Tag Archives: copyright

Betty Ballantine and the Manufacturing Clause

This week is Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week, an annual celebration of the important doctrines of fair use and fair dealing. It is designed to highlight and promote the opportunities presented by fair use and fair dealing, celebrate successful stories, and explain these doctrines.

*This is a guest blog post by Jonathan Band, policybandwidth*

Fair Use Week properly celebrates a critical limitation on copyright protection that enables free expression and creativity. And at the beginning of this year, we celebrated works entering into the public domain because their copyright term (finally!) expired. The recent death of Betty Ballantine, one of the founders of Bantam Books and Ballantine Books, reminds us of another limitation that stimulated the growth of the U.S. publishing industry: the manufacturing clause. Until the United States joined the Universal Copyright Convention in 1954, the Copyright Act’s manufacturing clause protected English-language literary works only if they were printed in the United States with the copyright owners’ authorization. This allowed U.S. publishers to reprint British works that weren’t printed in the United States without paying royalties to the British authors.

The importance of the manufacturing clause was underscored in the Washington Post’s obituary about Betty Ballantine, who passed away on February 12, 2019. The obituary explained how Betty Ballantine and her husband, Ian Ballantine, helped develop the market for paperback books in the United States. Prior to World War II, paperback books were primarily poorly made pulp novels. After the War, “the Ballantines took advantage of new technology in production and distribution and of a clause in copyright law discovered by Ian that waived fees on books from Britain, where high quality paperbacks were easier to find.” The clause that Ian “discovered” was the manufacturing clause, which actually was well known at the time. They founded Bantam Books, which, among other titles, published British bestsellers that had not yet been printed in the United States. In 1952, they established Ballantine Books based on the same business model. Both Bantam Books and Ballantine Books eventually became part of Penguin Random House.

In other words, large divisions of a major publishing house have their roots in a limitation on copyright protection. Moreover, this limitation encouraged the growth of an important market segment: paperback books. In this instance, the manufacturing clause worked exactly as intended; it promoted the development of U.S. printers and publishers at the expense of foreign rights holders. The manufacturing clause, when adopted in 1891, actually expanded the rights of foreign authors. Prior to the clause’s adoption, foreign authors received no copyright protection in the United States. Under the manufacturing clause, foreign works received copyright protection if they were printed in the United States. This approach provided increased protection for foreign authors without harming the developing U.S. printing industry because the foreign works received protection only if they were printed on U.S. presses. Nonetheless, the manufacturing clause departed from the national treatment approach of the Berne Convention, adopted five years earlier in 1886.

Although the manufacturing clause was an improvement over the previous situation of receiving no protection, foreign authors still objected to it because U.S. publishers often printed their books in the United States before they had the opportunity to authorize U.S. publication. In 1909, Congress exempted foreign language works from the manufacturing clause, but it still applied to books published in English. In 1954, in the context of joining the Universal Copyright Convention (“UCC”), Congress excluded all foreign works—even those in English–from the scope of the manufacturing clause. By then, the United States had become a major exporter of copyrighted works, and U.S. publishers would benefit from receiving protection of their works overseas under the UCC. The printing trade unions opposed the United States joining the UCC and the narrowing of the manufacturing clause. Nonetheless, until 1986, the manufacturing clause still applied to U.S. authors, meaning that U.S. authors received copyright protection only if their books were printed in the United States.

The exemption of English language books from the scope of the manufacturing clause in 1954 disrupted the Ballantines’ business model. But by then, their publishing houses were well established, and they went on to publish many popular books with the authors’ permission. Balzac said that “behind every great fortune there lies a great crime.” It could be said behind every publisher lies a copyright limitation.

