• Save
AAUP 2009: Legal Issues (A. Adler)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

AAUP 2009: Legal Issues (A. Adler)

on

  • 674 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
674
Views on SlideShare
674
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

AAUP 2009: Legal Issues (A. Adler) AAUP 2009: Legal Issues (A. Adler) Presentation Transcript

  • Update on Legal Issues : Electronic Reserves and GSU Litigation Fair Copyright in Research Works Act and Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Print Disabilities and Beyond Allan Adler VP for Legal & Government Affairs Association of American Publishers AAUP Annual Meeting Philadelphia – June 19, 2009
  • Electronic Reserves: Key Issues
    • Digital successor to print “course packs” under 1990s Kinkos and MDS court decisions.
    • Evidence shows widespread campus use directly substitutes for print course packs , w/o permission or fees, and often serves as exclusive curriculum reading materials for many courses.
    • Problem exacerbated by Nov. 2003 statement of ARL: “Applying Fair Use in the Development of Electronic Reserve Systems.”
    • Basic concept: Any use of copyrighted course content that requires permission as part of a print course pack likewise requires permission when made available for such use in a digital format.
  • Basic Elements of Copyright Guidelines on Electronic Course Content
    • To the extent permission is needed to include a copyrighted work (or portion thereof) in a print course pack, it also would be needed for course use of such material as electronic course content.
    • Fair use applies to electronic course content in the same way it applies to printed course packs. There are no bright-line rules; in each case, whether fair use applies depends on circumstances involved.
    • First-time use, Internet availability, etc. are not dispositive factors for “fair use” determinations.
  • Electronic Reserves: GSU Lawsuit
    • Georgia State University suit filed in April 2008 by Cambridge Univ. Press, Oxford Univ. Press & Sage Publications w/AAP support.
    • Early settlement process discussions with State Attorney General’s Office fizzled out; GSU hired private counsel; parties proceeding with discovery
    • Complaint amended to include individual Georgia Board of Regents members as named defendants – “sovereign immunity” issues
    • Discovery extended into June; depositions
    • New policies issued; GSU effort to limit discovery
    • Expert witness - Trial? Summary judgment?
  • NIH Public Access Policy
    • May 2005: NIH-funded researchers requested to electronically submit to PMC their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts accepted for journal publication, and specify posting for public access within 12 months of official date of publication .
    • December 2007: Congress mandates that NIH “shall require” such submission, but with proviso that “the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.”
    • Jan. – Sept. 2008: AAP petition for implementation through formal APA rulemaking languishes, while, in March, NIH meets publishers, holds public meeting & announces 2-month RFI. Petition rejected by NIH.
    • Fair Copyright in Research Works Act : Introduced (H.R.6845) with hearing in Sept. 2008; reintroduced as H.R.801 in March 2009.
  • Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (H.R.801)
    • Would bar Federal agencies from diminishing copyright protections for “extrinsic works” based on research they fund, where a non-governmental entity that is not a party to the funding agreement has either provided substantial funding or contributed a “meaningful added value.”
    • The only copyrighted work affected would be one that is: (1) produced by a non-government person who has created it in connection with the receipt of financial assistance for conducting research under a funding agreement with a Federal agency; and (2) either supported in substantial part by funding from, or represents, reflects or results from a “meaningful added value or process” contributed by, an entity that is not a Federal agency and is not a party to the funding agreement or acting on behalf of such a party.
  • Accessibility: Print Materials, Print Disabilities and Copyright
    • Fourth DMCA 1201 Triennial Rulemaking : Literary works distributed in ebook formats
    • Kindle 2 controversy : “audio rights” and “read aloud” functionality
    • WIPO SCCR and proposed WBU Treaty : “harmonizing” copyright limitations and exceptions for VIPS… and beyond? http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=17458
  • What’s the Link Between Accessibility and Copyright?
    • Disabilities can prevent some individuals from “accessing” or using copyrighted works in normal intended ways (i.e., consider blindness or deafness in connection with audio-visual works)
    • Literary works in hard copy print formats – use problems for persons who are blind or otherwise visually impaired, or who have other physical or organic dysfunctions, or who have dyslexia.
  • Obligations to Facilitate Accessibility
    • Federal statutes – the ADA, IDEA, and the Rehabilitation Act – generally bar discrimination against individuals based on their disabilities.
    • Persons with disabilities need access to copyrighted works in specialized formats that accommodate their particular disability to facilitate use of such works.
    • Availability in specialized formats requires reproducing and distributing copies of the work, implicating key rights of the copyright owner.
    • Federal disabilities laws do not impose obligations directly on publishers, but do so indirectly through State or local programs or other activities based on federal funding.
    • None of these laws specifically address copyright issues.
  • Copyright Law & Disabilities: 1976 Amendments - Exemptions
    • Section 110(8) & (9) exemptions –
    • for performance of certain literary works…
    • via analog TV/radio transmission “specifically designed for/primarily directed to…”
    • “ blind or other handicapped persons who are unable to read normal printed material as a result of their handicap, or
