Digitization and Copyright

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

[Cue overture…]

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

BASSO:  Beware, if they were previously unpublished or the trademark is still monetized.

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

BASSO:  A compilation notice may protect the whole system.

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

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

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

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

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

BASSO: ….no. 

[triangle]

Okay, enough of that.

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bottom line:  There is no bright-line rule I can provide to give assurances for works that are post-1923[1] (and, for unpublished works like journals or private recordings, items authored prior to that date).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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

 

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

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

Image rights

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

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

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

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

Accuracy and Reliability Disclaimer

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

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

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

Trademark

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

And finally….Copyright

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

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

---

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

 

Before sitting down to write a "one size fits all" answer, I gave the member a call to discuss this project.

What happened on the call? I can't tell you; it's confidential.  BUT, I can say that to give any advice, I had to ask the following questions:

• What years are the yearbooks from?
• Are you using portrait shots, or candid shots that might have been taken by teachers and/or students at the school?
• Are you selling the commemorative calendar?  How do people obtain a copy?
• Are you including additional information, commentary, and analysis of the photos in the calendar?
• Is there any sensitive content?

These questions were asked in order to 1) assess the if the photographs were protected by copyright; 2) assess the ability of the library to make a "fair use" defense for using them; and 3) probe for any legal sensitivities possibly related to the content.[1]

This analysis was done because yearbook projects bring up issues of not only copyright risk, but privacy and social issues.  For this reason (and because old hairstyles are eternally amusing) yearbook projects are hot right now: the focus of many digitization initiatives, and the cause of many numerous scandals-in-retrospect.

Yearbooks are also getting a good showing in copyright case law these days.  The most recent[2] is Dlugolecki v. Poppel,[3] a lawsuit over two yearbook photos of actress-turned-duchess Meghan Markle (a headshot and a group photo), taken when the future royal was in high school. 

Dlugolecki shows the "worst-case scenario" answer to the member's question.  In this case, when "Good Morning America" and other ABC shows used his photos in their coverage of Ms. Markle's rise to royalty, professional photographer John Dlugolecki sued ABC (and others). 

His claim?  That by re-using the printed yearbook photos he shot in the '90's, ABC (and others) infringed his copyright via broadcast in 2017. 

The case was brought in California and heard before the Honorable George H. Wu.  It settled[4] on December 11, 2019, but not before ABC made--and lost--a preliminary "fair use" defense.  Judge Wu, applying the fair use "four factor" analysis set by Section 107 of the Copyright Act,[5] found that even though the photos hadn't been registered by photographer Dlugolecki prior to their use by ABC, the undisputed facts of the case (his photos were clearly used in the broadcasts) could warrant a finding of infringement.

Now, a commemorative calendar by a not-for-profit library is not the "Good Morning America" show.  But as we can see in Dlugolecki, yearbook photos can get protection just like any other copyrighted medium, and re-use might not be considered fair use.   Which means that under the right circumstances (including if the copyright holder is motivated enough), a problem could arise for unauthorized use of yearbook content.

So, the answer to the member's question is: yes, there can be an issue.  Because of that, careful planning, and if possible, working with a copyright attorney, is the way to approach use and re-publication of photographs from a yearbook.

 

---

[1] I asked about “sensitive content” not to suggest it be expurgated, but to offer legal guidance on presenting it properly (although I doubt “sensitive content” would be selected for a commemorative calendar).

[2] I am writing this in January 2, 2020; my first work of the New Year!

[3] Decided in United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 22, 2019 (CV 18-3905-GW)(GJSx).

[4] Cases like this often settle.  While this is very frustrating for attorneys conducting research (who like to read findings and judicial opinions), it is no doubt lucrative for the plaintiffs, and an act of risk management for the defendants.

[5] https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

 

It took me 4 cups of coffee to figure out how to reply to this question!  And it’s not because I didn’t know the answer. 

FERPA is the “Family Rights Privacy Act.”  It bars disclosure of students’ “education records.”

“Education records” (like grades, disciplinary reports, attendance) are defined by FERPA as records:

               (1) Directly related to a student; and

(2) Maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a party acting for the agency or institution.

That is the entirety of the definition, from which many things—like names, team participation, dates of birth—are then excluded.[1]

The punishment for a FERPA violation is loss of ability to qualify for federal funds…a scary prospect for any school.  A FERPA violation also comes with a heavy dose of self-correction and shame, as an institution must fix whatever caused the problem, and often, send out letters of correction/apology.

