COVID-19

This is a heart-breaking question, and I am sure it has been a hard process to get to this phase in your operations and planning.

In the state of New York, it can be a violation of both state and federal law to deny a person an employment opportunity on the basis of age or disability.  However, when a person cannot perform their essential duties due to a health concern, and no reasonable accommodation can help them do so, that person may have to leave the position.

Which brings us to the member's question: "So how can we effectively accommodate public librarians who are asking to *not* work with the public?"
There is a lot of wiggle room in this type of question, because the answer will change from library to library, but that also makes it hard to answer generically. 

Since I can't give an answer, I can do the next best thing: an array of questions to help members assess their own library's response to this type of disability accommodation[1] request:

I know no chart can take the place of a solid plan that considers the needs and resources of your library, the well-being and privacy of your employees, but hopefully this chart can help you develop one. Together with the more general guidance in an earlier answer, these are the fundamental steps to consider.

Thank you for being willing to pose a difficult question.  I wish your library well at this difficult time.

[1] The employee can call it whatever they want, but a request to change job duties on the basis of a medical condition (including the condition of having heightened vulnerability to infection) will generally be considered an accommodation request under the ADA or the New York State Human Rights Law.  Therefore, any library entertaining such a request should evaluate is as they would a disability accommodations request, which as stated in this answer, will vary from library to library, based on their policy (which should be based on the precise way the laws apply to that specific institution).

[2] Yes: It can be very tough to acknowledge someone is leaving, and then try to focus on "team cohesion."  And it can be doubly tough when a medical concern, and inability to offer an accommodation, leads someone to leave on disability (which of course is confidential, and cannot be shared by the library).  But at the same time, the right message can help with employee morale.  This is why strategizing with an HR professional or Personnel Committee Chair, to organize some talking points on those things, can be so important.

As the member writes, it is very difficult to determine if some physical factors—coughing, a flush, seeming malaise—are in fact symptoms of COVID-19.  Confronting a patron with suspected symptoms can also lead to concerns impacting community relations, privacy, and the ADA.

A good Safety Plan addresses this concern, without requiring patrons[1] to be removed mid-visit from the library.

To position libraries to address the impact of patrons with suspected symptoms, New York's "Interim Guidance for Essential and Phase II Retail" (issued July 1, 2020)[2] states:

CDC guidelines on “Cleaning and Disinfecting Your Facility” if someone is suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 are as follows:

• Close off areas used by the person suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 (Responsible Parties do not necessarily need to close operations, if they can close off the affected areas).
• Open outside doors and windows to increase air circulation in the area.
• Wait 24 hours before you clean or disinfect.
• If 24 hours is not feasible, wait as long as possible.
• Clean and disinfect all areas used by the person who is suspected or confirmed to have COVID19, such as offices, bathrooms, common areas, and shared equipment.
• Once the area has been appropriately disinfected, it can be opened for use.
• Employees without close or proximate contact with the person who is suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 can return to the work area immediately after disinfection.  Refer to DOH’s “Interim Guidance for Public and Private Employees Returning to Work Following COVID-19 Infection or Exposure“[3] for information on “close or proximate” contacts.  [4]
• If more than seven days have passed since the person who is suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 visited or used the retail location, additional cleaning and disinfection is not necessary, but routine cleaning and disinfection should continue.

[emphasis on "suspected" has been added]

In other words: your Safety Plan, as informed by the most recent guidelines, should leave nothing to chance.  By using this procedure, library staff are never put in the position of having to guess, ask, or consider if a patron's coughing, sneezing, or other behaviors are COVID-19...rather, the moment the possibility is "suspected," the Plan kicks into action.

Of course, if a patron is properly masked, some of the risk of exposure is limited, even if they are infected (this is why we wear masks and identify areas with six feet of clearance in the first place).  And if a patron removes their mask mid-visit, refuses to keep appropriate distance, or refuses to spray down equipment after using it,[5] THAT person can be asked to leave, simply as a matter of policy—whether they are exhibiting symptoms, or not.[6]

So to answer the question: no, it is not advisable to ask patrons to leave the public building if they are exhibiting any visible COVID symptoms, for exactly the reasons the member provides.[7]  Rather, it is required that your Safety Plan keep people distant from each other, and that the library be ready to address any real or suspected exposure as quickly and effectively as possible. 

That said, having signage that reads "Safety first!  Patrons who are concerned about transmission of germs can arrange curbside service by [INSERT]" is a great way to remind people that if they are having an "off" day, there are many ways to access the services of your library.

I wish you a strong and steady re-opening.

[1] This answer does not apply to employees and visitors like contractors, who must be screened.

[2] Found as of July 25th, 2020 at https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/atoms/files/RetailMasterGuidance.pdf

[3] Found as of July 25th, 2020 at https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2020/06/doh_covid19_publicprivateemployeereturntowork_053120.pdf

[4] I note that the DOH's "Interim Guidelines" do not include guidance to staff with suspected (as opposed to confirmed) exposure.  If an employee feels they were exposed to a suspected case of COVID-19, however, that will impact their answers on their next daily screening, which will trip consideration of whether they can report to work.

[5] Or whatever other safety measures a library has identified.  It is inspiring to read the variety of tactics out there, as listed at https://www.nyla.org/covid-19-library-reopening-plan-database/?menukey=nyla.

[6] Another member raised this consideration in this "Ask the Lawyer" from earlier in July 2020: RAQ #153

[7] Of course, if a patron is having a medical event and you have an immediate concern for their well-being, call 911.

This is a deep array of questions, requiring a deep array of answers.

But let’s start with the basics.

There are 64 SUNY campuses, some with more than one library.

What’s cool about these libraries?  They aren’t just collections of books on a campus, but distinct entities within their institutions, governed by the body of laws that apply to all libraries in New York, as well as the law that is SUNY-library specific.

