Investigative Report - Copyright


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Investigative Report - Copyright

  1. 1. LIS 200029 November 2011 The Role of Copyright Law in Libraries: Encouraging Compliance by Librarians and PatronsI.Executive Summary This investigative report examines scholarly articles pertaining to the issue ofcopyright and its relation to libraries. The discussion begins with definitions ofintellectual property areas and narrows into definitions of US copyright laws. Thediscussion begins here because librarians need to understand these laws to best serve theirpatrons. Copyright laws are far from perfect, so study groups and roundtables havegathered to discuss possible recommendations for changing the current laws to better fitthe workings of the library, especially in regards to the library exceptions in Section 108and orphan works. ILL and reserves are two areas of the library where copyright lawcomes into play in the day-to-day of the library. Universities can also create webpagesdevoted to copyright policies so their students and faculty can gain a better understandingof the law. The Google Library Project is a unique case of copyright law and its relationto digitization. Copyright law differs from country to country, but many countries arenow part of the Berne Convention. The ALA and IFLA are leading organizations inproviding copyright information for libraries and librarians. The conclusion reached isthat librarians must stay up-to-date about copyright laws to avoid violations.II. Introduction A student comes up to your desk with a journal, and asks if you can make a copyfor her to consult while writing her research paper. Another patron asks if you can sendhim a PDF of an article the library only has a digital copy of. What are your answers as a
  2. 2. librarian? These are the questions that librarians must face in the struggle to comply withcopyright laws while providing patrons with the information they need. Copyright law isconfusing at best and incomprehensible at its worst. Librarians have a responsibility totheir patrons to help them comply with copyright law while using the library‟s resources.This can take the form of warnings on copiers or instructional sessions purely aboutcopyright policies. Libraries should have copyright policies in place that their staff canunderstand and follow. With the extension of copyright terms, copyright will continue tobe relevant to librarians in the coming years.III. Definitions, Key Points, and Relevancy Intellectual property can be defined as “creations of the mind: inventions, literaryand artistic works, symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce” (WIPO).Under the umbrella of intellectual property are four sub-categories: patents, trademarks,trade secrets, and copyright. A patent is “an exclusive right granted for an invention,which is a product or a process that provides a new way of doing something, or offers anew technical solution to a problem” and “provides protection for the invention to theowner of the patent for a limited period” (WIPO). An example would be a patent for acell phone design. A trademark is “a distinctive sign which identifies certain goods orservices as those produced or provided by a specific person or enterprise” (WIPO). Oneof the most easily recognized trademarks is the golden arches of McDonalds. A tradesecret is “protected information which is not generally known among, or readilyaccessible to, persons that normally deal with the kind of information in question”(WIPO). The formula for Coca-Cola is perhaps one of the most famous trade secrets inpopular culture. Copyright is “a legal term describing rights given to creators for their
  3. 3. literacy and artistic works” (WIPO). Copyright is for “original works of authorship whichare fixed in a tangible medium of expression” and “covers both published andunpublished works” (Currier). While the sub-categories of intellectual property can be relatively easy todifferentiate, the trouble comes within the definition of copyright. The nuances andconfusing wording of copyright law causes no end of problems for people trying tounderstand and abide by the law. Copyright has been relevant in the U.S. since thecountry‟s inception and is based in the Constitution. Section 8 of Article I states that“Congress shall have the power…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, bysecuring for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to theirrespective Writings and Discoveries” (National Archives). There are two ideas inherentin this power: that copyright will both promote the advancement of culture and giverewards to creators as incentives to continue the progression of knowledge. While theConstitution‟s part in copyright hasn‟t been amended, U.S. copyright laws have changedover the life of the country. The laws begin with the Copyright Act of 1790, which gave afourteen-year term with a fourteen-year renewal and only “covered maps, charts, andbooks” (Currier). The Copyright Act of 1909 doubled the length of both the term andrenewal. The current law is the Copyright Act of 1976, Title 17 U.S. Code. This was“enacted in part to address technological advances” (Currier). Significant changesincluded lengthening copyright term to the life of the author plus fifty years and makingregistration and renewal no longer requirements (Currier). The Copyright Act of 1976 was amended in 1998 with the Sonny Bono CopyrightTerm Extension Act (CTEA), which “extends the duration of copyright…to the life of the
