Disability

A minefield, indeed.[1]

The first issue in this question is the premise: “If a prospective employer specifically asks about a candidate’s physical capacity to do a job and they say they can do all of the tasks required…”

When interviewing a job applicant, it is perfectly appropriate to ask if they are able to perform the essential functions of the job. Acceptable questions are:

• Can you type 90 words per minute?
• Can you weld for an 8-hour workday?
• Can you read out loud to kids for an hour at a time, even if they interrupt you because they need to use the bathroom?

However, it is important to remember that the answer can honestly be “yes,” whether or not an accommodation is required to be able to perform the task.

In other words, the answer can honestly be “yes”, even if:

• The typist needs a special keyboard due to carpal tunnel syndrome;
• The welder needs a special back brace;
• The reader needs a hearing aid, so they can hear questions from the attendees.

Of course, in the scenario sent in by the member, things are not that simple, since the applicant’s honesty is being questioned (“… they need accommodations for things they said they could do without…”).

Before addressing possible dishonesty, a critical consideration is: how did the applicant happen to say they didn’t need an accommodation? Did the applicant simply say that they can do the tasks (which as we reviewed above is fine, even if they now need an accommodation), or did the employer ask if the applicant needed an accommodation?

If the employer specifically asked, that is where we enter the minefield[2], because there are very limited circumstances where an employer can ask if accommodations are needed.

Because this is so high-risk, I am simply going to put a screenshot of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) guidance here:

The “Job Accommodation Network,” at AskJAN.org, provides additional guidance on this limited ability to ask applicants about the need for accommodations:

Why are these excerpts from the EEOC and AskJAN relevant? The only way the issue of accommodations could have been brought up by the employer is if the applicant had an “obvious” disability (two legs in a cast), or the applicant voluntarily disclosed a disability before/during the interview.

After that, if the employee was flat-out dishonest, that is indeed a grave concern.

That said, it is important to remember that disability is not static. A person may need mobility assistance one day and not need it another. A person may be able to hear in certain circumstances and not in others. A person may have low-pain days and high-pain days where they are more easily fatigued. The point of the Americans with Disabilities Act[3] and the New York State Human Rights Law[4] is that people get to work so long as an accommodation can enable them to perform from day-to-day.

The final part of the question is: if the need for an accommodation was not disclosed during the interview, is the employer now “by law required to provide them?”

If the requested accommodation is “reasonable” (which changes from employer to employer[5]), the employer is required to provide the accommodation. This is true even if the employer also has to address the impact of documented dishonesty during a job interview.

This is because dishonesty during a job interview and requesting a disability accommodation occupy two separate legal buckets.

Bucket 1: Dishonesty during a job interview

Dishonesty during an interview would not bar an employee from later getting an accommodation they are entitled to, but it could be a reason to terminate employment. It must be evaluated using the employer’s policy on employee honesty and corrective action.

Bucket 2: A request for disability accommodation

A request for a disability accommodation (even after previously saying one is not needed), simply needs to be addressed as a request for an accommodation. It must be evaluated using the employer’s disability accommodation policy.

The final take-away: if an employer is facing a situation like this scenario, and especially if they were to consider termination the basis of applicant dishonesty, it is wise to work with an HR professional or lawyer to address the situation. That process would start with determining if there was an improper inquiry during the interview, and if there was, if any dishonesty was serious enough to merit a warning or termination.

While that evaluation was pending, accommodations should be provided if they are reasonable.

Thank you for any important question.

First: Because of the restrictions you cite, continue to not take the bait! If this person is indeed taunting library workers and daring them to deny access, continue to address the situation with tactical restraint.[1]

Second: It pains me to say this, but if you suspect a person is faking having a service animal,[2] there isn’t much you can do in the moment. The current rules are set up to maximize access for people with genuine needs, which means those who fake such needs will often get away with it.  It’s maddening, but it’s the by-product of a good thing: access.

Third: Since you’re stuck with it, use it to make you better.

I don’t mean this in a “grin and bear it” kind of way. I mean, use it to inspire a series of steps that will have your team ready for the next act of seranipoke[3] as well as other situations that can test the rules about access and use of library property.

These steps are:

1. Clearly designate “Employees Only” areas, where visitors (with or without service animals) cannot go.
2. Ensure your library’s policy on service animals includes the requirement that the animal be leashed or otherwise restrained. A good resource for this policy development is here: https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-2010-requirements/
3. Consider special spaces to meet other ADA needs. Service animals should never be restricted to a limited area, but some areas can be limited to meet other needs. For example, if your library has an array of spaces people can use (such as multiple study rooms or meeting areas), one can be designated this way: “We strive to keep this space allergen free. Scented products (including personal hygiene products and cleaning products), food, and animal dander should not be brought into this space.” 
4. And finally: practice dealing with the “taunting/legal” personality and sub-type:[4] a life skill that will come in handy other situations in the library and beyond.

