A copyright use case on film screenings May 31, 2008
Posted by Kevin Smith in : Copyright Information Notes , add a commentI have recently been answering several questions that seem to recur, in one form or another, quite frequently. As an extension to the copyright widgets that were well-received over the winter, therefore, I want to offer somewhat generic versions of these questions, along with my answers. I hope they will be useful to others, and even might spark discussions that will both improve my responses and benefit readers of this blog.
This first question was a version of the very common inquiry about when campus showings of films require either public performance rights or a license. The particular inquiry involved a group of films on a speific theme that were already owned by the University Libraries; the questioner, from one of our interdisciplinary centers, wondered rather generally about the legal requirements for show some of these films to groups.
The starting point is that a copyright owner has the exclusive right to authorize public performances of their works. For most films, the copyright owner will be the production company. A public performance is any performance given to a group other than the “normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances,” so almost all performances on campus (other than in a dorm room) are likely to be considered public.
There is one relevant exception to the general rule that the copyright owner has the sole right to allow or forbid public performances, and there are two general ways in which permission is obtained when that exception does not apply.
First, the exception is for performances “in the course face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction.” This broad exception is what allows the screening of films in classrooms by course instructors all over most college campuses, but there are also many campus screenings to which it does not apply. The language of this exception does not limit the allowed performances only to credit-bearing courses scheduled by the registrar, so there is apparently some leeway here. If a regular student group that meets for a clearly educational purpose wants to view a film, for example, I think that performance is allowable under the exception and does not require permission, especially if there is a faculty advisor for the group or some other clear connection to the institution’s curriculum.
On the other hand, campus showings of a film solely for entertainment (such as college film societies) or to which a general invitation is extended so that people with no connection to a specific educational focus of the institution might attend seem outside the scope of the exception. These sorts of showings have traditionally been based on some form of permission.
One way in which permission is obtained is by renting a copy of the film from an agency that includes a license for public performance in the fee charged. Campus film societies often use such an agency; Swank (http://www.swank.com/) is one that is a common source for campus licenses.
In this case, since the university already has the films, the next question would be whether any of them were sold with public performance rights. Some films purchased by the library do have such rights and some filmmakers only sell their work that way; generally these films cost about 10x more than a film without public performance rights, so price can tell us a lot about whether such rights were obtained (although it is not definitive).
Based on the general tone of the question, it sounds like the performances suggested would require permission, but since extensive detail about the intended audience for the films was not given, only the questioner ultimately will know enough to decide if these are public performances that fall outside the scope of the exception for face-to-face teaching activities.
Reducing the number of orphan works in the world May 23, 2008
Posted by Kevin Smith in : Copyright Issues and Legislation, Open Access and Institutional Repositories , 1 comment so farThe two orphan works bills currently under consideration in Congress share many common features, the most obvious one being that both address the problem of orphan works by drastically reducing the penalties for using such a work without permission. They also both would create a very burdensome process for determining that a work is sufficiently likely to be an orphan to justify the reduced penalties in the presumably rare case that the user was mistaken.
These bills have gotten mixed reactions from the library and copyright communities in higher education. The American Library Association has indicated some level of support for the Senate version of the bill, while Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have both strongly endorsed the Congressional efforts. Several individual voices for which the academic library community has great respect, however, have indicated opposition. Kenneth Crews suggests his reservations, while also criticizing the campaign against the bills, in this blog post, while Lawrence Lessig’s opposition was expressed forcefully in this New York Times Op-Ed.
My opinion is that the bills might do some good in a few situations, but they will not accomplish much. Part of the problem is that they are “remedy-based” solutions; they simply remove some of the risk attendant on using orphan works or, to look at it from the other perspective, the protection copyright owners have against infringement (Lessig puts the situation this way, but I am afraid that this formulation doesn’t recognize that for most of the works we are talking about, there really is no rights owner whose protection would be decreased). But in any case, these bills would do nothing to curb the ever growing number of orphan works. So I want to examine some of the alternatives to a remedy-based solution to orphan works and consider changes in the law that might actually reduce the number of orphaned works that now burden our copyright system.
Lessig suggests one such strategy in his NYT piece when he argues that a more efficient and fair solution to orphan works would be to reestablish a renewal process and give new materials only a short initial term. Thus authors and artists who did not plan to commercialize their works after that short initial period (during which the vast majority of works exhaust their value) would allow those works to pass into the public domain. Those who did plan to continue to protect and exploit their works would pursue a very simple, inexpensive renewal. This would clear reduce the orphan works problem going forward, although it would not help with the many orphans already in our collections. The biggest objection to this plan, however, is that it reduces “formalities” into the enjoyment of copyright in contradiction to obligations the US agreed to when it adhered to the Berne Convention and the TRIPs agreement. Those international treatises do not permit formalities, which is a big reason we went to automatic protection in the first place. It is true that the US has been quite inconsistent in complying with the various obligations we took on with Berne and TRIPs, so this objection is probably not insurmountable. But it would be a major argument to be used against such a change, and it would probably prevent Congress from enacting a renewal requirement.
