† † A 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15 percent of all registered copyrights were renewed. For textual material (including books), the figure was even lower: 7 percent.
‡ A good guide to investigating the copyright and renewal status of published work is Samuel Demas and Jennie L. Brogdon, Determining Copyright Status for Preservation and Access:
Defining Reasonable Effort,LIBRARYRESOURCES ANDTECHNICALSERVICES 41, no. 4 (October 1997), at 323–334.
PUBLISHED WORKS
Time of Publication Conditions Public Domain Status
Before 1923 None In public domain
Between 1923 and 1978 Published without a copy- In public domain right notice
Between 1978 and March Published without notice In public domain
1, 1989 and without subsequent
registration
Between 1978 and March Published without notice 70 years after death of
1, 1989 and with subsequent author, or if work of
registration corporate authorship, the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120
years from creation Between 1923 and 1963 Published with notice but In public domain
copyright was not renewed† †
Between 1923 and 1963 Published with notice 95 years after publication and the copyright was date
renewed‡
Between 1964 and 1978 Published with notice 95 years after publication date
After March 1, 1989 None 70 years after death of
author, or if work of cor- porate authorship, the shorter of 95 years from publication, or 120 years from creation
Notes
1. 17 U.S.C. §105 (2000).
2. 17 U.S.C. §101 (2000).
3. H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 60 (1976).
4. 17 U.S.C. §105.
5. H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 56–57 (1976); Schnapper v. Foley,667 F.2d 102 (D.C.
Cir. 1981), cert. denied455 U.S. 948 (1982).
6. SeeU.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1:Copyright Basics5 (1993) (discussing the use of reserved portions in United States government works).
7. 17 U.S.C. §101.
8. Schnapper,667 F.2d 102, cert. denied455 U.S. 948.
9. National Conference of Bar Examiners v. Multistate Legal Studies, Inc.,495 F.
Supp. 34 (N.D. Ill. 1980), aff’d692 F.2d 478 (7th Cir. 1982),cert. denied 464 U.S.
814 (1983).
10.Building Officials & Code Administration and Code Technology,628 F.2d 730, 735 (1st Cir. 1980).
11.Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International,No. 99-40632 (E.D. Tex.
Feb. 2, 2001).
12. 14 Op. Att’y Gen. Okla. 317 (1982) (No. 82-167).
13. 1983 La. AG LEXIS 387, at 2 (July 27, 1983).
14. Marshall v. Miles Laboratories, Inc.,647 F. Supp. 1326, 1330 (N.D. Ind. 1986).
15. 17 U.S.C. §102 (2000).
16. 17 U.S.C. §106 (2000).
17. H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 62 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S. CODE CONGRESS-
IONAL ANDADMINISTRATIVENEWS5659, 5675.
18. Mississippi Writers Page, John Grisham, athttp://www.olemiss.edu/depts/english/
ms-writers/dir/grisham_john (visited April 20, 2001); Book Buzz, from Book to Screen, at http://suspense.net/buzz/book-to-screen.htm (visited April 20, 2001).
19.Twin Peaks Productions, Inc. v. Publications International, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993) (TWIN PEAKS: A COMPLETE GUIDE TO WHO’S WHO ANDWHAT’S
WHAT); Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1995) (THESEINFELDAPTITUDETEST); Paramount Pictures Corp. v.
Carol Publishing Group, Inc., 11 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), preliminary injunction aff’d 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 9218 (2d Cir. 1999) (unpublished opinion) (JOY OFTREK).
20. 17 U.S.C. §101 (2000).
21. Jay Dratler Jr., 1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW: COMMERCIAL, CREATIVE, AND
INDUSTRIALPROPERTY§6.01[3], at 6-14 (2000).
22. 17 U.S.C. §101.
23. H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 61–62 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S. CODE
CONGRESSIONAL ANDADMINISTRATIVENEWS5659, 5674–5675.
24. Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,118 F.3d 199 (4th Cir.
1999).
25. Hotaling,118 F.3d at 203.
26. 17 U.S.C. §101.
27. 17 U.S.C. §101.
28. See Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc., 866 F.2d 278, 282 (9th Cir. 1989).
29. 17 U.S.C. §106(6) (2000).
30. 17 U.S.C. §101.