Here are a few scenarios to work with.[5]

A patron comes in and says: “Since I pay taxes, I partly own this property, so I am going to pitch a tent on the lawn. If you try and kick me out, I’ll sue you for theft.”

A visitor comes in and says: “Those lights aren’t up to code. I am going to take pictures of all the light bulbs right now. Please give me the keys to the basement or I will report you to the EPA.”

A reporter comes in and says: “We got a tip that the library only buys books published by big publishers. We are here to investigate why you are shunning local authors and indie publishers. Give us all your purchasing records or we’ll sue you under FOIL.”

For each scenario, an employee or volunteer should practice their own, personalized version of:

Everyone is welcome at the library. The library works toward access for all. Our code of conduct is here. We’ll check on your legal question.[6]

Thanks for a great question!

This question is at the tip of a large and fast-moving iceberg.

As with many iceberg-type issues, when I started my research, I didn’t know how deep things went.

So, I did my usual thing when a question involves the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), went to AskJAN.org, to see what they had to say about LEDs and epilepsy.

As it turns out, as of June 6, 2024, AskJAN wasn’t really hip to this issue (LED’s triggering seizures), which--if you perform a simple Google check--you can see is emerging as a “thing.”

In fact, on their resource page for photosensitivity,[1] LEDs were listed as a possible accommodation, rather than a possible trigger to be mitigated:

While frustrating, this actually answers the question: when a disability is triggered by environmental conditions (person-made or otherwise), if the need for the accommodation is not broad (like the need caused by limited mobility) it doesn’t become part of design criteria (like ramps designed to address limited mobility). This means it doesn’t automatically get factored in when places of public accommodation are renovated.

Of course, just because something “doesn’t automatically get factored in” doesn’t mean it isn’t considered when a person requests an accommodation. For instance, an employee whose migraines or seizures were triggered by LEDs could request a change in lighting, or to work from an alternate location, and that might be a reasonable accommodation. But again, that is different from a lighting choice during the design phase of a building renovation.

Now, I could leave it there, but we haven’t quite looked at the entire iceberg. So, for those who want to…

• See some very interesting, annotated background on photosensitivity as a trigger of epilepsy;
• Get in touch with the groundswell of J.Q. Public’s resistance to LED lighting, not only as a disability concern but a “quality of life” issue; and
• Get a sense of where the federal government—the primary enforcer of the ADA—sits with LED lights as of May 24, 2024;

… I encourage you to read the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s reply to the Soft Lights Foundation’s[2] request that the FDA regulate LEDs,[3] a request made in (small) part because there is a growing body of evidence that they can trigger seizures.

The good news is that while they are not required to reject LED lighting on the basis that it could trigger a seizure in a patron, libraries in New York are empowered to make their own decisions about lighting and can take into consideration the potential impact lighting can have on people—employees and patrons—and buy accordingly.[4]

In the spirit of learning, I am going to answer this question in a multiple-choice quiz.  For purposes of the quiz, we’ll use the member’s term “re-level” for generating simplified versions of curricular materials.

[NOTE: If you are not feeling playful and just need the answer, please read footnote #2 and skip to the “Final Paragraphs” section of this response.]

Name:                                                                                                             Date:              

Copyright Quiz

1. A teacher uses software[1] to create a “re-levelled” version of “The Gettysburg Address,” which was published before 1900. Is it infringement?
   1. Yes, because creating a “re-levelled” version of a book is creating a “derivative work”[2] protected by the Copyright Act.
   2. No, because even if it is a derivative work, the book is no longer protected by copyright.
   3. Maybe, if the work was recently turned into a movie.

2. A teacher uses software to create a “re-levelled” version of the 2020 young adult book All Boys Aren’t Blue, and the district does not have the permission of the copyright owner. Is it infringement?

1. No, because the use is for education.
2. No, because the software removes all the parts people are complaining to the school board about.
3. Yes.

3. A teacher uses software to create a re-levelled version of a New York Times article for a learning-disabled student and the district does not have the permission of the copyright owner. The teacher only allows access to the student. Is it infringement?

1. No, because the simpler version is a modification of a single article to accommodate a person with a disability.
2. No, because the district is a state institution that is arguably exempt from copyright claims in federal court.
3. Yes.