  4. 4. author plus seventy years, and in the case of works for hire and those under a corporateownership,…ninety-five years or one hundred twenty years” (Butler 310). The DigitalMillennium Copyright Act (DMCA), also in 1998, was passed to create rules for thenewly prevalent digital world. The DMCA has many facets that make it hard to define,but two sections stick out in terms of relevancy for libraries and archives. The WIPOCopyright Treaties section states that “[C]opyright owners [can] impose technologicalcontrols and other restrictions on the use of their works” (Butler 310). The Online ServiceProvider Liability section states that OSPs “may not be held liable for copyrightinfringement committed by those using their online services” (Butler 311). One of thenewest copyright laws, the Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization(TEACH) Act of 2002, “gives institutional users (faculty, staff, and students) more rightsto use and borrow materials for use in distance education than those previously providedunder the 1976 copyright law” (Butler 311). While the TEACH Act doesn‟t affectlibraries directly, it certainly affects the communities that academic libraries in particularserve, especially with the rise of online classes being offered at increasing numbers ofuniversities. Two sections of the Copyright Right Act of 1976 are particularly relevant tolibraries: Sections 107 and 108. Section 107 deals with the issue of fair use in relation toreproducing copyrighted works. There are four factors that determine how much can beborrowed from a copyrighted work: “purpose and character of use, nature of the work,part being copied, and work‟s marketability” (Butler 308). Figuring out whether or notthe part you want to copy fulfills all four of these factors is the tricky issue. While thetrickiness might make you want to just copy anything regardless, it is important to
  5. 5. remember that “these four factors must all be in place for a portion of an item to beconsidered to fall under fair use restrictions” (Butler 308). Otherwise, the reproductionwould be copyright infringement. Purpose and character of use concerns the intentions ofperson who wants the copied item. Educational or nonprofit reasons tend to be compliantwith fair use. The nature of the work concerns what the work actually is that the personwants to copy. Nonfiction and published tend to be viable for fair use. The part beingcopied is about the amount copied. A violation of fair use would be to copy the heart ofthe work. The work‟s marketability deals with the whether or not the copied portionwould negatively affect the work‟s sales. Section 108 is about the library exceptions forcopying done in libraries and by librarians during their work. Section 108 is “largely theresult of the photocopy technology that emerged in the 1960s” (McBride 365). McBridesummarized Section 108 in “Copying By Libraries in the United States: ReviewingSection 108 of the US Copyright Laws” and his summary is included in Appendix A forreference. When copyright owners can‟t be found, we run into the issue of orphan works.Orphan works can be defined as works “where the owner of a copyrighted work cannotbe identified and located by someone who wishes to make use of the work in a mannerthat requires permission of the copyright owner” (McBride 67). The number of orphanworks is increasing because of changes in the Copyright Act of 1976. The extension ofthe copyright term as well as the automatic granting of copyright protection when a workis created “combine to create a large number of orphan works, because it can be difficultto locate the heirs thirty, fifty, or more years after an author‟s death” (McBride 68). The
  6. 6. problem with orphan works lies with possible copyright infringement if the author orcopyright holder turns up. While the number of orphan works has increased, the public domain hasdecreased due to the same reasons. The public domain covers works that can be used byeveryone because the work isn‟t protected by copyright. This could be due to a copyrightexpiration. Public domain works are considered to be those that were published before1923. The public domain is shrinking because of the CTEA. Public domain works havebeen particularly popular in recent years because of authors‟ abilities to use them tocreate derivative works, leading to the publishing of books such as Pride and Prejudiceand Zombies. So what do the convoluted copyright laws have to do with libraries? Librariesserve as portals to various forms of knowledge for the people. Books, journals, magazines,etc. are all copyrighted. There is a bit of a paradox for libraries and their materials:libraries give free access to copyrighted materials, which by nature are not free. Thematerials librarians must help their patrons utilize are copyrighted. Librarians areresponsible for the access to these copyrighted materials and, because of thisresponsibility, librarians must remain well informed about copyright laws. Librarianshave to be careful not to commit copyright infringement when reproducing things likearticles for students. Librarians will always be dealing closely with a vast array ofcopyrighted materials and must be conscientious of how they provide access for theirpatrons.IV. Problems and Solutions