31. Pub. L. No. 104-39, 109 Stat. 336-344 (codified at 17 U.S.C. §§101, 111, 196, 114, 119, 801–803. See also S. REP. NO. 104-128, at 10 (1995), reprinted in 1994 U.S. CODECONGRESSIONAL ANDADMINISTRATIVENEWS356, 357.
32. 17 U.S.C. §107 (2000).
33. 17 U.S.C. §107.
34. American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.,60 F.3d 913, 922 (2d Cir. 1993).
35. Stephen Fraser, The Conflict between the First Amendment and Copyright Law and Its Impact on the Internet, 16 CARDOZO ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW
JOURNAL1, 25 (1998).
36.A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,239 F.3d. 1004, 1015 (9th Cir. 2001).
37.Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music,510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994) (citation omitted).
38.Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.,77 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1119 (C.D. Cal. 1999), aff’d280 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2002).
39.Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic,2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *24 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
40.Campbell,510 U.S. at 579 (quotation and citation omitted).
41.Campbell,510 U.S. at 579.
42.Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services,99 F.3d 1381, 1388–
1389 (6th Cir. 1996).
43.American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 60 F.3d 913, 922–924 (2d Cir.
1993).
44. David G. Luettgen, Functional Usefulness vs. Communicative Usefulness: Thin Copyright Protection for the Nonliteral Elements of Computer Programs, 4 TEXAS
INTELLECTUALPROPERTYLAWREVIEW233 (1996).
45.American Geophysical Union,60 F.3d at 925.
46.Princeton University Press,99 F.3d at 1389.
47.Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic,2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *55 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
48.Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.,77 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1120 (C.D. Cal. 1999), aff’d280 F.3d 934, 943 (9th Cir. 2002) (“photographs used for illustrative purposes are gen- erally creative in nature”).
49.Nunez v. Caribbean International News Corp., 235 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2000) (“the photographs were not artistic representations . . . we find that the impact of their creativity on the fair use finding is neutral”).
50.Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko’s Graphics Corp.,758 F. Supp. 1522 (S.D.N.Y. 1991);
Princeton University Press,99 F.3d at 1389.
51.Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God,227 F.3d 1110, 1118 (9th Cir. 2000), quoting Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc.,796 F.2d 1148, 1155 (9th Cir. 1986).
52.Nunez v. Caribbean International News Corp.,235 F.3d 18, 24 (1st Cir. 2000).
53. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises,471 U.S. 539 (1985).
54. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music,510 U.S. 569, 588 (1994).
55.Campbell,510 U.S. 569, 591 (“market harm is a matter of degree, and the impor- tance of this factor will vary, not only with the amount of harm, but also with the relative strength of the showing of the other factors”).
56.American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 60 F.3d 913, 927–931 (2d Cir.
1993).
57.Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,464 U.S. 417, 451 (1984).
58.A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,114 F. Supp. 2d 895, 902 (N.D. Cal. 2000), aff’d239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
59.A&M Records, Inc.,239 F.3d 1004, 1017.
60.Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises,471 U.S. 539, 568 (1985), quoting Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,464 U.S.
417, 451 (1984).
61.A&M Records, Inc.,239 F.3d 1004, 1017.
62. 17 U.S.C. §107 (2000).
63. See H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476 (1976), reprinted in U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 21: REPRODUCTION OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS BY EDUCATORS AND LIBRARIANS 8 (1993).
64.See Randall Coyne, Rights of Reproduction and the Provision of Library Services, 13 LAWLIBRARYJOURNAL485, 488–489 (1991).
65. H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, reprinted in U.S. Copyright Office, REPRODUCTION OF
COPYRIGHTEDWORKS, at 9.
66. The agreement that was reached became part of the legislative history of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976. H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 68 (1976).
67. See, e.g., Marcus v. Rowley, 695 F.2d 1171, 1178 (9th Cir. 1983); andBasic Books, Inc. v. Kinko’s Graphics Corp, 758 F. Supp. 1522, 1550 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
68. Kenneth D. Crews, The Law of Fair Use and the Illusion of Fair-Use Guidelines, 62 OHIOSTATELAWJOURNAL599 (2001).
69.Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley,273 F.3d 429, 459 (7th Cir. 2001).
