Copying for "private study, scholarship, or research" specifically by libraries is permitted by §108 [1], while fair use is permitted by §107 [2]. These are separate concepts.
Libraries are not intended for photocopying of materials for all possible fair use cases; they're only intended for "private study, scholarship, or research" purposes.
So the sign correctly indicates what's allowed per library policy; it also correctly indicates you have additional rights per fair use policy and warns not to go beyond those.
(A good example is that a teacher can use a private/school photocopier to make 30 copies of material for classroom use according to fair use; but you're not allowed to use the library photocopier to make more than 1 copy of anything.)
108 gives additional rights to libraries to make copies. But it does not take away the right of the library to offer copying for any existing purpose. Therefore, contrary to the posted notice, it is perfectly legal for the library to offer copying services for purposes OTHER than the extra permissions granted in 108.
Which means that libraries are authorized under the law to produce copies for all the same purposes that Kinko's is allowed to produce copies. It is up to the library whether to do so. And it is incorrect for the sign to say that the library may NOT do so.
I’m confused how one parses the required statement to mean fair use is prohibited.
It states “a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of ‘fair use’” (emphasis mine) generates liability, and that the library “reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order,” not that it must.
As I understand it: The library furnishes (produces, provides) a copy on request, which is technically a publication to 3rd parties, since the library is not the user. But this is covered under Section 108, which provides a legal framework for this for the purpose of "private study, scholarship, or research". On the other hand, users have (still) full access and usage rights under conditions of fair-use. (E.g., as a user, you are still allowed to use the material for criticism. Notably, this is your criticism, but not the librarian's criticism, who produces the copy that is furnished to you. The enabling title for them is your research.) – So the note states the conditions under which the copy was produced and warns users of liabilities, in case of excess of fair-use on their side. In other words, this is a legal copy, but it doesn't start a branch of free publication. (As opposed to, "Everybody can go to the library and get a copy, so I can hand out copies of this just as well.")
I don’t think this is what the author is complaining about. It seems like he’s bothered by the example of fair use provided in the notice: “One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be ‘used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.’” What he’s complaining about is that fair use law allows copies for “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching”, but the notice doesn’t mention those.
The article really does seem like breathless muck-raking. Yeah there are subtleties, and yes the notice isn’t totally clear (perhaps because that would make it really long and harder to understand by non-lawyers), but the author insists on interpreting the language “study, scholarship, or research” to be exhaustive and complete, where I read it from the beginning to be simply an example of fair use. The notice actually is pretty clear it’s just saying the copies must adhere to fair use, which kinda clears up the whole problem the author is trying to inflate. The notice says explicitly “in excess of ‘fair use’”, so why is the author jumping to some conclusion that the notice meant something other than fair use?
Ok, we've appended a question mark to the title, which is a trick we sometimes use to mitigate questionable titles (on otherwise interesting articles).
Might I suggest adding some other mark as well to indicate it was an addition to the title. When I read it, I first assumed the original source had the question mark.
> A good example is that a teacher can use a private/school photocopier to make 30 copies of material for classroom use according to fair use
I disbelieve that this is the case, for copyrighted material; this is not supported by your citations, and that behavior (30 copies in a classroom) seems like a flagrant violation, in fact, and although most teachers wouldn't generally get in trouble with it, most teachers also tend to steer clear of violations like this. A teacher either obtains permission, or uses public domain materials, or finds some other way to convey the information to their students.
In fact I researched this when I was teaching a class, and I wanted to use some copyrighted handouts. I was able to obtain permission from a local blogger to use her article and distribute it to the whole class. In fact, she was very glad that I'd asked. I was less successful in contacting a publishing house overseas and obtaining permission for their stuff. So I didn't copy it.
Seems like a flagrant violation - yet the actual law disagrees, and you have more rights than what the required library copyright warning implies, from which the majority of our population's learns of "fair use"... perhaps there's a correlation?
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
The above was also quoted by the blog itself. The actual statute says "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords ... for purposes such as ... teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use) ... is not an infringement of copyright.".
So the statute explicitly details that the statement by the GP is correct. That making multiple (meaning more than one, 30 being more than one) copies for classroom use for the purpose of teaching is actually "not an infringement of copyright".
Fair use is generally understood to be more flexible when it comes to educational purposes, but it doesn't extend as far as communicating a complete copy of a work. For example, you can't upload a PDF version of a textbook to your class's group website.
