Skip to content
  • News
  • Events
  • Law Library
  • Giving
  • Alumni
  • Quicklinks

    • Academic Calendar
    • bCourses Overview
    • bCourses Link
    • Business Services
    • Schedule of Classes
    • View Evaluations
    • Identity Resources
    • RoloLaw
    • COVID-19 Protocols
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
    • Emergency Info
    • Resource Hub for Faculty & Staff

    Support

    • Reporting Potential COVID-19 Cases
    • COVID-19 Remote Teaching Resources
    • Computing Support
    • Event Services
    • Faculty Services (Library)
    • Human Resources & Academic Personnel
    • Instructional Technology
    • Phones
    • Room Reservations
    • Resources to Respond to Sexual Harassment
  • Quicklinks

    • Academic Calendar
    • b-Line
    • Berkeley Law Facebook
    • Financial Aid
    • Faculty Profiles
    • Schedule of Classes
    • Teaching Evaluations
    • Final Exam Review Session Schedule
    • Exams
    • Final Exam Schedule
    • CalCentral
    • COVID-19 Protocols
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
    • Emergency Info
    • Resource Hub for Students

    Student Services

    • Reporting Potential COVID-19 Cases
    • Student Services Office
    • Academic Skills Program
    • Student Organizations
    • Student Journals
    • Commencement
    • Frequently Asked Questions & Rule Clarifications
    • Bookstore
    • Wellness at Berkeley Law
    • Mindfulness at Berkeley Law
    • Registrar
    • University Health Services
    • Resources to Respond to Sexual Harassment
  • Search for People at Berkeley Law

