Canada Introduces Legislation Preparing for Accession to the Marrakesh Treaty (Take Two)

In June 2015, proposed amendments to Canada’s Copyright Act were introduced in the House of Commons. These amendments, contained in Bill C-65, the Support for Canadians with Print Disabilities Act, were designed to amend the Copyright Act in order to prepare for implementation of and accession to the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled (“Marrakesh Treaty”), but was not acted on before the elections.

On March 24, 2016, Bill C-11, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act (access to copyrighted works or other subject-matter for persons with perceptual disabilities) was introduced.  This bill would likewise prepare for implementation and accession.  The Canadian government previously noted that accession to the Marrakesh Treaty would benefit the approximately 1 million blind or visually impaired Canadians.

Under Canada’s Copyright Act, Article 32 provides a limitation to allow for the creation and distribution of accessible format works for those with disabilities. The current provision broadly permits the creation of an accessible work for persons with a perceptual disability. It does not, however, permit the creation of a large print book. The current exception applies only where an accessible format is not commercially available. A non-profit organization may export an accessible format copy, but only where the author of the work is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident or a citizen or permanent resident of the country to which the copy is being sent. Copies may not be exported where the organization knows or has reasonable grounds to know that an accessible format is available in that country within a reasonable time and for a reasonable price. Royalties are owed by the organization making or sending the accessible format copy. The current copyright law also has an exception to the prohibition against circumvention of technological protection measures, but only where it does not “unduly impair” the technological protection measure.

Bill C-61 makes several changes to Article 32. One of the most significant changes is that it removes the prohibition on the creation of large print format as an accessible copy. Large print is an important type of accessible format because many of those who are visually impaired do not require audio formats or may not read Braille. For example, with age, individuals often require larger print. The Marrakesh Treaty broadly defines an “accessible format copy” and the removal of the prohibition against large print in Article 32, complies with the Treaty and will greatly benefit an aging population.

Another key change would allow the sending of accessible formats to other countries, regardless of the nationality of the authors of the works. Bill C-11 allows for the export of accessible format works to both Marrakesh Treaty countries as well as non-Marrakesh Treaty countries. It would allow for injunctions, but not damages, where the accessible format was exported to a country where it was commercially available within a reasonable time, for a reasonable price and located with reasonable effort. Where a work is exported to a Marrakesh Treaty country, the owner of the copyright bears the burden of demonstrating commercial availability. Where a work is exported to a non-Marrakesh Treaty country, the non-profit organization must also show that it had reasonable grounds to believe that it was not commercially available.

In most other areas (with the exception of language on circumvention of technological measures), changes were not made to the existing exception that allows the creation and distribution of accessible format works.

Introduction of Bill C-11 in Canada is a first step in acceding to the Marrakesh Treaty. The Marrakesh Treaty currently has 16 ratifications and will need 4 more for entry into force. In the United States, the Administration sent the Treaty for ratification along with implementing legislation in February of this year.

 

A Deeper Dive Into the New Georgia State Decision

Last week, on March 31, 2016, the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia released its opinion on remand in the Georgia State University e-reserves case.  The case had been remanded to the district court in October 2014 when the Eleventh Circuit directed the lower court to use a revised methodology for determining whether fair use applied.

While the district court originally found in 2012 that of the 99 instances of claimed infringement, 94 were non-infringing, in the new opinion only 48 cases were evaluated (due to the fact that the original ruling found that either no prima facie case for infringement had been made and the publishers did not appeal this portion of the ruling).  The new opinion’s conclusion finds that 41 of the 48 cases are fair uses, though as others have pointed out (and is discussed in an example below), some of the listed cases of infringement in the summary were found to be fair uses in the text of the opinion.  In fact, in reading the full opinion, it appears that 44 of the 48 cases were found to be fair uses.

Before doing a fair use analysis on each individual claimed infringement, Judge Evans explains here approach.  She notes that she will evaluate each factor individually, then weigh them together.  She also states that the analysis applied “will be specific to the nonprofit educational purpose of teaching and the nontransformative nature of the use (mirror image copying).”   This point is an important one as the analysis would not be the same in the vast majority of other fair use cases where the use would be considered transformative and therefore should not be used as guidance in transformative use cases.

