On March 3, 2014, the Library Copyright Alliance submitted a response to the EU consultation on the review of copyright rules. The EU website provided a list of 80 questions for stakeholders to answer; the LCA response focuses on those questions most relevant to the library community. The categories of questions to which LCA responded cover digital transmissions, term of protection, limitations and exceptions, preservation and archiving, e-lending, mass digitization, teaching, research, and access for persons with disabilities. The full LCA response can be accessed here.
LCA responds extensively to questions on limitations and exceptions, in particular advocating for fair use. LCA recommends that the EU adopt a flexible fair use provision in order to address areas where specific limitations and exceptions do not exist and to allow the copyright law to evolve as technologies change. With respect to fair use and limitations and exceptions, LCA cites several documents for the EU to consider, including a 2013 white paper, How Flexibility Supports the Goals of Copyright Law: Fair Use and the U.S. Library Experience, ARL’s Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research Libraries, Jonathan Band and Jonathan Gerafi’s The Fair Use/Fair Dealing Handbook, and Jonathan Band and Deborah Goldman’s Global Use and Fair Dealing Decisions Available Online.
In addition to broadly recommending adoption of a fair use provision in response to the EU’s general question regarding limitations and exceptions, the LCA notes in several other areas of the document that fair use can address specific issues concerning the library community. With respect to preservation and archiving, for example, the consultation response notes that while no specific limitation or exception exists in the U.S. to permit web archiving, libraries and archives may rely on fair use to perform such functions. Similarly, the LCA response points out that libraries and archives may pursue mass digitization projects by relying on fair use. With regard to questions on the educational context, LCA notes that fair use can complement specific limitations and exceptions, including where specific limitations, such as those contained in the TEACH Act, are insufficient, too narrow or overly cumbersome.
Responding to other relevant questions, LCA recommends that the EU ratify the Marrakesh Treaty and ensure its implementation in all member states in order to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities. It also notes that current terms of protection for copyright are inappropriate, particularly in the digital age, and can contribute to loss of access to knowledge and an increased number of orphan works. Furthermore, the LCA response opposes any requirements that provision of a hyperlink or viewing of a webpage be subject to the authorization of the rightholder.
This week is #FairUseWeek at Harvard. You can follow all the action here, including fair use posts by guest bloggers, videos about fair use, and a live panel on Friday. You can also follow twitter.com/fairuseweek for more updates throughout the week.
The post below is cross posted at Copyright at Harvard Library
Harvard’s Fair Use Week is an opportunity to reflect not only on the importance the doctrine has already had in the academic library community, but also to consider its future role in an ever-changing world of new technologies and circumstances. A professional community consensus on fair use with respect to when and how the doctrine is applied can provide powerful guidance, defining community standards and best practices. The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research Libraries provides such guidance to a number of areas where fair use applies, including in the digital environment.
Fair use plays a critical role in the copyright system, promoting a balanced system respecting the rights of rightholders while also promoting the public interest and protecting the First Amendment. As a flexible doctrine, fair use can adapt to evolving technologies and new situations that may arise and its long history demonstrates its importance in promoting access to information, future innovation and creativity. Without this flexibility, the law would simply be unable to keep pace with rapid changes and advancements in technology. Within the academic library community, fair use has allowed for better service to patrons in areas of preservation, providing access to information resources, enhancing research, promoting education, among others, particularly where specific limitations and exceptions in the Copyright Law fail to address a particular situation.
The House Judiciary Committee on Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet is currently undergoing a “copyright review” and has already held four hearings, the most recent of which addressed “The Scope of Fair Use.” The hearing examined not only the current scope and practice of fair use, but also looked toward what the future of the doctrine might be, particularly whether any changes were necessary.
During the hearing, Members posed questions that covered a wide range of issues including, among others, how to define “transformative,” whether exporting the doctrine to other countries is appropriate and whether fair use is currently working for all groups. Most comments indicated that fair use is working and statutory changes are not necessary, however some raised questions regarding whether jurisprudence on fair use has been predictable. Best practices developed through community consensus and standards goes to the heart of this issue, promoting predictability for both those relying on fair use as well as for the rightholders.
Members expressed interest in best practices during the hearing. For example, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Conyers (D-MI) referenced best practices twice during his opening statement. After noting the historic application of the fair use doctrine in a broad range of contexts which has been made possible by the flexibility of the doctrine, Conyers concluded by encouraging development best practices: “Fair use impacts all types of industries including filmmaking, poetry, photography, music, education and journalism. We must continue to encourage these industries to develop best practices.” Similarly, Rep. Lofgren (D-CA) seemed to signal interest in best practices when she asked the Chair of the subcommittee to adopt into the record the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video.
This interest in best practices is not limited to the legislative branch. While courts are guided by the four statutory fair use factors, in practice, they have also looked to the standard practices of the communities from which the case originates in determining whether fair use applies in a given circumstance. Codes of best practices can guide members of those communities in determining whether fair use applies in a particular circumstance and how to exercise this doctrine in a manner considered acceptable in that particular professional community, thereby minimizing risk of litigation.
The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research Libraries is therefore an important and useful tool for academic and research libraries making determinations as to what activities are likely to fall under fair use and how to exercise the doctrine. Developed by and for the academic and research library community, the Code identifies eight areas where fair use is commonly exercised and articulates the principles describing each circumstance, a list of considerations to inform these practices, the limitations that are recommended, and enhancements that could strengthen the case for fair use in those situations. These areas include:
While some may be hesitant in exercising fair use because of perceived unpredictability, the Code of Best Practices provides reassurances that such activities are considered to be fair use in the community, a factor likely to be looked upon favorably by both Congress and the courts. Such best practices lend predictability to the fair use doctrine, demonstrating a consensus view on the areas where fair use should be exercised and the limitations that should be observed.