With ten years as an in-house attorney at a university under my belt (and thus, a ten years’ worth of “FERPA Fear” in my brain), the minute I read this submission, I thought: Pshaw, no student newspaper or magazine is an education record under FERPA!  These grants are fine.

That was at cup #1.  But as I started cup #2, I thought: But why are these grants fine?  Why is no student newspaper or magazine an education record under FERPA?  Technically, they could meet the definition.

And those cocky ten years in higher ed were giving me no reason for my answer. 

For a lawyer, an answer without reasoning is no answer at all.  So I kept sipping (and researching). 

As I settled into cup #3, I reviewed some FERPA case law.   But although this were fun to revisit, by the time I was brewing cup #4, I realized: This is not telling me why a student newspaper or magazine doesn’t meet the definition of “education record” under FERPA.

It was only when I re-read FERPA’s definition for “disclosure” that I could back up my instinctive answer with actual legal reasoning. 

Remember, FERPA bars “disclosure” of student education records.  As it says in 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1) and (b)(2)):

"Disclosure" means to permit access to or the release, transfer, or other communication of personally identifiable information contained in education records by any means, including oral, written, or electronic means, to any party except the party identified as the party that provided or created the record.  [emphasis added]

As I sipped gratefully at cup #4, there was the answer: if any student newspaper or magazine has content in violation of FERPA, the violation happened the minute it rolled off the presses…not when the content was published to a larger audience. 

It’s a bit metaphysical (or perhaps ontological) but bear with me: Re-publication in the way the member’s question describes—while arguably making an original violation bigger—cannot create a violation where there was none before. In other words, if FERPA-protected educational records were already “disclosed” via a student newspaper or magazine, allowing other people (students, parents, advertisers) unauthorized access to education records, there was already was a violation, back when the content was first published.  And if protected records aren’t already disclosed, the re-publication won’t be a forbidden disclosure, now.

To illustrate this, here is a hypothetical.  Let’s say that in 1991, the New Hartford High School newspaper (the Tattler!) printed all of my grades (without my permission).  That would have been a FERPA violation, about which I could have complained to the U.S. Department of Education.

Fast-forward to 2019.  Let’s say the Tattler ends up on New York Heritage, where everyone could then see that during the first Iraq war, I was a very strong scholar in English and History, but things were…a tad lacking in Math. 

While that would be a continuation of the old FERPA violation, it would not be a new violation (even if I was just seeing it for the first time).  And while I could still conceivably make a complaint to the USDOE, asking them to ask the school to work with New York Heritage to take it down, my options to do so would be limited, since there is no private cause of action or right to sue under FERPA. 

So, while I cannot “clear” unseen content for FERPA violations (remember my Tattler scenario), I can say that a new FERPA violation will not be caused by posting already-published material on New York Heritage.

In that same spirit, I will now address the other question the member asks:  Are there any other legal reasons student [publications] could not be made available freely in an online repository?

I wish I could just say “No,” and everyone could not worry about this at all.  But we must never underestimate the creativity of lawyers and plaintiffs in finding new ways to threaten legal action!  If the content of a particular student newspaper or magazine is scandalous or allegedly harmful enough, an attorney could try to frame a claim around some type of defamation or personal injury action.  And of course, when publishing content, there is always a potential claim based on copyright or trademark….even if that claim turns out to be bogus.

But these cautionary words are based on highly speculative scenarios.  There is no outright bar on sharing student publication content the way there is for disclosing grades, health information, and attendance-related records.  And because the digitization of student publications creates a useful array of otherwise ephemeral material, and can be a valuable snapshot of a culture at a particular place in time, there are  strong legal defenses for the digitization and publication of them by not-for-profit entities.[2]

To position a student publication digitization project to stand up to legal threats, a solid understanding and articulation of why the project has academic, social, and/or historic value, and a clear ability to show there is no “for-profit” motive, are fundamental.  By thinking through a digitization project, establishing its social value, and documenting its adherence to professional and scholarly ethics, it is easier to defend making the material freely available—and searchable. 

The good thing about grant funding is that the application and reporting process often builds these analyses right into the project. 

Thanks for this stimulating question!

