Fair use (s. 107) is an intentionally drafted ambiguous provision in the U.S. Copyright Act for the purpose of defending users of copyright works from a variety of otherwise infringing acts. Although often compared to the Canadian fair dealing, the two defenses are quite different. Two interesting documents on the analysis of fair use and its interpretation were recently released.

General Counsel from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released a memorandum on 19 January 2012 on: USPTO Position on Fair Use of Copies of NPL Made in Patent Examination. The memorandum looks at three issues: Whether it is fair use of the USPTO to make copies of copyrighted non-patent literature (NPL) and provide such copies to an applicant in the course of patent examination? Whether it is fair use for the USPTO to provide certified copies of entire file histories, including copyright NPL to members of the public, for a free? Whether it is fair use for an applicant to make a copy of a piece of copyrighted NPL and submit it to the USPTO?

Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research Libraries was published on 25 January 2012 by the Association of Research Libraries and the Center for Social Media. This document addresses various questions such as how to make libraries' special collection available online; what can be digitized for student use; and, reproducing materials for faculty, staff and other users.

Those who apply fair dealing or fair use or are generally interested in these topics will find the discussions and analysis interesting in both of these documents, though at the end of the day, the application of either of these defenses very much depends upon the circumstances in each particular situation.

The public library is a wonderful spot for information, entertainment, socializing, technology, education and more. Have you ever wondered about the actual value of your library to you? Perhaps impossible to translate into dollars and cents, however I recommend you try the library use value calculator to see how much it predicts you would be paying out -of-pocket for your library services. It would be interesting to see a similar calculator for law libraries.

Can a copyright owner enforce his rights in small claims court? The answer varies depending on which side of the 49th parallel you are on. In Canada, yes! In the U.S., no. Perhaps this is about to change. The U.S. Copyright Office is accepting submissions from the public until 16 January 2012 on remedies for copyright infringement suits in small claims courts. U.S. Congress has asked the Copyright Office to investigate and seek comment on how small copyright claims have been managed in the past and to outline recommendations for changes and alternatives to current procedures.

This is not the first time this issue has arisen in the U.S. A report was tabled by the Copyright Office to the U.S. House of Representatives, 109^th Congress, 2^nd session on March 29, 2006. As part of their investigation of orphan works, the question of alternative mechanisms for pursuing copyright infringement cases was brought forward by photographers who had no resources to sue in federal court. In this report, the U.S. Copyright Office agreed to study the issue and to report to Congress the findings as to whether and to what extent copyright holders have been hindered from pursuing legal action and if the current system is not effective, what changes in law would be necessary. The report also outlined seven topics for information collection and also indicated four alternatives which might be available.

The advantage of small claims court is that it is often speedier than other courts and costs can be minimized since plaintiffs often represent themselves without the aid of a lawyer. You are only eligible to sue in small claims court if the monetary compensation being claimed is within a certain limit. For example, this amount is $25,000 in Ontario.

For authors on SLAW, you know that in today's world, obtaining a publishing agreement with a traditional publisher means that you have to show your publisher how YOU will market and promote your own book. Those authors with a broad reach will of course be more attractive to a publisher. By the time you contact a publisher, you likely have some blog postings and perhaps print articles on your CV, but how about Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and other online marketing tools? What to do and where to do them? And a biggie – how much time to spend marketing rather than writing and perhaps making a living! I recommend all authors (and others interested in online marketing and publicity) take a look at the Wiley Author's Guide to Online Marketing & Publicity.

This morning I came across a U.K.-based online quiz setting out various scenarios. Titled "Are you an accidental outlaw", there are 9 questions relating to: twitter, facebook, uploading, music, blogging, online discussions and selling content. After you complete each answer, you click through to your score, with an explanation/advice on the current law and top tips. You may want to ask your fellow employees to take the quiz too. Take the quiz.

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) is a Special Operating Agency of Industry Canada. Industry Canada is responsible for the administration of intellectual property in Canada. The Copyright Office is part of CIPO. Below is an excerpt of an interview with newly appointed Commissioner of Patents, Registrar of Trademarks and Chief Executive Officer of CIPO, Sylvain Laporte.

1. How many copyright registration certificates are issued in Canada each year? 

(Note that the fiscal year end of CIPO is March 31. The figures below and reported throughout this interview reflect this year end. For example, 2000-2001 reflects the period from April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2001.)

Statistics for the past few years are the following. In 2008-2009, 8,269 copyright certificates were issued; in 2009-2010, 9,021 copyright certificates were issued; and in 2010-2011, 8,824 copyright certificates were issued.

2. How does this compare to 5 or 10 years ago?

Registrations in 2010-2011 compared to 5 years ago (2005-2006) were higher by 7 percent. Registrations in 2010-2011 compared to 10 years ago (2000-2001) have increased by 27 percent.

3. Why is this number increasing?

Mr. Laporte did not provide any speculations on this question and merely stated that copyright registration is optional in Canada and that registration is a decision made by the copyright owner.

4. Are patent and trademark registration applications showing the same trend as copyright applications?

No. The trend in filings of applications for the registration of trademarks shows a decline in two consecutive years, 2008/2009 and 2009/2010, but returned to nearly identical levels in 2010/2011 seen 3 years prior.

Economic uncertainty such as that caused by the recent global recession impacts the number of patent applications filed. Fiscal years 2009–2010 and 2010-2011 are cases in point; the Patent Office reported mild declines in new applications during these years.

5. How long does it currently take to obtain a copyright certificate upon filing an online application? A mailed-in application?

Our service standards are 5 days for online filing and 7 days for paper filing. Currently, it takes 2.9 days for the issuance of a copyright registration certificate upon filing an online application, and 6.5 days for a mailed-in application.

6. Is it true that CIPO will not even look at deposits accompanying copyright applications and that they return them upon receipt? (Note that under the Canadian registration system, there is no requirement to deposit a copy of the work with the copyright application.)

Yes.

7. How many copyright searches are undertaken in the Copyright Registers each year? Is this number growing or shrinking?

The searches conducted in the Canadian Copyrights Database have been continuously growing for the past five years. The number of searches has increased by approximately 14% per year, with the exception of 2006/07, where 53% more searches were conducted online than the previous year. Searches conducted in 2010/11 have increased by 2% from the previous year.

