Section 110

Before we jump into things, let me first offer this unambiguous assurance: Doubts, begone! The use you contemplated is allowed by law.

Okay, with that out of the way, let's break it down.

As we have reviewed on “Ask the Lawyer” before,[1] under Copyright Section 110.1, nonprofit education institutions can show physical copies of movies in class,[2] so long as the copy they are viewing was not “unlawfully obtained.”

Or, as the law puts it, it is not infringement for a school to engage in:

... performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made;

When it comes to what constitutes knowledge of an “unlawful” copy, Congress commented on this in House Report 94-1476:

The exemption [from infringement] is lost where the copy being used for a classroom performance was “not lawfully made under this title” and the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to suspect as much. This special exception to the exemption would not apply to performances from lawfully-made copies, even if the copies were acquired from someone who had stolen or converted them, or if the performances were in violation of an agreement. However, though the performance would be exempt under section 110(1) in such cases, the copyright owner might have a cause of action against the unauthorized distributor under section 106(3), or against the person responsible for the performance, for breach of contract.

Again: this means the in-class showing contemplated by the member can happen, so long as the school doesn't know the copy was unlawfully made (or didn't make the unlawful copy directly).

From the perspective of an author or owner of a work, this can be frustrating: it means that faculty at a college or university can show a movie, read a poem, or display a painting without the permission that, without the 110.1 exception,[3] might be required.[4] 

For purposes of this question, we're going to assume that the use proposed by the member checks ALL the 110.1 boxes:

• The use is for a not-for-profit educational institution;
• The use is by a faculty member or student; and
• The use will be confined to a class in which the students are enrolled (not a student club or an open event on campus).

It also sounds like the school is the owner of the actual physical copy, although that is not required to exercise rights under 110.1.[5]

So, with the member having met all the criteria for an in-class showing (or “performance”) to be held under 110.1, can a notice with a physical copy, saying essentially, “No 110.1 here, you must get permission to play this in class, or we'll sue!” remove the law's protection?

No.

If the law worked that way, every 110 protection from liability for infringement (which ranges from protections for education, to protections for people with disabilities) could be revoked ad hoc. The law might as well cease to exist. Happily, laws usually don't work that way.

Of course, before being able to give such a decisive answer, I checked the most recent case law and copy of the status on LEXIS-NEXIS. 17 U.S.C. 110 has not been amended since 2005. There has never been an opt-out provision that an owner can invoke with a notice on a physical copy. There is no case law that suggests such an opt-out exists.

Although I am able to give a decisive answer to the fact pattern, the member was right to take a pause and check in when they felt unsure. Copyright, especially in academia, can have some odd-twists and turns. But even though this notice tries to pull the rug out from under the feet of educators, 110.1 abides. [6]

This question was submitted by a system serving elementary and secondary schools.

The answer for those schools (and for higher education, too) is: if the viewing of the DVD is tied to the reading of the book and the content is part of the class/curriculum, then YES, it can be viewed in class.

This exception to infringement by a school is found in 17 U.S.C. 110  (1), which states:

...the following are not infringements of copyright:

(1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made;

So, to be clear: at a not-for-profit school, as part of the curriculum, in the school's designated learning space, the "movie based on the book" can be viewed as part of  the curriculum...so long as the copy being watched was not pirated or otherwise obtained through the shady  (but now losing ground to illegal streaming) DVD black market.

Thank you for this question.

The short answer to this question is: IF the video is only going to include the YouTube animal clips, and IF it is only going to be used in the school for instructional purposes, the proposed use is fine, since copyright section 110(1)[1] allows schools to play videos in class if the topic is related to a class, and YouTube doesn't limit use of its service to "personal" uses.

Now, I say "mostly" fine because, technically, the combination of the YouTube content into another video compilation could be considered the creation of a "derivative work" (like a sequel or a mash-up), instead of just "performing" (playing) the video as allowed by law.  But if the copy truly isn't leaving school grounds, and the "performance" is to promote a reading program in the classroom, and the footage really is just being swapping in and out with interviews with school staff, it would be a stretch for anyone to claim infringement.