Berkeley Law
    • Academics Home
    • Areas of Study
      • Social Justice and Public Interest
        • Curriculum
          • J.D. Path
          • LL.M. Path
        • Social Justice+Public Interest Community at Berkeley Law
          • Public Interest and Pro Bono Graduation
      • Business and Start-ups
        • Business Law Curriculum
        • Business Law Faculty
      • Law and Technology
        • Student Activities
        • Law and Tech Curriculum
        • Law and Tech Faculty
      • Environmental Law
      • Criminal Justice
      • International and Comparative Law
        • Centers, Clinics, and Programs
        • Faculty
        • Student Activities
      • Constitutional and Regulatory
      • Law and Economics
        • Faculty
        • Prospective Students
        • Visiting Scholars
        • Law and Economics Fellowship
    • J.D. Program
      • First-Year Curriculum
      • Concurrent Degree Programs
      • Combined Degree Programs
      • Berkeley-Harvard Degree Programs
    • LL.M. Programs
      • LL.M. Executive Track
        • LL.M. Executive Track Academic Calendar
        • Engage with Berkeley Law Online Courses
      • LL.M. Traditional Track
        • Current Academic Calendars
      • LL.M. Thesis Track
        • LL.M. Thesis Track Student Profiles
        • Current Academic Calendars
      • Courses
      • Certificates of Specialization
      • Application & Admission
        • Eligibility & Admission Standards
        • Application Instructions
        • Admissions Policies
        • Check Application Status
      • Tuition & Financial Aid
        • Cost of Attendance
        • Scholarships
        • Financial Aid
          • Financial Aid Checklist for LL.M./J.S.D. Students
        • FAQ Financial Aid
      • Professional Development
      • Admitted Students
        • Visas
        • Housing for LL.M. Students
        • Cancellation & Refund Policies
      • Join an Event & Connect with LL.M. Staff
        • Recruiting and Informational Events
        • Visit Us!
        • Contact Us
      • Meet Our Students
      • Meet Our Partners
      • Questions? Start Here
    • Doctoral Programs
      • J.S.D. Program
        • Application & Admissions
          • Eligibility & Admission Standards
          • Application Instructions
          • Check Your Application Status
        • J.S.D. Tuition & Financial Aid
          • Cost of Attendance for JSD
          • Robbins J.S.D. Fellowship
        • J.S.D. Student Profiles
          • Zehra Betul Ayranci
          • Ella Corren
          • Silvia Fregoni
          • George Lambeth Vicent
          • Sylvia Si-Wei Lu
          • Natsuda Rattamanee
          • Youngmin Seo
          • Abdullah Alkayat Alazemi ’21
          • Mehtab Khan ’21
          • Maximilien Zahnd ’21
          • Shao-Man Lee ’20
          • Alvaro Pereira ’20
        • Contact Us
      • Ph.D. Program – Jurisprudence and Social Policy (JSP)
        • Events Calendar »
    • Executive Education
    • Schedule of Classes
      • Two Year Curriculum Plan
    • Current Academic Calendars
      • 2021-2022 Academic Calendar
      • 2022-2023 Academic Calendar
      • Past Academic Calendars
        • 2020-2021 Academic Calendar
        • 2019-2020 Academic Calendar
        • 2018-2019 Academic Calendar
        • 2017-2018 Academic Calendar
        • 2016-2017 Academic Calendar
        • 2015-2016 Academic Calendar
        • 2014-2015 Academic Calendar
        • 2013-2014 Academic Calendar
        • 2012-2013 Academic Calendar
        • 2011-2012 Academic Calendar
        • 2010-2011 Academic Calendar
        • 2009-2010 Academic Calendar
        • 2008-2009 Academic Calendar
    • Registrar
      • Order of the Coif and Dean’s List
      • Academic Rules
        • Supplemental Academic Rules for Traditional and Thesis Track LL.M. Students
        • Academic Honor Code
        • Academic Rules Petition
        • Academic Rule 3.06 – applies to the Class of 2010 and before
        • Credit Hours
      • Registration
      • Transcripts
      • Verification of Attendance
      • Registrar’s Forms
      • Ordering a Diploma »
      • J.D. Academic Guidance
        • 3L Requirements FAQ
        • 3L Degree Worksheet
      • Registrar’s Student FAQ
      • Bar Information
        • State Bar Swearing-In Ceremony Information
    • Admissions Home
    • J.D. Admissions
      • Applying for the J.D. Degree
        • Ready to Apply
        • After You’ve Applied
        • FAQs
      • Entering Class Profile
      • Connect with Admissions
        • Meet Our Team
        • View the Prospectus
        • Webinars
        • Recruiting and Information Events
        • Contact LL.M. Admissions
        • Contact J.S.P. Admissions
      • Meet Our Students
      • Diversity at Berkeley Law
        • Diversity News
      • The Berkeley Experience
        • U.C. Berkeley Campus
        • Berkeley and the Bay Area
      • Concurrent & Combined Degree Programs
      • Faculty Admissions Policy
      • Financial Aid
        • Prospective and Entering Students
          • Entering Student Registration & Financial Aid Information
          • Financial Aid for International J.D. Students
          • Financial Aid for Undocumented J.D. Students
          • Legal Resident Information
        • Types of Aid
          • Scholarships
          • Loans
          • Work-Study
        • How to Apply
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Incoming Transfer Students
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Entering Students
          • Financial Aid Checklist & Timeline For Continuing Students
        • Fees & Cost of Attendance
          • Cost of Attendance Adjustments
        • PDST-Increase Offset Awards (PIOAs)
        • Forms
        • Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP)
          • LRAP Eligibility Guidelines
          • LRAP Eligibility Calculator
          • How to Apply for LRAP
          • LRAP Application Forms
          • Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)
          • News & Updates
          • COVID-19 & Student Loans
          • LRAP FAQs
          • LRAP Glossary of Terms
        • Info Sessions & Presentations
        • Financial Literacy
        • Financial Aid – J.D. Concurrent Degree Programs
        • FAQ & Glossary
        • Requesting a Financial Aid Award for a Student
        • About Our Team
      • Outreach Partnerships
      • Admitted Students – First-Year »
      • Admitted Students – Transfer & Visitor Status »
      • For Current Berkeley Law Students
      • Admissions Policies
      • ABA Required Disclosures »
      • Our Role in Dismantling Systemic Racism
    • LL.M. Admissions
    • J.S.D. Admissions
    • Ph.D. (JSP) Admissions
    • Visiting Scholar and Visiting Student Researcher Admissions
    • Faculty & Research Home
    • Faculty Experts by Topic
    • Faculty Profiles
    • Deans Emeritus Lecturers
    • Recent Faculty Scholarship
    • Awards and Honors
    • Faculty in the News
    • Featured Research
    • Centers, Institutes & Initiatives
    • Experiential Home
    • Clinical Program
      • Apply to the Clinics
      • Death Penalty Clinic
        • About the Clinic
          • Faculty and Staff
          • Alumni
        • Clinic News
        • Projects and Cases
          • Death Penalty Clinic Amicus Curiae Briefs
          • Whitewashing the Jury Box: How California Perpetuates the Discriminatory Exclusion of Black and Latinx Jurors
        • Information for Students
        • Resources and Publications
          • Capital Defense Internships and Jobs
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • East Bay Community Law Center
      • Environmental Law Clinic
        • About the Clinic
        • Information for Students
        • Newsletters
        • Clinic News
        • Student Voices
        • Faculty and Staff
        • Alumni
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • International Human Rights Law Clinic
        • About the Clinic
          • Alumni
          • Faculty and Staff
        • Clinic News
        • Projects and Cases
          • Accountability and Transitional Justice
          • Promoting Human Rights in the United States
          • A Rights-Based Approach to Combating Poverty: Economic, Social & Cultural Rights
          • Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights
        • Independent Investigation of the Murder of Berta Cáceres
        • Living with Impunity: Unsolved Murders in Oakland and the Human Rights Impact on Victims’ Family Members
        • A New Border Vision
        • Who Will Be Left to Defend Human Rights? Persecution of Online Expression in the Gulf and Neighboring Countries
        • Resources and Publications by Focal Area
        • Information for Students
          • Student Self-Reflection
        • IHRLC 20th Anniversary
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • New Business Community Law Clinic
        • About the Clinic
        • Information for Students
        • Our Work
        • Services to California’s Central Valley
        • New Businesses
        • Events
        • Apply for Services
        • Donate to the Clinic
        • 2014 Fall Startup Workshop Series
      • Policy Advocacy Clinic
        • About Us
        • People
        • Clinic News
        • Juvenile Fee Abolition in California
          • COVID-19 Action on Juvenile Fees
        • Resources and Publications
        • Information for Students
        • Donate to the Clinic
      • Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic
        • About
          • Faculty and Staff
          • Clinic Alumni
          • Partners
        • Clinic News
        • Our Work
        • Information for Students
      • Clinical Program Annual Report
        • Annual Report Archive
      • The Brian M. Sax Prize for Excellence in Clinical Advocacy
        • Brian M. Sax
        • Recipients
    • Pro Bono Program
      • The Pro Bono Pledge
        • Definition of Pro Bono
      • Log Your Pro Bono Hours
        • Definition of Pro Bono
      • Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects (SLPS)
        • How To Apply
        • Current Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects
          • Animal Law and Advocacy
          • Arts and Innovation Representation
          • Berkeley Abolitionist Lawyering Project
          • Berkeley Immigration Group
          • Berkeley Law Anti-Trafficking Project
          • Berkeley Law and Organizing Collective
          • California Asylum Representation Clinic
          • Clean Energy Leaders In Law
          • Consumer Protection Public Policy Order
          • Contra Costa Reentry Project
          • DA Accountability & Participatory Defense Project
          • Digital Rights Project
          • Disability Rights Project
          • East Bay Dreamers Project
          • Environmental Conservation Outreach
          • Food Justice Project
          • Foster Education Project
          • Free The Land Project
          • Gun Violence Prevention Project
          • Homelessness Service Project
          • International Human Rights Workshop
          • International Refugee Assistance Project
          • La Alianza Workers’ and Tenants’ Rights Clinic
          • Legal Automation Workshop
          • Legal Obstacles Veterans Encounter
          • Name and Gender Change Workshop
          • Native American Legal Assistance Project
          • Palestine Advocacy Legal Assistance Project
          • Police Review Project
          • Political and Election Empowerment Project
          • Post-Conviction Advocacy Project
          • Prisoner Advocacy Network
          • Reentry Advocacy Project
          • Reproductive Justice Project
          • Startup Law Initiative
          • Survivor Advocacy Project
          • Tenants’ Rights Workshop
          • Wage Justice Clinic
          • Workers’ Rights Clinic
          • Workers’ Rights Disability Law Clinic