8. What is the most misunderstood issue relating to copyright registration in Canada?

Although no formal research has been conducted, feedback received from CIPO’s Client Service Center indicates that some Canadians may not understand the role and scope of the Copyright Office. According to the Copyright Act and Copyright Regulations, the role of the Copyright Office is limited to receiving and processing applications for voluntary registration of copyright. The Office does not verify ownership or examine the work, nor is it able to offer advice on particular works as copyright subject matter, scope of protection, or matters of infringement. The public is advised that any such issues be resolved with the help of a legal professional knowledgeable in the area of intellectual property.

Yesterday U.S. Register of Copyrights, Maria A. Pallante, released a Document setting out 17 priorities of the U.S. Copyright Office over the next two years on copyright policy and administrative practice, and announced 10 new projects. Interesting read for Canadians as many of the issues discussed and proposals for the next two years may affect Canadians. As the report states, the “Office’s registration system and the companion recordation system constitute the world’s largest database of copyright works and copyright ownership information.” In fact, many Canadians register their works in the U.S. Copyright Office (since a deposit of the work is required unlike in Canada) and many also search the records of the U.S. Copyright Office when trying to locate copyright holders. Plus, the role of a Copyright Office with an annual budget of $54 million is interesting in itself.

So many issues, so little space…some highlights to follow in the Document:

• the Copyright Office is conducting a study on resolving copyright infringement claims through small claims courts (publication date: December 2011)
• the Copyright Office has a preliminary analysis of issues relating to mass book digitization and will continue researching this area (publication date: October 2011)
• the Office will continue to provide support to Congress on the issue of orphan works (in the 109th and 110th Congresses Orphan Works legislation was introduced but never passed. Canada has an unlocatable copyright owner provision in its Copyright Act)
• the Office will prepare a discussion document on exceptions for libraries
• the Office will examine group registration options, as well as registration options for websites and other digital works (in 2012), and also publish a study of fees and services (in April 2012)
• the Office will establish research partnerships with the academic community (it will seek proposals in 2012)
• the Office will revise the Copyright Office website
• the Office will examine how to make the 70 million historical copyright records searchable and available online (beginning November 2011)

Bill C-11, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act, received second reading in the House of Commons on 18 October 2011. Discussions focussed on balance, openness to listening to interest groups, and specific provisions and scenarios covered and not covered by the bill. If you want a quick catch-up on copyright reform in Canada, take a look at Hansard.

As an update to my posting of 19 September 2011, the Canadian government introduced on 29 September 2011, Bill C-11, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. This bill is identical to Bill C-32 which was introduced in June 2010. Bill C-32 died in March 2011 when the Canadian government fell in a vote of no confidence. This is the 4th attempt at amending the 1924 Canadian Copyright Act in order to address newer ways in which we all create, distribute and use copyright-protected works, and in order for Canada to be able to join the two digital WIPO treaties. There are some indications that the bill could be fast tracked and passed by the end of 2011.

Writers and publishers are continuously facing a changing landscape.  The Writers' Union of Canada has developed 12 core demands for the digital age. Interesting list for authors in negotiations with their publishers.

1. Copyright legislation shall ensure the protection of intellectual property and appropriate compensation for rightsholders.
2. Exceptions to copyright shall be minimized.
3. The publisher shall split the net proceeds of ebook sales equally with the author.
4. The author shall retain all e-rights not specifically granted to the publisher or producer and shall have the approval of any modifications made to the work.
5. The publisher shall not exercise or sublicense ebook publishing rights without the express authorization of the author.
6. When a book is out of print in print form, continuing sales in e-form shall not prevent a rights reversion to the author.
7. For ebooks, the publisher in its contract shall replace the traditional "out of print" clause that triggers a rights reversion with a sales volume clause and/or a finite term of license.
8. When rights revert, the publisher shall provide the author with the digital file of the book.
9. The Public Lending Right Commission shall provide author payments for e-books and allot additional monies to this end.
10. Libraries shall acquire digital copies of works in their collections only from rightsholders or their licensing agencies.
11. Ebook retailers shall require the rightsholder's permission for any free preview or download of an ework, and the rightsholder shall specify the maximum amount to be made available.
12. Agents, publishers, aggregators, retailers, and libraries shall ensure that works in digital form will be well protected and will not be shared, trade, or sold outside the boundaries authorized by the contract.

Those watching Canadian copyright law developments are encountering a busier than usual season.

1. Heritage Minister James Moore hopes to re-introduce Bill C-32 on copyright reform this fall, without amendments, and he is also hoping that the bill is passed by Christmas. This will be the fourth attempt by the Canadian government to amend its copyright laws so that Canada may adhere to the World Intellectual Property Organization digital copyright treaties, and address various digital copyright issues as well as other much discussed copyright issues.
2. The Supreme Court of Canada will simultaneously hear on December 6 and 7 2011, five copyright cases which are a judicial review of Copyright Board decisions. The cases relate to the definition of research under fair dealing, the meaning of “to the public” in copyright law, and the scope of fair dealing in relation to educational institutions.
3. As of the start of the school year, many Canadian universities have opted out of repertoire licensing with the Canadian copyright collective, Access Copyright. These universities are now facing the challenge of clearing individual rights in content for classroom and other teaching-related uses.

In the upcoming months, we will have much to discuss in the copyright department.

On 25 July 2011, AALL hosted a panel discussion attracting at least 250 attendees. Coordinated by Michael G. Bernier, Director of Library Relations, BNA and moderated by Christine L. Graesser, Head Legislative Librarian, Connecticut Legislative Library, the speakers were:

• Lesley Ellen Harris, lawyer, author and educator, Copyrightlaws.com
• Katherine Lowry, Director of Information Resources, Baker & Hostetler
• Tracy L. Thompson-Przylucki, Executive Director, New England Law Library Consortium, Inc.

Bernier described the discussions "like listening in on a living room conversation between three experts!"

Some of the many questions discussed:

How should the license define licensed content? Usually falling under "Subject Matter" in a license, the content should be defined by title with a 1-3 sentence description. Clarity is key so that all can easily identify the content with the license.

Who can sign the agreement? Only those who have been authorized by the organization. That may be a librarian or purchasing officer or manager.

