Fair Use

It is frustrating to know just the right resource for a class—and be unable to access enough classroom copies. 

Just as vexing is going the extra mile to seek permission to make your own…only to be told that you’ve reached a dead end.

And yet, class must go on.  We tried to ask…now can we just make those copies?

Unfortunately, a “good faith effort to receive permission” is not a defense from liability for copyright infringement.   Further, introducing evidence of the “good faith effort” to doing things the right way might work against a defendant, since it might limit their ability to claim they are an “innocent infringer” (someone who has no basis to know they are infringing, or made a reasonable but erroneous assumption of fair use). 

Of course, there are some exceptions to this rule.  If the purpose of the copies is to enable commentary and criticism, excerpts sufficient to illustrate the instructor’s point (and no more) may be duplicated.  And a library making an archival or preservation copy under §108 of the Copyright Act might duplicate the entire book (once, but not for classroom use).  But copies for students, whether or not they are sold, do not fall into these categories.

The best solution in this situation may be to find a stalwart staff member who likes to play detective, who can hopefully track down the actual copyright owner.  This can sometimes be determined on copyright.gov, can sometimes be determined from author’s websites, and can sometimes only be distilled by triangulating the information from about five different sources. 

And sometimes, even after a herculean effort, the answer cannot be found.  But no matter what, unauthorized duplication of copyright-protected work without permission can lead to liability and damages…and a defendant showing they tried to ask for permission before doing the copying might make things worse.

For the record, as I write this response, the following message runs across the top of the U.S. Copyright Office’s web site:

Operations Updates During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Out of an abundance of caution, all Library of Congress buildings, which includes the U.S. Copyright Office, will be closed to the public until Wednesday, April 1, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19 coronavirus. If you are a user of U.S. Copyright Office services, submit your applications online, browse FAQs, and submit emails with questions through copyright.gov. You may also reach the Copyright Office by phone at (202) 707-3000.

Despite that announcement, no deadline, fee, or change in copyright law or regulation has been announced.[1]  That said, even the Copyright Office is switching things up as we respond to a global pandemic, and I have received many questions asking if the normal copyright laws still apply (they do).

This question, too, is about pandemic response; the member’s colleague is working to provide content for students whose education is making a quick, unplanned transition to distance learning.  That calls for flexibility, ingenuity—and appropriate online content.

The member’s institution is not alone in this need for new resources.  As I write this, my staff is working from home, and my kids (ages five and fifteen) are handling packets from school and electronic transmissions of homework.  Everyone I know now wishes they had bought stock in Zoom.  We are all seeing how vital solid online content can be.

The member wants to know if simply providing links to content that might not be posted with the permission of the copyright holder will expose their school to liability.

As of this special moment in time,[2] the clearest[3] case law on linking and academic texts found in an array of cases pen-culminating[4] in Pearson Education, Inc. v. Ishayev, a 2014[5] ruling from the one of the federal courts located in New York City (the “SDNY,” if you want to sound cool about it).

In the “Pearson” line of opinions, academic publisher Pearson Education accused two Brooklyn residents of (among other things) providing a hyperlink to a file-sharing website where a person could (allegedly) obtain copies of the Plaintiff’s materials.[6]  Pearson’s law firm even had one of their legal staff pay for the links from the defendant! (This is the kind of sneaky thing that makes people not like lawyers.)

As pointed out in the line of Pearson rulings, sending an email containing a hyperlink to a site facilitating the sale of a copyrighted work does not itself constitute copyright infringement; it’s viewed as “the digital equivalent of giving a recipient driving directions to another website on the Internet.”  But that doesn’t mean that sending a link to infringing content is always okay.

As put by SDNY Judge Paul Englemeyer’s March 24, 2014 ruling on the case:

The publishers assert that Ishayev is liable for contributory infringement because he knowingly sold access to hyperlinks, which allowed other individuals to download eight of the publishers' copyright protected works from a website. If proven with competent evidence, such conduct would lead to liability for contributory copyright infringement—sending hyperlinks that permit others to download protected materials would plainly amount to conduct that encourages or assists in copyright infringement. [emphasis added]

Unfortunately, as can be seen in the Pearson opinion, deciding possible liability in matters like this doesn’t come down to a simple question of “links, or no links?”