With respect to the other issue that I detect in the question--would "School X" have a claim against the school for pinching its idea? I don't think so.  The project you describe is sufficiently different from theirs; after all, they got their author for their endeavor, and your school is focusing on local talent.  You can't copyright an idea[2]...just its expression.

When it comes to a school generating original educational content inspired by others, for use only within that school, the key is to model the type of respect for others that educators want to instill in their students, while taking full advantage of the protections educators have under the law.

In this case, "Respect" means not using pirated copies when a school plays instructional movies, and not using more content than the school is entitled to when the instruction is online.  "Protections," among other things, means that for in-person instruction, videos can be played, and for online instruction, parts of videos can be played, so long as the performance is from legitimate copies.[3]

[NOTE: For schools that want to up their game and start producing original content they will share with the world: this answer is not for you.  If any school out there is thinking of becoming an author/producer/provider of educational materials, don't rely on this answer, and develop a business plan that includes how to respect and protect IP.]

And finally, I have to say: thank you for this question.  First, it got me onto Animoto, which I am totally going to check out.[4]  And second: I love PARP.  Some of my fondest circa-1980 memories are of filling out my PARP form with my folks, after some time reading together on the couch,[5] so this question made me smile.  It's good to see the program is going strong, and the hamsters of the world are showing us how to cope with the ups and downs of life.

[1] 110(1) allows "Performance...of a work by instructors ...in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture...the performance... is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made...."

[2] Of course, you can patent certain ideas, so please don't think I'm touting intellectual property anarchy.

[3] This aspect of Copyright Section 110 is different than the issue of streaming services being limited for personal use, and thus not always the best place for educators to get their in-class movies.

[4] I clearly don't get out much.

[5] My parents still have the same couch, which they got in 1964.   They are the greenest people I know.

MAKING A COPY ON THIS MACHINE

MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE COPYRIGHT LAW OF THE UNITED STATES

This means 4 important things:

1.  Copying a copyright-protected work here could be a copyright violation[1].

2.  Copying protected works is sometimes allowed under "fair use."[2]  Our school's fair use policy is posted INSERT.

3.  Copying a copyrighted work to accommodate a disability under the ADA is allowed.   However, to do that, please see the [insert office for disability services] staff, since adaptive copies have special rules,[3] and we want to help you (or a person you are assisting) exercise your rights.

4.   Under the TEACH Act,[4] you may display or perform certain copyright-protected content in class, but that does not allow you to make additional copies for in-class or online instruction.  Please don't make copies that exceed the permission obtained by the school (unless you use our policy to determine it is fair use).

The copy machines are here for your use, and we appreciate your consideration of these laws.

Thanks!

[1] 17 U.S.C. 106 reserves the making of copies to the copyright owner.

[2] 17. U.S.C. 107 allows copying under certain circumstances, but simply "educational" or "not-for-profit"  use is not enough.  Read the guide at the link!

[3] See https://www.loc.gov/nls/about/organization/laws-regulations/copyright-law-amendment-1996-pl-104-197/.

[4] Section 110 of the Copyright Act.

Welcome to "Back to School 2021"...a year unlike any other!

I have weathered many K-12 "back-to-schools."  For instance, second grade back-to-school, for me, was in 1980.  For my son, it was in 2010.  And for my daughter, it was just a few days before I sat down to write this.

That 1980-to-2021 time span has allowed me to realize two things:

Realization #1: Erasers smell the same in 2021 as they did in 1980; and

Realization #2: Back-to-school 2021 kicked off in a world that has gone through a lot of rapid and (at times) de-stabilizing change.[1]

The good news about realization #2 is that the law--which tends to change much more slowly than the world around it-- is much the same.  So, for this answer, where we can, we'll be linking back to prior "Ask the Lawyer" answers, and where there is something new, we'll add it.

QUESTION 1: Can a teacher use a Spotify account in their classroom?

ANSWER: Not unless the license has changed to allow more than "personal use."  For more on that, see Using Streaming Services (Hulu, Netflix) in the Classroom.

QUESTION 2: Can a teacher use music with face-to-face instruction?

