1. Fair use and Libraries Dave Hansen March 20, 2012

2. Berkeley Digital Library Copyright Project Goal: “to investigate copyright obstacles faced by libraries and other like-minded organizations in their efforts to realize the full potential of present and future digital library initiatives. Our efforts are concentrated on both the obstacles themselves and the range of possible legal, technological, social, and market-based solutions to overcome them.” Issues: orphan works library privileges digital lending metadata ownership http://www.law.berkeley.edu/12040.htm

3. “This symposium will offer a fresh look at orphan works and mass digitization by examining the existing obstacles, including legal and practical concerns of both owners and potential users, and opportunities to enable greater access and new uses for these works. http://www.law.berkeley.edu/orphanworks.htm

4. DPLA West—taking place on April 27, 2012 in San Francisco—is the second major public event bringing together librarians, technologists, creators, students, government leaders, and others interested in building a Digital Public Library of America. http://dp.la

5. Structure of Copyright Title 17, United States Code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/ Exclusive rights of author (§ 106)Limitations on exclusive rights Reproduce Prepare derivative works Distribute to public Perform publicly Display publicly For sound recordings, perform over digital network § 107 – Fair use § 108 – Libraries and Archives § 109 – “First sale” § 110 – Non-profit Performances §§ 111-122 – further refinement

6. Statutory Damages From $750 to $150,000 in damages per work infringed Jamie Thomas-Rasset -- $1.92 million for sharing 24 songs Joel Tennenbaum -- $675 thousand for sharing 31 songs

7. Limitations on Damages Good Faith Assertion of Fair Use § 504(c)(2) – “The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords.

8. Limitations on Damages Sovereign Immunity

9. Fair Use § 107 – “Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”

10. Fair Use § 107 – “In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

12. E-Reserves Principle: “It is fair use to make appropriately tailored course-related content available to enrolled students via digital networks.”

13. E-Reserves Limitations: Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook, workbook, or anthology designed for the course). The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which they have been made available at an instructor’s direction. Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors’ graduate assistants) should have access to materials. Materials should be made available only when there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s pedagogical purpose and the kind and amount of content involved.

14. E-Reserves Limitations: Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed requests. When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to online materials may be limited. Students should also be given information about their rights and responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials. Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should be provided for each work included or excerpted.

15. E-Reserves Enhancements: Prompt instructors, who are most likely to understand the educational purpose and transformative nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular material is requested, and why the amount requested is appropriate to that pedagogical purpose. To assure the continuing relevance of those materials to course content, libraries should require instructors of recurrently offered courses to review posted materials and make updates as appropriate.

16. Cambridge Univ. Press v. Patton (Ga. State Univ.) Cambridge University Press, SAGE Publications, and Oxford University Press filed lawsuit in 2008 Copyright Clearance Center apparently funds 50% of the suit Named as defendants four Georgia State University administrators and managers Contested Georgia State University e-reserves system for providing access to copyrighted works