The “SUNY-library specific” law is Education Law 249-a, which states:

The state university trustees and the board of higher education of the city of New York are hereby authorized to establish such rules and regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to make provision for access and use by the residents of the state of the libraries and library facilities of the public institutions of higher education under their respective jurisdictions.

In other words: SUNY and CUNY have libraries, and the boards of SUNY and CUNY can set those libraries’ rules, including the rules governing access.

SUNY’s[1]  board has established “such rules” by, among other things, adopting a policy on “Public Access to SUNY Libraries”[2]  which states:

It is the policy of the State University of New York (University) that the public is given access to University libraries insofar as possible. Since implementation of this policy has fiscal and administrative implications, campuses may extend the facilities of their libraries to the public whenever it can be done and in a manner that is both fiscally sound and consistent with their primary educational mission.

What does this mean for public access to those libraries?

State law gives SUNY broad authority “to establish such rules…for access and use by the residents of the state.” SUNY then uses that authority to develop a policy requiring “that the public is given access to University libraries insofar as possible.”  BUT, after asserting that broad goal, SUNY allows individual campuses to tailor that access based on the “fiscal” and “administrative” considerations of individual institutions.  So while access to the public is the stated goal, the conditions for access are really up to the individual libraries (and the academic leadership they report to).

I tooled around a few SUNY library web sites (I couldn’t resist the Charles B. Sears Law Library at SUNY Buffalo, my alma mater), and each have their own unique conditions for giving the public access.  Some make it easier to find that information than others.  I saw a range of conditions for access…anecdotal evidence that the libraries are using the latitude granted to them by SUNY policy.

And with that background established, I’ll answer the questions.

(1) What are the requirements for a SUNY library to provide access to the general non-campus community/public (those outside staff, faculty, students)?

While the law only goes so far as to “authorize” SUNY to provide for public access, SUNY-wide policy is that “the public is given access to University libraries insofar as possible… whenever it can be done and in a manner that is both fiscally sound and consistent with their primary educational mission.”

So my answer to the first question is: based on SUNY policy, public access to a SUNY library must be provided insofar as possible, provided the use by the public doesn’t interfere with the use of the students and faculty, and the burden of public use doesn’t throw off the budget.[3]

(2) Are there specific requirements/repercussions academic libraries should be aware of in regards to public access or prohibiting public access?

Absolutely, there are requirements and potential repercussions for access to libraries at state institutions.  I could write an entire book on them (and I bet someone has[4]), but here is my quick summary:

• Requirement: develop budgets, staffing plans, and operational policies that ensure the public is given access to University libraries “insofar as possible.”
• Requirement: in coordination with Campus Safety or Campus Police, develop a process to address the most serious public patron behavioral concerns. 
• Requirement: develop a privacy policy regarding the rights students, employees, and public patrons have under CPLR 4509.
• Repercussion: be ready to address civil rights concerns related to the library’s status as a public institution.

(3) What are the Section 108 repercussions for not allowing public access, specifically related to the pandemic? Would libraries still be protected if they provide public 'access by appointment' only? Would "temporary" non-public access still allow for application of the 108 exceptions?

For readers not familiar with it, “Section 108” is the portion of the Copyright Act, which gives special exemptions from infringement to libraries and archives that are open to the public.

Section 108 does not go into great lengths regarding what the requirement “open to the public” means, but some insight can be gained from how it handles access to special collections closed to the general public; such collections qualify for Section 108’s protection so long as they are open “to other persons doing research in [that] specialized field.”  So it is clear that “open to the public” is not intended to be a carte blanche free-for-all.

The current pandemic and SUNY’s efforts to combat it will certainly impact SUNY libraries’ ability to be “open to the public.”  However, I feel confident writing my conclusion that any institution that temporarily restricts all patron access will not be found to have not meet the requirements of section 108.  And I feel just as confident saying that scheduled visits by appointment—if that is what a SUNY library needs to do to ensure safety—would not cause a 108 concern, either.[5]

That said, I cannot feel the same confidence for any Safety Plan that completely and utterly removes all public access.  Public access, even if severely restricted, must still be a component in order to meet the requirements of 108.

(4) Can a SUNY library deny entry to students/faculty refusing to wear a mask in the facility if it's justified in the interests of health and safety?

Broadly and boldly speaking: yes.

BUT.

As discussed at the beginning of this answer, the law of the state of New York and the policies of SUNY give a great deal of latitude to libraries on a campus-by-campus basis.  Different campuses exercise this latitude in different ways.  This means that while the library in one SUNY location may be operating per a Safety Plan confirmed by a central coordinator, another library may be given a directive to develop their own. 

Or, as (former[6]) SUNY Chancellor Kristina M. Johnson put it:

We understand that…each of our campuses is a complex ecosystem with regular engagement with their respective surrounding communities.

Within those different plans will be different solutions for the safe operations of different sites.  Some of those plans will call for masks, because masks will be the only way the planned operations will be able to be conducted safely.  Other plans may only include modified operations that may be performed safely without masks.  And of course, any plan requiring a mask will include the proper ADA accommodations information for those who are not able to wear one.

While the country has watched as some people challenge the requirement to wear PPE on the basis of civil rights, a limited requirement to wear a certain type of protective gear for a narrowly tailored purpose with a general application is not likely to be found a violation of the First Amendment. But of course, when it comes to civil rights, the devil is often in the details.  If, for instance, only a certain type of facemask was required, and that facemask type did not work well with a certain body type, or the need to wear a hijab, it is possible that could trigger an ADA or First Amendment claim. The guidance being assembled by the Center for Disease Control and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration takes into account the diversity of bodies and identities that Safety Plans will need to serve. By using properly credentialed resources and thinking through Safety Plans from multiple perspectives, a SUNY library should be positioned to deny entry to students/faculty refusing to wear a mask in the facility if it's justified in the interests of health and safety.