ANSWER:  Yes, so long as the music is part of the instruction, and the copy of the song was legally obtained.[2]

QUESTION 3: Can a service provider (counselor, therapist, social worker...) use music with students?

ANSWER:  There is no automatic permission or exception to the copyright law that allows a mental health service provider to use recordings, sheet music, or other copyright-protected property for purposes of licensed service.[3]

QUESTION 4: Can music be played during sporting events?

If the recorded or streamed music is protected by copyright, it should only be played with a license.

NOTE: Public schools will want to consult their lawyers about their risks in this regard now that the U.S. Supreme Court has (arguably) struck down the ability to sue "the state" and its subdivisions for copyright infringement.
 

5. Can music be used as part of the morning announcements?
If the music is protected by copyright, it should only be played with a license. 

NOTE: Public schools will want to consult their lawyers about their risks in this regard now that the U.S. Supreme Court has (arguably) struck down the ability to sue "the state" and its subdivisions for copyright infringement.

And with that, I wish you a joyous back-to-school.

[1] Perhaps this is why I found the familiar aroma of new "Pink Pearl" erasers comforting.

[2] This is allowed per Section 110(1) of the Copyright Act, which states that "performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction" is not infringement. 

[3] As I write that, it strikes me that such services are so important, ensuring the resource can be used legally is important.  There are a number of ways to do that, depending on the precise circumstances.

There are four ways it can be permissible:

1.  Check the license[1] from the publisher and see if the purchase of the physical copies came with any digitization/duplication permission.  You'd be surprised how many rights you buy (or don't buy) when you make that hard copy purchase.  Publishers take a variety of approaches on this, and an individual publisher's permissions may change from work-to-work, so confirm (or rule out) this approach for each work.

2.  If the license does not allow making digital copies, contact the publisher, and see if it can be expanded.  Publishers are now getting many requests like this and may be ready with a simple (and affordable) solution.

3.  I am not a fan of them (they are as outdated and as risky as the Ford Pinto), but the "CONTU" guidelines speak to this issue.  I am including the relevant guidelines, as presented in Copyright Office Circular 21, under this answer.  If one of your precise needs fits one of the "permissible uses" listed in Circular 21, you are all set.

4.  Speaking of CONTU, the first "permissible use" listed in the guidelines may help you out here, with a slight twist on your scenario.  In the event that the physical copies listed in the question are mailed out and not returned as feared, the guidelines allow for emergency copying after the fact (of course, they also require that at some point, you purchase more physical copies, but at least you can get the copies to the students).

Those are my four solutions, based on conventional approaches and current case law.

I'll also throw out a "fifth option" based on a slightly different approach, which, depending on some precise facts, could work for faculty teaching choral classes:

The 110 Solution

Copyright Section 110 allows an academic choral group (if meeting as part of a class) to display "a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of a live classroom session," during an online class/rehearsal.

How can that help with the member's scenario?

Let's say I am in a class that is working up an a capella performance of "36 Chambers,"[2] as arranged by the composers of the original work.[3]

If the class was still meeting physically, Copyright Section 110(a) would allow us to perform the song and to display the music on the in-class smart board.  In the online environment, the same performance and display could happen via the internet, as allowed by 110(b) (the "TEACH Act")—again, so long as only the amount "typically" displayed in class was shown. 

Whether in-person or online, the rehearsal would include review of the different parts for bass, tenor, alto and soprano,[4] with the relevant music displayed on the screen.  While an academic institution can't tell people to take screen shots of the music displayed for rehearsal purposes, students who want to snap screenshots of a class to take notes is a fact of modern-day academia.  If a student who was told to purchase a copy of their part uses this method to ensure they are practicing on an incremental basis, that's out of the school's control, and the student can make their own claim to fair use.

This type of solution should never be used as a deliberate alternative to the purchase of individual copies.  But so long as the display is incremental and truly a part of the in-class experience, it is a viable option.

I wish all music faculty approaching the Fall 2020 semester many good performances, whether virtual, or face-to-face.  These are tough days for people who love to sing, who enjoy the community of a choir, and who need to hone their vocal art in collaboration with others.  Hunting for music should not add to the burden, and with a few tricks and an awareness of the limits of the law, it doesn't have to.

