The roundtable was conducted by Robert Brauneis, Abraham L. Kaminstein Scholar in Residence, U.S. Copyright Office.

Robert Brauneis, Abraham L. Kaminstein Scholar in Residence, U.S. Copyright Office

The White Paper was submitted to Brauneis by Ariel Green, Sean Harb, Peter Holm, Kingdar Prussien, Kasonni Scales, and Juliana Yee, Copyright Policy Lab Practicum

Mary Minow: What was the impetus that led Stanford to research and write this White Paper?

Peter Holm:  The Copyright Office contacted Stanford initially and Professor Paul Goldstein contacted us.  I took a copyright class in the Fall of 2012 with Professor Goldstein. He emailed a few of us over the summer to see if we were interested. He described it as a chance to offer concrete suggestions to modernize the Copyright Office operations.

Minow: That sounds broad.  When did the focus narrow to copyright document recordations?

Holm:  That narrower focus developed in the Fall as we spoke with Maria Pallante, Register of Copyrights; Jacqueline Charlesworth, General Counsel, United States Copyright Office, and then with Professor Bob Brauneis who is there as a scholar in residence on these issues.

Minow:  Why does this matter?

Holm:  To have economic value, an owner of copyrighted works has to be able to sell and make his works available. If you don’t know who the owner is, you can’t make those transactions and the works lose value, so availability of this information is integral.

Minow: How do people find out now about who owns what copyrights?

Holm: It varies by industry.  Neither registration of copyrights nor recordation of copyright transfers are required, but both have benefits to the owner. Because taking these steps is voluntary, the amount of information available for any given work varies considerably.  So for example, in the music industry, there is extensive ownership information and licensing availability through ASCAP, BMI and the Harry Fox agency.  So if I want to play Elton John at a party open to all Stanford students, I can get a license from those collecting societies and not worry about who owns the rights.

Whereas if I find a book in the library, published in 1955 and I want to use it, it’s harder to find information.  There are probably records at the Copyright Office for the initial owner, as registration used to be required, but subsequent transfers might not have been recorded, so many questions remain. Did he transfer the copyright at some point? If not, is the author still alive? Did it go to his heirs, and who are they?

There is a substantial cost to investigating this, and often one doesn’t know who to talk to.

Minow: What’s the gist of your proposal?

Holm: It’s not a proposal per se. It’s really a list of options and tradeoffs.  We look at the role of the copyright office. Should it hold a giant database, partner with third parties?  Really it comes down to how do we best provide access to the public and get the information they need without overly burdening authors with unnecessary requirements?  We don’t want to make it too hard for them to exercise their rights to transfer works, since transfers are potentially beneficial.

Minow: What are the benefits of recording transfer documents, since it’s not required?

Holm:  It gives constructive notice of the transfer.  Also, if you record a transfer document there is a presumption of validity for that document over subsequent instruments of transfer of the same title.

Minow: Thanks for talking with us today.

——

Peter Holm is a third year law student at Stanford Law School.

Mary Minow is the Executive Editor of the Stanford Copyright & Fair Use page.

The post Who’s the Owner: A White Paper on “Improving Copyright Information Management: An Investigation of Options and Areas for Further Research” appeared first on Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center.

You probably have also noticed the erosion of First Sale as we live more and more in the land of digital. Witness the Redigi decision that said that even if you forward and delete, you can infringe copyright. That’s because you need to make a copy for sending before you delete your original.

You may also live in the real world where everyone is remixing digital content, yet the uncertainty that accompanies these creative efforts can be stifling to those that are aware of copyright penalties.

To that end, it is important to speak out and say what you need in the Next Great Copyright Act. Read the short petition below, and if you agree with it, sign it. If you know of communities that would sign, please forward. There’s a short deadline to get this out by May 14th.  If you don’t have a White House account, you can create one very easily.

http://tinyurl.com/recastcopyright

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

Recast copyright law for the digital era. It’s time to regain public respect with laws that make sense.

The public disregards copyright law because it is out of sync with the digital age. We want the right to resell digital content (ebooks, etc.) that we’ve paid for. We need transparency in the marketplace to understand what rights we have.

