DOCSLIB.ORG

Section 108 Study Group Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section 108 Study Group Report The Section 108 Study Group Report An Independent Report sponsored by the United March 2008 States Copyright Office and the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program of the Library of Congress The Section 108 Study Group Report March 2008 An Independent Report sponsored by The United States Copyright Office and the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program of the Library of Congress This Report was finalized without the assistance of our valued colleague Robert L. Oakley, who passed away on September 29, 2007. Bob brought a depth of experience and spirit of open inquiry to the group that improved our work immeasurably, and we were particularly saddened that he could not help us see this work through to completion. The Section 108 Study Group mourns our loss, and remembers Bob with fondness and respect. Acknowledgements Many people at the Library of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office provided invaluable assistance to the Section 108 Study Group. We would especially like to thank Associate Librarian for Strategic Initiatives and Chief Information Officer Laura Campbell and Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters for their unwavering support. We also thank Mary Rasenberger, Christopher Weston, Abigail Potter, Mary Rhoads, and Jenel Farrell, as well as John Warren of IP Solutions. For contributions to the preparation and writing of this Report, thanks is due to all of our Study Group colleagues. This Report is truly a work of joint authorship. But special thanks is due to two staff members mentioned above. Mary Rasenberger worked closely with the co-chairs and played a major role in preparing for meetings. Both Mary and Christopher Weston played leading roles in the drafting process. For hosting the Study Group’s public roundtable discussions we thank David Nimmer at UCLA School of Law, Joe Keeley, former counsel to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property of the House Judiciary Committee, and Barbara Bressler of the Center for Intellectual Property Law and Information Technology at DePaul University College of Law. Laura N. Gasaway & Richard S. Rudick Co-Chairs, Section 108 Study Group Table of Contents Executive Summary ix I. Introduction 1 A. Roadmap to the Report 1 B. Background: The Section 108 Study Group 3 1. Purpose of the Study Group 3 2. Composition of the Study Group 4 3. Overview of Study Group’s Processes and Work 4 C. The Digital Challenge: The Effect of New Technologies on the Balance of Section 108 5 II. The Legal Landscape 8 A. The Context for the Library and Archives Exceptions 8 1. The Purposes of Copyright 8 2. Overview of the Exclusive Rights 9 3. Copyright Limitations and Exceptions 11 4. The Rationale for Copyright Limitations and Exceptions 12 5. Standards and Principles for Copyright Limitations and Exceptions 12 6. Obligations Under International Treaties 13 B. Exceptions for Libraries and Archives: Section 108 and Related Laws 14 1. The Role of Libraries and Archives 14 2. Brief Background and History of Section 108 15 C. Overview of Section 108 17 1. Eligibility 17 2. Copying for Preservation and Replacement 18 3. Copies for Users 20 4. Other Provisions 21 5. Other Important Related Areas of Law 21 a. Fair Use 21 b. Significance of Publication 22 c. Technological Protection Measures 23 d. Remedies 24 e. Orphan Works 24 f. Exceptions Specific to the Library of Congress 25 III. Overarching Themes 27 A. Shared Values and Tensions 27 B. The Impact of New Technologies 28 C. The Rule of Law 28 D. Distinguishing Between Types of Works: Commercialization as a Factor? 29 E. Sovereign Immunity 30 IV. Issue Discussions 31 A. Recommendations for Legislative Change 31 1. Eligibility 31 a. Museum Eligibility Under Section 108 31 b. Additional Functional Requirements: Subsection 108(a) 34 c. Outsourcing of Section 108 Activities 39 2. Preservation and Replacement Exceptions 43 a. Background: Digital Preservation and Copyright 43 b. Rethinking the Published/Unpublished Distinction 47 c. Replacement Copying 52 d. Preservation of Unpublished Works 61 e. Preservation of Publicly Disseminated Works 69 f. Preservation of Publicly Available Online Content 80 g. Television News Exception 88 3. Miscellaneous Issues 91 a. Unsupervised Reproducing Equipment 91 b. Reorganization of the Section 108 Exceptions 93 B. Conclusions on Other Issues 95 1. Copies for Users Exceptions 95 a. Current Library and Archives Practices 95 b. Direct Copies and ILL: Subsections 108(d) and (e) 98 c. Non-Text-Based Works Excluded by Subsection 108(i) 106 C. Additional Issues 113 1. Virtual