Author Archives: Lila Bailey

Internet Archive files amicus brief in support of fair use and innovation in libraries

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Today marks the beginning of Fair Use Week, which celebrates the importance of fair use for libraries, students, teachers, journalists, creators, and the public. Last week, the Internet Archive joined the American Library Association, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Association of College and Research Libraries on a friend of the court brief in the Capitol Records v. Redigi case. This case raises the important question about whether it is legal to resell lawful copies of digital music files—that is, whether the first sale right exists in digital form, and how that right interacts with fair use. The first sale right, codified at Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act, is the same law that allows libraries to lend books and other copyrighted works to the public. As library collections become increasingly digital, libraries are relying on fair use and first sale rights in order to perform their everyday duties, including preservation and lending.

The brief argues first that the court’s fair use analysis should favor secondary uses that have the same underlying purpose as the first sale right.
“In Authors Guild v. HathiTrust… [the Second Circuit Court] used the rationale for a specific exception—17 U.S.C. § 121, which permits the making of accessible format copies for the print disabled—to support a finding of a valid purpose under the first factor. Likewise, the Copyright Office has repeatedly based fair use conclusions on specific exceptions in the context of a rulemaking under section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201. As this Court did in HathiTrust or the Copyright Office did in the section 1201 rulemaking, the district court should have recognized that the purpose behind the first sale doctrine tilted the first fair use factor in favor of ReDigi.”

Second, the brief argues that a positive fair use determination in the Redigi case would enable libraries to provide new and innovative digital services to their users. The brief states:
“Fair use findings in technology cases have encouraged libraries to provide new, digitally-based services such as the HathiTrust Digital Library. In addition to enabling researchers to find relevant texts and perform critical data-mining, HathiTrust provides full-text access to over fourteen million volumes to people who have print disabilities. A fair use finding in this case would provide libraries with additional legal certainty to roll out innovative services such as the Internet Archive’s Open Library. Such a result would increase users’ access to important content without diminishing authors’ incentive to create new works.”

You can read the full text of the brief here.

Access to Knowledge in Canada

The Internet Archive Canada asked Lila Bailey to report on the policy landscape for digital libraries in Canada.   This is a summary of her report:   Looking good.

On September 30th, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind transferred accessible books in audio format to Australia through the book service of the Accessible Books Consortium (ABC). This transfer occurred without the legal obligation to request permission from the copyright owners. This effort was made possible by the Marrakesh Treaty, which creates exceptions in copyright law for the print-disabled. As we previously noted, Canada was the 20th signatory to the treaty, triggering it to enter into force.

Canada has made great strides towards increasing access to human knowledge in recent years. Judicial and legislative developments have brought balance into the law, ushering in more opportunities for public access and use of copyright protected works. And now, with the Marrakesh Treaty entering into effect, it seems a good a time to highlight Canada’s contributions to the world’s accessible digital heritage.

Our sister organization, Internet Archive Canada, has digitized more than 530,000 books, microreproductions, archival fonds, and maps. Libraries and institutions that have collaborated with, financially supported, and contributed material to IAC stretch across the entire country, from Memorial University in Newfoundland to University of Victoria in British Columbia. Internet Archive Canada has been working on accessibility projects, and has digitized more than 10,000 texts in partnership with the Accessible Content E-Portal. To date, this material has only been available to students and scholars within Ontario’s university system. Joining the Marrakesh Treaty now makes it possible for accessible versions of works to be shared more broadly within Canada, and with the other countries that have ratified the treaty.

Canadiana is another group that has helped to advance access to knowledge in Canada. Initially created by Canadian Universities in 1978 to microform National Library collections, Canadiana has more recently worked to digitize Canadian heritage with a focus mainly on public domain printed materials. The University of Toronto Library has also developed full-text digital collections, primarily consisting of public domain materials. These special collections contain a wide variety of items, including over 200,000 books, over 600 archived versions of local government websites, Canadian pamphlets and broadsides, and a fine art repository among many other materials. Similarly, the University of Alberta has developed an open access digital portal called Peel’s Prairie Provinces – a collection containing both an online bibliography of books, pamphlets and other materials related to the settlement and development of the Canadian West, as well as a searchable full-text collection of digital version of many of these materials. The portal allows access to a diverse collection that includes approximately 7,500 digitized books, over 66,000 newspaper issues, 16,000 postcards and 1,000 maps.