There are a number of other ways to imagine changes in the law that would reduce the problem of orphan works, either by focusing on the commercialization of particular works, as Lessig’s suggestion does, or by taking advantage of efficiencies gained by returning ownership of unexploited works to the original authors or creators. An upcoming post or two will examine some of those other possibilities.
Getting off the copyright merry-go-round May 17, 2008
Posted by Kevin Smith in : Copyright Issues and Legislation, Open Access and Institutional Repositories, Scholarly Publishing , add a commentCongress has been talking a lot recently about the farm bill and war spending. But amidst all that rhetoric and wrangling, some copyright work has also been done in the past two weeks. For one thing, the House passed the so-called PRO-IP bill last week, fortunately without its most troubling provision. One of the major provisions of that bill as proposed was an amendment to the copyright law that would have allowed much larger damage awards for infringement. As I wrote some while ago, this was a huge grab at more money for the recording industry especially, but that provision was dropped in the House-approved version. Now what PRO-IP would largely do is further bloat the federal bureaucracy (in a way opposed by the Justice Department) for IP enforcement.
Perhaps balancing out this sop to special interests, Congress has also been working on the Orphan Works bills, discussed earlier here. The Senate version, called the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act, was unanimously reported out of the Judiciary Committee on May 15, although it is clear that negotiation about some of its provisions is still going on. The House version, which includes the objectionable “dark archives” provision, is still being marked up in the House Judiciary Committee; whether that provision will remain is something I just don’t know right now. But I do know that several issues remain in controversy in both houses, specifically the language addressing state sovereign immunity and the role of Copyright Office certified statements of “best practices” in defining the scope of a “qualifying search” that would afford a user the shelter of the orphan works reduction in liability.
Amidst all this give and take about copyright, the question ought to be asked whether any of these incremental changes will really make much difference. From the perspective of higher education, at least, there is a sense of tinkering around the edges of a severely broken system. PRO IP simply creates more bureaucracy and further trumpets the “sky is falling” approach to copyright of the entertainment industry. Orphan works is an area in which real reform is sorely needed, but one can legitimately ask if the bills being considered would actually work; the bills may be so laden with expensive and unnecessary hoops to be cleared that they will not make truly beneficial uses of orphan works any more possible or likely. Another example of this futility may be found in the recently concluded work of the Section 108 Study Group: although the Study Group’s report raises some interesting and key issues, it was only able to reach agreement to actually recommend minor changes that will not make much real difference. Instead of waiting for reforms that never come in any helpful way, it may be more fruitful in higher education to ask ourselves how we might simply get off the copyright merry-go-round.
The answer, of course, is in open access to scholarship, and there may be some recent developments that point a direction for encouraging open access as an alternative to the current system of copyright protection for commercial monopolies. An article in this month’s College & Research Libraries News by David Lewis, Dean of the Library at IUPUI, forcefully asserts that it is time for libraries to stop putting more and more money into the bloated and dysfunctional journal publishing system and to move funds to support open access infrastructure and venues. His article proposes specific steps that libraries can take to move off the endless cycle of higher journal prices that leads to less money for monographs and overall reduced access. He is suggesting an important step to get us off the copyright merry-go-round.
A major obstacle to open access, however, has always been resistance from faculty, for whom the system usually seems to work just fine. Tenure and promotion have been built around the core of commercial publishing, and it is very hard to communicate the reasons for moving away from that core. Until now. With the lawsuit filed against Georgia State by three major publishers, a real opportunity has arisen to show faculty members that giving copyright away to publishers primarily interested in share holder profit, not dissemination of knowledge, is no longer in their own best interests. At its root, this lawsuit challenges what faculty members, who provide the content for scholarly publications, want to be able to do with their own work and the work of their colleagues – communicate it to students. If the copyright system determines that they cannot do that without paying yet more money on top of the exorbitant prices charged to buy the works back initially, perhaps there will be a general recognition that they should not freely give that content away in the first place. A return to first principles would remind faculty that these works belong to them unless and until they choose to give them away, and that they are free to negotiate the terms of any transfer of copyright. Ironically, this lawsuit’s frontal attack on a core value in higher education may prove to be the best weapon yet to move scholarship off the increasingly dangerous and unstable copyright merry-go-round.
Happy Birthday and the best interests of orphan (works) May 9, 2008
Posted by Kevin Smith in : Copyright Issues and Legislation , 1 comment so farI have been traveling a lot recently, and I use time on airplanes to catch up on articles I want to read. As always, Bill Patry’s blog is a great source for citations to interesting topics, and I was particularly taken by an article he recommended recently – “Copyright and the World’s Most Popular Song” by Robert Brauneis of the George Washington University Law School. Brauneis’ article is a great airplane read; a tour de force of historical research and reasoning that dissects both the history of the song “Happy Birthday to You” and the persistent claim that the work is still protected by copyright. His detailed discussion of the tangled history of authorship and its relation to the various copyright acts and ad hoc term extensions that occurred since the original composition of the tune (at least) in the 1890s beautifully illustrates how difficult establishing the status of older works is now that copyright term has grown so long, well past the memory of any person alive at the work’s creation.