Judge Evans explains her methodology for each factor.

Factor one: “Factor one will favor fair use in all cases.  It will not ‘strongly favor’ fair use.”

Factor two: Evaluated on the standard set by the Eleventh Circuit which requires Judge Evans to consider whether the information nature of the non-fiction books are mixed with opinion and scholarly writing.  Previously, Judge Evans presumed that the use of nonfiction works caused factor two to weigh in favor of fair use and the Eleventh Circuit rejected this presumption.  The Eleventh Circuit’s distinction between purely factual or deriving from the author’s opinions is troubling, but the appellate court acknowledged that it was a relatively unimportant factor.  Ultimately, Judge Evans finds that factor two is generally neutral and even where it weighs against fair use, because of the small weight afforded to this factor fair use may still prevail, mitigating the Eleventh Circuit’s reversal on this point.

Factor three: Factor three “will take into account the effect of the favored nonprofit educational purpose of the use under factor one, plus the impact of market substitution as recognized under factor four, in determining whether the quantity and substantiality (value) of Defendants’ unlicensed copying was excessive. All relevant record evidence will be considered; the factor three outcomes will vary.”  Factor three will no longer be guided by the approach Judge Evans took in 2012, which was rejected by the Eleventh Circuit, in using a 10%/1 chapter rule.

Factor four: Judge Evans looks to whether licenses were available in 2009 and the factor “will initially favor Plaintiffs when digital permissions were available in 2009.”  However, she notes that the Eleventh Circuit held that the Defendants may demonstrate that “demand for excerpts of a particular copyrighted work was so limited that repetitive unpaid copying of excerpts from that work would have been unlikely even if unpaid copying of excerpts was a widespread practice in colleges and universities. In such a case the actions of Defendants in using unpaid excerpts would not have caused substantial damage to the potential market for the copyrighted work to such a degree that Plaintiffs would lose the incentive to publish the work. Defendants may also seek to prove that their actions . . . . did not substantially affect the value of the copyrighted work.”

She then discusses how the factors will be weighted, with factor four being given more weight and factor two given very little weight.  The opinion states, “This 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.”

Under the new framework, Judge Evans rules that four of the claims were infringing; all four were also found to be infringing the first time she considered the case and therefore it was not particularly surprising that she ruled against fair use for these claims once again.  Three of these claims involved the same text, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (both the second and third editions) and were assigned by the same professor.  In these three claims, the professor requested two, four and seven full chapters be uploaded (with additional requests for excerpts amounting to less than full chapters) be uploaded, respectively.

Ultimately, the case and opinion involves the narrow case of e-reserves and its analysis would not apply to transformative use cases.  Even in the case of e-reserves, it will be difficult to evaluate the fourth factor in the manner Judge Evans going forward because the financial data disclosed as a result of the litigation is not likely to be readily available.

Kevin Smith wisely points out that despite the fact that the opinion may not be widely applicable or easy to apply, there are important takeaways one of which is that libraries should find ways to improve the fair use case:

To my mind, this means that whenever we are faced with an e-reserves request that may not fall easily into fair use, we should look at ways to improve the fair use situation before we decide to license the excerpt.  Can we link to an already licensed version?  Can we shorten the excerpts?  Buying a separate license should be a last resort.

Ultimately, this opinion may have limited value in providing guidance going forward as it applies in a narrow context and had the benefit of data that isn’t readily available.  However, it is still a win for the libraries

New Decision in Georgia State University E-Reserves Case Released; 41 of 48 Claims of Infringement Found to Be Fair Uses

On March 31, 2016, the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia released its opinion on remand in the Georgia State University e-reserves case, Cambridge University Press v. Becker.  The district court originally determined in 2012 that of the 99 instances of claimed infringement, 94 of the cases were fair use and only 5 were infringing.  The case appeared before the district court again after the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case in October 2014, directing the trial court to revisit its fair use analysis.  The Eleventh Circuit’s opinion rejected an arithmetic approach to the four fair use factors (that is, the idea that if three of the factors favor fair use, but one disfavors fair use, then fair use will always apply).