Last note

In responding to these questions, I am mindful that general legal services are provided to SUNY institutions through the office of the NY State Attorney General, and many campuses have lawyers on staff. Therefore, to the greatest extent possible, any SUNY library, department, center, school, college or university finalizing a Safety Plan should take care that whenever possible, coordinated guidance from SUNY’s recognized legal advisers is incorporated. (Very often, this will have been done at the level where the institution is planning its emergency response.)  I am always gratified when a SUNY lawyer, or another lawyer, calls me to discuss my work for libraries, and I welcome those calls.[7]

As of this date (June 26, 2020) I have found no publicly accessible model safety plan or guidance from SUNY HQ with regard to the resumption of operations.  Rather, the SUNY page for COVID questions shows that the State University of New York is very much in an assessment and response mode, and the SUNY Library Consortium’s page shows that plans are still in development.[8] I am sure that will change as the situation evolves, and I encourage people to be attentive to that page, and their own administrations, for further specific guidance.   At the same time, since no one knows a library better than the librarians who works at it, I encourage pro-active assessment and formulation of access and safety plans by library leadership, informed by the people who work and study there.

This guidance was assembled directly from available materials, and while not legal advice, it is consistent with published SUNY materials and the law.  I hope it is helpful to SUNY libraries as you consider the continuation of your operations.

Thank you for a great array of thoughtful questions. I wish our SUNY libraries much health and strength for the days ahead.

[1] The rest of this answer will focus on SUNY, since that is the focus of the member’s questions.

[2] Found on June 8, 2020 at https://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc_id=330 and not to be confused with the “Open Access To State University Libraries” policy found that same day at https://www.suny.edu/sunypp/documents.cfm?doc_id=329.

[3] Having sat through budget meetings of all types as a student leader, journalist, academic administrator, and lawyer, I realize that the words “fiscal” and “mission” can be applied to many divergent ends.  Let’s not go there, this is about the law.

[4] I will ask my paralegal Jill to research this question and alert me if she finds one.  If she does, we’ll update this footnote.  Otherwise, you’ll know we didn’t find one.

[5] I am punting on the very practical consideration of the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding sovereign immunity, which arguably positions SUNY to not be very concerned about qualifying for protection under 108.  I am punting because, as the court put it, I am sure SUNY does not want to be seen as a “serial infringer.”  For more on that, see https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/allen-v-cooper/

[6] https://www.suny.edu/suny-news/press-releases/06-20/6-3-20/chancellor-johnson-departs.html

[7] (716) 464-3386

[8] This is not a criticism. A good plan takes time. And no plan other than a good plan should be implemented.

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.

Before I answer this question, I do have to emphasize: as I wrote here, fair use was not modified during the height of the initial pandemic closures.  Further, there is no case law or regulatory guidance indicating things will be any different if we have to return to the level of lockdown experienced this Spring. 

There is no "emergency use" exception to copyright law--even under fair use.  That said, this is an excellent question that captures the experience of working in higher education right now, and I do have a few helpful things to offer in response.

Higher education libraries trying to support another immediate conversion from in-person to online learning should consider doing the following:

1.  Work with their academic and IT colleagues to optimize their institution's rights under the TEACH Act, which under the right conditions, allows the digital transmission of copyright-protected material.

"Optimizing," in this case, means presenting otherwise inaccessible materials in class, so the TEACH Act's[1] exception infringement can be fully used, while making the most of the medium.  For example, if a history class would typically read a chapter of a book before class, then meet in person to discuss the chapter, perhaps now a part of the online class could consist of the faculty member or students reading the chapter aloud,[2] and the class using an asynchronous message board to discuss it.

This method requires faculty to be flexible, but it is one way to ensure access for all, when all else fails.

2.  Unite with other institutions to re-negotiate the terms of digital licenses from academic publishers.

I cannot stress this one enough.  Academic libraries must unite, must negotiate hard, and must threaten to boycott any publisher that refuses to offer a reasonable price for students to access content online.  This was critical before COVID, and it is even more critical now.[3]

3.  Much easier, and even cooler than #2: plan to collaborate with students' local libraries to ensure students can take full advantage of Copyright Section 108's support of access via inter-library loan.

What?

That's right.  Let's say I am a college student from Littleplace, NY.   Suddenly, it's October and I have to vacate my dorm room at ABC College, due to a local surge in COVID-19.  To be ready for the rest of my (now online) classes, I need 12 articles, a textbook that costs $500 (that I was previously sharing with two friends), and a course pak I forgot in my dorm.

So long as I have access to the list of materials, I can head over to the Littleplace Library (or call them) and work to find the materials I need.  Using its rights under Section 108 of the Copyright Code, the Littleplace Library can get me a copy of the articles...possibly even in collaboration with the ABC library, or another academic institution with the right subscription.

In my observation, this is a very under-discussed option.  Remember, your students have a right to work with their local library to get copies under a combination of 108 and (on the part of the student) fair use.  The key is having the course materials listed in such a way, that the local college or public library can easily (and quickly) help them.

This, by the way, is one of the many reasons it is critical to keep open every single one of our small and mid-size libraries in small towns and villages across the country.[4]

4.  Use your institution's compliance with NY's Textbook Access Act.

This is another "if you have time" one. 

In New York, all higher education institutions and publishers must follow this law[5]:

Textbooks shall be sold in the same manner as ordered by such faculty member or entity in charge of selecting textbooks for courses. In the event such product is unavailable as ordered, the bookstore, faculty, and relevant publisher shall work together to provide the best possible substitute that most closely matches the requested item or items, and the publisher shall make available the price of such substitute or substitutes readily available.

This clause has always been applied to combat predatory pricing for course materials, but lends itself to the current situation, too.  If the instructor was given a discount digital copy, the students should be able to buy one, too.

5.  Take some time to examine the latest ruling on academic e-reserves and fair use, so you feel comfortable making the call when you can post things on e-reserve without permission.[6]  Fair use has not been "loosened," but it still has lots of room.  The full document has been updated to "Ask the Lawyer" as "Becker Ruling 2020."  It's boring,[7] but very instructive.

My best wishes for a supported and supportive prep for the Fall semester.