4. A teacher uses software to “re-level” a short excerpt of a history textbook to illustrate the dangers of relying on AI to modify learning content and the district does not have the permission of the copyright owner. The class is given a hard copy of the modified paragraph with the unmodified paragraph next to it for comparison, and the assignment is also posted on the class’s LMS[3]. Is it infringement?

1. Yes, but kudos to the teacher for emphasizing critical thinking.
2. No, so long as the excerpt is only long enough to demonstrate the point of the modification and is not used as a substitute for the original, allowing it to be considered a “fair use”.
3. No, not even when the district decides they like the modified version better and decides to re-level the entire book.

5. A teacher uses software to re-level an entire collection of curricular materials with permission of the publisher, who is not the copyright owner but has an unlimited exclusive license to authorize “derivative works” of the content. Is it infringement?

1. No, but I am concerned this type of thing could dull our vigilance against the prospect of a future subject to the binary whim of robot overlords.
2. Yes, because there is no specific permission from the actual author.
3. No.

Answer Key:

1. B
2. C
3. C
4. B
5. A or C, depending on your POV.

Final Paragraphs

As the above quiz scenarios illustrate, the answer to the member’s question is: it depends on a variety of factors, but even if the use is limited to a specific student with an IEP[4], the only ways to ensure the creation/use of an AI-modified version of an entire work is not an infringing “derivative work” is to: 1) only modify works in the public domain; OR 2) only modify works for which a district has specific permission to create derivative works.

The sole exception to this would be a modification that met the criteria for “fair use”[5] (as modelled in question 4).

I will (mostly) leave the ethical/educational/social/futuristic terror aspects of this question to philosophers,[6] ethicists, educators, Writers Guild members, artists, and speculative fiction writers.

That said, if someone uses AI to “re-level” this answer for a 4-year-old, I hope the modified version will be: “Don’t use people’s work without permission, and please don’t give up on people.”

This is such a beautiful idea! In my experience, there are three things that often impede beautiful ideas:

1. Insurance concerns;
2. Legal concerns; and
3. People who worry that there might be insurance or legal concerns.

This question shows how to protect an idea from these impediments:

1. Ask the insurance carrier;
2. Check with legal; and
3. Be in a position to assure worried people that you've handled the insurance and legal concerns.[1]

As it happens, Ask the Lawyer has addressed this question before, but under slightly different circumstances. In April of 2020,[2] we got a question about lending blood pressure cuffs, pulse oximeters, and forehead thermometers.

The risks assessed in that RAQ are somewhat the same as here, but as these mobility devices are only for on-site use, I will modify the guidance from a 9-step guide to a 3-step guide.

Step 1: Buy Carefully

The equipment purchased per the library's procurement policy and should be under warranty at all times it is in use.

Step 2: Set Clear Terms for Use

The rules and conditions for use of a mobility device should be clearly posted and should be individually agreed to by each user (just once).[3] 

Posted Rules for [Wheelchair/Walker]

This [insert item] may be signed out by any person who has signed the "Equipment Use Agreement" on a first-come, first-serve basis.

The [item] cannot leave [area].

This [item] may be used for up to [#] hours.

The manual for this equipment is at the [insert]. Please review before using.

Please clean the [item] after use; [spray and paper towels][4] are at [insert].

 Equipment Use Acknowledgements and Waiver

I understand the [insert item] may be signed out and used for up to [#] hours.

I have been provided with a copy of or access to the manual for this equipment and agree to use it as set forth in the manual.

Please select:

I agree to clean the [item] after use with the [spray and paper towels] provided.                   

                    OR                   

I request the reasonable accommodation of not having to clean the equipment after use.

I hereby agree to hold harmless the Library and its employees with respect to any injury related to the use of this equipment.

I am at least 18 years of age.

I understand that this agreement is in place until revoked by me in writing.

Reviewed and agreed by _______­­­­­______________ on ____________.

                                        Print name                             Date

Signature:

The Library shall retain a copy of this agreement for six years after its revocation.

Step 3:  Plan, Budget, Train, and Delegate for Function and Cleanliness

As established by Step 1, each mobility device should be carefully selected based on reliability, warranty, and ease of care. 

Step 3 is the other side of that coin: ensuring the mobility devices are maintained as required by the warranty and ready for use by the public.

Since the device will need to be cleaned between each use,[5] budget staff time to quickly check cleanliness and function between uses, and calendar for and log routine evaluation. If there is not sufficient time and budget to do this, it is better to wait and plan to do it in another fiscal year. The routine checking and cleaning of the equipment will be important to both its longevity and to any concerns related to its function (including alleged injury).

