The Center for Social Media at American University’s School of Communication has a PDF guide available for download titled Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Video.
To both illustrate and promote the practices, they have just released a video called Remix Culture : Fair Use is Your Friend.
Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Blip.tv video.
found via Lessig 2.0
Amazon.com has given in to the Publisher’s Guild on the issue of text-to-speech capabilities in the Kindle 2.
In their press release, Amazon states up front that “Kindle 2’s experimental text-to-speech feature is legal: no copy is made, no derivative work is created, and no performance is being given.“ In this statement, they are correct. If I read a book to someone who is visually or otherwise impaired, it takes a stretch of the imagination to suggest that I am actually staging a performance.
In addition, as I stated when the issue was first raised:
“How would someone with a visual impairment be able to order the audio book version of a title without using a screen reader? In addition, how would they know whether a website allows for the use, under copyright law, of their own website by someone with a screen reader?”
To state that a feature of your product is legal, and to understand the benefit that the feature would bring to users of the product, but to then allow it to be disabled arbitrarily by third parties strikes me as a company that is attempting to placate the “squeaky wheels” simply because they threaten legal action.
BookFinder.com Journal makes a comparison to the relationship between large-print books and magnifiers. Should the ability of consumers to use magnifiers while reading be controlled by the publisher (after all, it might be costing them large-print sales).
If you still feel that publishers should have the final say, then consider whether they should have this ability to control works that are in the public domain. It doesn’t matter whether it is the consumer’s right to use text-to-speech, according to this decision; it only matters that individual consumers cannot respond with the apparent impact that the Writer’s guild can muster.
There has been a similar theme in the bibliographical world lately – rules being put in place that attempt to ignore or even circumvent that which already exists, whether it is Public Domain, Fair Use, or the First Sale doctrine. OCLC, Google, and now Amazon have all implemented restrictions to their various offerings. OCLC, to their credit, has stepped back and is in the process of re-evaluating its approach towards licensing records. Google hasn’t even blinked about restricting access to Google Book items waaay beyond even the tightest of copyright interpretations. Amazon asserts the rights of users to use text-to-speech, but then allows those with a vested interest against it to control its use.
Yes, there is a pattern to all of this, and we need to figure out how to prevent it from continuing.
Google has reached a settlement with the group of publishers who filed suit in 2005 over the book digitization project. It is a legal document with many elements, and I cannot hope to make an overall evaluation of the agreement with just the amount that I have browsed (much less with my limited ability to discern the true meaning of legalese). However, there are a couple of sections that raise questions:
7.2 Fully Participating Library Uses… (b) Use of Library Digital Copies… (vii) Personal Scholarly Use and Classroom Use. The Fully Participating Library, if part of a Higher Education Institution, may allow faculty members and research staff of that Higher Education Institution to read, print, download or otherwise use up to five (5) pages of any Book from its LDC [Library Digital Copy] that is not Commercially Available for the following purposes: (1) personal scholarly use (for each Book, no more than once per person per term) and (2) classroom use in such Higher Education Institution that is limited to the instructors and students in the class and for the term in which the class is offered; provided that (a) the Fully Participating Library does not know at the time of such use that it is in material non-compliance with Section 8.2 (Security Standard, Security Implementation Plan and Security Audits) with respect to uses of the LDC authorized pursuant to this Section 7.2(b)(vii) (Personal Scholarly Use and Classroom Use), and (b) the Fully Participating Library keeps track of and reports all such uses of Books to the Registry in the course of the audit conducted pursuant to Section 8.2(c) (Audits) or, otherwise, upon reasonable request of the Registry, provided that such requests may be made no more than semi-annually. The Registry may make information from such reports regarding the usage of an individual Book available to the Rightsholder of such Book upon request of the Rightsholder. A Fully Participating Library may not read, print, download or otherwise use a Book or Insert through its LDC pursuant to this Section 7.2(b)(vii) (Personal Scholarly Use and Classroom Use) if such use is available through the Institutional Subscription and the Institutional Subscription service is offered or is available to the Fully Participating Library (whether for a fee or as a beta product) at the time such Fully Participating Library seeks to make such use.” (page 76)
The agreement defines Commercially Available as “…that the Rightsholder of such Book, or such Rightsholder’s designated agent, is, at the time in question, offering the Book (other than as derived from a Library Scan) for sale new through one or more then-customary channels of trade in the United States.” (Section 1.28 on page 4) Does this mean that if a researcher or faculty is able to read (or print) only up to 5 pages of the scanned book each semester for personal scholarly use – and then only if the book is not able to be purchased through “customary channels of trade”?
Am I interpreting this correctly? Is this not a severe restriction of the “Fair Use” clause of copyright? Why would a researcher want to agree to such limitations when the physical item allows for a broader use? I may be misreading this section, however, and hope to have it clarified in the near future.
Another section that gives me pause:
Section 3.8 (b) Effect of Changes in Law. Google will be able to take advantage of any future legislative change(s), such as legislation allowing the use of orphan works (if enacted), that put Google at a competitive disadvantage in its use of Books in any Google Products and Services that are subject to this Settlement Agreement; provided, however, that Google may choose to receive the benefit of such change(s) only if a third party is actually taking advantage of such law(s) in connection with services that competitively disadvantage Google in its provision of any such Google Products and Services; provided, further, that no changes in the “fair use” doctrine as codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act shall trigger this Section 3.8(b) (Effect of Changes in Law).” (page 37)
So if a legislative body, such as the United States Congress, passes a law that allows for broader use of this type of material (i.e. a change in copyright law), Google can only put the broader use into Google Books if it can demonstrate that another company is already taking business away from them by implementing it; otherwise, Google must keep the higher restrictions in place.
In addition, what happens if “fair use” is broadened? It won’t trigger this section. Does that mean that Google can follow fair use, or that Google cannot? The fair use provision seems to be placed on an equal footing as the “competitively disadvantage” clause. Does Google pass along the broader use understanding, or does it just pass?
For better or worse, this settlement is going to dramatically change how libraries use electronic books. Hopefully the overall agreeement implements a positive experience for all parties involved, and that my concerns (and the concerns of others) are either misread clauses or taking a section out of context.
The element of this agreement that holds great promise is the potential for institutional access to the entire collection of scanned books. Imagine having millions of books available to our patrons via a usable and cost-effective agreement. We are moving towards the future; are we ready for it (and the future for us)?
Further information and links:
TeleRead has an excellent post dissecting the recent ruling against the author of the Harry Potter Lexicon. It examines the Fair Use aspects of copyright as they apply to this particular case.
via LISNews
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.libology.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Powered by FireStats
