DOCSLIB.ORG

Guidelines for Digitization for US Libraries, Archives, and Museums

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guidelines for Digitization for US Libraries, Archives, and Museums Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1495365 Copyright and Cultural Institutions Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1495365 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1495365 Copyright and Cultural Institutions Guidelines for Digitization for U.S. Libraries, Archives, and Museums Peter B. Hirtle, emily Hudson, & Andrew t. Kenyon Cornell university liBrAry ithaca, new yorK © 2009 Peter B. Hirtle, Emily Hudson, and Andrew T. Kenyon Published by Cornell University Library Ithaca, New York 14853 ISBn-13: 978-0-935995-10-7 Design and composition by India Amos Attribution-Noncommercial- No Derivative Works 3.0 United States Contents Preface • ix 1 Introduction • 1 1.1 What is copyright? • 2 1.2 The framework of copyright law • 6 1.3 Principles of copyright law • 9 1.4 Common law copyright • 11 1.5 Copyright timeline • 11 2 Copyright Fundamentals • 15 2.1 Introduction • 15 2.2 Types of work protected by copyright • 15 2.3 What are the prerequisites for an item to be protected by copyright? • 29 2.4 Works made prior to 1978 • 36 3 Duration and Ownership of Copyright • 39 3.1 Introduction • 39 3.2 What is the duration of copyright? • 40 3.2.1 unPuBlisHed worKs • 41 3.2.2 worKs first PuBlisHed in tHe united stAtes • 45 3.2.3 PuBlisHed foreign worKs • 49 3.2.4 sound reCordings • 53 3.2.5 ArchiteCturAl worKs • 54 3.3 Who is the owner of copyright? • 55 3.4 How is copyright transferred to others? • 63 3.5 Conclusion • 65 4 Exclusive Rights and Infringement • 67 4.1 Introduction • 67 4.2 Exclusive rights • 68 4.3 Moral rights • 74 4.4 The right to control access to digital works • 76 v Contents 4.5 Infringement • 78 4.6 Remedies for Infringement • 83 4.7 Conclusion • 86 5 Fair Use and Other Exemptions • 87 5.1 Introduction • 87 5.2 Fair Use • 89 5.3 The four factors • 92 5.4 Fair-use examples • 94 5.5 Fair-use guidelines • 99 5.6 Fair use and cultural institutions • 101 5.7 Educational performances • 102 5.8 Other exemptions • 104 5.9 Sovereign immunity • 106 6 The Libraries and Archives Exemptions • 107 6.1 Introduction • 107 6.2 Eligibility • 109 6.3 Preservation copying of unpublished works • 113 6.4 Replacement copying of published works • 114 6.5 Digital preservation and replacement copies • 115 6.6 Reproductions in response to patron requests • 116 6.7 Libraries and archives privileges found outside Section 108 • 126 6.8 Checklist for libraries and archives provisions • 127 7 Copyright Permissions and Licenses • 129 7.1 Introduction • 129 7.2 What is permission? What is a license? • 130 7.3 Negotiating licenses • 136 7.4 Sample licenses • 138 7.5 License terms • 143 7.6 Clickthrough and browse-wrap licenses • 147 7.7 Alternative licenses • 149 7.8 Conclusion • 151 vi Contents 8 Locating Copyright Owners • 153 8.1 Introduction • 153 8.2 Identifying copyright owners • 154 8.3 Strategies for locating copyright owners • 159 8.4 Orphan works • 171 9 Other Types of Intellectual Property, Contracts, and Jurisdictional Issues • 173 9.1 Introduction • 173 9.2 Trademarks • 175 9.3 Right of publicity • 178 9.4 Right of privacy and defamation • 181 9.5 Contracts • 185 9.6 International issues • 188 9.7 Traditional knowledge • 190 10 Risk Management: How to Digitize Safely • 193 10.1 Introduction • 193 10.2 Recap of potential risks • 194 10.3 Elements working to minimize risk: the litigation calculus • 195 10.4 Cease-and-desist notices • 199 10.5 Workflow for minimizing risk • 202 10.6 Explain, solicit, document, and contribute • 207 10.7 Conclusion • 212 11 Case Study 1: Interviews and Oral Histories • 215 11.1 Introduction • 215 11.2 Identification of potentially protected material • 215 11.3 Does copyright subsist in any of these items? • 216 11.4 Who is the author of the work? • 218 11.5 Has copyright in the work expired? • 221 11.6 Does the institution wish to perform one of the “exclusive acts” of the copyright owner? • 222 11.7 Does digitization fall within any exemptions to infringement in the Copyright Act? • 223 vii Contents 11.8 Are there other considerations than just copyright to consider? • 224 11.9 Practical suggestions arising from this chapter • 225 12 Case Study 2: Dissertations, Theses, and Student Papers • 227 12.1 Introduction • 227 12.2 Definitions • 228 12.3 Can copyright subsist in DTSPs? • 228 12.4 Who owns the initial copyright in a DTSP? • 228 12.5 Is the work published or unpublished? • 230 12.6 Is the work within the copyright term? • 234 12.7 Does the institution wish to perform one of the “exclusive acts” of the copyright owner? • 234 12.8 Does digitization fall within any exemptions to infringement in the Copyright Act? • 235 12.9 Do laws designed to protect student privacy affect digitization? • 235 12.10 Risk assessment • 237 12.11 Practical suggestions arising from this chapter • 241 furtHer