what gives a person the legal right to use copyrighted material in certain situations?
Learning objective
This module will teach you near the rights of a copyright holder and near the exceptions to and limitations on those rights.
Case report
Maria, Angela's aunt, is a collector of sheet music. Many of the documents in her drove are handwritten; some are unique. She has simply decided to donate the entire collection to the university library. Angela meets with Nadia to hash out how the library might best make use of the collection. In particular, Angela asks Nadia to brand digital copies of all of the compositions in Maria'south collection and to brand those copies bachelor to the world on the library's servers.
Lesson
Economic Rights
Rights Relating to Reproduction and Distribution of a Work
The eye of copyright constabulary is the correct to make copies of a protected work. This is called the "correct of reproduction." The copyright holder has the exclusive correct to make or authorize such copies. Creating a copy without the authorization of the holder infringes upon the copyright, unless permitted past an exception to or limitation on the reproduction right. As nosotros saw in Module two: The International Framework, the right of reproduction is widely acknowledged by international agreements. As we will soon discuss, however, those same agreements likewise empower member countries to create exceptions and limitations to this (and other) rights. The copyright statutes of about all countries recognize the right of reproduction.
What does "reproduction" mean? Almost plain, it includes making a copy in the literal sense -- for example, by photocopying a book or article. Information technology also includes converting a copyrighted work into a new format -- such equally using a tape recorder to copy a vinyl anthology. Less patently, it includes making a new work that is "substantially similar" to an existing work, while having that existing work in mind. So, for example, an art student who stands in front end of a painting and paints a true-blue replica of information technology would violate the original painter's right of reproduction (unless the pupil could invoke 1 of the exceptions or limitations discussed previously). As one might imagine, the question of how shut one piece of work must be to another to be "essentially similar" is highly controversial and is often litigated.
Closely related to the right of reproduction is the right of adaptation, which provides copyright holders with the correct to adjust a copyrighted work from one course of expression to another, or to qualify another to exercise so. Examples of adaptations include transforming a volume into a movie or a vocal into a musical. The right of adaptation is also found in virtually all copyright systems. For example, Article 12 of the Berne Convention requires member countries to grant authors the right to authorize "adaptations, arrangements, and other alterations of" copyrighted works. The right of adaptation also encompasses the right to translate a work into other languages. Article 8 of the Berne Convention requires member countries to recognize this correct of translation. In some legal systems, the correct of adaptation is expressed equally the right to brand "derivative works," which use the original work as a starting point but are not direct copies of the original work.
In most countries, the reproduction right and the adaptation correct are closely aligned. In other words, the majority of activities that violate the adaptation correct as well violate the reproduction right. However, in that location are exceptions. For example, cutting upwards a photograph to include information technology in a collage may violate the accommodation right (unless of course that behavior is excused by 1 of the exceptions or limitations). Only, because that action did not entail making a new re-create, it would not violate the right of reproduction. Nonetheless, the degree of overlap betwixt these two rights varies somewhat past state. Which of the two rights is implicated by a detail case will sometimes brand a difference -- for example, if the copyright owner has granted a license for one of the rights but not the other.
How far do these rights reach? Think from Module three: The Scope of Copyright Law that copyright only protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas or facts themselves. Thus, a work that is inspired past the ideas contained in some other piece of work but does not use whatsoever of the protected expression from the initial work is neither a reproduction nor an adaptation, and will not violate the copyright holder's rights. Also, note that Commodity 2(3) of the Berne Convention provides that authorized adaptations are protected by their own, divide copyright, in addition to the copyright protection given to the original work.
Finally, a copyright holder also has the exclusive correct to distribute his or her work, and the right to import copies of the work subject to certain exceptions. The right to distribute encompasses the right to sell or authorize the initial sale of a copy of the work.
