RAQs: Recently Asked Questions

Topic: Request to remove scanned yearbook pages - 11/04/2020
I received a request from a former student of [a local high school] in which her name appears on a...
Posted: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 Permalink

MEMBER QUESTION

I received a request from a former student of [a local high school] in which her name appears on a yearbook page citing student activities. As the page is part of a whole PDF of the entire yearbook, "removing her name" would require taking down the entire yearbook.

If the library that scanned and uploaded the yearbook to the internet received permission from the high school to do so (the yearbook is tagged as In Copyright) does the student have a reasonable request?

 

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

At "Ask the Lawyer," we have tackled "yearbook questions" before: in 2018[1] we addressed patron requests to copy physical yearbooks in a library's collection, and in January of 2020[2] we addressed using scanned yearbook images to illustrate a commemorative calendar. [3]

But I have been waiting for this question for quite some time, and I am sure this scenario has a familiar sound to many readers.

"Yearbook scanning"—the creation of digital versions of yearbooks previously available only in hard copy—has been happening for quite a while now.  However formal or informal such efforts might be, the end result (if made accessible) is a searchable, highly accessible collection of images of people in their formative years[4], who for whatever reason, might see the increased access to their former images as problematic.

Although we don't know the motivation of the person asking the member to remove their name from a digitized yearbook, this scenario shows the apex of this concern: a request to be removed.

At this "apex," a person can make a simple, single request to be removed.  Or, they can be persistent about it--making multiple requests, calls, letters, etc.[5]  Or, if they are available, they can make legal arguments.

I can think of several "legal" arguments a person could bring forward to remove their name from a yearbook in the manner described by the member:

  • They are a victim of domestic violence trying to elude an abuser.
  • They are a victim of stalking trying to elude their stalker.
  • They have specific safety concerns based on the general public's easier access to the content.
  • They have legally changed their name and identity for personal reasons.
  • They have informally changed their name and identity for personal reasons.
  • They feel the use of their image is commercial (not likely if the poster is a not-for-profit library that isn't charging for the content).
  • The content is defamatory.[6]
  • The content is the result of a crime.
  • They have been the victim of identity theft and are attempting to optimize their privacy.[7]

Of course, asking for the "legal reason" a person is requesting removal from a digital, online yearbook puts the library in the uncomfortable position of having to evaluate the validity of the answer.  Let' not go there just yet; instead, let's take a closer look at the member's question:

If the library that scanned and uploaded the yearbook to the internet received permission from the high school to do so (the yearbook is tagged as In Copyright)[8] does the student have a reasonable request? [emphasis added]

The member has used a very, very important phrase to frame this question: "a reasonable request."

"Reasonable requests"—that is to say, requests that might not have slam-dunk legal footing, but still might be a good reason for removal—cannot be analyzed in a vacuum.  In this context, to determine if a request is "reasonable," it must be assessed against the backdrop of the hosting institution's mission, the purpose of the digital collection, and the values and ethics governing both.

That is why for libraries, archives, museums, and historical societies digitizing old yearbooks and other content that can impact living, breathing people, I advise every institution adopt a policy that 1) confirms that the goal of a digitization project aligns with the mission of the institution; 2) confirms how the content will be accessed (will it be added to the catalog to be checked out as an e-book, or be openly accessible as an online archive? etc.[9]; 3) confirms the ethics applicable to the project; and 4) creates an ethics-informed process for raising, evaluating, and acting on any concerns about the content.

For readers out there working in established archives, this ethical framework for selecting, preserving, and enabling access to archival content is already built into your institution's DNA.  However, for many libraries or smaller institutions that are now able to create online collections of easily accessed content through scanning, either to hold on their own servers, or to contribute to a larger initiative--with access unmediated by a library card or on-site access--it may be an area ripe for development. 

For those institutions just arriving at this phase, here is a short sample policy to govern the creation of digital content intended for open access:

 

ABC Library Policy on Institutionally-Generated Digital Unmediated Content[10]

 

 

Policy

Although not the primary mission of the Library, from time to time, the ABC Library will create digital versions of content with the intention that such content be made available to the general public via the internet without the mediation of membership in the library or being on the library's premises.  This content can be derived from items in the library's collection, or be generated from material borrowed by the library from another institution as part of a digitization project. 

 

For purposes of this policy, such content is called "Institutionally-Generated Digital Unmediated Content" or for short, " Unmediated Content". 

 

The purpose of this policy is to ensure the ABC Library's creation of such Unmediated Content, whether considered part of a collection or later included in an archive, is consistent with the Library's mission, values and ethics.

 

Mission

The ABC library's mission is to [INSERT].  The ABC Library's creation of Institutionally-Generated Digital Unmediated Content is consistent with this mission because [INSERT].

 

Code of Ethics

The ABC Library recognizes that due to the broad, direct access it can provide, the impact of Institutionally-Generated Digital Unmediated Content can be different from the impact of library collection content accessed by borrowing on-site access at the library.  Therefore, the Code of Ethics governing the ABC Library's creation of such Unmediated Content is the [NAME's] Code of Ethics.

 

Procedures

Any concerns related to the ABC Library's creation of Institutionally-Generated Digital Unmediated Content shall be evaluated per the above-listed Code of Ethics. 

 

Institutionally-Generated Digital Unmediated Content projects with content that depicts (possibly) still-living people, minors, and sensitive subject matter shall be evaluated per the Code of Ethics prior to the creation of the Unmediated Content.

 

To ensure adherence with these Procedures, ABC Library shall ensure an "Ethics Statement" accompanies all Institutionally-Generated Digital Unmediated Content created by the ABC Library.

 

Ethics Statement

To ensure awareness and consistent application of the Library's mission and Code of Ethics at all phases of the creation and access to such Unmediated Content, all such content shall be accessible with the statement:

 

"This content is governed by the [INSERT] Code of Ethics.  Concerns that any content violates the right of any living person, or that Code of Ethics, should be directed to [NAME] at [CONTACT INFO]."

 

Responsibility

The board of trustees maintains this policy and evaluates and revises it as necessary. 

 

[INSERT POSITION] is responsible for oversight of this policy and procedure.

 

All employees and volunteers working on digitization projects must follow this policy and procedure.

 

Now, with those essential considerations backing us up, here are my thoughts on the member's questions:

A request for removal or redaction of digitized content should be evaluated against the mission and values of the library that created the digital content, the purpose of the digitization project, and the ethics governing the project.

In this case, if the person requested removal without giving a reason aligned with ethics of the library and/or the project, the request should be denied.  On the flip side, if the reason for the request does align with the relevant ethics, it should be redacted or removed.

Here's an easy example of this playing out in the real world:

Every "Code of Ethics" I have seen governing libraries and archives requires that the institution follow the law.  Therefore, if there is a legal reason for removal, it should be done.

Here's a less easy example of this playing out in the real world:

If the request is more vague, like "I just don't want people to be able to find out information about me,"[11] your institution needs to look at the values and ethics it has adopted.  Does personal autonomy and concern for the privacy of living people get a high priority?  If the answer is "yes", there should be a process for redaction or removal.  If the answer is "no," with more priority placed on the integrity of the material, unless there is a legal reason compelling removal, the answer should be, "Sorry, our role is to preserve and make accessible this record in its original form" (or other language regarding integrity of the records, taken from your library’s Code of Ethics).

Personally, although I don't think my yearbooks have anything to hide, I like the option of being able to remove myself from the record until I am dead.[12]  But in saying that, I am expressing a value, not a legal right, and value judgments are harder than legal conclusions.  That is why requests not rooted in solid legal reasons benefit from: a) the library having a strong, consistent guide, like a Code of Ethics; b) applying that guide consistently; and c) ensuring the library has the technical ability[13] to implement your institution's decisions, which are all critical.

Thank you for bearing with me on this answer, I know it is intricate, and perhaps more than you signed on for!  The steps I lay out in this answer are meant to be practical, easy to implement, and designed to help your library document that it is doing its best to balance preservation and access to documents with consideration of privacy and ethics.  That is no simple balancing act, but since requests like the one sent to the member are only likely to increase, it is a good thing to be ready to do.

 



[3] The reply to the 2020 question, after walking the reader through a suggested analysis of the content, states: "This analysis was done because yearbook projects bring up issues of not only copyright risk, but privacy and social issues."