  7. 7. Problems with Section 108 have come to light in the recent years, as digital meansof reproduction have increased. In subsection (a), exceptions are applied to only publiclibraries and archives. Now digital libraries are on the rise; where do they fit in? Section108 doesn‟t take into account purely virtual libraries or archives. While DCMA madestrides with digital preservation, subsections (b) and (c) restrict libraries in terms ofmaking digital copies of print works to keeping the copies in the physical library. This isa problem today because “restriction to in-building use is not how libraries function today”(Gasaway 1340). These subsections also restrict the library in the number of digitalcopies that can be made. Three copies is not feasible in the digital environment; not onlyare many copies required to actually create a digital copy, but also copies are made everytime someone views the digital version. This limitation “actually reflects nationalmicrofilm standards and simply is not workable for the digital world” (Gasaway 1341).Subsection (i) excludes music, art, and film from the exceptions of Section 108. Thisexclusion doesn‟t make sense, as it “constitutes an arbitrary and inequitable distinctionbetween textual and non-textual content” (McBride 371). A Study Group from the National Copyright Office convened to discuss issueswith Section 108 and to make suggestions for change. For preservation copies, “thecopyright restriction should be removed” because it‟s “unknown exactly how manycopies may be needed to preserve a particular work in digital form” (Gasaway1345).Digital copies should be marked as preservation-only so publishers know that a particularcopy was made specifically for preservation reasons. An exception for preservation-onlycopies of published works should be made so that “at-risk works would be preservedwhen they are received by a library without waiting for a triggering event such as
  8. 8. deterioration of the work” (Gasaway 1346). This would ensure that works are preservedfor society‟s sake and that they won‟t be lost by waiting until damage occurs to make acopy. In the same vein, “the triggers for replacement copies-lost, damaged, deteriorating,stolen, or obsolete-likely should be expanded to include „fragile‟ since many analogformats are inherently fragile” (Gasaway 1347). This would also make sure that worksare replaced before damage occurs that would render the information unusable. However,publishers are more concerned with what patrons do with their access to digital copies.On-site only access removes one of the major benefits of digital works. To sidestepignoring the advantages of digital technology, libraries could give off-site access by“apply[ing] technological protection measures (TPMs) to digitized copies and [requiring]users to agree to certain conditions via click-through agreements” (Gasaway 1349).Overall, the Study Group recommends “reorganizing the sections…with internalheadings such as „preservation‟ and „copies for users‟” and “that any statutoryamendments be reconsidered every five years to evaluate how well they are working andwhether any further changes are needed” (Gasaway 1355). Orphan works can cause many problems, which is why the Copyright Officeassembled several roundtables to discuss the issue and to make recommendations. Amain problem inherent with orphan works is difficulty in finding copyright owners.These difficulties could be: “ • Inadequate identifying information on a copy of the work itself; • Inadequate information about copyright ownership because of a change of ownership or a change in the circumstances of the 
 owner; • Limitations of existing copyright ownership information sources; 
  9. 9. • Difficulties researching copyright information” (McBride 72).So what about when someone wants to utilize an orphan work? There can be problemswith the use of an orphan work, including: “ Uses by subsequent creators who add some degree of their own expression to existing works to create a derivative work; Large-scale „access‟ uses where users primarily wish to bring large quantities of works to the public, usually via the Internet; „Enthusiast‟ or hobbyist uses, which usually involve specialized or niche works, and also appear frequently to involve posting works on the Internet; and Private uses among a limited number of people” (McBride 72). Several suggestions were made to address the issue of orphan works. First, “astandard for a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner” should be determined(McBride 73). This would ensure that everyone knew how long a search was acceptablebefore using the work without knowledge of the copyright owner. When a copyrightowner can‟t be found, users should “make it as clear as possible to the public that thework is the product of another author, and that the copyright in the work is owned byanother” (McBride 74). If the owner is discovered later, monetary liability should belimited to “the amount the user would have paid to the owner had they engaged innegotiations before the infringing use commenced” (McBride 75). The goal is to get theserecommendations into law so that “the uncertainty of expensive litigation, always
