IFLA organizes webinars and workshops around the world to strengthen professional practice and raise awareness of the growing importance of libraries in the digital age. The National Library of the Netherlands (Koninklijke Bibliotheek) in The Hague generously provides space for our headquarters.
Summary: This chapter describes the way in which the concept of the creator as owner grew, together with the tensions and motives in the initial attempt to control printing through copyright. The purpose and function of libraries is deeply intertwined with the concept of copyright and with the advent and impact of the printing press.
At least in the British context, notions of the universality of basic education, suffrage and a range of health and public services were either unknown or in their infancy. In considering the foundations of copyright, it is instructive to consider the development of the two centuries leading up to the first statute which has been characterized as such.
Protection of Crafts: The Example of Renaissance Venice
In the following discussion, it should be noted that until new forms of reproduction and copying emerged in the 19th century, copyright protection applied to printed works, including maps, scores, illustrations, and artistic reproductions. While it is true that there were some parallel developments in France both before and during the French Revolution, there were no significant legislative and judicial developments in other countries and contexts until well into the 19th century, as in the example of Germany.
The Early Impact of Printing
England: The Fusion of Censorship and Monopoly Control
In addition, there were printing patents, but these were not entirely aligned with the interests of the Stationers' Company. The issuance of patents carried the risk of providing competitive protection to a degree that the members of the Stationers' Company did not approve of.
The Mechanism of Control by Licensing
With the receipt of the charter in the mid-16th century, the Stationers' Company's desire for economic protection through the establishment of its monopoly merged with the need to suppress dissent, however defined. The company's rulings on what should not be printed were supported by the power and authority of the Star Chamber in enforcing judgments (Samuelson 2003, 324).
The Role of the Stationers’ Company and the Concept of Public Good
The effort to advance knowledge was at odds with society's concern for order and decency. By the end of the century, objections to the proposed reform of the Licensing Act in the 1690s included appeals to the free flow of ideas and the concept of the public good.
The Development of Property as the Central Concept
Modern Copyright and the Statute of Anne
Most importantly, the combined effect of the effort to encourage writing and publishing with the overall goal of advancing learning served to describe and support the legislation's goal of promoting the public good. Immediately following the statute, booksellers, i.e. publishers, campaigned in the 18th century to protect and extend their monopoly.
Modern Copyright in Selected Jurisdictions
The United States
Fundamental to many of the deeper debates about what constitutes copyright is the recognition that essentially no one is the sole inventor of any work or artifact that is created. Virtually all subsequent debates on copyright revolved around the extent to which that trade-off is balanced.
France and Germany
The three-step test proposed the following three limits for the manner in which the exclusive rights of the copyright holder can be limited: namely, that such limitations should only apply in certain special cases; that they should not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work; and that they must not unreasonably prejudice the legal rights of the author. Subsequent revisions in the 20th century considered the rapid development of new forms of expression with the invention and use of new technologies.
Impact of New Technology
In an effort to protect various creative activities within the context of the intellectual framework of author and co-creator rights, the drive to modernize and reform copyright law at the national and international levels has gained relentless momentum. The way in which these trends have developed, and the way in which limitations and exceptions to the author's monopoly have come to be observed and legislated, are discussed in the following chapters of this book, together with an effort to harmonize emerging national approaches globally.
Back to the Future
In the context of the development of printing and the new ideas that could be spread and shared more quickly, new conceptions of authorship and a common good developed, and the resulting tensions were resolved to some extent by the drafting of the first copyright law . The role of the initial basic law and approach in relation to later developments and the development of an international copyright framework, along with commonly understood and agreed limitations and exceptions, are described in the remaining chapters of this book.
The discussion of the practicalities surrounding copyright is used to demonstrate the continuing importance of fundamental concepts such as balance and the common good. This chapter builds on the historical context of the previous chapter to outline copyright in the modern era.