[4] For libraries considering creating a formal archive of digitized yearbooks, this "Ask the Lawyer" answer regarding creating digital archives that include images of children discusses the interplay of legal and ethical issues.  Of course, a yearbook presumes a certain level of both awareness and willing participation, which not all images of minors do.

[5] It pains lawyers to hear this, but not every problem is solved by threatening to sue.  Letter campaigns, online petitions, public shaming, reaching out to people in power...these are non-litigious routes to get relief from problems, too.

[6] I don't just mean that the content makes them look bad, I mean it genuinely meets the criteria for defamation in New York, which is very precise.

[7] One thing the information in old yearbooks can do is help with social engineering of scams to defraud and/or commit identity theft.  "Hi, it's me, Angela, from your high school volleyball team!  Remember, with the red hair?  Yeah, it's me! Hey, can you cash a check for me...?Yes, this is exactly how it happens.

[8] Just to confirm: this question has nothing to do with copyright (sounds like the library got the right permission to move ahead with digitization), and has everything to do with the "right to privacy," laws barring use of identity-based content, and ethics.

[9] The difference here is critical!  A yearbook that is digitized and available only as an e-book to be checked out by a patron is very different from an open collection that is available to access and search without borrowing privileges.  This is one reason why archivists have different codes of ethics than librarians.

[10] You will note I do not call this content "archival" content.  As every library council member out there knows, libraries are not archives (although they might have some archives).  That said, in this case, the creation of the digital content is likely to end up in an archive—or a collection that functions like one—and the ethical considerations align almost exactly.  For that reason, the Code of Ethics of a body like the Society of American Archivists might be a good go-to for your policy.  It wouldn't hurt to have a professional archivist on board as a consultant for help evaluating concerns, too.

[11] Remember the person faking being on the volleyball team.  This is not an outlandish concern.

[12] I am already ahead on this.  Having a hatred of head shots, I boycotted my senior picture, a decision that only makes me happier as the years go by.

[13] As the member points out, "removal" in this instance poses a challenge.  In this case, it would be good to explore if "redaction" through an addition of a black bar to the PDF, with an appropriate footnote citing the Statement of Ethics, is possible.

Tags: Copyright, COVID-19, Digital Access, Digitization and Copyright, Yearbooks

Topic: Archiving images of minors in organizational online collections - 10/22/2020
Our archive was part of a regional project to initiate, scan, and make available church records fr...
Posted: Thursday, October 22, 2020 Permalink

MEMBER QUESTION

Our archive was part of a regional project to initiate, scan, and make available church records from predominantly African American churches within a city. As part of this project, student/graduate assistants went to the particular churches, scanned the historical records as digital files, and provided those files to [our archive] for public access.

My question is in regards to photographs taken of minors and the restrictions for retention and online display. I would not have selected those particular items for retention, but because I was not on-site during the scanning, I have the files as part of the larger record (church programs, organizational records, committees, etc.). We have signed permissions from the church administration for online access and display of their records. In some cases the photographs are from over 20-40 years ago, in some cases they're much more recent. They're taken at private church events, Sunday school classes/activities, and public events--some as part of photo albums and some as individual files.

I'm struggling with how to treat these photographs and any associated records when I know they display minors. Any advice or direction would be greatly appreciated.

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

This question is at the vertex of the law and ethics.  What an institution may be positioned to do with archival images legally might not be what our society demands ethically.  And if the issue impacts real people with real feelings, this conflict can lead to legal claims—regardless of solid footing based on precedent and the law.[1]

When it comes to images of children, who can't legally consent to the use of their images, the ethical issues arising from agency, respect, and self-determination are all the more critical.

The member clearly knows this, and is seeking a direction for assessing how to access, catalog, and use them—if at all. The law is often too blunt an instrument to assess ethical questions, but in this case, I believe the legal steps for assessing the use of such such images can provide a framework for the deeper assessment of the ethical considerations[2] .

Below, I will list the "legal" steps an attorney considers when reviewing a museum or archive's acquisition, but focus on the ethical considerations connected to those factors, especially with regard to use of images of children.

1.  Ownership of the Physical Object

This stage is where an institution looks at the provenance of the object and, if that physical object is to be transferred to the institution, addresses the legal priority of making sure the title is "clear."

Ethical considerations: How did the physical object come into existence?  Was the creator a member of the community being documented, an academic, a journalist, or an "outsider?"  Does it appear that parents or guardians were present?  What was the original purpose of the object?  Does any of that information suggest coercion, exploitation, or invasion of privacy?

Or, as the International Council on Archives puts it in Section 7 of their Code:

Archivists...must respect the privacy of individuals who created or are the subjects of records, especially those who had no voice in the use or disposition of the materials.

 

2.  Ownership of the Copyright

This stage is where an institution looks at the original ownership of the copyright of the image, any transfers of those rights, the use of those rights, if the rights have expired or been transferred to the public domain, and if any of those rights are to be transferred to the institution.

Ethical considerations: Who "owns" the rights to the image?  Are the rights financially valuable?  Have they been put to non-academic, commercial use before, or are they likely to be?  Can your institution accept the rights in a way that limits future commercial exploitation of depicted minors?

Or, as the Society of American Archivists puts it in Section VI of their Code of Ethics:

Archivists may place restrictions on access for the protection of privacy or confidentiality of information in the records.

 

3.  Manner of Accession

This stage is where an institution looks at the overall package it is acquiring.  In this case, the member has pointed out that the data collection project may have over-stepped some (formal or informal) boundaries.  Other accession challenges can be donor-imposed conditions, environmental factors, and budget concerns.

Or, as the International Council on Archives puts it in Section 2 of their Code of Ethics:

Archivists should appraise records impartially basing their judgment on a thorough knowledge of their institution’s administrative requirements and acquisitions policies.

...and in Section 5 of that same Code:

Archivists negotiating with transferring officials or owners of records should seek fair decisions based on full consideration – when applicable – the following factors: authority to transfer, donate, or sell; financial arrangements and benefits; plans for processing; copyright and conditions of access. Archivists should keep a permanent record documenting accessions, conservation and all archival work done.

 

4.  Legal Considerations of Content

This stage is where an institution looks for specific concerns caused by the precise content in the materials.  When it comes to pictures of minors, this means assessing if the content is in any way criminal, contains evidence of a crime, if the information suggests they were a ward of the state, if it originated from sealed criminal records, and if the use will in any way be commercial (and thus require permission).

Or, as the Society of American Archives puts it in Section IX of their Code of Ethics:

Archivists must uphold all federal, state, and local laws.

 

5.  Identity of Person(s) Portrayed

This stage is where an institution looks at the depiction of the real person portrayed in the material and assesses if it poses any additional challenges.

Or, as the Society of American Archives puts it in Section VI of their Code of Ethics:

Archivists strive to promote open and equitable access to their services and the records in their care without discrimination or preferential treatment, and in accordance with legal requirements, cultural sensitivities, and institutional policies.

 

6.  Alignment with Mission

An archive or museum will always have a mission—or "charitable purpose"—at its core.  This is how it maintains a tax-exempt status, its charter, and its ability to operate.  Does the contemplated use of the content you are focusing on (the images of children) match up with that mission?  Or it is somehow at odds or unaligned with it?

This consideration warrants a repeat of Section 7 of the International Council on Archives Code of Ethics:

Archivists should take care that corporate and personal privacy as well as national security are protected without destroying information, especially in the case of electronic records where updating and erasure are common practice. They must respect the privacy of individuals who created or are the subjects of records, especially those who had no voice in the use or disposition of the materials.

 

7.  Alignment with Collection Purpose

Just as an archive or museum will always have a mission—or "charitable purpose"—at its core, so will a particular collection have a description that sets out its scope, methods, and purpose.  Does the contemplated use of the content you are focusing on (the images of children) match up with that description?  Or it is somehow extraneous or not quite consistent with it?  If sensitive material is not squarely within the scope of the collection, it shouldn't be there at all.

Or, as the Society of American Archives puts it in Section III of their Code of Ethics:

Archivists should exercise professional judgment in acquiring, appraising, and processing historical materials. They should not allow personal beliefs or perspectives to affect their decisions.