  10. 10. looming in the future because of the lack of acquiring permissions that are impossible toobtain, would no longer block the use of thousands of published and unpublished works”(McBride 76). Libraries have this responsibility to ensure that copyright law is upheld withintheir institutions by both their staff and patrons. However, copyright law is extremelyconfusing. How can people follow laws they don‟t understand? Part of the library‟s rolein regards to copyright law is educating the people it serves to prevent infringements.One method libraries are using now is specifically hiring someone well versed incopyright law “to assure that copyright compliancy is followed with electronic reserves,faculty online information, and other related areas” (Schlipp 18). These copyrightspecialists can be educators for the patrons by giving instructional sessions on copyrightto students, faculty, and staff. The guidance provided by a copyright librarian can preventpatrons from resorting to illegal means of using copyrighted materials. Even if a librarycan‟t afford to hire a copyright librarian, the library still needs to make copyright policy apriority. Libraries can use “workshops, seminars, pamphlets, flyers, brochures, and Websites” to provide information on copyright (Myers 16). Ensuring compliance is more thanjust education, though. Libraries systems should be copyright-friendly and onlinedatabases should have static URLs for users to link to (Myers 16). Butler and Parkerrecommend being proactive in regards to copyright compliance. Every library or archiveshould have a copyright policy and “all members of the organization need to know whatit says and that they are to follow it” (Butler and Parker 9). Analysis should be performedto determine the effectiveness of the policy and whether any copyright training is needed.The policy should also be constantly updated and maintained to ensure proper
  11. 11. compliance with copyright laws. Maintenance is especially important in today‟s digitalenvironment because changes are constantly being made to the various methods ofdisseminating information. Copyright policies should be as mutable as the materials theycover.V. Current Models Interlibrary loan (ILL) and reserves are two areas in a library‟s function thatlibrarians must take extra care with in terms of complying with copyright law. No libraryis going to have every item that its patrons need, which is why ILL is so necessary. Nowlibraries have to deal with digital copies as well as print copies. Digital copies make thejob of a librarian much easier; all the librarian has to do is email a PDF to the user.Copyright guidelines are more difficult to follow with digital copies though. Section 108works with ILL by setting limits. The law limits the library to “send[ing] only one copyof one article from a specific journal or periodical title” (Butler 313). The Commission onNew Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) has ILL guidelines that limitthe patron to “up to five copies of articles (but no more) from a specific journal within agiven year” (Butler 313). Reserves can be tricky for libraries. Print reserves usually fall under fair useguidelines, but electronic reserves hold the potential for illegal copying and transmitting.Libraries have to “develop a series of checks and balances to protect [themselves] fromcopyright violation and litigation and to protect [their] users as well” (Butler 313). Butlersuggests ways for libraries to perform these checks and the list of what libraries can do isincluded in Appendix B.
  12. 12. Some universities have posted copyright guidelines on their websites to educatetheir students and faculty. While the universities write these guidelines, it pertains tothose universities‟ libraries as it covers the materials that the libraries lend to the schools‟patrons. Three good examples of comprehensive copyright information webpages arethose of Cornell University, the University of Texas, and Stanford University. Cornell‟s“Copyright Information Center” covers guidelines, fair use, library reserves, copyrightissues, and more (Fineberg 241). Through this webpage, Cornell is fulfilling “its legaland moral obligations to both copyright holders and information users” (Fineberg 241).This is especially commendable because copyright is often only viewed from theperspective of the user who wants to avoid expensive litigation, but copyright law alsoprotects the people who put in the time and ingenuity to write something useful to many.The University of Texas‟s Office of General Counsel gives links to information aboutrules, regulations, copyright policy, fair use, and more (Fineberg 241). Its website alsohas an “Ask a Lawyer” section that answers FAQs about copyright materials (Fineberg241). Stanford University specifically addresses electronic reserves with its webpage“Fair Use and Copyright Guidelines and Policies” (Fineberg 241). Google is nothing if not ambitious, and the company has proven that once againwith the inception of its Library Project, with which it plans to “make the full text of allthe world‟s books searchable by anyone with a computer and internet access” (Proskine216). Google wants to have digital copies of every item in the collections of the Google 5(the five libraries participating in the project: Stanford University, the University ofMichigan, Harvard University, Oxford University, and the New York Public Library) andfor each item will provide a digital copy to that library (Proskine 216-7). The user will be