On remand, the district court considered 48 infringement claims and revisited the fair use assertions by Georgia State University.  Judge Evans found that of the 48 claims, 41 were non-infringing fair uses.  More analysis of the opinion will be available shortly.

H/T: Kevin Smith

Four More Marrakesh Treaty Ratifications Needed For Entry Into Force

At last check-in in December, thirteen countries had ratified the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled.  Today, that number stands at sixteen, with the recent ratifications of Israel, North Korea and Peru.  Australia, Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, India, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Paraguay, Singapore, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay ratified the treaty previously.  The Marrakesh Treaty needs twenty ratifications to enter into force and will, in all likelihood, reach this threshold this year with several countries reportedly close to ratification.

The Marrakesh Treaty sets forth minimum standards for limitations and exceptions to facilitate access to accessible format works.  It would also permit cross-border sharing of these accessible formats, allowing countries to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts and resources in the creation of these accessible works.  Additionally, the Treaty would facilitate importation of works created in other languages.

Bill C-65 in Canada was introduced in June in preparation for accession to the Marrakesh Treaty, but has not been voted on.  The Obama Administration sent the Marrakesh Treaty to the U.S. Senate in February of this year, though it has not yet been scheduled for a hearing or vote.

To Kill A Mass Market Paperback and Access to Knowledge

Just weeks after Harper Lee’s death on February 19, 2016, a notice was issued that the mass-market version of the classic novel To Kill A Mockingbird would no longer be authorized for publication.  The mass-market version, used by countless students over the years, was priced at a much more affordable $8.99 than the trade paperback versions’ list price of between $14.99 and $16.99.  Students and schools who want to purchase new copies of the book will be forced to pay the much higher costs of the trade paperback.

This news is just the latest example of the problem of our current, excessively long copyright term.  Although the reason behind this decision has not been made clear, allowing the heirs of an author to control the legacy of a work and restrict access long after the author’s death can lead to unfortunate consequences.

The purpose of copyright is grounded in the U.S. Constitution: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”  The benefit of the public good, through the promotion of access to knowledge, is a key measure of the progress of science.  Yet with copyright term extending far beyond the life of the author — life plus seventy years in the United States (notably, a term that extends far beyond international standards) — access to knowledge can be curtailed and restricted even after the author is long gone.  Dissenting in Eldred v. Ashcroft, Justice Breyer noted that the Copyright Term Extension Act which lengthened copyright term in the United States to its current term, the “primary legal effect is to grant the extended term not to authors, but their heirs, estates or corporate successors.  And most importantly, its practical effect is not to promote, but to inhibit, the progress of ‘Science’–by which word the Framers meant learning or knowledge.”

How does the current copyright system incentivize current authors to promote the progress of science or to produce more works?  Breyer questions in his dissent in Eldred:

How will extension help today’s Noah Webster create new works 50 years after his death? Or is that hypothetical Webster supposed to support himself with the extension’s present discounted value, i.e., a few pennies?  Or (to change the metaphor) is the argument that Dumas fils would have written more books had Dumas pere’s Three Musketeers earned more royalties?

Indeed, it is unlikely that Lee wrote To Kill a Mockingbird with copyright term in mind.  In fact, when Lee published her novel in 1960, copyright term was significantly shorter: 28 years with the option to renew for an additional 28 years.  It wasn’t until 16 years later when the 1976 Copyright Act was implemented that the copyright term in the United States was measured against the life of the author, and 1998 when the Copyright Term Extension Act extended the term from life plus 50 to life plus 70 years.

Instead of the copyright on To Kill a Mockingbird expiring this year, as it would have under the copyright law at the time of Lee’s writing and publication of the novel, the rights to the novel will continue for the next 70 years.  Apparently, the first move by Lee’s successors-in-interest is to inhibit access to knowledge by prohibiting the publication of affordable copies of the novel.

 

Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week 2016 Highlights Balance in Copyright System

*Cross-posted from ARL News*

On February 22–26, 136 organizations and numerous individuals participated in Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week 2016, an annual celebration of the important—and flexible—doctrines of fair use and fair dealing. This year’s event was organized by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) and participants included universities, libraries, library associations, and many other organizations, such as Creative Commons, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, the R Street Institute, Re:Create, and Wikimedia.

