Section 108

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. 

A community library’s role in archiving and creating access to local news is critical, but changing technology, uncertainly of ownership, and costs can make the legal aspects of the process uncertain.  The member’s questions, set out below, are on the forefront of this issue: how do libraries position themselves to preserve and provide access to published local news?  

Section 108 of the Copyright Code was created to balance the rights of copyright owners with the access and preservation of their works, including newspapers.  It allows for the copying of sections, whole works—and in some cases, the creation of multiple copies of whole works—by libraries and archives.  The first question from our member sets the stage for this issue:  

Does Section 108, sub-section (a) give libraries the right to make 1 analog copy of pretty much anything they own?

The answer is to this opening question is: No…Section 108’s application is broad, but it might not apply to your whole collection.  The final paragraph (sub-section “i”) of the law contains some big exceptions: musical works, pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, or films/AV works (excluding news).   So, while there are certainly limitations to these limitations (mostly for ADA access, as provided for in other parts fo the law), sub-section (i) means that not “all” parts of a collection may be fully copied.  

That being said, exclusive of the exceptions in sub-section (i), under Section 108 (a), ONE copy can be made, so long as the library is open to the public, the copy is not made for commercial gain, and the copyright to the work is attributed—along with a notice that the copy was made per section 108.  This is a critical protection for libraries, library staff, and patrons.  However, the duplication it allows is balanced with the rights of copyright holders…and a careful read shows it was also drafted by congress to support certain actions in the “market place” (i.e. commercial archiving).  This takes us to the next 2 questions.

[Can we] microfilm the newspapers we have on hand?

Answer: Yes.  The creation of one copy of a published newspaper falls squarely under sub-section (a).  

And does sub-section (c) give us the right to make up to 3 more (microfilm) copies, for preservation purposes?

Sub-section (c) is the section that allows for multiple copies to be made under certain circumstances.  Applying the criteria of the sub-section,  I regret to say the answer to this is “no.”  

Rights under sub-section (c) only apply if the original (or copy of the original) is “damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen…”—or if they are embodied on an obsolete format, and that after a reasonable effort, an unused replacement can’t be purchased [a format is “obsolete” “if the machine or device necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.”].  This formula is not a good fit with a recently published work.

However, in raising the question, the member raised an interesting and practical argument:  It would be our position that newsprint is always deteriorating (we have no climate control storage space to preserve a long run; people steal issues and cut out articles, etc.) and "after a reasonable effort" there will be nowhere else from where we can buy a pristine back run "at a fair price" (ie. for less than the price of striking another microfilm).

For a question like this, it is best to go straight to the source: the Library of Congress circulars.  The Circular on section 108 can be found here:  https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf

In relevant part, it states:

Subsection (c) authorizes the reproduction of a published work duplicated in facsimile form solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost or stolen, if the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price. The scope and nature of a reasonable investigation to determine that an unused replacement cannot be obtained will vary according to the circumstances of a particular situation. It will always require recourse to commonly-known trade sources in the United States, and in the normal situation also to the publisher or other copyright owner (if such owner can be located at the address listed in the copyright registration), or an authorized reproducing service.
[Emphasis added.] 

As can be seen, the delicate nature of newspapers and library capacity issues non-withstanding, proceeding under sub-section (c) without certainly that there is no commercial alternative does not meet the sub-sections’ requirements.  The law is clear: the copies can be made only after the good-faith determination that no commercial alternative exists. 

It is cumbersome, but saving a copy of the paper, and then establishing, on a routine basis, that back copies, digital archives, and third-party microfilm versions of the newspaper are not commercially available, meet sub-section (c)’s commercial determination requirements. This is an essential element of the law and cannot be left out, or there will be no infringement defense under sub-section (c).  

The final question brings this all home: We really just want to start microfilming 2 copies of the paper…. Can we? Or must we enter negotiations with the publisher to secure the right?

Neither sub-section (a) nor (c) require permission from the copyright holder, so libraries do not need to ask the new owner before using the 108 exceptions as set forth above.   However, as the question implies, a library seeking to go beyond what is authorized by the law would need to work with the rights holder.  Hopefully, the publisher can see the value in allowing the two copies to be created, and will agree to an irrevocable license to the library, for the benefit of its patrons.

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.