  13. 13. able to search all of the materials in Google‟s collection using Google‟s search engine. Ifa patron searches for a certain term, Google will return the books that contain the term. Ifthe book has copyright protection, the user can see “three snippets of text, a count of thenumber of times the search term appears in the volume and links to online booksellersand information about the nearest local library that carries a print version of the book”(Proskine 218). To comply with the fair use guideline of marketability, Google won‟tgive snippets of reference books. Copyright covers over eighty percent of the Google 5‟scollections, so Google has implemented a controversial strategy in regards to obtainingpermissions from copyright owners. Google chose to do an opt-out strategy rather thangetting licenses from every copyright holder in the collections. With opting-out,copyright holders “must notify Google if they do not want their work included inGoogle‟s searchable library database” (Proskine 219). This takes the responsibility offGoogle and onto the copyright holders. Because of the controversial nature of Google‟sLibrary Project with regards to copyright law, there are multiple lawsuits against Googlethat question its compliance with copyright law.VI. Research Three studies related to copyright will be addressed in this report. The firstpertains to the process of obtaining copyright permission to create digital versions ofpublished works. The study used Carnegie Mellon University‟s library‟s circulatingcollection and selected a random sample of books; letters asking permission to digitizewere sent to the copyright holders. The study obtained permission to digitize for only24% of the items in CMU‟s collection (George 336). The study concluded “obtainingpermission to digitize copyrighted material is neither a quick nor easy procedure” and
  14. 14. required dedicated staff time as well as an easily accessible database of publisher contactinformation (George 339). Another study looked at copyright statements in digital library collections to seewhat kind of information libraries were providing about copyright. This study used thedigital collections of the Digital Library Federation (DLF). Only twelve out of twenty-nine institutions had a copyright statement. The study concluded “many libraries engagedin digitization projects are omitting a key tool for copyright education or using it in waysthat undermine users‟ needs for accurate copyright information” (Schlosser 382-3). Thestudy suggests that libraries should “examine the issues involved and develop a set ofbest practices for copyright statements on digital collections” (Schlosser 383). A third study wanted “to determine to what extent research libraries are applyingcopyright policies, the nature of those policies, and the degree to which they differ fromeach other and from the law of fair use” (Gould et al. 183). The study sent surveys to the115 libraries of the American Research Library Association (ARLA). Of the 78 responses,13 had a university committee for copyright issues, but 44.4% of these had no libraryrepresentation (Gould et al. 189). The study concluded “enforcement [of compliance]should be far more extensive” and the library should be the “starting point for systemicinstitutional awareness and reeducation efforts” (Gould et al. 196).VII. Global View International copyright is founded in the Berne Convention, which wasestablished in 1886. The current version is the Paris Revision, which was put into actionin 1974 (Pilch 473). The Berne Convention consists of more than ninety members; theUS joined in 1989 (Butler 74). The Berne Convention “allows nations to adopt their own
  15. 15. limitations and exceptions, subject to certain conditions” (Pilch 474). For members of theBerne Convention, “works do not need to have a copyright notice attached to beprotected by law” (Butler 74). The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the UnitedNations, directs 24 international intellectual property treaties (Butler 76). One such treatyis the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which “addressescopyright protection of computer programs and codes, sound recordings, andbroadcasting organizations” (Butler 76). Various individual countries‟ copyright acts are worth mentioning. The EuropeanUnion (EU) Database Directive of 1998 “addresses not only the creation, but also thecontent of databases” (Butler 75). The EU Directive on Copyright and Related Rights inthe Information Society of 2001 “was made to prohibit the making of copyrighted workavailable on the Internet unless [authorized] by the right holder” (Singh 23). TheAustralian Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act of 2000, which amends theAustralian Copyright Act of 1968, covers devices designed to “prevent or inhibit theinfringement of copyright in a work” (Singh 23). In the UK, the Copyright, Designs andPatents Act (CDPA) of 1988 prohibits storing copyrighted works by electronic means butthe Legal Deposit Libraries Act of 2003 allows electronic copying for research in legaldeposit libraries (Fineberg 240).VIII. Associations and Publications The American Library Association (ALA) provides comprehensive informationabout copyright on its website. The ALA has links to copyright articles, court cases, fairuse, intellectual property, and more (ALA). The ALA website is a great resource to find