[1]The full requirements of this law can be found at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/110

[2] This would also allow presentation through adaptive technology, for those who need it per ADA.

[3] I understand if you are too busy coming up with an "August Staffing Plan" and trying to figure out where to get 10 gallons of hand sanitizer to organize the revolution.  But this really is important.

[4] As if I have to sell most of you on the importance of funding libraries.

[5] Full text at https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/EDN/722.

[6] Always use your institution's fair use form to record your conclusion.

[7] The helpful stuff starts on page 6.

Since the onset of pandemic restrictions, "Ask the Lawyer" has written a lot on different variations of this topic.[1]

Since I am tired of being the party pooper on this issue,[2] I am offering up something new.  Here it is:

Don't do it...unless you make it something new.

What do I mean by "something new"?  I mean a use that is so clever, so additive, that even though it uses a copyright-protected work, it creates a work with independent meaning.

Examples of this "something new" are:

• Extensive[3] "color commentary" combined with the reading.
• Replacing the characters in the books with people in your town to make a witty commentary about town life.[4]
• Combining the reading with a special talent, such as reading each sentence of a travel book while traveling to a different yoga position, or reading a baking scene in a book while making a cake. 
• Humorous juxtaposition, like reading the first scene of Moby Dick[5] while fishing, or reading a book about puppies to your cat.[6]

Despite all the wishful writing out there, the cloud of the pandemic did not bring us the silver lining of automatic expansion of fair use.  That said, it hasn't diminished fair use.  So, if your library:

• Isn't using the event as a fund-raiser;
• Is using the event to educate and engage the public;
• Requires readers to not use the entire work; and
• Requires a transformative use, like the examples given above...

...[7] there is a strong chance your event can go on as (virtually) planned. [8]

Good luck and happy reading!

[1] See Audiobooks and Copyright Laws in a Pandemic, Phone recordings of stories and copyright, Comments on Fair Use During COVID-19 and Online Library Programming (Any Type of Program).

[2] The answer is "Don't do it, unless you have permission or the work is in the public domain."

[3] "Extensive" means incisive comments at least every paragraph.

[4] Since I don't want to help you avoid a copyright claim only to wind up with a defamation law suit, if you do this, avoid using books that take deep and honest looks at human nature (No William Faulkner, no Maya Angelou, and certainly no Zadie Smith).  Use sunny books that make the best of things!

[5] This is a bad example because Moby Dick is in the public domain.  Which reminds me: you can also try using books in the public domain (published before 1924).

[6] Puppies and a cat?! 50% chance to go viral on day 1. 

[7] Which just happen to line up with the four factors of fair use.

[8] Just in case this suggestion appeals to readers, here is some suggested event recruitment text, based on the member's question:

It's time for our annual 24 hour read-aloud!  Usually, we have people camped on the front lawn but due to our work this year to keep everyone healthy, we can't hold this event in person.  Instead, we will do it virtually.

Here are the details for this year's readers: instead of reading an entire book, please work with us to film you reading from the first chapter from one of your favorite books, along with comments or a special related activity by you!  The final product will help us celebrate reading AND the personalities in our town.  Be as creative as you like, but the added content has to be related somehow to the book.

It is not wrong to require patrons to wear masks.  As of this writing (July 7, 2020), qualified experts agree that masks remain one of the most effective ways to stop the transmission of COVID-19.[1]  In an environment storing circulating materials[2] and shared space, this is a critical step for reducing the risk to library employees, and the public.

That said, even the most well-intentioned efforts can step on the rights of others, including rights under the ADA.  How does a library promote safety, while abiding by the ADA?

The key is to implement and enforce the mask-wearing requirement in a way that doesn’t overstep or unnecessarily limit the access of those living with a disability.[3]

Here is a step-by-step process to help a library assess, draft and enforce a mask-wearing requirement so it is harmonized with the protections of the ADA.

NOTE: For this exercise you will need: a copy of your Safety Plan, the person or team who writes/updates the Safety Plan, a copy of your library’s floorplan, and the documents linked in the steps below. 

Estimated time of activity: 1.5 hours.

Step 1

Isolate the language in your Safety Plan requiring patrons to wearing masks. This is your “Patron Mask Enforcement Language” (“PMEL”).[4]

Step 2

Look at your PMEL. 

Is it a Uniform Use requirement, such as: “All patrons must wear masks upon entry, and the mask must remain in place at all times during your visit, in all areas.”

Or

Is it a Circumstantial Use requirement, such as: “All patrons must wear masks upon entry, and the mask must remain in place at all times during your visit, except when seated in our Wipe Down Reading Area,[5] where seating is at least 7 feet apart, and patrons must spray down the surfaces in their zone after use (limit 20 minutes).”

Step 3

Look at the floor plan.  Is there ANY place in the library where current CDC-advised safety practices can be used to create a place for “Circumstantial Use” of masks?  In other words, is there any place where, after considering all the risks to mitigate through measures other than a mask, can you offer an official mask-free zone to patrons?

For many small libraries, the answer will be a hard “NO.” The space will be just too small.  And for many libraries with more space, the answer will again be a hard “NO,” based on budget; they may have the space, but the extra resources spent to monitor and sanitize the area are just too costly.

When the Safety Plan team reaches a conclusion, document the analysis, and if any zone can be so converted, mark it on the floor plan (which you will attached to the Safety Plan).  For example: The Safety Plan Team met on DATE to review the floor plan and see if any area could be converted into a mask-free zone for patrons.  Based on space, available furniture, costs, and proximity to circulating materials, the team concluded [whatever you concluded].

Step 4

If your library does develop a mask-free zone for patrons, the rules and cleaning protocols for the area must be robustly detailed in your Safety Plan.  The supplies for patrons to do their own spray-down upon arising from the designated seating must be routinely re-stocked.  The rules must be well-posted and strictly enforced. 