Thank you for a great question!

This is a VERY sensitive issue. There are many factors that could contribute to a person sleeping in a public space, including:

• An undiagnosed medical condition
• A diagnosed medical condition
• Non-medical factors impacting behaviors
• Temporary or serial lack of a safe, stable place to rest
• Simply wanting to take a nap[1]
• Any combination of the above-listed factors

Each one of these brings their own array of legal (and ethical, and moral) considerations.

But before we get into all that, let's discuss: for purposes of this question, what is "sleep"?

For purposes of this question, let's call "sleep" a "state of healthy, restful, and restorative unconsciousness."  In other words, "sleep" is that great thing we all do when our eyes get heavy, we yawn, and lie down, dozing into blissful unawareness.

Sleep: we all do it, and many of us love it.[2]

Now, let's talk about what sleep isn't for purpose of this question.  "Sleep" isn't, for purposes of this question; the result  of a concussion, a seizure, a stroke, an opioid overdose, or dangerously low blood sugar.   And yet, to the untrained eye, any one of these dangerous conditions could be mistaken for "sleep."[3]

Because of this, no matter how much my bleeding heart and sense compassion want to say, "Just let the person sleep in the library, and don't say anything," I can't.  I just can't bring myself to normalize ignoring what could be "sleep" one day, and a diabetic coma the next.[4]

That said, because it could be related to a real or perceived medical condition and/or disability, denying or restricting library services (including the right to simply be present in the library) on the basis of simply falling asleep could pose risks of disability discrimination.  Sleep happens, folks, and sometimes people can't help it.

So, what is the solution, here?

Well, as with many things, there is no one "right" answer.  But I will say:

1.  Every library should have a policy, or at least a "standard operating procedure" (or "SOP"), regarding "Suspected or Actual Medical Events in The Library."   That policy should address (among other things) what to do about perceived loss of consciousness or coherence by library users.[5]

2.  A" Suspected or Actual Medical Events in the Library" policy or SOP can also address incidental (meaning unintended) and deliberate use of the library for napping.
3.  This is where a library's discretion and autonomy kick in.

A library can decide if it is going to normalize sleeping in the library, or not.

If a library decides NOT to normalize sleep in the library, a simple statement such as "For assurance of safety, the library is a no-nap, no-sleep zone.  Thank you for helping us maintain this rule.  We understand that sleep happens; if you need to request ADA accommodations due to this rule, please contact NAME at INFO."   Then, as a rule, patrons who fall asleep should be awoken (just as patrons who bring food in might be asked to remove it, or patrons who don't wear shoes might be asked to put some on).

On the flip side, if a library decides, as a matter of policy, to allow users to sleep in the library[6], such a policy can also create the protocol for "safe napping," with those planning to sleep notifying staff, so the nap is not mistaken for an overdose, seizure, etc.

NOTE: Before selecting this option, a library should check with its general liability insurance carrier to make sure it is consistent with the library's risk threshold and coverage.

What does a "Suspected or Actual Medical Events in the Library" with a "sleeping" section look like?  Here is an example (with both a "sleep okay" and "no sleep" option at the end):

The XYZ Community Library is a welcoming, service-oriented, and inclusive space for all. To promote the health and safety of those using our library, the following possible medical events will result in the staff calling 911:

• Any perceived or actual loss of sustained coherence or consciousness;
• Any library user exhibiting signs that they may require emergency medical attention,

who does not expressly instruct staff that immediate medical attention is not required;

• Any person requesting emergency medical response.

Definitions

For this policy, "loss of sustained coherence or consciousness" is the inability to communicate meaningfully with library employees in the user's primary language.

For this policy, express instructions to staff that "immediate medical attention is not required" may be disregarded at the considered discretion of the library employees; such a decision will be based on consideration of: the specific facts of the situation, respect for the agency of the user, and respect for the mission and operational needs of the library.

ADA

If a library user has a medical condition that can potentially result in perceived or actual loss of coherence or consciousness, you may use the library's ADA Accommodations policy to arrange reasonable accommodations so your library experience is not unnecessarily impacted by this policy. For example, if a library user has narcolepsy and wishes to be woken in the event, they fall asleep, the library can consider a reasonable accommodation such as allowing the user to use a specific type of alarm in an otherwise quiet space.

