Issues concerning libraries and the law - with latitude to discuss any other interesting issues Note: Not legal advice - just a dangerous mix of thoughts and information. Brought to you by Mary Minow, J.D., A.M.L.S. [California, U.S.] and Peter Hirtle, M.A., M.L.S. Follow us on twitter @librarylaw
Don't Induce Act would take library headaches away... at least those that would be created by the INDUCE Act. Don't Induce's language was proposed August 24 to Senate leaders by consumer electronics, library groups and others. The bill's language aims at the real bad guys, not the libraries and others who are trying to help people while following the law.
Patrice McDermott follow-up to Aug 30 post: "I will send you the link. He had two choices for the quote -- 'red herring' or 'shell game.' Personally, I think shell game is more accurate!" (private email to me, quoted by permission)
Patrice also sent me this Aug 25 ACLU press release on the FISA rules that links to this page with incredible access to FBI 215 forms and National Security Letter memoranda.
The Washington Post says that the Justice Department says that librarians can easily challenge Sect. 215 of the Patriot Act. The only problem, according to FISA Court rules released last week, is that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court doesn't give outside attorneys procedures to file complaints and it doesn't allow them inside to argue a case.
Patrice McDermott, deputy director of government relations for the American Library Association, said the government's arguments "appear to be a red herring."
"They keep saying you can challenge it, but they have never indicated how anyone could actually do so," she said.
As part of an Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) grant, the University of Buffalo library school will train students to make websites accessible to library users with disabilities. This is part of a $995,960 grant to recruit and educate librarians using "hands-on" teaching libraries, a collaborative effort that includes the New York State Library, 13 library systems and programs in library and information science at six colleges in New York state.
p.s. to my friend in Michigan who told me this blog was depressing her - does this help?
A couple of folks (Laura, Peter), have asked what I think about the Weirdly Wrong thread by Akma. Akma writes that a police officer told him to close his laptop and stop using the wifi signal emanating from the Nantucket athenaeum. Updates here and here. Says John Kerry visits Nantucket, so security is tight - that sounds plausible. Yet it still doesn't make sense. The officer cites no specific law, not to mention how he knew that the library's wifi was being used. Is it a hoax?
There are so many good things to comment on this week, including Posner's discussion of fair use over on the Lessig blog (as Mary has already noted) and the surprising ending of the Jib-Jab case with the revelation that "This Land is Your Land" is likely in the public domain, in spite of what the music publishers maintain) - something I had speculated might be the case early on.
With so much contemporary stuff happening, it seems only fitting to turn to copyright history. On an email list for archivists, someone recently wrote in with the observation that many of their old deeds of gifts used the term "literary property rights," and they wondered what is the difference between "literary property" and copyright?
The song, This Land is Your Land, by Woody Guthrie, has been at the center of a controversy regarding a political parody/ satire web animation that rewrote the lyrics and used the music. However, it now seems that JibJab, which hosted the animation, will not be prevented from using the song because although Ludlow Music claimed copyright infringement, it does not have a copyright in the song any more.
The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) did extensive research on the copyright, finding that
Woody Guthrie published a songbook in 1945 that included "This Land Is Your Land." At that time, copyright holders owned their work for 28 years, and could renew the copyright once during the first term, for another 28 years. . . .Guthrie never renewed it, meaning the terms of the copyright expired in 1973.
August's American Libraries includes my editorial about state legislation based on the Supreme Court's American Library Association decision on the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) -- allowing the requirement of filters on library computers to receive government funding. Because the proposed state laws often go further than CIPA, "some libraries are likely to be put in an impossible position -- subject to both the federal standard and a competing state one."
In response to legislation which requires "prevention" rather than "protecting against access" to unwanted materials,
A prevention requirement would force librarians to act as both exemplary computer programmers and attorneys, determining which websites would and would not violate this law. . . . Even using the best filters on the market, some unwanted materials are bound to slip through the sieve. Librarians are professionals who make decisions, and they should not be held to an impossible standard.
First, I must mention how way cool it is that Judge Richard Posner is blogging this week at the Lessig Blog. He doesn't specifically mention libraries, but he just blogged:
"... I believe, copying of old copyrighted works should be permitted if the copyright owner has not taken minimal steps to place copiers on notice of his interest."
-- Judge Richard Posner, Fair Use Elaborated blog entry Aug 23
Alas, although this enlightened thinking would allow libraries to digitize a lot more old stuff, it's his unofficial opinion. It's not the law. We're stuck with a regime that does not require such notice. Used to be that works could enter the public domain for lack of notice, but now works published 1978 and later are not required to have notice. The Berne treaty says no notice can be required. We need to change the law, but how?
Judge Posner has a forthcoming law review article that may show us the way:
Can you turn away religious groups from using your giveaway racks, bulletin boards and access to your meeting rooms? Seems less and less likely. Here's a good summary of two federal appellate cases this summer where religious groups prevailed in school cases.
Recent Comments