I don't think this contradicts the parent to your comment. There are cases where a teacher can make 30 copies of a portion of a copyright work for distribution in the classroom, and the comment is about those cases.
But the notice attached to any library-produced copy should therefore presumably refer to the rights of the reader (ie. the member of the public), rather than the library.
The user is welcome to investigate their own rights on their own time. The government has no interest in that here. The government has a different interest.
The library is furnishing a powerful tool to users: the ability to make copies readily. The government's ability to police or regulate this tool so that it complies with copyright law is extremely limited. The government's options are to ban the tool outright, or to permit the tool while impressing a scary warning upon the user, hoping law-abiders will exercise self-control. "If you do something potentially illegal, then you are potentially liable for something illegal." It's a tautological warning, but it still has an effect. And the way they can force the library to communicate the scary warning to the end user is by conditioning the library's liability on the posting of the warning.
It's basically a disclaimer limiting how you can use the library to make copies. You still have fair use, but the library won't copy documents for you outside of their own limitations.
> Libraries are not intended for photocopying of materials for all possible fair use cases; they're only intended for "private study, scholarship, or research" purposes.
"What Libraries are intended for" makes no sense here. Libraries are not intended for many things. Might I suggest a rephrasing? 108 is specifically to allow specific rights, mentioning nebulous "under specific conditions".
> One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.”
Without an understanding that this is not a universally prohibitive condition, the poor phrasing makes it seem like it applies in all cases, despite the "Fair use" statement that follows.
The US Copyright Office does not require libraries to lie about fair use rights.
My wife’s a teacher. School Printer /Photocopier drama was such a stress point for her that her Christmas present was her own high end laser / copy machine.
The author has misread the statute. The notice and the statutory language from which it derives (Title 17, sec. 108 (d) and (e)) are about the conditions under which the library is released from liability for copyright violations. No statement is made about conditions under which the user is released from copyright liability.
Each paragraph in 108 lays out various situations under which libraries and archives are permitted to furnish copies without liability (without this, no library would dare).
Paragraphs (d) and (e) are the relevant ones (dealing with one component of a larger collection or to an entire work if necessary, respectively). Clause (1) of each paragraph describes a situation where the copy is to become property of the user making the request (so, I walk up to a copy machine, make a copy, and take possession of the copy). In this situation, the library is released from liability if two conditions hold: a) "the library ... has had no notice that the copy ... would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research". (Note that this is the source of the quote in the posted notice.) Naturally, that condition holds for self-service copy machines. b) "the library ... displays prominently ... a warning of copyright...". Said warning just recaps 108 (d) and (e).
I realize the headline is designed to be attention-grabbing, but "lie" is pretty strong given the warning's actual text.
Could the warning be better phrased? Almost certainly—it's a four-sentence digest, designed for a lay audience, of an incredibly complicated area of law (copyright fair use). But the warning itself is completely accurate: There are conditions where reproducing a copyrighted work (which otherwise infringe's the owner's exclusive right of reproduction) is acceptable. And "one of these specified conditions" (quoting from the warning) is for scholarship. It's not the only such condition!
To me, this feels like the author is making a mountain out of a molehill.
> One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.”
"[I]s not to be used for any purpose other than" sounds very restrictive. However the language from the statute is the opposite
> The fair use of a copyrighted work, ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
This sounds like the opposite. A list of times when fair use is OK.
The article could benefit from further discussion of this subtle distinction, as a librarian I think the writer assumes we already know exactly why this message is incorrect.
From my interpretation the message seems to "remove" several of the examples in the statute from the message, for instance news reporting. I think that is the concern here, along with the mandate that libraries then promulgate this subtle misinformation.
> Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement.
Emphasis mine. Of course it is possible to commit some sort of copyright infringement using a document copied in a library. You are being reminded of the fact that you could use this service provided by the library to commit a some copyright violation, the fact that the library helped you doesn’t magically change the law.
It seems to me that there are a few caveats that may explain this.
The first is that the blurb covers _furnishing_ the archival/photocopy, not creating the copy itself. This is more akin to whether I can give a friend a copy of a book I purchased, as opposed to the act of photocopying it myself. That is to say, it is okay to provide a photocopied version of a copyrighted document, but only under certain usage circumstances as defined by fair use doctrine.