Congress need not make statutory changes to a doctrine that has served the public well, providing a crucial “safety valve” in copyright law. Instead, professional communities should continue to develop and rely upon best practices, such as the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research Libraries, lending greater predictability and certainty to fair use, including in areas of emerging technology.
Don’t forget to check back in throughout the week for more posts about fair use here.
On February 13, 2014, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) issued a 478 page report on “Copyright and the Digital Economy” which made a number of positive recommendations for copyright reform in Australia. A significant portion of the report focused on limitations and exceptions including a recommendation that Australia adopt fair use (or, failing that, to revise its current fair dealing provision), noting the benefits of a flexible standard. In addition to its numerous other recommendations, the ALRC report also examined the practice of using contracts to prohibit or hinder the use of particular limitations and exceptions and recommended an express prohibition against contractual provisions that would restrict specific libraries and archives exceptions.
Below are some highlights from the ALRC report on these two issues.
The ALRC report expressly recommended inclusion of a fair use exception largely modeled after the United States’ statutory provision on fair use, including a non-exhaustive list of factors—essentially mirroring the four fair use factors in the United States Copyright Law—and a non-exhaustive list of illustrative uses or purposes that may qualify as fair use. This recommended list of illustrative purposes includes all of the uses contained in the chapeau to 17 U.S.C. 107, while also recommending the additions of parody or satire; professional advice; quotation; non-commercial private use; incidental or technical use; library or archive use; and access for people with disabilities. Of course, although the United States’ provision does not contain these exact phrases within the statutory language of the fair use provision, courts have often upheld fair use in the context of such purposes.
Arguments for Fair Use
The ALRC report summarized the arguments made in favor of introducing a fair use provision into Australian Law, including that fair use is flexible and technology-neutral; promotes public interest and transformative uses; assists innovation; aligns with reasonable consumer expectations; helps protect right holders’ markets; is sufficiently certain and predictable; and is compatible with moral rights and international law.
ALRC emphasized the benefits of fair use in adapting to evolving technology:
Fair use differs from most current exceptions to copyright in that it is a broad standard that incorporates principles, rather than a detailed prescriptive rule. Law that incorporates principles or standards is generally more flexible than prescriptive rules, and can adapt to new technologies and services. A fair use exception would not need to be amended to account for the fact that consumers now use tablets and store purchased copies of copyright material in personal digital lockers in the cloud.
As a flexible standard, capable of adapting to changing environments, particularly in the digital age, legislatures need not respond to each new circumstance with a new specific limitation or exception. Thus, the ALRC report noted that “Almost 30 existing exceptions could be repealed, if fair use were enacted. In time, others might also be repealed. Replacing so many exceptions with a single fairness exception will make the Copyright Act considerably more clear, coherent and principled.”
In addition, the ALRC report made several references to the benefits of fair use in the educational context. It noted, for example, that the Google Books decision “demonstrates the potential of fair use to advance education and learning and to benefit authors and content owners.” Additionally, pointing to the flaws of the currently enacted fair dealing provision under Australian Law, the ALRC report noted that universities
were in a “worse position” than large commercial enterprises in terms of being able to use third party copyright material for socially beneficial purposes. Commercial news organisations can rely on the fair dealing exception for news reporting, but there is no equivalent specific exception for universities for fair use for educational purposes. Universities Australia submitted that, from a policy perspective, ‘”this makes little sense.”
In addition to the general public benefits to a flexible fair use provision, the ALRC report suggested that adopting fair use will actually increase respect for copyright. It pointed out that the independent UK Hargreaves Review found that growing disagreement over what is permitted under copyright and reasonable consumer expectations undermined the copyright system. The ALRC agreed with Hargreaves’ assessment and noted, “The public is more likely to understand fair use than the existing collection of complex specific exceptions; the exception will seem more reasonable; and this may even increase respect for and compliance with copyright laws more broadly.”
Predictability of Fair Use
The report also addressed criticisms that a flexible fair use standard resulted in too much uncertainty and concluded that fair use is actually quite predictable. The report pointed to Professor Pamela Samuelson’s 2009 article, Unbundling Fair Uses which found that “fair use is both more coherent and more predictable than many commentators have perceived once one recognizes that fair use cases tend to fall into common patterns.”
Furthermore, the ALRC noted that inclusion of a fair use provision in Australian Copyright Law would not introduce a “novel or untested” concept:
Fair use builds on Australia’s fair dealing exceptions, it has been applied in US courts for decades, and it is built on common law copyright principles that date back to the eighteenth century. If fair use is uncertain, this does not seem to have greatly inhibited the creation of films, music, books and other material in the world’s largest exporter of cultural goods, the United States.
Finding that fair use is predictable and “no less certain than Australia’s current copyright exceptions,” the ALRC report went on to point out that fair use determinations can be “guided by the fairness factors, the list of illustrative purposes, existing Australian case law [on fair dealing], other relevant jurisdictions’ case law, and any industry guidelines and coeds of practice that are developed.”
Furthermore, in concluding that adoption of a fair use provision would be beneficial, the ALRC report found that, “Although standards are generally less clear in scope than detailed rules, a clear principled standard is more certain than an unclear complex rule. The Report recommends replacing many complex prescriptive exceptions with one clear and more certain standard—fair use.”