Step 5

Now, back to the ADA.  Does your Safety Plan have a section on how a patron can request accommodations while the library is operating under the Plan?  If the answer is “no”, this is a good thing to consider adding.

Why?

I have written previously about libraries’ shifting obligations under the ADA.[6]  All of that previous material applies to this situation, but of course, now we have the extra layer of COVID-19. 

Always, with ADA, the goal of the library should be to find a way to ensure access.  That said, some access will not be as a patron envisions, and some requested accommodations are just not implementable.  Because of this, as I wrote at the top of this answer: “The key is to implement and enforce the mask-wearing requirement in a way that doesn’t overstep or unnecessarily limit the access of those living with a disability.”  When modifying operations to reduce transmission of COVID-19, that means posting information about accommodations and access right along with the other signage you’re developing and posting as part of the Safety Plan.

So with all that as background, “Step 5” is answering this question:

“Does our Safety Plan address access and accommodations as required[7] by the ADA?”  If the answer is “no,” continue to Step 6.

Step 6

If you have decided you must add some ADA-related language to your Safety Plan, you can do so by answering the following questions:

a.  How does a person contact the library to request reasonable accommodations during a time of adjusted operations?

b.  What reasonable accommodations can your library be ready to offer to the following common safety measure-related issues:

• inability to wear a mask
• allergy to hand sanitizer
• chemical sensitivity (triggered by increased use of cleaning products)
• requested assistance requires library employee to get closer than six feet (for instance, help with using computer)
• patron is especially vulnerable to COVID-19 due to other risk factors

Some of the requested accommodations for the above issues will be simple.  Can’t use hand sanitizer?  We’ll provide water, a disposable towel, and soap.  Can’t wear a mask?  We don’t have a mask-free zone, but we’ll be happy to assist you over the phone and you can pick your books up curbside.  Need extra help at the computer?  We’ll figure it out, but our employees have been instructed to stay at least six feet apart unless behind a plexi window, and that is non-negotiable.

Some accommodations are harder.  You’re allergic to the spray-down solution we bought in bulk?  Sorry, we can’t buy a different gross of spray until next month; please let us know what ingredient bothers you and we’ll see if our procurement folks can find something different. Until then, we’ll be happy to assist you over the phone and you can pick your books up curbside.  You have pre-existing conditions that mean you can’t go in a public area, even if there is a Safety Plan being enforced?  We are so sorry to hear that. We miss you.  We wish this whole thing was over.  We are here for you by phone, e-mail, or the internet, and can work with a designated person who will pick up your books.

The key is to ensure that people know how to direct the requests, and that the library is ready to assess them promptly. 

A good way to organize this is to create a section of the Safety Plan providing for signage stating: “For patrons needing disability accommodations while the library is operating under conditions to reduce the transmission of COVID-19, please call NAME at NUMBER, or write to EMAIL or ADDRESS.  You will also find this information in our Safety Plan.  The library is committed to safe access for all.”

Step 7: Feeling Confident

Okay, you have followed the six steps for assessing your Safety Plan and building out its provisions with regard to ADA.  Do you feel confident in your approach?[8]  For teams that want a little extra “oomph” in their handling of COVID-19-related accommodations requests, here is some law:

First, here is the language from New York’s Executive Order 202.34, regarding the ability of businesses to require and enforce the use of masks:

Business operators and building owners, and those authorized on their behalf shall have the discretion to ensure compliance with the directive in Executive Order 202.17 (requiring any individual over age two, and able to medically tolerate a face-covering, be required to cover their nose and mouth with a mask or cloth face-covering when in a public place), including the discretion to deny admittance to individuals who fail to comply with the directive in Executive Order 202.17 or to require or compel their removal if they fail to adhere to such directive, and such owner or operator shall not be subject to a claim of violation of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, or frustration of purpose, solely due to their enforcement of such directive. Nothing in this directive shall prohibit or limit the right of State and local enforcement authorities from imposing fines or other penalties for any violation of the directive in Executive Order 202.17.  This directive shall be applied in a manner consistent with the American with Disabilities Act or any provision of either New York State or New York City Human Rights Law, or any other provision of law.

As reviewed in Step 6, “consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act,” does not mean that those who cannot medically wear a mask are automatically allowed maskless entry as an ADA accommodation.  Rather, a place must see if the risk posed to the public by the maskless individual can be mitigated by a “reasonable” accommodation.  For libraries that can have a mask-free zone, they can be.  For a tiny library where any breath will land on circulating materials, it likely cannot. 

The key to doing this right is thoughtful assessment and documentation: replying to ADA requests should not be a gut-check exercise.  It should be considered, thoughtful, and documented as shown in steps 3 through 6.  Whenever possible, a library assessing accommodations request should consult a lawyer.

Second, here is a pep talk from the US Department of Justice, the body who enforces ADA:

The Department of Justice Warns of Inaccurate Flyers and Postings Regarding the Use of Face Masks and the Americans with Disabilities Act

Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Eric Dreiband reiterated today that cards and other documents bearing the Department of Justice seal and claiming that individuals are exempt from face mask requirements are fraudulent.

Inaccurate flyers or other postings have been circulating on the web and via social media channels regarding the use of face masks and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these notices included use of the Department of Justice seal and ADA phone number.

As the Department has stated in a previous alert, the Department did not issue and does not endorse them in any way. The public should not rely on the information contained in these postings.

The ADA does not provide a blanket exemption to people with disabilities from complying with legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operations.
The public can visit ADA.gov or call the ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301 (voice) and 800-514-0383 (TTY) for more information.

[emphasis added]

So, while ADA, or the disability protections of the New York Human Rights law, most certainly could apply to a person denied access to a covered institution, as can be seen, it’s just not that simple.  If your library builds out the ADA provisions of its safety plan, listens to ADA-related requests carefully, and assesses them promptly, you can feel confident that you are doing your best to provide ADA access.  And if you have the slightest uncertainty about any of those steps, you should contact a lawyer.

