Streaming

I must be very clear: Unless I obtained a written representation signed by an officer of Netflix, I would never advise a corporate client[1] to rely on the Swank umbrella license to show a video from a “personal and non-commercial” Netflix account.

Why is this?  Because the one license does not trump the other.

To illustrate this concern, here is the best analogy of I could come up with[2]: if it’s bow hunting season and I get a bow hunting license, I can bow hunt.  I can commune with nature, test my skills, and if I’m lucky, come home that night and make some venison stew.[3]

But if, while eating my dinner, the police stop by to investigate an allegation that I shoplifted the bow and arrows, they won’t say: “Oh, you have a license?  Sorry, back to your stew.”

The same principle applies here.  A Swank license can definitely allow your institution to watch a covered movie you lawfully obtain.  But the Netflix license quoted by the member does not allow the movie to be shown beyond the account holder’s “household.”  And the language makes it clear the account is for “non-commercial” uses.  In other words: a copy used to further institutional operations was not lawfully obtained. 

Unfortunately, Swank is pretty coy about this concern.  Here is the language from the link provided by the member:[4]

Where can I acquire movies after we receive our license?

You can use movies that are secured from any legal source (DVDs, digital copies or any other legal format). While we cannot speak for other companies, we recommend checking the terms and conditions of any streaming service used to confirm that they do not prohibit public performance.  [emphasis added]

Now, in copyright law, everything is up for debate.  If I put this topic on the table at a gathering of three copyright attorneys, I guarantee you’d get six answers (maybe seven).  And of course, attorneys love it when their clients test the boundaries of the law: it gives us a chance to engage in high-stakes, nuanced, and learnedly arguments—and sometimes, it comes with a paycheck.

But one thing most attorneys in the business world respect is risk.  There is a risk that Netflix[5] could view the use as unauthorized.  And I stated above, unless there is rock-solid assurance from the vendor (in this case, Netflix) that it is authorized, use of a personal Netflix account for an institutional purpose is just too risky. 

How does this play out in the real world?  Large services like Netflix look for “teachable moments,” to bring lawsuits.  They send out private investigators, track IP addresses, and look for evidence of broad misuse.  Once they gather the evidence, they select a victim, and sue[6] (although in the case of Neflix, Section 7 of the License allows for them to resolve the matter via private arbitration).

What is the protection against that?  An institutional policy that bars use of personal accounts for professional purposes. 

There are some approaches to this educational dilemma that do pass my “sniff test.”  Some colleges encourage students to get Netflix accounts if they are taking a film class, so they can watch movies at home.  Near as I can see, unless Netflix starts putting some new “not for class” terms in its license, this is okay (but does not extend to the entire class using one student’s account…unless they are all in the same household).  

Similarly, if a history teacher wants to use their Netflix account to view “13,” at home, even if it is to prepare for a lecture or a discussion of the film in class the next day, that strikes me as a “personal” use.  But if their institution asked them to do it, or they wanted to use their account to watch the movie in class, that would not be allowed.[7]

I wish I could give the member clever answer informed by Fair Use, or coming up with some special rule that applies to libraries.  But licensing is a creature of contract, and if you accept the terms, they will generally govern.

So, just like this member, read those licenses carefully!

[1] I know it sounds rather cold, but in liability-land, schools are “corporations.”

[2] You should see the analogies I left on the cutting-room floor!  My favorite involved a building permit and pirated architectural plans.

[3] I do not bow hunt, but if I hunted at all, that is how I’d do it.  I have a friend who bow hunts; she is like Wonder Woman, but with white hair a much more practical gear.

[4] As of December 18, 2019 (I took a screen shot).  We’ll see if it’s there in a year or so.  I’m such a media influencer, maybe once Swank hears about me calling them “coy,” they’ll switch it up!

[5] As discussed in other columns, Netflix does have an “educational use” license for some documentaries. Their instructions to see if a movie is available that way is here: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/57695

[6] ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, MPAA, and DirectTV were the pioneers of this tactic. 