reAdings • 243 CAses Cited in tHe guidelines • 245 notes • 247 viii Preface This mAnuAl is based on Copyright and Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitisation by Emily Hudson and Andrew T. Kenyon. The Guidelines for Digitisation were one of the products of a research project conducted by the Centre for Media and Communications Law and the Intellectual Property Research Institute of the Australia, both located at the University of Mel- bourne. The project examined the impact of copyright law on the digitization practices of public museums, galleries, libraries, and archives in Australia. The Australian Guidelines for Digitisation are available at http://ssrn.com/ abstract=881699; updated Australian guidelines are due for release in 2010 and will be available via http://www.law.unimelb.edu.au/cmcl. While reading the guidelines, Peter Hirtle realized that a similar docu- ment, drawing on American law and practice, would be of great benefit to administrators and curators in American cultural institutions, including libraries, archives, and museums. Digitization continues to be of great importance and interest to the cultural institution sector as a means of facilitating the public interest missions of access, research, preservation, and education. Yet there is also great uncertainty associated with the copyright implications of digitization initiatives. One reason for institutional concern about copyright is the difficulty in understanding and interpreting the law: identifying the relevant legal principles; analyzing the relevant provisions of copyright legislation; and coming to grips with case law, little of which specifically addresses issues surrounding digitization by nonprofit institutions. Drafting and imple- menting copyright procedures often reveals the uncertainties in the law and demonstrates how difficult it can be to apply abstract legal principles to specific circumstances. Another reason for institutional concern is the practical difficulty of complying with the law: the administrative costs associated with locating and contacting copyright owners; the frequent long delays in seeking per- mission; the cost of licenses; and, particularly for smaller institutions, the lack of specialist lawyers or copyright officers to assist in complying with copyright law. Hudson and Kenyon’s Guidelines were developed to inform Australian cultural institutions and assist them with the legal and practical aspects ix Preface of copyright compliance. With their permission and assistance, Hirtle has prepared this manual to assist American cultural institutions in the same way. The manual is intended to provide some basic information on copyright law and offer a structure for considering copyright issues in digitization projects. Beginning with the question of when an item is protected by copyright, it moves on to explore strategies for dealing with copyright issues, including licensing and the legal exemptions that may allow digitization without obtaining permission. Two case studies are presented at the end of the manual that apply the preceding analysis to (1) interviews and oral histo- ries and (2) student dissertations, theses, and papers. These were selected because they embody many of the principles and problems identified in the earlier chapters and are topics on which Hirtle frequently is questioned. Note that this manual is for informational use only and does not con- stitute nor should be construed as legal opinion or advice. Furthermore, the law is in a constant state of evolution. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information presented is accurate, but the law is subject to change after publication. Cultural institutions should obtain the advice of a lawyer in relation to any specific questions regarding their copyright policies and practices. A note on copyright ownership of this mAnuAl The intricacies of copyright ownership are discussed in some detail in Chapter 2. This manual serves as a good example of some of the principles discussed in that chapter. Copyright in the original Guidelines for Digitisation belongs jointly to Emily Hudson and Andrew Kenyon: it is a joint work. Hudson and Kenyon published the guidelines with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 2.1 Australian Licence (see Chapter 7 for a discussion of Creative Commons licenses). Under this license, users are allowed to make noncommercial use of the original Guidelines so long as no changes are made to the work (“no derivatives”) and Hudson and Kenyon receive credit as the authors (“attribution”). This manual is derived from Hudson and Kenyon’s work, and so their permission was needed for its preparation. It is a joint work coauthored by Hirtle, Hudson, and Kenyon, and so each owns a share x Preface of its copyright. This manual is also licensed under a Creative Com- mons license: the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives Works 3.0 United States License. In addition, Hudson and Kenyon have granted Hirtle a nonexclusive license to use the original Guidelines in any subsequent noncommercial editions or works that are derived from this manual.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reform(Aliz)Ing Copyright