------------------------

Guidelines for Educational Uses of Music

The purpose of the following guidelines is to state the minimum and not the maximum standards of educational fair use under Section 107 of H.R. 2223.

The parties agree that the conditions determining the extent of permissible copying for educational purposes may change in the future; that certain types of copying permitted under these guidelines may not be permissible in the future, and conversely that in the future other types of copying not permitted under these guidelines may be permissible under revised guidelines.

Moreover, the following statement of guidelines is not intended to limit the types of copying permitted under the standards of fair use under judicial decision and which are stated in Section 107 of the Copyright Revision Bill. 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.

Reproduction of Copyrighted Works

Permissible Uses

1 Emergency copying to replace purchased copies which for any reason are not available for an imminent performance provided purchased replacement copies shall be substituted in due course.

2 For academic purposes other than performance, single or multiple copies of excerpts of works may be made, provided that the excerpts do not comprise a part of the whole which would constitute a performable unit such as a section¹, movement or aria, but in no case more than 10 percent of the whole work. The number of copies shall not exceed one copy per pupil.

3 Printed copies which have been purchased may be edited or simplified provided that the fundamental character of the work is not distorted or the lyrics, if any, altered or lyrics added if none exist.

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

5 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.)

Prohibitions

1 Copying to create or replace or substitute for anthologies, compilations or collective works.

2 Copying of or from works intended to be “consumable” in the course of study or of teaching such as workbooks, exercises, standardized tests and answer sheets and like material.

3 Copying for the purpose of performance, except as in A(1) above.

4 Copying for the purpose of substituting for the purchase of music, except as in A(1) and A(2) above.

5 Copying without inclusion of the copyright notice which appears on the printed copy. (iv)

Discussion of Guidelines

The Committee appreciates and commends the efforts and the cooperative and reasonable spirit of the parties who achieved the agreed guidelines on books and periodicals and on music. Representatives of the American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Law Schools have written to the Committee strongly criticizing the guidelines, particularly with respect to multiple copying, as being too restrictive with respect to classroom situations at the university and graduate level. However, the Committee notes that the Ad Hoc group did include representatives of higher education, that the stated “purpose of the … guidelines is to state the minimum and not the maximum standards of educational fair use” and that the agreement acknowledges “there may be instances in which copying which does not fall within the guidelines … may nonetheless be permitted under the criteria of fair use.” The Committee believes the guidelines are a reasonable interpretation of the minimum standards of fair use. Teachers will know that copying within the guidelines is fair use. Thus, the guidelines serve the purpose of fulfilling the need for greater certainty and protection for teachers. The Committee expresses the hope that if there are areas where standards other than these guidelines may be appropriate, the parties will continue their efforts to provide additional specific guidelines in the same spirit of good will and give and take that has marked the discussion of this subject in recent months

[1] Checking a license is not an exact science.  Some publisher's use a catch-all that is included on their invoices.  Others put the information right on the music.  Others like to make you really hunt for it, but it is usually part of the sale transaction.  This is why, when making a purchase of music, it is good to take a screen shot or save the paperwork related to the purchase.

[2] Note: To my knowledge this work does not exist, but it is on my wish list of music to hear.  I love it when genres collide.

[3] This new version would be a "derivative work" based on the original, and have its own copyright protection as a musical composition.

[4] We have reached the limit of my choral knowledge.  Is there separate sheet music for mezzo-soprano and counter-tenor?  Probably.  I am sorry, I quit choir in 7th grade.

The short answer is: no, this scenario is not a “fair use.”

But that’s not the end! “Fair use”—which is found in Section 107 of the Copyright Act—is not the only exception to copyright infringement.

There is another way.  Section 110 of the Copyright Act provides:

[T]he following are not infringements of copyright:

(1)performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made[.] [emphasis added].[1]

In the cold, scary, expensive world of copyright infringement, section 110 is breath of fresh air.  Unlike section 107, which creates a four-factor “fair use” formula so esoteric, you can consult three lawyers and get six opinions, Section 110’s exceptions are well-defined and clear. [2]

So, can a gathering of instructors and students in a theater on a college campus meet these clear 110 requirements?  Yes! 