Specific Situations

Whenever possible, the library uses the following specific guidelines from the CDC with respect to common medical events that can impact coherence or consciousness:

Seizures

Seizures do not usually require emergency medical attention. Only call 911 if one or more of these are true:

• The person has never had a seizure before;
• The person has difficulty breathing or waking after the seizure;
• The seizure lasts longer than 5 minutes;
• The person has another seizure soon after the first one;
• The person is hurt during the seizure;
• The seizure happens in water;
• The person has a health condition like diabetes, heart disease, or is pregnant.

Suspected opioid overdose
Call 911 if an overdose is suspected.

Recognizing an opioid overdose may be difficult. If it is unclear, treat the situation like an overdose and proceed with treatment. Even if the patient wakes up or seems better after one or two doses of naloxone, emergency medical assistance is still necessary.

Severely Low Blood Sugar

Blood sugar below 55 mg/dL is considered severely low. If any of the following happens, you should call 911:

• A person with low blood sugar passes out;
• A person with low blood sugar needs a second dose of glucagon;
• A person with low blood sugar had glucagon but are still confused;
• A person with low blood sugar stays too low 20 minutes after treatment or doesn’t respond to the usual treatments.

Concussion
Signs and symptoms of a dangerous concussion can include:

• One pupil larger than the other;
• Drowsiness or inability to wake up;
• A headache that gets worse and does not go away;
• Slurred speech, weakness, numbness, or decreased coordination;
• Repeated vomiting or nausea, convulsions or seizures (shaking or twitching);
• Unusual behavior, increased confusion, restlessness, or agitation;
• Loss of consciousness (passed out/knocked out). Even a brief loss of consciousness should be taken seriously.

Call 911.

This policy, and sleeping in the Library

CHOICE 1: USE IF THE LIBRARY DECIDES TO NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO SLEEP IN THE LIBRARY Because loss of consciousness can be a sign of a medical emergency, library users are asked not to deliberately sleep or nap in the library.

If a library user is asleep in the library, staff are instructed to wake them.

In applying this rule, the library will follow the requirements of the ADA; if a library user has a medical condition that can cause uncontrollable sleep, at that library user's discretion, they may alert staff so accommodations can be made (see "ADA" above).

CHOICE 2: USE IF THE LIBRARY DECIDES TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO SLEEP IN THE LIBRARY

If you have a medical condition that can cause uncontrollable sleep, at your discretion, you may alert staff so accommodations can be made (see "ADA" above).

If you simply find that the library is a nice, quiet place for you to take a nap, please alert us that you "Plan to take a nap" so our staff knows that you are asleep by desire, and not experiencing a medical emergency causing loss of consciousness or coherence. We'll give you a nice arrangement of purple flowers[7] to keep near where you're sitting so staff know you're deliberately using the library space to rest and restore yourself.

Users must limit planned napping in the library to no later than one half-hour before close, so you have time to gather your thoughts and energy before it is time for us to close up the building.[8]

If your nap creates loud snoring or other disruption, we may have to wake you! Please be gracious to staff who are responsible for making sure the library is a welcoming and inclusive space for all.

As with any template, before adopting a policy based on this one, review the final version with your lawyer (and, as noted above, your library's insurance carrier).

And a final note: I truly wish I had a better answer to this question.  As I said at the beginning, this is a VERY sensitive issue.  But if a commitment to library access, safety, and mission guide the decision, your library can find the best answer for  YOUR library.

Thank you for this tough question.

[1] This bullet might be more properly be phrased “Sometimes people just want to take a damn nap,” meaning that forces that get in the way of said nap are unreasonable.  I have to disagree in this case, but I get it.

[2] And if you suffer from insomnia, you may not do it enough.  I feel you, fellow lying-awake-at-2AM-person.

[3] If you are a trained medical professional qualified to diagnose of a concussion, a seizure, a stroke, an opioid overdose, or dangerously low blood sugar, this statement obviously doesn't apply to you.

[4] One of my children has Type 1 Diabetes (the kind where you can't make your own insulin, because your immune system attacked the Beta cells in your pancreas) so this issue hits close to home.

[5] When in doubt, call 911.

[6] Just in case it isn't readily apparent, I am truly neutral on whether or not to "normalize" sleeping in a library.  Truly, I can see the benefit to a decision either way; the point is to make a deliberate decision based on a commitment to access, safety, and smooth library operations.

[7] It doesn't need to be flowers (purple or otherwise), that’s just me being cute.  The point is having a signifier or system, so employees know the lack of consciousness didn't start as a medical issue.