    SPRIGMAN FINAL 12/17/2004 3:36 PM REFORM(ALIZ)ING COPYRIGHT Christopher Sprigman* INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 486 I. THE TRADITIONAL CONTOURS OF “CONDITIONAL” COPYRIGHT ....................... 491 A. Formalities in the Early Copyright Statutes ................................................ 491 B. From Conditional to Unconditional Copyright ........................................... 494 1. Voluntary registration and notice............................................................. 494 2. Renewal .................................................................................................... 498 II. FORMALITIES AND THE “TRADITIONAL CONTOURS” OF CONDITIONAL COPYRIGHT .............................................................................................................................. 500 A. Recording Ownership.................................................................................. 500 1. “Signaling” .............................................................................................. 501 2. Maximizing private incentives .................................................................. 501 B. Formalities as a Copyright “Filter”............................................................ 502 1. Registration and notice............................................................................. 502 2. Renewal .................................................................................................... 519 3. Effect
    [Show full text]
  • Guarding Against Abuse: the Costs of Excessively Long Copyright Terms
    GUARDING AGAINST ABUSE: THE COSTS OF EXCESSIVELY LONG COPYRIGHT TERMS By Derek Khanna* I. INTRODUCTION Copyrights are intended to encourage creative works through the mechanism of a statutorily created1 limited property right, which some prominent think tanks and congressional organizations have referred to as a form of govern- ment regulation.2 Under both economic3 and legal analysis,4 they are recog- * Derek Khanna is a fellow with X-Lab and a technology policy consultant. As a policy consultant he has never worked for any organizations that lobby or with personal stakes in copyright terms, and neither has Derek ever lobbied Congress. He was previously a Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow. He was featured in Forbes’ 2014 list of top 30 under 30 for law in policy and selected as a top 200 global leader of tomorrow for spear- heading the successful national campaign on cell phone unlocking which led to the enact- ment of copyright reform legislation to legalize phone unlocking. He has spoken at the Con- servative Political Action Conference, South by Southwest, the International Consumer Electronics Show and at several colleges across the country as a paid speaker with the Fed- eralist Society. He also serves as a columnist or contributor to National Review, The Atlan- tic and Forbes. He was previously a professional staff member for the House Republican Study Committee, where he authored the widely read House Republican Study Committee report “Three Myths about Copyright Law.” 1 See Edward C. Walterscheld, Defining the Patent and Copyright Term: Term Limits and the Intellectual Property Clause, 7 J.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrights in Perpetuity: Peter Pan May Never Grow up Jennifer S
    Penn State International Law Review Volume 24 Article 18 Number 4 Penn State International Law Review 5-1-2006 Copyrights in Perpetuity: Peter Pan May Never Grow Up Jennifer S. Green Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr Recommended Citation Green, Jennifer S. (2006) "Copyrights in Perpetuity: Peter Pan May Never Grow Up," Penn State International Law Review: Vol. 24: No. 4, Article 18. Available at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr/vol24/iss4/18 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Penn State International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SComments I Copyrights in Perpetuity: Peter Pan May Never Grow Up Jennifer S. Green* I. Introduction 2004 was known as "The Year of Peter Pan" throughout the United h Kingdom.' The country celebrated the 1 0 0t anniversary of the stage play, Peter Pan, with picnics in Neverland, charity balls, treasure hunts, and appearances by Peter Pan characters in the London Marathon. 2 A movie about author James Matthew Barrie's life leading up to the premiere of Peter Pan's first appearance on the London stage was * J.D. Candidate, The Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University, 2006; B.A., University of Pittsburgh, 2003. This paper won the local level first place prize in the 2006 Nathan Burkan Memorial Comptition. This work is for my parents, Louise and Jan, who have given me their perpetual love and support.