Additionally, as responsible creators we need to be able to freely remix existing music and other forms of creative expression to create new works without undue fear of prosecution. This upholds the original Constitutional purpose of copyright, which is to promote progress.

This will nurture the process of innovation and the sharing of our culture. The language of the existing copyright law must be changed to accommodate the way information is being created and consumed in our digital world.

The post The Next Great Copyright Act – add your voice by May 14th appeared first on Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center.

According to the agency, “The NIH Public Access Policy implements Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL 110-161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008). The law states:”

The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.

Critics of the policy are making a move, yet again, to eviscerate it.

Last month, Representatives Darrel Issa (R-CA) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced The Research Works Act, H.R. 3699. The bill is currently referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (which Rep. Issa chairs).

The Association of American Publishers lauds the bill, which it describes as

… [prohibiting] federal agencies from unauthorized free public dissemination of journal articles that report on research which, to some degree, has been federally-funded but is produced and published by private sector publishers receiving no such funding. It would also prevent non-government authors from being required to agree to such free distribution of these works. Additionally, it would preempt federal agencies’ planned funding, development and back-office administration of their own electronic repositories for such works, which would duplicate existing copyright-protected systems and unfairly compete with established university, society and commercial publishers.

(Emphasis mine)

Evolutionary biologist and Public Library of Science co-founder Michael Eisen has done some research, finding that 12 of Reed Elsivier’s (and their senior executives) 31 political contributions for 2011 went to Rep. Maloney, co-sponsor of the bill, totaling $8,500. He also argues that while the bill refers to “private-sector research work,” the definition of such in the bill encompasses research products that receive funds from government agencies, thus invalidating the NIH Public Access Policy.

Some Blogosphere reactions to the bill include:

SOPA and the Research Works Act: Evil master plan or do publishers think so little of us? from Library Attack

Representatives Issa (R-CA) and Maloney (D-NY) introduce anti-open access legislation from Knowledge Ecology International

Congress Considers Paywalling Science You Already Paid For
Congress wants to limit open access publishing for the US government’s $28B/year subsidized research from BoingBoing

Why Is Open-Internet Champion Darrell Issa Supporting an Attack on Open Science? from The Atlantic Online

Scholarly Societies: It’s time to abandon the AAP over The Research Works Act from Confessions of a Science Librarian

New bill to block open access to publicly-funded research from Peter Suber

The Alliance for Taxpayer Access, an Open Access advocacy group, already has a Take Action page, asking supporters of the NIH Public Access Policy to call Reps. Issa and Maloney, as well as other members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

We at Fairly Used will continue to look for news and reactions to this bill.

The post Attack on Open Access appeared first on Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center.

And while debates over copyright enforcement, length of protection and the extent of exemptions continue in the U.S., similar efforts and arguments are being made in Canada, the UK and Europe. Our video page has excerpts from the ongoing conversation. One highlight is a speech on copyright from Mathias Klang, a researcher and senior lecturer at the University of Göteborg in Sweden. Most of the latest videos are from a July 2010 conference called ORGCon, conducted by the Open Rights Group, a group devoted to advocating digital rights in the UK.

But for you hardcore Lawrence Lessig fans (and I am one, thank you very much), there’s also a new TED talk from him on copyright, fair use and remix culture mashed up with politics. Brief, but humorous and thought-provoking, as one would expect from Prof. Lessig.

   — Eli Edwards, Content Minion

The post New Copyright Videos appeared first on Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center.

An Insider’s View of the WIPO: Interview with Janice T. Pilch, Associate Professor of Library Administration and Humanities Librarian at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

An international copyright advocate for the Library Copyright Alliance, which consists of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries, and the Association of Research Libraries, Janice has represented the interests of U.S. libraries and the public at copyright-related meetings of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and other international fora for the past three years. As an advocate, she develops position statements to advance fair and equitable access to information, contributing to LCA’s strategic effort to influence legislation and public policy governing use of copyrighted materials.

In 2009-2010 Janice also served as Visiting Program Officer on International Copyright for the Association of Research Libraries, responsible for research and policy formulation on international copyright issues relating to libraries.

At the ALA Annual Conference in June 2010 in Washington, Janice was a member of a panel co-sponsored by ACRL and the ALA Office for Information Technology Policy on “Why WIPO? Why International Copyright Matters.” We thought we would invite her to share some of her insights on the important work being done by the Library Copyright Alliance at WIPO in the global IP debate.