[7] I would like to thank Jim Belair (who gave me permission to credit him here) at Monroe 2 Orleans BOCES for a great discussion on the implications of this issue for New York public schools.  Most institutions don’t invest in DVD players anymore, which means that streaming is the way the access content.  But if the streaming service isn’t in the name of school (just the teacher or the administrator) use by the school risks violating their license.

The lawyer answers:

There is a simple answer to this question, although it stands on a mountain of conflicting law, international disputes regarding IP, and arguments about music rights[1]. 

Section 110 of the Copyright Act allows an entity to have one medium-sized tv (of a kind commonly used in private homes…no JumboTrons), showing a broadcast of anything but songs[2], so long as there is no admission charged, and the programming isn’t re-transmitted (streamed, split for viewing on another device, etc).

The member then took her question to the next logical place…

Taking this a step further, do live streaming of such events accessed via the Internet have such restrictions? i.e. during the recent hurricanes, a public library provided viewing access to live streaming news events to members of the public (public forum). Is such legal? Can a public library "broadcast" internally - for the viewing ability of the public - show television programs, news reports, live streaming videos, etc. 

The lawyer answers….

This is where things get complicated.  There are any number of law review articles, commentaries, and cases debating how copyright law, communications law, and contract law intersect on this issue.  While “streaming” has become a catch-all term for any audiovisual (or audio) work accessible via the internet, the precise technology behind the display plays into the analysis[3].  Further, many news sites require log-in information connected to an individual person to get full access, so the person whose account is associated with an allegedly non-conforming or infringing use could face personal consequences.

The bottom line: an institution would need to exercise caution on a case-by-case basis to re-transmit information, since the 110(5)(a) exception might not apply.  But if the content is on one screen, no admission is charged, and there is no re-transmission, it might be possible.

The member then asked the “Ultimate YouTube” question:

While not, in my opinion the same as showing the news, a television program, etc.....The following is known about YouTube "terms of service": "Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content."

This question highlights exactly what I had to talk about above: that the licensing terms of the websites may bring further restrictions than the copyright law.  That said, here is an important point for libraries, the guardians of information: Section 110 is not the only exception to infringement for the transmission of audiovisual works. Fair Use, in Section 107, and the “Library and Archive Exception, in Section 108, can also apply. 

Of course, every “Fair Use” requires a fact-specific analysis.  But it is certainly possible that a library could aggregate and then re-transmit select streamed information in a way that met both the emergency response needs of the public, and the 107 criteria (although there could still be a risk of a civil claim based on violating the “terms of use” of the site).  The key would be avoiding, generally, wholesale copying/displaying of non-transformative content[4], and making sure no particular staff member is vulnerable to being accused of violating a “terms of use” license.

As to Section 108, the capture and archiving (and perhaps, later, lending/copying) of streamed content goes beyond the scope of this reply, but it’s an issue to keep in mind.  Nowadays, a great amount of valuable content is “born digital,” and the meaningful archiving of such content may fall within a particular library’s mission.  For this, any library should consider exactly what it wants to do, the precise nature of the source material, the precise legal concerns….and develop a strategy to do it. This will only get more important in the decades to come.[5]

[1] Trust me.  It’s a mess.  Just do a search for “Berne” and “homestyle exception” and “WIPO.”

[2] This answer does not address playing audio works, which fall in part under 110, but require different analyses (yes, more than one).

[3] For instance, in the case Joe Hand Productions, Inc., v. Maupin (2016, U.S. District, EDNY), the court assessed a claim based on a saloon owner using a Roku device to display a Mixed Martial Arts fight accessed through his Cablevision account.  The court refused to dismiss the claims for both copyright infringement and violation of the Federal Communications Act.  As of this writing, that case is still in its pre-trial phase.  Of course, the saloon probably pulled in a lot more money for hosting an MMA re-transmission than a library will pull in for providing emergency news access, but the financial rewards of the performance are not the only factor.

[4] I appreciate that during a time of extreme need, when lives are on the line, a cost-benefit analysis might also cause someone to throw caution to the wind and just re-broadcast the content without doing a Fair Use analysis!  I don’t advise that, but I don’t want readers to think I am a heartless legal robot.

