The Code was developed by a committee of copyright scholars under the chairmanship of Peter Jaszi and Patricia Aufderheide. The document developed by the committee is a code of best practices that helps creators, online providers, copyright holders, and others interested in the making of online video interpret the copyright doctrine of fair use.

The Code sets forth five possible applications of fair use to online videomaking.

1. Commenting on or critiquing of copyrighted material.

2. Using copyrighted material for illustration or example.

3. Capturing copyrighted material incidentally or accidentally.

4. Reproducing, reposting, or quoting in order to memorialize, preserve, or rescue an experience, an event, or a cultural phenomenon.

5. Copying, reposting, and recirculating a work or part of a work for purposes of launching a discussion.

This is a well-written document that will be useful to schools and libraries in determining whether their uses of copyrighted materials in online videos fall within fair use. For links to other useful materials on copyright, see MLC’s Copyright Links web page.

The Study Group’s mission was:

“to conduct a reexamination of the exceptions and limitations applicable to libraries and archives under the Copyright Act, specifically in light of digital technologies. 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 holders, libraries and archives in a manner that best serves the national interest.”

This Report examines issues related to the current Section 108 and makes recommendations for revisions.

I was also pleased to see that the article included my plug for ALA’s Copyright Advisory Network, a free service from ALA’s Washington Office. If you haven’t yet discovered the Copyright Advisory Network, please check it out. The Forum section allows schools and libraries to post their copyright questions for answers by the CAN team.

To post a copyright question:
1. Register at: http://www.librarycopyright.net/wordpress/punbb/register.php
2. Log in.
3. Click on “Copyright Questions” and then click on “Post New Topic” and submit your question.

After you post, your question will be answered by one or more of the members of the CAN Team. Here’s a photo of us (the new 2007-2008 CAN Team) with Carrie Russell, Copyright Specialist at the ALA Wash Office (front row: Freya Anderson, Carrie Russell, Raizel Liebler, Claudia Holguin, me; back row: Janet Brennan Croft, Julia Binnie, Cindy Kristof, Molly Kleinman).

This photo was taken a couple weeks ago when we went to Washington, DC, for our CAN Team training at the American Library Association’s Washington Office. In addition to answering questions on the website (Network Forum), we’ll also have a blog and a copyright wiki. Stay tuned!

The database covers the copyright renewal records received by the US Copyright Office between 1950 and 1993 for books published in the US between 1923 and 1963. Note that the database includes ONLY US Class A (book) renewals.

The welcome page notes: “The period from 1923-1963 is of special interest for US copyrights, as works published after January 1, 1964 had their copyrights automatically renewed by the 1976 Copyright Act, and works published before 1923 have generally fallen into the public domain. Between those dates, a renewal registration was required to prevent the expiration of copyright, however determining whether a work’s registration has been renewed is a challenge. Renewals received by the Copyright Office after 1977 are searchable in an online database, but renewals received between 1950 and 1977 were announced and distributed only in a semi-annual print publication. The Copyright Office does not have a machine-searchable source for this renewal information, and the only public access is through the card catalog in their DC offices.”

To search registrations for recent materials, see the Library of Congress’s searchable database at: http://www.copyright.gov/records/

She writes, “The point is, face-to-face still matters. And in fact all our globally-connecting-social-networking tools are making face-to-face more, not less desirable. Thanks to the tools y’all are building, we now have more far-flung friends–including people we’ve never met f2f–than ever before. We now have more people we want to connect with in the human world, often after years of electronic-only contact.” … “Bottom line: Face-to-Face matters, and the more people we meet online, the more people we now want to connect with offline.”

She also notes that the most underrated benefit of face-to-face conferences is INSPIRATION. I agree. Even though I really like being able to use email, IM and other online tools to cut down the number of meetings I have to attend, there is something envigorating about attending a conference that you don’t get from online meetings. I frequently come back from conferences motivated to start new projects or try new methods. Sometimes the inspiration comes from the programs and sometimes from talking with other attendees between programs.

Next month I’m going to Ball State University’s annual copyright conference in Indiana. I usually keep up-to-date on copyright law through reading blogs, web posts, and case law, but when I read about copyright, it rarely inspires or motivates me! The Ball State conference, on the other hand, is inspiring because there are 100 other people in the room who are, if not “passionate” about copyright law, at least interested in learning more and talking about where the law is going and its effect on libraries and education.

All that being said, I’m still in favor of investigating new avenues for online meetings and training. It would be great if we had the time and money to travel for all of our training and meeting needs, but that isn’t feasible with our libraries’ budgets and time constraints. In her post Kathy writes, “Perhaps one day in the future, the technology will finally catch up with real-life and we’ll get the same brain/health benefits from a non-real-world experience.”

Maybe Second Life, or a similar tool, will be able to fill that need for some library meetings and training in the future? But even if it does, I hope we’ll still be getting together for face-to-face conferences.

A one-page chart, “What you can do,” is also available to download or purchase in print. The web site lists several suggestions for how to use and distribute the brochure.

Sponsored by UNESCO, the handbook is a practical guide to topical legal questions affecting libraries worldwide. Sections include: “The Relationship between Copyright and Contract Law,” “Creative Commons,” “Open Access to Scholarly Communication,” and others.

Lessig’s proposal covers only published works, not unpublished works.  Because many digitization projects include unpublished, unique materials held by libraries,  it would be helpful to libraries if the orphan works legislation provides for unpublished materials as well as published materials.  Perhaps Congress will be able to find a middle ground when introducing orphan works legislation.