[8] I worked on this question while sitting in my back yard on a sunny day in May. I asked my 7-year-old neighbor, Matt, who is possessed of both a wise spirit and a blunt nature, if he thought people should be able to sleep in the library.  "No," he said, after a moment’s reflection.  "They might not be seen and could get locked in for the night."  He then asked me: "You do this for your work?" Kids are the best.

This question reflects the level of savvy "Ask the Lawyer" readers bring to their submissions.  The member submitting the question has already set out (in a manner much more succinct than I usually achieve) the interplay of:

• Owner's rights (Copyright Act Section 106),
• Adaptive copies made under "fair use" (Copyright Act Section 107), and
• Copies made for purposes of accommodations for disability that impacts the ability to read (Copyright Act Section 121).

I do have one quibble with the member's phrasing, though, and it is important to this particular issue: Section 121, while it allows copies otherwise barred, does not create a "fair use" right to make a copy.[1]  Rather, the creation of an adaptive copy under Section 121 is a 100% exception to infringement made under highly precise circumstances.

What are those "highly precise circumstances"?

First, as the member writes, the end-user of the copy must be "eligible"--meaning they have a disability that impacts the ability to read (for the three "ways" for a user to be "eligible", see sub-section (d)(3)(A)-(C) of the law, below). 

Second, the copies must:

"(A) not be reproduced or distributed in the United States in a format other than an accessible format exclusively for use by eligible persons;

(B) bear a notice that any further reproduction or distribution in a format other than an accessible format is an infringement; and

(C) include a copyright notice identifying the copyright owner and the date of the original publication."

And third, the maker of the copies must be an "authorized entity" (which is defined in the statute; see the definition, below[2]).

This precise formula, and the right it creates, is why "fair use" is not a part of the issue at hand (adaptive copies specifically for reading-based disabilities).  None of the above-listed requirements are required to claim "fair use" under Section 107[3]. In addition, to make a Section 121 copy, there is no four-factor "balancing" test; rather, a Section 121 use is "inherently noninfringing."[4]

The above-listed Section 121 requirements to include copyright notices are also the key to addressing the member's concern: enforcement.

When an "authorized entity" is creating Section 121-based copies for "eligible" people, the institution must put copyright notices on each copy. This sets up the institution--as either an employer or alma mater--to restrict non-eligible employees and students from using them for non-Section 121 purposes.  Further, in addition to the required notices, the institution can add additional warnings, and if needed, restrict use through technological controls.[5]

Now, how much should an institution police this?  Currently, there is no case law that turns on an alleged infringement that was committed via unauthorized use of a duly made Section 121 copy.  That said, content owners are always looking for new ways to maximize revenues, so taking care to properly designate Section 121-based copies as required by law, and using policy and posted notices to reinforce those restrictions, is a wise idea.

Thank you for a well-informed and nuanced question!

HERE IS SECTION 121 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT:

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for an authorized entity to reproduce or to distribute in the United States copies or phonorecords of a previously published literary work or of a previously published musical work that has been fixed in the form of text or notation if such copies or phonorecords are reproduced or distributed in accessible formats exclusively for use by eligible persons.

(b)

(1) Copies or phonorecords to which this section applies shall—

(A) not be reproduced or distributed in the United States in a format other than an accessible format exclusively for use by eligible persons;

(B) bear a notice that any further reproduction or distribution in a format other than an accessible format is an infringement; and

(C) include a copyright notice identifying the copyright owner and the date of the original publication.

(2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to standardized, secure, or norm-referenced tests and related testing material, or to computer programs, except the portions thereof that are in conventional human language (including descriptions of pictorial works) and displayed to users in the ordinary course of using the computer programs.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a publisher of print instructional materials for use in elementary or secondary schools to create and distribute to the National Instructional Materials Access Center copies of the electronic files described in sections 612(a)(23)(C), 613(a)(6), and section 674(e) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that contain the contents of print instructional materials using the National Instructional Material Accessibility Standard (as defined in section 674(e)(3) of that Act), if—

(1) the inclusion of the contents of such print instructional materials is required by any State educational agency or local educational agency;

(2) the publisher had the right to publish such print instructional materials in print formats; and

(3) such copies are used solely for reproduction or distribution of the contents of such print instructional materials in accessible formats.