[5] Consider the various databases of valuable research/data that have changed format and content due to administrative changes in the federal executive branch, for instance.

This is a lovely idea, but any library considering something like this should get assurance that the work is in the public domain[1], or have permission from the authorized licensor (who is not always the copyright holder), before filming/streaming. 

This is because an audio recording[2] of a copyright-protected book is likely a “derivative work” (a work based on the original[3]) that, without permission, constitutes an infringement. 

A great example of a permitted derivative work is a commercially published audiobook.  Check out the credits on an audiobook listing—they generally recite two copyrights: the first for the original work (used with permission), and the second for the audio recording.  This is how the law both limits and promotes such recording.

A few other legal considerations approach this scenario, but don’t quite apply:

• “Fair Use” would not apply, as the reading would likely use a large portion (if not the entirety) of the work, and the purpose is not transformative, nor for commentary/criticism. The fact that the transmission would be for a worthy goal, consistent with a library’s mission, is likely not enough to make the use Fair--even if the effect on the market would be insubstantial.
• If the recordings were purely for ADA accessibility[4], there could be an argument, but such a project would need to be planned carefully, but that is not the purpose in the example.
• The TEACH Act, which allow academics at TEACH-registered institutions to stream copyrighted content, but that only applies under very precise circumstances.[5]

That said, because a live reading could promote the works featured, I imagine there are publishers who would grant a limited license for such an endeavor.  However, depending on their contract with the author(s), a publisher might not be able to!  In any event, asking permission is a case-by-case exercise.

The good news is that the reading itself, at the physical location of the library, is allowed so long as it meets Section 110 (4)[6] of the Copyright Act (this probably isn’t news to most librarians). 

Very often, attorneys are perceived as throwing cold water on project like this, and hopefully this answer has shown why that is usually our only option.  That said, if there is ever a specific work a library wants to plan an event around (a specific book, etc), it is worth it to investigate the status and licensing posture of that work.  You never know what you’ll find when you check the status, or the ability to get permission, for a specific work.

I wish you all good reading.

[1] No longer protected by copyright…and for that matter, not affixed with a trademark the owner could claim you infringed.

[2] Because it technically “makes a copy” as it goes, streaming is often considered duplication.  If you ever feel like causing a healthy debate, ask three intellectual property attorneys and a U.S. Supreme Court Justice to comment on this line of case law.

[3] Per Section 101 of the Copyright Act: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. [Emphasis added.]

[4] Per Section 110 (8) of the Copyright Act.

[5]Those circumstances are listed in the ALA’s TEACH Act FAQ.

[6] Law linked here.

First question
As you say, a college can show a movie they own, without further licensing, so long as: 

• The institution is a not-for-profit
• The performance of the film is in connection with face-to-face teaching activities, in a classroom or similar place of instruction.
• The copy was legitimately acquired

This is a broad exemption, but it absolutely does not apply to non-instructional, non-classroom showing of movies by student clubs.  Such a showing would require express permission via license.

Of course, if a student club has an academic focus (for instance, Spanish Club) and the film is to be part of an academic experience (for instance, watching the movie in Spanish, to enhance learning), in an academic setting (class room, with a qualified academic instructor) one could argue that the required elements are still met. But the educational purpose must be bona fide…no watching “Deadpool” for entertainment and then having a half-hearted, academically disconnected discussion on modern comic book tropes.  And of course under no circumstances should money be charged.

Second question
The second question is very simple: the cover images of most commercial films are subject to copyright.  Because of that, and because there is no exemption allowing them to be duplicated, unless permission is obtained, the college is well-advised not to allow copies to be displayed to promote the event, and especially should not allow that image to be published on the college website. 

Keeping it off the website is critical.  Even smaller rights holders police the internet for images they own, and insurance companies, facing mandatory statutory damages and attorneys’ fees, will quickly settle claims…something that will eventually lead to higher insurance premiums for your institution.

The best way to promote the licensed showing is to either use the approved promotional material that comes with the license, or generate a version that does not infringe on the content of the original (or the film).