Another significant recommendation of the ALRC report would prohibit contractual provisions that limit or prohibit libraries and archives from exercising the specific limitations and exceptions from which they benefit. The report concedes that while freedom of contract is an important principle, specific contractual provision may lead to significant problems:
contracting out has the potential to render exceptions under the Copyright Act inoperative. Contractual terms excluding or limiting copyright exceptions are commonly used. While contracts may create clarity and provide copyright users with permission to use materials in ways that would otherwise be an infringement, some contractual terms can also erode “socially and economically important uses of copyright works.” Further, copyright users are often unable to negotiate the terms on which copyright materials are licensed, particularly where contracts are entered into online.
The report concluded that allowing such contracts “puts at risk the public benefit that copyright exceptions are intended to provide.” In particular, ALRC found this issue to be particularly relevant to libraries and archives, noting that the beneficiaries of specific exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives are “users of the libraries” and “The fact that users of libraries and archives benefit from these exceptions, but are not parties to the licensing arrangements entered into by libraries and archives, makes it easier to argue that these exceptions should not be able to be removed by contract.” Thus, the ALRC report expressly recommended that:
Recommendation 20–1 The Copyright Act should provide that any term of an agreement that restricts or prevents the doing of an act, which would otherwise be permitted by specific libraries and archives exceptions, is unenforceable.
On February 19, 2014, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler issued a statement on the FCC’s Open Internet Rules. This statement, a response to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s ruling in Verizon v. FCC overturning the agency’s anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules, reaffirmed the FCC’s commitment to preserving a free and open internet. ARL’s statement regarding Verizon v. FCC can be found here.
Chairman Wheeler’ noted that while the D.C. Circuit overturned the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules, it affirmed the FCC’s broad authority to regulate under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act. Chairman Wheeler went on to say that the FCC would not appeal the D.C. Circuit’s judgment but would instead work to propose new rules under its Section 706 authority. He stated that the FCC “will carefully consider how, consistent with the court opinion” the agency can ensure that blocking and discrimination do not take place on the Internet.
Although it does not appear that the FCC will take steps to reclassify broadband providers as a telecommunication service from its current classification as information service at this time, it has not ruled out this possibility. Chairman Wheeler’s statement explicitly noted that “as long as Title II—with the ability to reclassify Internet access service as a telecommunications service—remains a part of the Communications Act, the Commission has the ability to utilize it if warranted” and such “authority remains open.”
Furthermore, Chairman Wheeler noted that the FCC would be soliciting public comment and opened a new docket entitled “Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet.” While no deadline has been set for comments, the docket states that “comments filed within the next thirty days will be especially helpful.”
Today, February 11, 2014, individuals and groups are participating in “The Day We Fight Back,” a day of action protesting the government’s mass surveillance programs. Revelations about the NSA programs, including the breadth and scope of bulk collection of data conducted under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act (also known as the “library records provision”) have raised serious concerns regarding curtailment of civil liberties and the compatibility of these programs with the First and Fourth Amendments.
Following revelations about the NSA bulk collection of data, members of Congress have introduced various bills to address concerns regarding privacy and civil liberties. Members of Congress have also cited concerns regarding the lack of public trust resulting from the secrecy of the FISA Court, which involves a non-adversarial proceeding where only the government’s views are heard and the opinions have been kept secret. As Benjamin Franklin stated, “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Members of Congress have likewise noted that the choice between security and liberty is a false one; civil liberties represent a cornerstone of the very American values Congress’ sought to defend in enacting provisions to enhance national security.
Even prior to these disclosures, the library community expressed reservations regarding legislation granting the government overly broad national security powers and urged necessary reforms to Section 215 and the national security letters (NSLs) program (which allows collection of data and communication without a warrant). These recommendations included, among others, requiring clear connections to a terrorist or spy for a valid order collecting information, greater judicial oversight and review of FISC decisions, prevention of bulk surveillance of categories of persons, rational limits on the scope of NSLs, and promotion of greater transparency.
Reform efforts are currently underway, some addressing changes previously advocated for by the library community. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing examining proposed reforms to FISA, and tomorrow the Senate Judiciary will hold a hearing on reforms proposed by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB). With Congress prepared to take an active, and likely swift, role in reforming statutes related to intelligence gathering, three bills show promise in better protecting privacy and civil liberties, promoting greater transparency, and restoring the public trust: the USA FREEDOM Act, the Intelligence Oversight and Surveillance Reform Act, and the Ending Secret Law Act/FISA Court in the Sunshine Act of 2013. The USA FREEDOM Act and Intelligence Oversight and Surveillance Reform Act are comprehensive bills, addressing not only transparency, but also the core issues regarding the collection of data.
USA FREEDOM Act
Representative Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Senator Leahy (D-VT) introduced identical bills known as the USA FREEDOM Act, on October 29, 2013. The House bill, H.R. 3361, initially had seventy-eight bipartisan co-sponsors. As noted by Ranking Member Conyers (D-MI), the bill now has 130 supporters, with an even split between Republicans and Democrats. The Senate bill, S. 1599, now has nineteen bipartisan co-sponsors.
The USA FREEDOM Act would effectively end bulk collection of data currently collected by the NSA. The amendments proposed by the USA FREEDOM Act would permit the government to request only the records of that “pertain to” a “foreign power or an agent of a foreign power,” the records about the activities of such person under investigation, and records of individuals in contact with such person.
The bill would reform the NSLs program, which currently allows the FBI to request communication and other data without a warrant. The bill seeks to harmonize NSLs with the amendments proposed to the Section 215 program and is designed to prevent bulk collection of records.