Growth of Modern Copyright
The link between intellectual property and human rights has historically been strongest in civil legal systems that emphasize the creative work as an extension of the artist as a human being. It is this line of thinking that has brought us the latest of the WIPO treaties, the Marrakesh Convention to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Impaired (hereafter Marrakesh Convention).
The Broad Scope of Copyright
This treaty builds on the obligations set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) to ensure that persons with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as others for full participation and inclusion and effective in society (Article 3 of the CRPD). Encouragingly, the Marrakesh Treaty has had the fastest ratification rates of any WIPO treaty, with 84 members at the time of writing.
The enjoyment and exercise of these rights [of authors] shall not be subject to any formality; such enjoyment and exercise shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. Part of the complexity arises from the lack of registration itself and the difficulty this causes to prove copyright ownership (Van Gompel 2013).
For example, the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 protects computer-generated works and confers rights on "a person who has taken all necessary steps to create the work" (section 9(3)). Fortunately, this adaptation has been fairly successful, and the question of whether a work is covered in material form does not usually become an issue in copyright cases.
The concept of material form is perhaps the area of copyright that has been forced to adapt the most to rapid technological development over the past century. The additional right was intended to encourage the production of databases in Europe, but was criticized as too broad and not suitable for this purpose (Vollmer 2018).
Materials Not Protected By Copyright
On the other hand, Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (hereafter the European Database Directive) provides a low copyright level for databases as collections but also creates a separate sui generis right specifically to protect databases where there has been a "substantial investment in either obtaining, verifying or presenting the content".
The transferability of economic rights contrasts with another category of creators' rights, moral rights. Importantly, moral rights always remain with the original creator of the work and cannot be assigned or waived, although specific consents may be permitted (Rigamonti 2007).
Uses Not Controlled By Copyright
Licensing and Transfer of Rights
Legal licenses are recognized in Article 13 of the Berne Convention, which allows countries to impose legal restrictions on the licensing of musical works, as long as the author receives equitable remuneration, the amount of which is determined by mutual agreement or by a competent authority. In open licensing, a copyright owner applies a license to a work that allows anyone who wants to use the work to do so, as long as the person abides by the license terms.
Limits to Copyright
It promotes not only open access but also open licensing of datasets, software and materials needed to reproduce scientific results (Tennant et al. 2020). But open licenses have now been upheld by many international court cases and are today a common and accepted part of the copyright ecosystem.
The Public Domain and Copyright Terms
Challenges to the Public Domain
The concept of the paying public domain was conceived by Victor Hugo in late 19th century France (Dusollier 2010, 18), but was not adopted by any legal system until Uruguay in 1937, closely followed by Bulgaria in 1939 (UNESCO 1949) . Lifetime of the author plus 50 years for most published works – 50 years from publication for anonymous or pseudonymous works.
Bern's three-step test is often criticized as too complex or too heavily weighted in relation to the creator's rights (Goold 2017). For example, the preamble to the 1996 WCT explicitly recognizes "the need to maintain a balance between the rights of authors and the larger public interest, particularly education, research and access to information".
How Well Have Copyright Laws Served Libraries During COVID-19?: Research Report.” https://repository.ifla.org/. Explainer: What is 'fair dealing' and when can you copy without permission?" The Conversation, 17 July 2017.
The unique functions and guarantees of LAMs are threatened by online tracking of all uses of works, the expansion of rights in the digital realm, and encroachments on the public domain through the continued expansion of the rights of rights holders. The role of information professionals must be specific, and clearly articulated, to promote and represent the rights of information in the public interest, and to protect against interference in the public interest in the curation and transmission of information.
In the copyright regime, the purpose of users' rights, including exceptions and limitations for LAMs, is to ensure the necessary balance in the rights scheme, and to protect the public interest from intrusion and from being undermined and suppressed by private interests. LAMs are the community's safe havens, where access to information and cultural preservation is facilitated and secured.
The Rights of Copyright
The vast majority of copyright rights listed above belong to the creator or rights holder, but they are limited and outweighed by the rights of users (Figure 3.1). Although often fewer in number, users' rights provide and protect the important and essential aspects of the public interest in copyright associated with the "encouragement and communication of works of art and intellect".