    [Show full text]
  • Orphan Works, Abandonware and the Missing Market for Copyrighted Goods
    Orphan Works, Abandonware and the Missing Market for Copyrighted Goods Dennis W. K. Khong University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom Paper prepared for the 1st Annual Conference of the Asian Law and Economics Society, Seoul, Korea, 24–25 June 2005. 1 Introduction Of late, the issue of orphan works and abandonware is gaining attention in the legal circle. Following the case of Eldred v. Ashcroft,1 a new case is pending appeal in the United States raising the issue of orphan works.2 The Library of Congress (2005) recently issued a notice of inquiry on orphan works. In the US Congress, a bill3 has been put forward to remedy the problem of abandoned copyrighted works in the light of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998. All these activities indicate that the problem of orphan works and abandonware is a legitimate subject of enquiry, not less by using the tools of economic analysis. It is this endeavour that this paper will try to undertake. In this paper, the use of the term ‘copyright owner’ is meant to denote the owner and his assigns and licensees, such as publishers, unless the context requires otherwise. Examples of the law are United Kingdom’s unless stated otherwise. 1. 537 U.S. 186 (2003). 2. Brewster Kahle et al. v. John Ashcroft, 72 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1888; US Dist. Lexis 24090 (N.D. Cal. 2004). 3. Congress, House, Public Domain Enhancement Act of 2003, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H.R. 2601. 1 Part I 2 The Problem Copyright law confers an exclusive right to the owner of a copyrighted work to control, inter alia, the copying and issuing of copies of his work.4 Through this exclusive right, copyright owners5 may earn profit by granting a license or sale of a copy subject to payment of a fee.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Protection, Privacy Rights, and the Fair Use Doctrine: the Post-Salinger Decade Reconsidered
    NOTES COPYRIGHT PROTECTION, PRIVACY RIGHTS, AND THE FAIR USE DOCTRINE: THE POST-SALINGER DECADE RECONSIDERED BENJAMIN ELY MARKS INTRODUCrION Ten years ago, in Salinger v. Random House, Inc.,' the Second Circuit granted J.D. Salinger an injunction barring the publication of a biography of the reclusive author. Salinger preserved his privacy by successfully asserting that an unauthorized biographer, Ian Hamilton, had infringed Salinger's copyrights by liberally quoting from unpub- lished letters that Salinger had written decades earlier. The Salinger decision, as part of a line of controversial and confusing cases involv- ing copyright law and the fair use doctrine, sparked a barrage of criti- cism and activity in Congress, the legal community, publishing, and academia because of the perception that it significantly narrowed the fair use doctrine and academic freedom.2 Ten years and an amend- ment of the federal copyright law later, the interrelationship between the ability of copyright law to protect an author's privacy and the fair use doctrine remains unresolved. In order to "Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts,"'3 copyright law in the United States grants authors, for a limited term, exclusive control over "any physical rendering of the fruits of [their] creative intellectual or aesthetic labor."'4 Copyright protection subsists in "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device," 5 and vests automatically at the moment of fixation. By granting authors control over their original works, copyright provides 1 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir.