How will users access the content? IP authentication is most popular. A username and password does not work well in a larger library. Remote access is necessary in most circumstances.

What are indemnity clauses? A warranty guarantees that the licensor has the rights it says it has and can license the content to the licensee. If the warranties are untrue, then the licensor must indemnify the licensee e.g. pay legal costs for an infringement action.

Are automatic renewals a good idea? In Katherine's law firm, automatic renewals are generally not part of their licenses. Generally, automatic renewals should only be included in a license subject to notification by one or both parties notifying the other party.

What is an ideal duration for the length of a license? Short! One to three years was the consensus amongst the panelists.

What are the global implications of licensing? Ensure that the license addresses the currency of payment as well as who is responsible for various national taxes. Consider naming a country whose laws will govern the license as well as the country in which a law suit may take place.

The Meaning of License

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a “license” is “The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.” Also, “Permission to do something which without the license would not be allowable.” It is that license which allows us to download an e-book onto our e-book reader, upload computer software, and legally obtain music online. In fact, with digital content, licensing has become an integral part of our access to, and use of, informational, educational, and entertainment content. And yet the meaning of a license is still not understood by all. It continues to be confused with an assignment or transfer of rights as opposed to a “mere permission” to use content under specified or agreed upon terms and conditions.

How Licensing Works

So how does licensing work in the digital world? In a nutshell, if you want to post an image on your blog, you must first obtain permission to use that image. You will likely obtain a nonexclusive license to use the image, meaning others may also simultaneously post the image on their site or otherwise use the image. You do not obtain any ownership in that image; ownership is not transferred in an exclusive or nonexclusive license. Ownership of the image or any copyright-protected work is only transferred through a written assignment of the copyright. For permission, you will likely be asked to pay a fee (sometimes called a royalty), and your use will be subject to specified terms and conditions. For example, you may have the right to post the image for 6 months. You may not be able to modify the image. These terms may be set out in a written document such as a letter of agreement or license or contract.

Each licensing situation is unique. Although model or standard licenses may seem like the answer to avoid costly and time-draining negotiations, you must always look at your own particular situation and find an arrangement that is suitable to your needs. Your best licensing arrangements will derive from an educated licensor (owner of content) and licensee (user of content) who are amicable in finding an arrangement, perhaps with some compromises, that works for both of them.

Above is an extract from the editorial from The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter, Volume 2011, Issue 2.

Nineteen people graduated today in Philadelphia at the annual conference of the Special Library Association (SLA) with a Certificate in Copyright Management (CCM). The graduates included one Canadian, some rights managers in publishing positions, and many librarians in a variety of positions from pharmaceutical and engineering companies to law firms and financial institutions and academic institutions. One thing all had in common was a desire to understand domestic and international copyright issues, Web 2.0 and other digital copyright issues, special library provisions and fair use/dealing, as well as educating others about copyright and licensing. Canadians in the program are required to take the online primer on Canadian copyright law and have the option to also enroll in the U.S. copyright law primer.

The program includes 6 online courses beginning with an intro to copyright management and concludes with 2 in-person courses. In the next offering of the CCM program, a new online course will be added on the author/owner's perspective on copyright. The participants in the CCM program gain much more than knowledge about various practical aspects of copyright and licensing; they learn to manage fair use/dealing; find practical strategies and tools to say "yes" when asked by colleagues to use copyright-protected content; gain confidence in applying their knowledge; and join an excellent network of like-minded people. 2011 marks the 4th year of the Certificate program. The 2011-2012 Schedule for the CCM will be available in July.

Today Librarian of Congress James H. Billington appointed Maria Pallante as the 12th Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office. Billington noted the role of copyright and "the particular challenges of protecting authors' intellectual property interests in the online environment and achieving meaningful exceptions and limitations that serve the public interest in the 21st century." Pallante's position includes managing a workforce of 500 people, and handling a series of extraordinary challenges regarding technology, staffing and budgets. See press release.

As recently announced, Carlos Rossel, Publisher, The World Bank, is guiding the transition of the Bank’s print publishing to largely electronic, open access publishing. As part of this transition, The World Bank invited several of its employees including editors, economists, researchers, lawyers and invited non-Bank guests to a two-hour session yesterday in Washington, DC.

Carlos opened the session introducing the issues and speakers. I then gave an overview of relevant copyright and licensing/contractual issues relating to OA publishing. The information I provided was based on U.S. law as well as international copyright principles from the leading copyright treaty, the Berne Copyright Convention. It was interesting to note that Berne has 164 country members and The World Bank has 187 member countries. Thus the Bank is working with non-Berne countries whose domestic copyright laws do not follow the Berne required minimum copyright protection as well as automatic copyright protection upon creation and fixation of a work. Berne member countries cannot require registration of copyright works or the use of © as prerequisites to copyright protection. Once a work is protected in one Berne country, it is protected in all Berne countries according to the national laws of the country where the work is being used.

The bottom line of my presentation was “you cannot use what you do not own.” In terms of OA publishing, my summary included understanding copyright and contracts; planning ahead and leaving sufficient time to determine and clear relevant rights; and informing authors about underlying rights in their contributions and obtaining rights clearances and warranties from authors.

OA advocate Sandy Thatcher gave a thorough overview of the history of OA publishing, the different types of OA, and various OA publishers such as The National Academies Press and Athabasca Press, and various funding models for OA including revenue from print, author fees, foundations, endowments, subscription, patronage and advertising.

The World Bank publishing office is considering whether its open access publishing will allow both commercial and noncommercial use, whether derivative works could be based upon their publications, and whether attribution to The World Bank is essential.

With the relative newness of digital licensing and the growing opportunities for licensing electronic content (including on social networking sites), there are a number of misconceptions already developing. By discussing and clearing up these misconceptions, it will help clear the path to an easier negotiating road and to better licenses.

Misconception #1: Not all licenses are negotiable. Almost every licence is negotiable, but often you have to ask the other side if they are willing to negotiate so that you will have a licence that meets your needs. Always remember to only accept a licence and arrangement that works for you in your particular circumstances.