The International Context
The agenda of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) has included limitations and exceptions for libraries, archives and museums for more than a decade, supported by studies (Crews and draft treaty proposals by including the WIPO Draft Treaty on Exceptions and Limitations for Persons with Disabilities, Educational and Research Institutions, Libraries and Archives WIPO SCCR WIPO SCCR 2011a) and Proposal Document on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives submitted by Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay SCCR 23 /5/11 (W20PO) are discussed. While the Marrakesh Treaty is an important international agreement, and significantly, the fastest treaty in WIPO's history (Gurry 2018), it remains the only international agreement dealing with user rights and the harmonization of limitations and exceptions.
Achieving Balance in Copyright
With one exception, however, no significant international engagement with users' rights has taken place (Logvin and Smydo 2020). Users' rights are considered "an important tool for balancing 'protection and access' sensitively to advance the public interest in making culture widely available" (Vaver 2013, 669).
Users’ Rights in The Public Interest
Because user rights are often unwritten, or written into statutes in purposefully ambiguous language "to indicate indeterminacy" (Poscher 2012, 1), the ambiguity of user rights must be resolved through context (Poscher 2012, 3). Balancing the rights of the copyright owner with the rights of users in the public interest is the goal of copyright law, and in addressing that balance governments seek to solve "the central problem of copyright law" (Landes and Posner.
Advocates: The Role for Information Professionals
Ultimately, the courts are the sole arbiter of the public interest in copyright (Owen and LAMs and information professionals are responsible for creating the compelling sets of facts presented to the courts to influence and shape case law in their own policy space. now is the time for LAMs and information professionals to inhabit their malleable policy space, with its legal gray areas (Figure 3.1) and legal flexibility, and actively shape copyright in the public interest, seeking to present context-specific fact sets in front of the courts.
IFLA "Webinar on WIPO Asia-Pacific Regional Meeting: #Copyright4Libraries." https://www.ifla.org/. Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print-Disabled.” https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/marrakesh/; https://www. wipo.int/.
The International Framework
Another challenge in the digital era is that many publishers distribute digital content subject to licensing agreements. The terms of license agreements may prohibit libraries from exercising their rights under limitations and exceptions available under national copyright laws.
The Three-Step Test
Inclusion of the three-step test in specific exceptions undermines the usefulness of the exception. Nevertheless, Article 2(5) of the Information Society Directive stipulates that exceptions established under the Directive may only be applied in accordance with the three-step test.
General Theoretical Justifications
For the sake of good we must submit to evil; but the evil should not last a day longer than is necessary to secure the good. One possibility is that exceptions and limitations are only one way of defining the scope of the author's exclusive rights (Schauer 1991).
For example, libraries in many countries are working on national implementations of the Marrakesh Treaty and seeking library exceptions that are more appropriate for the digital age. An example of the library perspective is given by Butler, who outlined a letter signed by copyright experts who work in libraries.
For example, it was unclear for years whether US copyright law provided for international exhaustion, and whether the sale of a copy in another country exhausted the distribution right in the United States. It does not apply to electronic lending, where a copy is made on the user's computer.
Specific Exceptions for Libraries, Archives, and Related Entities
Particularly in the United States, many libraries believe that fair use allows for controlled digital lending (CDL), where a library uses technical controls to digitally circulate the exact number of physical copies of a specific title it owns, while prevents users from redistributing or copying. digitized version. Additionally, during the pandemic, the Internet Archive created the National Library Emergency (NEL) (Internet Archive 2020), under which it suspended its Open Library lending-to-lending ratio because nearly all libraries in the United States were closed, preventing payment. public access to many titles.
In the 1960s and 70s,] erasing and reusing videotapes was standard practice at the BBC and many of the major television networks here in America. During World War II, glass was used instead of aluminum and many of the discs have been lost due to breakage (Council for Library and Information Resources 2010).