The above are just a few examples of Canadian efforts to bring analog materials into digital form to allow increased access to knowledge. Many more such projects can be found via the Canadian National Digital Heritage Index (CNDHI). Supported by funding from Library and Archives Canada and the Canadian Research Knowledge Network, CNDHI is designed to increase awareness of, and access to digital heritage collections in Canada, to support the academic research enterprise and to facilitate information sharing within the Canadian documentary heritage community.

These digitization activities have made significant strides towards opening access to human knowledge in Canada, however, to date, these efforts have been piecemeal. In June of 2016, Library and Archives Canada (LAC) announced a National Heritage Digitization Strategy in order “to bring Canada’s cultural and scientific heritage into the digital era to ensure that we continue to understand the past and document the present as guides to future action.” The goal of the strategy is to provide a cohesive path toward the digitization of Canadian memory institutions’ collections, thus ensuring the institutions remain relevant in the digital age by making their collections easily accessible. LAC wishes to compliment the current efforts of Canadian memory institutions such as those described above by ensuring that a national plan of action is in place.

The public policy landscape in Canada has been generally supportive of access to knowledge efforts. For example, the Canadian Supreme Court has interpreted certain legal provisions, called “fair dealing,” as expansive user rights that cannot be unduly constrained. In a case called CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, the Court held that it was fair dealing for the Great Library of Canada to make photocopies of court decisions on behalf of attorneys. In Alberta v. Access Copyright, the Supreme Court held that is fair dealing for teachers to copy short excerpts of copyrighted works for students in their classes. The Court found that such copying was done for the acceptable purpose of research and private study because, as a user right, the relevant perspective from which to consider the purpose was the user/student whose research and private study was furthered by the teacher’s copying. The court also held that the “amount of the dealing” factor should not be assessed in the aggregate. Instead, the court must look at the amount of the work in proportion to the length of the whole works.

In SOCAN v. Bell Canada, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles articulated in the Access Copyright case. Here, the Court held that a commercial platform allowing users to stream 30-second preview clips of musical works before they decided whether to purchase the work was also considered fair dealing for the purpose of research. The Court reiterated that the purpose must be assessed from the perspective of the user and not the commercial entity that was trying to sell the music. In each of these cases, the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged fair dealing as the exercise of users’ rights that must be broadly interpreted.

As a result of these decisions, many Canadian educational institutions developed reasonable fair dealing guidelines which provide educators with a set of criteria for determining whether a particular instance of copying requires permission, or whether it is protected by fair dealing. For example, the University of Toronto’s Fair Dealing Guidelines provide a step-by-step analysis of whether a given use of a copyright protected work may be fair dealing, as well as a few more specific guidelines about what constitutes fair dealing, allowing more uses of copyrighted works without permission.

Additionally, the Canadian legislature passed the Copyright Modernization Act (CMA). The CMA added several important user-oriented provisions, including the addition of education, parody, and satire as acceptable fair dealing purposes. Taken together with the recent Supreme Court decisions discussed above, Canadian law now allows quite a bit more flexibility in using copyrighted works without permission.

The CMA allows private individuals to do more with copyright protected works without legal liability. For example, the CMA created the so-called “YouTube exception” which allows for non-commercial sharing of user-generated content that contains copyrighted material. The provision is designed to permit activity that many ordinary Internet users engage in regularly, such as creating mashups, or using a popular song in the background of a personal home video. This provision is subject to conditions (i.e., identification of the source and author, legality of the original work or the copy used, and absence of a substantial adverse effect on the exploitation of the original work).

A series of additional provisions protect consumers from liability for other “ordinary activities that are commonly accepted,” but which had previously remained illegal under Canadian copyright law. For example, the CMA now permits format shifting of personal copies of works, such as transferring a song from CD to an MP3 player. Similarly, the CMA permits time shifting of copyrighted materials for later listening, reading or viewing. Finally, the law permits individuals to make backup copies of copyrighted works, provided that, among other things, the individual does not give any of the reproductions away to others. However, each of these expansions of user-rights to permit format-shifting, time-shifting, and the creation of backup copies are all subject to the condition that the creation of the reproduction not circumvent a “technological protection measure.”  As such, they may not be as user-friendly in practice as they may appear on paper.

The CMA also expanded the use rights of libraries, museums, and archives. For example, the law now allows libraries, museums, and archives to format shift a work in its permanent collection if the original is in a format that is obsolete or the technology required to use the original is unavailable or is becoming unavailable. Further, libraries, museums, and archives can distribute certain materials digitally, provided that they take certain measures to protect the copyright owner’s rights. There is a similar allowance for unpublished works deposited in archives. The CMA also allows the use of publicly accessible online materials for educational purposes, provided that the source and author are attributed, and unless the works are protected by “digital locks.”