Misconception #2: Licenses must be in “heretherewithto” language. It is best for everyone to use plain English in your licenses and not technical or legal language. Say what you mean and put that in writing. If the language is unclear, ask the other side what things mean. Define terms in the licence that are unclear.

Misconception #3: I need a lawyer. Often content owners and users know more about digital licensing than lawyers. Do not be intimidated by not having continuous access to a lawyer. Do your homework and ask questions so you are comfortable with the arrangement into which you are entering.

Misconception #4: Renegotiating every year is mandatory. Nothing is mandatory! Negotiating is time-consuming and costly. At the same time, technology is changing rapidly and so is the way we all use digital content. Lengthy durations for licence agreements may not be appropriate, so consider an automatic renewal clause, provided that both parties are satisfied with how the licence is working out for them and provided each side has an opportunity to positively opt-in to the renewal.

Misconception #5: You can control your users. The licence agreement you sign is between you and either an owner or user of content. Your licence only contractually obligates you and that owner or user. As such, you cannot agree, or expect the other party, to police subsequent users of that content. However, you may wish to educate staff and researchers about legally using licensed content, and obligate any user licensing your content to do the same.

Misconception #6: You may restrict fair use or fair dealing. Parties to a licence may agree to limit fair use or fair dealing between the parties subject to the agreement. However, any other persons are not bound by that agreement. These persons may apply the relevant copyright law to their use, which means that fair use or fair dealing, would apply to that licensed content.

Misconception #7: Standard licenses are the answer. Each situation is unique. Although model or standard licenses may seem like the answer to avoid costly and time-draining negotiations, you must always look at your own particular situation and find an arrangement that is suitable to your needs.

Misconception #8: One side always loses in negotiations. In the ideal world, negotiations should be “win-win.” In other words, both parties should be satisfied with the end result. This, of course, is not always possible. By being prepared before entering into negotiations and by understanding your needs as well as the needs of the other party, you will be taking the right steps to finding an agreement satisfactory to both sides.

Does our museum need a digital licensing agreement policy?

May we post content on flickr, YouTube or Facebook?

What special concerns do Canadian museums face in licensing digital content on a global basis?

What fees should our museum collect for the use of its content on an organization’s Web site?

Who should be part of our negotiating team when licensing digital content?

These are a sampling of the many questions museums face when licensing digital content. Libraries, other cultural heritage institutions as well as law firms, governments and a variety of organizations are all faced with signing various license agreements for the use of digital content. This 2nd ed. of A Canadian Museum's Guide to Developing a Digital Licensing Strategy provides guidance in the digital licensing sphere with a unique Canadian perspective. The book is published by the Canadian Heritage Information Network and available for free online here. Chapters are:

1-What is Digital Licensing Strategy?

2-Creating Your Strategy One Step at a Time

3-Speaking the Language

4-Your Win-Win Negotiations

5-Sample Licensing Clauses

6-Standard Clauses

7-Your Questions on Licensing

8-Time to License

Appendix A has a Licence Agreement Checklist.

To supplement an earlier posting on World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Intellectual Property Day, I note that the Canadian Intellectual Property Office is also promoting April 26, 2011 as Canadian Intellectual Property Day!

The long-awaited decision of Judge Denny Chin was released yesterday. The court rejected the settlement because it is not fair, adequate and reasonable. There will undoubtedly be much written on the decision and predictions on what happens next. For some preliminary thoughts, see posting by Professor Kenneth Crews and read Judge Chin's decision.

WIPO celebrates World Intellectual Property Day on 26 April 2011. It's a great day and "excuse" to educate those around you about intellectual property issues including copyright and licensing matters within libraries and organizations. This year's theme is “Designing the Future”. A poster, postcard and bookmark may be downloaded from the WIPO site and used to help educate and raise copyright and intellectual property awareness. Of course, you are encourage to create your own educational materials which WIPO will showcase on its site.

If you have a moment right now, tune into the Livestream of the Acting Register of U.S. Copyrights Maria Pallante speaking at World's Fair Use Day in D.C.

10:20 am update: Maria just finished her presentation in which she reviewed some key U.S. copyright cases. She completed her talk referring to fair use: "Embrace it, respect it and celebrate it." There was no question period.

By now, those following discussions on Copyright Modernization Act Bill C-32, have found their favourite bloggers to follow. Also take the time to visit the Library of Parliament LEGISinfo where you can follow the introduction of the bill, the debates at 2nd reading, as well as the committee meetings in late November and December.

On 4 and 5 November 2010, The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is hosting meetings on Emerging Licensing Modalities, as part of its initiative on Facilitating Access to Culture in the Digital Age. These are global meetings with speakers and participants from around the world, with representatives of a variety of stakeholders. Many speakers are experts in their fields and countries. Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig will be the keynote speaker. The Themes for the meetings are:

Licensing Content Online: New Trends
Competition and Licensing of Music
Software: Tailoring Licenses to Markets
Research and Education: Emerging Licensing Platforms
Making Orphan Works Available: a Licensing Solution?
Licensing of Information and Content: the Role of Governments
The International Outlook: the Role for WIPO?

The recent issue of The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter is a special issue focussing on jobs and positions for non-lawyers including librarians, educators, communications coordinators and others. You can obtain a free copy of the Newsletter, subject to a creative commons license at www.copyrightlaws.com.

Lesley

Bill C-32, introduced today into the Canadian House of Commons, is being called the Copyright Modernization Act. The government has set up a site called Balanced Copyright. On the site are fact sheets, FAQs, a news release and a backgrounder. A copy of the bill at first reading was posted later in the day on the Parliament of Canada site.

On 12 May 2010, a bill to organise the exploitation of orphan visual works was submitted to the French Parliament.

This timing coincides well with tomorrow's copyright conference at U of T (see Simon Fodden's earlier posting of today) where the afternoon panellists will discuss orphan works and mass digitization.

Today, April 26, 2010, is World Intellectual Property Day. It is the 10th anniversary of this celebration initiated by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (“WIPO”). This year’s theme is: Innovation – Linking the World.