With respect to the FISA Court, also known as FISC, the bill would create an Office of the Special Advocate, designed to advocate on behalf of interpretations that protect privacy rights and civil liberties and effectively ending the current ex parte proceedings wherein only the government’s view is heard. The Special Advocate would also be permitted to appeal FISC decisions. In addition to providing a voice for the public’s privacy rights, the USA FREEDOM Act would enhance transparency by requiring the government to make regular reports estimating the total number of individuals subject to FISA orders regarding electronic surveillance, pen registers, and business records. The bill would also direct the Attorney General to declassify decisions or summarize FISC decisions of significant interpretation, consistent with national security considerations.
The USA FREEDOM Act would not only promote greater transparency of FISC opinions and orders, but would also allow companies to publicly report the number of FISA orders and national security letters received and the number of users or accounts where information was demanded under such orders. It also places an obligation on the government to publicly report estimates of the total number of individuals and U.S. persons subject to FISA orders or NSLs.
The USA FREEDOM Act introduces a number of meaningful and necessary reforms.. This bill could be further improved, however, if it incorporated key elements of the USA PATRIOT Amendments Act of 2009, a bill that was introduced but never passed. That bill included several other reforms, including the prohibition of the use of Section 215 orders to obtain personally identifiable information about patrons from libraries, greater judicial review of both Section 215 orders and NSLs, and minimization procedures to ensure destruction of information obtained under national security powers once they are no longer relevant to an ongoing investigation.
Intelligence Oversight and Surveillance Reform Act
In September 2013, Senator Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Intelligence Oversight and Surveillance Reform Act. The bill now has thirteen co-sponsors, also with bipartisan support. Both the Intelligence Oversight and Surveillance Reform Act and the USA FREEDOM Act propose comprehensive reform to the surveillance programs. While the bills are not identical, many of the provisions are substantially similar and largely address the same issues, including effective prohibition of bulk collection under Section 215, harmonization of NSLs with the reforms to Section 215, providing special advocates in FISC proceedings, and greater transparency of FISC opinions and program’s collection of data.
Ending Secret Law Act/FISA Court in the Sunshine Act of 2013
Two bills designed to provide greater transparency of FISC orders, opinions and decisions (currently kept secret) were introduced into both the Senate and House. The Senate bill, Ending Secret Law Act, S.1130 was introduced by Senator Merkley (D-OR) and has bipartisan co-sponsorship. A nearly identical bill entitled FISA Court in the Sunshine Act, H.R. 2440, was introduced by Representative Jackson Lee (D-TX) and also has bipartisan support.
The bill would require the Attorney General to disclose each FISC decision and order, unless such opinion or order cannot be declassified without harming national security interests. If declassification is not possible, the Attorney General is directed to disclose a summary of the opinion. If a summary of the opinion is not possible, the Attorney General is required to make a report available to the public on the “status of the internal deliberations and process regarding the declassification.”
The Ending Secret Law Act/FISA Court in the Sunshine Act would provide greater transparency to FISC decisions and orders than the USA FREEDOM Act by requiring disclosure of each decision, order or opinion, not just those involving significant interpretations. Certainly, the reforms proposed by these bills are welcome as they promote greater transparency and enhance public debate surrounding the important intersection of security and civil liberties.
On February 4, 2014, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on “Examining Recommendations to Reform FISA Authorities.” The written testimony of the six witnesses and the statement of Chairman Goodlatte (R-VA) are available here. Ranking Member Conyers’ (D-MI) opening statement is available here.
The witnesses were divided into two panels. The first panel included James Cole (Department of Justice), Peter Swire (President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology), and David Medine (Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board). The second panel included Steven Bradbury (Dechert, LLP), Dean Garfield (Information Technology Industry Council) and David Cole (Georgetown University Law Center). The vast majority of the time and questioning from Members of Congress was spent on the first panel.
The focus of the hearing was on Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act (the section known as the library records provision under which the NSA claimed authority to collect bulk data of telephone records; this provision could also be used to obtain other “business records” including library records). Some questions also covered the Section 702 program, which targets non-U.S. persons. The majority of the Committee members appeared to support reforms to the program, with numerous members pointing to their support for the USA FREEDOM Act. Several members also focused on the need to restore trust amongst the American people.
During opening statements, Chairman Goodlatte noted that President Obama had not articulated how the bulk collection of telephony metadata had thwarted terrorist plots. He also questioned the President’s proposal to transfer the storage of bulk data to private companies, pointing to recent security breaches of Target and Yahoo!.
Ranking Member Conyers called the Section 215 bulk collection program ineffective, inconsistent with American values and inconsistent with the statutory language. He pointed out that Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is scheduled to sunset on June 1, 2015 and if the bulk collection issue is not addressed, the Government risks losing Section 215 in its entirety. Conyers praised H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act, which has 130 House Members supporting the bill with an even split between Democrats and Republicans (Senator Leahy introduced an identical bill in the Senate), a point reiterated by several other members of the Judiciary Committee. The bill, among other things, would amend Section 215 to prohibit bulk collection and require showing a nexus between the business records sought and the person targeted.
James Cole, Deputy Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), statement focused on President Obama’s January 17, 2014 speech laying out proposed reforms, including having third party storage of the bulk data, establishing an independent voice before the FISA courts, and establishing greater transparency. He also argued that the bulk collection of telephony metadata was constitutional and permitted under the PATRIOT Act.
Several members questioned Cole regarding the value of the bulk collection of telephone data and the appropriate metric in assessing its benefits. He repeatedly asserted that the program was useful and that pointing to the number of terrorist plots thwarted was not an appropriate metric in assessing the value of the Section 215 program, though Cole did not provide an alternative metric other than to call the program “helpful.”