Rights Relating to Communication of a Work to the Public
Another important economic right of a copyright holder is the right to communicate the work to the public. In many countries, this correct is expressed equally the right of public functioning and public brandish. The correct of public performance relates to showings of plays, movies, and music. The correct of public display relates to the display of artwork such equally paintings and sculptures. Commodity eleven of the Berne Convention requires member countries to grant the holders of copyrights in "dramatic and musical works" the right to control public performances of those works "by any ways or process" (including, for example, a alive performance or playing a recording of a performance). Article 11 too extends the correct of public operation to translations of a copyrighted work. It too requires that copyright holders exist given the right to authorize the broadcasting or public communication of the copyrighted work past wire, loudspeaker, "or whatever coordinating instrument transmitting, by signs, sounds, or images."
As their labels indicate, the rights of public brandish and public performance simply command activities that are public. Thus, persons who own authorized copies of copyrighted works may brandish or circulate the works in not-public settings without hazard of infringement. For case, a person who owns a copy of a moving picture may play the movie in her domicile to a grouping of social guests without infringing the right of public functioning. Similarly, a person who owns a painting or sculpture may display the work in her dwelling without infringing the right of public display.
The copyright holder's right to control the public operation of her work extends to many communications that might not initially seem like "performances." For example, as indicated above, information technology grants a copyright holder the correct to authorize broadcasts of her piece of work. This includes television dissemination, cablevision distribution, satellite distribution, and re-broadcasts of a work. It tin can also encompass on-need digital transmissions and pay-per-view broadcasts. At to the lowest degree in some countries, the right also extends to performances in settings that don't seem specially "public" in the ordinary sense -- for example, in schools, nursing homes, and prisons.
The WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performers and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), discussed in Module 2, altered this set up of rules subtly -- and in ways that have non nevertheless been fully resolved. Article 8 of the WCT and Manufactures ten and 12 of the WPPT require member countries to recognize a right to make a copyrighted work "available" to the public. The Us has taken the position that these treaty provisions do not require any change in the way that the U.s. has formulated and enforced the correct of public performance. Not all countries concur. The European union, for example, has taken the position that the "making available" right adds something new. The chief circumstance in which this disagreement might make a difference is when someone posts a copyrighted document on a website, simply no one has yet downloaded it. The handling of such cases may vary by land.
Moral Rights
Many countries provide authors moral rights in addition to economic rights. Dissimilar economic rights, moral rights usually cannot exist transferred to other persons, although many countries allow them to be waived -- either birthday (for example, in the United States) or in conjunction with specific licenses of economic rights (for case, in France). The limits on transfers of moral rights reflects the rationale that underlie them -- namely, that the works produced past an author are an extension of his or her cocky and bear the an imprint of his or her personality. Accordingly, moral rights protect certain copyrighted works from destruction or mutilation, partially to protect the author'due south expression of her personality, and partially to protect the writer's reputation from harm. Moral rights are recognized especially broadly in countries with civil constabulary traditions.
Recognition of a express subset of moral rights is mandated by Article 6bis of the Berne Convention. Article 6bis requires that the author of a work be given at least two types of moral rights. The get-go is commonly know as the "right of attribution." It encompasses not only the right of an writer to have her name associated with her works, but too the right to not accept her name associated with works that are not hers. The right of attribution too gives an author the right to publish a work under a pseudonym. The second moral correct required past Article 6bis is the author's correct to object to the destruction or modification of her piece of work in a way that would damage her accolade or reputation. This is commonly known every bit the "right of integrity."
Although Article 6bis recommends that these moral rights extend subsequently the author's expiry, at least until the economic rights expire, it also allows member countries to limit moral rights to the life of the writer. However, the protections of Commodity 6bis are non equally strong every bit they may seem, because information technology is the only provision in the Berne Convention that is not incorporated by the TRIPS Understanding. Thus the "teeth" provided by the WTO dispute resolution system are non available to compel member countries to recognize moral rights.
