things for your question here.

LIBRARIAN:  Oh! Thank you for calling. 

LAWYER:  My pleasure.  Now, I just have a few questions….what song are you thinking about using?

LIBRARIAN:  Well, our library is turning 50, and we want to celebrate it.  We thought we’d pick a song that was from the same year we started.  As it turned out, this was a bit difficult, because it’s a challenge to find a song from 1969 that isn’t depressing.

LAWYER:  An upbeat song from 1969?  Wow, now that I think about it, that probably is a tall order.

LIBRARIAN:  Yes!  But we found one.  “Sugar, Sugar” by the Archies came out in 1969.

LAWYER:  Aha!  “Da da DAda DA da…”  Yes, that is catchy.  What are you thinking about doing with it?

LIBRARIAN: Well, we want to do a version that [REDACTED TO PROTECT SURPRISE].  So, just like I wrote, we want to know if we can use the original recording for the music, or maybe just play our own version…one of our librarians is in a band.  And we’d like to put it on Youtube, or perhaps our website.  Or maybe just play it on computers in the library?

LAWYER:  Hmmm.  Do you plan on using it in connection with any fund-raising?

MEMBER:  No, no.  Just for fun and celebration.

LAWYER:  Okay.  Well, that’s helpful.  But I can see why you sent in this question.

LIBRARIAN:  Yes.  I know there could be some copyright issues.  But everywhere I look, I see libraries doing their own parody video versions of songs.  The ALA even did a parody of a Taylor Swift song!  So I figure, there has to be a way.

LAWYER:  Many ways, in fact.  And of course, just like you say, many, many, ways to have some concerns.  Okay, I need to hit the books.  I’ll be back in touch soon!

[PLEASANTRIES]

[END CALL]

The first thing I did, after this call, was check out Youtube.  The member was right: the internet is alive with clever, original, library-produced parody videos!  How had I missed these?  I really need to crawl out of my law cave every now and again.

That said, after a few fun moments of sharing some library/parody videos with my office people, I crawled back into my law cave to address the question.

In general, what does a library making a parody video have to consider?

Although many people think doing a “parody” is an instant ticket to a Fair Use (section 107 of the Copyright Act) defense, the member’s caution was right-on: the use of a musical recording (which is also use of a musical composition and its written lyrics), must jump multiple hurdles before it meets 107’s criteria.

As Justice Souter put it in the famous “2Live Crew” case[1]:

Parody, like other comment and criticism, may claim fair use. Under the first of the four §107 factors, "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature . . . ," the enquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or whether and to what extent it is "transformative," altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message. The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use. The heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's work. But that tells courts little about where to draw the line. Thus, like other uses, parody has to work its way through the relevant factors. [emphasis added]

In other words, parody doesn’t mean an automatic ticket to a Fair Use defense; the new work has to create a new message while also partly commenting on the old.  This is a high bar, even when the other factors (like a non-commercial use) may be in a library’s favor.

2 Live Crew’s version of Roy Orbison’s “Pretty Woman,”  which used both the music and AND (some of the) lyrics of the original, hit that bar: “It is th[e] joinder of reference and ridicule that marks off the author's choice of parody from the other types of comment and criticism that traditionally have had a claim to fair use protection as transformative works,” wrote Souter in 1994. 

Only this “joinder of reference and ridicule” protected 2Live Crew as they made use of Orbison’s musical composition and lyrics.  Had they left that “reference and ridicule” out, had they simply recorded a cover version of the song and changed a few lyrics without engaging in true commentary about the original, that wouldn’t have had that protection, and their use would have been infringing.

So, when planning a parody video, a library has to be honest: is it a true parody allowing Fair Use, or is it a fun riff that should get a license? 

Using our “Sugar, Sugar” scenario, let’s explore the difference:

The original video for “Sugar, Sugar” shows Archie, Veronica, Sabrina and the gang at a fair in Riverdale.[2]  Archie’s band strums and sings “Sugar…Aw, Honey Honey,”  while Sabrina runs a kissing booth. The whole things is a montage of Sabrina transforming the attendees into various animals with her magical kiss (cost: $1.00).  It is charming (although of course rampantly sexist).