Mary Minow:
How did you find yourself before WIPO in June, representing library, and by extension, the public’s interests?

Janice Pilch: When the Library Copyright Alliance launched its international copyright advocacy program in October 2007, it gained accreditation as an NGO with observer status at WIPO. We set out to cover the work of three key WIPO committees: the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), and the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC), as well as the WIPO General Assembly.

These committees are dealing with international treaty proposals and initiatives that impact the way that libraries and the public use copyrighted works and the future of information access. It’s critical for library organizations to be at the table for the discussions. In the most general terms, it’s about restoring the balance between private and public interests in copyright. I should mention that the LCA international copyright advocacy program has been generously funded by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

I have attended meetings of the General Assembly, CDIP and SCCR. In December 2009 and June 2010 I was the LCA representative to the SCCR, which is now is engaged in historic discussions on copyright limitations and exceptions in three areas: for blind, visually impaired, and reading disabled persons, for libraries and archives, and for education.

Mary Minow: Why is international copyright important for libraries?

Janice Pilch: There are several levels at which law is shaped — directly through the national legislation, and indirectly through international treaties and other international instruments that influence the national law. In some parts of the world, regional agreements also play an important role. In the U.S. we can influence lawmaking nationally, by reaching out to Congress — this is something that ALA does very well — and internationally, by sending representatives to WIPO to work from the top down, to shape the treaties and other instruments that condition the national law.

Because libraries preserve and provide access to the world’s intellectual heritage, they have an interest in promoting copyright laws that provide the broadest possible use of information for creativity, research and education. Library activity is made possible by limitations and exceptions to the exclusive rights of copyright holders. But there are no limitations or exceptions in the international instruments underlying the responsible work that libraries and archives do to keep information alive and circulating. Copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries exist as a matter of common practice in national laws, but they are not mandated by treaties. They are being compromised in the digital environment. They can disappear. Copyright limitations and exceptions are one of the most important issues currently on the agenda of the SCCR.

Engagement in international copyright issues is especially important for libraries in developing nations, that experience the uneven effects of globalization, compounded by external pressure to adopt high standards of protection that do not benefit them domestically. We support the goals of the WIPO Development Agenda that was adopted at the 2007 WIPO General Assembly to change this. It aims to bridge the “digital divide” — the technology gap and the knowledge gap that has come about as a result of globalization, technological change, and trends toward higher protection of intellectual property associated with the WTO TRIPS Agreement. The work that LCA does at the CDIP is about improving access to knowledge for developing and least developed nations.

And in the IGC, WIPO is currently considering adoption of a treaty to protect traditional cultural expressions (TCEs), works of indigenous peoples and traditional communities. This would have far-reaching implications for indigenous peoples and other communities that are tradition bearers of these expressions. It would also affect libraries and museums holding collections that include TCEs — texts, audiovisual works, sound recordings, art, photographs, artifacts, and more, and also derivative works, such as collections of native folk tales and archives of anthropological research related to native history and culture. Because libraries and museums play a primary role in preserving cultural heritage, this is a key issue for us.

Mary Minow: Can you describe the atmosphere at the WIPO proceedings?

Janice Pilch: WIPO is a specialized agency of the U.N. Discussion is formal, governed by U.N. protocols. Government delegations raise their flags and speak in queue. The meetings are held in a large assembly room, consisting of delegations of WIPO Member States — 184 nations belong to WIPO — plus plus accredited IGO and NGO representatives. They are typically week-long meetings. Meetings go all day long, sometimes into the night.

Government delegations consist of a combination one or more heads of copyright, patent, or trademark offices, representatives from U.N. missions, government ambassadors, diplomats, or other senior government officials. Although it varies from meeting to meeting, usually there are several hundred government delegates present, plus the IGOs and NGOs.

The atmosphere is refined and polite, but discussions can be polarized, often with highly industrialized nations and developing nations presenting opposing interests. Regional groups play an important role. As in other U.N. bodies, regional groups wield power collectively. Examples of regional groups are the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, the African Group, and the Asian Group. Group B is a cluster of industrialized countries. Agreement between several regional groups is the way to get things done.