In improver to the correct of attribution and the right of integrity, many countries besides recognize a right of disclosure and a correct of withdrawal. The onetime gives an author the exclusive right to determine when she will release a work to the public. This right takes precedence even over a contractual commitment by the author to transfer the work to a client or patron. The latter permits an author to withdraw works from publication or apportionment if she determines that she no longer wants to be represented by or associated with those item works. This right is much less powerful in do than it showtime appears, both considering the writer would have to pay the people from who the copies are withdrawn and because the right of withdrawal is trumped by the right of a purchaser to go on goods he or she has purchased. As a result, it is virtually never invoked.
It is important to check your country's statutory provisions relating to moral rights. Nations vary considerably on the rights they recognize, the duration of those rights, whether they may exist waived, then along. For case, in Spain, seven moral rights are recognized: the right of disclosure, the correct to publish under the writer's existent proper name or a pseudonym, the right to be best-selling equally the author of the piece of work, the correct to the integrity of the work (which includes the correct to prevent distortion or modification of the piece of work), the right to modify the piece of work (limited past other statutory provisions), the correct to withdraw the work, and the right of access to a single or rare copy of the work, even if that copy is owned past a third party (though the author's exercise of this right is limited by certain considerations for the holder of the copy).
Neighboring and "Sui Generis" Rights
"Neighboring rights" (as well called related rights) consist of the rights of those who assist the author of a copyrighted work, simply who do non authorize for a copyright in the work. They include the rights of broadcasters and broadcasting organizations in their transmissions of programs (as opposed to the copyrights in the programs themselves), the correct of an creative person in her performance of a piece (as distinguished from the copyright in the underlying piece of work itself), and the correct of the producer of a tape (as opposed to the copyright in the musical compositions that the tape embodies). It is important to keep these neighboring rights in mind, in add-on to the rights of the copyright holder, when considering what uses of a given piece of work are permissible.
In addition to the neighboring rights attached to performances, some countries recently have recognized rights in databases, semiconductor chip designs, gunkhole-hull designs, so forth. These rights are commonly known as sui generis rights -- although the distinction between "neighboring rights" and "sui generis" rights is largely arbitrary. Of these new rights, the but one that might significantly touch on the activities of librarians is the protection of databases. As indicated above, most countries utilize ordinary copyright law to protect original ways in which the data in a database is selected or arranged. But, so far, only in the European Marriage are the contents of the database protected.
The EU's database protection system is highly controversial. Critics contend that it is unnecessary to provide incentives for the creation of databases and but impedes the menstruum of factual data. However, efforts to test this criticism empirically past comparing the rates of database innovation in countries with and without database protection rules have thus far been inconclusive. Until the dispute is resolved, database protection is unlikely to spread to developing countries.
Rental and Lending Rights
In addition to the rights described higher up, in some countries the holders of copyrights in some kinds of works have been given rights of various sorts in situations where their works are temporarily made bachelor to other persons. Two quite different rights must be distinguished. A rental correct governs situations in which a copy of a copyrighted piece of work is rented to someone for commercial advantage. A public lending correct governs situations in which a copy of a copyrighted work is provided temporarily by an institution to a patron for gratis. The lending practices of almost all public and academic libraries would fall under the 2nd heading.
Both rights are relatively new and remain highly controversial. The TRIPS Understanding (in Article 11), the WCT (in Article vii), and the WPPT (in Articles ix and 13) at present all require member countries to recognize rental rights -- just only with respect to three narrow categories of works: calculator programs, movies, and phonograms. None of these agreements -- and no other multilateral treaty -- requires member countries to recognize public lending rights. Thus far, just one regional agreement requires member countries to plant public lending rights: the 1992 Rental and Lending Rights Directive of the European union. Articles i and ii of that directive require members to extend both rental and lending rights, non only to performers, phonogram producers, and film producers, but also to "authors." Article v of the directive permits fellow member countries to limit the lending right, but only if authors are compensated, or to exempt categories of institutions from its coverage, only just if they exercise not thereby effectively exempt all institutions. The directive proved extremely controversial, and formal proceedings were necessary to force several Eu members to conform to it.