The CMA also revised the statutory damages provisions in a user-friendly manner. The law now distinguishes between commercial from non-commercial infringements for the purposes of statutory damages awards. Specifically, where the “infringements are for non-commercial purposes”, the court may order between $100 and $5,000 in damages “with respect to all infringements involved in the proceedings for all works.” In other words, statutory damages in a proceeding for non-commercial infringement are now limited to $5,000, no matter how many works were infringed.  Furthermore, in exercising its discretion to award statutory damages for non-commercial infringements, the court is to consider “the need for an award [of damages] to be proportionate to the infringements, in consideration of the hardship the award may cause to the defendant, whether the infringement was for private purposes or not, and the impact of the infringements on the plaintiff.”

These recent developments in Canadian law, in conjunction with its ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty, make the landscape ripe for further expansions of digital access to knowledge in the future. Internet Archive Canada will be exploring opportunities for partnerships and projects to bring Canada digital and help the nation to become an international leader in access to knowledge.

 

Dear Congress: Please Don’t Make It More Difficult And Dangerous To Be A Library

copyrightoffice1Last Friday, the Internet Archive and several of our library, archive, and museum partners sent a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) urging him not to make it more difficult and dangerous to be a library.

As we wrote about over the summer, the U.S. Copyright Office is proposing to completely rewrite Section 108, the part of the law that is designed to support traditional library functions such as preservation and inter-library loans. Although the proposal has not been made public yet, we understand from our meeting with them that the Copyright Office wants to redefine who gets to be a library, making it harder for small players and virtual libraries to be protected under the law. The proposal is also likely to be damaging to fair use and may add new, burdensome regulations on libraries who archive the web (among other things).

Thankfully, the Copyright Office does not write the law–that is up to Congress. Our letter explains that now is not the time to scrap the old law, which is working well. The Copyright Office’s proposal is not only unnecessary, but potentially harmful to library efforts to increase access to information. We hope Congress will take the strong objections of the library community seriously when considering the Copyright Office’s proposal to rewrite the law that applies to libraries.

Rock Against the TPP is Coming to San Francisco…TOMORROW!

tpp
On Friday, September 9th hip hop icons Dead Prez, actress Evangeline Lilly, punk legend Jello Biafra, Grammy winners La Santa Cecilia, and others will play a free concert at the Regency Ballroom in San Francisco to protest the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The TPP is a contentious trade agreement that is getting quite a bit of negative press in the 2016 U.S. election cycle. Among many other issues, the TPP would govern how signatory countries protect and enforce intellectual property rights. The TPP could have a large negative impact on libraries by increasing copyright term limits and neglecting the essential limitations on copyright law that libraries around the world rely on. Many different groups have vocally opposed the TPP, both for its substance and for the secrecy of the negotiations process.

tppmorrelloOrganized by Fight for the Future and Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello, the  tour is designed to pull new audiences into the fight against the TPP. See more details and a full lineup at https://www.rockagainstthetpp.org/san-francisco-ca

The concert will be followed by a teach-in on “How to Fight the TPP” on Saturday, Sept. 10th from 1pm – 3pm at 1999 Bryant Street, hosted by experts from a wide range of organizations opposing the TPP.
tppaudience

The Copyright Office is trying to redefine libraries, but libraries don’t want it — Who is it for?


The Library Copyright Alliance (which represents the American Library Association and the Association of Research Libraries) has said it does not want changes, the Society of American Archivists has said it does not want changes. The Internet Archive does not want changes, DPLA does not want changes… So why is the Copyright Office holding “hush hush” meetings to “answer their last questions” before going to Congress with a proposed rewrite of the section of Copyright law that pertains to libraries?

This recent move, which has its genesis in an outdated set of proposals from 2008, is just another in series of out of touch ideas coming from the Copyright Office. We’ve seen them propose “notice and staydown” filtering of the Internet and disastrous “extended collective licensing” for digitization projects. These and other proposals have lead some to start asking whose Copyright Office this is, anyway. Now the Copyright Office wants to completely overhaul Section 108 of the Copyright Act, the “library exceptions,” in ways that could break the Wayback Machine and repeal fair use for libraries.

