The CASE Act for Libraries and Archives; Library of Congress, May 2, 2022

Holland Gormley, Library of Congress; The CASE Act for Libraries and Archives

"Calling all libraries and archives! You may have heard about the CASE Act and the establishment of the Copyright Claims Board, or CCB for short, a new forum for resolving copyright disputes involving damages of up to $30,000, staffed by experts in copyright law. But did you know that qualifying libraries and archives can preemptively opt out of participating in the CCB even before any claim is brought against them? Here is what you need to know."

The CASE Act for Libraries and Archives; Library of Congress; May 2, 2022

Holland Gormley, Library of Congress ; The CASE Act for Libraries and Archives

"Calling all libraries and archives! You may have heard about the CASE Act and the establishment of the Copyright Claims Board, or CCB for short, a new forum for resolving copyright disputes involving damages of up to $30,000, staffed by experts in copyright law. But did you know that qualifying libraries and archives can preemptively opt out of participating in the CCB even before any claim is brought against them? Here is what you need to know.

The Basics 

The Copyright Office respects the important roles that libraries and archives play in our society. In fact, libraries and archives enjoy certain exemptions under copyright law, like lending hard copies of works to patrons or to other libraries. Libraries and archives also enjoy the unique opportunity to preemptively opt out of future CCB proceedings if they so choose. In other words, these organizations can decide that they will not participate in any claims brought against them in the CCB, so that copyright claims against them can only be brought in federal court. Libraries and archives are not required to preemptively opt out of proceedings. In fact, they may wish to not preemptively opt out, since the CCB is more cost-effective than federal court, and all claims are decided by three officers with copyright law expertise.

Who Is Covered 

Libraries or archives that qualify under 17 USC § 108 can elect to preemptively opt out. The preemptive opt out will apply not only to the institution but also to any employees acting within the scope of their employment. This means, if the institution has preemptively opted out, the CCB will not allow copyright claims against them or their employees to proceed.

How to Preemptively Opt Out

The process is simple. To preemptively opt out, libraries and archives must submit a form on ccb.gov and self-certify their qualifying status. Afterward, the institution will be added to a publicly available list on ccb.gov and will never be asked to participate in any future CCB proceedings. There is no fee associated with doing so, and the status does not need to be renewed. However, it should be noted that if a claimant serves a claim before the preemptive opt-out is posted online, the institution should then follow the directions provided in the served notice to opt out of that claim.

If the Library or Archives Does Not Preemptively Opt Out

Participation in a CCB proceeding is voluntary for everyone. Libraries and archives that do not preemptively opt out can still opt out of participating in a CCB proceeding on a claim-by-claim basis. Libraries and archives, like any other potential CCB participant, should consider the pros and cons of using the CCB as an alternative to federal court litigation. You can learn more about the claim-by-claim opt-out process at ccb.gov.

Ready for more? Visit ccb.gov for more information on the preemptive opt-out option."

Copyright Office Launches New Copyright Claims Board Website; U.S. Copyright Office, April 7, 2022

Issue No. 954 - April 7, 2022, U.S. Copyright Office; Copyright Office Launches New Copyright Claims Board Website

"Today, April 7, 2022, the U.S. Copyright Office launched ccb.gov, a website serving as a gateway to the first copyright small-claims tribunal in the United States, the Copyright Claims Board (CCB). The launch of ccb.gov is a major milestone toward the full opening of the CCB to creators and users of copyrighted materials later this spring. 

The website is the new online home of the CCB and is focused on helping everyone understand the mission and the processes of the CCB. Once the CCB starts hearing claims later this spring, ccb.gov will become the primary location for information about filing and responding to claims, opting out of a proceeding, accessing the CCB’s Handbook, and contacting the CCB with questions.

The new website features clear, helpful information about the CCB, including what potential claimants and respondents need to know about CCB proceedings. The website will also host the CCB’s Designated Service Agent Directory, the list of libraries and archives that have preemptively opted out of CCB proceedings, and updates on the status of CCB-related rulemakings.