  16. 16. information on copyright that‟s relevant to libraries and librarians today. TheInternational Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) website also hasan entire section devoted to copyright. IFLA provides information on current limitationsand exceptions as well as other copyright resources and the latest news (IFLA). Both the ALA and IFLA have publications. American Libraries is the magazineof the ALA and provides information on current issues relevant to American libraries andlibrarians. The IFLA Journal covers relevant issues in the international world of libraries,including intellectual property. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (BNA) has a journalcalled the Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, which offers “comprehensive newsof the most important intellectual property cases, statutes, trends, and other keydevelopments in all areas of the law” (BNA).IX. Conclusion Copyright continues to be in the forefront of the minds of librarians everywhere.Libraries are access points to copyrighted materials and librarians must have a workingknowledge of copyright law to best serve their patrons. Maintaining that workingknowledge can be extremely challenging however. Copyright law is so convoluted andcomplicated that many people have a hard time understanding all the details. If librarianshave trouble understanding the laws that dictate the materials we work with daily, onecan only imagine the challenge copyright law poses for the general user of the library.That user might resort to illegal means of using materials to avoid the complications ofthe law. Librarians need to not only post notices alerting patrons of the possibilities ofcopyright infringement, but should also be actively educating their patrons on copyright.With the rise of digital technology, the law becomes even more complicated. Librarians
  17. 17. must take extra care to ensure that their institutions are compliant with copyright lawwhen utilizing electronic resources. As copyright law effects our profession so closely,we need to continue to have our voices heard about changes that should maybe beimplemented to make the laws easier to follow. Copyright law will continue to change asthe information changes, and librarians will be involved at the heart of the issue.
  18. 18. Appendix A: Overview of Section 108 The following is a summary of Section 108 by Jerry L. McBride found in“Copying By Libraries in the United States: Reviewing Section 108 of the US CopyrightLaws.” • Subsection (a) establishes that the exceptions to copyright in § 108 apply to publicly accessible libraries and archives as long as the copies are not made for commercial purposes. • Subsection (b) allows three copies to be made for preservation purposes as long as any digital copies are not made available to the public outside of the library. • Subsection (c) allows the library to make a replacement copy of an item that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen if it is out-of-print. • Subsection (d) allows copies to be made for private study, scholarship, and research of single articles or small portions of works. • Subsection (e) allows the library to provide a copy of an entire work for private study, scholarship, and research for out-of-print items. • Subsection (f) absolves the library of any liability for copies made on public copying machines as long as a copyright notice is posted on it and protects the right of fair use as defined under § 107. • Subsection (g) allows the library to make only single copies at a time and for the purpose of interlibrary loan as long as the copying cannot substitute for a subscription or purchase of a work. • Subsection (h) allows “orphan works” to be copied in the last twenty years of copyright for the purpose of preservation or research. • Subsection (i) states that the provisions of § 108 do not apply to music, art works, and films.(McBride 366)
  19. 19. Appendix B: Ways Libraries Can Handle Electronic Reserves The following is a list of actions libraries must perform to ensure that they arecompliant with copyright law when providing electronic reserves, provided by Rebecca P.Butler in “Copyright Law and Organizing the Internet.” Check that the material they put on reserve, which is not owned by them (for example, it may have been provided by an instructor), has been obtained in a lawful manner; Obtain appropriate permissions, if necessary; Pay royalties as needed; Follow the fair use guidelines, if no permission has been sought; Limit access; Put on reserve as little an amount of the material as is feasible to satisfy 
 course and user needs; Include a reference section and copyright notice from the original work 
 on the electronic reserve item; Keep works on electronic reserve as short a time as possible (for example, one semester per class); Avoid putting problem items on electronic reserve; Limit use of audio and video streaming; Link to databases, instead of scanning items, if library licenses or subscriptions permit this; Remove access to the work once the course is over.(Butler 313-4)
  20. 20. Works CitedAmerican Library Association. “Copyright.” American Library Association.ALA, n.d. Web. 20 November 2011. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. “Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal.” The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Bloomberg, n.d. Web. 20 November 2011., Rebecca P. “Borrowing Media from Around the World: School Libraries and Copyright Law.” School Libraries Worldwide 13.2 (2007): 73-81. Web. 13 November 2011.Butler, Rebecca P. “Copyright Law and Organizing the Internet.” Library Trends 52.2 (2003): 307-17. Web. 13 November 2011.Butler, Rebecca P., and Preston Parker. “Proactive Copyright: Workplace Compliance.” TechTrends 53.3 (2009): 9-11. Web. 13 November 2011.Currier, James D. “Kip.” “Copyright and Fair Use: Fundamentals, Issues, and Resources.” University of Pittsburgh.Cathedral of Learning, Pittsburgh. 8 November 2011. Lecture.Fineberg, Tobi. “Copyright and Course Management Systems: Educational Use of Copyrighted Materials in the United States and the United Kingdom.” Libri 59.4 (2009): 238-47. Web. 13 November 2011.Gasaway, Laura N. “Amending the Copyright Act for Libraries and Society: The Section 108 Study Group.” Albany Law Review 70.4 (2007): 1331-1356. Web. 13 November 2011.