Mary Minow: What do you do as an NGO representative at WIPO?

Janice Pilch: We do a lot at the meetings, and put a lot into the preparation for meetings. As an observer organization, we prepare written statements and give statements, called interventions, on the floor. NGOs are given time usually at the end of a topic discussion, or at the beginning of a meeting, or end of a week-long meeting — usually 3 minutes — to take the microphone and deliver an intervention. We have to anticipate the flow of a discussion and also be ready to give statements on the fly if there is not a lot of advance notice.

We also prepare written documents for distribution to WIPO delegates, to clarify and reinforce library concerns. Our aim in doing this is to offer to government delegations information about libraries and archives, as well as our concerns, so that they will make better decisions. Copyright law is not absolute — it is constantly changing, and it’s created by human beings. Who can better explain the practicalities of copyright law for libraries than librarians?

An example of such a written document is the Statement of Principles on Copyright Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives that LCA, along with eIFL.net and IFLA, wrote and distributed at the WIPO SCCR meeting in May 2009. The Statement outlines the urgency of taking action to expand limitations and exceptions to meet the needs of librarians and the public in the digital environment. It followed the WIPO Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives prepared by Kenneth Crews, whom we all know as a leader in the area of libraries and copyright.

In addition, we work on new ideas related to committee meeting agendas that will benefit libraries. Sometimes the work results in new proposals officially put forward by government delegations, or studies, or information incorporated into studies. For example, in the CDIP there is a project involving the digital divide and access to knowledge that will include analysis on education and research, open access, and e-information services. Contributing feedback to projects like this enriches the discussion. The more information there is on the table, the greater the likelihood that the outcome will be reasonable and will consider the interests of all stakeholders.

In Geneva we also attend and speak at side meetings organized by official delegations, IGOs and NGOs, at lunchtime sessions or in the evening. They are sometimes on a specific issue, such as a new breaking development, and sometimes they are general meetings. During the breaks and other available free time, we engage with delegates, to make our concerns known, and to be supportive to them as well. We sometimes meet with the U.S delegation and we appreciate those meetings very much.

The work is collaborative. We work with other civil society organizations, especially other library organizations. Civil society organizations support each other, and do enormous amount of work. Increasingly committee chairs and delegations acknowledge the beneficial influence of NGOs, including library organizations, and this is gratifying for us. Our presence alone is important.

Mary Minow: You’ve been to WIPO sessions before. Have you noticed any changes over the years?

Janice Pilch: I have noticed changes in the three years that I have attended, since 2007 — all positive. Colleagues who have been involved in this work for much longer also note that the influence of NGOs has increased over the years, and that there is more acknowledgment of their participation. When library organizations started attending WIPO meetings, the organization was less receptive to our views. Now there is more cooperation. WIPO welcomes civil society participation but at the same time the main focus of WIPO is the promotion of IP protection worldwide, and that is the context we work in.

Many WIPO delegates express gratitude for our presence and support us, in their interventions. We feel that there is a cumulative effort in the work we do. On the issue of copyright limitations and exceptions for blind, visually impaired and other reading disabled persons, over time we have seen a move from resistance to the issue, to tenuous acceptance, to full agreement that this is an issue that demands a solution at WIPO.

Mary Minow: Can you describe some of the surprising twists and turns on the copyright front for blind and reading disabled persons?

Janice Pilch: This is such an important issue, and it has a long history. For decades, blind and visually disabled persons have been struggling for improved access to copyrighted works. In most countries it is difficult legally to copy and transform a copyrighted work into an accessible format, even as digital technology has made this easier. There is no international copyright treaty that contains a specific provision relating to the needs of blind and visually impaired people. The result is that provisions in national laws vary greatly from
country to country. And there is no international framework that facilitates cross-border distribution of accessible versions.

The need for a solution has been under discussion since the early 1980s. A 1985 report issued by the Executive Committee for the Berne Convention and the Intergovernmental Committee of the Universal Copyright Convention recommended a solution in the form of a new treaty. But nothing happened. Even now it is estimated that in the U.S., less than 5% of published works are available in accessible formats. The problem is more acute in developing nations. This is an appalling figure.