The other aspect may simply be laziness. Perhaps it could be read as:
> [institutions such as] libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction
Either way, I think "requires libraries to lie" is a bit sensationalist.
This requirement comes not from the copyright office, but straight from the 17 USC 108:
"(e) The rights of reproduction and distribution...made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, if the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price, if-
"(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and
"(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation."
The author's issue is primarily with the inconsistency of the law itself.
A government agency isn't a better authority on the law than your own lawyers are, if you’re rich enough to access the courts.
The agencies, including the white house, offer one interpretation of the law, and they don't know your interpretation. Make it expensive for them to disagree with you and they will likely back off. But also be prepared to continue that fight in court in case they didnt back off. They theoretically have unlimited resources but are frugal.
That is a potentially grave mistake to make. They are in no way frugal (the very concept of being frugal with an unlimited faucet of "other people's money" is truly ridiculous). If they forbear to go to trial and/or appeal adverse rulings, it is only because they strongly prefer never to suffer adverse precedent. They would rather lose the same case a thousand times, than have precedent which restores the rights of ten thousand all at once, let alone 300 million. In a way it's quite the opposite of frugality.
Readit News
Copying for "private study, scholarship, or research" specifically by libraries is permitted by §108 [1], while fair use is permitted by §107 [2]. These are separate concepts.
Libraries are not intended for photocopying of materials for all possible fair use cases; they're only intended for "private study, scholarship, or research" purposes.
So the sign correctly indicates what's allowed per library policy; it also correctly indicates you have additional rights per fair use policy and warns not to go beyond those.
(A good example is that a teacher can use a private/school photocopier to make 30 copies of material for classroom use according to fair use; but you're not allowed to use the library photocopier to make more than 1 copy of anything.)
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
108 gives additional rights to libraries to make copies. But it does not take away the right of the library to offer copying for any existing purpose. Therefore, contrary to the posted notice, it is perfectly legal for the library to offer copying services for purposes OTHER than the extra permissions granted in 108.
Which means that libraries are authorized under the law to produce copies for all the same purposes that Kinko's is allowed to produce copies. It is up to the library whether to do so. And it is incorrect for the sign to say that the library may NOT do so.
It states “a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of ‘fair use’” (emphasis mine) generates liability, and that the library “reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order,” not that it must.
The entire article is premised on a red herring.
(Disclaimer: not a US citizen, not a lawyer.)
The article really does seem like breathless muck-raking. Yeah there are subtleties, and yes the notice isn’t totally clear (perhaps because that would make it really long and harder to understand by non-lawyers), but the author insists on interpreting the language “study, scholarship, or research” to be exhaustive and complete, where I read it from the beginning to be simply an example of fair use. The notice actually is pretty clear it’s just saying the copies must adhere to fair use, which kinda clears up the whole problem the author is trying to inflate. The notice says explicitly “in excess of ‘fair use’”, so why is the author jumping to some conclusion that the notice meant something other than fair use?
Edit: ok, not.
Maybe:
[?]
or
*?*
The grammar is bothering me.
Thanks for your moderation either way.
I disbelieve that this is the case, for copyrighted material; this is not supported by your citations, and that behavior (30 copies in a classroom) seems like a flagrant violation, in fact, and although most teachers wouldn't generally get in trouble with it, most teachers also tend to steer clear of violations like this. A teacher either obtains permission, or uses public domain materials, or finds some other way to convey the information to their students.
In fact I researched this when I was teaching a class, and I wanted to use some copyrighted handouts. I was able to obtain permission from a local blogger to use her article and distribute it to the whole class. In fact, she was very glad that I'd asked. I was less successful in contacting a publishing house overseas and obtaining permission for their stuff. So I didn't copy it.
The blog post provides this link to section 107 of the US Copyright code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
And, in the text of the statute is the following:
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
The above was also quoted by the blog itself. The actual statute says "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords ... for purposes such as ... teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use) ... is not an infringement of copyright.".
So the statute explicitly details that the statement by the GP is correct. That making multiple (meaning more than one, 30 being more than one) copies for classroom use for the purpose of teaching is actually "not an infringement of copyright".
I don't think this contradicts the parent to your comment. There are cases where a teacher can make 30 copies of a portion of a copyright work for distribution in the classroom, and the comment is about those cases.