70. Pub. L. No. 12-492, 106 Stat. 3145 (1992); 17 U.S.C. §107 (2000).
71. H.R. REP. NO. 102-836, at 1 (1992), reprinted in 1992 U.S. CODECONGRESSIONAL ANDADMINISTRATIVENEWS2553, 2553.
72. H.R. REP. NO. 102-836, at 9 (1992), reprinted in 1992 U.S. CODECONGRESSIONAL ANDADMINISTRATIVENEWS2553, 2561.
73.Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.,77 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1120 (C.D. Cal. 1999).
74. Association of Research Libraries, at http://www.arl.org (visited May 17, 2001);
Yale University Liblicense, at http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/index.shtml (visited May 17, 2001); Arlene Bielefield and Lawrence Cheeseman, INTERPRET-
ING AND NEGOTIATING LICENSING AGREEMENTS: A GUIDEBOOK FOR THE LIBRARY, RESEARCH, AND TEACHING PROFESSIONS (1999); Lesley Ellen Harris, LICENSING
DIGITALCONTENT: A PRACTICALGUIDE FORLIBRARIANS(2002).
75. 17 U.S.C. §301(a) (2000).
76.ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1454 (7th Cir. 1996).
77.ProCD, 86 F.3d at 1447.
78. See 17 U.S.C. §§109–121 (2000).
79. 17 U.S.C. §108(a) (2000).
80. For detailed information on the regulations concerning placement of the copyright notice, see 37 C.F.R. §201.20.
81. 17 U.S.C. §108(a).
82.American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.,802 F. Supp. 1, 27 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff’d, 60 F.3d 913, 917, 921 (2d Cir. 1993).
83. H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476 (1976), reprinted in U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 21:
REPRODUCTION OFCOPYRIGHTEDWORKS BYEDUCATORS ANDLIBRARIANS18 (1993).
84. S. REP. NO. 94-473 (1976), reprinted in U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 21: REPRO-
DUCTION OFCOPYRIGHTEDWORKS BYEDUCATORS ANDLIBRARIANS23 (1993).
85. H.R. CONF. REP. NO. 94-1733 (1976), reprinted in U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 21: REPRODUCTION OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS BY EDUCATORS AND LIBRARIANS 8 (1993).
86. Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2889, Title IV (1998); Pub. L. No. 105-298, 112 Stat. 2827, Title I (1998).
87. S. REP. NO. 105-190, at 62 (1998).
88. 17 U.S.C. §108(b) (2000).
89.See Dwayne K. Butler and Kenneth D. Crews, Copyright Protection and Technological Reform of Library Services: Digital Change, Practical Application, and Congressional Action, in LIBRARIES, MUSEUMS, ANDARCHIVES: LEGALISSUES ANDETHICALCHALLENGES IN THENEWINFORMATIONERA257, 268–69 (Tomas A.
Lipinski ed., 2001).
90. S. REP. NO. 105-190, at 61–62.
91. 17 U.S.C. §108(c) (2000).
92. H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476 (1976), reprinted in U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 21:
REPRODUCTION OFCOPYRIGHTEDWORKS BYEDUCATORS ANDLIBRARIANS19 (1993).
93. 17 U.S.C. §108(c)(2).
94. S. REP. NO. 105-190, at 62.
95. S. REP. NO. 105-190, at 62.
96. 17 U.S.C. §108(d).
97. 17 U.S.C. §108(e).
98. 17 U.S.C. §108(d)(1) and (e)(1) (2000).
99. Specifically, 17 U.S.C. §108(d)(1) or §108(e)(1).
100. 37 C.F.R. §201.14 (2000).
101. But see H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 60 (1976), reprinted in U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 21: REPRODUCTION OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS BY EDUCATORS AND
LIBRARIANS 19 (1993), indicating that the “scope and nature of a reasonable investigation to determine that an unused copy cannot be obtained will vary according to the circumstances of a particular situation.”
102. ITSI T.V. Prods., Inc. v. California Authority of Racing Fairs,785 F. Supp. 854, 861 n.13 (E.D. Cal. 1992).
103. Information Infrastructure Task Force, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE NA-
TIONALINFORMATIONINFRASTRUCTURE: THEREPORT OF THEWORKINGGROUP ON
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 111, n.357 (1995), available at http://www.
uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/ipnii/ipnii.doc (visited May 17, 2001).