 

That's great...but what to do?!?

When faced with a sensitive decision like the one posed by the member, a subject-focused analysis based on the above factors is the right way to move ahead, in one of three directions:

  • If there is a decision to accession the materials and facilitate access, a written protocol for handling the sensitivities should be made part of the policies of the collection.
  • If there is a decision to accession but limit access (something archival values generally counsel against) there should be a clear path through the restrictions and a well-documented justification for the limitations.
  • If there is a decision to decline accession, the basis of the decision should be documented in light of the factors impacting the decision.

In this particular case, any of the three above-listed options might be appropriate.  From the brief description provided by the member, it sounds like the photos were joyful documentation of a community by its own members—not exploitive or rooted in dubious practices. 

But even under a "best case scenario"[3] like the one provided by the member, it is appropriate to develop a checklist based on the mission of the institution, and the goals of the collection, to be assured any archival images with minors:

1) will not be subject to commercial exploitation by the institution or a third party accessing the collection (unless there is properly executed permission allowing such use);

2) were not created in a manner inconsistent with the mission, values, and ethics of your institution; or if they were, the collection parameters address those concerns;

3) are included in a manner consistent with the purpose of the collection; and

4) there is a process[4] for any individual or relative to request removal of an image of a depicted minor.  Since such a request would only come after there was a determination that the image was consistent with the values of the institution and fit within the scope of the collection, any evaluation of such a request should be made based on the reasons for the request.

 

The good news is, the same documentation that shows careful assessment of the ethical factors will help you with any future legal concerns.

And finally, there is one more option for this particular scenario, which is to ask each church to include in their weekly bulletin or routine outreach:

Our church has been selected for inclusion in the ABC institution's online archives. As part of this work, we have provided numerous photos of our events over the years, which include pictures of many of our congregants when they were children. If you have any concerns with your childhood image being included in such a collection, please alert us.  Otherwise, please know that our community records are being preserved for the future!

That way, the church as the original provider of the records can "claw back" any photos that a person might object to, and your archive will have another step in its own records to show it did everything it could to respect people's agency and privacy.

Thank you for a thoughtful question.

 



[1] A critical example of this issue—use of a person's image in ways that raise question of agency and ethics (to say nothing of basic human decency) is found in the saga of the images of people named Alfred, Fassena, Jem, Renty, Delia, Jack, and Drana, all subjected to enslavement in the 19th century.  The images are commonly called the "Zealey Daguerotypes" and the disputes about them start with how they come into being, as well as how they are used in the present day.  For a good summary of this saga, see https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/books/to-make-their-own-way-in-world-zealy-daguerreotypes.html.

[2] "Established" by recognized authorities, not by me.  My go-to for this will be the Code of Ethics of the Society of American Archivists, found at https://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-core-values-statement-and-code-of-ethics#code_of_ethics, and the Code of Ethics of the International Council on Archives, found at https://www.ica.org/en/ica-code-ethics.

[3] This "Ask the Lawyer" is only addressing the question about minors...I am not tackling the fact that the rights to the relatively recent photos may be held by still living people, or relatives!

[4] This does not need to be a flagrant "notice and takedown" process; it can be accomplished through a simple statement like: "The ABC Archive [is accredited by/follows the ethics of DEF]; if you are concerned that the depiction of any individual or the inclusion of certain content in this collection is contrary to those ethics, please contact GHI at ### to share your concern."

Tags: Copyright, COVID-19, Digitization and Copyright, Ethics, Archives, Photographs

Topic: Digitizing legally owned choral music - 7/24/2020
Is it permissible to make digital copies of choral music that is legally owned by the institution ...
Posted: Friday, July 24, 2020 Permalink

MEMBER QUESTION

Is it permissible to make digital copies of choral music that is legally owned by the institution to students in choral and instrumental ensembles? Some students may be studying remotely and mailing physical copies may result in lost or non-returned copies.

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

There are four ways it can be permissible:

1.  Check the license[1] from the publisher and see if the purchase of the physical copies came with any digitization/duplication permission.  You'd be surprised how many rights you buy (or don't buy) when you make that hard copy purchase.  Publishers take a variety of approaches on this, and an individual publisher's permissions may change from work-to-work, so confirm (or rule out) this approach for each work.

2.  If the license does not allow making digital copies, contact the publisher, and see if it can be expanded.  Publishers are now getting many requests like this and may be ready with a simple (and affordable) solution.

3.  I am not a fan of them (they are as outdated and as risky as the Ford Pinto), but the "CONTU" guidelines speak to this issue.  I am including the relevant guidelines, as presented in Copyright Office Circular 21, under this answer.  If one of your precise needs fits one of the "permissible uses" listed in Circular 21, you are all set.

4.  Speaking of CONTU, the first "permissible use" listed in the guidelines may help you out here, with a slight twist on your scenario.  In the event that the physical copies listed in the question are mailed out and not returned as feared, the guidelines allow for emergency copying after the fact (of course, they also require that at some point, you purchase more physical copies, but at least you can get the copies to the students).

 

Those are my four solutions, based on conventional approaches and current case law.

I'll also throw out a "fifth option" based on a slightly different approach, which, depending on some precise facts, could work for faculty teaching choral classes:

 

The 110 Solution

Copyright Section 110 allows an academic choral group (if meeting as part of a class) to display "a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of a live classroom session," during an online class/rehearsal.

How can that help with the member's scenario?

Let's say I am in a class that is working up an a capella performance of "36 Chambers,"[2] as arranged by the composers of the original work.[3]

If the class was still meeting physically, Copyright Section 110(a) would allow us to perform the song and to display the music on the in-class smart board.  In the online environment, the same performance and display could happen via the internet, as allowed by 110(b) (the "TEACH Act")—again, so long as only the amount "typically" displayed in class was shown. 

Whether in-person or online, the rehearsal would include review of the different parts for bass, tenor, alto and soprano,[4] with the relevant music displayed on the screen.  While an academic institution can't tell people to take screen shots of the music displayed for rehearsal purposes, students who want to snap screenshots of a class to take notes is a fact of modern-day academia.  If a student who was told to purchase a copy of their part uses this method to ensure they are practicing on an incremental basis, that's out of the school's control, and the student can make their own claim to fair use.

This type of solution should never be used as a deliberate alternative to the purchase of individual copies.  But so long as the display is incremental and truly a part of the in-class experience, it is a viable option.

I wish all music faculty approaching the Fall 2020 semester many good performances, whether virtual, or face-to-face.  These are tough days for people who love to sing, who enjoy the community of a choir, and who need to hone their vocal art in collaboration with others.  Hunting for music should not add to the burden, and with a few tricks and an awareness of the limits of the law, it doesn't have to.

------------------------

Guidelines for Educational Uses of Music

The purpose of the following guidelines is to state the minimum and not the maximum standards of educational fair use under Section 107 of H.R. 2223.

The parties agree that the conditions determining the extent of permissible copying for educational purposes may change in the future; that certain types of copying permitted under these guidelines may not be permissible in the future, and conversely that in the future other types of copying not permitted under these guidelines may be permissible under revised guidelines.

Moreover, the following statement of guidelines is not intended to limit the types of copying permitted under the standards of fair use under judicial decision and which are stated in Section 107 of the Copyright Revision Bill. There may be instances in which copying which does not fall within the guidelines stated below may nonetheless be permitted under the criteria of fair use.

Reproduction of Copyrighted Works

Permissible Uses

1 Emergency copying to replace purchased copies which for any reason are not available for an imminent performance provided purchased replacement copies shall be substituted in due course.

2 For academic purposes other than performance, single or multiple copies of excerpts of works may be made, provided that the excerpts do not comprise a part of the whole which would constitute a performable unit such as a section¹, movement or aria, but in no case more than 10 percent of the whole work. The number of copies shall not exceed one copy per pupil.

3 Printed copies which have been purchased may be edited or simplified provided that the fundamental character of the work is not distorted or the lyrics, if any, altered or lyrics added if none exist.

4 A single copy of recordings of performances by students may be made for evaluation or rehearsal purposes and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher.

5 A single copy of a sound recording (such as a tape, disc, or cassette) of copyrighted music may be made from sound recordings owned by an educational institution or an individual teacher for the purpose of constructing aural exercises or examinations and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher. (This pertains only to the copyright of the music itself and not to any copyright which may exist in the sound recording.)