Peter Swire of the President’s Review Group (PRG) gave an overview of the makeup of the review group and the scope of their report. He noted that while the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board had done legal analysis around the statutory language of Section 215 and the First and Fourth Amendments, this analysis was not undertaken by the President’s Review Group.
In response to criticisms regarding the risks of permitting third parties to house the bulk data, particularly in light of security breaches, Swire pointed out that the NSA has had leaks and all databases are at risk. He also noted that telephone companies already collect the data and requiring them to store such data would not create any new harms.
David Medine, Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), gave an overview of the conclusions of the recently issued report on Section 215, noting that PCLOB would be issuing a separate report on Section 702 in the coming months. He pointed to the PCLOB’s majority conclusion that the Section 215 program violated the statutory parameters of the PATRIOT Act, but also raised serious concerns regarding the First and Fourth Amendments. He noted that the benefits of bulk collection were “modest at best” and such benefits were outweighed by the concerns regarding civil liberties and privacy. The Board recommended termination of the Section 215 bulk collection program.
Medine also pointed out that the Administration’s interpretation of Section 215 takes an overly expansive view of the term “relevant.” He noted that Congress intended to put limits on Section 215 when it was created, but that these limits were ignored with an interpretation that “relevant” covered everything.
Representative Sensenbrenner (R-WI) pointed out that he was the principal author of the PATRIOT Act as well as its two reauthorizations (Sensenbrenner also introduced the USA FREEDOM Act into the House) and that the revelations about how Section 215 was being used were a shock, a sentiment later echoed by Representative Lofgren (D-CA). Sensenbrenner asserted that there was no way that the PATRIOT Act, as interpreted by the Administration, would have been approved or reauthorized if debated in Congress and that no fair reading of the Act could support the bulk collection of telephony metadata. When Cole stated that the DOJ had not taken a position on the USA Freedom Act, Sensenbrenner suggested that the DOJ quickly take a position because the Government is faced with a choice between the USA Freedom Act or having no authority when June 1, 2015 comes around and Section 215 expires. These sentiments were echoed by Representative Nadler (D-NY)
Representative Bachus (R-AL) seemed to be one of the few Committee members that did not want to see changes made to the program. He cited a letter by Judge John Bates, which expressed concerns in allowing a public advocate participate in FISA Court hearings.
Representative Lofgren (D-CA) asked what data, other than telephone data, could be collected. She asked whether credit card information or Internet browser cookies could be collected. Cole argued that not everything could be collected, only what was “necessary.”
Both Lofgren and Representative Issa (R-CA) asked whether the telephony metadata of Members of Congress had been collected. Swire said that to his knowledge, nothing had been screened out. Cole agreed that there was no reason to think otherwise, but argued that because the data had been collected into a database did not mean that it had been looked at. Issa also asked whether telephony metadata of the Executive Branch, including the President’s, as well as the records of the numerous embassies in the United States, had also been collected and Cole stated that he believed every phone number’s metadata was included in the database.
Representative Poe (R-TX) asked Cole to name a criminal case that had been filed as a result of the metadata program. Cole stated that there may be one material support case, but argued that the point of the statute was not to pursue criminal cases but to gather foreign intelligence.
Steven Bradbury, attorney at Dechert, LLP and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ, argued that the NSA programs did not violate any statutory or constitutional laws. He argued that numerous FISA court judges had upheld the programs. He also asserted that all Members of Congress were informed about or had the opportunity to be briefed on the details of the Section 215 and 702 programs during their reauthorizations. He stated that the programs were critically important and argued against any changes, expressing disappointment with President Obama’s proposals to reform the programs.
Dean Garfield, President and CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council, pointed to the impacts that the revelations about bulk collection of data have had on the information and communications technology sector. He stated that the revelations about the programs had eroded trust in U.S. companies and the security of the data they collect. He also warned that forcing localized storage could result in “Balkinization” of the Internet. He advocated for greater transparency and oversight, as well as clarification of what Section 215 permits.
Some members raised concerns about how U.S. companies could be disadvantaged globally as a result of the NSA revelations, a point on which Garfield agreed. He noted that concerns included cost, storage concerns, and the public lack of trust, including the perception that companies are not independent from the U.S. Government.
David Cole, Professor of Constitutional Law and National Security at Georgetown University Law Center, expressed support for the USA FREEDOM Act. He pointed out that because of evolving technology, privacy law must be adapted in light of the increased ease of collecting massive amounts of data. He also argued against defenders of the NSA collection practices by pointing out that the former NSA general counsel had stated that metadata can reveal an enormous amount about a person’s life and with enough metadata, content is unnecessary.
Chairman Goodlatte questioned Bradbury, pointing to concerns about privacy when bulk data is collected. Bradbury responded that there were hypothetical concerns about abuse, but these concerns did not match the reality of the programs. He also pointed out that the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also collect massive amounts of data and that the NSA should not be singled out.
Lofgren raised concerns regarding the expectations of privacy in the modern world. In response, Cole stated that the defining question is how to preserve the right to privacy in the face of new technologies and that it was the responsibility of Congress to address these issues. He said that without Congressional action, there is a risk of surrendering privacy to the digital age.
Representative Nadler called the FISA court a “kangaroo court” because of its one-sided and secretive nature. He pointed out that while technology evolves and metadata is collected, people still have an expectation of privacy. Cole then pointed out that the metadata collection programs were the same as issuing a general warrant.
The House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet continued its copyright review and held another hearing on Tuesday, January 28th. This hearing focused exclusively on the scope of fair use and the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) submitted a written statement in advance of the hearing.