Libraries and Archives 113 2. Display and Performance of Unlicensed Digital Works 117 3. Licenses and Other Contracts 120 4. Circumvention of Technological Measures that Effectively Control Access to 123 a Work 5. E-Reserves 128 6. Pre-1972 Sound Recordings 129 7. Remedies 131 V. Conclusion and Next Steps 132 VI. Appendices A. Text of Section 108 A:134 B. Study Group Members B:137 C. List of Experts Consulted C:139 D. Federal Register Notice Vol. 71, No. 31, Docket No. 06-10801, February 16, D:140 2006 E. Commenters to Federal Register Notice Vol. 31, Docket No. 06-10801, E:144 February 16, 2006 F. Participants in the March 8, 2006 Public Roundtable, Los Angeles, California F:145 G. Participants in the March 16, 2006 Public Roundtable, Washington, DC G:146 H. Federal Register Notice Vol. 71, No. 232, Docket No. 07-10802, December 4, H:147 2006 I. Commenters to Federal Register Notice Vol. 71, No. 232, Docket No. 07-10802, I:154 December 4, 2006 J. Participants in the January 31, 2007 Roundtable, Chicago, Illinois J: 155 K. Background Paper on Section 108 K:156 Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Rapidly evolving digital technologies have transformed the way that works of authorship are created, disseminated, stored, preserved, accessed, and experienced for scholarly, entertainment, or other purposes. Rights holders – including authors, musicians, artists, publishers, photographers, computer programmers, record compa- nies, and motion picture studios – are now creating and distributing works in digital formats, and as a result their practices have undergone significant changes. Librar- ies, archives, and museums, in keeping with their missions to collect, preserve, and make available the cultural heritage on behalf of the American people, have likewise altered many of their traditional procedures and practices and have started to collect new materials. Increased use of digital technologies has prompted a corresponding increase in the public’s expectations regarding access to content. Users have begun to expect trustworthy, immediate desktop access to digital materials from all sources, whether local or remote. Copyright law structures many of the relationships among users, creators, and distributors of copyrighted content. Due to the rapid pace of technological and so- cial change, the law embodies some now-outmoded assumptions about technology, behavior, professional practices, and business models. Section 08 of the Copy- right Act of 976, which provides libraries and archives with specific exceptions to the exclusive rights of copyright owners, was enacted in the pre-digital era. At that time, works were created and distributed primarily in analog format, and li- brary and archives copying consisted of photoduplication and microform. Much has changed since then. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), enacted in 998, amended portions of section 08, but its provisions only began to address the preservation practices of libraries and archives in the digital environment, and did not attempt to be a comprehensive revision of that section. The Library of Congress’s experience in planning for the National Digital Infor- mation Infrastructure and Preservation Program (NDIIPP) and the ongoing work of the U.S. Copyright Office indicated that new technologies had altered the activities of libraries and archives in such a way as to call into question the continued relevance and effectiveness of section 08 of the Copyright Act. Consequently, NDIIPP, in cooperation with the U.S. Copyright Office, convened the 9-member Section 08 Study Group, an independent body reflecting the range of stakeholder interests. The Study Group’s mission statement, approved at its first convening session in April 2005, reads: Notes on terminology: One of the Study Group’s recommendations is to amend section 08 so that it applies to museums as well as libraries and archives. For convenience, this Report refers to “libraries and archives” throughout, but “libraries and archives” should be read to include museums for all recommendations and other proposals described in this Report, unless specifically noted. Where distinctions are made among libraries, archives, or museums, the text will refer to them separately. The term “rights holders” is used to refer to authors of all types of copyrighted works, and those to whom authors have licensed or assigned rights in their works. Section 108 Study Group Report Executive Summary The purpose of the Section 108 Study Group is to conduct a reexami- nation of the exceptions and limitations applicable to libraries and archives under the Copyright Act, specifically in light of digital tech- nologies. The group will study how section 108 of the Copyright Act may need to be amended to address the relevant issues and concerns of libraries and archives, as well as creators and other copyright holders. The group will provide findings and recommendations on how to revise the copyright law in order to ensure an appropriate balance among the interests of creators and other copyright hold- ers, libraries and archives in a manner that best serves the national interest. Copyright law should represent a balance among the legitimate interests of the different entities working with copyrighted materials, and while members of the Study Group were not always in agreement on the shape and form of that balance, all agreed on its fundamental importance.