More than double the number of organizations participated in 2016 compared to 2015. Fifty ARL member libraries contributed this year, producing blog posts, comic books, and other resources, including five videos on fair use and fair dealing.

Participants celebrated the essential limitations and exceptions to copyright that fair use and fair dealing provide, allowing the use of copyrighted materials without permission from the copyright holder under certain circumstances. While fair use and fair dealing are employed on a daily basis, Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week provides a time to promote and discuss the opportunities presented, celebrate successful stories, and explain these doctrines.

Each day, new blog posts and resource materials were produced and shared. Daily roundups are available for each day of Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week and additional resources are available on the Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week website. Below are some highlights of the materials shared over the course of the week.

Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week 2017 will be held February 20–24. Plan to participate!

Resources

The Association of Research Libraries released the infographic “Fair Use in A Day In the Life of a Student.” The Center for Media & Social Impact posted the infographic “Teaching About Art.”

Kyle Courtney, Sarah Searle, and Jackie Roche of Harvard University published two comic books on two prominent fair use cases, one covering Bill Graham Archives v. DK and one on Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music.

New Media Rights highlighted its Fair Use App for filmmakers and video creators and an accompanying blog post.

The Organization for Transformative Works collected questions over social media early in the week and compiled a Q&A about fair use.

The Youth and Media team at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society created several resources, including an infographic on the four fair use factors.

A collection of fair dealing stories from students and instructors in Canada is available at Fair Dealing Canada.

Video/Audio

Five ARL libraries—University of Tennessee, Knoxville; Columbia University; Texas A&M University; University of Massachusetts Amherst; and University of Alberta—created videos celebrating fair use and fair dealing. Additionally, University of New Brunswick produced a video explaining fair dealing.

Radio Berkman released “How Fair Use Works in Six Minutes or Less.”

MIT and Harvard held a joint panel discussion on fair use in scholarly publishing. The archive of the video is available online.

Additionally, an archived radio interview at The Ohio State University focusing on how libraries reinforce fair use is available on the WOSU website.

News/Blog Posts

Re:Create posted on Buzzfeed “19 Reasons to Be Thankful for Fair Use.”

Wikimedia provided a history of fair use on Wikipedia.

The American Library Association (ALA) posted several times throughout the week, including “Congress Stands Still; Technology, the Courts and Fair Use Marches Onwards!” and a summary of “Everyday Fair Use in Libraries.”

Both Harvard and the Authors Alliance posted a new blog post each day during Fair Use Week. The Authors Alliance explained why it supports a broader view of fair use than the Authors Guild.

News also broke that the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation announced a new fair use policy to make its images more accessible to the public.

Bobby Glushko of the University of Toronto and Wanda Noel each explained a recently released decision by the Copyright Board of Canada on rate setting and fair dealing.

On the international front, the Australian Digital Alliance posted on “Why Do We Want Fair Use in Australia?” The Authors Alliance commented on international developments in fair use. EIFL (Electronic Information for Libraries) discussed the issues of fair use and fair dealing for new technologies in various countries.

Roundup from Day 5 of Fair Use Week 2016

Check out all of the great posts from Day 5 of Fair Use Week 2016! Don’t see yours? Contact us to get yours added!

Comics

Kyle K. Courtney and Sarah W. Searle, authors, and Jackie Roche, illustrator and author, “Bill Graham Archives v. DK: Music Promoter’s Archives vs. Publisher” (PDF)

Kyle K. Courtney and Sarah W. Searle, authors, and Jackie Roche, illustrator and author, “Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music: Hip Hop Musicians vs. Music Publishers” (PDF)

Q&A

Janita Burgess, Organization for Transformative Works (OTW), “OTW Legal Answers Your Fair Use Week Questions!”

Quizzes

Brigham Young University, single-question quiz to test your understanding of whether 2 Live Crew’s parody of Roy Orbison’s song “Oh, Pretty Woman” is fair use

Blog/News Posts

ArtfixDaily Artwire blog, “The Robert Rauschenberg Foundation Announces Pioneering New Fair Use Image Policy”

Australian Digital Alliance, “Fair Use Week: Why Do We Want Fair Use in Australia?”