Prohibitions

1 Copying to create or replace or substitute for anthologies, compilations or collective works.

2 Copying of or from works intended to be “consumable” in the course of study or of teaching such as workbooks, exercises, standardized tests and answer sheets and like material.

3 Copying for the purpose of performance, except as in A(1) above.

4 Copying for the purpose of substituting for the purchase of music, except as in A(1) and A(2) above.

5 Copying without inclusion of the copyright notice which appears on the printed copy. (iv)

Discussion of Guidelines

The Committee appreciates and commends the efforts and the cooperative and reasonable spirit of the parties who achieved the agreed guidelines on books and periodicals and on music. Representatives of the American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Law Schools have written to the Committee strongly criticizing the guidelines, particularly with respect to multiple copying, as being too restrictive with respect to classroom situations at the university and graduate level. However, the Committee notes that the Ad Hoc group did include representatives of higher education, that the stated “purpose of the … guidelines is to state the minimum and not the maximum standards of educational fair use” and that the agreement acknowledges “there may be instances in which copying which does not fall within the guidelines … may nonetheless be permitted under the criteria of fair use.” The Committee believes the guidelines are a reasonable interpretation of the minimum standards of fair use. Teachers will know that copying within the guidelines is fair use. Thus, the guidelines serve the purpose of fulfilling the need for greater certainty and protection for teachers. The Committee expresses the hope that if there are areas where standards other than these guidelines may be appropriate, the parties will continue their efforts to provide additional specific guidelines in the same spirit of good will and give and take that has marked the discussion of this subject in recent months

 



[1] Checking a license is not an exact science.  Some publisher's use a catch-all that is included on their invoices.  Others put the information right on the music.  Others like to make you really hunt for it, but it is usually part of the sale transaction.  This is why, when making a purchase of music, it is good to take a screen shot or save the paperwork related to the purchase.

[2] Note: To my knowledge this work does not exist, but it is on my wish list of music to hear.  I love it when genres collide.

[3] This new version would be a "derivative work" based on the original, and have its own copyright protection as a musical composition.

[4] We have reached the limit of my choral knowledge.  Is there separate sheet music for mezzo-soprano and counter-tenor?  Probably.  I am sorry, I quit choir in 7th grade.

Tags: CONTU, Copyright, Digitization and Copyright, Licensing, Music, Section 110, COVID-19, Emergency Response

Topic: Ripping DVDs using DVDSmith - 5/27/2020
I've recently come across a situation where people are ripping DVDs they own to a di...
Posted: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 Permalink

MEMBER QUESTION

I've recently come across a situation where people are ripping DVDs they own to a digitized format in Roku. I'm providing the link at the end of this question. My concern is how is this possible? Primarily intended for personal use but I can see where this could expand out to a slippery slope where it is then more individuals get copies, etc. I'd would like the lawyer to weigh in on this: https://www.dvdsmith.com/rip-dvd/stream-dvd-movie-to-tv-with-roku-3.html

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

“Slippery slope,” indeed.  The member has identified a battleground in the “1201 wars.”

“1201” is a Section of the Copyright Act.[1]  It bars working around the anti-duplication protections built into certain types of copyrighted works (software, digital entertainment).  It also bars “trafficking” in the technology that can perform those work-arounds.  DVDSmith appears to sell this technology.

For those of you who don’t want to follow the link in the question, I checked out the DVDSmith,[2] and here is their “About” description:

DVDSmith Inc. (www.dvdsmith.com) is a multimedia software company that develops and markets DVD copy, DVD ripper programs for both Windows and Mac platforms. DVDSmith products will circumvent the copy-protection schemes used on commercial DVDs and enable you to make copies of store-bought DVDs.”

I puttered around the site a bit, not just taking their word for what they are.  And while I didn’t delve too deep,[3] as the member points out, the particular product linked to the question does boast the ability to enable streaming of non-supported formats to HDTV via the Roku 3.  It claims to do so by enabling the conversion of those files from other formats, a process that can require getting around (“circumventing”) access control technology.[4]

Is such conversion and duplication always wrong?  No.  While 1201 can bar the type of copyright “circumvention”[5] described by DVDSmith, and can also bar anti-circumvention tech,

1201 also creates permanent and temporary[6] exemptions to one or more of the statute’s prohibitions, including exemptions for educators and libraries

Here is the text of the permanent exemption for libraries:

(d) Exemption for nonprofit libraries, archives, and educational institutions.

(1) A nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution which gains access to a commercially exploited copyrighted work solely in order to make a good faith determination of whether to acquire a copy of that work for the sole purpose of engaging in conduct permitted under this title shall not be in violation of subsection (a)(1)(A). A copy of a work to which access has been gained under this paragraph—

(A) may not be retained longer than necessary to make such good faith determination; and

(B) may not be used for any other purpose.

(2) The exemption made available under paragraph (1) shall only apply with respect to a work when an identical copy of that work is not reasonably available in another form.

Is your head starting to hurt?  You’re not alone.

This combination of strong prohibitions and well-defined exceptions creates the “1201 contradiction,” where some circumventions of copyright controls are expressly allowed—but selling to enable them may be illegal. 

There is a ton of thorough analysis out there on “1201,” and this “contradiction.”  It comes from a range of perspectives: the entertainment and software industries (whose general position is that the rules aren’t strict enough), the innovation, information, and academic sectors (whose general position is that the rules are too strict) and government (whose general approach is to try and please everybody, and as usual, makes nobody happy).  

To sample the variety of 1201 analysis, try reviewing the materials at:

https://www.copyright.gov/1201/

…and then reading the materials at:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/new-exemptions-dmca-section-1201-are-welcome-dont-go-far-enough

Once you recover from the whiplash of these diverging priorities and opinions, you’ll realize anew that just like the Marvel Universe, the Copyright Universe has numerous alternate realities.

To answer the member’s question: what is my take on this?

The member is right to feel cautious about the products offered by DVDSmith, since under 1201, the capability described could violate the law.  But there ARE exceptions to what 1201 bars, and libraries should be ready to exercise them, advocate for them, and make sure they are meeting their needs.

My deepest feeling is that like Section 108, the basics of Section 1201 should be taught in library school, and each librarian ready to advocate for the position they feel serves the public.

Thanks for a great question!

 



[2] How about a question about copyright protections for the mountain vistas of the Adirondacks, or a trademark on the culture of Martha’s Vineyard? 

[3] It had the same vibe as a site for dubious herbal remedies.

[4] Hello, FBI. No, I did not download the software and do a test run with my “13th Warrior” DVD.

[5] As defined in the statute, to “circumvent” generally refers to acts such as avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or impairing tech that prevents copying. See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(3)(A), (b)(2)(A).

Tags: Copyright, Digitization and Copyright, Ripping/burning, Section 1201

Topic: Donation of photos for digital archive - 6/8/2018
Recently, our library has been given a collection of photographs that were previously on display i...
Posted: Friday, June 8, 2018 Permalink

MEMBER QUESTION

Recently, our library has been given a collection of photographs that were previously on display in a local business location. These are photos of the customers of the business, many are children. These photos span several decades and are important to many. 

We would like to digitize these photos and make them available via the internet because we believe these to be of sentimental, cultural, historical and academic value to our region and beyond.

The photos were given to our library by the business that had previously displayed them and also produced the photos. What are the issues of rights and permissions raised by making these images freely available online, especially given that many of those in the photos are children? Thanks for your help.

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

To answer the member’s questions, we must start with the fundamentals.

When accepting a donation of culturally significant photos, an archive should have a donor agreement or other documentation that addresses the following things:

Does the donor solely own the physical photos?

Is physical ownership being given to your institution?

Who authored the pictures?  If not a company, what is their name and birthdate?

Does the donor solely own the copyrights?

Is copyright ownership being given to your institution? If not, what permission comes with the physical donation?

May the receiving institution license use by others (a “transferable license”)?

Were the copyrights registered?

Are there any reservations or conditions on this gift?

If donated as part of a will, obtain a copy of the will.

What is the value of the gift? (for tax purposes, if the donor wants to claim a deduction)

Confirming the scope of the donation, the conditions, and value of the gift creates a firm basis for future decisions, including how to address the potential risks of posting pictures of minors.