The library is furnishing a powerful tool to users: the ability to make copies readily. The government's ability to police or regulate this tool so that it complies with copyright law is extremely limited. The government's options are to ban the tool outright, or to permit the tool while impressing a scary warning upon the user, hoping law-abiders will exercise self-control. "If you do something potentially illegal, then you are potentially liable for something illegal." It's a tautological warning, but it still has an effect. And the way they can force the library to communicate the scary warning to the end user is by conditioning the library's liability on the posting of the warning.
> Libraries are not intended for photocopying of materials for all possible fair use cases; they're only intended for "private study, scholarship, or research" purposes.
"What Libraries are intended for" makes no sense here. Libraries are not intended for many things. Might I suggest a rephrasing? 108 is specifically to allow specific rights, mentioning nebulous "under specific conditions".
> One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.”
Without an understanding that this is not a universally prohibitive condition, the poor phrasing makes it seem like it applies in all cases, despite the "Fair use" statement that follows.
The US Copyright Office does not require libraries to lie about fair use rights.
Each paragraph in 108 lays out various situations under which libraries and archives are permitted to furnish copies without liability (without this, no library would dare).
Paragraphs (d) and (e) are the relevant ones (dealing with one component of a larger collection or to an entire work if necessary, respectively). Clause (1) of each paragraph describes a situation where the copy is to become property of the user making the request (so, I walk up to a copy machine, make a copy, and take possession of the copy). In this situation, the library is released from liability if two conditions hold: a) "the library ... has had no notice that the copy ... would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research". (Note that this is the source of the quote in the posted notice.) Naturally, that condition holds for self-service copy machines. b) "the library ... displays prominently ... a warning of copyright...". Said warning just recaps 108 (d) and (e).
I do not find any lie here.
Could the warning be better phrased? Almost certainly—it's a four-sentence digest, designed for a lay audience, of an incredibly complicated area of law (copyright fair use). But the warning itself is completely accurate: There are conditions where reproducing a copyrighted work (which otherwise infringe's the owner's exclusive right of reproduction) is acceptable. And "one of these specified conditions" (quoting from the warning) is for scholarship. It's not the only such condition!
To me, this feels like the author is making a mountain out of a molehill.
> One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.”
"[I]s not to be used for any purpose other than" sounds very restrictive. However the language from the statute is the opposite
> The fair use of a copyrighted work, ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
This sounds like the opposite. A list of times when fair use is OK.
The article could benefit from further discussion of this subtle distinction, as a librarian I think the writer assumes we already know exactly why this message is incorrect.
From my interpretation the message seems to "remove" several of the examples in the statute from the message, for instance news reporting. I think that is the concern here, along with the mandate that libraries then promulgate this subtle misinformation.
> Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement.
Emphasis mine. Of course it is possible to commit some sort of copyright infringement using a document copied in a library. You are being reminded of the fact that you could use this service provided by the library to commit a some copyright violation, the fact that the library helped you doesn’t magically change the law.
The first is that the blurb covers _furnishing_ the archival/photocopy, not creating the copy itself. This is more akin to whether I can give a friend a copy of a book I purchased, as opposed to the act of photocopying it myself. That is to say, it is okay to provide a photocopied version of a copyrighted document, but only under certain usage circumstances as defined by fair use doctrine.
The other aspect may simply be laziness. Perhaps it could be read as:
> [institutions such as] libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction
Either way, I think "requires libraries to lie" is a bit sensationalist.
"(e) The rights of reproduction and distribution...made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, if the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price, if-
"(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and
"(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation."
The author's issue is primarily with the inconsistency of the law itself.
A government agency isn't a better authority on the law than your own lawyers are, if you’re rich enough to access the courts.
The agencies, including the white house, offer one interpretation of the law, and they don't know your interpretation. Make it expensive for them to disagree with you and they will likely back off. But also be prepared to continue that fight in court in case they didnt back off. They theoretically have unlimited resources but are frugal.
That is a potentially grave mistake to make. They are in no way frugal (the very concept of being frugal with an unlimited faucet of "other people's money" is truly ridiculous). If they forbear to go to trial and/or appeal adverse rulings, it is only because they strongly prefer never to suffer adverse precedent. They would rather lose the same case a thousand times, than have precedent which restores the rights of ten thousand all at once, let alone 300 million. In a way it's quite the opposite of frugality.