Casey Fiesler on Computing, Copyright, Community blog, “Remixers’ Understandings of Fair Use Online (CSCW 2014)”

Raoul Grifoni-Waterman on Authors Alliance blog, “International Fair Use Developments: Is Fair Use Going Global?”

Elliot Harmon on Electronic Frontier Foundation blog, “Content ID and the Rise of the Machines”

Tom Lipinski on District Dispatch blog, “Congress Stands Still; Technology, the Courts and Fair Use Marches Onwards!”

Meera Nair on Fair Duty blog, “Fair Use Denied—Part V”

New Media Rights blog, “Fair Use = Millions of Individuals Exercising Their Freedom of Expression Every Day. Happy #fairuseweek2016!”

Mary Beth Quirk on Consumerist blog, “Fairly Used: Why Schools Need to Teach Kids the Whole Truth about Copyright”

Matthew Rimmer on Copyright at Harvard Library blog, “Malcolm Turnbull, Copyright Law Reform, and the Innovation Agenda”

Jacob Rogers on Wikimedia blog, “Fairer than Fair: A History of Fair Use on Wikipedia”

Carrie Russell on District Dispatch blog, “Negativland and Fair Use”

US National Telecommunications and Information Administration blog, “The Need for Fair Use Guidelines for Remixes”

Roundup from Day 4 of Fair Use Week 2016

Check out all of the great posts from Day 4 of Fair Use Week 2016! Don’t see yours? Contact us to get yours added!

Images

Swarthmore College Libraries, Warhol-esque soup can reading “Using old art to make new art is fair use,”promoting a library event for users to create transformative art

Radio

Radio Berkman, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, “How Fair Use Works, in Six Minutes or Less”

Resources

Amanda Wakaruk, copyright librarian, University of Alberta, “Canadian Crown Copyright Conundrum” (PDF), paper discussing inconsistent approaches to copyright for works published by the Canadian government and advocating following the model of the US government, most of whose works are in the public domain

Youth and Media, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, “Fair Use Resources,” three new resources: a Radio Berkman podcast on the basics of fair use, a guide for teachers to help students understand fair use, and an infographic to explain the fair use doctrine and provide examples of applying the four factors

Video

Common Sense Media, animated video encouraging students to think about copyright law and appropriate ways to use original work responsibly

Dalhousie University Libraries, interview with assistant professor Mike Smit, School of Information Management, for Fair Dealing Week

Dalhousie University Libraries, interview with instructor Sasha Kondrashov, School of Social Work, for Fair Dealing Week

Blog/News Posts

Laura Burtle on Georgia State University Library blog, “Recent Developments in Fair Use Litigation”

Kyle K. Courtney on Copyright at Harvard Library blog, “Fair Use Week 2016: Day Four Interview With #WTFU Founders”

Nora Dethloff and Stephanie Lewin-Lane on University of Houston Libraries News blog, “Fair Use vs. Public Domain”

Teresa Hackett on EIFL blog, “Copyright for Today and Tomorrow (and Is There Life on Mars?)”

Heather Hughes in Western News, “Copyright Education Process Continues for Adam”

Brandy Karl on Penn State Copyright Portal blog, “Transformative Fair Use: A Mashup T-Shirt Roundup”

Lydia Pallas Loren on Authors Alliance blog, “Fair Use as More Than Just a ‘Defense’ to Infringement”

Meera Nair on Fair Duty blog, “Fair Use Denied—Part IV”

Megan O’Donnell on Scholarly Communication @ Iowa State University Library blog, “President Obama Nominates Dr. Carla Hayden for Librarian of Congress”

Tammy Ravas on District Dispatch blog, “Everyday Fair Use in Libraries”

Roxanne Shirazi on City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center Library blog, “Fair Use Week: Copyright and Your Dissertation”

Anna Simon on Ars Hoya blog, “Nostalgia Critic Defends Fair Use YouTube Clips”

Maira Sutton on Electronic Frontier Foundation blog, “The Murky Waters of International Copyright Law”

Peggy Tahir on UCSF Libraries In Plain Sight blog, “Fair Use Week, Day Four: Stream It!”