Research and Study
Like those caveats, restrictions in favor of research and study can be justified under both utilitarian and fundamental rights frameworks. Allowing the availability of used copies at a fair price to negate the applicability of 108(e) is inconsistent with both utilitarian and fundamental rights theories, as there is no benefit to the copyright owner and thus no incentive, nor any justification of fundamental rights of which require the purchase of second-hand copies.
The right to copy portions of works is available regardless of market alternatives, because in such cases the difficulty and expense associated with purchasing a complete work, when only a portion is needed, or obtaining a license for partial copying is likely to will cause more harm to research than will benefit the copyright holder. From a utilitarian point of view, the copyright holder would receive no revenue, but the public would lose the benefit of access to research, a net social waste.
In-class Performance and Display
In many cases, if interlibrary lending required an additional fee or procedural step, libraries would not support the practice and researchers would simply have to forgo access. From a competing rights standpoint, the author's right to control the work will have trumped the public's right to research in a matter where there appears to be little benefit to the author; it makes more sense for the public's right to prevail.
Fair Use in the US
As already mentioned, fair use was later codified in US law as Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Many of the identified uses implicate libraries indirectly, but libraries themselves have participated in the development of several fair use best practice proclamations, including statements for research libraries (Adler et al 2012), collections containing orphan works (Aufderheide et al 2014), dance collections (Dance Heritage Collection 2009) and software preservation (Aufderheide et al 2019).
Fair Use and Fair Dealing Outside US
In Israel, fair use law is the basis for electronic reserves offered by academic libraries (Katz 2013). More than 40 countries with more than one-third of the world's population have fair use or fair dealing provisions in their copyright laws (Band and Gerafi 2015).
Digital Challenges and Opportunities
Additionally, several countries such as Israel, Korea, and Taiwan have emulated the US Fair Use Act in their copyright law. The widespread prevalence of fair use and fair dealing suggests that there is no reason to prevent the doctrines from being widely adopted with the benefits that their flexibility brings to libraries, as well as authors, publishers, consumers, technology companies, museums, educational institutions, and governments.
Bringing the Past into the Future: Digitizing Legacy Collections
The number of copies required for digital preservation best practices may exceed what was provided for in specific exceptions, such as Section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which contains a three-copy limit based on microfilm best practices, yes, microfilm: “The limit of three copies under current section 108…was based on microfilm preservation practices” (US Copyright Office 2017, 25). Fair use flexibility is essential to enable mass digitization for preservation in projects such as the HathiTrust Digital Library.
Acquiring Materials Subject to Licenses
Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.
Exceptions in Higher Education in the European Union
The earliest iterations of international copyright principles and exceptions were introduced in the Berne Convention of 1886 (Berne Convention 1886), the most recent amended revision of which was completed in 1979 (Berne Convention 1979). However, the extensive and detailed provisions on copyright and exceptions and limitations in the legislation of Ireland are examined to illustrate the interrelationship between national and international law.
Exceptions and Limitations in the International and EU Context
The introduction of computer program legislation by the EU also found wider international expression in the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WIPO 1996), which recognized computer programs and databases as protected works in Articles 4 and 5, allowing for national exceptions and limitations, with the three-step rule in Article 10 (WIPO 1996). The first systematic EU approach to rights and permissible exceptions appeared in 2001 in the InfoSoc Directive.
The 2001 InfoSoc Directive – A Framework for Exceptions and Limitations
The reproduction and communication rights are subject to a long list of exceptions and limitations formulated to take into account the legitimate interests of users. Article 5(2)(b) "reproductions on any medium", the so-called "private copying exception", also includes "reproductions on paper or a similar medium" and was reinforced in paragraphs 31 and 32 as " not exclude its reproductions in the scope made by the use of any photographic technique or by any other process having similar effects”.