Given the highly incomplete coverage of rental and public lending rights in the supranational agreements, it is not surprising that many countries currently do not recognize them. Of item importance to libraries, currently merely 29 countries have established public lending rights systems. Most of those countries are in Europe. The U.s. does not accept ane, nor does any country in Latin America, Africa, or Asia.
Librarians in developing countries may soon be chosen upon to participate in discussions concerning whether their countries should prefer a public lending right organisation. What position should they take? The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) offers ii sensible recommendations. First, librarians should non accept whatsoever legislative proposals that would require the libraries themselves to pay fees to authors, performers, and producers. The but ways that libraries could make such payments would exist either to charge users or to withdraw scarce resources from other programs. Either strategy would fundamentally impair the libraries' core mission. In short, the only acceptable version of a public lending organization would be one in which the government, not the libraries, paid the fees -- equally occurs in most European countries. 2d, the IFLA argues that even a system in which the authorities paid the fees would exist unwise in developing countries, because information technology would reduce the money the government could spend on fifty-fifty more essential social or cultural functions -- such as providing its citizens acceptable health intendance or basic educations.
This upshot will well-nigh certainly crave librarians' close attending in the near future.
Exceptions and Limitations
As was shown in Module 2: The International Framework, all of the international copyright agreements let countries to make certain exceptions to the rights we accept described thus far. Every land has indeed fabricated such exceptions. The purposes of these exceptions vary. Some are justified past the demand to respect liberty of expression or privacy. Others are intended to prevent copyright law from frustrating rather than fostering creativity. Yet others recognize the impossibility of monitoring and charging for some uses. The list of exceptions is very long. In general, the exceptions should be considered simply as of import equally the rights they qualify. Together, they are intended to strike a balance betwixt the interests of authors and the interests of users and the public at large. For this reason, it is sometimes said that the exceptions create "user rights."
The exceptions take one of two forms. Exceptions of the beginning blazon identify specific permissible activities. An influential example of this arroyo is Commodity 5 of the Eu Copyright Directive. Section 2 of that article authorizes European union member countries to provide for the following exceptions to the correct of reproduction:
(a) in respect of reproductions on newspaper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having like effects, with the exception of sheet music, provided that the rightholders receive fair compensation;
(b) in respect of reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for individual use and for ends that are neither straight nor indirectly commercial, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation which takes business relationship of the application or non-application of technological measures referred to in Article 6 to the work or subject-matter concerned;
(c) in respect of specific acts of reproduction made by publicly attainable libraries, educational establishments or museums, or by archives, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial reward;
(d) in respect of imperceptible recordings of works made by broadcasting organisations by means of their ain facilities and for their own broadcasts; the preservation of these recordings in official archives may, on the grounds of their exceptional documentary grapheme, be permitted;
(east) in respect of reproductions of broadcasts made by social institutions pursuing non-commercial purposes, such as hospitals or prisons, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation.''
Section 3 then authorizes member states to create whatsoever of the following exceptions both to the correct of reproduction and to the right to communicate or make works available to the public:
(a) utilise for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source, including the author'due south proper name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be incommunicable and to the extent justified past the non-commercial purpose to be achieved;
(b) uses, for the benefit of people with a disability, which are directly related to the disability and of a non-commercial nature, to the extent required by the specific inability;
(c) reproduction by the press, communication to the public or making bachelor of published articles on electric current economic, political or religious topics or of broadcast works or other subject-matter of the same character, in cases where such employ is not expressly reserved, and every bit long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, or utilise of works or other subject field-matter in connectedness with the reporting of current events, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and as long as the source, including the writer's proper noun, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible;
(d) quotations for purposes such as criticism or review, provided that they relate to a work or other subject-matter which has already been lawfully made bachelor to the public, that, unless this turns out to be incommunicable, the source, including the author's name, is indicated, and that their use is in accordance with fair practise, and to the extent required by the specific purpose;
(e) apply for the purposes of public security or to ensure the proper operation or reporting of administrative, parliamentary or judicial proceedings;
(f) employ of political speeches as well every bit extracts of public lectures or similar works or subject-thing to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and provided that the source, including the author'south name, is indicated, except where this turns out to be impossible;
(g) use during religious celebrations or official celebrations organised by a public authority;
(h) use of works, such equally works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;
(i) incidental inclusion of a piece of work or other subject-affair in other material;
(j) employ for the purpose of advertizement the public exhibition or auction of creative works, to the extent necessary to promote the event, excluding any other commercial use;
(thou) use for the purpose of extravaganza, parody or pastiche;
(l) use in connection with the sit-in or repair of equipment;
(m) use of an artistic work in the form of a building or a drawing or plan of a building for the purposes of reconstructing the building;
(north) employ by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to private members of the public past dedicated terminals on the bounds of establishments referred to in paragraph 2(c) of works and other subject-affair not subject field to buy or licensing terms which are contained in their collections;
(o) use in certain other cases of small-scale importance where exceptions or limitations already exist nether national law, provided that they only concern counterpart uses and do not affect the free circulation of goods and services within the Community, without prejudice to the other exceptions and limitations contained in this Commodity.