          • Youth Advocacy Project
        • How to Start a New SLP
        • Inactive Student-Initiated Legal Services Projects
          • AI Legal Workshop
          • Berkeley Immigration Law Clinic
          • Berkeley Students in Support of Arts and Innovation
          • Civil Rights Outreach Project (CROP)
          • Community Restorative Justice Project
          • Juvenile Hall Outreach
          • Karuk-Berkeley Collaborative Legal
          • Local Economies and Entrepreneurship Project
        • SLPS Champions
      • Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips (BLAST)
        • Current Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips (BLAST)
          • Atlanta
          • Central Valley
          • Hawaii
          • Mississippi
        • Inactive Berkeley Law Alternative Service Trips
          • Kentucky
          • Los Angeles
          • South Texas
          • Tijuana
      • Call for Necessary Engagement in Community & Timely Response (CNECT)
        • Berkeley Law Afghanistan Project
        • Current & Past CNECT Partners
          • Hub for Equity in Administrative Representation
          • Racial Justice Legal Research Bank Project
        • CNECT News
      • Independent Projects
      • Opportunities for LL.M. Students
      • Supervising Attorneys
      • Pro Bono Spotlights
        • Malak Afaneh ’24
        • KeAndra Hollis ’24
        • Maripau Paz ’24
        • Lucero Cordova ’23
        • Bharti Tyagi ’21
        • Benji Martinez ’23
        • Will Morrow ’23
        • Stephanie Clemente ’23
        • Francesco Arreaga ’21
        • Armbien Sabillo ’21
        • Kelsey Peden ’21
        • Jennifer Sherman ‘22
        • Professor Khiara M. Bridges
        • Professor Kristen Holmquist
      • Awards
      • Law Firm Pro Bono Programs
      • New York Bar Pro Bono Requirement
      • For Public Interest & Pro Bono Providers
    • Professional Skills Program
      • Legal Research, Analysis, and Writing Program
      • Elective Skills Courses
      • Advocacy Competitions Program
        • Tryout Procedures
        • Student Eligibility & How to Contact Us
        • Internal Competitions
          • McBaine Honors Moot Court
          • Halloum Negotiations Competition (Spring)
          • Halloum Business Competition (Fall)
          • Bales Trial Competition
          • Pahlke Internal Trial Competition (PINT)
          • The Pircher, Nichols & Meeks Joint Venture Challenge
        • External Competitions
          • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Team
          • Moot Court Team
          • Trial Team
        • Writing Competitions
        • 2021 ABA Negotiation Competition
        • Travel Reimbursements
        • Our Supporters
    • Field Placement Program
      • Testimonials
      • Judicial Externships
      • Civil Field Placements
      • Criminal Field Placements
      • Away Field Placements
        • Berkeley Law in The Hague
        • INHR Program
        • UCDC Law Program
      • For Supervisors and Host Organizations
        • BACE: Bay Area Consortium on Externships
      • How to Apply
      • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Startup@BerkeleyLaw
      • Law Students
      • Entrepreneurs
        • Resources
        • How to Start a Startup @ Cal
        • FORM+FUND
          • FORM+FUND Fall 2020 Video Library
          • FORM+FUND Fall 2021 Video Library
          • FORM+FUND Spring 2021 Video Library
        • BerkeleyBase
        • Startup Law Initiative
      • Investors
    • Domestic Violence Law Practicum
      • About the Director
      • How to Apply
      • Companion Seminar
      • Former Students
      • Impact of DVP
      • Domestic Violence Field Placement Internships
      • News
      • Photos
      • Student Writing
    • Veterans Law Practicum
    • Careers Home
    • For J.D. Students
      • Appointments and Drop-in Hours
      • Private Sector Careers
        • Explore Private Sector Careers
        • Find Private Sector Jobs
          • 2021 OCI: EIW & FIP
          • OCI Alternatives
          • SIP – Spring 2022
      • Public Interest Careers
        • Explore Public Interest
        • Find Public Interest Jobs
          • PI/PS Interviewing Resources
          • Using Interview Programs to Land Your 1L Summer Job
          • Post-Graduate Public Interest Fellowships
          • CDO PIPS Videos
        • Finance Your Public Interest Career
          • Summer Funding for PI/PS Internships & Judicial Externships
          • Berkeley Law Bridge and Public Interest Fellowships
      • Public Sector Careers
        • Federal Government Careers
        • State & Local Government Careers (incl. CA)
        • Careers in Policy/Politics
      • Judicial Clerkships
        • Application Instructions and Materials
        • OSCAR Resources
        • Clerkship and Interview Evaluations
        • Other Clerkship Resources
        • Videos of Clerkship Programs
        • State Court Resources
      • Judicial Externships
      • Academic Careers
        • FAQ
        • Further Reading
        • Alumni Contacts
        • Links
        • Webcasts
      • Alternative Careers
    • For LL.M. Students
    • For Employers
      • Berkeley Law Recruiting Policies
      • Employer Resources for Virtual Internship Programs
      • Non Discrimination and Non Harassment Policies
      • Grading Policy
      • Interview Programs
      • Posting Job Listings
      • Reaching Berkeley Law J.D. Students
    • PSJD »
    • For Alumni
      • Enrichment Opportunities for Recent Grads
      • CDO Online Resources
      • Alumni Resource Collection
      • Help the CDO
      • For Recent Graduate Job-Seekers
    • About CDO
      • CDO Staff News
    • Career Resource Library
    • Employment Outcomes
      • Employment Statistics
      • Judicial Clerkship Placement Statistics
      • 2018 Clerkship Yearbook
  • Racial Justice
Home Articles News Op-Eds – ARCHIVAL Reforming Copyright Is Possible