Fair use, originally a common law doctrine, is codified under Section 107 of the Copyright Act and permits reproduction and other uses of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. The statute includes four factors for consideration, including the character of the use, the nature of the work, the amount used in proportion to the whole, and the impact on the market for the work. Failure to meet all four criteria, however, does not bar a finding of fair use. Fair use is flexible and determinations for qualification under this doctrine are made on a case-by-case. Many of the statements made during the hearing, as well as the questions from Members, focused on the first factor, in particular the proper interpretation and application of whether a use has been “transformative.”
The hearing included five witnesses: Professor Peter Jaszi (American University); Professor June Besek (Columbia University); Naomi Novik (Author and co-founder of Organization for Transformative Works); David Lowery (Singer/Songwriter and Lecturer, University of Georgia); Kurt Wimmer (General Counsel of the Newspaper Association of America). For the most part, the witnesses did not recommend any statutory changes to Section 107 of the Copyright Act, even when they did not agree with particular court rulings regarding fair use. All witnesses seemed to agree that the courts are in the best position to determine whether a use is fair. Below are some brief observations from the hearing.
Testimony from Witnesses
Professor Peter Jaszi spoke first and gave background to the fair use doctrine, noting that the “transformative use” test was considered “unified field theory.” He also spoke on how courts have applied fair use in ways that both foster future innovation and serve the public interest. He suggested that, despite criticisms to the contrary, the jurisprudence on fair use is fairly predictable and coherent. He opposed reform to fair use, but suggested that the doctrine could use support, such as through changes in the statutory damage regime.
Professor June Besek went next and argued that fair use has been expanding. She criticized the application of fair use that has allowed new business models, rather than just new works of authorship. She suggested that “transformative use” has caused confusion with derivative works and argued that the pendulum has moved too far in the direction of the users.
Naomi Novik spoke next, beginning with her background as a New York Times bestselling author who, prior to writing her first novel, wrote fan-fiction and was a remix artist. She analogized fan-fiction to telling stories around a campfire. She also argued that licensing is unrealistic for both the writers of fan-fiction as well as the original authors because of the time, money and legal concerns. She suggested that Congress should lower damages in order to make fair use less frightening for the everyday person. She also proposed an exemption for non-commercial uses, such as those telling their stories around a metaphorical campfire.
David Lowery, a singer/songwriter, followed and clearly stated that fair use is working for the music industry. He raised concerns, however, about two particular areas where he felt that there were efforts to expand fair use to uses he did not think were covered under the statute. These areas include remixing and lyric websites. He noted that some music genres, such as hip hop, continue to flourish under licensing and fair use need not be expanded to promote these works. He also asserted that lyric websites that include annotations of the lyrics are not fair use and argued that it is not hard to ask for permission.
Kurt Wimmer, the final witness on the panel, serves as general counsel of the Newspaper Association of America. He noted that newspapers are rightholders, but also are reliant on fair use. He noted that while he does not agree with every fair use decision, the courts are in the best position to make these determinations. He expressed some concerns about the breadth of recent court decisions regarding transformative uses, but cited his support for the Swatch v. Bloomberg case that came down in favor of Bloomberg’s fair use argument just the day prior.
Questions From Members
Following witness statements, several Members posed questions to the witnesses. These questions covered a wide range of issues, including, among others, how to define “transformative,” whether exporting the doctrine of fair use to other countries is appropriate, and whether fair use is currently working for all groups.
In general, it seemed that all witnesses agreed that the fair use doctrine should continue to be interpreted and applied by the courts and the proposed solutions to perceived areas of concerns could be done outside the scope of Section 107 (such as recalibration of damages). Although there was some disagreement between witnesses over whether particular uses would, or should, qualify as fair use, the witnesses agreed on the importance of this doctrine.
Fair use, of course, has been of critical importance in supporting libraries’ key functions and allowing it to serve its patrons. Although specific limitations and exceptions exist elsewhere in the Copyright Act, many of which libraries frequently use, fair use allows libraries to act where these specific exceptions are too narrowly drawn, where no exceptions exist, or when technological advances outpace the law. Although the Members at the hearing seemed to take a keen interest in fair use, given the testimony of witnesses, hopefully Congress will agree that fair use generally works well.
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held another hearing on copyright review. This hearing focused on the scope of fair use and included five witnesses: Professor Peter Jaszi (American University); Professor June Besek (Columbia University); Naomi Novik (Author and co-founder of Organization for Transformative Works); David Lowery (Singer/Songwriter and Lecturer, University of Georgia); Kurt Wimmer (General Counsel of the Newspaper Association of America).
Fair use, originally a common law doctrine, is codified under Section 107 of the Copyright Act and permits reproduction and other uses of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. The statute includes four factors for consideration, including the character of the use, the nature of the work, the amount used in proportion to the whole, and the impact on the market for the work. Failure to meet all four criteria, however, does not bar a finding of fair use. Fair use is flexible and determinations for qualification under this doctrine are made on a case-by-case.
In advance of the hearing, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) submitted a written statement discussing how libraries rely on fair use in order to serve their users and meet their mission; how the federal government relies on fair use for photocopying and in the patent examination process; and how rights-holders rely on fair use in developing new works. The statement concludes that no changes are needed to the fair use doctrine.
Fair Use and Libraries
The LCA statement begins by noting the numerous areas where fair use allows libraries to achieve their missions and serve library patrons, including “the preservation of and providing access to our cultural, historical, local and scientific heritage; supporting and encouraging research, education, literacy and lifelong learning; and providing a venue for community engagement on a host of issues.” The statement recognizes fair use as “the most important limitation on the rights of the copyright owner – the most important ‘safety valve’ of U.S. copyright law for the public.”
