Update: November 19, 2009 preliminary approval of Amended Settlement Agreement. A supplemental notice will be distributed mid December 2009.  This agreement attempts to deal with antitrust issues raised by the US Department of Justice with respect to the initial settlement agreement. See the Q and A on the revised settlement agreement. See also the Court Order on the Supplement Notice. A final decision will be made after a fairness hearing scheduled for Feb. 18, 2010. New terms roll the claiming deadline back to March 31, 2011.

Noncommercial Educational Broadcasting Statutory License, Final Rule

72 Fed. Reg. 67646 (Nov. 30, 2007)

The Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004 transferred jurisdiction over rates for the use of certain copyrighted works in connection with non-commercial TV and Radio Broadcasting to the Copyright Royalty Judges. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(1). This is a window year for the establishment of new rates and terms for the 2008-2012 license period. These  royalty rates include performance of musical compositions by public broadcasting entities licensed to colleges and universities.  

The TEACH Act Passes Congress

On Nov. 2,  2002 the Technolgy, Education, and Copyright Harmonization Act (TEACH ACT) was signed by the President. The bill was incoporated into  HR 2215, the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, (see section 13301) and became Public Law 107-273.

This new law amends sections 110(2) and 112 of the Copyright Code and gives accredited non-profit educational institutions the right to use portions of copyrighted works for online instruction  without permission from the copyright owner as long as a number of preconditions are met, which include technical protection of the copyighted material. For a full summary of the duties imposed on institutions and faculty that wish to make use of this new law see The Meaning and Importance of the Teach Act: by Kenneth Crews. This summary groups the requirements of the TEACH Act by the unit within the institution that will be responsible for compliance.

"Work Made for Hire" and Copyright Corrections Act of 2000 (H.R. 5107)

On October 12, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 5107, legislation to amend the statutory definition of a "work made for hire" by repealing the insertion of the words "as a sound recording" into the second paragraph.  See Section 101 of the Copyright Act.  This insertion occurred with the passage of the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999.  The insertion was made at the request of the record companies, who wanted to make it clear that sound recordings could qualify as a work made for hire.  The 1999 amendment was a last-minute amendment, which occurred without a public hearing.  In response, the recording artists sought repeal of the 1999 amendment, as it is their position that sound recordings are not works for hire.

Title 17 U.S.C. § 203(a)(1)-(3) provides that, for a grant of copyright made on or after January 1, 1978, the author may, within a five-year window that opens 35 years after the date of the execution of the grant, terminate the grant of a transfer or license of the copyright.  This window of opportunity does not apply to works made for hire, and if a sound recording is a work made for hire, the artist would not be able to get the copyright back from the record company.

Visual Images and Copyright

Important Resource:  Copyright and Fair Use:  The Great Image Debate, edited by Robert Baron.  Originally published in 1997 as Volume XII, numbers 3 and 4, of the journal "Visual Resources."  Check with your librarians to see if they can locate this special issue.  If not, it can be ordered in book form from 1-800-326-8917.  The book has a number of different articles on copyright and visual images, including digital images, and the articles are written with the interests of both museums and educators in mind.

Important Case:  Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). In the Bridgeman case, the court held that color transparencies of paintings which themselves are in the public domain, were not original and therefore not permissible subjects of valid copyright.

Institutional Action that Will Help Prevent Copyright Violations:

Adopt a policy on the use of copyrighted material for coursework, including online courses and electronic reserve materials.

• The institution as on Online Service Provider should designate an agent to receive notification of claimed infringement of copyright, in order to obtain the protections offered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA).  See 63 Fed. Reg. 59,233 (Nov. 3, 1998) and the U.S. Copyright Office page on the subject. 

• The institution should have a copying policy, as well offer training on copyright compliance.

• The institution should provide to all users of its system or network informational materials that accurately describe and promote compliance with U.S. copyright law.  Linking to the U.S. Copyright Office Web page will be considered compliance with this prerequisite to obtaining certain protections under the DMCA.

• Establish computer use copyright policies.  The circulation of copyrighted material on networked computers and the sharing of information gained from computerized databases through interlibrary loan may be subject to criminal penalties for copyright infringement.  See 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b).
  
  Resources

Attorney Georgia Harper's Crash Course in Copyright

U.S. Copyright Office

Stanford fair use site

CUA' s Making Copies: Student Handouts or Coursepacks.

U.S. Department of Justice:  

1998 Changes to the Copyright Law:

See the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.