  21. 21. George, Carole A. “Testing the barriers to digital libraries: A study seeking copyright permission to digitize published works.” New Library World 106.7/8 (2005): 332- 42. Web. 15 November 2011.Gould, Thomas H.P., Tomas A. Lipinski, and Elizabeth A. Buchanan. “Copyright Policies and the Deciphering of Fair Use in the Creation of Reserves at University Libraries.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 31.3 (2005): 182-97. Web. 13 November 2011.“Intellectual Property – Some basic definitions.” WIPO. World Intellectual Property Organization, n.d. Web. 20 November 2011. ip/en/studies/publications/ip_definitions.htmInternational Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. “Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries & Archives.” International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions.IFLA, n.d. Web. 20 November 2011., Jerry. “The Effect of Orphan Works on Music Libraries: The 2005 U.S. Copyright Office Roundtables.” Notes 63.1 (2006): 67-78. Web. 13 November 2011.McBride, Jerry L. “Copying By Libraries in the United States: Reviewing Section 108 of the US Copyright Laws.” FontesArtisMusicae 55.2 (2008): 363-76. Web. 13 November 2011.Myers, Sheri. “Copyright and Online Learning: How Libraries Can Help.” Kentucky Libraries 69.4 (2005): 14-7. Web. 13 November 2011.
  22. 22. Pilch, Janice T. “Fair Use and Beyond: The Status of Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in the Commonwealth of Independent States.” College & Research Libraries 65.6 (2004): 468-504. Web. 13 November 2011.Proskine, Emily Anne. “Google‟s Technicolor Dreamcoat: A Copyright Analysis of the Google Book Search Library Project.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 21.1 (2006): 213-39. Web. 13 November 2011.Schlipp, John. “Coaching Teaching Faculty: Copyright Awareness Programs in Academic Libraries.” Kentucky Libraries 72.3 (2008): 18-22. Web. 13 November 2011.Schlosser, Melanie. “Unless Otherwise Indicated: A Survey of Copyright Statements on Digital Library Collections.” College & Research Libraries 70.4 (2009): 371-85. Web. 13 November 2011.Singh, J.P. “Copyright Issues.” Bulletin of Information Technology 27.6 (2007): 19-30. Web. 13 November 2011.“The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription.” The Charters of Freedom.National Archives, n.d. Web. 20 November 2011.“What is Intellectual Property?” WIPO. World Intellectual Property Organization, n.d. Web. 20 November 2011.
  23. 23. BibliographyBailey, Jr., Charles W. “Strong Copyright + DRM + Weak Net Neutrality = Digital Dystopia?” Information Technology and Libraries 25.3 (2006): 116-39. Web. 13 November 2011.Horava, Tony. “Webpages on copyright in Canadian academic libraries.” The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 3.2 (2008): 1-22. Web. 13 November 2011.Lehmberg, Timm, Dr. Georg Rehm, Dr. Andreas Witt, and Felix Zimmermann. “Digital Text Collections, Linguistic Research Data, and Mashups: Notes on the Legal Situation.” Library Trends 57.1 (2008): 52-71. Web. 13 November 2011.Shachaf, Pnina, and Ellen Rubenstein. “A Comparative Analysis of Libraries‟ Approaches to Copyright: Israel, Russia, and the U.S.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 33.1 (2007): 94-105. Web. 13 November 2011.Sherman, Brad, and Leanne Wiseman. “Fair Copy: Protecting Access to Scientific Information in Post-War Britain.” Modern Law Review 73.2 (2010): 240-61. Web. 13 November 2011.