Reforming Copyright Is Possible

  • Share article on Facebook
  • Share article on Twitter
  • Share article on LinkedIn
  • Email article

By Pamela Samuelson, The Chronicle of Higher Education

The tantalizing vision of universal access to the cultural and scientific heritage of humanity seemed close to fulfillment in 2008, when Google announced the settlement of a class-action lawsuit charging that its Google Book Search project infringed copyright by scanning in-copyright books from major research-library collections. Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, later asserted that the settlement was a big win for everyone because it would create a “library to last forever.”

But it was not to be. The very ambitiousness of the settlement was its undoing. In 2011 a federal judge ruled against it, mainly because it went too far beyond the issues in litigation, which concerned only whether scanning books to index their contents and make snippets available was infringement or the limited exception, fair use, since snippets would not supplant—and might enhance—demand for the works. Having failed to reach a more limited settlement, the litigants are expected to go to trial this fall.

The failure of the Google Book settlement, however, has not killed the dream of a comprehensive digital library accessible to the public. Indeed, it has inspired an alternative that would avoid the risks of monopoly control. A coalition of nonprofit libraries, archives, and universities has formed to create a Digital Public Library of America, which is scheduled to launch its services in April 2013. The San Francisco Public Library recently sponsored a second major planning session for the DPLA, which drew 400 participants. Major foundations, as well as private donors, are providing financial support. The DPLA aims to be a portal through which the public can access vast stores of knowledge online. Free, forever.

Initially the DPLA will focus only on making digitized copies of millions of public-domain works available online. These include works published in the United States before 1923, those published between 1923 and 1963 whose copyrights were not renewed, as well as those published before 1989 without proper copyright notices, and virtually all U.S.-government works.

If a way can be found to overcome copyright obstacles, many millions of additional works could be made available.

It’s no secret that copyright law needs a significant overhaul to adapt to today’s complex information ecosystem. Unfortunately the near-term prospects for comprehensive reform are dim. However, participants at a conference last spring at Berkeley Law School on “Orphan Works and Mass Digitization: Obstacles and Opportunities” believe that modest but still meaningful reforms are possible.

