The topic of Copyfraud has been on my mind for the past few months. It is interesting how once you start noticing something relatively subtle, you can reach a point where you start seeing it all the time. This has been one of those things.
Copyfraud is best defined by the above linked Wikipedia article, but what I seem to keep encountering is the overly restrictive assertions of copyright by those who should know better. The most grating example I have encountered, more so because it is such an interesting publication, is the photocopy authorization statement in the magazine Strategic Finance:
Authorization to photocopy Strategic Finance. Items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by the IMA to libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that the base fee of $3.00 per copy, plus 30¢ per page, is paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923. (www.copyright.com) ISSN 1524-833X, $3.00 + 30¢.
For reprint information contact …[section omitted]…
For permission to make 1-50 copies of articles contact: Copyright Clearance Center www.copyright.com or fax (978) 774-4470.
Read it carefully… it doesn’t quite state that an individual making a copy of an article for personal use must be registered with the CCC and pay the fee, but it really reads that way. I read it as if an individual isn’t a library, then they fall into the “other users” category. If that is correct, then registration and payment seems required.
Which is balderdash, of course. Fair use is very well established for this behavior. If restricting photocopies in the manner were allowed under copyright law, then Inter-Library Loan and much of the personal and professional educational research behavior as we know it would disappear.
Another example: The other day someone told me of an experience they had in a library while doing research for their Master’s thesis. They had an 18xx edition of a book that was one of their primary sources. It wasn’t in the best of shape, so she decided to photocopy the entire book to save it from wear. A library employee stopped her from making the copies because it was “against copyright”. Buzzzzz, wrong answer… anything created before January 1, 1923 is public domain, and therefore free of any and all copyright restrictions.
Remember to focus not only on the restrictions, but on the freedoms of copyright. I don’t know if the person who stopped her was a librarian, but remember that to most patrons, we are all librarians (which to me translates to “we are all information professionals”). This means that we should be sure to have at least a basic understanding of individual freedoms when dealing with copyright, and should be sure to not overextend our answers beyond what we know.
Overly restrictive and slippery notices are just one small part of Copyfraud. Start watching for this in your daily routines, if only to allow you to better answer questions for yourself and others.
the blog posting that pushed this entry to the front of my brain – read it! Open Access News