    • deaf or other handicapped persons who are unable to hear the aural signals accompanying a transmission of visual signals…”
  • Copyright Law & Disabilities: 1976 Amendments – Fair Use
    • Section 107 – codification of judicially-created equitable defense against claim of infringement
    • Nothing is fair use per se ; depends on situational and circumstantial application of four criteria:
    • (1) purpose and character of use;
    • (2) nature of copyrighted work;
    • (3) amount and substantiality of portion used in relation to whole work; and
    • (4) effect of use on potential market for or value of the work
  • Fair Use: Section 107 Legislative History
    • Identical explanation in House and Senate reports
    • Refers to “the making of copies… of works in the special forms needed for the use of blind persons.”
    • “ For the most part,” such copies (e.g., in braille or “phonorecords of oral readings” – “talking books”) are made by Library of Congress, with permission , for circulation through regional libraries, but also made “locally by individual volunteers” for use by blind persons in their communities.
    • Distinguishes “making single copy by an individual as a free service for a blind person” from “making multiple copies for general circulation” (“requires permission”).
  • What is the Chafee Amendment?
    • 1996 amendment to the Copyright Act for disabilities affecting use of printed works.
    • Exempts certain “authorized entities” from the rights of copyright owners with respect to reproducing and distributing copies of “previously-published non-dramatic works” in “specialized formats exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities.”
  • Purpose of the Chafee Amendment
    • Eliminate the need to compensate or obtain permission from any copyright owners for the reproduction & distribution of copyrighted works in specialized formats.
    • Save money and improve efficiency in the process of making copies of works available to individuals who need them in specialized formats.
  • Limitations of the Chafee Amendment
    • While generally intended to expand capabilities of programs like the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped; the American Printing House for the Blind; and Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic, the exemption is quite limited.
    • Although publishers often focus on its application to the curriculum material needs of students with disabilities, Chafee Amendment does not place any specific emphasis on students or education .
    • Limitations include types of works , rights , copies and eligible beneficiaries covered.
  • Types of Copyrighted Works Covered
    • Limited to “ previously-published non-dramatic literary works ” (e.g., no “unpublished” works).
    • Does not cover audio-visual, musical, or dramatic works (e.g., published scripts of plays).
    • Does not cover pictorial or graphic works, or sound recordings.
    • Excludes “standardized, secure or norm-referenced tests and related testing material” and “computer programs” (except portions in conventional human language displayed to users in the ordinary course of use).
  • Types of Copyright Rights Covered
    • Limited to “reproduction” and “distribution” rights.
    • Does not cover “public performance,” “public display,” or “preparation of derivative works” rights.
  • Who Qualifies as an “Authorized Entity”?
    • Must be “nonprofit organization or governmental agency…”
    • With “ 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.”
    • Thus, despite obligations under federal disabilities laws, most educational institutions do not qualify as “authorized entities.”
  • Why Educational Institutions Generally Are Not “Authorized Entities”
    • Treatment of “nonprofit educational institutions” and “nonprofit organizations” elsewhere in the statutory provisions of the copyright law.
    • Focus on entities having a “ primary mission ” to provide specialized services relating to needs of “blind or other persons with disabilities” – not a “ legal obligation ” or words of similar meaning.
    • If simply having a “need” or “desire” to serve the needs of blind persons would qualify a “nonprofit organization” as an “authorized entity,” would any “nonprofit organization” fail to qualify?
  • Covered “Specialized Formats”
    • Generally limited to those “ exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities ” (defined by reference to NLS eligibility for persons who are unable to read normal printed materials due to blindness , visual disability or physical limitation ).
    • Explicitly limited to braille , audio or digital text “ exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities ” (i.e., not “audio” playable on ordinary consumer devices or “digital text” that is ordinarily transmitted over online networks).
    • Does not include “ large print ” format (competitive market exists, fueled by needs of senior citizens).
  • Applications of the Chafee Amendment
    • Facilitating work of NLS, APHB and RFB&D
    • Meeting needs of students with print disabilities on both K-12 and higher education levels.
    • Innovative Internet-based subscription services like Bookshare.org (makes copies of scanned popular works available to eligible individuals)
  • The Future of the Chafee Amendment
    • Continuing relevance for some print disabilities needs, probably for economically-disadvantaged.
    • For students , inadequate foundation to serve shift from defined “print disabilities” population to a much larger population with “ learning disabilities ” as well as consequent demand for meeting needed accommodations through “ universal design ” of all instructional materials, rather than through current “retrofitting” strategies.
    • Increased reliance on digital media capabilities will also mean moving beyond “ accessibility ” issues to “ pedagogy ” issues for which Chafee Amendment is unsuited (e.g., derivative works issues).
  • Thanks for your kind attention. Allan Adler [email_address] 202/220-4544