We are extremely concerned that Congress could take the Copyright Office’s proposal seriously, and believe that libraries are actually calling for these changes. That’s why we flew to Washington, D.C. to deliver the message to the Copyright Office in person: now is not the time for changes to Section 108. Libraries and technology have been evolving quickly. Good things are beginning to happen as a result. Drafting a law now could make something that is working well more complicated, and could calcify processes that would otherwise continue to evolve to make digitization efforts and web archiving work even better for libraries and content owners alike.

In fact, just proposing this new legislation will likely have the effect of hitting the pause button on libraries. It will lead to uncertainty for the libraries that have already begun to modernize by digitizing their analog collections and learning how to collect and preserve born-digital materials. It could lead libraries who have been considering such projects to “wait and see.”

Perhaps that’s the point. Because the Copyright Office’s proposal doesn’t seem to help libraries, or the public they serve, at all.

Unlocking Books for the Blind and Visually Impaired

imageThe Internet Archive has been making print materials more accessible to the blind and print disabled for years, but now with Canada’s joining the Marrakesh Treaty, our sister organization, the Internet Archive Canada might be able to serve people in many more countries.

In 2010, we launched the Open Library Accessible Books collection, which now contains nearly 2 million books in accessible formats. Our sister organization, Internet Archive Canada, has also been working on accessibility projects, and has digitized more than 8500 texts in partnership with the Accessible Content E-Portal, which is on track to have over 10,000 items available in accessible formats by the end of the month.

On June 30th, Canada tipped the scales towards broader access to books for all by joining the Marrakesh Treaty. This move will allow the Treaty to go into effect on September 30, 2016 in the nations where it has been ratified, so that print-disabled and visually impaired people can more fully and actively participate in global society.

The goal of the Marrakesh Treaty is to help to end the “book famine” faced by people who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled. Currently only 1% to 7% of the world’s published books ever become available in accessible formats. This is partly due to barriers to access created by copyright laws–something the Treaty helps to remove.

The Marrakesh Treaty removes barriers in two ways. First, it requires ratifying nations to have an exception in their domestic copyright laws for the blind, visually impaired, and their organizations to make books and other print resources available in accessible formats, such as Braille, large print, or audio versions, without needing permission from the copyright holder. Second, the Treaty allows for the exchange of accessible versions of books and other copyrighted works across borders, again without copyright holder permission. This will help to avoid the duplication of efforts across different countries, and will allow those with larger collections of accessible books to share them with visually impaired people in countries with fewer resources.

The first 20 countries to ratify or accede to the Marrakesh Treaty were: India, El Salvador, United Arab Emirates, Mali, Uruguay, Paraguay, Singapore, Argentina, Mexico, Mongolia, Republic of Korea, Australia, Brazil, Peru, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Israel, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala and Canada. People in these countries will soon start realizing the tangible benefits of providing access to knowledge to those who have historically been left out.

To date this material has only been available to students and scholars within Ontario’s university system. The Marrakesh Treaty now makes it possible for these works to be shared more broadly within Canada, and with the other countries listed above. Hopefully the rest of the world will take note, and join forces to provide universal access to all knowledge.

Copyright Office’s Proposed Notice and Staydown System Would Force the Internet Archive and Other Platforms to Censor the Web

censoredIn May, the US Copyright Office came to San Francisco to hear from various stakeholders about how well Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or DMCA is working. The Internet Archive appeared at these hearings to talk about the perspective of nonprofit libraries. The DMCA is the part of copyright law that provides for a “notice and takedown” process for copyrighted works on the Internet. Platforms who host content can get legal immunity if they take down materials when they get a complaint from the copyright owner.

This is an incredibly powerful tool for content owners–there is no other area of law that allows content to be removed from the web with a mere accusation of guilt. Victims of harassment, defamation, invasions of privacy, or any other legal claim, have to go to court to have anything taken down.

Unfortunately, this tool can be, and has been abused. We see this every day at the Internet Archive when we get overbroad DMCA takedown notices, claiming material that is in the public domain, is fair use, or is critical of the content owner. More often than not, these bad notices are just mistakes, but sometimes notices are sent intentionally to silence speech. Since this tool can be so easily abused, it is one that should be approached with extreme caution.

We were very concerned to hear that the Copyright Office is strongly considering recommending changing the DMCA to mandate a “Notice and Staydown” regime. This is the language that the Copyright Office uses to talk about censoring the web. The idea is that once a platform gets a notice regarding a specific copyrighted work, like a specific picture, song, book, or film, that platform would then be responsible for making sure that the work never appears on the platform ever again. Other users would have to be prevented, using filtering technology, from ever posting that specific content ever again. It would have to “Stay Down.”