But.

The problem is, as used in 110, the term “students” is not broad enough to apply to the member’s precise scenario.  While the 110 term “instructors” includes guest lecturers (if their instructional activities remain confined to the class location and syllabus), the 110 term “pupils” is generally regarded as meaning only enrolled members of a class.  [3]  In addition, it is best if the syllabus for the course, whether for credit or a certificate, supports a conclusion that the viewing context really is a class—not recreation (even if it is enlightening recreation) masquerading as academia.  110 is a powerful exception to infringement, but it has its limits.

107 and 110 exceptions to infringement can sometimes get conflated.  Here are some examples of how they do (or do not) apply, using one of my new favorite movies:

1.  “Black Panther” uncut and shown on campus as part of an open-to-all, educational film series about would not be allowed under either fair use or 110.  Any such showing must be licensed.  

2.  “Black Panther” partially evoked in very small, carefully-chosen selections for an open campus forum on “Women in Major Motion Picture Fight Scenes” could be allowed under “fair use,” but film stills and excerpts must be limited to only what is needed to make a point.

And finally…

3. “Black Panther” shown in its entirety to students enrolled in a “Comics and Society” class would be allowed under 17 U.S.C. 110 (1)…so long as the movie genuinely contributes to the substance of the course, is shown only to enrolled students, and the copy they watch is not pirated. 

What’s the take-away?  Educators should apply “fair use” when needed, but remember that section 110(1) creates exceptions to infringement, too.  It’s no vibranium[4], but is a powerful part of an educator’s arsenal.

[1] Care must be taken to ensure there is no re-transmission of the content.  Another section of 110 does allow for limited re-transmission for online learning, but to qualify, the institution must adhere to all TEACH Act requirements.

[2] There are more than this, and of course, they all come with rules.  Read the statute before relying on 110 to protect you from infringement.

[3] See House Report 94-1476

[4] Special rare metal in “Black Panther;” also, what Captain America’s shield is made from.

The TEACH Act was adopted in 2002 to enable the “digital transmission” of otherwise copyright-protected content for educational purposes. 

Schools meeting the Act’s requirements[1] can stream readings of poetry, images of paintings, and lines of computer coding, without fear of infringement claims.  This allows regular teaching activities—like analyzing a poem, assessing a painting, or teaching HTML--to happen online, without fear that the duplication or transmission of the copyright-protected content will bring a lawsuit. 

The TEACH Act positions online learning to use content as it would be used in a traditional classroom—as well as to novel and innovative things via distance learning technology.

But there are a few aspects of the “traditional classroom” the TEACH Act cannot replicate, and a critical one is: watching entire movies.

Per Section 110(1) of the Copyright Act, entire movies can be shown during an in-person class (if they are part of the curriculum…the law doesn’t allow a trigonometry class to kick back with “Wonder Woman” after finals are shown, unless they are calculating the angles of the bullets bouncing off her bracers). 

But there is no equivalent exception in the TEACH Act for streaming an entire video as part of an online course. 

In fact, in very plain language, the Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act states that only a “portion” of a film can be shown.  As stated right here:

…the performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or reasonable and limited portions of any other work, or display of a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of a live classroom session, by or in the course of a transmission…. [emphasis added].

Okay, I admit it: it’s possible the “very plain language” is only plain to lawyers (and copyright scholars—many of whom are librarians--who leave some lawyers in the dust on these issues). 

The “House Report” [2] below, explains how this language means performance of an entire movie is not allowed:

The exemption for instructional broadcasting provided by section 110(2) would apply only to “performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or display of a work.” Thus, the copyright owner’s permission would be required for the performance on educational television or radio of a dramatic work, of a dramatico-musical work such as an opera or musical comedy, or of a motion picture.   [emphasis added]

So what does this mean?  Schools that want to stream entire movies as part of an online course—even if those movies could be shown during an in-person class--should not rely on the TEACH Act as their protection from infringement.[3]

What are the other solutions?