Now, for a comparison of a fun riff versus a true, Fair Use-defensible parody.

A fun riff on this cartoon music video would simply change some of the lyrics and create a new, non-referential video.  Perhaps the chorus, instead of “Sugar, Sugar,” would be “WorldCat.  Aww…WorldCat, WorldCat,” and the video would be a montage of people at computers singing about how exciting databases are.  It would be funny and make a point, but there would be no commentary on or ridicule of the original.

A fair use-defensible parody would go deeper, perhaps saying something like: “Budget.  Ow…Money, Money,” and the video would be a montage of librarians doing what it takes to raise money for supplies and transformative programming.  It would riff off the original to criticize budget cuts, but just as important (for our Fair Use analysis), it would be a comment on the exploitive but subversively transformative commercial nature of the kissing booth in the original.

Have I lost you yet?  I’m sorry.  Fair use is something not even federal judges get right, and the nuances of the case law make it a very unreliable defense for all but the most incisive parody-driven comment and criticism. 

The bottom line: When a library or other institution wants to do a fun riff on a song, the safest bet is to get a license.

So if your library decides your video will be a fun riff and not a fair use-packing parody, what are the options? 

The librarian mentioned another source in our discussion: YouTube.

YouTube has spent the last few years working with ASCAP, BMI and various other rights holders to license songs for their use on the video service.  Ads that run while YouTube videos feature these songs generate revenue that goes, in part, to the rights holders.  This enables “YouTubers” (i.e. content providers) to use the songs (although there are certain requirements for every license), and gives the rights holders a steady revenue stream.

I visited YouTube’s website and looked up “Sugar Sugar.”  Sure enough, “Sugar, Sugar” is licensed to YouTube for both direct play (i.e. to use as the music accompanying a video) or for a cover (for a YouTuber to generate and publish their own version of the musical composition).

Of course, any departure from the original recording or lyrics is not quite a “cover;” arguably, it is a derivative work, which is a separate right under the Copyright Act.  But when the YouTube license allows for either the song to be played, or a “cover” to be generated, YouTubers have a lot of options.  So whether the original version is used with fadeouts to the library’s custom recording, or the member library simply puts their voices over a copyright-protected musical recording, the YouTube license should cover it.

If YouTube is not your cup of tea, the other solution is to go to the rights holders (in the case of “Sugar, Sugar,” reportedly over 12 parties!), and ask for permission.  BMI has a license they offer to not-for-profits, which allows up to three songs per year at a rate of $00.08/1,0000 page hits.  This type of exercise could be tedious, but depending on what you want to do, could be the best option.

In Closing: A Comment About Fair Use

That said, I am mindful that an unacceptable by-product of all this “easy licensing” could be the erosion of Fair Use.  As just an example, one of my favorite parodies is a simple lip-synch and video re-creation of the Hall & Oates song, “Private Eyes”  (if you haven’t seen this, give yourself 5 minutes when you need a boost). 

Because of the keen mockery and recontextualization of the original video’s choreography and messaging, I would argue that, if sued, the parody’s creators would have a Fair Use defense.  But they don’t need one to make such a defense, because they operate with the YouTube license.   And their parody makes money for the song’s rights-holders every time the video is viewed[3].  That seems to be working out for everyone, but use of a work for legitimate commentary and criticism should not depend on the permission of the rights holder.

This is why all people who believe in the open flow of ideas and information must remain staunch defenders and users of Fair Use.  It is a critical asset that should be vigorously promoted whenever possible.

Thank you for a great question, and happy library-versary!

A “Path Through Learning!”  This sounds like a really cool idea. 

The member is right, though: to put this cool idea into effect as described, a library would need the permission of the copyright holder.

It’s hard to believe, but liability is just a rip and a lamination away.

Why is that? 

Although the “first sale” doctrine allows the purchaser of a book to resell and display the book—and even to make creative book arrangements in display cases and front windows--it is not a defense to cutting images from the book and re-mounting or laminating them. 

This is because courts have found that re-mounting or laminating covers or pages torn from a magazine or book creates a “derivative work” that is an infringement of copyright. [1]

“Derivative works,” are works that incorporate, “recast, transform, or adapt” part or all of a “pre-existing work,” without meeting the element of a “fair use” defense, or transforming what they’ve borrowed to the point where the original can’t be discerned.