Giving a few specific examples, the LCA statement first points to the importance of fair use for mass digitization of works, including for purposes of creating full-text searches, preservation, and providing access to users with disabilities. Libraries also rely on fair use to ensure digital preservation and provide tailored access programs to orphan works, those works where it is difficult or impossible to identify and locate the rightholder. Fair use also permits libraries to improve accessibility for person who are visually impaired or have other disabilities.
The statement also explains that the “Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research Libraries,” has identified eight situations where the library community has expressed a consensus regarding acceptable practices for fair use in these circumstances:
Supporting teaching and learning with access to library materials via digital technologies; using selections form collection materials to publicize a library’s activities, or to create physical and virtual exhibitions; digitizing to preserve at-risk items; creating digital collections of archival and special collections materials; reproducing materials for use by disabled students, faculty, staff and other appropriate users; maintaining the integrity of works deposited in institutional repositories; creating databases to facilitate non-consumptive research uses (including search); and collecting material posted on the world wide web and making it available.
Fair Use and the U.S. Government
The LCA statement points out that libraries are not the only entities that rely on fair use and federal agencies have relied on this doctrine in the patent examination process and for photocopying materials. A 2012 opinion issued by the general counsel of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) concluded that copying and distribution of non-patent literature for use in providing those copies to applicants during the examination process; providing entire copies of the patent histories to the public; and applicants copying non-patent literature for submission to the USPTO were all covered by fair use. Similarly, a 1999 opinion issued at the request of the Department of Commerce noted that fair use was a critical component in supporting the constitutional rationale of copyright. It found that the public interest could be advanced through the use of government photocopying and was therefore relevant to the fair use inquiry. It cautioned the Department of Commerce and other federal agencies against negotiating license deals to permit photocopying where such photocopying was covered by fair use and therefore not infringing.
Fair Use and Rights-Holders
In addition to libraries and the federal government, content producers and rights-holders also rely on fair use. As noted in the LCA statement, two recent cases where infringement suits were brought against rights-holders, these rights-holders asserted that fair use was critical in promoting the progress of science and protecting the First Amendment.
In Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, for example, the Fourth Circuit found that “Fair use …is crucial to the exchange of opinions and ideas. It protects filmmakers and documentarians from the inevitable chilling effects of allowing an artist too much control over the dissemination of his or her work for historical purposes.” Furthermore, in its amici brief, film associations noted the importance of fair use in the creation of new content, noting that “Much creative culture is iterative; new works often do not arise in a vacuum, but rather are influenced by and draw upon the creative works that came before. As the Supreme Court held in Campbell, highly transformative works lie at the heart of fair use’s protection: they are the new expression that copyright law is meant to promote.”
Similarly, the LCA statement points to the case White v. West Publishing, where large publishers relied on fair use after creating a database product calling the doctrine a “necessary tool to further the goals of copyright law.”
The LCA statement recommends against changes to Section 107 of the Copyright Act, noting that the fair use doctrine has been successfully relied upon by diverse constituencies, including libraries, students, teachers, government agencies, patent applicants, artists and media companies.
by guest bloggers Patricia Aufderheide, University Professor, American University School of Communication; Brandon Butler, Practitioner-in-Residence at the Glushko Samuelson IP Clinic, American University Washington College of Law; and Peter Jaszi, Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Clinic, American University Washington College of Law
Copyright Week is the perfect occasion to celebrate fair use, certainly the most dynamic and arguably the most important doctrine in copyright law. The last 15 or 20 years have seen a remarkable series of developments that make fair use, now more than ever, the most vital protection of the public interest in the Copyright Act. For Copyright Week, we wanted to highlight a part of the fair use landscape that, perhaps more than any other, puts fair use in the hands of practitioners who need it most: the Fair Use Best Practices movement.
With a little help from a team of researchers at American University, an ever-growing cadre of communities has identified where their work necessarily encounters copyright and the kinds of fair uses that are essential to the communities’ continued flourishing and success. Each code (read them all here) contains a short but powerful description of fair use’s broad history and meaning, followed by a set of principles that describe situations where fair use may apply accompanied by limitations that describe the outer bounds of community consensus. The effects of these documents can be dramatic. Documentary filmmakers came first, and had great success, but they’ve been joined by educators, scholars, poets, online video makers, journalists, and (most importantly for this blog) librarians. As more and more people need fair use to continue getting things done, best practices are an idea whose time has come.
So, without further ado, we give you five reasons fair use best practices are changing the world:
They’re based on solid legal footing. Specifically, path-breaking research by copyright scholar Michael Madison. Madison surveyed over a century of fair use decision making and found that, over and over again, courts determining whether a use was fair inquired into the mission and values of the communities standing before them to vindicate their fair use rights. Uses firmly grounded in the socially beneficial mission of a practice community were much more likely to be blessed as fair.
Each code starts from that insight, together with the dominant paradigm of “transformative use” that informs court decisions in fair use. The community norms developed on this foundation are then further shored up by a legal review by five independent experts from diverse backgrounds who certify that the Code represents a reasonable application of fair use law to the practice area. Practices consistent with the Documentary Filmmakers Code have been blessed by federal courts, as have practices identified as fair in the #Librarianscode. Indeed, between Georgia State and HathiTrust, the practices described in four of the eight principles in the #librarianscode have been blessed by federal courts.
They clear away the crud. Anyone who engages with copyrighted material for more than a few minutes will encounter a dizzying array of so-called ‘guidelines,’ rules of thumb, ‘negotiated’ agreements, and urban myths and legends that proliferate around copyright. The goal of best practices is to identify the best approaches to recurring fair use scenarios, rather than to measure the lowest common denominator of the status quo and freeze it in amber forever. Therefore, developing best practices is an opportunity for communities to step back and question current practice in light of the latest developments in fair use law and the broadest, deepest understanding of the mission of the community. Librarians, for example, categorically rejected the arbitrary numerical limits in the 1976 Classroom Photocopying Guidelines. On reflection, they were simply impossible to justify in light of the actual needs of librarians and the contours of modern fair use law.