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Country Report Netherlands
    Country Report for the United States Annual Report to the IFLA CLM committee Helsinki, 2012 Copyright Proposed legislation Sound Recording Simplification Act. The Sound Recording Simplification Act (H.R. 2933), introduced on September 14, 2011, would bring pre-1972 sound recordings under federal copyright protection by amending §301 of the U.S. Copyright Act. No legislative action was taken by Congress. On December 28, 2011, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a report on Federal Copyright Protection for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings, following a notice of inquiry, request for comments, and public hearings held in May and June 2011. The report, prepared after receiving written and oral input from stakeholders, recommends that sound recordings made before February 15, 1972 be brought into the federal copyright regime. On April 13, 2011, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and the American Library Association (ALA) submitted reply comments to the U.S. Copyright Office stating that federalization of protection for pre-1972 sound recordings would create significant challenges for libraries, at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/sound. SOPA, PIPA, and OPEN Stop Online Piracy Act. The Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261) (SOPA) was introduced on October 26, 2011 “to promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property.” Its twin bill in the Senate was the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (Protect IP Act) (S. 968) (PIPA), introduced on May 12, 2011 “to prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property.” This legislation would curtail copyright violations on the Internet by blocking access to and cutting revenue sources for foreign websites primarily dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods, referred to as “rogue websites.” There was enormous opposition to these bills from technology industry, public interest groups, the library and educational community, and the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 108 Study Group: Copyright Exceptions for Libraries and Archives
    70434 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 232 / Monday, December 4, 2006 / Notices time of the preparation of the notice of TUV will meet all the terms of its (preferred) to the e–mail address the preliminary finding. recognition and will always comply [email protected], or (2) by hand OSHA’s recognition of TUV, or any with all OSHA policies pertaining to delivery by a private party or a NRTL, for a particular test standard is this recognition; and commercial, non–government courier or limited to equipment or materials (i.e., TUV will continue to meet the messenger, addressed to the Office of products) for which OSHA standards requirements for recognition in all areas Strategic Initiatives, Library of Congress, require third-party testing and where it has been recognized. James Madison Memorial Building, certification before use in the Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Room LM–637, 101 Independence workplace. Consequently, if a test Avenue S.E., Washington, DC 20540, Assistant Secretary of Labor. standard also covers any product(s) for between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.S.T. If which OSHA does not require such [FR Doc. E6–20406 Filed 12–1–06; 8:45 am] delivering by courier or messenger testing and certification, an NRTL’s BILLING CODE 4510–26–P please provide the delivery service with scope of recognition does not include the Office of Strategic Initiatives phone that product(s). number: (202) 707–3300. (See Many UL test standards also are LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Supplementary Information, Section 4: ‘‘Procedures for Submitting Requests to approved as American National Copyright Office Standards by the American National Participate in Roundtable Discussions Standards Institute (ANSI).