Celebrating New Works Entering the Public Domain in the United States

On January 1, 2019, the United States saw a mass number of new published works enter the public domain for the first time in twenty years.  After the enactment of the Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended copyright term for 20 years, a moratorium was placed on most new works entering the public domain.  Although works published in 1923 were originally scheduled to enter the public domain in 1999, the Copyright Term Extension Act gave works published between 1923 and 1977 and expanded term of 95 years.  (Note: determining the term of copyright can be incredibly complex; this chart is helpful in determining the potential public domain status of a work.)

A rich, robust public domain provides critical building blocks for the creation of new works because authors can use and reuse existing material without first seeking permission.  Examples of culturally prominent works that relied on existing works abound, from this list of 50 Disney movies based on the public domain to this paper, “Nothing New Under the Sun” (covering everything from classical music and modern jazz to literature to the stage and movies to visual arts).  While an author’s talent and work certainly contribute to great new works, such creations are not created in a vacuum; these examples of new works building on old works demonstrate the importance of the public domain.

In celebration of Public Domain Day, cultural heritage institutions are digitizing and making available a number of works and collections that are entering the public domain. The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) is gathering information about and publicizing such resources that are available in ARL member institutions. Below are just a few examples:

The Ohio State University Libraries, for example, working with the School of Music, are highlighting musical compositions entering the public domain.  The digital scores have been made available and new recordings will be posted.

The University of Oregon has created a Public Domain Day exhibit highlighting key works entering the public domain from the libraries’ collection in the categories of movies, books and music.

MIT Libraries is celebrating the public domain by digitizing 100 books from its collection, such as J.M. Barrie’s play A Kiss for Cinderella.

The University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign Libraries is featuring 1923 works of Helen Louis Thorndyke.

Significantly, HathiTrust Digital Library has made more than 53,000 works from 1923 available online.

Celebrating the public domain can give new life to old works and lead to new creations. Enjoy the mass numbers of newly available digitized works from 1923!

Advocacy and Public Policy Update

ARL has released a new Advocacy and Public Policy Update, covering the period from September 14, 2018 to January 15, 2019.  Prior updates are available here.

This update covers a wide range of topics including:

Copyright and Intellectual Property Issues

  • Public Domain Day 2019
  • Capitol Records v. ReDigi
  • Georgia v. Public.Resources.Org
  • GSU e-reserves
  • LCA comments on non-commercial uses of pre-1972 sound recordings

Net Neutrality

International Issues

  • NAFTA renegotiation
  • Marrakesh Treaty updates

Legislation and Agencies

  • US Appropriations update
  • Museum and Library Services Act
  • Geospatial Data Act
  • Open Government Data Act
  • ARL comments on NTIA’s request on consumer privacy

Eleventh Circuit Reverses and Remands Georgia State E-Reserves Case (Again)

The long saga of the Georgia State University (GSU) e-reserves case continues as the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling which had found that the vast majority of GSU’s use of works in its e-reserves constituted a fair use. This is the second time the Eleventh Circuit has reviewed the case, and the second time it has reversed.

In 2008, publishers sued GSU for copyright infringement, arguing that the use of unlicensed excerpts of copyrighted works in the e-reserves constituted infringement. GSU defended itself, relying on the right of fair use. In the first bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of fair use for 43 of the 48 cases of alleged infringement. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case in 2014, directing the lower court to re-examine its weight to market substitution and re-evaluate the four fair use factors holistically, rather than taking an arithmetic approach (i.e., if three fair use factors favor the use, but one disfavors it, fair use should always apply). On remand, the district court re-evaluated the four factors and found that 44 of the 48 cases constituted fair use. In her analysis, Judge Evans assigned each factor a weight: “The Court estimates the initial, approximate respective weights of the four factors as follows: 25% for factor one, 5% for factor two, 30% for factor three, and 40% for factor four.” The publishers again appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which heard the case in 2017. (Here’s a link to ARL’s amicus brief in the second appeal.)

On October 19, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit released its 25 page opinion—more than a year after hearing oral arguments in the case—finding that the district court again erred in its evaluation of fair use. The Eleventh Circuit suggests that the district court was only mandated to re-evaluate its analysis on the second and third factors, but had instead also re-evaluated its analysis on factor four (in which the district court found in the first trial that in 31 cases, the fourth fair use factor weighed against fair use).

Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit points out that “The district court again applied a mathematical formula in its overall analysis of fair use,” which it had been instructed against. Although the district court couched the given weights as “initial” and “approximate,” the Eleventh Circuit found that the district court only adjusted these factors in four instances and di not adjust the other factors in the overall analysis. Thus, “We conclude that the district court’s quantitative rubric was an improper substitute for a qualitative consideration of each instance of copying in the light of its particular facts.” The Eleventh Circuit has remanded the case, directing the district court to use a holistic approach to fair use, and avoid any mathematical approach with respect to the four factors.

Another issue the Eleventh Circuit opinion addresses is whether the cost of purchasing licenses affects the third factor; the district court in the second trial considered the price of use on two ocassions. The Eleventh Circuit rules that price should not be taken into account when evaluating the amount and substantiality of the portion of the work used.

While the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded on the above issues, it affirmed the district court’s decision not to reopen the record. Publishers in 2015 filed a motion to reopen, asserting the need to introduce “Evidence of GSU’s ongoing conduct (e.g. its use of E-Reserves during the most recent academic term)” as well as evidence of the availability of digital licenses. Here, the Eleventh Circuit notes that this decision is within the discretion of the trial court.

Kevin Smith posted about the GSU case on In the Open, with an excellent summary of what the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion (as well as its last opinion) does not do, and what, as a result, the publishers have lost on:

…But the big principles that the publishers were trying to gain are all lost. There will be no sweeping injunction, nor any broad assertion that e-reserves always require a license. The library community will still have learned that non-profit educational use is favored under the first fair use factor even when that use is not transformative. The best the publisher plaintiffs can hope for is a split decision, and maybe the chance to avoid paying GSU’s costs, but the real victories, for fair use and for libraries, have already been won.

Eleventh Circuit Finds Georgia’s Annotated State Laws Not Copyrightable

On Friday, October 19, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that Georgia’s annotated laws are not protected by copyright, reversing the district court. In Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Georgia argued that its annotated state laws are protected by copyright. Public.Resource.org posted these laws online—it has for several other laws and codes in other jurisdictions—and was subsequently sued for copyright infringement. Public.Resource.org argued that because only the annotated versions are considered official versions, they should be free to be read by the public. As a policy matter, this outcome makes sense; one should be able to read, for free, the laws that they must abide by. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with Public.Resource.org.

The Eleventh Circuit did not state that all annotated laws are not copyrightable, but instead noted that in the present case, the annotations were done at the direction of state officials and intertwined with the law itself. The court sums up its conclusion: “the annotations in the OCGA are sufficiently law-like so as to be properly regarded as a sovereign work. Like the statutory text itself, the annotations are created by the duly constituted legislative authority of the State of Georgia. Moreover, the annotations clearly have authoritative weight in explicating and establishing the meaning and effect of Georgia’s laws. Furthermore, the procedures by which the annotations were incorporated bear the hallmarks of legislative process, namely bicameralism and presentment. In short, the annotations are legislative works created by Georgia’s legislators in the exercise of their legislative authority.”

The district court had ruled that the annotations were subject to copyright, then proceeded to reject the argument that Public.Resource.Org’s use was fair use. However, as the Eleventh Circuit notes, “Because we conclude that no copyright can be held in the annotations, we have no occasion to address the parties’ other arguments regarding originality and fair use.”

ARL submitted an amicus brief in this case together with ALA, ACRL, Public Knowledge and other groups and individuals—as well as in a related case, ASTM v. Public.Resource.Org, supporting Public.Resoure.org.