The 2012 Directive on Orphan Works
The directive sets out the criteria for finding right holders, ensures permission from the right holder for use as an effective orphan work and establishes mutual recognition within the EU. The Directive contains a review clause that facilitates the inclusion of additional matters, in particular photographs and other images, to assess the development of digital libraries and allows Member States to notify the Commission of unjustified interference with national rights management (Article 10).
The 2017 Directive on Blind, Visually Impaired and Print-Disabled Users
However, the Directive imposes obligations on authorized entities when they become involved, reflecting wider distribution capacity, particularly in cross-border lending between entities in the different Member States. The Directive is clear that authorized entities are required to restrict such services to visually impaired users and other authorized entities, must take steps to prevent copies from entering the public domain, and be accountable for compliance.
Additional Exceptions and Limitations Under the 2019 DSM Directive
The provisions of the Marrakesh Directive extend the exclusion of reproduction and communication for visually impaired users already provided for in Article 5(3)(b) of the InfoSoc Directive. Authorization of the holder of the rights in question is not required for uses permitted under the Marrakesh Directive.
Fair Compensation in EU Directives
The manner of the method and calculation is relevant for the practical assessment of fair compensation. In contrast, the delivery of fair compensation in relation to the article 5(2) (b) of the InfoSoc directive private copying exception through a specific mechanism in Spain which is financed from a general state budget by the court in paragraph 42 of the case of Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), Derechos de Autor de Medios Audiovisuales (DAMA), Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos (VEGAP) v.
Collective Management Organisations
The terms clearly reflect the wording of Article 5(3)(a) of the InfoSoc Directive and Article 5 of the DSM Directive. The terms of the license take precedence over equivalents in the 2000 Act itself, albeit more broadly in certain cases, and are binding on the educational institutions involved.
Lending Information Resources in Educational Establishments
The Case of Ireland
The provisions of the InfoSoc and DSM Directives, to name the most prominent, have been closely reproduced in Irish legislation in substantial detail in the 2000 and 2019 Acts respectively. The 2000 Act was effectively a reworking and addition of domestic provisions in the light of the draft provisions of the InfoSoc Directive which was at an advanced stage in the EU legislative process.
Lending and Fair Dealing
One of the features of the 2000 Act, and the instruments that have since amended it, is the clear influence of EU law. Copyright exemptions are introduced by the principle of fair dealing through section 50 of the 2000 Act.
Reproduction and Communication Rights
Fair dealing is the use of a publicly available work for a purpose and to an extent that does not unreasonably prejudice the interests of the copyright owner. Fair dealing implicitly includes copying on behalf of a researcher or private student, but is violated when a librarian exceeds the multiple copying limits under section 63, or when another person copies more than is used for a single act of research or study.
Orphan Works, Text and Data Mining, Digital and Cross-Border Teaching and Licensing
Full Adaptation of Exceptions and Limitations to Digital Works
The European Court of Justice has played a decisive role in the development of the balance between copyright interests. Geiger and Izyumenko, for example, emphasized The judgments of the European Court of Justice in the Funke Medien and Spiegel Online cases that the exceptions and limitations listed in Article 5 of the InfoSoc Directive in themselves "give rights to the users of works".
Legitimate Exploitation of Digital and Digitised Works
Adjustments to Orphan Works and Out-of-Commerce Rules
Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the collective management of copyright and related rights and the multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market: Text with EEA relevance. Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market and amending directives 96/9/.
Contexts, Threats and Opportunities
As a result of a copyright term extension introduced, works in the US have entered the public domain for the first time in over 20 years. Milne, Virginia Woolfe, and many others, most of which were already in the public domain in other countries.
Rationale for Copyright and the Public Domain
The economic argument is commonly used to justify the ever-extending period of copyright protection by governments around the world. A key perspective on the economic justification of copyright was provided by Landes and Posner (1989).
Traditional and Indigenous Knowledges
A Limited Term Right
Commercial agreements like these are one of the main drivers behind the ever-increasing copyright term. The inclusion of copyright in trade agreements is a notable change in the evolution of copyright at the international level.