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Copyright Office: the Register's Perspective on Copyright Review
    Statement of MARIA A. PALLANTE UNITED STATES REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS AND DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY United States House of Representatives “THE REGISTER’S PERSPECTIVE ON COPYRIGHT REVIEW” April 29, 2015 Statement of MARIA A. PALLANTE UNITED STATES REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS AND DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY United States House of Representatives “THE REGISTER’S PERSPECTIVE ON COPYRIGHT REVIEW” April 29, 2015 Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and Members of the Judiciary Committee: It is a great honor to appear before you again to discuss issues of copyright law and copyright administration. My staff and I wish to thank you for the attention this Committee has invested in reviewing the Copyright Act and related provisions of Title 17 during the past two years. During this time, you convened twenty hearings and traversed the formidable span of Title 17. This represents the most comprehensive focus on copyright issues in over four decades. I. BACKGROUND AND THEMES Although copyright law has grown more legally complex and economically important in recent years, Congress is uniquely positioned to sort through the many competing equities that comprise the public interest in this modern era.1 Questions include: how best to secure for authors the exclusive rights to their creative works; how to ensure a robust copyright marketplace; how to craft essential exceptions, safe harbors, and limitations; and how to provide appropriate direction, oversight, and regulation. This balancing act is not 1The United States Congress is not alone in this undertaking.
    [Show full text]
  • The Next Great Copyright Act
    THE NEXT GREAT COPYRIGHT ACT Twenty-Sixth Horace S. Manges Lecture by Maria A. Pallante1 I. INTRODUCTION Tonight my topic is the next great copyright act, but before I speak about the future, I would like to talk a little about the past, including the role of the Copyright Office in past revision activities. In my remarks, I will address the need for comprehensive review and revision of U.S. copyright law, identify the most significant issues, and suggest a framework by which Congress should weigh the public interest, which includes the interests of authors. I also will address the necessary evolution of the Copyright Office itself. Those of you who have been to our offices in Washington know that we have a conference room featuring portraits of the former Registers of Copyright dating back to 1897.2 When guests are seated at our table, the former Registers preside on high, wearing a variety of expressions and overseeing complex conversations about copyright law in the digital age. Sometimes I think they would be startled by the discussions we have, but then again it might all sound familiar. Solberg (1887-1933) Thorvald Solberg was the first and longest-serving Register of Copyrights. He seems inspired in his portrait, and for good reason. Solberg was a visionary leader, a champion of authors’ rights, and an early advocate for the United States’ adherence to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (“Berne Convention”).3 Under his care, the Copyright Office grew from a handful of employees to more than a hundred professional staff, and took on the many assorted roles that are still critical to the mission of the Office today.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 108: Draft Revision of the Library and Archives Exceptions in U.S
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 06/07/2016 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2016-13426, and on FDsys.gov LIBRARY OF CONGRESS U.S. Copyright Office [Docket No. 2016-4] Section 108: Draft Revision of the Library and Archives Exceptions in U.S. Copyright Law AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Notice of inquiry. SUMMARY: The United States Copyright Office is inviting interested parties to discuss potential revisions relating to the library and archives exceptions in the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 108, in furtherance of the Copyright Office’s policy work in this area over the past ten years and as part of the current copyright review process in Congress. The Copyright Office has led and participated in major discussions on potential changes to section 108 since 2005, with the goal of updating the provisions to better reflect the facts, practices, and principles of the digital age and to provide greater clarity for libraries, archives, and museums. To finalize its legislative recommendation, the Copyright Office seeks further input from the public on several remaining issues, including, especially, provisions concerning copies for users, security measures, public access, and third-party outsourcing. The Copyright Office therefore invites interested parties to schedule meetings in Washington, DC to take place during late June through July 2016, using the meeting request form referenced below. DATES: Written meeting requests must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].
    [Show full text]
  • Rights in the PREMIS Data Model
    Rights in the PREMIS Data Model A Report for the Library of Congress by Karen Coyle December 2006 Rights in the PREMIS Data Model By Karen Coyle December 2006 Preface …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………………………….4 I. Rights for Digital Preservation .................................................................................5 Introduction................................................................................................................ 5 The Right to Preserve .................................................................................................. 5 Rights Metadata Today ................................................................................................ 6 The PREMIS Rights Entity ............................................................................................ 9 References.................................................................................................................10 II. Digital Preservation Strategies and Rights Implications ..........................................11 Introduction...............................................................................................................11 Digital preservation actions .........................................................................................12 Rights In the Law .......................................................................................................15 Exceptions to Legal Rights ..........................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Collective Management of Copyright: Solution Or Sacrifice?