Documentary “Paywall: The Business of Scholarship” Premieres in Washington, DC

*This is a guest blog post by Judy Ruttenberg, ARL program director for strategic initiatives.*
*Updated September 11, 2018, with quotation from Geneva Henry.*

The documentary film Paywall: The Business of Scholarship made its global premiere in Washington, DC, on September 5, 2018, the same week that 11 European countries proclaimed that all their publicly funded research would be open access by 2020. Paywall producer and director Jason Schmitt and director of photography Russell Stone welcomed the DC audience, which comprised many of the scientists, publishers, and open access advocates featured in the 65-minute film. With minimal narration and expertly sequenced interviews, the film weaves together two principal stories: the exorbitant financial cost to access for-profit academic journals and the associated, incalculable human cost when doctors, patients, students, and would-be innovators all over the world hit paywalls that deny them access to the latest research.

Schmitt, an associate professor of media and communication at Clarkson University, told the DC audience that the film was made not for them but for their neighbors, friends, and colleagues who are not immersed in the world of academic publishing. To the uninitiated, the system makes little sense. The labor of writing articles is unpaid, as is much of the editing, peer review, and curation. Taxpayers fund most scientific research, whether done within government agencies, or through universities, and yet the results (until recently) have not been available to them. The top five academic publishers—which dominate the market—earn profit margins up to ten times that of top technology firms. While many of the film’s subjects acknowledged innovation and value within these publishing companies, Elsevier in particular, most were quick to say those contributions are outweighed by the costs to the scientific enterprise of excluding so many people from participating in it.

Some of Paywall’s most compelling interviews address the consequences of exclusion. Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science (COS), described a meeting with a cohort of graduate students in Budapest who were all studying implicit cognition. Why so many students, in one sub-field? Because the papers are largely available on the open internet. Schmitt met with medical students and faculty in Africa and India who were unable to access the latest literature, and unable to contribute their own discoveries to it. Paywalls inhibit innovation because they minimize the chance that “the right person will be in the right place at the right time,” with respect to the literature, said Tom Callaway, from the open source software company Red Hat. And the audience laughed along with Sci-Hub creator Alexandra Elbakyan as, in a rare on-camera interview, she explained that Sci-Hub is targeting this exclusion by helping Elsevier fulfill its mission to make “uncommon knowledge common.”

Paywall is a celebration of the open access (OA) movement and its victories to level the playing field through preprint services like arXiv, and through policies mandating public access to government-funded research. The film is also a sober reflection on the OA movement’s progress, as for-profit academic publishers have both stalled and monetized open access while maintaining ever-increasing subscription revenue. The consortium of European national funders, called cOAlition S, announced their initiative this week with a set of principles addressing these exorbitant costs, including a cap on open access publication fees and a prohibition on publishing in hybrid journals (that charge a mix of subscription and open access fees). Peter Suber, director of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication, emphasized in Paywall the critical importance of authors retaining copyrights in order for a large-scale open access system to function.

Geneva Henry, dean of Libraries and Academic Innovation at The George Washington University, also attended the premiere and offered this reflection:

Academic library leaders have been raising the concern for years about the unsustainable rate of inflation with online journals, particularly those supporting the sciences. We have shown our faculty and university leadership the solid data that demonstrates this problem, have cut journals each year to fit our budgets and have been met with criticism by the researchers, have provided information about open access and its advantages, and have received polite nods and smiles from everyone. But little has changed and the high-impact (high-cost) journals are still the ones that remain a priority for faculty publications. Paywall has the opportunity to present these audiences with perspectives from a wide variety of scholars and professionals who identify the issues we’ve been trying to communicate for so long. Its format as a film will enable broader distribution and hopefully be that communication vehicle for bringing this issue to the forefront of academic leadership. We’ve known for a long time that something needs to change and this film will hopefully serve as a catalyst for turning the tide on commercial publishing practices that limit the distribution of knowledge in our society. Perhaps librarians will now be viewed as the canaries in the coal mine rather than a bunch of chicken littles.