    [Show full text]
  • A Reconsideration of Copyright's Term
    2 GARCIAMCCRARY 351-406 (DO NOT DELETE) 12/4/2019 6:49 PM A RECONSIDERATION OF COPYRIGHT’S TERM Kristelia A. García & Justin McCrary INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 353 I. COPYRIGHT’S TERM & ITS DISCONTENTS ............................................... 358 A. A History of Obsession with Term .......................................................... 358 B. A Single, Lengthy Term with Uniform Protection .................................... 361 1. Term ............................................................................................... 361 2. Protection & Exceptions ................................................................. 362 C. Critique .................................................................................................. 363 1. Economic ......................................................................................... 364 2. Intuitive ........................................................................................... 367 3. Empirical ........................................................................................ 368 D. Support .................................................................................................. 371 1. Economic ......................................................................................... 371 2. Moral .............................................................................................. 372 II. MUSIC: A CASE STUDY ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Privilege and Property: Essays on the History of Copyright
    Privilege and Property Essays on the History of Copyright Edited by Ronan Deazley, Martin Kretschmer and Lionel Bently To access digital resources including: blog posts videos online appendices and to purchase copies of this book in: hardback paperback ebook editions Go to: https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/26 Open Book Publishers is a non-profit independent initiative. We rely on sales and donations to continue publishing high-quality academic works. Daniel Chodowiecki’s allegorical copper plate of 1781 shows unauthorised reprinters and original publishers, respectively as highwaymen and their victims while the Goddess of Justice is asleep. The full title reads: ‘Works of Darkness. A Contribution to the History of the Book Trade in Germany. Presented Allegorically for the Benefit of and as a Warning to All Honest Booksellers.’ The identities of most of the characters have been identified: the bandit chief is the Austrian publisher Johann Thomas von Trattner (1717-1798) who made a fortune by reprinting books from other German- speaking territories. His victims are the publishers Friedrich Nicolai (in the centre), and Philipp Erasmus Reich (fleeing into the background). The small bat-like monster hovering overhead (a position normally reserved for angels in religious paintings!) is modelled on Gerhard van Swieten (1700-1772), an influential adviser and doctor of Maria Theresa of Austria who eased censorship regulations but encouraged the reprinting of foreign books in Austria. Nicolai’s right arm extends the bat monster’s line of gaze and points to the head of the Goddess Justitia, sleeping as if drugged by the poppy blossoms above her head.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Term Extensions and the Public Domain
    Copyright Term Extensions and the Public Domain Introduction A central problem with many international intellectual property initiatives has been provisions seeking to expand the term of protection for copyrighted works, i.e., the duration of the copyright restrictions that apply to creative works. After the expiration of the term of protection, copyrighted works enter the public domain. The public domain is the name given to the set of creative works that are not protected by copyright law—either because they are no longer covered by the limited terms of copyright law, because their creators did not comply with various formal requirements in the past, or because their creators deliberately donated to the public the rights that they might have asserted. Once a work is in the public domain, anyone may copy, reuse, or share the work as they wish. In practice, lengthy copyright terms tilt the traditional copyright balance between the rights of copyright owners and the rights of the public firmly in favor of the former. They force the public to pay a heavy price, in the form of both continued royalty fees for content use and impediments to our ability to access and build-on existing works. What is worse, there is little empirical evidence that extending copyright terms does anything to encourage new creativity. Nonetheless, lengthy terms continue to be imposed on countries around the world through bilateral, regional, or multilateral trade agreements and other international treaties. Policy Background The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
    [Show full text]
  • Innocent Infringement in U.S. Copyright Law: a History
    Innocent Infringement in U.S. Copyright Law: A History R. Anthony Reese* INTRODUCTION Innocent or unknowing copyright infringement occurs when someone engages in infringing activity not knowing that her conduct constitutes infringement— perhaps most commonly when she knowingly copies from another’s work but reasonably believes that her copying is not infringing. After all, “[n]ot all copying . is copyright infringement,”1 and one of copyright law’s most important goals is distinguishing legitimate copying, which is encouraged, from illegitimate copying, which is to be deterred. But since 1931, a defendant’s mental state has clearly not been relevant under U.S. copyright law to the question of liability for direct copyright infringement. As the Supreme Court stated that year, “[i]ntention to infringe is not essential under the Act.”2 So innocent infringers are just as liable as those who infringe knowingly or recklessly. The Anglo-American copyright system, however, has not always been so hostile to the innocent infringer. In fact, the current regime of largely unmitigated liability for unknowing infringement is a relatively recent development, for copyright law historically offered unknowing infringers significant protection. The copyright system originally made most types of innocent infringement easily avoidable, and where innocent infringement was difficult to avoid the imposition of liability in fact depended on a defendant’s culpable mental state. This Article explores how copyright law addressed the issue of innocent infringement in its early years. Part I discusses how copyright law, from its beginnings in England in 1709 and in the United States in 1790, safeguarded innocent infringers from liability.