It is also helpful to get as much additional information as you can at the time of the donation:

To the best of the donor’s ability, what is the date, place, and identity of those in the pictures?  What else of significance is being depicted?

What type of equipment was used to product the images?

Why were the images gathered?

Who collected the images?

Why is this collection significant; why should it be preserved and made available to the public?

Why does this collection fit into the mission of your institution?

Knowing as much as possible about the provenance and purpose of a collection makes it easier to access the protections built into the law for journalism and scholarship.  And with that background, it is easier to assess the risks when the collection involves human subjects.[1]

Those risks include:

Will this content be used by the institution in a way that violates New York’s bar on use of names and likenesses for commercial use? [2]

Are there any ethical considerations that bar including these images in the collection?

Is this depicting any personal health information?

Are there special sensitivities we must consider and plan for?[3]

Will the names of those depicted be included in the metadata of the digital archive?  If so, why is that necessary?

When it comes to minors (those under 18), additional risks are:

Will this reveal a minor’s youthful offender status?

Will this reveal participation in the social services system?

Does this depict an illegal act?

If the answer to any of the last eight questions is “yes,” a consultation with a lawyer, and perhaps an an image-by-image review, may be warranted.  But while that may time time and resources, it may be worth it, since there still may be a way to digitize the photos and make them available via the internet…especially if they have sentimental, cultural, historical and academic value to our region and beyond.

 


[1] At an academic institution, if the images depict human subjects (of any age) consult the Institutional Review Board (“IRB”).  Depending on how you design your project, it could be important.

[2] Here is the actual text of the law: “§  50.  Right  of privacy. A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the  name,  portrait or  picture  of  any  living  person  without  having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or  her  parent  or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

[3] Depictions of exploitation, enslavement, abuse, or images that could be considered an “illegal sex act” (as defined by §130 the penal law) for instance.  From the sound of it, that is not the case here, but at “Ask the Lawyer!” we try to be thorough.

Tags: Digital Access, Digitization and Copyright, Copyright, Donations

Topic: Copying Yearbooks - 5/25/2018
A member asked about a request for the library to provide copies of photos from yearbooks for a cl...
Posted: Friday, May 25, 2018 Permalink

MEMBER QUESTION

A member asked about a request for the library to provide copies of photos from yearbooks for a class reunion.

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

One of the reasons I enjoy doing “Ask the Lawyer,” is the diversity of questions, and the often esoteric subjects I get to research as a result.  This question is a prime example.

While the liability for copying copyright-protected yearbook photos is, in theory, the same as copying any other published, commercially-generated or amateur picture, I always like to check and see if the specific circumstances in the question have some directly on-point case law. So when this question came through the pipeline, I hit Lexis-Nexis® to search for cases of “yearbook infringement.”[1]

Well.  I found:

  • A first amendment case involving a high school senior suing to include a statement describing a state-sanctioned execution on her yearbook page[2];
  • A copyright case involving a person who laboriously compiled yearbook photos of famous graduates from a variety of New York City high schools, only to find his work replicated by another publisher[3]; and
  • A truly horrific case involving a prank, jail time, and a photo of a person’s genitalia making it into the yearbook[4].

What I didn’t find was a string of case law based on simple copying of yearbook photos for non-scholarly or non-journalistic reasons, like promoting reunions, which is the nuance posed in the member’s question.  But I suspect that is because when a claim based on such an action is threatened, if it has any teeth, it is quickly settled.  Insurance carriers do not like litigation.

So, when your library gets a request for a might-still-be-protected yearbook photo, does it mean the request must be denied?  No.  Remember, if the use is non-commercial, and the other criteria are met, libraries can make copies under Copyright Act Section 108.  Further, Under Section 107, patrons can make the copies themselves, and can claim fair use.  But like with all things copyright, the devil is in the details.  It all depends on the basis for the request, and the amount of content used.

Where must we draw the line?  Somewhere between these two examples:

Example #1: A patron has requested the library copy a yearbook pages featuring Timothy McVeigh for use in coverage related to the Oklahoma City bombing.  That person could get both a 108 copy, and a copy under fair use.  This is especially true if the image selected actually showed it was from the yearbook, and was included as part of an essay, book, or documentary exploring the roots and reasons for the actions of a domestic terrorist. 

Example #2: A patron has requested the library make copies of the individual photos of 100 less notorious graduates to promote Starpoint High School’s Class of ’86 reunion on Classmates.com.  That request would not have that same protection at Example #1.  If the original photographer or their heir could show it was an infringement, they could claim damages (even if the photo’s copyright wasn’t registered), and the library could find itself without a defense.

So how does a librarian deal with this type of request?  As always, help the patron get access to the information they need, but protect the library.  If the request is in person, once they have been given access to the book, your job is done (don’t help them with the copy machine).  If the request is remote or inter-library, and you know they plan a purely commercial use, you can’t make that copy.  This might be perceived as harsh—the requester is probably just a volunteer trying to organize a simple good time! –but you can let them know that the request they made exceeds your authority[5]

Bear in mind, it’s 2018. If they access or check out the yearbook and take pictures with their phone without your assistance, that is not something the library can control, nor be held responsible for. The patron themselves might have liability, but your institution will not…unless your library is part of the school organizing the reunion, in which case… seek back-up!

Please note: this highly restrictive answer has nothing to do with the fact that somewhere in the Town of New Hartford, NY, there is a picture of me in a Def Leppard t-shirt with 80’s hair.

 


[1] This is not a paid commercial endorsement of Lexis.  It’s just the service I use.  But for the record, I have preferred it since law school, where “Lexis or Westlaw?” is the equivalent of “Coke or Pepsi?”

[2] Stanton v. Brunswick School Dep’t, 577 F. Supp. 1560 (January 23, 1984). She won!

[3] Cantor v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 309 (June 4, 1999).  He lost!  (Not enough original content in his work). 

[4] Granger v. Klein, 197 F. Supp. 2d 851 (March 29, 2002).  Josten’s got an early dismissal of most of the claims. 

[5] Unless you are a member of Congress and can introduce legislation to change the Copyright Act.

 

Tags: Copyright, Digital Access, Digitization and Copyright, Yearbooks, Photocopies

Topic: Digitizing dramatic and musical works - 3/1/2018
When it comes to digitizing large theater and music program collections, it is well-established th...
Posted: Thursday, March 1, 2018 Permalink

MEMBER QUESTION

When it comes to digitizing large theater and music program collections, it is well-established that a library can digitize anything before 1923, and that if there are no copyright notices on them, can digitize anything before 1978.  But if there are multiple "copyrightable" elements in the works (advertisements, photos, actor biographies, illustrations, etc.) is it okay to digitize them? What is the risk in digitizing a program when there is a copyright notice on one or more element in the program, but not all of it? If a theater or musical society is defunct, is it okay to digitize the programs associated with it beyond 1978 or when it may have a copyright notice?

 

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

This is a complex issue (although not nearly as complex as assessing a library wing full of dramatic and musical works).  To unpack this, I will take advantage of a form suggested by the topic: the opera libretto.

[Cue overture…]

ALTO:  Can works with no copyright notice before 1978 be safely digitized?

BASSO:  Beware, if they were previously unpublished or the trademark is still monetized.

ALTO: What about text works with multiple works inside them?

BASSO:  A compilation notice may protect the whole system.

ALTO: What about a work included in an unregistered collection?

BASSO:  Beware!  That work may have a separate protection.

ALTO:  If a theatre organization has folded, can their work be duplicated?

BASSO:  The copyright could have been transferred, so…it’s complicated.

SOPRANO:  So you’re saying…[crescendo] you DON’T KNOWWWWWW?

BASSO: ….no. 

[triangle]

Okay, enough of that.

The bottom line:  There is no bright-line rule I can provide to give assurances for works that are post-1923 (and, for unpublished works like journals or private recordings, items authored prior to that date).  Between image rights, trademark, privacy, and overlapping copyright terms, projects like the one described in the question can bring an array of legal considerations.  Adding music to the equation—which is exempted from §108, the law that allows certain copying at libraries—only heightens the concerns.

The key to designing a digitization project that can survive this type of risk assessment resides in the question: why does the collection, and the particular items in it, need to be digitized in the first place?