To continue our ebook reader discussions, I'll throw in some recent comments. For the past few months, I have been very interested in purchasing an ebook reader…certainly not urgent but I've investigated the Kindle, B&N Nook and now the ipad. Each reader seems to have its pluses and minuses. Although I was not ready to pick one yet, I recently received an ipad as a birthday present. I was delighted though not convinced I would have bought one myself. I have to admit I love my ipad. I'm reading a book on it, however I now do most of my news reading as well as online reading/research via the ipad. The wifi is very powerful and the screen is beautiful….plus the convenience and reading the news etc wherever I want is handy…the shape and size is wonderful around the house — not to mention my kids fighting over it — besides their games, we play scrabble on it and pass the tablet back and forth. The interesting thing is I'm not sure it's the ideal ebook reader but it is so many other things already and I like everyone am waiting for more ipad apps…bottom line; if you can afford it, it's a wonderful e-gadget to have, and you will find great ways to use it.

In anticipation of a possible copyright reform bill in Canada in the Spring of 2010, the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) issued a statement today reiterating its September 2009 position on copyright reform:

Fair dealing – Fair dealing is critical to a balanced and fair copyright regime. Copyright law reform must not limit or narrow fair dealing.

Damages and fair dealing – A change in the law should ensure that a user of a copyright-protected work is not subject to damages where he had reasonable grounds to believe that an activity is fair dealing.

Technological protection measures – Circumventing technical measures that prevent access or copying should be permitted if the purpose of the circumvention is not an infringement of copyright.

Educational use of the Internet – The Copyright Act should be amended to provide that students, teachers and educational institutions do not infringe copyright when they use publicly available material on the Internet for educational purposes.

If the pre-1978 U.S. Copyright Act was still in effect, copyright-protected works from 1953 would have entered the public domain on January 1, 2010. Current U.S. law protects works for 70 years from the date of the author’s death, but prior to the 1976 Copyright Act (effective in 1978), the maximum copyright term was 56 years (an initial term of 28 years, renewable for an additional 28 years). Copyright-protected works from 1953 include Casino Royale, Marilyn Monroe’s Playboy cover, The Adventures of Augie March, the Golden Age of Science Fiction, Crick & Watson’s Nature article decoding the double helix, Disney’s Peter Pan, and The Crucible. See: www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/pre1976.

The leading copyright convention, the Berne Convention (www.wipo.org) requires a minimum copyright protection of life-plus-50 — the duration that currently exists in the Canadian Copyright Act.

Yesterday, I abandoned my office for several hours to attend “The First Annual World’s Fair Use Day” at the Newseum in Washington D.C. It was organized by the D.C.-based non-profit consumer advocacy group, Public Knowledge. There is lots of information and coverage on this event at http://worldsfairuseday.org/. I will limit my comments to some personal musings (in chronological order as the day unfolded.)

First, I note, the event was free.

Second, Nina Paley (listed bio as filmmaker, animator, cartoonist and copyright critic) wore a black short-sleeved t-shirt with the word: ©ensorship. We know her perspective on copyright. Nina did say that her content is free online however she sells her CD’s. Nina advocates copyright reform and/or broader fair use. Her comments were general but she wants full use of all content for use in her own creations. She is fine with others using her works in any manner.

Third, Dan Walsh, creator of Webcomic “Garfield Minus Garfield” is happy to make money from his work, but through ads, as he does not want to deal with licensing his own works.

Fourth, Pat Aufderheide, director of social media at American University’s School of Communication and person behind the many best practices guides on fair use for online video (remixes), education and documentary filmmaking, proudly shared her work. She mentioned future guides including one on fair use best practices for research librarians. Interesting guidelines and worth reading however remember they are guidelines and not what the Supreme Court or the Copyright Act is stating. My own perspective: having copyright compliance policies are almost always helpful; make sure your policies/guidelines work within the policies and culture of your own organization.

Fifth, Professor Peter Jaszi (AU Washington College of Law) words of wisdom: Best thing U.S. Congress can do is leave Section 107 on Fair Use alone and leave us all to interpret it. Concurred by Tony Falzone (Director of Fair Use Project and lecturer in Law at Stanford Law School). Tony also added: ambiguity and flexibility = strength behind fair use.

Sixth, internationally speaking, there was little discussion. It was mentioned that fair use as in the U.S. is uniquely American. Also, it is unlikely that fair use would ever be the international norm. During my time today I heard no panellists speak about the fact that fair use is likely/arguably broader in the U.S. than most elsewhere (including fair dealing in other countries), and what happens with national treatment and applying the standards in another country when content (legally used in the U.S.) is an infringement in another country? Also missing from the discussions — moral rights protection which exist in most copyright laws around the world but only in a minor manner in the U.S. A relevant topic for online content use and remixes and mash-ups and other situations where a fair use defense may be claimed.

Seventh, a word from the U.S. administration. White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer, Andrew McLaughlin (also proud owner of a Droid phone and former global public policy head for Google) disclaimed anything he said could be held as representing the White House. He then said: the administration is “serious about IP enforcement”, fair use is not an excuse for infringement, and there is a need to balance both sides of the copyright equation – reward creators and have flexible fair use principles.

I am currently looking at a variety of e-book readers and may indulge in one in the near future. Perhaps similar to choosing countertops for our kitchen, no e-reader is perfect and offers all the features one may want. If you have selected one you love, please let me know. At the current time, I am using the Barnes & Nobles e-book software on my iphone and it's pretty good, but the iphone screen is small for reading for a lengthy amount of time.
On a related point, I am interested in publishing an e-book. I would like to hear experiences in doing so. Did you publish on your own? Did you work with a third party? What format did you publish in? Any recommendations are appreciated. Thanks.

THE WIPO STANDING COMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS

The nineteenth session will take place in Geneva from December 14 to 18, 2009. The Committee is currently discussing special provisions for education, libraries and persons with disabilities, as well as the protection of audiovisual performances and broadcasting organizations. Meeting documents are at: www.wipo.int.

One common misunderstanding about copyright is that online content is not protected by copyright. Not true! Even if the content is posted without a copyright notice or other copyright information, that content should be presumed to be protected by copyright.

The same copyright principles apply to photographs posted on Flickr. In a recent situation, Toyota U.S.A. posted some photos on one of its Web sites — photos it obtained from the photography site, Flickr — without permission of the photographers. Toyota has now made a public apology and has removed the photographs. Lesson for all: get permission when using content from Flickr and other online venues.

