The ideation of granting to authors the exclusive, inherent rights of ownership for their creative works, came to fruition with the enactment of the 1710 Statute of Queen Anne by the British Government. This act put into motion the long evolution of what is now known as copyright protection in the United States and the world today. Prior to the Queen Anne Statute, the British Government did not recognize or protect the rights of authors.Politically, the Government attempted to cinch subversive writings by exerting control over the publishing of books. Works written came under the control of book publishers. Usually for minimal monies, authors were reimbursed for their work. While the book publishers enjoyed lifetime benifits, the authors essentially lived a penniless existence. Publishers had to abide by strict rules imposed by the British Government and any infraction would cost them severe penalties or face imprisonment. It was against this backdrop that copyright protection was established. The 1710 Statute of Queen Anne was a major step in recognizing the rights of authors:
Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons have of late frequently taken the Liberty of printing, reprinting, and publishing or causing to be printed, reprinted, and published books, and other Writings, without Consent of the Authors or Proprietors of such Books and writings, to their great Detriment, and to often to the Ruin of them and their Families: preventing therefore such Practices for the future, and for the Encouragement of learned men to compose and write useful Books, may it please Your Majesty, that it may be enacted...(Bielefield, 1993, p. 26.)
The provisions set forth by the the Statute granted authors publishing rights to their own works and existing works for twenty one years and fourteen years for works not yet published and an additional fourteen years if the author was still living at the conclusion of the first fourteen year term. This monumental statutory language continued to be a major component to copyright protection even across the Atlantic.
Colonial America, in its constitutional infancy, spared little time and effort, granting copyright protection to early Americans. Our early forefathers realized early on, as did the British, that to stimulate creativity, to further the scholarship in the arts and sciences, it was essential to provide copyright protection in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts, be securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.(Bielefield, 1993, p.2.)
Copyright law in the United States has been evolving for many years. Since its' first statutory inception in 1790 to the recent adddition of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, the Copyright Protection Act has been revised thirty one times. With a two hundred year history of revision, the Copyright Act has evolved into a unique document that not only protects the interests of the author and the creative process but also allows for the use of these works by the general public for the general good, which is known as Fair Use It is imperative that Librarians be familiar with the Copyright Protection Act and the Fair Use exemption and how this impacts library resources and the extended network environment.
Copyright protection is the exclusive rights given to authors of creative works for a specified period of time, in order to promote the progress of science and the useful arts and is seen as a means of rewarding authors for their contribution to society. These rights include reproduction, adaptation, publication, performance and display. A sixth provision, the right of public performance of sound recordings, was added in 1995 by the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act. In 1990, Congress also amended the Copyright Act with the provision of moral right to works of the visual arts.
Moral rights grant to the artist the right to have his or her name kept on the work or to have the artists name removed from it if the work has been altered in a way objectionable to the artist. Moral rights also give artists limited abilities to prevent other works from being defaced.(Crews, 2000, pp. 34-35.) It violates copyright law for anyone to infringe upon these rights. Copyright applies only to original works of authorship and that are fixed in any tangible medium of expression.(Crews, 2000, p.9.) Due to the many copyright law revisions, the list of copyright protected material has increased to include, literary works,encompasing books, periodicals, manuscripts, computer programs, musical works such as songs, operas, and musical plays, dramatic works, choreographic works, pictorial, graphic and sculptur, motion pictures and audiovisual, sound recordings, architectural works, photography, software and internet web pages and source code. With such an extensive list of copyrighted material, there are specific topics that do not enjoy copyright protection, such as ideas, concepts, methods of operation, systems and principles, titles, names and slogans and works produced by the United States Government.
What is termed as original work of authorship is meant that it was an original creation and was not copied from any other source. Being fixed in a tangible medium of expression implies that the creative work is not in a temporary state but is capable of being viewed and read by individuals as well as by electronic means. Currently authors and other creators of original work enjoy copyright protection for life of the author plus seventy years.
As previously stated, authors are guarenteed lifelong copyright protection of their works, assuring that all librarians will deal with copyrighted material on a daily basis. As beneficial and effective copyright protection remains, it is importnat to balance its purpose with exemptions set forth again by statutory regulation. Copyright becomes stifling if the public does not have reasonable use of copyright works for purposes of education, research,criticism, or performance. Therefore, the exemptions of "Fair Use", first sale doctrine, and certain special library privileges were incorporated into the Libray Protection Act. The purpose of "Fair Use" is to attempt to balance the use of copyrighted material and to protect the rights of the copyright holder. The "Fair Use: statute, as codified in the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107,
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the previous factors.(Crews, 2000, pp.50-51.)If the use of copyrighted material does meet the four criteria then permission from the copyright holder needs to be obtained.
We are all very well aware that we are immersed in the "information Age". It is mind-boggling the amount of information that is available and ever growing on a daily basis on the World Wide Web and how easily that information is accessed simply with a touch of a mouse. It is a simple procedure to search and find sound and video clips, news reports, graphics, litery works and what ever else may suit your particular needs. The list is insurmountable.
Librarians assist patrons, not only with copyrighted written works but also with copyrighted computer software, electronic media and Web sites. A common misconception is that the vast amount of information on the internet is in the public domain and is therefore free of copyright restrictions. In fact, most if not all of the material that is available on the internet is copyrighted. Only the Government Printing Office Database, the White House, the National Geophysical Data Center, and the Consumer Information Catalog information are in the public domain.(Talab, 1999, p. 85.)
Librarians need to be ever vigilant as well as proactive in educating and instructing the patrons on the proper use and awareness of copyrighted computer materials. If librarians are aware that library computers are being used by patrons to download copyrightable material for personal financial gain, the law maintains that the libraian and agency is also liable for copyright infringement. Most often, however, computers are located in an area to protect patron privacy. Libraians, are not expected to police the public for infringement. In this case the library needs to maintain a computer usage policy and make the public aware of its ramifications. Copyright signs should be visibly posted on public use computers because the doctrine of "Fair Use" is just as applicable for computer software and internet material as it is for printed material.
The advent of technologhy has provided access to more and more people and it is imperative that information accessed by computers be provided the same copyright protection that is afforded to printed material. However, to what extent does one extend the copyright protection laws. Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has proposed destroying the computers of those users who illegally download copyright-protected music and movies over the Internet. "The rights of copyright holders need to be protected, but some Draconian remedies that have been suggested would create more problems than they would solve," said Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Connecticut. "We need to work together to find the right answers, and this is not one of them."(Moore,2003, p.1.) Clearly this issue of copyright potection and the advent of computers has sparked intense debate at the highest levels of our federal government. Regardless of the medium used, the same copyright potection laws need to be appled.
Bibliography
Bielefield, A. (1993). Libraries and copyright law. New York: Neal-Schumam.
Crews, K. (2000). Copyright essentials for librarians and educators. Chicago: American Library Association.
Moore, J. (2003). Sen. Hatch proposes destroying computers of copyright violators. http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/june/0619_hatch_computers.shtml
Talab, R. (1999). Commonsense copyright. North Carolina: McFarland.