If the answer is, “for preservation,” then documenting, on a work-by-work basis, that either there are no protected elements in the work, and that all 108 factors have been met, is the key (NOTE: this would likely involve restricting some of the collection to on-site access only).

If the answer is, “for ADA adaptability,” then documenting, on a work-by-work basis, that the digitization was only for purposes of making an accommodation is the key.

If the answer is, “so the whole world has easy access to high-resolution, searchable, meta-tagged copies of the material,” then verifying, on a work-by-work basis, that no valid copyright or other bar to duplication and online publication is the key.  Materials still under copyright could not be available for download, but could be listed as on-site and available for copying if allowed per §108. 

If the answer is, “so the whole world has internet access to low-resolution, water-marked, searchable, thoughtfully meta-tagged copies of representational selections of each title (whether under copyright, or not), presenting the bare minimum of what’s needed for researchers to determine what we have on site and available for §108 copying,” then carefully following the four “fair use” factors is the key.

If the answer is, “so the whole world has internet access to our carefully curated, scholarship-oriented, presented-with-commentary-and-criticism, non-market-disrupting, selective array of material carefully culled to represent the breath and scholarly value of our larger collection of theatrical and musical materials available for §108 copying” then designing an end product that meets the four “fair use” factors is the key.

I realize this is a chicken-and-egg reply: if you can’t clear answers on what you can do with the material, how can you envision what to do with it?  My reply to that is: trust that your mission to provide access to information is supported by the law.  Think about the materials, develop a theme as to why access to them is important, acknowledge any potential boundaries, and a legal solution can be found.  Bring in a lawyer to advise on specifics when needed,[1] like a decision to invoke “fair use,” to set up clear parameters for copyright determinations, or how to best document use of §108. 

Since access is your mission, copyright should only inform, not deter it



[1]Sometimes, you just need a lawyer.  This RAQ can cover a lot of helpful general ground, but some things—like designing a particular fair use, or crafting the legal parameters for a specific project—can only be done through confidential legal advice based on viewing the precise materials and circumstances.  

 

Tags: Copyright, Digitization and Copyright, Music

Topic: Media transfer/Image rights 1/31/2018
We are in the process of transferring old VHS tapes to DVD and then to a secure internet cloud.&nb...
Posted: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 Permalink

MEMBER QUESTION

We are in the process of transferring old VHS tapes to DVD and then to a secure internet cloud. 
The tapes are ours ranging from 1988- 2001, we taped specific classes with numerous instructors who were aware of the taping process. Since the tapes belong to us are there any copyright issues in reproducing and offering access to for a fee through our Lakeside Learning Center, or reproducing as a DVD and selling? 
We also have very old cassette tapes of a similar nature. We possess them and instructors being taped were fully aware. 
We would like to offer these as an MP3 for paid access.

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Putting the tapes on the cloud: it is great that educational institutions are saving and promoting their accumulated knowledge this way.  But aside from the copyright issues the member asks about (which we’ll get to at the bottom of this reply), the transfer and publication of legacy instructional material[1] can bring some additional legal considerations.

Here are some “red flags” for converting video of your past lectures for digital re-sale.

Image rights

In New York, the commercial use (including sales of instructional DVDs, as mentioned in the question) of a person’s image, likeness, and name must be with written permission.  Of course, for employees whose routine duties include being recorded (like newscasters), that consent is addressed at the start of the job.  But for instructors who may have been aware they were being taped in 1988, but weren’t aware that the tape could be acquired by paid viewers later via the Internet, there could be some risk that a past instructor might object to being included.

Further, in the event the instructor was an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement or other employment contract at the time of filming, they could have some rights you need to consider.  A quick check with a Human Resources department should be able to confirm if any past or current agreement poses any complications.

And finally, in the event the instructor who was filmed was not an employee, but under a speaker agreement--perhaps speaking for a small fee—an institution must exercise caution, since awareness of being filmed does not constitute permission to mass-produce the product and sell it in the marketplace.  If possible, sending a note to the former speaker, thanking them for their past participation and offering a small fee in exchange for their signature on written permission for the new use, is best.

The bottom line: there are a lot of possible permutations to the “image use” issue. To avoid them, whenever possible, verify that your institution has written, signed permission to use a person’s image before selling any newly converted recordings.

Accuracy and Reliability Disclaimer

In the event any of the instructional materials relate to a trade, profession, or other topic governed by prevailing standards, law, or regulations, a disclaimer that carefully clarifies that the content was generated in 1988 (or whatever year applies), might be wise. 

Of course, if the content is opinion-based, that is not an issue.  But if the person is relating an objective best practice, regulation, or law, making sure a viewer is warned that the information could be out of date is critical.

Here is an example: If the speaker was commenting generally on the value of meditation in daily life, that is an opinion, and needs no warning.  If, however, the speaker is commenting on Education law Section 3029 (“Silent Meditation in Public  Schools”) then making sure the law as described in the legacy video is current, and/or adding a disclaimer reminding the viewer that the content dates from an earlier time, might be appropriate.
 
Trademark

It’s a long shot for the scenario posed by the member, but in the event there is any trademarked material (for instance, a set of instructional booklets with a prominent logo) be wary before digitizing and charging for access.  The incidental use of another entity’s trademark could create an alleged infringement.  Fortunately, as can be seen in a lot of reality TV, this can be avoided by simply blurring the mark!

And finally….Copyright

The member is correct; if the institution (through its employees) is the entity that created the recording, and there is no written agreement to the contrary, the institution owns the copyright, and can duplicate, sell, and create derivative works based on the content. 

However, care should be taken to verify that no independently owned content is contained within the video (a person reading a poem, for instance).  While under many circumstances such inclusion can qualify as a “Fair Use,” that is not always the case (for more on this caveat, see the “Recently Asked Question” posted on Saturday, January 27, 2018).



[1] Please note: this issue is different from digitization projects by libraries who own, but did not produce, the content!

 

Tags: Copyright, Digitization and Copyright, VHS

Topic: Digitizing and hosting audio recordings containing copyright-protected material - 12/27/2017
When digitizing radio broadcasts of cultural significance (such as a talk show confronting social ...
Posted: Wednesday, December 27, 2017 Permalink

MEMBER QUESTION

When digitizing radio broadcasts of cultural significance (such as a talk show confronting social issues), must a library, museum, or archive remove any separately copyrighted songs before posting the recordings?

This question assumes that the library, museum, or archive owns or has a license to use the overall recording of the broadcast.

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

When digitizing radio broadcasts for online (not-for-profit, academic) access, there are a number of legal issues to consider: intellectual property, contract, privacy, preservation, etc.  But the question focuses on copyright, so this answer does, too. 

And that answer is…yes, including copyright-protected songs[1] in digitized broadcasts poses a risk of an infringement claim--but that risk does not need to trump the basis for preserving the broadcast in the first place.

How does the law help a digital archive strike that balance?  Here are some options:

Option 1: If the copyrighted songs are not important to the broadcast, and can be removed without affecting the integrity of the broadcast, remove them.

If the basis for preserving and providing access to the broadcasts (capturing a moment in time, showing a spirit, confirming an approach) is not served by the presence of the songs, the best legal option might be to remove them, noting the redactions in a manner appropriate to the archive.

That said, I can only imagine a few scenarios where this is this case.  So, next we have…

Option 2: Ask for acknowledgement of Fair Use, and permission

If not onerous, asking the copyright holder to acknowledge the Fair Use of their valid copyright, and to consent to such use in case later rights holders disagree, can be a wise step. 

HOWEVER, as it can alert an owner to a potential claim, this should only be attempted with careful, customized input by an attorney, with due consideration as to how to avoid making an adverse admission, and what the implications could be if the rights to the song are later transferred (since one person’s Fair Use is another person’s rip-off). 

Most importantly, such acknowledgement should only be sought prior to the recordings being posted.  That is because the library, museum, or archive may want to protect their ability to simply claim…

Option 3: Fair Use

Including the songs could be non-infringing if the use meets the requirements of “Fair Use.”[2]  This is a posture taken by many online archives, and with good reason: Fair Use is a creature of both case law, and convention, so for most scholars and librarians, it is important to hold the Fair Use line, letting the world know that this important exception to infringement is alive and well.