Further information on this case at: http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/11/toyota-apologizes-for-using-flickr-photos-in-suv-ad.html.

Lesley

There seems to be an increasing number of positions for librarians in the area of copyright and licensing.

IFLA (located in The Hague) is currently looking for a Copyright Policy Officer. The University of Michigan has an opening for the Head of Electronic Acquisitions and Licensing. The Ontario Colleges Library Service has an opening for an Electronic Resources Librarian (in Toronto).

The blog www.copyrightanswers.blogspot.com now lists such positions — if you are interested, further info and links are in the blog. And if you know of other positions, please share them.

A Certificate in Copyright Management, originally developed for special librarians, is now open to all. The Certificate is offered from Copyrightlaws.com jointly with the Special Library Association/Click University. It consists of 5 online courses and 2 in-person courses, leading the participant from an introduction to copyright management to digital issues to teaching others in their organizations about copyright. Canadians take the primer on Canadian copyright law rather than the U.S. copyright law primer, and all other courses deal specifically with Canadian and U.S. law as well as international copyright and licensing issues. The first course, which is a 2 week interactive online course, Introduction to Copyright Management, begins October 26, 2009, and will be offered again beginning January 25, 2010. All remaining courses are offered between February and June 2010, and participants have 24 months to complete all 7 courses and receive the Certificate. Individual courses may also be taken by those not seeking the Certificate. See: www.clickuniversity.com.

Creative Commons published a study on September 14, 2009, Defining “Noncommercial”: A Study of How the Online Population Understands “Noncomemrcial Use”.

This Study was commissioned by Creative Commons in 2008-2009 from a professional market research firm to delve into the meaning of “commercial” and “noncommercial” use in relation to online content.

One quote from the Executive Summary:

Perceptions of the many use cases studied suggest that with the exception of uses that earn users money or involve advertising – at least until specific case scenarios are presented that disrupt those generalized views of commerciality – there is more uncertainty than clarity around whether specific uses of online content are commercial or noncommercial.

Danske Dagblades Forening, a Danish newspaper industry body, is suing Infopaq, a Danish clippings service, over its reproduction of 11-word snippets of news for sale to clients. The European Court of Justice stated that copyright law would apply to extracts even if they contained just 11 words. However, the Court has not yet ruled in this case. The Court stated that it is up to a national court to decide first whether a newspaper article has copyright protection (though generally newspaper articles are protected by copyright.)

The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) is encouraging its members not to sign confidentiality clauses/agreements that prevent them from sharing information in their digital licenses. The press release states that openness in agreements will result in better terms and conditions for libraries.

See the ARL press release at http://www.arl.org/news/pr/nondisclosure-5june09.shtm.

Some time ago I started a blog which sets out questions and answers to copyright questions. The questions are divided into 16 categories so they can easily be searched. Many people continue to contribute questions as comments which I answer (usually within 24 hours) and which I eventually incorporate into my postings. Please help me by posting your copyright questions — www.copyrightanswers.blogspot.com.

Thanks!

I am delighted to share the news that the 2nd edition of my book, Licensing Digital Content: A Practical Guide for Librarians, is now out! You can order it directly from ALA Editions. The book blog is at www.licensingdigitalcontent.blogspot.com. The book covers licensing issues for librarians in the US, Canada and around the world.

If you are attending SLA this year, please join me at a book signing on Sunday June 14 at 4:30 in the Expo Hall at the DC Convention Center. Also, if you attending SLA, you may want to consider the June 13 or June 14 classes on managing copyright issues and copyright education. Email ssuggs@sla.org for details.

As you may know, in the U.S. federal government documents are not protected by copyright. (Canadian federal government documents are protected by copyright in Canada.) Take this in context when reading the summary of the February 5th, 2009 decision by the California Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District released its decision in California first Amendment Coalition v. County of Santa Clara.

In this case, the County of Santa Clara tried to enforce copyright in public records and to impose licensing restrictions (resulting in license fees) on commercial vendors. California first Amendment Coalition (CFAC) sued the county to release the public records. The Court rejected the argument that municipalities could claim copyright in public records or impose license fees. The Court dismissed adverse decisions from other jurisdictions. Now, a copyright claim in a California public record must have an express and specific grant of authority by the legislature. This means that aggregators may freely include California public records in its databases and license them to others (unless there is an appeal and reversal by the California Supreme Court or an enactment of legislation.)

This decision is at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H031658.PDF.

Vol. 13, No. 2, February 16, 2009 (ISSN 1489-954X) of Copyright, New Media Law & E-Commerce News, is now available. Email lehletter @ copyrightlaws.com for a copy. This issue will shortly be posted at: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/copyright/.

Contents include:

Is Illegal Use of Subscription Web Site a Copyright Violation?

Obama: Hope artist asks for Fair Use Ruling

NFB Makes Films Available Online

Copyright in Africa

Digital Music Report 2009

Some YouTube Videos Get Download Option

Authors Guild Claims Kindle’s Text-to-Speech Violates Copyright

Online Copyright Courses

Book: Licensing Digital Content: A Practical Guide for Librarians

This e-letter, from 1996 to the present, is archived with Library & Archives Canada at: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/copyright/.

Vol. 13, No. 1, January 5, 2009 of Copyright, New Media Law & E-Commerce News is now available. It includes content on:

Music Industry Set to Abandon Mass Piracy Lawsuits

Harry Potter Lexicon Decision Analyzed

Judge Rules Facts Are Not Copyright-Protected

Hasbro Drops Lawsuit Against Makers of Scrabulous

Canadian Copyright Board Increases Tax on Blank Compact Disks

Advice for Obama’s New Chief Technology Officer

Popeye the Sailor Man Now Copyright-Free in E.U.

Stanford Intellectual Property Litigation Clearinghouse

Certificate in Copyright Management for Librarians

Online Copyright Courses

Book: Licensing Digital Content: A Practical Guide for Librarians

This e-letter, from 1996 to the present, is archived with Library & Archives Canada at: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/copyright/.