As keynote speaker, Maria Pallante, register of copyrights, announced her intent to move forward with a legislative initiative to foster uses of so-called orphan works (those whose rights holders cannot be located after a diligent search), to update rules that allow libraries to make reasonable uses of in-copyright works, and to explore ways to enable mass digitization of works that are unavailable commercially. She and others noted that several countries have recently authorized large-scale mass-digitization projects. The French Parliament, for instance, has enacted a law to allow the national library to digitize out-of-commerce works—those no longer commercially available—in its collection.

One of the key problems for digital libraries such as the DPLA is the extraordinarily long terms of copyright today: 70 years past an author’s death or 95 years from first publication for works made for hire. Had Congress not bowed to pressure from industries with a stake in copyright, especially Hollywood, to extend existing copyright terms several times in the past 40 years, all works published before 1956 would now be in the public domain and available for inclusion in the DPLA.

Because of term extensions, copyright is a significant impediment to reuse of most books published in the 20th century, even though an overwhelming majority have long been out of print. That puts DPLA planners in a tough position. They want to provide public access to literatures of the century just past, but it is impractical to clear rights on a work-by-work basis. (It would cost an average of about $1,000 per work, and that’s not counting any royalty payments.)

For millions of orphan works, rights cannot be cleared at all, because the owners cannot be found. The problem is especially troublesome for special collections of historically significant materials, for which copyright information is often unavailable. At the Berkeley conference, Lydia Loren, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, argued that such works are hostages in need of someone who cares enough to free them from copyright bondage, not orphans that should be consigned to a bereft future.

The U.S. Copyright Office recognized the severity of the problem in 2006 and recommended legislation to allow free reuses of copyrighted works whose rights-holders could not be found after a reasonably diligent search. The Senate passed a bill similar to the copyright office’s proposal in 2008. However, owing in part to the announcement of the Google settlement, which proposed to give Google a license to make orphan works available to the public, further action on the bill stalled. Pallante’s recent announcement that the copyright office will renew efforts to deal with orphan works is therefore good news.

Still, legislation may not be needed for some reuses of orphan works. Jennifer M. Urban, director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at Berkeley, has suggested that fair use can be part of the solution. Many orphans that nonprofit libraries want to make available online are fact-intensive works, written by scholars for scholars, whose motivation is to share knowledge. Insofar as such works are unavailable commercially and their rights-holders cannot be located, there is no risk of harm to any existing or potential market for the works, an important factor in fair-use cases.

Although copying the whole of protected works generally cuts against fair use, the modern trend in copyright cases is to ask whether the amount taken was reasonable in light of the putative fair user’s purpose. Nonprofit libraries can argue that they are providing access to orphan works in order to enable research, scholarship, and teaching, all three of which are statutorily favored uses. That conforms to the recent ruling in Cambridge University Press et al. v. Becker et al. that nonprofit educational purposes strongly favor fair use. In that case, Georgia State University prevailed in defense of its electronic course-reserve policy against a publisher challenge.

Fair use of orphan works may also be appropriate if a library keeps good and accessible records about its diligent search for the owner/author and establishes a waiting period between announcing its belief that a work is an orphan and making the work available.

Fair use has long been a flexible balancing tool enabling copyright law to adapt to developments unforeseen by Congress. No one in 1976, for instance, imagined search-engine technologies or the World Wide Web. Yet fair use enabled several search engines to fend off copyright lawsuits in justifying copying the contents of open Internet sites, indexing Web contents, and serving up links to or thumbnail images of those contents in response to queries. Such precedents very likely emboldened Google to rely on fair use to justify mass digitization for indexing book contents and making snippets available to its search-engine users. If Google wins its fair-use defense this year, the precedent would help library digitization projects.

University libraries are rooting for Google’s fair-use defense because it would also bolster their fair-use justification for possessing and using library digital copies, or LDC’s, provided by Google of books from their collections. The digital copies are an important way to preserve library resources so they will be available for lawful uses today and future generations tomorrow.