However, having seen how these things go, here is a final thought: people who are making ADA requests can feel vulnerable.  It can be scary to admit a disability; it is an act of trust to request accommodations.  On the flip side, many people with disabilities have learned their rights, and fight for them as warriors.  Many parents of children with disabilities have learned to be ardent advocates. 

All of this can create tension (at any already tense time).  So any ADA request, no matter what the tone or context, should be met with a simple “I hear this request.  We will work on this as quickly as possible.  This is important to us.”  Then get the answer, and document it, taking care to not let too much time pass.

Thank you for an important question.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html#evidence-effectiveness

[2] https://www.webjunction.org/content/dam/WebJunction/Documents/webJunction/realm/systematic-lit-review.pdf

[3] https://askjan.org/a-to-z.cfm

[4] I really tried to come up with a sassy acronym for this.  The best I could do, even after 2 cups of coffee, was “MAP” for “Masking All Patrons.”  That sounds AWFUL so “PMEL” it is.

[5] I won’t lie.  I didn’t try to come up with a better phrase than “Wipe Down Reading Area.”  But I am sure someone out there will.

[6]  ADA Compliance When Screening Movies Yes, this is one of the documents to have in the work packet.

[7] Bearing in mind that different libraries will have different requirements.

[8] NOTE: While this Executive Order does not mention the other requirements a business can make a condition of entry, since a library can make adherence to its Safety Plan a condition of the standing Patron Code of Conduct, if a library so chooses, it has more than just the Order to address concerns (this also assures all appropriate due process).  See Mask and PPE Library Policies for a discussion of how to enfold your Safety Plan into your Code of Conduct.

I appreciate this question, because it gives me a chance to make an important clarification:

As they prepare to re-open and re-welcome the public for summer 2020, libraries and other chartered entities DO NOT need “disclaimers”[1] to combat alleged responsibility for employee and patron cases of COVID-19. Instead, they need:

• a WRITTEN SAFETY PLAN (customized to their own operations);
• SIGNAGE and other documentation to enforce the Plan; and
• Clear and consistent ENFORCEMENT.

Why is that?  Because limiting liability for the transmission of disease is not the same as limiting liability for riding a roller coaster.

Liability based on infection/illness is based on either 1) the intentional act of deliberately spreading infection (for instance, someone with COVID-19 deliberately spitting on someone); or 2) the negligent act of not doing what you were reasonably supposed to do, and thus causing a heightened risk of harm (for instance, someone mistakenly using the wrong product to clean a high-traffic surface).

When it comes to a person allegedly getting COVID at a library, no disclaimer will reduce liability for either type of action. What is needed, instead, is to show that the library has taken all reasonable steps to protect the safety of employees and the public.  That is the key to limiting liability.

This can only be done via a Safety Plan based on guidance from NYSDOH, OSHA and the CDC.   Since a Plan is only good if the planners follow it, signage[2] promoting adherence to the Plan, through consistent and well-documented enforcement, is also critical.

I am emphasizing a written Safety Plan not only because the State is requiring them, but because in New York, disclaimers, waivers, and “At Your Own Risk” notices are only effective under precise circumstances. 

For instance, an insurance carrier can refuse coverage based on a properly worded disclaimer.  A sky-diving company can avoid liability for a customer’s heart attack with a waiver.  But the insurance disclaimer still won’t void the liability of the insured, and the waiver won’t work if the damage is caused by a sky-diving instructor’s willful action.   The enforceability of such documents depends on the circumstances.

What DOES guard against liability for transmission of disease is showing that a library 1) identified appropriate safety practices confirmed by a recognized authority; 2) uniformly and consistently enforced those practices.  In that approach, signage alerting people to the risk of transmission (and requiring adherence to rules to minimize it), is part of that “uniform and consistent” enforcement.

Which brings me to the hard truth I have to emphasize:

If your library can’t 1) identify appropriate safety practices confirmed by a recognized authority as reducing transmission of COVID-19; and can’t 2) uniformly and consistently enforce those practices, your library should not operate.  No waiver or legal document will protect it if basic safety practices are not identified and enforced.

Now, all that said, as part of its “consistent and uniform enforcement” of safety practices, a library could decide to ask each patron to review and sign a document like this:

The ABC library is now open for [insert limited services].  To ensure consistent use of appropriate safety practices, please review and agree to the following practices before entering, which will apply until the board determines otherwise:

I agree to wear a mask at all times in the library; if I am medically unable to wear a mask, I will call the library at [##########] to arrange reasonable accommodations.

I will sanitize my hands prior to entry at the station provided by the library.

I will avoid touching my face and mask while in the library's premises.

I will abide by any other safety-related requests by library staff.

I will [insert your library’s specific requirements, as stated in the Safety Plan].

I understand that these practices are currently the rules of the library and they are being enforced both for my safety and that of the public as currently advised by the Center for Disease Control.

Signed: ________________________

This type of signed “acknowledgement” is one way to show that people have been notified that these are unusual times in the library, and that entering the premises may bring more than the usual risk.  That said, this approach is not an “acceptance of risk” document, disclaimer, or liability waiver.  For the reasons stated above, those approaches really aren’t what’s needed for the simple resumption of library activity.  What is needed is a Safety Plan.

Of course, if your library decides that aside from resuming some modified operations, it would like to host some inherently hazardous activities (riding a mechanical bull,[3] digging a community garden with heavy equipment, printing Jarts on the 3-D printer) a waiver is a good idea.  But for resumption of activities while the country is still fighting COVID-19, your Safety Plan is the key.

Thanks for a great question.

[1] In New York, a “disclaimer” is a formal written document or policy clause used by an insurance company to deny coverage for liability.  As an example, see §3420 of the New York Insurance Law.

[2] By “signage,” I mean any documentation in the library, or on the Internet, that encourages Safety Plan compliance.

[3] I had to draft a waiver for a mechanical bull once.  Sometimes being a lawyer is fun!

The short answer

This answer is being written on May 28th, 2020.