Commercial Availability, Orphan Works, and Lost Culture
A snapshot of the percentages and number of orphan works can be found in the UK Intellectual Property Office report Copyrighted Works: Searching the Lost. Jurisdictions around the world have licensing and legislative solutions to the issue of orphan works.
Losing Control: Licensed Works and Digital Rights Management (DRM)
With licensing comes a host of issues, but the main impact on the public domain is that libraries lose control over future uses of the works. Therefore, even more works within the public domain may be lost to future generations.
Shifting and Expanding the Definition of the Public Domain
A 2014 study by Andres Guadamuz for WIPO's Committee on Development and Intellectual Property found that creators in nine countries can choose to put content into the public domain. Rather than giving up copyright altogether, creators around the world are more likely to choose to apply licenses such as those developed by Creative Commons to ensure that their works are free to be used by all, many in the sense of the "voluntary commons". ” proposed by the Public Domain Manifesto.
Libraries and Archives – Ensuring Access to the Public Domain
However, the study also found that "in four of them, the law allows voluntary statements leading to the inclusion of a work in the public domain, while in the other five the question was open to interpretation, with varying degrees of certainty, whether negative or positive”. While libraries once existed primarily to acquire and provide access to physical materials, digitization has provided an important means of connecting people to the public domain.
The Internet and the Changing Nature of the Public Domain
Owen further states that "librarians espouse a professional ethos of access" that is built on support for the public interest, and that statements by library associations often "conflate the public interest with access to works and freedom of expression", a core of librarianship (Owen The Internet has created a new type of commons with similarities to the public domain, where massive numbers of new works have been made available for free and licensed in ways that facilitate reuse.
Libraries and Like-Minded Organizations
And this is just a small snapshot of the billions and billions of public domain works now available in ever-expanding collections on the Internet. The Internet derives value from sharing content and knowledge, and from building connections and relationships around that content (Lessig 2004).
Upholding and Defending the Public Domain
Libraries must remain central to defending the benefits of the public domain in the public interest. What does the future of public space look like and what can be done about it.
What Does the Future of the Public Domain Look Like and What Can Be Done About It?
The public domain would benefit from creators being given more power over their works, particularly through rights-back mechanisms. Free as Air for Public Use: First Amendment Limits on Closing the Public Domain.” New York University Law Review.
Copying of prints for access and preservation is permitted through copyright exceptions and limitations that apply to libraries and their patrons. Libraries and their users continue to face barriers and continue to argue for exceptions and limitations that will bring copyright law into the digital age.
The Failure of Copyright Exceptions to Address Digital Lending
Out-of-print, or right of first sale, as it is known in the United States, enables the lending of books and other materials by libraries, as well as the ability for libraries to sell discarded books. However, if future rulings recognize the exhaustion of digital content, libraries may have more flexibility in how they purchase and provide access to e-books and other digital materials.
Unfortunately, the case did not resolve the issue of the availability of e-books to libraries, or how a library can legally obtain a digital copy of a book except by license. While the right to reproduce in these circumstances is generally well established in the print world, the issue of a library's right to digitize a work and its digital supply is debated.
Controlled Digital Lending
The ruling also left libraries with unresolved questions about the meaning of a dedicated terminal that could limit libraries' full use of the available exceptions. However, this has yet to be tested outside of North America, and the outcome of the lawsuit against the Internet Archive will be significant and further clarify the interpretation of existing exceptions and restrictions on digital content.
Public Lending Right
The complaint alleges that the Internet Archive "undermines the balance and promise of copyright law by the publishers' ability to license and sell the books they have lawfully produced on behalf of authors and for the benefit of readers." The argument is that Section 109 of the US Copyright Act allows the owner of a legally acquired printed book to possess only a particular printed copy, and that the creation and distribution of reproductions of that printed copy is "outside the bounds of the law". .With the advent of e-books, questions began to arise as to whether payments under PLR applied to e-books and under what circumstances.