They make the law less alien, and rights less scary. By grounding fair use choices in practices and norms that are native to a community, best practices change attitudes toward fair use. People with a Code go from a kind of grudging, fearful “compliance” with an alien copyright law imposed from above to a unified exercise of core First Amendment rights that emerges from their own values. Teachers, librarians, filmmakers, and poets who used to feel like they were acting alone in the face of an intimidating body of law come to understand that they are actually engaged collectively in legitimate, lawful acts that are normal, indeed essential, for their profession.
They help you get things done. The bottom line for any group with a shared mission and goals is whether they are able to advance mission and achieve goals. Where myth, misinformation, fear, uncertainty, and doubt dominate, any number of important projects and practices can be suppressed, driven underground, or stymied altogether. Films don’t get made, or they don’t get distribution; poems aren’t written or published; works languish in archives inaccessible to remote or print-disabled researchers. Best practices are relentlessly pragmatic and mission-centered; through them, practitioners articulate fair use solutions to real, live problems. When the community takes best practices seriously, real work gets done—work that might otherwise have been inconceivable.
They help you get management on board. Almost everyone has a supervisor, counselor, or other gatekeeper who decides what projects they can pursue, whether their work will see the light of day, and so on. Whether it’s a Dean, a TV producer, or a publishing agent, sooner or later you’ve got to convince someone else that what you’re doing is legit. Understandably, gatekeepers are often expected (forced, even) to play the role of “copyright cop,” saying “no” to any project that looks like it might raise an eyebrow.
Before best practices, each practitioner would face these folks alone, often as non-lawyers, and try to convince them to take a risk based on, well, who knows what. But with best practices in hand, practitioners can go to their Deans, their publishers, their producers, whomever, and say, “What I’m doing is normal. It’s grounded in the values of my community. And it’s in line with a document that’s been vetted by experts and endorsed by leading organizations in my field.” That’s powerful stuff! No wonder the Documentary Filmmakers code has been so transformative, as has the #Librarianscode, and many many others.
So, there you have it. As Copyright Week winds down and we contemplate the copyright system we have, and the opportunities for change and improvement, we submit that fair use best practices are, by far and away, the most accessible, effective, and powerful tool in the hands of the public.
For more information, check out the full roster of best practices at the Center for Media and Social Impact and check out Pat and Peter’s book, Reclaiming Fair Use.
ARL has issued a statement expressing disappointment with the DC Circuit’s January 14, 2014 ruling overturning the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Open Internet Order’s anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules. Research libraries, as providers of content and services on the Internet, research libraries and their parent institutions have long relied on and supported open and non-discriminatory access. The court’s ruling could result in prioritized delivery for those willing to pay to promote their content, advancing commercial interests over research library and higher education interests. ARL’s full statement is available here.
Carol Pitts Diedrichs, president of ARL stated, “The intellectual freedom that libraries, colleges, and universities have long championed would be threatened if network operators act as gatekeepers, bar access to competing or nonprofit voices, or relegate unpopular or non-commercial expression to the Internet’s slow lanes. We look forward to working with the FCC in considering the avenues available to ensure effective network neutrality and open Internet rules going forward.”
Notably, the DC Circuit did uphold the FCC’s broad authority to regulate broadband services, leaving open the possibility of further FCC action to promote net neutrality. The court noted that the FCC “reasonably interpreted section 706 [of the Telecommunications Act of 1996] to empower it to promulgate rules governing broadband providers’ treatment of Internet traffic, and its justification for the specific rules at issue here—that they will preserve and facilitate the ‘virtuous circle’ of innovation that has drive the explosive growth of the Internet—is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.”
The FCC defended its regulations by arguing, “Internet openness … spurs investment and development by edge providers, which leads to increased end-user demand for broadband access, which leads to increased investment in broadband network infrastructure and technologies, which in turn leads to further innovation and development by edge providers.” Broadband providers provide high-speed communications technologies whereas edge providers provide content, services or applications over the Internet.
The DC Circuit agreed with the FCC’s assessment that broadband providers might abuse their power and discriminate against certain types of Internet traffic. The court noted that, “Because all end users generally access the Internet through a single broadband provider, that provider functions as a ‘terminating monopolist,’ with power to act as a ‘gatekeeper’ with respect to edge providers that might seek to reach its end-user subscribers … this ability to act as a ‘gatekeeper’ distinguishes broadband providers from other participants in the Internet marketplace—including prominent and potentially powerful edge providers such as Google and Apple—who have no similar ‘control [over] access to the Internet.’” In fact, the FCC provided evidence of four prior instances where broadband providers had utilized their “gatekeeper” function.
In rejecting the FCC’s anti-blocking and anti-discrimination regulations, the court pointed to the fact that the FCC classified broadband providers as “information service” rather than “telecommunications service.” This classification exempts providers in this category from the same obligations of “common carriers,” or traditional communication services such as landline telephone lines. It stated, “the Commission would violate the Communications Act were it to regulate broadband providers as common carriers” and ultimately concluded that these regulations amounted to common carrier obligations. The court therefore left open the possibility of the FCC reclassifying broadband providers as a “telecommunication service,” a category subject to common carrier regulations. Alternatively, the FCC could redraft its rules in accordance with the DC Circuit’s ruling to ensure that the principles of net neutrality are maintained.