That said, a “Fair Use” defense is assessed via a four-factor analysis (see the footnote); in this type of case, each broadcast recording and song would be subject to its own analysis.

While there is no case law directly on point, the recent case of Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ltd. P’ship, 737 F.3d 932 (4th Cir. 2013), which involved the use of a proprietary logo during a documentary film, states “[f]air use…protects filmmakers and documentarians from the inevitable chilling effects of allowing an artist too much control over the dissemination of his or her work for historical purposes.” [emphasis added].

Using option 3 will require some clear-eyed assessment by the project leaders and institutional decision-makers.  Is the entire song truly necessary to preserve the integrity, spirit and tone of the original?  Does the overall recording transform the song into something different than its original?  Does the manner in which the recording is presented make is difficult for the new version to supplant the market for the original? If not, the library, museum, or archive might want to consider…

Option 4: Fair Use “Lite”

With the Fair Use “Lite” approach, the institution would redact all but the first and last moments of the copyright-protected song (leaving any parts the hosts/guest are talking over) claiming Fair Use for the remaining portions.  This could be done by a fade-in, fade-out technique, or another aural cue that the recording is departing from the original.

If it doesn’t destroy the integrity of the project, “Fair Use Lite” is worth considering, because the smaller the portions of the songs, the stronger your Fair Use claim might be, since factor 3 will weigh more in your favor.  If there is any original dialogue over the song, that, too, can be left, with a claim that the content is “transformative” (factor 1).

If the decision is made to keep the recordings intact, or to use at least part of them, it may be helpful to have the basis for the claim available to the public; something like:

These recordings capture an important moment in time.  The songs played, content shared, and material included in these revealing broadcasts were all selected by the original broadcasters for a reason; these digital versions are valuable because they paint an accurate and complete picture of the sound and feel of the times.

To the extent any proprietary material is present, its inclusion in this larger work is a Fair Use, warranted by the importance of presenting the material as a whole.  Critically, please note that this use is not-for-profit, for educational purposes, and no commercial use of this content is made, nor allowed.  If any content or restriction in this archive concerns any person, please contact NAME, at EMAIL.

And finally: prior to posting any digital archive, if it is an option, an institution should consider registering the copyrights to the MP3 files.  This will position the institution to enforce any restrictions it places on use of the sound recording (like disallowing commercial use)…even if the purpose of the digital archive is to promote access and dissemination of the material!

As more audio content is archived and stored for cultural, historic, and academic purposes, this issue will grow.  I expect we may have some case law directly on point soon.



[1] When confronted with this issue, it is worthwhile to take a close look at the songs involved.  Some pre-1972 sound recordings do not have copyright protection, an issue playing out in what is known as the “Flo & Eddie” line of cases (just look up Floe & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., and you’ll see what I mean).  Of course, the underlying musical composition might be protected, even when the recording is not…but the recording may be less protected than you think!

[2] Congress provides a list of four factors that guide the determination of whether a particular use is a fair use. Those factors are: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use 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 effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C.S. § 107. These factors cannot be treated in isolation from one another, but instead must be weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright. This balancing necessitates a case-by-case analysis in any fair use inquiry. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's precedents have placed primary focus on the first factor. A finding of fair use is a complete defense to an infringement claim: the fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright. 17 U.S.C.S. § 107.

 

 

Tags: Copyright, Digitization and Copyright, Fair Use, Music

Topic: Digitization of Video Recordings Not In Public Domain - 11/15/2017
We have video recordings of campus speakers that we are interested in digitizing and publishing to...
Posted: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 Permalink

MEMBER QUESTION

We have video recordings of campus speakers that we are interested in digitizing and publishing to an online platform. They are currently on VHS and/or DVD and available in the Library to be checked-out. 


The speakers include writers and poets who recite their published, copyrighted works to the college audience. Is it possible for us to post the recordings of these readings (as well as question and answer sessions) online? Most likely there was no signed license agreement when filmed.

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Part of the mission of higher education institutions is to bring important, provocative, and enlightening speakers to their communities. Over the years, this results in an impressive roster of authors, artists, professionals, politicians, comedians, dignitaries, and civic leaders, having spoken on campus. Sometimes, all or part of this roster was captured on film, video, or audio recording.

 

The rights to those recordings—and what can be done with them in the digital age—can present a complicated situation. Each individual recording comes with a suite of considerations that can make a digitization project difficult. But in a scenario like the one posed by the member, critical points of analysis can be assessed, so a way forward is found. Here are those critical points:

 

Assessment Point #1: Who owns the copyright (to the recording)?

First, it is useful to establish who owns the copyright to the actual recording. Since copyright to a recording vests in the person who created the recording, not the person being recorded (unless it was a selfie), this is sometimes easy to assess. As we say in the biz: “who pushed the ‘record’ button?”

 

If the recording was made by an employee of the institution, and there was no contractual agreement otherwise, then the copyright to the recording is owned by the institution. If it was recorded by a student who just happened to be there, or a third-party attendee, the school doesn’t own it (which becomes an issue in the subsequent steps). Awareness of this factor is a good starting point for what lies ahead.

 

If your institution owns the copyrights to the recording, you can skip points #2, #3 and #4, below.

 

Assessment Point #2: Is this recording part of the library’s collection?

Just because the educational institution owns the physical copy doesn’t mean it is part of the library’s collection. For purposes of numbers 3 and 4, below, if your institution doesn’t own the recording, in order to convert and/or conserve it under Copyright Act Section 108 (the section giving special rights to certain libraries), the original recording must be formally cataloged and included in the library’s collection.

 

Assessment Point #3: Is the library in a position to convert the copy to a digital medium?

If the copy is formally a part of the library’s collection, and it is on a format considered “obsolete” under section 108 of the Copyright code (so long as the devices are no longer manufactured, VHS is, for example, is considered “obsolete”), the library may convert it to a digital format, and loan it out as provided by the §108. NOTE: this does NOT mean you can include it in an online digital collection, for anyone to access any time, but it takes you one step closer to it!

 

Assessment Point #4: Does the library need to conserve the copy?

If the original copy is deteriorating, it may be duplicated as set forth in Section 108. NOTE: this also does NOT mean you can include it in an online digital collection, but it makes sure than once you can, your original copy is safe, and backed up for posterity.

 

Assessment Point #5: Did the institution have any right to record, and/or to use the image of the person who was recorded?

This requires scouring the contracts of the institution. Most speaker contracts these days include terms controlling the right (or not) to make a recording, but, as reflected in the scenario posed by the member, in the past this was not the case. This assessment is critical, especially since at academic institutions, other departments at the institution may want to use the content to promote and celebrate the institution…but in New York, the commercial use of a person’s image, without their written consent, can carry both civil and criminal penalties.

 

Assessment Point #6: Are there any concerns with trademark?

The risk posed in #5 is increased if the speakers’s name and image is currently being used for purposes of a trademark (like “Maya Angelou” which is protected under Federal Trademark 86978575), or if a trademark was on display during the presentation. This means any arguably commercial use (like selling copies, putting it on the school’s website or catalog, or selling a t-shirt promoting the collection) should only be done in consultation with an attorney.

 

Assessment Point #7: Are there other copyright concerns?

This is the meat in the sandwich of the member’s scenario. Going through the above steps, even if an institution:

1) owns the recording;

2) includes the recording in the library’s catalog;

3) meets the 108 criteria to convert it from an obsolete format;

4) meets the 108 criteria to make preservation copies;

5) has permission to use the name and likeness of the speaker in any and all formats, for whatever reason, forever;

6) verifies there are no trademarks involved…

 

if the speaker read a copyrighted work during the recording, that “performance” of a copyrighted work MIGHT be subject to its own copyright, and thus, bring with it a host of new restrictions, cramping the bounds of your digital usage.

 

What a pain, right?

 

Fortunately, there is solution. For any library at an educational institution contemplating digitizing the institution’s recorded guest speakers, if the written record doesn’t reflect clear permission to record and use the content, writing to the original speaker, or the current copyright owners, to ask for permission, may be the best solution. A sample request, with the variables notes in CAPS, is right here1:

 

Dear NAME:

 

You may recall speaking at INSTITUTION on DATE. During that performance, you read [INSERT TITLE(S)] (hereinafter, the “Works”).