The current newsletter from my office:

Vol. 12, No. 7, December 5, 2008
ISSN 1489-954X

contents:

1.Studies, Legislation and Conventions:

Canadian Government Commitment to Copyright Reform
World Blind Union Proposes WIPO Treaty
WIPO Deadlocked on Traditional Knowledge Treaty

 2.Legal Cases:

Harvard Professor Challenges Copyright Law
Judge Approves Google Book Agreement

3.Of Interest:

MySpace Allows Copyright-Protected Videos, With Advertisements

4.Seminars and Publications:

E-Tutorial Copyright Courses
Certificate in Copyright Management
The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter

1.STUDIES, LEGISLATION AND CONVENTIONS:

CANADIAN GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT TO COPYRIGHT REFORM – In November’s Speech from the Throne, the Canadian government set out its intent to “proceed with legislation to modernize Canada’s copyright laws and ensure stronger protection for intellectual property.” The Canadian Parliament is currently prorogued until the end of January 2009.

WORLD BLIND UNION PROPOSES WIPO TREATY – The World Blind Union has proposed a World Intellectual Property Organisation (“WIPO”) Treaty for Improved Access for Blind, Visually Impaired and other Reading Disabled Persons. The treaty would provide a minimum standard for limitations and exceptions fo rthe blind and visually impaired, and would allow and encourage the impor tand export of works in accessible formats. The World Blind Union hopes that the proposed treaty would make works more accessible to blind people indeveloping countries. See: http://www.keionline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=206.

WIPO DEADLOCKED ON TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE TREATY – The WIPO Committee on

Traditional Knowledge and Folklore announced in October 2008 that it had failed to reach an agreement on a proposed treaty to protect traditional knowledge and culture. Further meetings are scheduled.

2.LEGAL CASES:

HARVARD PROFESSOR CHALLENGES COPYRIGHT LAW – A Harvard Law Professor has launched a constitutional challenge against the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999. Charles Lesson argues that the law is unconstitutional because it enables a private group (the Recording Industry Association of America) to carry out civil enforcement of a criminal law.

JUDGE APPROVES GOOGLE BOOK AGREEMENT – In November 2008, a U.S. District Judge issued an order tentatively approving Google’s settlement of copyright lawsuits by publishers and authors. The deal would see Google pay $125 million to resolve claims over the company's book-scanning project, and would enable Google to expand its Google Book Program, allowing readers to search for and buy books in whole or page-by-page. A hearing is scheduled for June, 2009.

3.OF INTEREST: 

MYSPACE ALLOWS COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED VIDEOS, WITH ADVERTISEMENTS – MySpace recently announced a partnership with certain video producers, such as MTV Networks, which will allow users to post copyright-protected videos in return for advertising revenue. Each time a MySpace user posts a video by MTV Networks or one of its partners, technology will identify the clip and overlay an advertisement on it. Advertising revenue will be shared between MySpace, Autitude (who provide the technology to identify the clip) and copyright holders.

4.SEMINARS AND PUBLICATIONS:

E-TUTORIAL COPYRIGHT COURSES – Copyrightlaws.com has set its Winter/Spring 2009 schedule for e-tutorial courses on copyright. A variety of courses (primers on copyright, managing copyright, digital rights management, copyright education and developing a copyright policy) are being offered between January and May 2009. Each course is unique and provides up to date information. The courses have different demands in terms of time and work. For a description of each course, schedule, how to choose the right course for you, and pricing, see: www.copyrightlawscom.blogspot.com. Registration is at: www.acteva.com/go/copyright.

CERTIFICATE IN COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT – This program, designed for librarians, consists of 5 online courses and 2 in-person courses. It was developed and is taught by Lesley Ellen Harris in partnership with SLA Click University. Participants have two years to complete the 7 courses required for the certificate, or may take any course à la carte. The first course, Introduction to Copyright Management Principles & Issues, begins on January 6, 2009. (Note that there is an alternative course on Canadian copyright law – for Canadians enrolled in the program.) For more information, see: www.clickuniversity.org.

THE COPYRIGHT & NEW MEDIA LAW NEWSLETTER – This unique publication deals with copyright law, licensing and related matters for a diverse audience of copyright professionals including librarians, archivists, curators, educators, lawyers, publishers, and digital content creators. This is a print and PDF newsletter, begun in 1997. It is published four times per year, with contributors and authors from around the world. For more information, see: http://copyrightlaws.com. To subscribe in 2009, visit: www.acteva.com/go/copyright.

Any thoughts on whether you think any sort of trend has emerged re how libraries are paying for licensed content/databases/periodicals? In other words, are libraries paying on a per use basis, or as annual, quarterly, etc., subscription fees, or otherwise?

Please post your comments here or at: www.licensingdigitalcontent.blogspot.com.

Two law professors are offering a book for sale at: http://www.semaphorepress.com/about.html, on a pay what you want basis. It is a casebook on intellectual property law. An interesting business model — will they succeed? Time will tell for these and other entrepreneurs. A comment from their Web site: "Be a part of the solution to $130 casebooks, by fostering the creation of $30 casebooks: Please pay the suggested price. If you can't pay it, please at least pay something to help Semaphore Press succeed."

FROM THE OFFICES OF LESLEY ELLEN HARRIS
Copyright, New Media Law & E-Commerce News
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Vol. 12, No. 6, October 19, 2008
ISSN 1489-954X

Contents:

1. Studies, Legislation and Conventions:
WIPO Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries
Creative Commons Launches Study of “Noncommercial” Use
Bill C-61 Dies With Canadian Election Call

2. Legal Cases:
Harry Potter Lexicon Breached Copyright
Peer-to-Peer Magazine Site Settles Dispute

3. Of Interest:
Hollywood Demands Royalties From Irish Playschools
U.S. Music Groups Agree on Royalties for Online Streaming
Copyright Law is a Balancing Act
OCLC Pilots Copyright Registry

4. Seminars and Publications:
Canadian Copyright Law Course
Vote on Copyright Education
Certificate in Copyright Management
Co pyright Questions and Answers
The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Copyright, New Media & E-Commerce News is distributed for free by the
office of Lesley Ellen Harris. Information contained herein should not be
relied upon or considered as legal advice. Copyright 2008 Lesley Ellen
Harris. This e-letter may be forwarded, downloaded or reproduced in whole
in any print or electronic format for non-commercial purposes provided that
you cc: lehletter@copyrightlaws.com.