Unintended Barriers to Acquisition and Cooperation Among Libraries
While libraries have long-established traditions of interlibrary loan and document sharing, the national and local nature of digital licenses generally prohibits the provision of content to users outside of the library's designated user pool. Currently, license terms and the priority of licenses over copyright exceptions and limitations in most countries often hinder interlibrary loan of digital works (IFLA 2019).
Unintended Consequences in the Content Marketplace
In addition, many digital licenses have pricing tied to the library's user population, which is often strictly defined. IFLA's treaty proposal identifies the need for a right of cross-border use, which would allow libraries to share resources across borders under appropriate exceptions, to enable interlibrary lending and sharing of documents.
Digital Rights Management
When library organizations advocate for exceptions and limitations, either at WIPO, or within their own countries, they seek to ensure that legal protections and remedies against the circumvention of technological measures do not prevent libraries and archives from enjoying the limitations and exceptions. in copyright law (IFLA 2013a). IFLA's treaty proposal notes that legal protection is limited by the requirement that the library, archive or user has legal access to the work or material, and that the acquisition of the tools or services necessary for the circumvention must also be permitted .
Implications of New Economic Models for Content Production
Press Publishers’ Right or Link Tax
Australia has since introduced a mandatory news media bargaining code to address the imbalance between Australian news media businesses and digital platforms, notably Google and Facebook. News media businesses can bargain individually or collectively with platforms on payment for the inclusion of news on their services (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2021).
The success of publishers in Europe has led to campaigns in other countries for similar rights. In both Canada and Australia, publishers raised the issue of compensation paid by Google to news media during copyright review processes (Canada. Parliament House of Commons 2019; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2019).
In copyright law, most fan fiction is likely to be considered an unauthorized work because it was produced without the permission of the copyright owner. Fifty Shades of Green: How Fan Fiction Went from Dirty Little Secret to Money Machine".
Furthermore, when works are not in the public domain, a library may determine that it is willing to make a copy of the work available in a digital format on the library website, either with the express permission of the copyright holder or, to a risk. assessment, by asserting a fair use right. The final piece of the copyright puzzle involves responding to public inquiries to use the library's digital copy of the work in further academic or commercial pursuits.
The Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement
In fact, authors from different nations in the United States are often given greater rights than authors from the United States, for example in the Copyright Act. In e.g. In the US, moral rights are quite narrow and in Copyright Act §106A they are limited to authors of visual works, which is defined as a painting, drawing or sculpture or photograph that is limited to a single signed copy or a series of less than 200 copies.
The Copyright Law Landscape in the United States
Article 6bis of the Berne Convention provides for enforcement of moral rights, as further developed in the laws of the signatory country. For example, unpublished works by authors who died before 1950 are in the public domain in 2020.
The Potential for Copyfraud
As such, US libraries generally do not treat duplicate copies of images as having separate copyrights. Copyright provisions do not preempt contractual terms, at least in the US, although jurisdictions may differ.
Local Approaches to Rights Statements
Due to errors or inaccuracies in rights metadata and the lack of a standard approach to rights statements in general, the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) and Europeana created standardized rights statements (International Declarations Working Group of Rights 2015) with a white paper. which has since been updated and made available under Rightsstatements.org through a larger collaborative group (Rightstatements.org. 2018). The rights metadata system developed in 2005 by Karen Coyle, who worked for more than twenty years at the California Digital Library, to address copyright in all digital collections was a precursor to the project that developed standardized statements of rights.
Copyright Review Models
HathiTrust Copyright Review Management System Model
University of Miami Libraries
Pennsylvania State University’s Workflow
Finally, the metadata librarian records the rights information in the record for the item (ibid, 154). Penn State discovered through trial and error that the Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) for the rights statements are case-sensitive, which will resolve in DPLA "to display the official [rights statement] icon near the item's thumbnail image" ( ibid, 155).
Standardized Rights Statements
The copyright officer then issues a relevant rights statement in the language of the SRS. Short name of RS Name of Rights statement (linked to statement text on test server).
Traditional Knowledge Labels