Written by Christy DeShong
What Is “Copyright”? A Brief Overview
Put simply, “copyright” refers to the control an individual has over anything he or she creates, be it music, art, writing, or anything else that can be permanently recorded in any form. U.S. copyright law is incredibly extensive. The entire text of the law can be found at the U.S. Copyright Office’s Web site, here. Please bear in mind that these laws apply only within the U.S. Other countires are subject to their own copyright laws, which may be more or less strict.
In the United States, a person automatically owns the copyright on anything he or she creates upon the moment of its creation. Other individuals generally cannot use this material without the express permission of the copyright holder. However, there are some exceptions to this rule.
Public Domain
Copyright protection is not eternal. As the U.S. Copyright Office’s “Copyright Basics” article explains, copyright only extends for 70 years after the death of the author (or last surviving author, in the case of works with multiple authors). Works made for hire or anonymous works have a copyright duration of 95 years from creation (p. 5).
After copyright expires, works are considered “public domain”. Since no one owns the rights to these works, the general public is free to use them as they please. Individuals also sometimes willingly choose to give up their rights to a work because they desire it to become public domain.
Fair Use
Works that are not public domain can still be used by individuals to some extent without permission. The acceptable ways in which they may be used are lumped into a general catagory called “fair use”. Unfortunately, the legal limits of “fair use” are, for the most part, not strictly defined.
The Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law in 1961 listed some of these acceptable uses:
While some of these examples seem clear enough, others remain vague. For example, “parody” is not necessarily a clearly-defined concept. Also, this report dates from 1961, an age when household computers were not yet a reality. The arrival of the digital age and the Internet made copyright infringement easier than ever.
In 1996 a gathering of over 95 organizations met in an effort to create a set of more modern established fair use guidelines. Their results can be found in this report from
the United States Patent and Trade Office. Though these guidelines cover many situations and can be very useful, they are just that: guidelines. They are not legally binding and may not necessarily apply to any given situation.
What does this mean for libraries?
Obviously, any kind of librarian has access to a vast amount of information. All of that information was created by someone and may or may not be currently copyright-protected. If a public librarian wishes to hold a film screening accompanied by an educational lecture concerning the film’s contents, must the librarian seek permission to screen the film, or does fair use protect the viewing, since it is being used in an educational setting? May a library patron make photocopies of a reference book that is not in circulation in order to view some of its contents at home? Often, these questions are never addressed since the copyright holder is never even aware the instances have occured, but does that really make the question moot?
Copyright laws also apply to things like the computer software used within the library. Does the library have the right to install software to an unlimited amount of computers? Can programs be installed onto personal computers if a librarian wishes to work from home? Obviously in this case the librarian would have to refer to the software’s liscencing agreement, which varies from program to program.
Discussion
Google Books is a search function developed by Google that allows users to search for sections of text in thousands of books. Many publishers are concerned that this violates Fair Use, yet Google does not actually list the full text of any books without permission from the publishers. Do you think this qualifies as Fair Use? Why or why not?
In 2007, a YouTube video of a toddler dancing while a Prince song plays in the background was pulled from YouTube after Universal Studios, who owns the rights to the music, issued a takedown notice. After reading the CNET article here, do you agree or disagree with the judge’s decision?
A Few Interesting Links
Key Court Case Summaries on Fair Use from the Copyright Center at Indiana University
Project Gutenberg, a website that lists full text of thousands of copyright-free books
Works Cited
United States Copyright Office. (2008). Copyright Basics. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
United States Copyright Office. (1998). Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf
Lehman, Bruce A. (1996). The Conference on Fair Use: An Interim Report to the Commissioner. Retrieved from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/confu/report.htm
October 22, 2008 at 2:06 am
Copyright laws can be very straight forward or they can be fuzzy, but in this case, I agree with the judge’s ruling. Most videos on YouTube (as well as many other sites) would have to be removed if the lawsuit by Universal Music stuck. What about other types of entertainment? For example, there are hundreds of cell phone videos filmed at music concerts on the Internet. Would those be affected? Someone could post a video with a movie or television show playing in the background. Would the same copyright rules apply? I know I’ve answered with more questions, but this lawsuit and this topic raise quite a few issues that we never anticipated with the creation of the Internet.
October 22, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I understand that the creator of something holds a certain amount of control over their work, as should be. But in cases like the one mentioned in this post about the baby dancing to a Prince song in a 30 second video clip, I think is a little ridiculous. First of all, I wouldn’t even of been able to tell it was a Prince song, had it not been stated; the quality is so poor and the background noise so overwhelming, it’s hard to even make out the composition of the song, let alone the words of it. Second, I bet that this video has got more attention and “views” since the label demanded it be took down, then before. Third, the people who put the video on youtube aren’t making money off of it. Since “fair use” isn’t defined this makes the case for either side quite difficult but I agree with the judge that this is an example of “fair use”. But it just goes to show that “fair use” with copyrighted material needs to be looked at more closely and defined by law.