 

Our on-campus library seeks to include a copy of that performance, recorded on FORMAT, in an online, digital collection to be called TITLE (the “Collection”). We would like to include the recording in an online Collection, so it may be accessed by the public, for purposes of enjoyment and scholarship.

 

To that end, we ask the following:

 

1. Are you the sole copyright owner of the Works? Yes No

 

2. If you are not the owner, do you retain the right to give permission for their reproduction, distribution, performance, and display? Yes No

 

If you are not the copyright holder, or do not hold the rights, please let us know who does: _____________________________________________________________

 

If you are the copyright holder, please consider the below requests:

 

3. Copyright License

May [INSTITUTION] have a non-transferable, irrevocable license to reproduce, duplicate, display, perform, and, by virtue of the recording being part of the Collection, prepare a derivative work of, the Work(s), solely as performed by you and recorded by INSTITUTION on DATE? Yes No

 

SIGNATURE:_____________________________

 

DATE:_____________________

 

 

Image Release

We would like to use your name and picture to promote the Collection. May [INSTITUTION] use your name and likeness, including but not limited to photos or images of you, the recorded sound of your voice, for the purpose of promoting the Collection in hard copy, on the institution’s website, and via any other medium existing now, or later developed? Yes No

 

 

SIGNATURE:_____________________________

 

PRINT NAME:__________________________________

 

DATE:_____________________

 

Thank you for considering this request. I included a self-addressed, stamped envelope, in the hope of a favorable reply.

 

Of course, the risk of asking is that they say “no”…and that they demand you stop using the recording of the derivative work! That is why in all of this, any contracts should be assessed by an attorney, so the rights of your institution are protected, and any requests for permissions should be carefully considered prior to submitting the request.

 

So, the answer is (and I appreciate it took a long time to get there!): unless the recording were news coverage—which is assessed under a different array of laws—permission (given either at the time of the arrangement, or many years later) for digital duplication and distribution is required, but can be arranged well after the event.

1 NOTE: This approach is for educational institutions that were also the original recorders of the work to be digitized, who are seeking a wide degree of latitude on their use. This approach is NOT suggested for digitization efforts involving content generated by third parties at non-educational institutions. It also does not cover recordings of musical works (that would be a whole other answer!).

 

Tags: Copyright, Digital Access, Digitization and Copyright

Topic: Reformatting VHS - 10/17/2016
We are shifting away from VHS here on this campus (along with everywhere else), and have a questio...
Posted: Monday, October 17, 2016 Permalink

MEMBER QUESTION

We are shifting away from VHS here on this campus (along with everywhere else), and have a question from an instructor about transferring a VHS tape to DVD. She's not able to get the tape on DVD or streaming, but knows that it's under copyright. Are there any loopholes to allow for making a digital backup of a VHS tape because VHS is an obsolete medium? Does going through a good-faith effort to find a digital version give some protection or leniency? Should we encourage the instructor to contact PBS or the show's producers to obtain copyright clearance for making a digital copy?

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

We’ll start out with the best advice: unless you stand on the legal high ground of a disability accommodation or a crumbling single copy unavailable in the original medium, when it comes to creating a new format of a work, written permission from the copyright owner is always best.  That is the gold standard.  If you have permission, the blood, sweat, and tears (or stress, more likely) of a Fair Use analysis are not needed.

This scenario does not occupy any legal high ground.  For a library in this position—dealing with the increasing rarity of VHS players—there is great guidance out there from the Association of Research Libraries’ “Code of Best Practices in Fair Use” (http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/code-of-best-practices-fair-use.pdf): Here is what the code has to say on this issue…

Even when libraries retain the originals of preserved items, digital surrogates can spare the original items the wear and tear that access necessarily inflicts. Section 108 of the Copyright Act authorizes some preservation activities, but does not address some of today’s most pressing needs…[including] the transfer to new formats of materials whose original formats (such as VHS magnetic tape) are not yet obsolete (as the term is narrowly defined in section 108(c)) but have become increasingly difficult for contemporary users to consult.

Case law also acknowledges this VHS problem, but gives no relief: “Fair use has never been held to be a guarantee of access to copyrighted material in order to copy it by the fair user's preferred technique or in the format of the original.” (University Studios et al v. Corley, U.S. Court of Appeal 2nd Circuit, 2001).  This case is 15 years old, which means a lot has happened in the world of technology, but is still good law.

So the answer is, for now, unless you are making a disability accommodation, or faced with a crumbling copy, there is no iron-clad loophole or clear precedent to allow the proposed conversion to be a “fair use.” 

That said, if you have a deteriorating copy, a good-faith effort to re-purchase it in the original medium will certainly contribute to a fair use defense if you duplicate it to preserve this resource.

To help both you and your institution show that you have gone through this exercise, when you address such questions, I advise that you compose short emails to yourself, documenting the question, process, and conclusion.  A simple:

“Instructor stopped by today and asked if we could convert VHS in the collection to DVD for ease of access.   I let her know we’ll try to purchase a copy on DVD or seek permission of the copyright holder to make a copy on DVD.” 

 OR

 “Instructor stopped by today and asked if we could convert VHS to a format that would allow Deaf student to view closed-captioned version; we are arranging conversion solely to allow reasonable accommodation under the ADA.”

 OR

“Instructor pointed out that VHS tape in collection was not working right.  [Co-worker] and I verified the condition.   As best practices state it is fair use to make digital copies of collection items that are likely to deteriorate, or that exist only in difficult-to-access formats, for purposes of preservation, and to make those copies available as surrogates for fragile or otherwise inaccessible materials, the library will create a back-up copy, UNLESS a fully equivalent digital copy is commercially available at a reasonable cost.  We will of course not provide access to or circulate original and preservation copies simultaneously.”

This July, various news outlets reported that the world’s last manufacturer of VCR’s has cease production.  Please check back on this issue; we’ll update this entry in the FAQ when we have better guidance, which should be coming soon.  Congress is working on new guidelines, and was recently told by the Register of Copyrights, Susan Pallante: “In its current state, Section 108 is replete with references to analog works and fails to address the ways in which libraries really function in the digital era, including the copies they must make to properly preserve a work and the manner in which they share or seek to share works with other libraries.”

 http://www.copyright.gov/laws/testimonies/042915-testimony-pallante.pdf

 

Tags: Copyright, Digitization and Copyright, Fair Use, VHS, Movies

Topic: Digitization of Newspapers Prior to 1923 - 10/17/2016
We would like to digitize newspapers that were published prior to 1923. Since the paper is still i...
Posted: Monday, October 17, 2016 Permalink

MEMBER QUESTION

We would like to digitize newspapers that were published prior to 1923. Since the paper is still in business, does public domain apply in this case? They are very difficult to deal with. We do have a contact there. However, if there is nothing stopping us from digitizing the older issues, we prefer not to deal with them. Would this also apply to other newspapers who are still publishing today but whose content does exist prior to 1923.

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

You have confirmed that the “Buffalo Evening News” (and other iterations) content originates BEFORE the strategic “1923” date confirmed by the Copyright Office (Circular 15a) as in the public domain.  This is true whether the original article or image was owned by the paper, or licensed by the paper and owned by another person or entity.

 Once an item is in the public domain, there are numerous ways for either the original owner, or another, to create a copyright in a new medium re-presenting the content (this is a motivating factor in many “special editions”), but the original is no longer protected, and may be digitized as you describe, without concern about an successful infringement claim.

One caveat on the “Buffalo News” content: there could be a concern as you promote the newly created resource.  “The Buffalo News” is a trademark owned by (interestingly) The Columbia Insurance Co. (registration # 75834888).  So while you can list the resource, I advise against using the name “The Buffalo News” in any promotion of the collection.  That is for optimal safety and so you don’t get a cease-and-desist.

The good news is that the “Buffalo Evening News” trademark is officially “dead”  (see attached screenshot).  This may be used to promote the service, should you wish to do so.

This analysis and a similar caveat would apply to any other newspaper.

  buffalonews_2

Tags: Public Domain, Copyright, Digitization and Copyright, Newspapers

The WNYLRC's "Ask the Lawyer" service is available to members of the Western New York Library Resources Council. It is not legal representation of individual members.