Of course, an essential element of a derivative work is the “pre-existing work…” meaning, the work in its recognizable and copyright-protected form.  If I pulped my comic book collection and made a piñata out of it, that would not be a derivative work[2].  But sequels, adaptations, companion materials, and, yes, laminations, can run afoul of this right held by a copyright holder.

How do sellers of mounted, and perhaps laminated baseball cards do what they do?  Since nothing has been ripped or separated, there is insufficient “transformation” to make it a derivative work.[3]

So where does that leave the “Path Through Learning” concept?  Although it would have an educational purpose, based on the case law I found, a copyright owner could have a viable claim for an unauthorized “derivative work” being used to illustrate the path.  Further, unless there was some intrinsic commentary or criticism of the works selected, a fair use defense would be weak to non-existent. So as proposed, it is risky indeed, and the member is right to be concerned.

The good news is that I have two solutions.

First, based on the case law, protecting (via lamination, display box, treasure chest, etc.) and displaying entire copies of the books, with the pages open to a certain spot, could be an allowable display.  Just make sure they aren’t being marked or altered.

Second (and probably best): ask for permission.  The “Path Through Learning”[4] is a charming idea. I bet many authors and publishers would be delighted to give permission.  After all, you’re promoting their book!  Simply reach out, describe the project, and ask the rights holder if you can create the separately laminated pages for it.  It can’t hurt to ask, and they might say yes.  Of course, when they do, get the permission confirmed in writing.

Thank you for this interesting question.

The TEACH Act was adopted in 2002 to enable the “digital transmission” of otherwise copyright-protected content for educational purposes. 

Schools meeting the Act’s requirements[1] can stream readings of poetry, images of paintings, and lines of computer coding, without fear of infringement claims.  This allows regular teaching activities—like analyzing a poem, assessing a painting, or teaching HTML--to happen online, without fear that the duplication or transmission of the copyright-protected content will bring a lawsuit. 

The TEACH Act positions online learning to use content as it would be used in a traditional classroom—as well as to novel and innovative things via distance learning technology.

But there are a few aspects of the “traditional classroom” the TEACH Act cannot replicate, and a critical one is: watching entire movies.

Per Section 110(1) of the Copyright Act, entire movies can be shown during an in-person class (if they are part of the curriculum…the law doesn’t allow a trigonometry class to kick back with “Wonder Woman” after finals are shown, unless they are calculating the angles of the bullets bouncing off her bracers). 

But there is no equivalent exception in the TEACH Act for streaming an entire video as part of an online course. 

In fact, in very plain language, the Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act states that only a “portion” of a film can be shown.  As stated right here:

…the performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or reasonable and limited portions of any other work, or display of a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of a live classroom session, by or in the course of a transmission…. [emphasis added].

Okay, I admit it: it’s possible the “very plain language” is only plain to lawyers (and copyright scholars—many of whom are librarians--who leave some lawyers in the dust on these issues). 

The “House Report” [2] below, explains how this language means performance of an entire movie is not allowed:

The exemption for instructional broadcasting provided by section 110(2) would apply only to “performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or display of a work.” Thus, the copyright owner’s permission would be required for the performance on educational television or radio of a dramatic work, of a dramatico-musical work such as an opera or musical comedy, or of a motion picture.   [emphasis added]

So what does this mean?  Schools that want to stream entire movies as part of an online course—even if those movies could be shown during an in-person class--should not rely on the TEACH Act as their protection from infringement.[3]

What are the other solutions?

• The institution can obtain a license to stream the movie(s);
• The institution can create a “hybrid” course (part online, part in-person) that shows the movies in a physical class, as authorized by 110(1);
• Students can be required to subscribe to a streaming service or other licensed source of the movies, just like they rent or buy textbooks;
• In some instances, fair use might apply, BUT that should be determined on a movie-by-movie basis and documented very carefully, since simple academic need is generally not a defense to infringement.

Thank you for this question!