Many of these exceptions manifestly do good the libraries (and their users) in the Eu countries that have recognized them. Especially noteworthy are the exceptions for "specific acts of reproduction made by publicly accessible libraries" then long as they are non for "economic or commercial advantage" and "uses for the do good of people with a disability."
That said, the set up of exceptions contained in Article 5 of the Eu Copyright Directive is surely non the only example of the enumerated-listing arroyo. The three-footstep test, discussed in Module ii, gives individual countries considerably more latitude in selecting exceptions and limitations than the EU has exercised. Some countries have gone a good deal farther.
The second general arroyo is to land some general guidelines for permissible uses and and so delegate to the courts responsibility for applying those factors to individual cases. The premier example of this approach is the fair employ doctrine in the United States, which is embodied in section 107 of the U.South. Copyright Act:
Notwithstanding the [statutory provisions granting copyright holders exclusive rights], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use past reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other ways specified by that department, for purposes such every bit criticism, annotate, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the apply made of a work in any particular instance is a off-white use the factors to be considered shall include (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such utilise 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 issue 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 in a higher place factors.
Courts in the United states have relied on this provision to recognize exceptions for a wide range of activities, including the making of a parody of a copyrighted piece of work, reproducing a portion of a copyrighted work for the purpose of scholarship, and using a videocassette recorder to record a tv program or movie for viewing at a later time.
In betwixt these two general approaches is a strategy sometimes known every bit "fair dealing." A adept instance is the organization used in Australia. The Australian Copyright Act (equally amended in 2006) identifies some broad circumstances in which an unauthorized use of a copyrighted work might be considered off-white: research, criticism or review, news reporting, legal advice, and parody or satire. But falling into one of these boxes does not mean, still, that a particular action will be accounted fair. Rather, the courts consider private cases by consulting a ready of factors that loosely parallel the factors used in the US system. In general, the courts will alibi carry within these boxes if they deem it appropriate "judged by the criterion of a off-white minded and honest person." The Australian arroyo is generally thought to be less unpredictable -- but too less flexible -- than the United states approach.
A separate and nearly universal exception to the rights of a copyright holder is the showtime auction doctrine. The first sale doctrine says that once a consumer has lawfully purchased a copy of a copyrighted work, the copyright holder no longer has the ability to control that particular copy. For this reason, resale, lending, or rental of a lawfully purchased copyrighted work is more often than not permissible. However, countries can impose sure limitations on these rights. They may restrict or require compulsory licenses for sure uses of copyrighted works. For instance, as indicated above, a nation may prohibit the rental of goods that are easily and often copied, such as software or phonorecords. Additionally, a nation may require that the author of the work exist paid a certain fee upon resale of a copy of a copyrighted work. (This and so-chosen "droit de suite" simply exists in a few jurisdictions, and fifty-fifty at that place but applies to unique works of fine art.)