What does it come down to?  The sender’s awareness of infringing copies, and their state of mind and intentions when they sent the links.[7]  In other words: if you know it’s wrong, don’t do it.

That’s the cold letter of the law, and it’s not very helpful or comforting, I know.  I give you something that might be a better guidestart on this one: professionalism and respect.

We are living in a very odd Spring Semester, here in 2020.  As the State of New York issues Executive Order after Executive Order, I am struggling to find solid guidance for clients.  People need to know what they can do (and not do).

While not quite on par with trying to education students, I can relate: we need content to get the job done, and the content we are finding at this precise moment might not be the most reliable.  It’s scary and inconvenient and hard.

I think, more than ever, that means it is time for us to do what we know is right.  If we know an audiobook is available from an unauthorized source, don’t direct innocent kids to go download it from a known infringing source.  It’s just not the right thing to do (and some day, those students might be copyright holders themselves, deserving of the same respect).

And finally, even if you’re willing to take the risk for your institution (we’ll take our chances, it’s a pandemic!), think of it this way: publishers and content owners track infringements by IP address, so the person who might get in trouble might not be the school, but rather the student.[8]

So, did the case law on linking “change?”  Not quite.  But it has evolved.  And who knows, maybe as a result of the current crisis, it will evolve some more.  But for now, knowingly linking to known unauthorized content brings risk.

Thank you for a great question.  I wish you health, energy, and ingenuity in this time of national emergency.

[1] Registration fees went UP this month, but that’s another story!

[2] March 22, 2020, and what an odd day it has been. 

[3] In my opinion.

[4] Welcome to my new word, “penculminating,” which means, the next-to-last thing before the end result.

[5] There are actually quite a few judicial opions on “Pearson Education.”  Make sure you look at the final rulings from 2014.

[6] This is a very bare-bones summary.  For the full story, check out the opinion here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2045770819331774838&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr. (Note my intrepid linking without fear of liability!).

[7] I am not even going to attempt to go down the fair use road on this one!  But in different circumstances (not using the materials simply to teach from, for instance, or using tactical excerpts) such a claim could be made.

[8] Okay, let’s get real: it would be the parent whose name the IP address resolves to.  But you get my point.

You, reader, will never know my answer to this question.

That’s because to truly answer it, I had to contact the member and get some more information.  The information I received, and the answer I gave in return, were so specific, the content was no longer suitable for a general-audience response.[1]

It had become legal advice, not just “guidance,” or “commentary,” or “analysis.”  It was confidential, tailored to one entity, and protected by attorney-client privilege.

This is the challenge with fair use questions: they turn on numerous precise details.

That said, I can say that the bare-bones scenario above gives a few reasons to be cautious.  The use of the entire work, and the display in a public area, are red flags.

But I also want to caution you about too much caution.  Both those risk factors: use of the entire work, public display—could be easily balanced by an exercise in compare-and-contrast, substantive criticism, or in-depth analysis.

This is why an educational institution should always use a “fair use checklist”[2] to address questions of fair use.  An educational institution that uses a checklist has a good chance of determining that a use is “fair,” and while doing so, also creates documentation showing that their conclusion—even if later ruled to be erroneous—was in “good faith.”  This exercise can limit damages, later.

The most recent case law involving use of a photograph in an academic setting, Reiner v. Nishimori,[3] did result in a finding of fair use, and is an instructive example.  In that case, students used the plaintiff’s copyright-protected stock photograph to practice making advertisements.

Here is the court’s analysis of the case, using the fair use “four factor” test:

1. The first factor is “purpose and character of the use.”  For that factor, the court held that because the photo was not being used as instructional material, but rather as raw content for the generation of mock advertisements, the factor was in favor of fair use.
2. The second factor, however, “the nature of the copyrighted work,” was found to weigh slightly against fair use, since the original work was “creative,” and the student use was also “creative.”[4]
3. The third factor, “the amount of work used,” was against fair use because the students used entire photograph.
4. The fourth factor, “the effect on the market for the copyrighted work,” was found to support a fair use claim.  Basically, in this precise instance, it was found by the court that no one who would have purchased or licensed the original would choose not to do so based on the students’ use.