 

 

To answer the member’s questions, we must start with the fundamentals.

When accepting a donation of culturally significant photos, an archive should have a donor agreement or other documentation that addresses the following things:

Does the donor solely own the physical photos?

Is physical ownership being given to your institution?

Who authored the pictures?  If not a company, what is their name and birthdate?

Does the donor solely own the copyrights?

Is copyright ownership being given to your institution? If not, what permission comes with the physical donation?

May the receiving institution license use by others (a “transferable license”)?

Were the copyrights registered?

Are there any reservations or conditions on this gift?

If donated as part of a will, obtain a copy of the will.

What is the value of the gift? (for tax purposes, if the donor wants to claim a deduction)

Confirming the scope of the donation, the conditions, and value of the gift creates a firm basis for future decisions, including how to address the potential risks of posting pictures of minors.

It is also helpful to get as much additional information as you can at the time of the donation:

To the best of the donor’s ability, what is the date, place, and identity of those in the pictures?  What else of significance is being depicted?

What type of equipment was used to product the images?

Why were the images gathered?

Who collected the images?

Why is this collection significant; why should it be preserved and made available to the public?

Why does this collection fit into the mission of your institution?

Knowing as much as possible about the provenance and purpose of a collection makes it easier to access the protections built into the law for journalism and scholarship.  And with that background, it is easier to assess the risks when the collection involves human subjects.[1]

Those risks include:

Will this content be used by the institution in a way that violates New York’s bar on use of names and likenesses for commercial use? [2]

Are there any ethical considerations that bar including these images in the collection?

Is this depicting any personal health information?

Are there special sensitivities we must consider and plan for?[3]

Will the names of those depicted be included in the metadata of the digital archive?  If so, why is that necessary?

When it comes to minors (those under 18), additional risks are:

Will this reveal a minor’s youthful offender status?

Will this reveal participation in the social services system?

Does this depict an illegal act?

If the answer to any of the last eight questions is “yes,” a consultation with a lawyer, and perhaps an an image-by-image review, may be warranted.  But while that may time time and resources, it may be worth it, since there still may be a way to digitize the photos and make them available via the internet…especially if they have sentimental, cultural, historical and academic value to our region and beyond.

 

---

[1] At an academic institution, if the images depict human subjects (of any age) consult the Institutional Review Board (“IRB”).  Depending on how you design your project, it could be important.

[2] Here is the actual text of the law: “§  50.  Right  of privacy. A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the  name,  portrait or  picture  of  any  living  person  without  having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or  her  parent  or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

[3] Depictions of exploitation, enslavement, abuse, or images that could be considered an “illegal sex act” (as defined by §130 the penal law) for instance.  From the sound of it, that is not the case here, but at “Ask the Lawyer!” we try to be thorough.

One of the reasons I enjoy doing “Ask the Lawyer,” is the diversity of questions, and the often esoteric subjects I get to research as a result.  This question is a prime example.

While the liability for copying copyright-protected yearbook photos is, in theory, the same as copying any other published, commercially-generated or amateur picture, I always like to check and see if the specific circumstances in the question have some directly on-point case law. So when this question came through the pipeline, I hit Lexis-Nexis® to search for cases of “yearbook infringement.”[1]

Well.  I found:

• A first amendment case involving a high school senior suing to include a statement describing a state-sanctioned execution on her yearbook page[2];
• A copyright case involving a person who laboriously compiled yearbook photos of famous graduates from a variety of New York City high schools, only to find his work replicated by another publisher[3]; and
• A truly horrific case involving a prank, jail time, and a photo of a person’s genitalia making it into the yearbook[4].

What I didn’t find was a string of case law based on simple copying of yearbook photos for non-scholarly or non-journalistic reasons, like promoting reunions, which is the nuance posed in the member’s question.  But I suspect that is because when a claim based on such an action is threatened, if it has any teeth, it is quickly settled.  Insurance carriers do not like litigation.

So, when your library gets a request for a might-still-be-protected yearbook photo, does it mean the request must be denied?  No.  Remember, if the use is non-commercial, and the other criteria are met, libraries can make copies under Copyright Act Section 108.  Further, Under Section 107, patrons can make the copies themselves, and can claim fair use.  But like with all things copyright, the devil is in the details.  It all depends on the basis for the request, and the amount of content used.

