The Issue Really Isn’t About The Copyright, Is It?

By Charlotte Walden 

Librarians are said to be the guardians of unimpeded access to information. (Rubin, 2008, p. 10). Yet, there are legal implications that sometimes present roadblocks to unimpeded access. This roadblock is based on the dichotomy of public (read: unimpeded access) verses private (read: impeded).  More specifically, the dichotomy can be understood as “I don’t have to pay” vs. “I have to pay/seek permission.” Or, stated in legal terminology, the fair use doctrine (public) vs. copyright protection (private). The following case is based on this very dichotomy.  

A few days ago, a Federal District Court in Georgia ruled largely in favor for unimpeded access to information (Diamond & Rankin, 2012b). The case stems from the actions of Georgia State University (GSU) professors who posted excerpts of copyrighted material online without paying for or asking for the publisher’s permission to do so. Three large publishers—Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and SAGE Publications—filed numerous claims against this practice (out of 74 claims, only 5 prevailed) (Diamond & Rankin, 2012a).  The man wants to get paid, so he cries infringement while the university, who wants to educate, is crying fair use.

And just what is fair use? Well, as an article from the Atlantic-Journal Constitution, entitled “Judge Rules Largely for Georgia State in Copyright Case,” states “the ‘fair use doctrine’ allows someone to use published material without the consent of the copyrighted owner” (Diamond & Rankin, 2012a). Okay, so how does one determine what fair use is? According to 17 U.S.C. § 107 (1-4), the following four factors are listed to determine if a practice is fair use:

·      The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

·      The nature of the copyrighted work

·      The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

·      The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Pretty murky guidelines, eh? Even the judge, Orinda Evans, who ruled in favor for unimpeded access agrees (Diamond & Rankin, 2012a). Yet, Judge Evans said “[a]llowing . . . access to unpaid, small excerpts of copyrighted works promotes the spread of knowledge because it reduces the cost of education” (Diamond & Rankin, 2012a). And so, with those words, librarians are relieved that the access to information is unimpeded by monetary roadblocks and is protected by the fair use doctrine–that is until the case is heard on appeal.  

Yet, the issue really isn’t about copyright infringement, is it? What appears to be happening in the GSU case is an example of big publishers showing signs of struggle to stay afloat in the information dissemination department. In other words, the Internet has not only made access to information easier, it has also made information dissemination easier for the common people.  And if dissemination of information is how big publishers make money, it is likely that they view the Internet, where anyone can become a publisher, as a threat to their viability. In the age of the Internet, it appears unlikely that the spread of academic knowledge will be diminished if a few publishers do not get paid, as the Atlantic Journal Constitution contends would happen (Diamond & Rankin, 2012a). Can’t a graduate student who is working on a research project create a website and freely disseminate that information on the website for credit? Isn’t disseminating information through the Internet happening right now on this very blog? Aren’t the authors on this blog self-publishers? The following video provides a counter to the contention that humans need money to create information (Pink, 2010)

Of course some will argue that internet publishing does not necessarily make the old ways of publishing extinct.

Now take a moment and imagine a world without big publishers. Imagine that void being filled by the individual and the individual’s computer. Imagine individual web publishers being paid by the advertisements placed on their websites. That could happen, couldn’t it? In the eighties, Iron Maiden sang about Native Americans running to the hills to save their lives; today, big publishers are running to the courts.

True, some will argue the Internet’s information overload raises questions about credible sources, but could this be where the librarian steps in. Ever hear the words: “ask a librarian?”

So, does this mean that the GSU case is the beginning of the end for big publishers in the age of the Internet? Will the appeals court rule in favor of the publishers thereby insuring their viability at the cost of unimpeded information access online? If the appellate court rules in favor of the publishers, will the fair use doctrine be refined to narrow chinks in regards to placing copyrighted information on the Internet? What does the GSU case mean for a librarian’s future?  You tell me, librarians. You tell me.

References:

Diamond, L. & Rankin, B. (May 14, 2012a). Judge rules largely for Georgia StateUniversity in copyright case. The Atlanta journal-constitution. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/judge-rules-largely-for-1437124.html

Diamond, L. & Rankin, B. (May 18, 2012b). Judge rules largely for GSU in copyright case. The Atlanta journal-constitution. Retrieved from http://thebarnewsflash.com/Story.nsp?story_id=172595138

Pink, D. (Producer 2010). Drive: The surprising truth that motivates us. RSAanimate. Video retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc.

Rubin, R. E. (2008). Stepping back and looking forward: Reflections on the foundations of libraries and librarianship. In Ken Haycock & Brooke E. Sheldon (Eds.), The portable MLIS: Insights from experts, (pp. 3-14). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.