104. 17 U.S.C. §108(f)(2) (2000), read in tandem with 17 U.S.C. §108(f)(1).
105. 17 U.S.C. §108(f)(3).
106. H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 60, reprinted in U.S. Copyright Office, REPRODUCTION OFCOPYRIGHTEDWORKS, at 19–20.
107. H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 60, reprinted in U.S. Copyright Office, REPRODUCTION OFCOPYRIGHTEDWORKS, at 20.
108. H.R. CONF. REP. NO. 94-1733 (1976), reprinted in U.S. Copyright Office, Cir- cular 21: REPRODUCTION OFCOPYRIGHTEDWORKS BYEDUCATORS ANDLIBRARIANS 23 (1993).
109. 17 U.S.C. §108(f)(4).
110. 17 U.S.C. §108(a)(1) (2000).
111. H.R. CONF. REP. NO. 94-1733, reprinted in U.S. Copyright Office, REPRODUC-
TION OFCOPYRIGHTEDWORKS, at 23.
112. 17 U.S.C. §108(g)(2) (2000).
113. 17 U.S.C. §108(g)(1).
114. See H.R. CONF. REP. NO. 94-1733, reprinted in U.S. Copyright Office, REPRODUC-
TION OFCOPYRIGHTEDWORKS, at 22–23.
115. Robert Wedgeworth, The Fall 1993 Horace S. Manges Lecture: Copyright and Libraries: Act II, 17 COLUMBIA-VLA JOURNAL OF LAW & THE ARTS 418, 420 (Summer 1993).
116. S. REP. NO. 94-473 (1976), reprinted in U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 21:
REPRODUCTION OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS BY EDUCATORS AND LIBRARIANS 17 (1993) (examples (1), (2), and (3)).
117. Pub. L. No. 105-298, 112 Stat. 2827, Title I (1998).
118. 17 U.S.C. §108(h)(2)(A)–(B) (2000).
119. 17 U.S.C. §108(i) (2000).
120. H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 60 (1976), reprinted in U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 21: REPRODUCTION OFCOPYRIGHTEDWORKS BYEDUCATORS ANDLIBRA-
RIANS21 (1993).
121.Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus,210 U.S. 339 (1908).
122. Public Lending Right Scheme, Outline of Public Lending Rights, athttp://www.
dca.gov.au/plr.html (visited April 21, 2001).
123. Arthur R. Miller and Michael H. Davis, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PATENTS, TRADEMARK, ANDCOPYRIGHT IN ANUTSHELL328 (3d ed. 2000).
124. 17 U.S.C. §109(a) (2000).
125. U.S. Copyright Office, DMCA: Section 104 Report (A Report of the Register of Copyrights Pursuant to Section 104 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) (2001) 87,athttp://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/dmca_study.html.
126. 37 C.F.R. §201.24 (1999).
127. 37 C.F.R. §201.24.
128. Pub. L. No. 101-650 (Title VIII), 104 Stat. 5134 (1990).
129. 17 U.S.C. §109(b)(1) (2000).
130. 17 U.S.C. §109(b).
131. H.R. Rep. No. 101-735, at 8 (1990).
132. 17 U.S.C. §109(b)(1)(A).
133. 17 U.S.C. §109(b)(1)(A).
134. On Oct. 28, 1998, H.R. 2281, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), was enacted into law. Section 104 of the DMCA directed the Register of Copyrights and the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to prepare a report for Congress examining the effects of the amend- ments made by title 1 of the DMCA, and the development of electronic com- merce on the operation of sections 109 and 117 of title 17, United States Code, and the relationship between existing and emerging technology and the operation of such sections. The report was released in the fall of 2001: U.S. Copyright Office, DMCA: Section 104 Report (A Report of the Register of Copyrights Pur- suant to §104 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) (2001), at http://www.
copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/dmca_ study.html.
135. 17 U.S.C. §110(1) (2000).
136. 17 U.S.C. §101 (2000).
137. H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 56–57 (1976), reprinted in 17 U.S.C.A. §110 (Historical and Statutory Notes).
138. H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 56–57 (1976), reprinted in 17 U.S.C.A. §110 (Historical and Statutory Notes).
139. 17 U.S.C. §110(1).