The operation of the first sale doctrine is less intuitive with digital works. This is considering what may seem like normal use from a consumer'southward perspective may actually involve the making of boosted digital copies. This in turn could be prohibited by the author's sectional right of reproduction. For example, if a consumer purchases a CD, she tin mind to it on whatsoever CD player without worrying about infringing the author's copyright. She can also, because of the first auction doctrine, lend that CD to a friend who tin can heed to it on a CD player and then give information technology back, without worrying near infringing the author's rights. However, if that aforementioned consumer purchases a sound recording online, listens to it, and then emails a copy to a friend, she will have violated the copyright law (fifty-fifty if she deletes her original copy) because the original recording has been "reproduced." There remains a serious policy question as to whether the first sale doctrine to govern such cases, but as yet that has non occurred.
Library Exceptions
Final but not least, the copyright laws of many countries contain exceptions or limitations designed to enable librarians to use copyrighted materials in means that advance their missions. These provisions vary widely by country. For a thorough review of the library exceptions in limitations in 128 countries, you should consult Kenneth Crews'due south Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives.
Prepare along below are descriptions of some common situations in which librarians need flexibility in using copyrighted materials, plus summaries of the ways in which many countries deal with those situations.
Allowing Library Patrons to Use the Library'south Copy Machines or Other Copy Equipment
Patrons oftentimes wish to make copies of excerpts of library-endemic materials. Unless the book or article the patron is copying is in public domain, such copying is regulated past the country's copyright statute. If the copying exceeds the maximum set up by other exceptions and limitations, the patron may exist committing copyright infringement. In some situations, absent a statutory or other safe harbor, the library could be held secondarily or indirectly liable for allowing the infringement to accept place by providing the equipment. (The concepts of secondary and indirect liability volition be discussed in more detail in Module 7.)
Fortunately, many countries accept enacted specific statutory provisions that shield librarians and libraries from liability for copyright infringement committed by patrons who use photocopiers or other equipment the library provides. To authorize for the statutory exemption, libraries typically must mail a notice and a disclaimer, stating that the making of photocopies or other reproductions is governed by copyright law, and that the person using the equipment is liable for any infringement.
Making Copyrighted Materials Available on the Library'south Computers
Libraries sometimes brand materials available to the public on computers. For example, they sometimes operate websites and postal service on those websites materials that the public at large can attain via the Internet. If those materials are discipline to copyright, and if the library fails to obtain permission for displaying them, it may be bailiwick to liability. However, many countries have enacted and so-called "safe harbor" exceptions to limit the liability of online service providers. To the extent that universities and libraries may exist considered such providers, they are shielded from liability, as long equally they comply with the procedures set forth in each land's laws.
Making Copies for Library Patrons
Library patrons often ask librarians to make copies of copyrighted materials for their personal apply. Many countries provide statutory exceptions that permit librarians to make limited copies for this purpose. Some allow such reproductions only for certain specified classes of works such every bit periodicals, while others make no such distinctions. Further, some countries only permit copying for purposes such as enquiry, while others do non take this limitation.
By way of instance, the U.k. allows librarians to make copies of articles in periodicals, but limits such copying to a single commodity per issue, and requires the patron to prove that the copy is for private noncommercial research or study. Canada, on the other manus, does not have the unmarried-commodity restriction, merely does limit the reproduction exception to articles published in scholarly, scientific, or technical journals. Canada also excludes works of fiction, poetry, etc. from the class of works that may be copied.
Making Digital Copies for Preservation and Replacement
Librarians are permitted, in sure circumstances, to brand copies of library materials for their preservation or replacement. These circumstances are typically tightly regulated by local copyright statutes. Many countries permit copying as long as:
- the library owns the original work
- the piece of work is publicly attainable
- the original is at risk for damage or deterioration, is in obsolete format, or cannot be viewed considering of the conditions in which it must exist kept.
The permitted reproduction is oft express to a small number of copies. If an advisable re-create is commercially available, the correct to reproduce for preservation or replacement is typically limited. Further, copying is oftentimes limited to paper reproduction, and copies made in digital format typically may not be made available to the public outside of the library premises.