This question has two parts: 1) liability for copyright infringement based on a live reading (without staging) of a dramatic work; and 2) liability for events at library facilities.

Let’s tackle part 1 first. 

Section 110 of the Copyright Act sets out a number of exceptions for educational and charitable use of copyrighted works.[1]  Unfortunately, “dramatic works” (plays) are largely excluded from those exceptions.  So while Section 110 is generous (for instance, there is a total exemption from liability for performance of non-dramatical musical works at horticultural fairs!)[2], “performance” of dramatic works (even without staging) is not as excused as other types of use.  

The other exception that could apply to the member’s question is of course “fair use.”  I won’t take up too much of this “Ask the Lawyer” to discuss that option, since the event described here does not sound like it would meet the criteria. [3]

For this reason, any library or venue asked or planning to host a reading of a dramatic work—even without staging it, even without charging admission—should be very cautious.  Unless there is a confirmed exemption under 110 (which would be for classroom use, or for a performance for people with visual impairments), or a documented “fair use” under 107,  proper licensing should be obtained.

And now for part 2. 

Most libraries have some form of policy, and maybe a “facility use contract,” allowing groups or individuals to use their space.  Some charge a small rental fee, others do not.  Some have express restrictions on use by businesses or political groups,[4] others do not.

What’s important to the member’s question is that any use of library facilities should be governed by clear, uniformly applied, mutually-understood terms that:

• ensure ease of distinguishing official library events from those simply using the library;
• require any outside group to expressly assent to following library rules and procedures;
• protect the library from any third-party claims based on the group’s use of the premises.

When it comes to copyright, this last part is essential, since the copyright law allows for “vicarious” liability that can include “innocent” (meaning, they didn’t know about it, or didn’t instigate it) infringers. 

This is what the last Congressional committee amending the Copyright Law has to say about “vicarious liability” for performances:

Vicarious Liability for Infringing Performances.

The committee has considered and rejected an amendment to this section intended to exempt the proprietors of an establishment, such as a ballroom or night club, from liability for copyright infringement committed by an independent contractor, such as an orchestra leader. A well-established principle of copyright law is that a person who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner is an infringer, including persons who can be considered related or vicarious infringers. To be held a related or vicarious infringer in the case of performing rights, a defendant must either actively operate or supervise the operation of the place wherein the performances occur, or control the content of the infringing program, and expect commercial gain from the operation and either direct or indirect benefit from the infringing performance. The committee has decided that no justification exists for changing existing law, and causing a significant erosion of the public performance right.

As a not-for-profit institution, a library may have some more defenses than the average night club owner, but there is still a threat of liability. 

So how do venues reduce the risks posed by “vicarious” liability? Often, they ask the main performer, or the entity renting the facility, to “indemnify” the venue for any liability related to the performance.  To ensure they are actually protected, they also demand a certain amount and type of insurance, and require that the venue be a “named insured.” [5]  Later, if they are sued for an infringing performance, the venue will invoke the indemnity, and be defended by and have their damages paid by the renter or performer. 

So, to recap, the following factors are potentially relevant to both parts of the member’s question:

• This particular use of a copyrighted work does not seem to fall under the exceptions of Copyright Law 110;
• A reading of a dramatic work could be a “fair use” under Copyright Law 107, but that conclusion should be carefully documented, and again, does not seem to fit the described situation;
• A library should have a policy and contract that enables the clear distinction between library and non-library events;
• A library should have a “facility use” contract that protects it from any risks of allowing others to use its facility, including performance-related liabilities;
• A library should have insurance coverage that takes into consideration use of its facility by others, including use for performances;
• For certain high-risk uses (if allowed) a library can require an indemnification and insurance;
• For certain high-risk uses, a library can simply decide the event is too risky.

This assessment of risks and ways to mitigate them is called “risk management,” and the member’s question is a great example of how to start the process.  So, what was that question again?

…regardless of whether an audience is brought out for the performance or not, regardless of who is 'sponsoring' it, this would be in violation of the creator's (who is still alive) copyright claim to the work. Further, that the library would most likely be the liable party.

Am I right?