    WASOFF Final 12/5/2011 8:42 PM Symposium: Collective Management of Copyright: Solution or Sacrifice? If Mass Digitization Is the Problem, Is Legislation the Solution? Some Practical Considerations Related to Copyright Lois F. Wasoff* INTRODUCTION Copyright law is intended to be “technology neutral.” Despite that, technological development is clearly putting pressure on certain aspects of copyright. Readily available technological tools make digital copying and distribution simple and seamless. This can make the legal “obstacles” to the full use of those tools resulting from the need to comply with copyright seem inconvenient and archaic. In particular, the issues arising in connection with mass digitization projects, where compliance can require identifying and locating large numbers of copyright owners and seeking appropriate permissions, are complicated. We hear often about the potential benefits that could be derived from mass digitization projects; we hear less often about some of the risks they may create. But the widespread interest in facilitating such projects, at least for certain purposes, is clear. Collective licensing schemes may be one way to accomplish that; targeted exceptions to copyright may be another. Either may require making changes to current copyright law. Many discussions about issues related to current copyright law are taking place. There are discussions about extensive, overall “reform” and about less “global” approaches as well. Significant work has been done with respect to several aspects of the present law that are relevant to mass digitization initiatives. The orphan works study, report and legislative recommendations of the Copyright Office * Lois Wasoff is an attorney in private practice with more than thirty years experience in communications, publishing, media, technology and entertainment law.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 108 Study Group
    February 10, 2006 SECTION 108 STUDY GROUP INFORMATION FOR THE MARCH 2006 PUBLIC ROUNDTABLES AND REQUEST FOR WRITTEN COMMENTS INTRODUCTION: This document provides background information and detailed discussion on the issues set forth in the February 15, 2006 Federal Register notice titled “Notice of public roundtables with request for comments,” issued by the Copyright Office and the Office of Strategic Initiatives of the Library of Congress. Parties wishing to participate in the March public roundtables and/or submit comments should read this background document thoroughly. Please note that this document is intended to supplement the Federal Register notice. For convenience, it also includes all logistical and procedural information from the Federal Register notice. SUMMARY: The Section 108 Study Group of the Library of Congress seeks comment on certain issues relating to the exceptions and limitations applicable to libraries and archives under section 108 of the Copyright Act, and announces public roundtable discussions. The Federal Register notice (1) requests written comments from all interested parties on the specific issues identified in the notice, and (2) announces public roundtable discussions regarding certain of those issues, as described in the notice. The issues covered in the notice relate primarily to eligibility for the section 108 exceptions and copies made for purposes of preservation and replacement. DATES: Roundtable Discussions: The first public roundtable will be held in Los Angeles, California on Wednesday, March 8, 2006, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. P.S.T. An additional roundtable will be held in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, March 16, 2006 from 9:00 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright-Law-Cannot-Copyright
    Mitchell Hamline Law Review Volume 47 Issue 3 Article 4 2021 Copyright Law Cannot Copyright Law—Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., 140 S.CT. 1498 (2020) Andy Taylor Follow this and additional works at: https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/mhlr Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Taylor, Andy (2021) "Copyright Law Cannot Copyright Law—Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., 140 S.CT. 1498 (2020)," Mitchell Hamline Law Review: Vol. 47 : Iss. 3 , Article 4. Available at: https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/mhlr/vol47/iss3/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mitchell Hamline Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Taylor: Copyright Law Cannot Copyright Law—Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org COPYRIGHT LAW CANNOT COPYRIGHT LAWGEORGIA V. PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC., 140 S. CT. 1498 (2020) Andy Taylor ǂ I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 977 II. THE PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG DECISION ...................................... 978 A. Facts and Procedural History ................................................ 978 B. U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision ............................................ 982 C. Understanding the Stakeholders’ Interests ........................... 985 1. What is Public.Resource.Org? ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE SECTION 108 STUDY GROUP Laura N. Gasaway * Libraries