At this time, in addition to Executive Order 202 issued on March 7, 2020 and declaring a state of emergency in New York through September 7th, 2020, there are 30 Executive Orders.

These Executive Orders create temporary modifications to a wide and ever-increasing array of state law and regulations. They have impacted elections, public health practices, landlord tenant relations, and countless operations of the New York State justice system.

However, as of this date, there has been no modification of section 4509 of the state Civil Procedure Law and Rules (“CPLR”), which, with only very limited exceptions, bars third-party access to a user’s library records.

Therefore, at this time, any library receiving a request from a third party for confidential library records, even if in relation to contract tracing efforts, should follow the same procedure they do for all other third-party requests: require a subpoena or judicial order.

The same answer, but with more information and analysis

I am grateful to the member for posing this question, because not only is it important to have clarity on this precise issue, it is important for information management professionals across the state of New York, including some of New York's most trusted information professionals — librarians — to be thinking about the impact and finer points of contact tracing.

So what is “contact tracing”?

The Centers for Disease Control describes contract tracing this way on their current COVID-19 response page[1]:

“In contact tracing, public health staff work with a patient to help them recall everyone with whom they have had close contact during the timeframe while they may have been infectious.  Public health staff then warn these exposed individuals (contacts) of their potential exposure as rapidly and sensitively as possible.”

After declaring COVID-19 a “communicable disease” as defined by the state’s Public Health Law, New York began using contact tracing to combat COVID-19.[2]  Local health departments led the way, organizing information and coordinating warnings within their jurisdiction, an initiative that inspired the previous question referenced by the member.

With the adoption of “New York Forward,” 30 contact tracers for every 100,000 residents is one of the express metrics[3] being used to establish when one of the state’s ten regions is ready to begin a phased reopening.  So, every region will be recruiting and deploying “tracers” to gather information and issue warnings to individuals who testing has confirmed have been exposed to COVID-19.

While emphasizing that such warnings must be issued “rapidly,” the CDC’s guidelines for contact tracing also emphasize privacy:

“To protect patient privacy, contacts are only informed that they may have been exposed to a patient with the infection. They are not told the identity of the patient who may have exposed them.”

The State of New York, however, does not require this level of confidentiality in its laws regarding quarantine, notification of infection, and contact tracing related to most communicable diseases.  While the precise regulations governing the use of contact tracing to fight the spread of HIV require the consent of the patient, the regulations applying to COVID-19 do not have similar requirements.[4] Nor is such information regarded as protected health information (“PHI”) under HIPAA.

I am highlighting these considerations not to denigrate contact tracing, which has been documented as effective in combating pandemics. However, as of this writing, as reported by The New York Times, many in authority, or with credibility in the arenas of privacy and data security, have expressed serious concerns regarding the procurement and arrangement of the software and personnel that will be used in this massive public health initiative.

Caution about privacy, even during times of emergency, is a good thing.

With all that, the collaborative, community health-focused approach I outlined on March 19, 2020, in [2020 Pandemic Date Specific] Contact tracing and privacy in libraries is one I continue to endorse.

In addition to that approach, here is a suggested reply in the event your library is contacted by a state-employed contact tracer, designed to work with your standard protocol for complying with 4509:

[After verifying credentials]

We know your work is critical to public health.  Please send us a written list of what you need, and we will work to obtain consent from our users, as required by CPLR 4509.  In the alternative, please ensure what you need is very thoroughly set forth in a duly issued subpoena or judicial order.  Our library will work to expedite your request as soon as we know we are authorized to do so.

One final point

After conducting the research set forth in this answer, it is my opinion that CPLR 4509’s assurance of the confidentiality of library records is not at odds with the current emergency measures our state is taking to protect lives and get our world back on track. 

First, it is critical to remember that under 4509, a person may give their written consent to disclosure.  Many people, upon learning they might pose a danger, will give their express and voluntary consent, if they have the capacity at the time.  That is their right, and there is no concern with your library contacting them to ask the question.

Second, if the need for confidential library records is truly critical, local board of health officials—and the tracers who will be helping their localities—can invoke the authority created by the public health law[5] to obtain duly authorized subpoenas. 

Unlike many other laws and regulations, CPLR 4509 can remain as written, while New York undertakes an unprecedented, massive effort to conduct contact tracing, and protect public health.  

Thank you for an important question.

[1] Found on May 28, 2020 at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/principles-contact-tracing.html.

[2] Since reporting new or unusual communicable diseases is also required, cases were probably also reported before March 7.

[3] These metrics are laid out in a graph found at https://www.governor.ny.gov/programs/new-york-forward.

[4] That section is 10 NYCRR 2.10, which states: “It shall be the duty of every physician to report to the city, county or district health officer, within whose jurisdiction such patient resides, the full name, age and address of every person with a suspected or confirmed case of a communicable disease, any outbreak of communicable disease, any unusual disease or unusual disease outbreak and as otherwise authorized in section 2.1 of this Part, together with the name of the disease if known, and any additional information requested by the health officer in the course of an investigation pursuant to this Part, within 24 hours from the time the case is first seen by him, and such report shall be by telephone, facsimile transmission or other electronic communication if indicated, and shall also be made in writing, except that the written notice may be omitted with the approval of the State Commissioner of Health.”

[5] New York Public Health Law, Section 309.

Life is full of surprises.  When I was in third grade, I was surprised to learn that this strange country called “Canada” occupied the upper half of North America.  When I was in fifteen, I was surprised to learn that “brooch” rhymes with “roach.”[1]  And upon researching the answer to this question, I was surprised to learn that Zoom doesn’t have an “exclusive use” clause in their service agreement.[2]

Now, let me be clear, the Zoom “Terms of Use,” most certainly bar simply enabling a “third” party to use a library’s account.  Here is the clause that does that:

You may not offer or enable any third parties to use the Services purchased by You, display on any website or otherwise publish the Services or any Content obtained from a Service (other than Content created by You) or otherwise generate income from the Services or use the Services for the development, production or marketing of a service or product substantially similar to the Services.