140. 17 U.S.C. §101.
141. 17 U.S.C. §110(1).
142. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Aveco, Inc.,800 F.2d 29 (3d Cir. 1986);
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.,749 F.2d 154 (3d Cir.
1984).
143. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc.,866 F.2d 278 (9th Cir. 1989).
144.On Command Video Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.,777 F. Supp.
787 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
145.SeeJames S. Heller, Copyright: The Public Performance Right in Libraries: Is There Anything Fair About It?84 LAWLIBRARYJOURNAL315 (1992); J. Wesley Cochran, Why Can’t I Watch This Video Here? Copyright Confusion and Performance of Videocassettes and Videodiscs in Libraries, 15 HASTINGS COMMUNICATIONS ANDENTERTAINMENTLAWJOURNAL837 (1993).
146. H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 56–57 (1976), reprinted in 17 U.S.C.A. §110 (Historical and Statutory Notes).
147. 17 U.S.C. §110(5)(A) (2000).
148. 17 U.S.C. §110(5)(B).
149. 17 U.S.C. §110(5)(B)(i).
150. 17 U.S.C. §110(5)(B)(i)(I).
151. 17 U.S.C. §110(5)(B)(i)(II).
152. 17 U.S.C. §110(5)(B)(i)(I).
153. A brief overview is found in Michael S. Shapiro and Brett I. Miller, A MUSEUM GUIDE TOCOPYRIGHT ANDTRADEMARK37–41 (1999). A thorough review is found in Jay Dratler Jr., 1 INTELLECTUALPROPERTYLAW: COMMERCIAL, CREATIVE, AND INDUSTRIALPROPERTY§6.04[3], at 6-96.12 to 6-154 (2000).
154. Sonny Bono Term Extension Act, Pub. L. No. 105-298, 112 Stat. 2827 (1998).
155. These duration guidelines were published in chart form by Peter B. Hirtle, adapted from Laura N. Gasaway’s chart athttp://cidc.library.cornell.edu/copy- right (visited May 17, 2001).
156. Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc.,75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999).
157. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,239 F.3d 1004, 1023 (9th Cir. 2001), citing Fonovisa v. Cherry Auction, Inc.,76 F.3d 259, 263–264 (9th Cir. 1996) (stating that financial benefit may be shown “where infringing performances enhance the attractiveness of a venue”).
158. “Nothing in this section—(1) shall be construed to impose liability for copyright infringement upon a library or archives or its employees for the unsupervised use of reproducing equipment located on its premises: Provided, That such equip- ment displays a notice that the making of a copy may be subject to the copyright law . . .” 17 U.S.C §108(f)(1) (2000).
159. “A Display Warning of Copyright and an Order Warning of Copyright shall consist of a verbatim reproduction of the following notice, printed in such size and form and displayed in such manner as to comply with paragraph (c) of this section.” 37 C.F.R. §201.14(b).
160. “Form and manner of use. (1) A Display Warning of Copyright shall be printed on heavy paper or other durable material in type at least 18 points in size, and shall be displayed prominently, in such manner and location as to be clearly visible, legible, and comprehensible to a casual observer within the immediate vicinity of the place where orders are accepted.” 37 C.F.R. §201.14(c).
161. 17 U.S.C. §108(a)(3) (2000).
162. See ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) (contract law preempts copyright law). This case is widely discussed and criticized in law reviews. See, e.g., Kell Corrigan Mercer, Casenote, Consumer Shrink-Wrap Licenses and Public Domain Materials: Copyright Preemption and Uniform Commercial Code Validity in ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 30 CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW 1287 (1997);
Jennett M. Hill, Note, The State of Copyright Protection for Electronic Databases Beyond ProCD v. Zeidenberg: Are Shrinkwrap Licenses a Viable Alternative for Database Protection? 31 INDIANALAWREVIEW143 (1998).
163. Yale University Library, Liblicense: Licensing Digital Information, A Resource for Librarians, at http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/index.shtml (visited April 4, 2001). See alsoArlene Bielefield and Lawrence Cheeseman, INTERPRETING AND
NEGOTIATINGLICENSINGAGREEMENTS: A GUIDEBOOK FOR THELIBRARY, RESEARCH
ANDTEACHINGPROFESSIONS(1999); and Lesley Ellen Harris, LICENSINGDIGITAL
CONTENT: A PRACTICALGUIDE FORLIBRARIANS(2002).