The LDC’s are also valuable to enable scholars to engage in research that was previously unimaginable, like tracing the influence of a philosopher over time by finding all references to him in the LDC corpus. Because text mining makes only computational uses of in-copyright works, there is a strong argument that it is fair use.

One of Google’s library partners, the University of Michigan, claimed fair use when it and HathiTrust, repository of Michigan’s and some other Google partners’ LDC’s, initiated a program to conduct searches for possible rights-holders of orphan works. The Authors Guild has sued Michigan, several other university libraries, and HathiTrust, alleging that libraries have no fair-use privileges beyond the contours of the special library-use exception in U.S. law, which the guild asserts does not permit mass digitization. Fair use may be put to a very important test in this case as well as in the Google Book Search case.

Yet the suits against Google and Michigan may well falter, because it is unclear whether the plaintiffs have standing. After all, the Authors Guild owns no copyrights that the LDC’s allegedly infringe, and it represents only a very small proportion of published authors in the United States. (The OCLC Online Computer Library Center, operated by a nonprofit library association, estimates that some 3,685,778 personal and 977,679 corporate authors have published books in the United States since 1922; in contrast, the Authors Guild has some 8,000 members.) Google also fought the class action by asserting that the individual guild-member plaintiffs did not adequately represent the interests of the vast majority of authors whose books Google has scanned. A survey it commissioned shows that only a small minority of published authors objected to scanning snippets or believed that doing so would harm them. However, Judge Denny Chin was not persuaded by the standing challenges and has certified the class for trial.

Even if Google and Michigan win their fair-use defenses (and they may not), that would still not free up millions of non-orphans for inclusion in a universal digital library. The victories would, however, strengthen the argument that libraries should be able to make available as fair use long-out-of-commerce works (for example, books published in the 1960s that have been commercially unavailable for 40 years). Additional progress is possible through efforts to encourage copyright owners to make their out-of-print works available to the DPLA through licenses from the nonprofit Creative Commons or the like. Though such progress would be welcome, a universal digital library would be slow to come into being through those steps.

The fastest way to achieve a more comprehensive digital library is for Congress to create a license so that digital libraries could provide public access to copyrighted works no longer commercially available. This approach would make it unnecessary to engage in costly work-by-work searches for rights holders and would free up orphan works. A digital library such as the DPLA could pay a fee for a license to display such works to the public for noncommercial uses. Rights-holders could come forward to get compensation for the uses of their works, or they could opt out. Works whose rights-holders failed to show up within a certain period of time (perhaps five or 10 years) could be presumed to be orphans and made available on an open-access basis.

At an abstract level, the licensing option seems attractive. It resembles the basic framework of the recently enacted French law authorizing the national library to digitize out-of-commerce works. However, France has at least three advantages over the United States.

For one thing, the national library is an existing entity. It has a half-million volumes in its collection that can be digitized under the law. Although the Library of Congress has more than 32 million books in its collection, it has not yet exhibited interest in mass-digitizing them. The DPLA might be a potential licensee, but it is a work in progress without a collection of its own.

Or perhaps Google could be persuaded to offer a copy of the Book Search corpus to a digital-library project as part of a legislative effort to shield it from the billions of dollars in statutory damages that might be imposed if the Authors Guild wins its lawsuit.

Another alternative is for Congress to authorize a public-private partnership to create a digital public library whose corpus would also be available to other search engines besides Google to improve their search capabilities. A 10-million-book digital library might cost $100-million, but that is a modest amount if it gives the public access to a vast repository of cultural and scientific resources.

A second advantage for France is that it has existing collective-management organizations to serve as appropriate licensors of copyrighted resources. Those societies already have thousands of rights-holders as members to whom they already pay royalties. The closest approximation in the United States is the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, but it licenses only public performances of music.

The Copyright Clearance Center might initially seem a possible institutional licensor, as it has relationships with many publishers for which it collects fees for licensing photocopies of textual works. But it has a far more limited role in licensing than the typical collective-management society, and it represents only a fraction of the rights-holders whose works would be licensed under mass-digitization legislation.