That’s Reiner v. Nishimori, where fair use carried the day.  But with a few tweaks of the facts, it could have had a different outcome.

And that’s while you may never know the real answer to this question.

[1] This makes it sound like it was rated “R.”  I assure you, the content was PG.  It was just legal advice.

[2] A very good example can be found here: https://copyright.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/Fair_Use_Checklist.pdf

[3] Reiner v. Nishimori No. 3:15-cv-00241 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 28, 2017)

[4] This factor routinely messes up judges, and I personally disagree that “creative” works might qualify for more protection that laboriously and carefully assembled facts.  But I am not a judge!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[AND]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] And because I have high standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As stated by NAfME:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step 1:

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

Step 2:

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

Step 3:

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

Step 4:

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

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

I am curious to see your project’s conclusions.

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.

The relationship between a person and their streaming content service is almost always[1] governed by a type of contract called a “license.”

As the members states, such a license (often accepted by clicking to accept terms left unread) can over-ride the infringement exceptions like those found in 17 U.S.C. §§107, 108, and 110.[2]

In other words, once a user voluntarily agrees to a contract restricting use of content, rights they may have once by law may become inaccessible.

Use of streaming content in the educational setting is a good example of this.  While Section 110 of the Copyright Act may allow a teacher to show a movie in class (if the movie is shown in the physical classroom and if the content is part of the curriculum), that same movie might not be accessible under the teacher’s Netflix license.

Why? Content providers change the terms of licenses all the time, but one thing is pretty constant: restricting subscription access to personal use.

Here is how Hulu puts it:

3.2 Your License. Hulu is pleased to grant you a non-exclusive limited license to use the Services, including accessing and viewing the Content on a streaming-only basis through the Video Player, for personal, non-commercial purposes as set forth in these Terms.

Netflix has a similar-sounding restriction.  Even the “Educational Screenings of Documentaries” the member references (found at https://help.netflix.com/en/node/57695) license is pretty narrow (and actually a shrewd PR move for a commercial service):

Educational screenings are permitted for any of the documentaries noted with this information, on the following terms:

The documentary may only be accessed via the Netflix service, by a Netflix account holder. We don’t sell DVDs, nor can we provide other ways for you to exhibit the film.

The screening must be non-profit and non-commercial. That means you can’t charge admission, or solicit donations, or accept advertising or commercial sponsorships in connection with the screening.

Please don’t use Netflix’s logos in any promotion for the screening, or do anything else that indicates that the screening is “official” or endorsed by Netflix.

We trust our users to respect these guidelines, which are intended to help you share and discuss our documentary content in your community.

To the extent your institution requires you to demonstrate that you have a license for your screening, please show them this page.

So there you have it: the only Netflix content that may be shown for classroom use is, as the member states, per this permission.

But (to address the other part of the member’s question) what are the consequences for not abiding by the license?  Is there a growing body of case law to show the fines, terminated accounts, and jail time[3] people are doing when they violate the terms of their streaming service license?

There is not. 

Why?  Most of these license agreements have arbitration clauses, meaning that disputes are settled without the publicly accessible process found in a court of law. 

Here is part of the arbitration clause from Netflix:

7.1. If you are a Netflix member in the United States (including its possessions and territories), you and Netflix agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating in any way to the Netflix service, these Terms of Use and this Arbitration Agreement, shall be determined by binding arbitration or in small claims court. … Arbitrators can award the same damages and relief that a court can award…. [4]

So there may be a number of instances where a license has been violated, and Netflix has sought “…the same damages and relief that a court can award” via arbitration.  But I don’t have access to that information.  Most of us just don’t know.[5]

I do know, however, that violating a license is wrong, and can have consequences. [6]  Further, I would hope that in the educational setting, modeling casual disregard for personal contractual obligations is not encouraged.

Teachers are usually barred by the contract from streaming Netflix services from their personal account in the classroom.  Unless there is an express license to the school from a streaming service, or for a particular film, I encourage teachers to obtain physical copies of films/DVD’s from the library, and play them in class on a good old-fashioned TV and DVD player, as Section 110 of the Copyright Act allows them to do. 

Thanks for this perceptive question.