Where must we draw the line?  Somewhere between these two examples:

Example #1: A patron has requested the library copy a yearbook pages featuring Timothy McVeigh for use in coverage related to the Oklahoma City bombing.  That person could get both a 108 copy, and a copy under fair use.  This is especially true if the image selected actually showed it was from the yearbook, and was included as part of an essay, book, or documentary exploring the roots and reasons for the actions of a domestic terrorist. 

Example #2: A patron has requested the library make copies of the individual photos of 100 less notorious graduates to promote Starpoint High School’s Class of ’86 reunion on Classmates.com.  That request would not have that same protection at Example #1.  If the original photographer or their heir could show it was an infringement, they could claim damages (even if the photo’s copyright wasn’t registered), and the library could find itself without a defense.

So how does a librarian deal with this type of request?  As always, help the patron get access to the information they need, but protect the library.  If the request is in person, once they have been given access to the book, your job is done (don’t help them with the copy machine).  If the request is remote or inter-library, and you know they plan a purely commercial use, you can’t make that copy.  This might be perceived as harsh—the requester is probably just a volunteer trying to organize a simple good time! –but you can let them know that the request they made exceeds your authority[5]. 

Bear in mind, it’s 2018. If they access or check out the yearbook and take pictures with their phone without your assistance, that is not something the library can control, nor be held responsible for. The patron themselves might have liability, but your institution will not…unless your library is part of the school organizing the reunion, in which case… seek back-up!

Please note: this highly restrictive answer has nothing to do with the fact that somewhere in the Town of New Hartford, NY, there is a picture of me in a Def Leppard t-shirt with 80’s hair.

 

---

[1] This is not a paid commercial endorsement of Lexis.  It’s just the service I use.  But for the record, I have preferred it since law school, where “Lexis or Westlaw?” is the equivalent of “Coke or Pepsi?”

[2] Stanton v. Brunswick School Dep’t, 577 F. Supp. 1560 (January 23, 1984). She won!

[3] Cantor v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 309 (June 4, 1999).  He lost!  (Not enough original content in his work). 

[4] Granger v. Klein, 197 F. Supp. 2d 851 (March 29, 2002).  Josten’s got an early dismissal of most of the claims. 

[5] Unless you are a member of Congress and can introduce legislation to change the Copyright Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 3: Fair Use

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

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

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

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

Option 4: Fair Use “Lite”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

---

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

[2] Congress provides a list of four factors that guide the determination of whether a particular use is a fair use. Those factors are: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C.S. § 107. These factors cannot be treated in isolation from one another, but instead must be weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright. This balancing necessitates a case-by-case analysis in any fair use inquiry. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's precedents have placed primary focus on the first factor. A finding of fair use is a complete defense to an infringement claim: the fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright. 17 U.S.C.S. § 107.

Part of the mission of higher education institutions is to bring important, provocative, and enlightening speakers to their communities. Over the years, this results in an impressive roster of authors, artists, professionals, politicians, comedians, dignitaries, and civic leaders, having spoken on campus. Sometimes, all or part of this roster was captured on film, video, or audio recording.

The rights to those recordings—and what can be done with them in the digital age—can present a complicated situation. Each individual recording comes with a suite of considerations that can make a digitization project difficult. But in a scenario like the one posed by the member, critical points of analysis can be assessed, so a way forward is found. Here are those critical points:

Assessment Point #1: Who owns the copyright (to the recording)?

First, it is useful to establish who owns the copyright to the actual recording. Since copyright to a recording vests in the person who created the recording, not the person being recorded (unless it was a selfie), this is sometimes easy to assess. As we say in the biz: “who pushed the ‘record’ button?”

If the recording was made by an employee of the institution, and there was no contractual agreement otherwise, then the copyright to the recording is owned by the institution. If it was recorded by a student who just happened to be there, or a third-party attendee, the school doesn’t own it (which becomes an issue in the subsequent steps). Awareness of this factor is a good starting point for what lies ahead.

If your institution owns the copyrights to the recording, you can skip points #2, #3 and #4, below.

Assessment Point #2: Is this recording part of the library’s collection?

Just because the educational institution owns the physical copy doesn’t mean it is part of the library’s collection. For purposes of numbers 3 and 4, below, if your institution doesn’t own the recording, in order to convert and/or conserve it under Copyright Act Section 108 (the section giving special rights to certain libraries), the original recording must be formally cataloged and included in the library’s collection.