Except for would changing “the liable party” to “a liable party”: yes, the member is correct…there is a risk.  How can this assessed risk be managed? One of four ways:

• Have the group obtain written permission from the rights holder (for a reading at that precise location);
• Locate a 110 or 107 exception;
• Require an indemnification and proof of insurance from the group; or
• Make a risk-management decision to not host the event.

Thank you for your careful question!

Exeunt lawyer, stage left.

Reading to kids is one of the best thing we can do for them.  If the law gets in the way of that, there is something wrong with the law!

That said, honoring the rights of authors and illustrators who create stories to charm and educate is one of the best ways we can make sure there is always something new to read. 

And it’s the law.  

The member’s concern is justified; copyright law rewards creativity by empowering rights holders to control how and when their work is duplicated--in this case, “performed”[1].  A reading on “Facebook Live”—no matter how many cute, be-jammied scholars it enriches—could infringe those rights[2]. 

But as the member also suggests, respecting copyright does not need to be the end of the line; there are many ways this type of real-time, remote reading can take place.

Below, please find my “Top 5 Ways for a Teacher to Remotely Read a Bedtime Story to Lots of Kids in Different Places Without Fear of Committing Copyright Infringement.”

1.  When choosing a book to read, select a work in the “public domain”…meaning, the book is no longer protected by copyright.  As of 2019, this means works published before 1924 (in the U.S.) and other select situations.[3]

For example, the “Brothers Grimm” who were writing in the 1800’s, are not suing anymore (nor are their heirs).  Just make sure the publisher hasn’t found a new way to assert the copyright of the copy you read from (a new version, new illustrations and layout, a slightly less sadistic version of the original, etc).

2.  Write your own story.

This one is my favorite.  Who knows?  You might discover you’re the next Eric Carle!

3.  Hold a writing contest amongst the students that includes parental permission to read the entries/winners online. 

This could also bolster interest in the event, since kids could hear their own work read, and see their own pictures online.

4.  Explore making the reading exempt under the TEACH Act (section 110 (2) of the Copyright Act).

The TEACH Act exempts certain digital transmissions of work from the classroom environment.  It has several highly specific requirements, so educators should connect with their institution’s attorney and IT department to see if this option can work for them.  While not the solution for every “good night” reading, with some planning, it could be a way to make online reading sessions a part of a routine curriculum.

And finally…

5.  Explore getting permission from the rights holder!  While not all authors will be in a position to agree, many will say “Yes, of course!” when asked if a teacher can livestream a reading of their book (of course, if you also want to show their book as well as read it, you will need permission from the illustrator, too). 

Reaching out to an author or publisher takes time, but many children’s authors are very accessible.  My high school friend, Grace Lin, is a well-known children’s book author (and recent winner of a Caldecott Honor for “A Big Mooncake for Little Star”).  I reached out to Grace on Facebook to get her take on this issue (and got her permission to share her thoughts). 

For Grace, whose work contains lovely and carefully rendered illustrations, such a request would be about intent and quality.  She said if the reading was more about the not-for-profit reader and audience connecting over her story, and not the video dwelling on the pages (effectively copying them), she would consider giving permission.  On the flip side, Grace felt that serious duplication (with the video dwelling on the pages) could be an unwelcome duplication. 

Like many children’s book authors, Grace is accessible via her website, www.gracelin.com, and I encourage would be night-time-story-readers to reach out to her!

Thank you for this great question.  Copyright is an important law to honor in the educational environment.  But finding ways—lots of ways—to give children an early and deep love of books is an even greater service to the world.  It’s one of the reasons librarians are so important.

This is a great and important question, and it rests on an critical issue. 

With that in mind, before you delve into this answer, I encourage readers of “Ask the Lawyer!” to check out the CDL “Statement” on www.controlleddigitallending.org/statement.

[Small break.]

Okay.  Did you check it out? Interesting, right?  Now, on to the answer….

Controlled Digital Lending (“CDL” ) is an effort to assert the rights of content users—as opposed to those of content owners—in the next regime of copyright law. 

