Even though I work in a law library when the MLIS is done I’m not going to law school for a JD. Law librarianship is not my future. I like the more touchy-feely humanities. But that doesn’t mean legal stuff isn’t rubbing off a bit. Like copyright. In school we spent a whole week on copyright, but goodness, it was not nearly enough. The professor missed the boat on it, making it seem like it wasn’t something we’d have to know that well and probably wouldn’t run into very many issues. Ha!
I have to think of copyright quite a bit when it comes to processing interlibrary loan requests. And it seems like I get one or two emails a week from the library lists on copyright webinars and articles on copyright, not to mention the Google Book Settlement. I know more about copyright than I have ever imagined would be necessary and yet, it is still only the tip of the iceberg.
Copyright is both dull and fascinating at the same time. Did you know that without the fair use element of copyright libraries would not be able to exist? So it is that librarians have become de facto copyright experts and watchdogs. This is also why the Google Book Settlement (GBS) is such a hot topic in library circles.
No one can agree on whether it is good or bad. You’ll find plenty of librarians who think that Google is “evil pure and simple by way of the eighth dimension” and others who think the settlement has its flaws but is still a really good thing. In between is a whole continuum. Personally, I appreciate what Google is doing but know full well their move to digitize books is a commercial venture. They tried to make a good attempt at solving copyright issues and can’t be blamed for it entirely. They don’t make laws and the gray area with which they are dealing would exist whether it was Google or someone else doing the digitizing.
That said, I don’t think using a settlement to solve the copyright questions is the way to go. Congress should be the ones stepping in and making laws, not a court approved out of court settlement.
I didn’t have the intention of writing a whole post about copyright, but looks like that’s happened anyway. If you are interested in learning more about the GBS, Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor, has an easy to read (but long) article in the New Republic I highly recommend. The California Digital Library, a Google digitization project participant, also provides some insight in a recent blog post. And for a general grounding in the copyright debate, Arstechnica can provide some context.
Your professor thought you wouldn’t need to know about copyright? Wow. Our head librarian at school is all over copyright issues (in a way that gives people headaches sometimes). I agree that Congress should be the ones to take control of it, although they surely wouldn’t do a good job. But that does seem like a better way.
Thanks for your thoughts on this. As a retired librarian/archivist who worked mostly in the audiovisual field, copyright is something I too was aware of day in day out. I have to say that I’m on the pro-Google end of the continuum and this is because we needed someone to kickstart the whole copyright-in-the-digital-age business. Google may be a bit of a monopoly, and overall that is not a good thing, but then again it was only likely to be someone big who’d be willing to take this on. I agree that it would be best if governments made decisions/law, but even when they do, the interpretation of their laws often have to (though why, I don’t know) be tested in courts. Not ideal, I totally agree, but seems to be the way things work in our capitalist societies!
BTW, re Google being commercial. Aren’t publishers of traditional books commercial ventures too? Google is THE BIG player I know, but …
I don’t know much about copyright but this is a very interesting post for that reason!
I think copyright law is one of those areas that many librarians try to ignore. But it is SO important to what we do. It is one reason why we exist – it’s also one of our biggest enemies. I’m about to graduate with my MLIS and I intentionally took an intensive seminar on copyright law.
The seminar taught us all of the ins and outs of the areas of copyright law, intellectual property, etc. that is applicable to library and information studies. It was the MOST valuable class I attended.
Funny thing is, the seminar was focused on how libraries should work within the law and use it to their advantage. I took those same lessons and left thinking, “I want the lawsuits. I want that legal battle to encourage more fair use, preservation, etc. Bring it!”
Good for you … I’ll happily pass the baton on … Good luck in your career. I think it is a wonderful one.
Thanks for the link to the Lessig article; I look forward to reading it. I saw him speak at a conference in DC earlier this month and he was a fabulous speaker: smart, funny, someone who used clever and well-designed slides to focus his audience’s attention or to make a point rather than someone who tried to put his whole talk in slide form. If his writing is as good as his speaking (and I bet it is), I am in for a treat.
At the conference he was speaking about copyright law as part of an Oxford-style debate about the statement “Current US Copyright Law Excessively Restrains the Development of Intellectual Property” — he was arguing in favor of this statement, and he was speaking to a room full of folks in the publishing industry. There was a poll via cell phone text message that was done pre-debate and post-debate — pre-debate a lot of people said they were either undecided or disagreed with the statement; by the end of the debate, I think in large part due to Lessig’s persuasiveness, a majority agreed with the statement. (Though of course, it was an Oxford-style debate — which brought me back to my days of parliamentary-style debate in high school — that kind of debating seems so often to be about picking a key term in the statement and spinning it differently rather than about necessarily making a solid argument that would stand on its own outside of the conventions of debating. Though in this case I think Lessig’s argument *was* solid.)
I’m very interested in this, as I want to know what this settlement is all about. I keep hearing about it, but have no clear understanding of the issues involved. So thank you for your thoughts and the links!
Dorothy, I know. I didn’t know any better since it was my first class in library school but I would certainly question it now. Our professors are always asking us at the library to do things for them that violate copyright and they’re lawyers! The librarians have to find creative and pleasant ways to tell the professors we can’t fill their requests. Once we had to go so far as to cite the actual part of the law before the professor would relent.
whisperinggums, audio/visual copyright is quite the labyrinth! It’s even worse than books. I am glad for Google stirring things up and getting people talking about the issues involved. It’s a good thing! Oh yes, publishers are definitely commercial ventures but whereas they are the producers of the books Google isn’t producing anything but digital copies. Their money will be made off books in a different way than the traditional book creating and selling industry and I am not sure entirely how I feel about that. I have concerns about privacy in this regard.
Rebecca, oh I am so glad! I worried about it being a bit dry.
Meghan, that sounds like a great seminar you took. I agree that there is a lot more libraries can and should be doing in the realm of copyright especially with all the digital copyright issues that are boiling up. I don’t hear much from the ALA on the issue but I certainly hope they are working on it. Congrats on being almost graduated! I have one more year to go.
whisperinggums, thank you! It is a pretty great career, isn’t it?
Heather, Lessig does indeed sound like a great speaker, how wonderful that you got to see him! I have to agree with his statement. What an interesting way for him to present the argument.
Litlove, yes, I suppose the Google Books Settlement is a distinctively America issue at the moment so I hope you find the links informative. I suspect the argument will eventually make it across the pond when Google starts approaching European university libraries if they haven’t already.
Yes it is a great career, and though I am now officially retired (taking an early retirement option) I am still working in various ways in and/or related to the profession and I’m loving it!
Re Google, again. Not disagreeing as I’m still thinking all this through myself so would like to tease out ideas. What do you mean by “Their money will be made off books in a different way than the traditional book creating and selling industry and I am not sure entirely how I feel about that”. (I’ll leave the privacy issue to one side at present!!)
You aren’t supposed to question and make me think!
I guess what I mean is that while publishers and booksellers make money from books they are also invested in the creation and production of them in a way that Google is not. Google is selling an object, they have completely commodified the book in a way that they don’t give a darn whether someone buys it or likes it or bothers to come back to Google books to find anything else. Does that make sense?
Yes, I think so. On the other hand, not giving a darn in a way suits me. Noone is giving me the hard sell. Rather it is there for me to find if I want. I hate being given the hard sell – like this is the next Dan Brown, or whatever. Is that a different way of thinking about it? Or have a missed your point? You can stop thinking whenever you like – this is just fun!!
“I” missed your point, not “a” missed your point. LOL!