Assessment Point #3: Is the library in a position to convert the copy to a digital medium?

If the copy is formally a part of the library’s collection, and it is on a format considered “obsolete” under section 108 of the Copyright code (so long as the devices are no longer manufactured, VHS is, for example, is considered “obsolete”), the library may convert it to a digital format, and loan it out as provided by the §108. NOTE: this does NOT mean you can include it in an online digital collection, for anyone to access any time, but it takes you one step closer to it!

Assessment Point #4: Does the library need to conserve the copy?

If the original copy is deteriorating, it may be duplicated as set forth in Section 108. NOTE: this also does NOT mean you can include it in an online digital collection, but it makes sure than once you can, your original copy is safe, and backed up for posterity.

Assessment Point #5: Did the institution have any right to record, and/or to use the image of the person who was recorded?

This requires scouring the contracts of the institution. Most speaker contracts these days include terms controlling the right (or not) to make a recording, but, as reflected in the scenario posed by the member, in the past this was not the case. This assessment is critical, especially since at academic institutions, other departments at the institution may want to use the content to promote and celebrate the institution…but in New York, the commercial use of a person’s image, without their written consent, can carry both civil and criminal penalties.

Assessment Point #6: Are there any concerns with trademark?

The risk posed in #5 is increased if the speakers’s name and image is currently being used for purposes of a trademark (like “Maya Angelou” which is protected under Federal Trademark 86978575), or if a trademark was on display during the presentation. This means any arguably commercial use (like selling copies, putting it on the school’s website or catalog, or selling a t-shirt promoting the collection) should only be done in consultation with an attorney.

Assessment Point #7: Are there other copyright concerns?

This is the meat in the sandwich of the member’s scenario. Going through the above steps, even if an institution:

1) owns the recording;

2) includes the recording in the library’s catalog;

3) meets the 108 criteria to convert it from an obsolete format;

4) meets the 108 criteria to make preservation copies;

5) has permission to use the name and likeness of the speaker in any and all formats, for whatever reason, forever;

6) verifies there are no trademarks involved…

…if the speaker read a copyrighted work during the recording, that “performance” of a copyrighted work MIGHT be subject to its own copyright, and thus, bring with it a host of new restrictions, cramping the bounds of your digital usage.

What a pain, right?

Fortunately, there is solution. For any library at an educational institution contemplating digitizing the institution’s recorded guest speakers, if the written record doesn’t reflect clear permission to record and use the content, writing to the original speaker, or the current copyright owners, to ask for permission, may be the best solution. A sample request, with the variables notes in CAPS, is right here[1]:

Dear NAME:

You may recall speaking at INSTITUTION on DATE. During that performance, you read [INSERT TITLE(S)] (hereinafter, the “Works”).

Our on-campus library seeks to include a copy of that performance, recorded on FORMAT, in an online, digital collection to be called TITLE (the “Collection”). We would like to include the recording in an online Collection, so it may be accessed by the public, for purposes of enjoyment and scholarship.

To that end, we ask the following:

1. Are you the sole copyright owner of the Works? Yes No

2. If you are not the owner, do you retain the right to give permission for their reproduction, distribution, performance, and display? Yes No

If you are not the copyright holder, or do not hold the rights, please let us know who does: _____________________________________________________________

If you are the copyright holder, please consider the below requests:

3. Copyright License

May [INSTITUTION] have a non-transferable, irrevocable license to reproduce, duplicate, display, perform, and, by virtue of the recording being part of the Collection, prepare a derivative work of, the Work(s), solely as performed by you and recorded by INSTITUTION on DATE? Yes No

 

SIGNATURE:_____________________________

 

DATE:_____________________

 

Image Release

We would like to use your name and picture to promote the Collection. May [INSTITUTION] use your name and likeness, including but not limited to photos or images of you, the recorded sound of your voice, for the purpose of promoting the Collection in hard copy, on the institution’s website, and via any other medium existing now, or later developed? Yes No

 

SIGNATURE:_____________________________

 

PRINT NAME:__________________________________

 

DATE:_____________________

 

Thank you for considering this request. I included a self-addressed, stamped envelope, in the hope of a favorable reply.