Sixteen Organizations Join Letter Supporting Rapid Ratification of Marrakesh Treaty

ARL, together with fifteen other organizations including library associations, blind and disability groups, authorized entities and non-profit advocacy organizations, joined a statement supporting rapid ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty.  The Obama Administration sent the Marrakesh Treaty to the Senate on February 10, 2016 and the letter calls on the Senate to ratify the Treaty and for the House and Senate  to pass the Marrakesh Implementation Act.  The Treaty provides minimum standards for limitations and exceptions to create and distribute accessible formats for the print disabled and allows for the cross-border exchange of these formats.

The statement notes:

We believe the Treaty is consistent with United States law and could be ratified without any changes to existing statutes or regulations.

Notwithstanding this view, we are prepared to support the legislative package as proposed by the Administration because it makes minimal changes to the law and its consideration would, we trust, facilitate early Senate consent to ratification. We are confident that the focused and narrow changes that have been proposed are enough to satisfy the terms of the Marrakesh Treaty. We believe any effort to make any other changes in US law, beyond those proposed by the Administration, would unnecessarily delay and jeopardize the ratification of this treaty. Blind and otherwise print disabled Americans have waited far too long for equal access to printed materials.

We call upon the Senate to consent to ratification without any reservations, understandings or declarations. We further encourage Congress to hold hearings expeditiously and to enact the implementing legislation along with the suggested legislative history as currently drafted, without delay. If the Treaty is ratified and the legislation adopted, the blind and otherwise print disabled of our nation will benefit greatly by having access to the rest of the world’s accessible book collection and the blind and otherwise print disabled of the world will advance their quest for greater information through access to books in the United States.

The full Joint Statement Supporting Marrakesh Treaty Ratification is available here.

Roundup from Day 3 of Fair Use Week 2016

Check out all of the great posts from Day 3 of Fair Use Week 2016! Don’t see yours? Contact us to get yours added!

Radio

WOSA Public Radio: interview with Sandra Enimil, head of The Ohio State University Libraries Copyright Resources Center, about how to interpret and apply fair use

Resources

Brigham Young University, Copyright Licensing Office: Fair Use Week 2016 Questions & Answers

Center for Media & Social Impact: Infographic: Teaching About Art | Fair Use Week

New Media Rights: The Fair Use App: An Interactive Guide for Filmmakers and Video Creators

Video

Harvard Library, Office of Scholarly Communication: Rebekah Modrak, associate professor at the University of Michigan School of Art & Design, recounts challenges she encountered after creating artwork incorporating third-party copyrighted material

MIT Libraries: panel of publishers, authors, and librarians discuss fair use and reusing content in scholarly journals and books

Blog Posts

Lila Bailey on Internet Archive Blogs, “Fair Use & Access to All Human Knowledge”

Brandeis Library & Technology Services blog, “CopyRIGHT or CopyWRONG: Understanding the Basics of Fair Use”

Brandon Butler on Copyright at Harvard Library blog, “In Defense of Fair Use: The Slow Food Movement Tells Us Something Important about Our Fair Use Rights”

Denise Dimsdale on Georgia State University Library blog, “Why Is Fair Use Important?”

Fair Use Week blog, “Fair Use Stories: Prof. Rebekah Modrak and Re-Made Co.”

Ellen Finnie on MIT Libraries News & Events blog, “An Antidote to Copyright ‘Pain’”

Eric Harbeson on District Dispatch blog, “A Non-transformative Argument for Orphan Works”

Martha Meacham on AEA365: A Tip-a-Day by and for Evaluators blog, “Navigating Copyright Issues: When Should We Be Concerned?”

Meera Nair on Fair Duty blog, “Fair Use Denied—Part III”

Wanda Noel on ARL Policy Notes blog, “Canada’s Copyright Board Finds Most Educational Copying Is Fair Dealing”

Re:Create on BuzzFeed: “19 Reasons to be Thankful for Fair Use”

Ryerson University Library & Archives News blog, “Celebrate Fair Dealing Week—Celebrate User’s Rights”

School of Visual Arts NYC, In the Loupe: Visual Resources Center Blog, “It’s Fair Use/Fair Dealing Week!”

Rebecca Tushnet on Authors Alliance blog, “Fair Use and the DMCA’s ‘Anticircumvention’ Provisions”

Ultimate Oddball Blog, “Fair Use and #WTFU on Youtube”