In other words, Zoom doesn’t want you to “offer” your account out to another party (even if that party is a legit not-for-profit). 

But the member has asked if they can serve as the “host” of the meeting, mirroring the way their library opens its doors for certain groups and gatherings.  Both functionally and grammatically—and thus legally—this means the library is the one using the service.  It’s like my law firm using our Zoom to host a board meeting for a client, since I need to be there anyway.  Or, perhaps more closely, an educational institution letting a student group use its Zoom, so the student newspaper can soldier on. 

So the stark, simple answer to the member’s question (“Is the library legally allowed to use the library's Zoom subscription to host meetings for these groups as an Outreach Program?”) is “YES.”

That said, being a detail-oriented, pro-risk-management, and liability-averse kind of attorney, I can’t just leave it there.

Physical meetings at your library all must follow some rules.  Some libraries set these rules by policy, others confirm them with both a written policy and a facility use contract. 

These documents ensure that the particular rules at that library will be followed.[3] The same should apply when the library is hosting a Zoom meeting for your community. 

In addition, since the Zoom “Terms of Use”[4] and related agreements impose certain rules, and hold the licensee (your library) responsible for any violations, the conditions for library-hosted meetings should not only require adherence to your rules, but also to Zoom’s.

Zoom’s “Acceptable Use” Policy expressly bars numerous types of activity, including but not limited to:

• Promoting violence.
• Harming children.
• Displays of nudity, violence, pornography, sexually explicit material, or criminal activity.
• Human trafficking.
• Supporting or facilitating terrorism or terrorist organizations
• Any activity that is defamatory, harassing, threatening or abusive.[5]
• Copyright infringement.

I imagine most libraries can endorse these conditions, but some may be (rightly) wary to impose content restrictions on meetings.  While the limits your library has agreed to with Zoom is a contract the library has voluntarily accepted, I can see a (very) few instances where perhaps a first amendment concern could loom.  So any library considering hosting Zoom meetings for users should think that aspect through thoroughly, and be ready to address it just as you address such concerns for physical meetings.

To help a library navigate these straightforward but choppy legal waters—especially the Zoom Terms’ bar on letting a third party use your account—here is a template “Virtual Meeting” Agreement. 

NOTE: As always, template agreements should be reviewed by your library’s legal counsel to ensure they conform with your library’s charter, bylaws, unique identity, and other policies.

Videoconference Meeting Agreement—TEMPLATE ONLY

On the above date and time, the [NAME] library will host a meeting of the above-listed group for the above listed purpose.

It is understood that every attendee of the meaning will be expected to abide by both all the applicable rules of the library for meetings at our facility, and to observe any and all above-listed additional conditions. 

The above-listed “Meeting Facilitator” should be logged in to the meeting at least 10 minutes before so they can discuss the orderly conduct of the meeting with Library Staff. 

The Meeting Facilitator must discuss the functional aspects of the meeting with library staff before the start of the meeting; they should be prepared to discuss how attendees will be able to interact and how the relevant functions of the meeting will be used to meet the meeting's stated purpose.

The Meeting Facilitator should also be comfortable with using Zoom's capabilities to assist the Library Staff in hosting the meeting (monitoring the chat, moderating the discussion, muting or removing participants if needed).

When it is time for the meeting to begin, the library staff hosting the meeting will state:

“Welcome to [MEETING NAME].  Hosting an online meeting with your group is a service the library provides to our community groups without charge.  Just as with hosting meetings in our physical space, the library must enforce rules regarding respect, non-discrimination, and accessibility.  If you have concerns in that regard, please let me know by sending me a private message during the meeting.  And now I’ll turn it over to [NAME] to start the meeting.”

It is expressly understood on behalf of the group that:

• The library is hosting the meeting;
• An employee of the library will initiate the videocall;
• An employee of the library will co-facilitate the technical aspects of the meeting;
• An employee of the library will participate in the meeting as set forth above to ensure the applicable rules and the conditions of this Agreement are fulfilled;
• Participants who do not abide by the library’s rules will be muted or removed from the meeting, in the library’s sole discretion;
• The library can cancel or terminate the meeting, in its sole discretion, at any time.

Please alert the library to any ADA considerations for hosting this meeting.  For meetings with more than 50 participants, the Meeting Facilitator should be ready to discuss accessibility objectives with the Library Staff member.

We welcome your ideas for making our co-hosted meetings better.  Constructive feedback may be sent to [e-mail].

Signed: ___________________________________

                        [library representative]

Acknowledged: __________________________________ on DATE: ______________.

                                    [cardholder]

Unless there is a bylaw, policy, or contract barring staff serving as the meeting host, this is most definitely a service that can be offered even when your library cannot be physically open to the public.  However, at all times, it must be clear that this is the library’s meeting.  Account ID’s, passwords, and hosting capabilities should not be given away.  Co-hosting should never be converted into changing the host.  The meeting “intro-text” should be read every time; it is there to make sure that the library’s primary role is documented in every single meeting you host.  Just like a meeting room should never be used when the library is not staffed, the virtual meeting room must remain in the control of your institution—otherwise, there could be concerns with the license. 

And with that, I wish whoever at your library becomes the “virtual meeting staffer,” a stout heart, a quick finger on the mute button, and lots of community-oriented fun.

[1] I have since been informed that either pronunciation is acceptable.  Fortunately, with my spare fashion sense, it is not a word I use often.

[2] As found May 23, 2020 at https://zoom.us/reasonableusepolicy.

[3] The conditions in these documents will change from library to library.  Some libraries have to enforce the rules of a landlord.  Others will decide to charge a nominal fee (DO NOT do that for a Zoom meeting), or restrict use to a charitable use.

[4] As found on May 23, 2020 at https://zoom.us/terms.

[5] By the time I got to this part of the list, I was thinking “Jeez, it’s an ugly world out there, and Zoom has a front-row seat to it.”