As described in the CDL “Statement”:

CDL enables a library to circulate a digitized title in place of a physical one in a controlled manner. Under this approach, a library may only loan simultaneously the number of copies that it has legitimately acquired, usually through purchase or donation. For example, if a library owns three copies of a title and digitizes one copy, it may use CDL to circulate one digital copy and two print, or three digital copies, or two digital copies and one print; in all cases, it could only circulate the same number of copies that it owned before digitization.[1]

Rallying librarians from an impressive array of institutions[2], CDL asserts an extension of current copyright doctrines and seeks to confirm rights critical to the world of information management. 

But although it is a hybrid argument of Fair Use and the First Sale Doctrine, CDL is not the law.  Rather, it is a concerted effort to influence—and perhaps become—the law. 

As I see it, CDL is also a deliberate and potentially powerful answer to the established trend of content providers using contract law to impose limitations on copyright’s “First Sale” doctrine.  Here are some examples of this trend:

• Terms for an “instructor’s copy” from an academic publisher barring re-sale or requiring the book be listed in the syllabus;
• A license for a DVD’s “downloadable copies,” requiring a user to verify that the are the owner of the original hard copy; 
• Textbooks that come with access codes for additional, but essential, digital content.

Because of the billions of dollars in revenue such contracts protect, the entertainment, publishing, and other IP industries will fight tooth and nail to not only resist CDL, but any extension of Fair Use and the First Sale doctrine.  Considering the lobbying power and commercial heft of these industries, the CDL position will need all the recruits and allies it can get.  It will be a showdown fought through usage, lawmaking, and most likely, law suits.

The CDL’s organizers know this might be hazardous combat.  Right in their “Statement” is the caution:

Because the following analysis is general, any library considering implementing controlled digital lending should consult a competent attorney to develop an appropriate program responsive to the specific needs of the institution and community.

This warning in the Statement is well-justified.  The stakes for generating infringing copies (which is what copyright owners will argue CDL digital copies are) and distributing them (which is what copyright owners will argue CDL-using libraries are doing) can be high, with the violator liable for damages and attorney’s fees, and stuck in a courtroom battle for years.

So what would a “competent attorney” advise their client to do in this case?  I don’t speak for all competent attorneys, but in a case like this, I would strongly advise an institution NOT to make “CDL” copies unless the action was part of a highly assessed, planned, and well-calculated strategic plan that considers the benefits and accepts the risks.

How does an institution do that?  Any institution seriously considering CDL should form a “CDL Committee” consisting of the institution’s librarian, risk manager/insurance liaison[3], a representative of the institution’s academic wing (if applicable), and an administrative decision maker (an officer of the institution).  The group should consult with (but not necessarily include) a lawyer. 

The group would assess what use their institution could make of CDL, get advice from the lawyer about those specific uses and the risks, check their insurance coverage, assess what is being done at peer institutions, and (perhaps most important) consider how this overall issue impacts their mission.  There would possibly be, at some of the bolder institutions, some acceptance of calculated risk.

If the group’s overall assessment leaned toward CDL, the committee could create a “CDL Assessment and Use Policy” to govern all its uses of CDL.  This way, the decision to use CDL would be rooted in the institution’s mission, while the process would be informed by the library’s assets and users’ needs.  This is critical because if the institution was ever sued for infringement, a good array of back-up material, showing a bona fide belief in Fair Use, and consistent with that of other participants’ in the CDL effort, could help them assert their position and limit financial damages.

With regard to the member’s particular scenario (trying to get more use out of an extensive collection of aging DVD’s), if I were the lawyer consulting with a committee, I would probably advise against that particular use for CDL.[4]  Unless the transmission is per section 110 of the Copyright Act, the risk of a suit for unlicensed transmission of a motion picture is just too high.  But I’d also want to assess each movie on a case-by-case basis.   While the combination of First Sale and Fair Use might not simply allow the restricted streaming, other solutions (a news exception, a license) might. 

I am sorry I cannot give a more definitive answer, but as the CDL organizers themselves point out, CDL is on uncertain ground.  The authors of the “Statement” don’t come right out and say it, but they are trying to fight fire with fire…offering a bold and critical counterpoint to the current copyright scheme through which rights owners tightly control digital dissemination of works in print. 