    GASAWAY.FINAL.JERRY.4-18-07.DOC 12/17/2007 11:09:57 AM AMENDING THE COPYRIGHT ACT FOR LIBRARIES AND SOCIETY: THE SECTION 108 STUDY GROUP Laura N. Gasaway * Libraries house copyrighted books and journals in their collections, provide intellectual access to them through catalogs and indexes, and make them available to users. Many researchers and readers are able to use library copies of the works over time, so access to the work is shared. Most libraries exist for this very purpose. Archival collections perform a similar function in that they collect papers—both unpublished and published works, organize them and make them available—often to the general public, again for shared access. These organizations, along with museums, serve public missions and each is recognized as a public good. The Copyright Act of 1976,1 for the first time in the history of copyright, specifically recognized the unique and important role that libraries and archives play in our society. For the purposes of this paper, the word “libraries” also refers to archives as well unless they are specifically differentiated in the particular section. The digital environment has permanently altered both the library landscape and the society they serve. Not only do libraries continue to acquire works in print but they also acquire access to materials through license agreements to provide electronic access to works, some of which are born digital. Libraries may even acquire the same work in multiple formats including both print and digital. In their role as preservers of works of literature, other written materials and media, libraries use digital technology to preserve works and make them available to users.
    [Show full text]
  • The Librarian's Copyright Companion / by James S
    William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Library Staff Publications The Wolf Law Library 2012 The Librarian’s Copyright Companion James S. Heller Paul Hellyer [email protected] Benjamin J. Keele Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/libpubs Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Law Librarianship Commons Repository Citation Heller, James S.; Hellyer, Paul; and Keele, Benjamin J., "The Librarian’s Copyright Companion" (2012). Library Staff Publications. 147. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/libpubs/147 Copyright c 2012 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/libpubs The Librarian’s Copyright Companion SECOND EDITION The Librarian’s Copyright Companion SECOND EDITION by James S. Heller Paul Hellyer Benjamin J. Keele William S. Hein & Co., Inc. Buffalo, New York 2012 Publisher’s Cataloging in Publication Heller, James S. The librarian's copyright companion / by James S. Heller, Paul Hellyer, Benjamin J. Keele. — 2nd ed. — Buffalo, NY : William S. Hein, 2012. p. ; cm. ISBN: 978-0-8377-3872-7 (print) Revision of the 2004 edition by James S. Heller. Includes bibliographical references and index. Summary: The transition from print to digital continues. The Copyright Act has changed a little, but not for the better. This book begins with the premise that copyright exists to promote the dissemination of information, and while creators have certain rights, so do users. This new edition updates every chapter and adds a new chapter on the library as a publisher. Also included is information on recent developments such as Creative Common licenses and the use of digital video (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Office 2013 Annual Report
    u.s. copyright office fiscal 2013 annual report 2 12 15 Message from the Register Registration and Recordation Information and Education 4 14 16 Highlights Statutory Licensing Appendices 1 message from the register “We owe it to the next generation of creators and innovators and the public to plan for the future.” —register of copyrights, world creators summit, june 2013 Maria A. Pallante iscal 2013 was a year of great excitement and promise 1950s and 1960s and enacted in 1976. Its Internet overlay, in Priorities and Special Projects of the United States for both the copyright law and the Copyright the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, was enacted in Copyright Office, 2011–2013. Another project team solicited Office.F Review and examination of the current law was 1998, long before cloud storage, personal tablets, and comments and met with stakeholders to inform an no longer just a topic of discussion within copyright smartphone applications. Shortly thereafter, Rep. Bob upgrade of the Office’s information technology platforms, circles but the product of a full-fledged legislative Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, including with respect to copyright registration process within the United States Congress. As Congress announced the committee’s intention to assess the law. processes. This public dialogue was essential and considered its vision of a 21st-century copyright law, it The chairman invited me to testify before the committee, illuminating. Among other issues, it focused on possible became clear that the needs and goals of a 21st-century and during the course of fiscal 2013, held four additional strategies to update document recordation—still a paper- Copyright Office are an essential part of the discussion.
    [Show full text]