To get the issue on the WIPO agenda, in 2004-2005 the government of Chile made several proposals to WIPO to address exceptions and limitations for education, libraries, and disabled persons, and the public interest. Library groups were fully behind these proposals.

WIPO responded positively to the 2005 proposal by Chile, and commissioned a series of new studies on limitations and exceptions in the digital environment covering three areas: for the visually impaired, for libraries and archives; and on educational activities and distance education, including cross-border issues. The WIPO Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for the Visually Impaired by Judith Sullivan in 2007 identified only 57 nations that have a provision for visually impaired people in the national copyright law.

In July 2008 Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua and Uruguay presented a new proposal. There was discussion but no real action. Remarkably, the idea came under a lot of criticism when it was discussed at a November 2008 SCCR information session.

But one group was ready to take the process a step further to make something happen — the blind and reading disabled community. The World Blind Union made something happen. In October 2008 the WBU submitted to WIPO their proposal for a Treaty for Improved Access for Blind, Visually Impaired and Other Reading Disabled Persons. It was formally introduced at the May 2009 SCCR meeting by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay. It is now also supported by Mexico.

The proposal was introduced at about the same time that there was public reaction in the U.S. over Amazon’s Kindle 2 E-book reader. In April 2009 hundreds of people organized by the Reading Rights Coalition gathered in front of the headquarters of the Authors Guild in New York to protest the removal of the text-to-speech capabilities in Amazon’s new Kindle 2 E-book device. The Authors Guild had pressured Amazon to disable the synthetic speech function of Kindle 2, which it stated was a violation of copyright law.

Back to Geneva. The text step for WIPO was to discuss the treaty proposal. It was on the agenda for discussion at the SCCR meeting in December 2009, and was the most anticipated agenda item of the meeting. Seventeen NGOs representing blind and reading disabled persons had applied for special ad hoc accreditation to attend the meeting in
support of the proposal.

The post An Insider’s View of the WIPO: Interview with Janice T. Pilch, UIUC appeared first on Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center.

Minow: Can you tell us about the settlement in the Marketing Information Masters case?

Pink:  Sure. The parties ultimately settled for $15K.  The settlement was negotiated by my former partner because I moved firms just after filing the final motion that led to the court knocking out nearly everything that remained after we invalidated Section 511 of the Copyright Act.  I had given the school a really low rate at my old firm, and unfortunately I could not keep them at that rate after the move, so I had to hand the case off.  Nonetheless, I teed it up for settlement before I left by obtaining the court-ordered dismissal of nearly every claim, and by limiting plaintiff’s possible win to about $5,000.  Even though the final settlement was 3X that number, and I think the school over paid, my client wanted to be done with the law suit and what they paid in settlement they saved in fees. Overall, still a good result.

Minow: Why such a low settlement?

Pink: Ultimately, the reason the settlement was so low all tracks back to the ruling you first wrote about, and then a follow up motion we filed that knocked out still more claims.  That is, first we invalidated the plaintiff’s right to sue a state university for copyright infringement and assorted other claims, then we drastically whittled down the claims this plaintiff asserted against Professor Rauch .  After that, the facts in this case simply did not support big damages.  We were able to show that plaintiff never made more than $15,000 when it previously sold its report to the school, and it didn’t lose the sale of report at issue because the plaintiff had refused to prepare that report for the school unless they were paid a lot more money.  Bottom line was that I thought we could have shown almost no damages, so we made a statutory offer of about $5000.  When the plaintiff failed to accept that offer, he was stuck because, unless he was able win more than that at trial, he would have ended up paying our attorneys fees.  It was a gamble, but I thought we were holding the better hand.  Although I wasn’t involved in the final settlement talks because I moved firms, I understand that these tactics – and my former partner’s negotiating skills – allowed the client to close the case for nearly nothing.

Minow: Now here’s the key question. Can individual professors be held liable for copyright infringement even when they follow university copyright policies?

Pink:  That is the key question, but because this case never went to trial, we can’t answer it with certainty.  The qualified answer is probably not, but it will be a question of fact as to whether the professor followed the university’s copyright policies.  In this case, the facts giving rise to the claim for infringement arose out of the conduct of an intern who was a visiting foreign student.  The professor never knew that the student had copied text, and moreover, went of his way to correct that once it was brought to his attention.  Of course, there is an argument that he should have known by more closely supervising the work.  So did he follow the copyright policy of the university sufficiently to avoid liability?   We don’t know.  But it was worth $15K not to put that question to the test.