The CCB’s Designated Service Agent Directory is a public directory in which corporations, partnerships, and unincorporated business entities can designate an individual to receive service of the initial notices of all proceedings and claims asserted against them before the CCB. The directory is now accepting submissions and will be regularly updated. Please note that this directory is different from the existing section 512 designated agent directory under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The CCB’s Libraries and Archives page will feature a public list of the libraries and archives that have preemptively opted out of CCB proceedings. A form for libraries and archives to preemptively opt out is now available on ccb.gov, and the list of libraries and archives, when compiled, will be regularly updated. A library’s or archives’ opt-out election also covers those entities’ employees acting within the scope of their employment.

Please bookmark ccb.gov for future reference."

Einstein’s ‘God Letter,’ a Viral Missive From 1954; The New York Times, December 2, 2018

James Barron, The New York Times;
Einstein’s ‘God Letter,’ a Viral Missive From 1954

[Kip Currier: This article is interesting in and of itself, but as someone teaching IP, where we frequently look at issues of digitization, I was especially intrigued to learn about the ongoing Einstein Papers Project. Knowing how phenomenally useful Cambridge University's Darwin Correspondence Project's digitized letters were for my own dissertation research exploring Charles Darwin's information behaviors, I can imagine the treasure trove of insights relevant to many disciplines that will be gleaned--and now made accessible to diverse worldwide users--from Einstein's digitized writings.

These kinds of massive "knowledge access for the public good" projects (--like Harvard's recently inaugurated Caselaw Access Project) are commendable exemplars of the positive intersections that technology, academic scholarship, and research institutions like CalTech and Cambridge can promote and achieve on behalf of global audiences.]

"Diana L. Kormos-Buchwald, a professor of history at the California Institute of Technology and the director of the Einstein Papers Project, said that Einstein was “not particularly thrilled at the special place that Gutkind devotes to Einstein’s science as the — how shall we put it — the best example of Jewish deterministic thought.”"

Congress' Latest Move to Extend Copyright Protection Is Misguided; Wired, May 18, 2018

Lawrence Lessig, Wired; Congress' Latest Move to Extend Copyright Protection Is Misguided

"That this statute has nothing to do with the constitutional purpose of “promot[ing] Progress” is clear from its very title. The “Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, and Important Contributions to Society Act” (or CLASSICS) is as blatant a gift without any public return as is conceivable. And it's not just a gift through cash; it's a gift through a monopoly regulation of speech. Archives with recordings of music from the 1930s or 1940s would now have to clear permission before streaming their musical content even if the underlying work was in the public domain.

Yet there is no registry of these owners anywhere. And while massive digital suppliers, such as Apple Music and Spotify, could probably afford to carry the burden, no public or non-profit website could even begin to bear the cost of assuring they were not committing a crime. The act doesn’t harmonize American law with international law. Indeed, it creates more disharmony. No other jurisdiction creates a similar right anywhere. The act is simply a gift, paid for by further weakening the ability of archivists to keep our culture accessible. That’s why more than 40 professors of intellectual property of all political stripes signed a letter this week asking Congress to reject the CLASSICS Act."

Librarians, Archivists, Call On WIPO Members To Create Safe Harbour Against Copyright Liability; Intellectual Property Watch, 11/18/16

Catherine Saez, Intellectual Property Watch; Librarians, Archivists, Call On WIPO Members To Create Safe Harbour Against Copyright Liability:

"The age of digitisation has opened new doors to distribution of information including for libraries and archives. However, librarians and archivists are often confronted with risk of liability for copyright infringement, nationally and in cross-border activities. This week, they asked the World Intellectual Property Organization copyright committee to provide them not only with some exceptions to copyright, but with protection against liability.

The WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) is taking place from 14-18 November. On the SCCR agenda is copyright exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives. On 17 November, librarians and archivists took the floor to explain why an international standard protecting them against liability is indispensable."