    [Show full text]
  • Guarding Against Abuse
    CONTENTS Introduction 1 Guarding against abuse 3 The copyright lobby 4 Costs of excessive copyright duration 7 Historical works 7 Orphan works 8 Digital archiving 9 Derivative works 9 Transaction costs 10 Depressing volume of publicly available content 10 Stifling content creation 13 Public domain content benefits society 14 A vibrant public domain of more recent works 15 Optimal length of copyright terms 16 Regulatory and congressional capture 18 Trans-Pacific Partnership and ‘Life+100’ 19 Conclusion 20 About the author 21 Disclosures 21 Addenda 21 Figure 1: Copyright duration and the Mickey Mouse curve 4 Figure 2: New books from Amazon warehouse by decade 11 Figure 3: Classic games available by console 12 Figure 4: Optimal length of copyright terms 16 R STREET POLICY STUDY NO. 20 Table 1: Major Disney films based on public domain works 14 April 2014 Hayek, among the most forceful defenders of the importance of property rights, distinguished copyright from traditional property rights and identified a number of problems with modern copy- GUARDING AGAINST ABUSE: right that he said called for “drastic reforms.”5 The conservative movement, which largely has supported originalist methods of RESTORING CONSTITUTIONAL interpreting the Constitution, traditionally has been in favor of COPYRIGHT copyright reform, with proposals usually including shorter copy- right terms.6 Derek Khanna Historically, copyright terms have been quite short. As INTRODUCTION required by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Con - opyrights are intended to encourage creative stitution, copyright can only be granted for “limited times.” works through the mechanism of a statutorily cre- Evidence from the Founding Era suggests this limited dura- ated limited property right.
    [Show full text]
  • Software on the Island of Misfit Toys I
    Software on the Island of Misfit Toys i Software on the Island of Misfit Toys Laura Peters University of Maryland, University College IFSM 304, Ethics in the Information Age Professor John J. Neary February 2, 2007 Software on the Island of Misfit Toys ii Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... iii Topic Definitions ........................................................................................................................................... iv Abandonware Definitions ......................................................................................................................... iv Legal Definitions........................................................................................................................................v Ethics on the Island of Misfit Toys.................................................................................................................1 Abandonware’s Relationship to Information Systems...................................................................................2 Historical Abandonment ................................................................................................................................3 Lost Forever: Languages ..........................................................................................................................4 Lost Forever: Music...................................................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Study on Intellectual Property Rights, the Internet and Copyright
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Kent Academic Repository Commission on Intellectual Property Rights Study Paper 5 Study on Intellectual Property Rights, the Internet, and Copyright Alan Story Lecturer in Intellectual Property Kent Law School, University of Kent Canterbury, Kent This report has been commissioned by the IPR Commission as a background paper. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Commission. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………….. 3 Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………….. 4 Preface………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Section 1 – Copyright and Poor/Least Developed Countries- An Overview of Some of the Issues………………………………………………………………………………….... 11 Section 2 - Copyright, Proprietary and Free/Open Source Software………….……….. 19 Section 3 – Copyright and the Internet………………………………………………… 34 Section 4 – Copyright, Education and Traditional Printed Materials: Some Examples from Sub-Saharan Africa…………………………………………………………………….. 47 Section 5 – Copyright and Intangible Indigenous Heritage/ Knowledge………………. 64 Section 6 – Some Related Issues and Final Observations..……………………………. 70 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………… 73 Appendix 1 - Study on Intellectual Property Rights, the Internet, and Copyright (edited version)………………………………………………………………………………… 79 Appendix 2– Response to questions on copyright and traditional printed materials. D.R. Nicholson, Copyright Services Librarian, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg,
    [Show full text]