This idea is dangerous in a number of ways:

  • No Due Process. Notice and Staydown would remove all of the user protections built in to the DMCA. Currently, the statute allows users who believe material they have posted was taken down in error to file a counter-notification. If the copyright holder does not choose to bring a lawsuit, then the content can be reposted. The law also prohibits the sending of false notices, and allows users who have been falsely accused to bring a claim against their accuser. These protections for the user would simply go away if platforms were forced to proactively filter content.
  • Requires Platforms to Monitor User Activity. The current statute protects user privacy by explicitly stating that platforms have no duty to monitor user activity for copyright infringement. Notice and Staydown would change this–requiring platforms to be constantly looking over users’ shoulders.
  • Promotes Censorship. Notice and Staydown has a serious First Amendment problem. The government mandating the use of technology to affirmatively take speech offline before it’s even posted, without any form of review, potentially violates free speech laws.
  • It Just Won’t Work In Most Cases. Piracy on the web is a real problem for creators. However, filtering at the platform level is just very unlikely to stop the worst of the piracy problem. Filtering doesn’t work for links. It doesn’t work well for certain types of content, like photographs, which are easily altered to avoid the filter. And so far, no computer algorithm has been developed that can determine whether a particular upload is fair use. Notice and Staydown would force many cases of legitimate fair use off the web. Further, intermediaries are not the right party to be implementing this technology. They don’t have all the facts about the works, such as whether they have been licensed. Most platforms are not in a good position to be making legal judgements, and they are motivated to avoid the potential for high statutory damages. All this means that platforms are likely to filter out legitimate uses of content.
  • Lacks Transparency.  These technical filters would act as a black box that the public would have no ability to review or appeal. It would be very difficult to know how much legitimate activity was being censored.
  • Costly and Burdensome. Developing an accurate filter that will work for each and every platform on the web will be an extremely costly endeavor. YouTube spent $60 million developing its Content ID system, which only works for audio and video content. It is very expensive to do this well. Nonprofits, libraries, and educational institutions who act as internet service providers would be forced to spend a huge amount of their already scarce resources policing copyright.
  • Technology Changes Quickly, Law Changes Slowly. The DMCA requires registered DMCA agents to provide a fax number. In 1998, that made sense. Today it is silly. Technology changes far too quickly for law to keep up. Governments should not be in the business of mandating the use of technology to solve a specific policy problem.

The DMCA has its problems, but Notice and Staydown would be an absolute disaster. Unfortunately, members of the general public were not invited to the Copyright Office proceedings last week. The many thousands of comments submitted by Internet users on this subject were not considered valuable input; rather, one panelist characterized them as a “DDoS attack” on the Copyright Office website, showing how little the people who are seeking to regulate the web actually understand it.

The Copyright Office has called for more research on how the DMCA is working for copyright holders and for platforms. We agree that this research is important. However, we must remember that the rest of the online world will also be impacted by changes to the DMCA.

Google Library Project Legal: Let the Robots Read!

Guardian_of_Law_by_James_Earle_Fraser,_US_Supreme_Court

The decade-long legal battle over Google’s massive book scanning project is finally over, and it’s a huge win for libraries and fair use. On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by the Author’s Guild, which had argued that Google’s scanning of millions of books was an infringement of copyright on a grand scale. The Supreme Court’s decision means that the Second Circuit case holding that Google’s creation of a database including millions of digital books is fair use still stands. The appeals court explained how its fair use rationale aligns with the very purpose of copyright law: “[W]hile authors are undoubtedly important intended beneficiaries of copyright, the ultimate, primary intended beneficiary is the public, whose access to knowledge copyright seeks to advance by providing rewards for authorship.”

Google Books gives readers and internet users the world over access to millions of works that had previously been hidden away in the archives of our most elite universities. As a Google representative said in a statement, “The product acts like a card catalog for the digital age by giving people a new way to find and buy books while at the same time advancing the interests of authors.”

Google began scanning books in partnership with a group of university libraries in 2004. In 2005, author and publisher groups filed a class action lawsuit to put a stop to the project. The parties agreed to settle the lawsuit in a manner that would have forever changed the legal landscape around book rights. The District Court judge rejected the settlement in 2011, based on concerns about competition, access, and fairness, and so litigation over the core question of fair use resumed.

Judge Chin, Judge Leval, and the Supreme Court all made the right decisions along the long and winding path to Google’s victory. Libraries around the country are now free to rely on fair use as they determine how to manage their own digitization projects–encouraging innovation and increasing our access to human knowledge.