• The institution can obtain a license to stream the movie(s);
• The institution can create a “hybrid” course (part online, part in-person) that shows the movies in a physical class, as authorized by 110(1);
• Students can be required to subscribe to a streaming service or other licensed source of the movies, just like they rent or buy textbooks;
• In some instances, fair use might apply, BUT that should be determined on a movie-by-movie basis and documented very carefully, since simple academic need is generally not a defense to infringement.

Thank you for this question!

This question has two parts: 1) liability for copyright infringement based on a live reading (without staging) of a dramatic work; and 2) liability for events at library facilities.

Let’s tackle part 1 first. 

Section 110 of the Copyright Act sets out a number of exceptions for educational and charitable use of copyrighted works.[1]  Unfortunately, “dramatic works” (plays) are largely excluded from those exceptions.  So while Section 110 is generous (for instance, there is a total exemption from liability for performance of non-dramatical musical works at horticultural fairs!)[2], “performance” of dramatic works (even without staging) is not as excused as other types of use.  

The other exception that could apply to the member’s question is of course “fair use.”  I won’t take up too much of this “Ask the Lawyer” to discuss that option, since the event described here does not sound like it would meet the criteria. [3]

For this reason, any library or venue asked or planning to host a reading of a dramatic work—even without staging it, even without charging admission—should be very cautious.  Unless there is a confirmed exemption under 110 (which would be for classroom use, or for a performance for people with visual impairments), or a documented “fair use” under 107,  proper licensing should be obtained.

And now for part 2. 

Most libraries have some form of policy, and maybe a “facility use contract,” allowing groups or individuals to use their space.  Some charge a small rental fee, others do not.  Some have express restrictions on use by businesses or political groups,[4] others do not.

What’s important to the member’s question is that any use of library facilities should be governed by clear, uniformly applied, mutually-understood terms that:

• ensure ease of distinguishing official library events from those simply using the library;
• require any outside group to expressly assent to following library rules and procedures;
• protect the library from any third-party claims based on the group’s use of the premises.

When it comes to copyright, this last part is essential, since the copyright law allows for “vicarious” liability that can include “innocent” (meaning, they didn’t know about it, or didn’t instigate it) infringers. 

This is what the last Congressional committee amending the Copyright Law has to say about “vicarious liability” for performances:

Vicarious Liability for Infringing Performances.

The committee has considered and rejected an amendment to this section intended to exempt the proprietors of an establishment, such as a ballroom or night club, from liability for copyright infringement committed by an independent contractor, such as an orchestra leader. A well-established principle of copyright law is that a person who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner is an infringer, including persons who can be considered related or vicarious infringers. To be held a related or vicarious infringer in the case of performing rights, a defendant must either actively operate or supervise the operation of the place wherein the performances occur, or control the content of the infringing program, and expect commercial gain from the operation and either direct or indirect benefit from the infringing performance. The committee has decided that no justification exists for changing existing law, and causing a significant erosion of the public performance right.

As a not-for-profit institution, a library may have some more defenses than the average night club owner, but there is still a threat of liability. 

So how do venues reduce the risks posed by “vicarious” liability? Often, they ask the main performer, or the entity renting the facility, to “indemnify” the venue for any liability related to the performance.  To ensure they are actually protected, they also demand a certain amount and type of insurance, and require that the venue be a “named insured.” [5]  Later, if they are sued for an infringing performance, the venue will invoke the indemnity, and be defended by and have their damages paid by the renter or performer. 

So, to recap, the following factors are potentially relevant to both parts of the member’s question:

• This particular use of a copyrighted work does not seem to fall under the exceptions of Copyright Law 110;
• A reading of a dramatic work could be a “fair use” under Copyright Law 107, but that conclusion should be carefully documented, and again, does not seem to fit the described situation;
• A library should have a policy and contract that enables the clear distinction between library and non-library events;
• A library should have a “facility use” contract that protects it from any risks of allowing others to use its facility, including performance-related liabilities;
• A library should have insurance coverage that takes into consideration use of its facility by others, including use for performances;
• For certain high-risk uses (if allowed) a library can require an indemnification and insurance;
• For certain high-risk uses, a library can simply decide the event is too risky.