SPARC Europe, LIBER (the Association of European Research Libraries), and Research Libraries UK (RLUK) have all issued statements in support of cOAlition S. Peter Suber has also blogged about the plan.

Funded by a grant from the Open Society Foundations, Paywall will be screened by more than 175 universities this fall, and is available to stream under a CC BY 4.0 license at www.paywallthemovie.com. SPARC, a global coalition committed to making open the default for research and education, helped organize the DC premiere.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Holds Hearing on the Marrakesh Treaty for Persons With Print Disabilities

On March 15, 2018, the Marrakesh Treaty Implementation Act (S. 2559) was introduced in the US Senate by Judiciary Committee Chair Grassley (R-IA), Ranking Member Feinstein (D-CA), Foreign Relations Committee Chair Corker (R-TN), Ranking Member Menendez (D-NJ), and Senators Hatch (R-UT), Harris (D-CA), and Leahy (D-VT), to ratify and implement the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled (ARL’s press release on the introduction of the implementing legislation is available here).  Today, April 18, 2018, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing on the Marrakesh Treaty.  Witnesses include Manisha Singh (Department of State), Allan Adler (Association of American Publishers), Scott LaBarre (National Federation for the Blind) and Jonathan Band (Library Copyright Alliance).

The Marrakesh Treaty, concluded in June 2013 and signed by the United States in October 2013, provides minimum standards for limitations and exceptions to copyright law to create and distribute accessible formats for people with print disabilities and allows for the cross-border exchange of these formats. The treaty is designed to address the “book famine,” a problem where less than 5% of all published works are created in an accessible format in the United States, a figure that drops considerably in some developing countries. The treaty is in force, with 35 contracting parties, currently: Argentina, Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Israel, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Nigeria, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Uruguay.

The implementing legislation makes some technical changes to Section 121 of the Copyright Act, including expanding the scope of works that may be reproduced and distributed to dramatic works or musical compositions fixed in text or notation. Section 121 would apply for domestic activity regarding the creation and distribution of accessible format works. The bill also creates a new Section 121A to address activities involving cross-border exchange.

Ratification and implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty is critical to improving access to information and culture for those who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled. The treaty will not only assist those living in countries with extremely limited collections of accessible formats, but will provide significant benefits to those in the United States. The United States will be able to enhance its own collections of accessible format works, through exchange with countries with a common language, such as Australia and Canada, but will also benefit from the ability to import works in a foreign language, such as the nearly 50,000 accessible titles from Argentina.

ARL urges the Senate to quickly ratify the treaty, which will greatly enhance the ability of libraries and other authorized entities to serve those with print disabilities. Ratification and the implementing legislation is supported by a broad group of stakeholders, including organizations representing those who are blind, libraries and authorized entities and publishers.

For additional reading:

Springer, Censorship and the Need for Open Access

OG-CopyrightWeek2

*Updated January 22, 2017 to include a statement by Sarah Thomas, Vice President for the Harvard Library and University Librarian*

It’s Copyright Week! Today’s topic is “Copyright and Censorship: Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right essential to a functioning democracy. Copyright should encourage more speech, not act a legal cudgel to silence it.”

When a rightsholder uses his or her rights to prevent others from relying on, accessing, or using information, copyright can act as a tool of censorship. One example of where this happened occurred in November 2017 when Springer Nature agreed to exclude Chinese readers and institutions from accessing certain articles in its journals at the request of the Chinese government. Regardless of whether Springer acted in good faith in order to maintain access in China to the rest of its collection, because authors collectively relinquished control over their copyrights there was no effective remedy. We are familiar with the problem of authors assigning rights to corporate entities, which may be more inclined to aggressively enforce their rights under copyright law or demand high fees in order to access or use the work. In the Springer case, because of copyright, authors could not promote access to their work because the publisher acquiesced to a government’s censorship demands.