This problem of establishing the rights in a very old work makes Brauneis’ article especially interesting at a time when Congress is considering ways to address the issue of orphan works – older works that are still protected for which no rights holder can be found. Brauneis mentions the orphan works proposals only in passing, but his investigations, and the lessons he learns from those inquiries, help clarify why orphan works are so problematic and suggest new directions for consideration of those problems.
First, as should already be clear, there is the problem that, as copyright term gets ever longer, it becomes harder and harder to identify authorship, trace rights, and even verify if the correct rights holder registered the work (this is very significant for works protected under the 1909 copyright act, but it could also be important if an infringement action were brought regarding a more modern orphan). For the song “Happy Birthday to You,” Brauneis is dealing with a relatively small and identifiable group of authors, yet the problems of identifying who wrote what and who should have registered which works are very knotty indeed. For genuinely orphaned works, these problems only multiply. As Brauneis points out, the rather scanty record-keeping efforts of the Copyright Office contribute to the difficulties in this area. He holds out hope for more comprehensive record retention in the digital age, although that is happening very slowly, and it is worth noting that the orphan works proposals also contain some requirements of additional recordkeeping to make diligent searching for rights holders a little bit easier.
Brauneis also notes the disincentives that are present to discourage potential users from challenging a dubious claim to copyright. In the case of “Happy Birthday to You,” there is substantial evidence that the song is not protected by copyright any longer, in spite of the myth, ubiquitous in copyright discussions, that it is. Nevertheless, the song generates $2 million in royalties for the company that claims to hold the rights. Since no single user pays a great deal for the rights, the users have little way to identify each other or act in concert, and blanket licenses make it difficult to distinguish exactly what one is paying for in any case, the song continues to generate a great deal of income and the public is denied a small but popular piece of its cultural heritage. This is not quite the same problem, of course, as that which prevents use of orphan works, but it is another example of structural difficulties in copyright that stifle creativity and learning.
Finally, Brauneis makes a fascinating point about the lack of any mechanism in copyright for obtaining the kind of prescriptive rights that are available for persistent (mis-)users of real property. When a trespasser uses land in a way that is continuous, open and “notorious” for a number of years, they may gain a prescriptive easement to use the land or even take title through adverse possession. When a copyright owner fails to enforce his or her rights, however, even if it fears that those rights would not stand up in court, no such legally cognizable rights are gained by the user. While one user may “infringe” without consequence (as many appear to do with “Happy Birthday to You”), the putative rights holder may continue to collect royalties from all those others who do not know about the dubious claim. All of the solutions proposed for the orphan works problems are merely attempts to mitigate the consequences for a potentially infringing use by reducing the available damages; Brauneis’ article raises the fascinating suggestion that that problem and others might be better addressed by allowing users to gain a legally recognized right in a work when and if they use that work in an obvious and long-term way and the copyright owner elects, for whatever reason, to “sit on her rights.” Such a solution would certainly expanded the cultural commons, although it might be useful in only a relatively few situations where the risk of litigation from a rights holder was very slim ( thus a “reasonably diligent search” would still be necessary). Most promising, however, is Brauneis’ comment that this kind of prescriptive rights approach to the problem of missing or inactive rights holders could be imposed judicially, rather than having to depend for a solution on a distracted and easily influenced Congress.
Access to legal scholarship May 5, 2008
Posted by Kevin Smith in : Open Access and Institutional Repositories, Scholarly Publishing , 1 comment so farI have written several times before about scholarship in the field of law (here, for example, and here). For a variety of reasons, legal scholarship is an excellent laboratory for experiments in changing the traditional structures and economics of scholarship. Both open access and informal forms of scholarship have been more readily adopted and more quickly influential in law than in other fields. The unusual structure of most legal scholarship is a partial explanation for these facts, but many of the experiences and observations made in the legal arena offer substantive lessons for scholarship in other fields.
Nowhere are these experiences and observations better synthesized than in a recent article by Richard Danner, Ruffy Research Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Information Services at
One of Danner’s observations particularly struck me when I read this article, and that impression was confirmed by a conversation I had this week with several librarians. Contrary to the oft-repeated claim that open access will inevitably lead to loss of subscription income for publishers, Danner documents the experience of
Overall, Danner’s article is a masterful analysis of the structure of publishing in a particular field and how the “access principle,” a concept taken from John Willinsky’s book of the same name, could transform a field of scholarship. In spite of the oddities of legal scholarship, Danner is very successful at offering both an analysis and a call to action that deserve to be translated and applied in other fields.