Libraries, these days, occupy ground zero of many of society’s struggles, and the next regime of IP law is one of those.  On the battlefield of intellectual property, troops are massing at the no-man’s land between digitization and the First Sale Doctrine.  Led by librarians, there is an army that hopes to not only hold the First Sale line, but officially extend it to a practice that is more convenient, green, and aligned with current technology: CDL. 

Does your library want to join that battle? Does it want to explore making select works available, under closely controlled circumstances, without requiring a person to pick up a hard copy?  By making a deliberate, well-planned decision to have a CDL policy, your institution can answer the famous question:

“There’s a war coming…are you sure you’re on the right side?” [5]

I first heard about “ResearchGate” at a copyright training I was conducting for librarians. 

There I was, holding forth about Section 108 and Fair Use, when out of the blue, an academic librarian asked me: “What do you think of Researchgate?”[1]

This question triggered my number one rule for lawyering: never assume you know an answer; always do your research.  So even though my brain figured that “Researchgate” was a new scandal involving falsification of data,[2] I instead replied: “I have to admit, I am not familiar with that.” 

Good thing I followed rule number one!

Since that time, and in response to this question, I have had a chance to visit ResearchGate’s “About” page and their “Terms of Use” (for academics and students) page.  And I have developed some thoughts.

But first, here’s what I have learned:

Notably, as the member points out, ResearchGate’s “Terms” for submitters reinforces the rights of authors:

As a member, when you post full-text articles or supplementary materials on ResearchGate, you do not transfer or assign copyright to us. Rather, you make the content available to the public through ResearchGate.

…about encourages users to respect the rights of others:

If you choose to privately archive or publicly post content, we encourage you to first confirm your rights before doing so. … As we do not have any information about rights you may hold, or any license terms or other restrictions which might apply to such content, we necessarily rely on you to understand your rights and act accordingly. 

ResearchGate’s relationship with users is also governed by clauses on “Liability” and “Indemnification”—with ResearchGate attempting to pass all liability for a copyright infringement onto the users who supply content.

And finally, as also shown in their policies, ResearchGate also takes advantage of the “notice and takedown” provisions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to assure itself “safe harbor,” in the event a user posts infringing content.[3]

What I found at ResearchGate.com was what looks like a thorough attempt to dot all the “i”s and cross all the “t”s to respect intellectual property.  They probably have a very good lawyer.

But as I said, “always do your research,” so in addition to visiting their site, I also visited PACER to see if ResearchGate is being sued by anyone for copyright infringement.  And boy, are they ever.

ResearchGate GmbH (its corporate name in Germany, where it appears to be based) is being sued by Elsevier, Inc., Elsevier Ltd., Elsevier B.V. and the American Chemical Society (“ACS”).[4]  The basis for the suit, as set forth in paragraph “three” of the plaintiff’s complaint, is the ResearchGate’s use of “Published Journal Articles” (which the suit calls “PJA”s):

This lawsuit focuses on ResearchGate’s intentional misconduct vis-à-vis its online file-sharing / download service, where the dissemination of unauthorized copies of PJAs constitutes an enormous infringement of the copyrights owned by ACS, Elsevier and other journal publishers. The lawsuit is not about researchers and scientists collaborating; asking and answering questions; promoting themselves, their projects, or their findings; or sharing research findings, raw data, or pre-prints of articles.

And, just in case that doesn’t sound too bad, here’s the next paragraph:

ResearchGate’s infringing activity is no accident. Infringing copies of PJAs are a cornerstone to ResearchGate’s growth strategy. ResearchGate deliberately utilizes the infringing copies to grow the traffic to its website, its base of registered users, its digital content, and its revenues and investment from venture capital. ResearchGate knows that the PJAs at issue cannot be lawfully uploaded to and downloaded from the RG Website. Nevertheless, in violation of the rights of ACS, Elsevier, and others, ResearchGate uploads infringing copies of PJAs and encourages and induces others to do so. ResearchGate finds copies of the PJAs on the Internet and uploads them to computer servers it owns or controls. In addition, ResearchGate lures others into uploading copies of the PJAs, including by directly asking them to do so, encouraging use of a “request full-text” feature, and misleadingly promoting the concept of “selfarchiving.”[sic]  ResearchGate is well aware that, as a result, it has turned the RG Website into a focal point for massive copyright infringement.[5]

Yikes, that sounds dire, right?  And very akin to the member’s concerns.