(d) For purposes of this section, the term—

(1) “accessible format” means an alternative manner or form that gives an eligible person access to the work when the copy or phonorecord in the accessible format is used exclusively by the eligible person to permit him or her to have access as feasibly and comfortably as a person without such disability as described in paragraph (3);

(2) “authorized entity” means a nonprofit organization or a governmental agency that has a primary mission to provide specialized services relating to training, education, or adaptive reading or information access needs of blind or other persons with disabilities;

(3) “eligible person” means an individual who, regardless of any other disability—

(A) is blind;

(B) has a visual impairment or perceptual or reading disability that cannot be improved to give visual function substantially equivalent to that of a person who has no such impairment or disability and so is unable to read printed works to substantially the same degree as a person without an impairment or disability; or

(C) is otherwise unable, through physical disability, to hold or manipulate a book or to focus or move the eyes to the extent that would be normally acceptable for reading; and

(4) “print instructional materials” has the meaning given under section 674(e)(3)(C) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

(Added Pub. L. 104–197, title III, §â€¯316(a), Sept. 16, 1996, 110 Stat. 2416; amended Pub. L. 106–379, §â€¯3(b), Oct. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 1445; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §â€¯13210(3)(A), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1909; Pub. L. 108–446, title III, §â€¯306, Dec. 3, 2004, 118 Stat. 2807; Pub. L. 115–261, §â€¯2(a)(1), Oct. 9, 2018, 132 Stat. 3667.)

[1] I'm quibbling, but I want to take this footnote to state that including a "fair use" cite in the question is very reasonable, because fair use is often cited as yet another reason to make adaptive copies that go beyond copies authorized by Section 121. Since the copies in this case are without question for those "eligible" under Section 121 (those with reading-impacting disabilities), we're going to sideline fair use at Section 107 for this question, but it very much is a part of the toolbox of creating adaptive works for non-Section 121-eligible disabilities.

[2] There is controversy, but no definitive authority, on if all not-for-profit educational institutions meet the criteria.  Academic publishers have taken a position that it only applies to institutions for the blind, not just any old school or college.  However, an uncontradicted conclusion in the October 10, 2012 district court decision in Authors Guild V. Hathitrust, 902 F. Supp, 2d 445 (2012) opines that because of their mandate to provide accessibility under the ADA, such institutions all are "authorized entities" under Section 121.  Until I read otherwise, my guidance errs on the side of accessibility (see https://wnylrc.org/index.php/raq/accessibility-options-school-ebooks).

[3] In fact, having to abide by this type of requirement could undercut some of the more vital applications of fair use, such as parody or innovation.

[4] If this distinction intrigues you, check out the commentary at  https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2021/comments/Class%2008_InitialComments_Accessibility%20Petitioners%20II.pdf

[5] I am slightly wary of a system that would force a student to "register" with the library as needing ADA accommodations, but depending on how access is granted, some type of additional log-in or control might be wise.  At higher ed institutions, students and employees arrange accommodation per a policy, and accommodations are generally confirmed in writing, so signing up for access to adaptive copies could be the way to go.  But this will be driven by technology, and care must be taken to not put up any additional hurdles to access.  If any readers out there have solved this issue at your institution, I'd appreciate hearing about it!  Please send that to info@losapllc.com.

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.

MAKING A COPY ON THIS MACHINE

MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE COPYRIGHT LAW OF THE UNITED STATES[1]

This means 4 important things:

1.  Copying a copyright-protected work here could be a copyright violation.[2]

2.  Copying protected works is sometimes allowed under "fair use."[3]  We can't give you legal advice, but if you want to learn more about "fair use," go to https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf or see the [INSTITUTION NAME] Fair Use policy at [LINK].

3.  Copying a copyrighted work to accommodate a disability under the ADA is allowed.   However, to do that, please see the library staff, since adaptive copies have special rules,[4] and we want to help you (or a person you are assisting) exercise your rights.

4. As a library open to the public, there are special circumstances under which we get to make copies (libraries are special).  However, to qualify for that protection, this notice (which we have, by law, placed over the copier right in front of you), has to say what it says in bold at the very top, and we have to operate by this rule:

Any person or group is forbidden to use this machine to engage in the related or concerted reproduction or distribution of multiple copies of the same material, whether made on one occasion or over a period of time, and whether intended for aggregate use by one or more individuals or for separate use by the individual members of a group.

What does that mean? Entire classes should not come here and copy the whole text book for a course![5]  Please don't do that.[6]

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

Thanks!

[1] This precise language is required by 17 U.S.C. 108 for the library and its employees to be protected against allegations of secondary infringement.

[2] 17 U.S.C. 106 reserves the making of copies to the copyright owner.

[3] 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!

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

[5] This is covered by 17 U.S.C. Section 108(f).  Section 108 also lets libraries make copies for other uses...but that is for libraries, not regular people or students using a copier in a library.

[6] Seriously, if we see you doing that, we have to ask you to stop.