Libraries would be unlikely to support a collective-licensing approach without firm commitments about the reasonableness of prices and terms over time and assurances that the system would not undermine their right to rely on fair use when appropriate. A framework for good governance of a collective-licensing regime and for government oversight for possible abuses would probably also be necessary to build confidence in this solution.

At the moment in the United States, there is unfortunately no obvious candidate available to designate as the licensor of a Congressionally authorized mass-digitized corpus.

A third advantage for France is that major publishers’ and authors’ groups supported the legislation to digitize works in the national library. Although the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers reached agreement to license mass digitization and public displays of books under the Google Book settlement, there was considerable dissension among other groups of authors and publishers.

While libraries supported the settlement, they were vocal about their concerns that institutional subscriptions to the Google corpus of out-of-commerce works would rise to excessive levels over time. It may, therefore, be difficult to get consensus in the United States that would enable similar legislation to pass.

After the Google Book settlement failed, I outlined a legislative package in the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts that would bring about virtually all of the benefits envisioned by proponents of the settlement without the downsides of a Google monopoly. In brief, I recommended: 1) creating a privilege to scan in-copyright works for preservation, indexing, and text mining of the works; 2) allowing orphan works to be made available on an open-access basis; 3) expanding the right of libraries and others to improve access for those who have trouble reading print; 4) ensuring that reader-privacy interests are respected.

I also suggested that serious consideration be given to creating an extended collective-licensing regime for out-of-commerce, non-orphan books so that an institutional subscription database of those works might be created. Such licenses have been used with considerable success in Nordic countries. Extended licenses provide rights-holders with compensation while at the same time allowing users to get a license to make a large number of works available when the transaction costs of clearing all rights, one by one, would be excessive or impossible. It is worrisome, however, that experience with collective licensing in Australia has shown that even if prices and terms are reasonable at the outset, they may incrementally rise to unreasonable levels as time goes on. Checks and balances would need to be carefully built in to any U.S. collective-licensing regime.

Copyright law needs considerably greater reform than the measures I’ve discussed. Copyright should be shorter in duration, more balanced, more comprehensible, and normatively closer to what members of the public think that it means or should mean.

Although we are not likely to get comprehensive reform anytime soon, perhaps we can persuade Congress to make some more modest reforms.

We know it is now possible for the cultural and scientific heritage of humankind to be made available through a universal digital library such as the DPLA. It would be a grievous mistake not to bring that future into being when it is so clearly within our grasp.

07/09/2012

News

  • Coronavirus (COVID-19) Information
    • Berkeley Law COVID-19 Protocols
    • Event, Catering and Food Policy
  • Transcript Magazine
    • Transcript Archive
      • Transcript Spring 2021 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2020 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2020 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2019 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2019 Online Edition
      • Transcript Fall 2018 Online Edition
      • Transcript Spring 2018 Online Edition
      • Transcript 2017 Online Edition
      • Transcript 2016 Online Edition
  • Podcasts
  • On Display
  • Media Highlights
  • News Archive
    • 2022 Archive
    • 2021 Archive
    • 2020 Archive
    • 2019 Archive
    • 2018 Archive
    • 2017 Archive
    • 2016 Archive
    • 2015 Archive
    • 2014 Archive
    • 2013 Archive
    • 2012 Archive
    • 2011 Archive
    • 2010 Archive
    • 2009 Archive
    • 2008 Archive
    • 2007 Archive
    • 2006 Archive
    • 2005 Archive
    • News Briefs
    • Alumni Newsletter
  • Trailblazing Women
  • Social Media
  • Communications Office
    • Identity Resources
      • Ordering Printed Supplies
    • Media Release Form
  • Law School Images »
Berkeley Law
  • Twitter
  • Youtube
  • Instagram
  • Flickr
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • About
  • Getting Here
  • Contact Us
  • Job Openings
  • ABA Required Disclosures
  • Feedback
  • For Employers
  • Accessibility
  • Nondiscrimination
  • Privacy Policy
  • UC Berkeley

© 2022 UC Regents, UC Berkeley School of Law, All Rights Reserved.

Notice – Berkeley Law COVID-19 Protocols