So, with all that established, I’ll share my thoughts, and address the member’s questions.

Number one, should libraries be directing individuals to ResearchGate to ask authors for copies of their articles? Number two, should our document delivery service be providing copies of PDFs from ResearchGate to our library patrons?

Questions like this may be informed by law (and risk management), but must always start with ethics. 

The ALA Statement of Ethics[6] has very clear language regarding intellectual property: We respect intellectual property rights and advocate balance between the interests of information users and rights holders.

When it comes to a source like ResearchGate—ostensibly trying to operate within the bounds of the law, but alleged to have a seamier side—the ALA’s further musings[7] on this statement on copyright are also instructive:

Library workers are increasingly critical resources for copyright information in their communities. Consequently, they should be informed about copyright developments and maintain current awareness of all copyright issues. Library workers should develop a solid understanding of the law, its purpose, and the details relevant to library activities. This includes the ability to read, understand, and analyze various copyright scenarios, including fair use and other copyright limitations, using both good judgment and risk mitigation practices.

Library workers should use these skills to identify their rights and the rights of their users. Further, they should be ready to perform outreach surrounding copyright topics and refer users with questions pertaining to copyright to reliable resources. However, library workers should avoid providing legal advice. They may provide information about the law and copyright, but should recommend that patrons consult an attorney for legal advice. [emphasis added]

I can’t answer the member’s questions for any particular library. But based on the ALA Statement of Ethics, its further comments on copyright, and risk management principles drawn from the law, I can suggest a methodology for a library to apply when asking them.

First, if a librarian, using their own observations, and applying ALA ethics, believes a source to be dubious,  it is clear that they are ethically obligated to “us[e] both good judgment and risk mitigation practices” about “relevant to library activities,” and to work with decision-makers at their institution to develop a clear position on that source.

This is not a simple nor easy exercise.  Further (and frustratingly, for some) it may vary from institution to institution.  Some libraries dance on the cutting edge of copyright.  Others err on the side of caution.  The decision to do either should be based on an informed assessment that considers the library’s mission, insurance, tolerance of risk, and its comfort level with the status quo.  

The member is already applying personal experience and modeling this balancing.  Remember the last part of the question: I am personally very hesitant to refer anyone to ResearchGate, as I find most faculty researchers are not aware of who truly holds the copyright to their published articles.

To that type of informed concern, there are two considerations I would add for libraries making this type of determination:

1) Under Section 108 of the Copyright Act, a library’s exemption from infringement can turn on their lack of awareness of a scheme to make exploitive commercial copies.  Your library’s insurance may also deny coverage if a library is knowingly referring users to an infringer.  So, if your institution is aware that a source is an infringer (which is different from suspecting a source is an infringer), that is a factor to balance.

2) On the flip side, libraries should not be willing (and generally have not been willing) to roll over to support the unchecked dominance of traditional commercial publishers.  Without pushback, rates will continue to go up, while terms will get more onerous.   But there is a difference between thoughtful pushback (like the current, organized fight against the McMillan Embargo[8]), and systematic copyright infringement (like Napster).  

Questions like this one show that librarians are thinking about the difference.  

Thanks for a great question.  It will be interesting to see if the case against ResearchGate goes the distance, and to see libraries decide where they stand.

[1] When this question first put the name in my brain, the “g” was lowercase.  

[2] For over ten years, I was in-house counsel at a university, and had a reason to read “The Chronicle of Higher Education,” every week.  Every year the Chronicle reported on one research-based scandal after another; it’s a miracle I didn’t hear the term “ResearchGate” before this!

[3] As of December 8, 2019, you can see this on ResearchGate’s Intellectual Property Policy.

[4] Am. Chem. Soc'y v. ResearchGate GmbH, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98372, 2019 WL 2450976.

[5] Yes, this is one monster paragraph within the law suit. 

[6] As of December 8, 2019, found at http://www.ala.org/tools/ethics

[7] http://www.ala.org/tools/ethics/copyright

[8] http://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2019/09/ala-launches-national-campaign-against-e-book-embargo