According to The Financial Times, Springer blocked an estimated 1,000 articles its journal, International Politics and the Journal of Chinese Political Science, effectively aiding China’s censorship request. This decision by Springer followed a similar August 2017 action by Cambridge University Press to block access to 315 articles at the request of the Chinese government, though Cambridge University Press later reinstated the articles after heavy criticism, citing the desire to “uphold the principle of academic freedom.” Other university presses, such as Oxford University Press, MIT Press and the University of Chicago Press have stated that they will not comply with censorship demands.

Ultimately, censorship directly harms research, scholarship and academic freedom. In the digital age, global collaboration is commonplace and Chinese students and researchers are at a significant disadvantage without access to the full corpus of works that researchers in other countries have. Research institutions should work to support barrier free access to information to combat censorship.

Springer’s decision to censor 1,000 articles illustrates that, as a for-profit institution, its goals may not align with those of academic institutions and highlights the necessity for higher education to regain control over scholarly communication. Working with publishers that agree to censor materials raises questions regarding threats to academic freedom, research and discovery.

Authors should carefully consider whether assigning their copyright to publishers is in their best interests knowing that, in addition to the ability for publishers to impose high costs to read articles, these entities may comply with requests that prevent readers in other countries from having access to these works.

Ultimately, copyright and licensing issues have serious consequences for the research community. Ensuring that the research community can retain control over its scholarly communication outputs will promote barrier free access too all. Publishing in open access outlets, including in preprint services, or retaining copyright can help ensure that selective censorship is more difficult.

Statement of Sarah Thomas, Vice President of Harvard Library and University of Librarian:

I’m astonished that Springer Nature has not used their important leverage as a content provider to protect the rights of their authors to be read and to exercise their professional leadership in promoting access to knowledge. Censorship is the suppression of ideas, and is directly opposed to Springer Nature’s stated policy: “Our publishing and editorial policies have been developed in consultation with the research communities we serve, including authors and librarians, and are rooted in belief that scholarly communication is aided by greater transparency of the processes by which we operate.”

Springer Nature proudly proclaims on their home page: “We advance discovery by publishing robust and insightful research, supporting the development of new areas of knowledge and making ideas and knowledge accessible around the world.” Apparently this statement is a qualified one, subject to governmental influence and balanced by commercial considerations.

Certainly I will work at Harvard to increase awareness of Springer Nature’s complicity in the silencing of scholars who write for their journals. In a world in which basic democratic values are increasing threatened by authoritarian leaders, it is shocking that the Von Holtzbrinck-owned publisher Springer Nature would contribute to their decay. Is this the work of new CEO Daniel Ropers, who comes out of retailing?

I urge Springer Nature to show the commitment to the “advancement of science, learning, and society” that Ropers espoused when joining Springer Nature in autumn 2017 and to look to publishers such as Cambridge University Press as a model.

ICYMI: New Advocacy and Public Policy Update

On May 19, 2017, ARL released its latest Advocacy and Public Policy Update. The topics covered in this update include various copyright issues (Register of Copyrights bill, Copyright Office study on moral rights, Copyright Office rulemaking on modernizing copyright recordation, and numerous amicus briefs filed), LSU v. Elsevier, appropriations, access to and preservation of government data, net neutrality, developments on trade agreements, and issues related to immigration and border control.  The full update is available here.

 

LCA Urges Senate to Reject Bill to Make Register of Copyrights a Presidential Appointee

On April 26, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act of 2017, a bill to make the Register of Copyrights a presidential appointee rather than an appointee of the Librarian of Congress.  The House disappointingly voted in favor of the bill by a 378-48 margin. The bill also included two amendments including one that specifies that nothing in the bill will impact mandatory deposit.

The Library Copyright Alliance issued the following statement:

The Library Copyright Alliance is disappointed that the House today passed H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act. We continue to believe that the bill will delay critically needed modernization of the Copyright Office and make the Register of Copyrights less accountable to Congress and the public, contrary to the stated intent of the bill made plain in its title. We look forward to working with the Senate on this legislation.