Here's a quick interview with Kenneth Crews, who prepared the World Intellectual Property Organization's Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives for its Seventeenth Session in Geneva, November 3 to 7, 2008.

Minow:  What sparked your interest in studying library exceptions to copyright law around the world?

Crews: I was invited by the World Intellectual Property Organization to undertake this study.  I had the pleasure of sharing a program in the United Arab Emirates with an official from WIPO, and she put in the recommendation that I do the project.  I had long been interested in the issues.  They are central to much of my work for libraries and universities, and I have written about the U.S. library provision in some of my publications.  The chance to do a major worldwide study was an invitation I was quick to accept.

Minow: How do the United States exceptions for libraries compare to other countries?

Crews: The U.S. statute on library issues is Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act.  Like the statutes from most countries, it focuses on the terms and conditions under which a library may make copies of a work for a user's private study, and copies for preservation or replacement of lost or damaged works in the library collections.  Those issues are the most common topics of the statutes from all parts of the world.  The U.S. law also includes a provision on copies for interlibrary loans, and not many countries have addressed that issue.
       
On the other hand, the U.S. law is distinctive in many ways.  On the issue of preservation and replacement, for example, the law allows up to three copies, and it explicitly permits digital reproductions.  Some countries explicitly permit digital technologies, other countries do not mention specific format, leaving the matter open to debate.  Yet other countries clearly limit library copying to reprographic copies that are not digital.  Interestingly, two other countries have modeled their statute on the U.S. language of Section 108: Liberia and South Africa.  However, both of those countries used the form of the statute as we enacted it in 1978.  The U.S. added the language about digital copying in 1998, but neither of the other countries adopted that change.
       
Minow:  Did you find any surprises when you were conducting your study?
 
Crews:  I think I was surprised at nearly every point in the study.  The most interesting finding has been the trends in statutory language.  The U.S. language influenced only two other countries.  By contrast, the United Kingdom has a relatively elaborate statute, and one can see the influence of that model in the shape of the laws in many former U.K. colonies, such as Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, and elsewhere.  In fact, the U.S., being also a former colony, vaguely follows the U.K. model.
       
I could see other trends.  For example, the European Union issued a directive in 2001 that mentioned library exceptions, and as a result, most EU countries have addressed the issues in a similar manner.  I could also see a pattern of countries in Africa that have adopted a simple and terse library statute that is flexible and generally free of the detail embodied in the U.S. or U.K. examples.  Finally, I found geographical groupings of countries that have no library copyright statute at all.  Clearly, countries seem to be learning from one another, often from their neighbors, when they make decisions about the exact shape of copyright law.

Minow: Thanks for talking with us today.

Kenneth Crews is Director of the Copyright Advisory Office, Columbia University.
Mary Minow is the content editor for the Stanford Copyright and Fair Use website.

The Copyright Office has posted the 19 comments it received (Due Dec. 2) this round concerning the Exemptions to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies.  Mailed submissions will be added to the site later.

The Library Copyright Alliance and Music Library Association recommended a proposed class of audiovisual works included in a library of a college or university, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by professors.

They note that in the last round, a narrow exemption was granted for audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university's film or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors.

This argue that the exemption should be broadened to apply to audiovisual works included in any college or university library, not just the library of the media studies department. Second, it should apply to classroom uses by instructors in all subjects, not just media studies or film professors.  For example, an English professor teaching MacBeth should be able to put together clips of a scene from various productions.

The comments respond to a Notice of Inquiry to identify proposed classes of works by the Copyright Office published in the Federal Register Oct. 6, 2008.  Comments on those proposed classes are due February 2, 2009.

-again, thanks Cicely Wilson for the pointer.

Larry Lessig points out that the Obama team is now using a the freest creative commons license on its change.gov site.  This meshes well with the principles of open government, though it doesn't go so far as to dedicate the content to the public domain.

Hat tip to Cicely Wilson.

You can watch Larry Lessig's interview on Charlie Rose 11/21/08 in full or in clips Larry Lessig (full segment), Larry Lessig (clips). Matt Rutherford summarizes the show at TechCrunch.

 

 

RDR Books, represented by Anthony Falzone of Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society, has appealed their case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Anthony Falzone writes about the court's decision to stop publication of The Harry Potter Lexicon, ruling against Fair Use. All is not over. He writes:

Finally, remember that avada kedavra -- the killing curse -- is not always fatal. One wizard survived it. Three times. And it was he who cast the spell (and won't be named here) that ultimately suffered for it. Maybe someday the Lexicon will be known as The Book That Lived.

Here is Stanford's offical press release:

STANFORD, Calif., September 8, 2008— Stanford Law School’s Fair Use Project has released the following statement on behalf of RDR Books and its counsel regarding today’s decision on Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al v. RDR Books et al issued by U.S. District Judge Robert B. Patterson:

“We are encouraged by the fact that the Court recognized that as a general matter authors do not have the right to stop the publication of reference guides and companion books about literary works. As for the Lexicon, we are obviously disappointed with the result, and RDR Books is considering all of its options, including an appeal.�

Court decision and filings here at Justia: Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al v. RDR Books et al 

Minow: Tell us about the new Digital Copyright Slider. How does it work and what is its purpose?

  

Brewer: The “Is it Covered by Copyright?â€� 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 outcome of the hearing we previously blogged about is that the Oregon Legislative Counsel Committee will not assert copyright on the Oregon Revised Statutes.

Public.resource.org has put up video of the hearing in 6 segments.  Find out more on public.resource.org/oregon.gov/.

Audio recording of Legislative Counsel committee hearing in Oregon on copyright status of Oregon Revised Statutes - June 19, 2008.  Listen for Tim Stanley's vision of building on the Statutes with technology and community. E.g. include earlier versions, tagging,  allowing law professors and others to add comments, and more. Here's the Justia site.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/archive/archive.2007i/JLC-200806191025.ram 

(thanks, Tim, Cicely and Nick)