Creating Grade Packs for Students
University librarians are sometimes asked to create "course packs." Form packs are typically a collection of excerpts from journals, articles, volume chapters, and and then forth that a teacher assigns for students enrolled in a particular course.
In the Us, many universities used to assemble course packs without obtaining permission from the copyright holders of the private articles, believing that such copying qualified for the "off-white use" exception for academic purposes. Even so, courtroom decisions in the 1990s held that the preparation and sale of such course packs past commercial "copy shops" did not plant fair use. Information technology is not sure that those decisions would utilise to universities, but the lawyers advising most universities have taken a cautious approach. At their urging, about US universities have now adopted systems for obtaining licenses to all materials included in course packs.
It is possible that a country that, unlike the U.s., relies upon a listing of specific exceptions and limitations, rather than a full general off-white use doctrine, to ready the limits of copyright protection may have a specific provision that authorizes the creation of course packs. If not, librarians in such a state must obtain a written license from the copyright holders in order to create course packs. To reduce the authoritative brunt of seeking permission from many different copyright holders, librarians may wish to contract with collective direction organizations like those described in Module five. These private services who enter into affiliations with academic publishers and obtain blanket clearance licenses for the publisher'south entire catalog, or enter into agreements with a collective direction organization representing publishers.
Adapting Materials for the Blind, Visually Impaired and other Reading Disabled Persons
In nigh countries, specific exemptions let librarians to provide modified copies of works to serve the needs of visually dumb patrons. A more than detailed give-and-take of the copyright exception for visually impaired persons can exist found in Judith Sullivan's report of the Fifteenth Session of the WIPO Continuing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which is available here. This situation may change soon if a treaty currently being considered by WIPO is adopted.
Inter-Library Loans
The copyright statutes of some countries contain exceptions for inter-library loans. This enables a library to make a copy of a work for the purpose of lending it to a patron of another library. Sometimes the statutory exception for inter-library loan will require the library to pay a licensing fee in order to make the reproduction, the amount of which is typically adamant past the regime or a collecting society. In sure countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore, a librarian must decide that the commodity or work is non commercially bachelor before the inter-library loan exception can be invoked.
Like to inter-library loan statutes are so-called "supply" statutes, which allow a library to make a copy of a work for another library, simply practise non require that the purpose of the re-create be for the private apply of a patron. Supply statutes vary among jurisdictions. Some countries (for example, Fiji) require that the librarian first attempt to purchase the work at market place value. Others (for example, Antigua) allow such copying just when it is not practicable to purchase a copy. All the same others (for example, Ireland) only permit such copying if it would not be reasonable to ask the copyright holder's permission.
In some cases, a state may not have a specific statutory library exception. All the same libraries may still be entitled to engage in many of the activities described above, if those countries have a broader provision that would permit whatsoever citizen, which would include librarians and library patrons, to undertake these activities. This is true, for example, in Iraq and Namibia. Some countries limit their exceptions to a listing of designated libraries; in other countries, the exceptions are bachelor to all libraries that run into certain requirements, such as beingness open to the public and acting for non-commercial purposes.
Compulsory Licenses
In addition to the exceptions and limitations surveyed above, many countries limit the rights of copyright holders with so-called "compulsory licenses." Compulsory licenses are oftentimes seen as compromises betwixt the economic interests of copyright holders and the public's interest in using copyrighted material. For case, Commodity 13 of the Berne Convention gives countries the authority to impose compulsory licenses for the apply of musical compositions. Examples of compulsory licenses existing in some countries include the right of public lending past libraries, and the right of individual coping of audio recordings in exchange for a tax on bare CDs. This will be further discussed in Module 5: Managing Rights.
