|Volume 3: No. 05|
A recent US court decision against Texaco Inc. said that "fair use" protection does not apply to use of scientific articles by researchers at for-profit corporations. Barbara Quint of Database Searcher magazine has called for academic writers to bypass traditional publishers -- such as those who sued Texaco -- and distribute their work directly on the internet. [Patricia Lane, Information Today, 12/92. Donald Baker ([email protected]), PACS-L, 1/28.]
Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) has an Academic Permissions Service (APS) that encourages publishers to set royalties specific to educational use. Over 2,500 rights holders have made such agreements. Publishers who deny easy access find it difficult to recruit academic authors. [Allen Dean (76557.1122 @compuserve.com), cni-copyright, 2/2.]
If a book is out of print and cannot be found at a fair price, Section 108(e) of the Copyright Act allows the reproduction of the entire work by a library if it has a regulation Copyright Order Warning posted and has no notice that the copy would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship or research. The copy becomes the property of the user. [Nicholas Finke ([email protected]), cni-copyright, 1/28.]
The Classroom Guidelines, a part of the legislative history of the Copyright Act, mentions spontaneity as one guideline for fair use. (Others, mentioned in the Act, are purpose, nature, amount, and effect.) Spontaneity requires that "the inspiration and decision to use the work and the moment of its use for maximum teaching effectiveness [be] so close in time that it would be unreasonable to expect a timely reply to a request for permission." [Ibid.]
Copying analog or digital musical audio tapes for non- commercial home use is now protected, based on 17 USC 1008 (1992), added by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1991, PL 102-563, 106 Stat. 4237. The text of the law is ambiguous as to whether the consumer can be liable, but legislative history makes it clear that consumer impunity was intended. See House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992, and House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992. This protection is only for music, not recordings of speech, computer programs, multimedia works, etc. [Terry Carroll ([email protected]), cni-copyright, 1/11.]
Under US law, someone taping a performance without consent does not gain copyright for the "fixed work." (British law differs.) Copyright on a video may be limited to such expressive elements as camera angle and enhancement, and copyright on a transcript may be limited to elements of discretion such as punctuation. [Terry Carroll ([email protected]), cni-copyright, 2/2.] The speaker retains any copyright on his words if they are fixed in some medium (but no control of unrecorded speech?).