How Fair Use Can Help Solve the Orphan Works Problem; 6/18/12

Jennifer Urban, Berkeley Technology Law Journal; How Fair Use Can Help Solve the Orphan Works Problem:

"This Article argues that legislation is not necessary to enable some uses of orphan works by nonprofit libraries and archives. Instead, the fair use doctrine in United States copyright law provides a partial solution. The Article addresses three basic questions: first, does fair use provide a viable basis on which libraries might digitize orphans? Second, does fair use provide a viable basis on which to make these orphans available to patrons or the public? Third, more generally, can or should fair use do any additional work in infringement analysis where the copyrighted work in question is an orphan?

The answer to each of these questions is yes."

Photographer wins copyright ruling; Guardian, 10/26/09

Roy Greenslade, Guardian; Photographer wins copyright ruling:

"The high court made a ruling on 16 October that has important ramifications for newspaper and magazine publishers and photographers, but it appears to have slipped under the mainstream media radar.

Judges found in favour of a freelance photographer Alan Grisbrook who had sued Mirror Group Newspapers for infringing his copyright in archived images.

In a 2002 consent order, following a previous legal action taken by Grisbrook against MGN over unpaid licence fees, MGN agreed to delete all electronic copies of his photos from its systems.
So when Grisbrook discovered last year that MGN were making available back copies of their titles to paying customers through websites, and that these contained some of his images, he believed MGN were infringing his copyright and breaching the previous consent order.
He said that he had never consented to the inclusion of his images in the group's back numbers database nor on their websites.

MGN argued that the use of the images was in the public interest, and that Grisbrook's licence extended to back copy editions archived electronically.

Following the ruling, technology lawyer Tom Cowling said that photographers should look at their licences.

If they have licensed images to a newspaper which, like MGN, is making back copies of their editions available online to paid subscribers, they may well have a claim in copyright infringement if their licence agreement did not clearly allow such use."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/oct/26/trinity-mirror-medialaw

Press Release re Orphan Works Best Practices; Society of American Archivists (SAA), 10/12/09

Peter Hirtle, Press Release re Orphan Works Best Practices:

"The Society of American Archivists (SAA) has issued Orphan Works: Statement of Best Practices, a 16-page report that provides what professional archivists consider the best methods to use when attempting to identify and locate copyright holders. The statement, which primarily focuses on unpublished materials because they are usually found in archives, is available on the association's website as a PDF at http://www.archivists.org/standards/"

Public-Domain Status of Early Sound Recordings Delayed Until 2067 According to Library Report, Library of Congress, 3/30/09

Via Library of Congress: Public-Domain Status of Early Sound Recordings Delayed Until 2067 According to Library Report:

"Sound recordings were not protected by federal copyright law until 1972. A Library of Congress report indicates that the miscellany of state laws protecting pre-1972 sound recordings will extend copyright protection until 2067, creating a situation where some recordings dating to the 19th century are not available in public domain.

The Library announced today the completion of a commissioned report that examines copyright issues associated with unpublished sound recordings. This new report from the Library of Congress and the Council on Library and Information Resources addresses the question of what libraries and archives are legally empowered to do, under current laws, to preserve and make accessible for research their holdings of unpublished sound recordings made before 1972.

The report, "Copyright and Related Issues Relevant to Digital Preservation and Dissemination of Unpublished Pre-1972 Sound Recordings by Libraries and Archives’ is one of a series of studies undertaken by the National Recording Preservation Board (NRPB), under the auspices of the Library of Congress. It was written by June Besek, executive director of the Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts at Columbia University. The report is available free of charge at http://www.loc.gov/global/disclaimer.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clir.org%2Fpubs%2Fabstract%2Fpub144abst.html."

http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2009/09-060.html

Google to Re-Publish 244 Years of Newspaper Articles? - Editor & Publisher, 9/9/08

Google to Re-Publish 244 Years of Newspaper Articles?: "Google Inc. is trying to expand the newspaper section of its online library to include billions of articles published during the past 244 years...

Besides the [Quebec] Chronicle-Telegraph, other newspapers that have already agreed to allow Google to copy and host their archives include the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the St. Petersburg Times in Florida...

Google already has committed to spending tens of millions of dollars to make electronic copies of books and other material kept in dozens of libraries around the world. The book-copying program, launched in 2004, has triggered a lawsuit from group of authors and publishers that alleges it infringes on copyrights — a charge that Google is fighting."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003847066