Back to the case study
Unfortunately, unless the compositions in Angela's collection have fallen into the public domain, there is no simple answer to Angela's question. Nadia would exist obliged to review the details of the particular system of exceptions and limitations independent in her country'southward copyright constabulary to ascertain, first, whether she would be permitted to brand a digital copy of each piece of sail music and, second, whether the library would be permitted to mail service the digital copy of information technology on the library'south servers. Information technology is more likely that the showtime of these activities would be permitted than that the second activity would exist permitted, but neither consequence could exist definitively resolved without consulting the land's laws.
Additional Resources
In 2001, Siva Vaidhyanathan published Copyrights and Copywrongs: the Rising of Intellectual Holding and How It Threatens Creativity. The thesis of this highly accessible book is well captured by its title. For an interview with Vaidhyanathan, in which he summarizes his argument, run across Copyrights and Copywrongs. For a similarly attainable study that takes a much more than favorable view of the evolution of the rights and exceptions associated with copyright, encounter Paul Goldstein, Copyright's Highway: From Gutenberg to the Angelic Jukebox (2003) -- available only in print or via audio download.
The well-nigh comprehensive examination of the provisions of each land's copyright laws that provide flexibility to librarians is Kenneth Crews, Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives.
Some other highly useful study is International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright and Neighbouring Rights in the Digital Surround: An International Library Perspective.
2 helpful WIPO studies are WIPO Report on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for the Visually Impaired and WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment.
Copyright Exceptions in the Great britain is simply what information technology says.
For a highly attainable report of latitude that filmmakers (specially in the U.s.a.) enjoy when quoting copyrighted material, run into Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, Recut, Reframe, Recycle (Heart for Social Media 2008).
Cases
The post-obit judicial opinions explore and use some of the principles discussed in this module:
Larrikin Music 5. Men at Work (Australia 2010) (right of reproduction)
Instance C-five/08, Infopaq International A/S five. Danske Dagblades Forening (correct of reproduction)
Gilham 5. R, Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Courtroom of Appeal of England and Wales), 2009 (right of reproduction)
J.K. Rowling v. RDR Books, 575 F.Supp.2d 513 (2009) (derivative works)
Case C-306/05, Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v. Rafael Hoteles SA (Meaning of Communication to the Public)
Case C-479/04, Laserdisken ApS v. Kulturministeriet (Exhaustion)
Case C-245/00, Stichting ter Exploitatie van Naburige Rechten (SENA) 5. Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) (Rental Rights – Equitable Remuneration)
Cour de cassation (1re ch. civ.), 28 février 2006, Studio Canal, Universal Pictures video France et SEV c/ S. Perquin et Ufc que Choisir (Private Copies – Technological Protections)
Sweden: B 13301-06, 17 April 2009 (Pirate Bay Case) (Pregnant of Making Available)
Buffet 5. Fersig, Judgment of May thirty, 1962, Cour d'appel, Paris, 1962 Recueil Dalloz [D. Jur.] 570 (described in Merryman, The Refrigerator of Bernard Buffet, 27 Hastings L.J. 1023 (1976)) (moral rights)
Campbell five. Acuff Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (off-white utilise)
Germany: Bundesverfassungsgericht, Urteil vom 17. Februar 1998, - 1 BvF 1/97 (Right to Short Reporting)
Assignment and discussion questions
Assignment
i. Are the restrictions that copyright law places on librarians in your country too strict, as well loose or the right balance? Apply the references in the list of Additional Resource (below) to locate the listing of library exceptions applicable in your own land. Summarize the master exceptions.
ii. Imagine and describe a project that y'all would like to develop at your library simply that would not be permitted past the copyright laws in your country. Draft an amendment to your national copyright statute that would cover this use.
Discussion Question(s)
Annotate upon some of the amendment proposals of your colleagues.
Contributors
This module was created by Emily Cox. It was then edited by a squad including Sebastian Diaz, William Fisher, Urs Gasser, Adam Holland, Kimberley Isbell, Peter Jaszi, Colin Maclay, Andrew Moshirnia, and Chris Peterson.
Source: https://cyber.harvard.edu/copyrightforlibrarians/Module_4:_Rights,_Exceptions,_and_Limitations