Fair Use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYU

Columbia

Stanford

Harvard

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

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

Copyright applies in school.

Sure, not-for-profit education

Can help a “Fair Use” designation,

But articles, books, and chapters used

Without a license can get us sued.

Ten percent is no sure guide…

Fair Use factors slip and slide!

So if the work’s not satirized,

Nor juxtaposed, nor criticized--

But copied just to help them learn--

Then I’m afraid we must be stern.

Don’t become some lawyer’s mission!

Let us help you get permission.

(After all…

If someone used your dissertation,

Perhaps you’d want some compensation?)

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

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

Comments and shaky poetry © Stephanie Adams (2017)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have two options:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND

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

AND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIBRARY COPIES V. FAIR USE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 OR

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

 OR

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

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

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

Short answer: The proposed copying would not be a permitted, duplication or Fair Use without some additional steps consistent with the four Fair Use factors.

Long answer: This is a great question, as it marries the practical consideration of access with the scary question of a liability for infringement.  To answer it, there are a few initial points of priority….

First, it is critical to note that Section 108 (a) of the Copyright Act, which would normally allow for one copy of a work to be provided to fulfill this request, expressly excludes musical works (see Section 108 (i)).

Second:  Because of the Section 108 (a) exclusion, it is important to distinguish: while the patron may have a Fair Use defense if they duplicate the work for the purposes of scholarship, the library, in simply making the copy to provide easier access to a remote patron, might not.  

Third, as plaintiffs can sue “innocent infringers,” careful steps should be taken to ensure the library could not be viewed as a part of the chain of infringement, if the patron ends up not having a valid Fair Use defense for any copy or derivative work they generate.

Fourth, while this scenario does not state the original copy requires archiving, it sounds as if you have a rare and precious copy, so we’ll draw a bit from the law, case law and guidance covering the protection of deteriorating/rare documents.

And now…how do you enable the proposed access, but keep the library safe?   By ensuring 108(c) and the “Fair Use” factors are on your side, whether you send them a scanned copy, or loan a physical copy.   

Digital copy
Informed by the latest case law and guidance, the following steps could help claim Fair Use for providing the proposed copy digitally:

Step 1: As the Code of Best Practices for Fair Use in Academic and Research Libraries (www.arl.org/focus-areas/copyright-ip/fair-use/code-of-best-practices) puts it: “Providing [digital] access to published works that are available in unused copies on the commercial market at reasonable prices should be undertaken only with careful consideration, if at all.”  It is essential to verify that the works, or a licensed copy, are not commercially available.  This is essential for 108(c), too.

Step 2:  It is best if the transformation of format is not an ad hoc effort, but rather is part of an effort to promote a special resource of your library.   Making the digital copy a part of “special collection”—for instance, of rare music scores—will give you a stronger Fair Use defense.

Step 3: Again from the Code: “The Fair Use case will be stronger when the availability of the material is appropriately publicized to scholars in the field and other persons likely to be especially interested.”  In other words, once you have the collection digitized, don’t let it be just that ad hoc project—promote it.

Step 4: Use appropriate technological controls (digital watermarks, etc.) to restrict the access, limit duplication, and ensure proper attribution of materials in the collection.  That way, any eventual copying or derivative work generated by the patron is separate and distinct from the access provided by the library.

Step 5: As with any digital collection, make sure the library has an easily found way for people to register privacy or intellectual property concerns related to digital collections.

Physical copy
What if you just want to provide them with a physical copy?  Following Section 108(c)’s rules for duplicating deteriorating copies, you can generate a copy for preservation purposes, loaning it to them with the expectation that it will be returned.  Just take care that the work is not commercially available, and that the original copy is not available while the preservation copy is out on loan.

[NOTE: 108(c) bars a digital copy made on this basis from leaving your institution.]  

Overall 
The bar on Section 108 (a) applying to musical works makes this a bit more challenging than the usual duplication request, but with some care, access can be provided.

Further, if the patron wants to make a copy of what your library loans them (either digitally, or in hard copy), if their use is as you describe, they may have their own Fair Use defense.  This will mean both the library and the patron can stand on separate, but solid, copyright ground.