page title Recent Copyright Issues and Articles
• Do you know how and why you should register your work with the US Copyright Office? I've been saying it for years (statutory damages and attorneys fees) but I never said it as well as this: Why You Should Go Through the Trouble of Registering Your Copyright When Everyone Tells You That Your Work is Protected Automatically. Her follow-up article is even more specifically useful: Copyright: Sample Forms and Strategies for Registering your Online Content. Well worth the read!
• Publishers Sue Georgia State On Digital Reading Matter
New York Times, April 16, 2008
In their ongoing effort to target and intimidate fair use electronic course reserves and/or online digital content associated with classes at universities, the publishers have added Georgia State to their ever-growing list of institutions that have received cease and desist letters accompanied by a draft complaint. In this case, an actual complaint has been filed Tuesday in United States District Court in Atlanta. The "publishers — Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and Sage Publications — sued four university officials, asserting systematic, widespread and unauthorized copying and distribution of a vast amount of copyrighted works” by Georgia State, which the university distributes through its Web site." Apparently, Georgia State is not interested in discussions and has “indicated their view that all of their practices are covered under the fair use doctrine.”
Additional Information:
•Publishers Take Action Against Georgia State University Copyright Infringement
• The Most Important Copyright Case You've Never Heard Of
by Gigi Sohn, President and Co-Founder of Public Knowledge
June 11, 2007; The Huffington Post
The case at issue is Twentieth Century Fox et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation et ano.
It is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the 2nd Circuit (Cablevision lost at the lower court level).
To understand why this case is so important you need to think back to the legendary Sony Betamax case of the early 1980s which held that technology that can be used for infringement is not contributorily liable if it is capable of substantial non-infringing uses. The Sony decision is constantly under attack (easier to go for a device manufacturer than the thousands of users) and this case is yet another example.
The plaintiffs (film studios and cable channels) are suing Cablevision over Cablevision's DVR service, which is similar to TiVo. Cablevision's service allows viewers to record a show and watch it later. The difference is that the recording is made and housed centrally on Cablevision's hard drive instead of on the hard drive in the machine in your house. The networks want Cablevision to pay an extra licensing fee, claiming violation of copyright law as a direct infringer. As Gigi says, the viewer experience is exactly the same. Cablevision disagrees, citing Sony Betamax.
If the plaintiffs prevail, this will have a chilling effect on the use of remote services for information processing, storage, and retrieval. Instead of being able to take advantage of the Internet for such services, consumers will have to purchase and maintain these devices themselves. "Holding parties that deploy remote computer processing and network-based technologies liable for direct copyright infringement would curb innovation and harm consumers and businesses that use, or would use services supported by the new technology."
by Jonathan Band, December 3, 2007
Jonathan Band reviews and analyzes three recent appellate decisions where fair use, even in the face of extensive copying and display in a commercial setting, was found, primarily due to the significant repurposing and recontextualization of the original work, i.e., the new work was highly "transformative". The cases are Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3e 244 (2d Circ. 2006)
Perfect 10 v. Amazon and Google 06-55405 (9th Cir. May 16, 2007)
Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006)
This is an excellent piece and anyone interested in recent trends in fair use application needs to read it.
• Public Access Mandate Made Law
by Jennifer McLennan at The Alliance for Taxpayer Access
December 26, 2007
When the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007 (HR 2764), it included the long-sought NIH provision:
"Researchers will now be required to deposit electronic copies of their peer reviewed manuscripts into the National Library of Medicine's online archive, PubMed Central"... no later than 12 months after publication in a journal. Heather Joseph, Executive Director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) stated that "Congress has just unlocked the taxpayer's $29 billion investment in the NIH." And David Shulenberger, Vice President for Academic Affairs of the National Association for State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) emphasized that "Public access to publicly funded research contributes directly to the mission of higher education."
The NIH has developed an implementation plan for compliance which becomes mandatory April 7, 2008.
• Fair Use Worth More to Economy than Copyright CCIA Says
by Thomas Clabum, Information Week
September 12,2007
In this interesting article, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) states that fair use contributes $4.5 trillion annually to the US economy, a value added almost 70% larger than that of the copyright industries. Fair use industries are responsible for 18% of US economic growth and approximately 11 million jobs. "To stay on the edge of innovation and productivity, we must keep fair use as one of the cornerstones for creativity, innovation...and an engine for growth for our country."
• CCIA's Defend Fair Use Campaign
The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) not only has initiated a "Defend Fair Use" campaign but has also filed a complaint with the FTC on behalf of consumers against Major League Baseball, the National Football League, NBC/Universal and several other corporations alleging "that the named corporations have misled consumers for years, often misrepresenting their rights through deceptive and threatening statements." CCIA News Release, August 1, 2007 .
“Every one of us has seen or heard that copyright warning at the beginning of a sports game, DVD or book,” said Ed Black, CCIA President and CEO, during a press conference at the National Press Club. “These corporations use these warnings not to educate their consumers, but to intimidate them.”
“Such tactics represent an assault on free expression and force consumers to continually forgo lawful activities to which they are entitled under federal law and the Constitution,” he continued.
Supporting the complaint are not only the major library associations but also Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and the Consumer Electronics Association.
Return to Copyright Administration Home
Updated May 21, 2008