The school may be covered by Fair Use but for this scenario, it doesn't need to be in order to make the recording proposed by the member.

Why?

Because Section 121 of the Copyright Act allows "authorized entities" (like schools serving those with IEP's)[1] the right to make a copy in an "accessible format" (like an audio file) for "eligible persons" (like a student with an IEP), without it being an infringement.

Of course, there's always a catch.  In addition to precautions like the one described by the member (limiting access to only those who need it), the exception under Section 121 has other requirements, such as:

• The accessible copy has to have a copyright notice.
• The accessible copy has to have a note stating no further copies are authorized.
• It doesn't apply to computer programs.[2]

I am putting a copy of Section 121, which was most recently amended in 2018, below this answer, so members can review its requirements and consider how it might apply in their institution.

Now, I will say that if there wasn't a Section 121, there is a strong chance the format conversion described by the member would qualify as a Fair Use.  In fact, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal, which is the first level of appeal for copyright cases in New York State, has found Section 121's to bolster educational institutions' claims of Fair Use.[3]

But between a rock-solid exemption like Section 121, and a shifting, 4-part formulaic one like Section 107 ("Fair Use"), I say: go for the rock-solid exemption. 

The law takes assured access for those with disabilities seriously, and that regard is important to strengthen through robust and repeated use.

Thanks for a valuable and carefully thought-out question.

Here is the full text of section 121:

(a)

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for an authorized entity to reproduce or to distribute in the United States copies or phonorecords of a previously published literary work or of a previously published musical work that has been fixed in the form of text or notation if such copies or phonorecords are reproduced or distributed in accessible formats exclusively for use by eligible persons.

(b)

(1)Copies or phonorecords to which this section applies shall—

(A)  not be reproduced or distributed in the United States in a format other than an accessible format exclusively for use by eligible persons;

(B) bear a notice that any further reproduction or distribution in a format other than an accessible format is an infringement; and

(C) include a copyright notice identifying the copyright owner and the date of the original publication.

(2)The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to standardized, secure, or norm-referenced tests and related testing material, or to computer programs, except the portions thereof that are in conventional human language (including descriptions of pictorial works) and displayed to users in the ordinary course of using the computer programs.

(c)

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a publisher of print instructional materials for use in elementary or secondary schools to create and distribute to the National Instructional Materials Access Center copies of the electronic files described in sections 612(a)(23)(C), 613(a)(6), and section 674(e) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that contain the contents of print instructional materials using the National Instructional Material Accessibility Standard (as defined in section 674(e)(3) of that Act), if—

(1) the inclusion of the contents of such print instructional materials is required by any State educational agency or local educational agency;

(2) the publisher had the right to publish such print instructional materials in print formats; and

(3) such copies are used solely for reproduction or distribution of the contents of such print instructional materials in accessible formats.

(d)For purposes of this section, the term—

(1) “accessible format” means an alternative manner or form that gives an eligible person access to the work when the copy or phonorecord in the accessible format is used exclusively by the eligible person to permit him or her to have access as feasibly and comfortably as a person without such disability as described in paragraph (3);

(2) “authorized entity” means a nonprofit organization or a governmental agency that has a primary mission to provide specialized services relating to training, education, or adaptive reading or information access needs of blind or other persons with disabilities;

(3)“eligible person” means an individual who, regardless of any other disability—

(A) is blind;

(B) has a visual impairment or perceptual or reading disability that cannot be improved to give visual function substantially equivalent to that of a person who has no such impairment or disability and so is unable to read printed works to substantially the same degree as a person without an impairment or disability; or

(C) is otherwise unable, through physical disability, to hold or manipulate a book or to focus or move the eyes to the extent that would be normally acceptable for reading; and

(4) “print instructional materials” has the meaning given under section 674(e)(3)(C) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

[1] The literal definition of "authorized entity" is "a nonprofit organization or a governmental agency that has a primary mission to provide specialized services relating to training, education, or adaptive reading or information access needs of blind or other persons with disabilities."  The only case law construing this language interprets it to include educational institutions with obligations to provide ADA access.  For more on that, see footnote #4.

[2] An eBook is not a computer program.

[3] In the 2014 Hathi Trust case (Authors Guild, Inc. v Hathi Trust, 755 F3d 87 [2d Cir 2014])), the court opined that an academic library could qualify for 121's exemption because of its obligation to provide access under the ADA.  This was bootstrapped into an allowance for Fair Use, too.  It's not the smoothest finding, but it's there, and it’s the only line of cases citing 121 as of December 19, 2021.