===========

Jonathan Pink is a member of the Intellectual Property Group at Bryan Cave , LLP.  His practice focuses on high stakes copyright, trademark, trade secret and patent litigation.  He can be reached at jonathan.pink@bryancave.com

The post Settlement in Marketing Information Masters v. California State University – a follow-up interview with Jonathan Pink on copyright and sovereign immunity appeared first on Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center.

Minow: Tell us about the new Section 108 spinner. How does it work and what is its purpose?

Brewer: The “Section 108 Spinner” was actually the first tool we created, but because at that time the Section 108 study group had still not released their findings, we held off on releasing this tool and instead developed and released the “Digital Copyright Slider” first.  Once it seemed clear that Section 108 was not going to change any time soon, we decided to go ahead and release the Spinner. The Spinner is focused more on educating and serving the needs of librarians, library staff and archivists.  Basically it is there to help them determine when a reproduction of a copyrighted work would be covered by Section 108, the Library and Archives exemption in US Copyright Law.  We are focused on promoting the online tool, but we do have some copies of the print tool that we’re handing out at conferences or other events.  If we hear from people that having access to the print tool would be valuable for their institutions (for their staff in ILL, Special Collections, Collection Management, Public Services, etc.), we might consider making the print tool more broadly available as well.

Minow: Do you have anything else up your sleeve?

Brewer: We’ve got two more tools in development.  One is a “Fair Use Evaluator” which will guide users through the process of making fair use evaluations.  The tool collects the evidence and reasoning behind the justification provided by the user, and then provides this information back to them in a nicely formatted, time stamped PDF file for their records.  Because Section 504(c) of the US Copyright Code affords some legal protection from statutory damages for those who can show that they made a good faith evaluation of their use and had reasonable grounds for believing it was fair, we feel this feature could be especially valuable.  The second is an Educational Exemptions tool that will help instructors determine whether or not their use of a copyrighted work falls under Section 110 and 110(2) [the “face to face” teaching exemption and the TEACH Act], which allow for educational uses of copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder under certain circumstances. We’ve found that there is a lot of confusion out there concerning this portion of the law, so we thought an easy to use online tool might help. This tool can also collect and publish, in PDF format, the circumstances of the use provided by the user.  We hope to have these two tools out by ALA Annual in July.

————————————–

Michael Brewer is Team Leader for Undergraduate Services, University of Arizona Library and a member of the American Library Association Office for Information Technology Policy Copyright Advisory Subcommittee

The post New tool for evaluating copyright use by libraries – a quick interview with Michael Brewer appeared first on Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center.

Brewer: The “Is it Covered by Copyright?” Slider was created as the first in a series of simple tools to help librarians, educators and others with their copyright questions.We first created a print version as a slide chart, but realized that a digital version could be much more useful, though perhaps not as fun to play with. Thus, the digital version was born.Both versions of the slider help the user to determine whether or not a work is in the public domain in the United States , and, if not, what the period of protection is.

Our next tool, a Section 108 “spinner” (library/archival reproductions for preservation, replacement or for users) will be released shortly both in print and online, so stay tuned.

Minow: What is the American Library Association Office for Information Technology Policy Copyright Committee?

Brewer: The American Library Association Office for Information Technology Policy Copyright Advisory Subcommittee promotes copyright education programs and initiatives and advises the OITP copyright specialist. We meet twice a year at ALA annual and mid-winter. Our meetings are open to any interested ALA members.Many members are actively involved in the Copyright Advisory Network at http://www.librarycopyright.net/

Michael Brewer is Team Leader for Undergraduate Services, University of Arizona Library and a member of the American Library Association Office for Information Technology Policy Copyright Advisory Subcommittee. 

The post Is it still in copyright? Try the Digital Copyright Slider to figure it out. appeared first on Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center.

The post Librarian participant Peter Hirtle’s view of Section 108 Study Group to change copyright exception for libraries appeared first on Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center.

The post Oregon Claims Copyright on Oregon Revised Statutes appeared first on Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center.