 

Of course, the risk of asking is that they say “no”…and that they demand you stop using the recording of the derivative work! That is why in all of this, any contracts should be assessed by an attorney, so the rights of your institution are protected, and any requests for permissions should be carefully considered prior to submitting the request.

So, the answer is (and I appreciate it took a long time to get there!): unless the recording were news coverage—which is assessed under a different array of laws—permission (given either at the time of the arrangement, or many years later) for digital duplication and distribution is required, but can be arranged well after the event.

---

[1] NOTE: This approach is for educational institutions that were also the original recorders of the work to be digitized, who are seeking a wide degree of latitude on their use. This approach is NOT suggested for digitization efforts involving content generated by third parties at non-educational institutions. It also does not cover recordings of musical works (that would be a whole other answer!).

 

Many college and university libraries make it a practice to bind and inventory the academic work of their graduates—a tradition that showcases the achievements of the institution, maintains an important bond between the library and the faculty (who often sign the final copy, to signify approval), and allows graduates to cite and showcase their work.  These collections are often honored institutional assets: a neatly reproduced, annually increased, and routinely cataloged series of books occupying a special space in the library.

(When a graduate later becomes famous, they can also pose a persistent and annoying theft risk…but that is not the topic at hand!)

With the dawn of the digital age now at high noon, some college and university libraries are also including these home-grown works in home-grown databases.  This requires a digital infrastructure that not all academic libraries can afford or support, though, so for many, the old-school binding and shelving of graduate work is still the default practice.  Many institutions are now also considering whether or not to digitize their back catalog, and of course are also seeking ways to promote, provide and oversee appropriate patron access to what they have.  

Overall, these “old school” copies can pose an interesting access challenge.  They are generally listed in the library’s catalog, and considered a part of the active collection.  But what rights does the institution have to them?  How is access to them governed by copyright law, which often depends on the distinction between “published” and “unpublished?”  Can they circulate, be accessed via inter-library loan, be reproduced for archival purposes, or be digitized?  How much can the original author—now an alum—control them?

To answer this, I must use the phrase that is the lawyer’s most trusted companion: it depends.

We’ll take the relevant factors in order of appearance:

First, it is important to confirm: the work of a student, even if directed and overseen by a faculty member or faculty committee, is owned by that student.  Student-generated work [1], even if the topic was suggested by someone else, and even if the content is vigorously critiqued by someone else (and then presumably re-written), is an “original work of authorship,” and the moment it is “fixed in a tangible medium of expression,” it is owned by the author (the author).   Of course, the student can sell the ownership, or donate it—but unless that transfer has been recorded in writing, it remains theirs…and then their heir’s…for the life of the author, plus 70 years.[2]

Second, generally, the permission to reproduce the academic work is a creature of a contract between the author (the student) and the institution (the college or university).  This permission can run the range from a completely unlimited license of all the rights of copyright (to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, create derivative works), to a very limited license (to make one hard copy and add it to the catalog).  This permission might be revocable, or irrevocable.  It might be exclusive, or non-exclusive.  It could even make use of Creative Commons licenses to create a very liberal mode of access.  Critically, though…these terms can vary from institution to institution, from year to year, from student to student.  There is no bright line rule.

Third, depending on the extent of the license, and other factors, the thesis or dissertation may, or may not, be “published,” as that term is defined under the Copyright Code. The ability to replicate, digitize, and create archive copies under Section 108 will be governed, in part, by publication status.  Section 108 is a great asset for libraries and archives, often allowing duplication of entire articles and works…but it requires the well-documented alignment of precise factors.  [NOTE: A copyright registration that included the date of publication would take care of this factor.  Some institutions and authors do register these works…and if they are put in the catalog for lending, registration should be effected before circulation begins, since to do otherwise could compromise the author’s rights]. 

Fourth, and finally, the policies of the college or university will govern access, too.  There could even be a day when an aged alum, having lost their treasured copy, may show up demand access to the library’s…only to be told that although they are without a doubt the copyright owner, they have to fill out a form, or renew their card, or wait until the Reference Librarian is back from break, so they can access their work. 

That said, they are the only one who might not have to do a 108 analysis before making a copy!

[1] Work that is actually co-authored by a faculty member and a student is subject to the rules of co-ownership.

[2] As you know, copyright duration varies.  A great breakdown of how to calculate duration is here: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 OR

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

 OR

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

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

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