This assessment of risks and ways to mitigate them is called “risk management,” and the member’s question is a great example of how to start the process.  So, what was that question again?

…regardless of whether an audience is brought out for the performance or not, regardless of who is 'sponsoring' it, this would be in violation of the creator's (who is still alive) copyright claim to the work. Further, that the library would most likely be the liable party.

Am I right?

Except for would changing “the liable party” to “a liable party”: yes, the member is correct…there is a risk.  How can this assessed risk be managed? One of four ways:

• Have the group obtain written permission from the rights holder (for a reading at that precise location);
• Locate a 110 or 107 exception;
• Require an indemnification and proof of insurance from the group; or
• Make a risk-management decision to not host the event.

Thank you for your careful question!

Exeunt lawyer, stage left.

Reading to kids is one of the best thing we can do for them.  If the law gets in the way of that, there is something wrong with the law!

That said, honoring the rights of authors and illustrators who create stories to charm and educate is one of the best ways we can make sure there is always something new to read. 

And it’s the law.  

The member’s concern is justified; copyright law rewards creativity by empowering rights holders to control how and when their work is duplicated--in this case, “performed”[1].  A reading on “Facebook Live”—no matter how many cute, be-jammied scholars it enriches—could infringe those rights[2]. 

But as the member also suggests, respecting copyright does not need to be the end of the line; there are many ways this type of real-time, remote reading can take place.

Below, please find my “Top 5 Ways for a Teacher to Remotely Read a Bedtime Story to Lots of Kids in Different Places Without Fear of Committing Copyright Infringement.”

1.  When choosing a book to read, select a work in the “public domain”…meaning, the book is no longer protected by copyright.  As of 2019, this means works published before 1924 (in the U.S.) and other select situations.[3]

For example, the “Brothers Grimm” who were writing in the 1800’s, are not suing anymore (nor are their heirs).  Just make sure the publisher hasn’t found a new way to assert the copyright of the copy you read from (a new version, new illustrations and layout, a slightly less sadistic version of the original, etc).

2.  Write your own story.

This one is my favorite.  Who knows?  You might discover you’re the next Eric Carle!

3.  Hold a writing contest amongst the students that includes parental permission to read the entries/winners online. 

This could also bolster interest in the event, since kids could hear their own work read, and see their own pictures online.

4.  Explore making the reading exempt under the TEACH Act (section 110 (2) of the Copyright Act).

The TEACH Act exempts certain digital transmissions of work from the classroom environment.  It has several highly specific requirements, so educators should connect with their institution’s attorney and IT department to see if this option can work for them.  While not the solution for every “good night” reading, with some planning, it could be a way to make online reading sessions a part of a routine curriculum.

And finally…

5.  Explore getting permission from the rights holder!  While not all authors will be in a position to agree, many will say “Yes, of course!” when asked if a teacher can livestream a reading of their book (of course, if you also want to show their book as well as read it, you will need permission from the illustrator, too). 

Reaching out to an author or publisher takes time, but many children’s authors are very accessible.  My high school friend, Grace Lin, is a well-known children’s book author (and recent winner of a Caldecott Honor for “A Big Mooncake for Little Star”).  I reached out to Grace on Facebook to get her take on this issue (and got her permission to share her thoughts). 

For Grace, whose work contains lovely and carefully rendered illustrations, such a request would be about intent and quality.  She said if the reading was more about the not-for-profit reader and audience connecting over her story, and not the video dwelling on the pages (effectively copying them), she would consider giving permission.  On the flip side, Grace felt that serious duplication (with the video dwelling on the pages) could be an unwelcome duplication. 

Like many children’s book authors, Grace is accessible via her website, www.gracelin.com, and I encourage would be night-time-story-readers to reach out to her!

Thank you for this great question.  Copyright is an important law to honor in the educational environment.  But finding ways—lots of ways—to give children an early and deep love of books is an even greater service to the world.  It’s one of the reasons librarians are so important.