164. 17 U.S.C. §512 (2000).
165. 17 U.S.C. §512 (k)(1).
166. Jay Dratler Jr., CYBERLAW: INTELLECTUALPROPERTY IN THEDIGITALMILLENNIUM
(2000); and Tomas Lipinski, Legal Issues in Web-Based Distance Education,in HANDBOOK OFAMERICANDISTANCEEDUCATION(Michael G. Moore ed., 2002).
167. 17 U.S.C. §512(g) (2000).
168. 17 U.S.C. §512(a) (2000).
169. 17 U.S.C. §512(b) (2000).
170. 17 U.S.C. §512(d) (2000).
171. U.S. Copyright Office, Designation by Service Provider of Agent for Notification of Claims of Infringement, at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp/index.html#
agent (visited April 4, 2001).
172. 17 U.S.C. §512(c) (2000).
173. U.S. Copyright Office,Directory of Service Provider Agents for Notification of Claims of Infringement, at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp/list/index.html (visited April 4, 2001).
174. Contra Costa County Library, athttp://www.contra-costa.lib.ca.us/policies/policies.
html (visited July 3, 2001).
175. 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3).
176. ALS Scans, Inc. v. Remorq Communications, 239 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2001) (notice adequate if copyright owner “substantially complied” with statutory requirements, specificity is not required for collections of multiple infringing works).
177. 17 U.S.C. §512(g) (2000).
178. 17 U.S.C. §512(g).
179. Arnold P. Lutzker, Susan J. Lutzker, and Carl H. Settlemyer III, The Digital Millennium Copyright Act: Highlights of New Copyright Provision Establishing
Limitation of Liability for Online Service Providers, athttp://www.arl.org/info/
frn/copy/osp.html (visited April 4, 2001).
180. 17 U.S.C. §512(m) (2000).
181. “As used in this subsection, the term ‘anyone’ includes any State, any instrumen- tality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumental- ity, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.” 17 U.S.C. §501 (2000).
182. U.S. CONST. amend. XI.
183. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999).
184.College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999).
185.Mt. Healthy School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 (1977).
186.Rodriguez v. Texas Commission on the Arts, 871 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 2000).
187.Boyd v. University of Illinois, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15348 (S.D.N.Y. 1999).
188. Brenda Sandburg, Universities May Lose IP Immunity, LEGAL INTELLIGENCER, Sept. 13, 2000, at 4.
189. S. 1259, 106th Cong. (1999) (Trademark Amendments Act of 1999, restoring liability for trademark dilution); S. 1835, 106th Cong. (1999) (Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 1999, restoring the remedies for viola- tions of intellectual property rights by states, and for other purposes).
190. 17 U.S.C. §502 (2000).
191. 17 U.S.C. §503(a) and (b) (2000).
192. 17 U.S.C. §504(b) (2000).
193. 17 U.S.C. §504(c) (2000).
194.UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc.,2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13293, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
195. 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2).
196. 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2).
197. 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2).
198. 17 U.S.C. §505 (2000); Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.,127 L. Ed. 2d 455, 114 S. Ct.
1023 (1994).
199. See United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994). The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act amended to section 506 in 1997 (Pub. L. No. 105- 147, 111 Stat. 2678) closed the so-called LaMacchialoophole; prior to amend- ment, the infringement had to involve a more traditional financial transaction such as a sale of pirated works.
200. 17 U.S.C. §506 (2000) and 18 U.S.C. §2319 (2000).
Linking on the World Wide Web
Q1 May my library’s web page freely link to others?
Q2 What is deep-linking?
Q3 May my library’s web page include “deep links”?
Q4 How do I know if I need permission to deep-link?
Q5 Our library does not use robots, but rather people to find the deep links.
Is that legal?
Q6 How will my nonprofit library be treated if it engages in the practice of deep-linking?
Q7 What are the consequences of deep-linking without permission?
Q8 What legal concerns should I consider if my library’s web page uses frames?
Q9 Are there other legal concerns about linking?
Q10 Does my library’s nonprofit status shield it from liability?
Trademarks
Q11 When does a library need to be concerned with trademark law in design- ing the library’s web page?
85