This e-letter, from 1996 to the present, is archived with Library &
Archives Canada at: http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/copyright/.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

1. STUDIES, LEGISLATION AND CONVENTIONS:

WIPO STUDY ON COPYRIGHT LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS FOR LIBRARIES – The
World Intellectual Property Office (“WIPO”) has released a study on
copyright limitations and exceptions for libraries which has been prepared
by Kenneth Crews. The study discusses issues from the foundation of library
exceptions to their prevalence, scope and structure, and the nature of the
various exceptions in the copyright legislations of all WIPO member
countries. A copy of the study is at:
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=109192.

CREATIVE COMMONS LAUNCHES STUDY OF “NONCOMME RCIAL” USE – Creative Commons
has launched a study to explore the differences between commercial and
noncommercial uses of content. Creative Commons licenses allow creators to
give the public advance permission to use the creators’ work. Works
distributed under the “noncommercial” license term may be used by anyone
for any purpose that is not “primarily intended for or directed toward
commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” Creative Commons
explained that developments in technology, social practices, and business
models are changing the definition of non-commercial use.
BILL C-61 DIES WITH CANADIAN ELECTION CALL – The October 14, 2008 election
in Canada has killed Bill C-61 (see LEH-Letter Volume 12, No. 5). If the
new government wants to enact similar legislation, it will have to
re-introduce the Bill under a different number.
__________________________________________________________________
______________________________ ____________________________________

2. LEGAL CASES:

HARRY POTTER LEXICON BREACHED COPYRIGHT – In September 2008, a U.S. federal
court judge held that a proposed book called The Harry Potter Lexicon
contained no substantially new material and it breached copyright in the
J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series. Warner Brothers, who sued Steven Jan
Vander Ark and the proposed publisher of the book, received $6,750 US in
damages.

PEER-TO-PEER MAGAZINE SITE SETTLES DISPUTE – Mygazines, com, a peer-to-peer
site which allows users to upload and share magazines, settled a dispute
with a group of consumer and business-to-business magazines in September.
Mygazines.com has agreed to remove material protected by copyright from its
site, and to put in place a system whereby Mygazines.com is notified
whenever material protected by copyright is uploaded.

__________________________________________________________________
_________________ _________________________________________________

3. OF INTEREST:

HOLLYWOOD DEMANDS ROYALTIES FROM IRISH PLAYSCHOOLS – The MPLC, a licensing
company representing companies such as Walt Disney and Twentieth Century
Fox, has written to Irish playschools demanding that each child pay a fee
of more than 3 euros a year to watch DVDs.

U.S. MUSIC GROUPS AGREE ON ROYALTIES FOR ONLINE STREAMING – Five music
industry groups, representing record labels, music publishers, songwriters,
and music Web sites, have reached agreement on how royalties should be paid
for streaming music online. The plan has been submitted to the Copyright
Royalty Judges for approval. If approved, sites such as Napster will pay
royalties of about 10.5% of revenue, matching rates already paid by
download services such as iTunes.

COPYRIGHT LAW IS A BALANCING ACT – Copyright law is about balancing the
rights of users and consumers of copyright-protected materials.& nbsp; See a
short article on balance in copyright law at:
https://www.bar
ex.com/barex/appmanager/bx/on?_nfpb=true&articleId=ar2001015

OCLC PILOTS COPYRIGHT REGISTRY – On July 1, 2008, OCLC launched a pilot
service, the Copyright Evidence Registry, which hopes to become a library
community-compiled union catalogue of copyright information. Users can
search for a book, see what others have said about its copyright status,
and add what they know. The beta version is at:
http://www.worldcat.org/copyrightevidence.

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

4. SEMINARS AND PUBLICATIONS:

CANADIAN COPYRIGHT LAW COURSE – A 5 week version of the 16 e-lesson course
on Canadian Copyright Law will begin on November 3, 2008. Information and
registration at: www.acteva.com/go/copyright. 

VOTE ON COPYRIGHT EDUCATION – Help out by voting on which copyright and
licensing courses you would like to see offered in 2009. Cast your vote
at: 
www.copyrightlawscom.blogspot.com.

CERTIFICATE IN COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT – This program, consisting of 5 online
courses and 2 in-person courses, created in partnership between Lesley
Ellen Harris and SLA Click University, begins again in January 2009.
Participants have two years to complete the 7 courses required for the
certificate, or may take any course à la carte. The first course,
Introduction to Copyright Management Principles & Issues, starts January 6,
2009. See: www.clickuniversity.org.

COPYRIGHT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS – Lesley Ellen Harris has just launched a
new blog designed to answer copyright questions. It includes questions from
issues of The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter, and gives readers the
opportunity to post questions of their own. See
http://www.copyrightanswers.blogspot.com/.

THE COPYRIGHT & NEW MEDIA LAW NEWSLETTER – This unique publication deals
with copyright law, licensing and related matters for a diverse audience of
copyright professionals including librarians, archivists, curators,
educators, lawyers, publishers, and digital content creators. This is a
print newsletter, begun in 1997. It is published four times per year, with
contributors and authors from around the world. For more information, see:
http://copyrightlaws.com. To subscribe, visit: http://www.acteva.com.

__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

This newsletter is prepared by Copyright Lawyer Lesley Ellen Harris.
Lesley is the author of the books Canadian Copyright Law (McGraw-Hill),
Digital Property: Currency of the 21st Century (McGraw-Hill), and Licensing
Digital Content (ALA Editions). Lesley edits the print newsletter, The
Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter. Lesley may be reached at:
http://copyrightlaws.com.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

This LEH-Letter issue was prepared with the help of Beth Davies.

If you are looking for further topical and practical information about
copyright law, obtain a sample copy of the print newsletter, The Copyright
& New Media Law Newsletter, from: http://copyrightlaws.com.

Kenneth Crews, Director, Copyright Advisory Office, Columbia University, has prepared a "Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives" for WIPO. It's now available at: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=109192.It is a lengthy document, 434 pages, discussing issues from the foundation of library exceptions to their prevalence, scope and structure, and the nature of the various exceptions in the copyright legislations of all WIPO member countries (including Canada.) The first 70+ pages is a substantive discussion and the remaining pages are excerpts from legislation discussed in the document.Lesley