The Internet Archive, ALA, and SAA Brief Filed in TV News Fair Use Case

tvnewsarchiveThe Internet Archive, joined by the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, and the Society of American Archivists filed an amicus brief in Fox v. TVEyes on March 23, 2016. In the brief, the Internet Archive and its partners urge the court to issue a decision that will support rather than hinder the development of comprehensive archives of television broadcasts.

The case involves a copyright dispute between Fox News and TVEyes, a service that records all content broadcast by more than 1,400 television and radio stations and transforms the content into a searchable database for its subscribers. Fox News sued TVEyes in 2013, alleging that the service violates its copyright. TVEyes asserted that its use of Fox News content is protected by fair use.

politicaltvadDrawing on the Internet Archive’s experience with its TV News Archive and Political TV Ad Archive, the friend-of-the-court brief highlights the public benefits that flow from archiving and making television content available for public access. “The TV News Archive allows the public to view previously aired broadcasts–as they actually went out over the air–to evaluate and understand statements made by public officials, members of the news media, advertising sponsors, and others, encouraging public discourse and political accountability,” said Roger Macdonald, Director of the TV Archive.

Moreover, creating digital databases of television content allows aggregated information about the broadcasts themselves to come to light, unlocking researchers’ ability to process, mine, and analyze media content as data. “Like library collections of books and newspapers, television archives like the TV News Archive and the Political TV Ad Archive allow anyone to thoughtfully assess content from these influential media, enhancing the work of journalists, scholars, teachers, librarians, civic organizations, and other engaged citizens,” said Tomasz Barczyk, a Berkeley Law student from the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic who helped author the brief.

The brief also explains the importance of fostering a robust community of archiving organizations. Because television broadcasts are ephemeral, content is easily lost if efforts are not made to preserve it systematically.  In fact, a number of historically and culturally significant broadcasts have already been lost, from BBC news coverage of 9/11 to early episodes of Doctor Who. Archiving services prevent this disappearance by collecting, indexing, and preserving broadcast content for future public access.

A decision in this case against fair use would chill these services and could result in the loss of significant cultural resources. “This is an important case for the future of digital archives,” explained William Binkley, the other student attorney who worked on the brief. “If the court rules against TVEyes, there’s a real risk it could discourage efforts by non-profits to create searchable databases of television clips. That would deprive researchers and the general public of a tremendously valuable source of knowledge.”

The Internet Archive would like to thank Tomasz Barczyk, William Binkley, and Brianna Schofield from the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at Berkeley Law for helping to introduce an important library perspective as the Second Circuit court considers this case with important cultural implications.

Fair Use & Access to All Human Knowledge

FairUseWeek-Logo-Blue

This is Fair Use Week, an annual recognition of the most important user right in U.S. copyright law. Today we celebrate fair use and fair dealing along with a host of other participating groups and organizations.

The fundamental goal of fair use aligns with the Internet Archive’s mission of providing universal access to all human knowledge. Fair use is often called the “safety valve” of copyright law, built in to ensure that the protection granted to authors doesn’t stifle the very creativity and innovation it was designed to promote. Libraries serve as guardians of the public’s access to information and facilitate education, research, scholarship, creativity, and discovery—activities essential to the functioning of our democratic society. Fair use plays a similar role in the legal world, allowing access and reuse of materials in order to criticize or comment on them, for educational purposes, or in ways that alter the original with a new message or meaning.

Over the years, the flexible nature of fair use has supported the creation and use of new technologies, like the VCR for home recording of television programs, or search engines for the web. It has also helped libraries to adapt to new technologies and bring traditional library functions into the digital age, for example, by allowing libraries to digitize books in their collections for the purposes of building search tools and providing access to the blind and print disabled. Fair use allows artists and musicians to reuse materials to comment on society and the world around them, bloggers to use photos of the people and organizations they are criticizing, and citizens to use videos to comment on the effectiveness of their elected officials. Fair use also allows regular people to engage with our culture, from debating the color of a dress to making creative mashups of existing works.

People across the web have engaged in the creative remixing of materials hosted here at the Archive. For example, we have a collection dedicated to mashups created from the Prelinger film archives. Take a look at one of our favorites: https://archive.org/details/bonobocirrus

Want to make your own mashup from our collection, but not sure how fair use works exactly? Check out this guide to best practices in fair use for online video, which provides some helpful guidelines for understanding how to use fair use. Fair use week is the perfect time to learn about and exercise your own fair use rights.