Unit 5: Part 1 (Georgia and E-Reserves)

Before I jump into our class discussion on the Georgia case, I want to make sure I get down a couple of my own thoughts regarding this week's reading.

1. Fair Use is not clear cut - this is especially visible in the Linda Neyer chapter on Copyright and Fair Use where she explains the three sets of guidelines for e-reserves.

a. classroom guidelines (1976) - mostly deals with copying and one-time use

b. ALA recommendations (1982)

c. CONFU (1991) - the biggest problem here is that the determined CONFU guidelines never became official because CONFU was somewhat of a bust (ARL Bimonthly report we read stated: "Libraries and higher education associations rejected the draft CONFU electronic reserves guidelines because they were highly proscriptive and did not provide the necessary flexibility inherent in fair use.")

So now the question is, as a library, which set of guidelines do you follow? Or do you make-up your own? In class we talked about fitting somewhere on the liberal - conservative range in terms of how you approach e-reserves. There are certain ways you can push the boundaries a bit without getting in trouble. In Georgia's case, it's probably a good idea to have a password protected system even when taking a more liberal approach.

I want to address the four Fair Use points made in the ARL report. Even though they are a bit broad, I find that each point either provides a starting place, or a confusing point to question when looking at the use of a work.

1. "The character of use." Perhaps the most important thing here is that the work on e-reserve does not act as a supplement to a textbook. It should compliment what has already been purchased by the student.

2. "The nature of the work to be used." I'm not entirely sure about this one - it seems obvious that all types of materials should be used (fiction, non-fiction, music, film, art, etc.). However, copyright for music is treated differently than for books. Each type of material comes with its own set of complications.

3. "The Amount Used." In 1976 Congress supported the "Agreement on Guidelines for Classroom Copying..." in which they specifically defined the length that could be used through total percentage of a work and words used. While this may be one of the first quantifiable guidelines I've come across when dealing with Fair Use, it seems like wishful thinking to apply length restrictions. What about the use of creative works? How do you measure how much of a work of art to use? Applying an objective measure to a subjective work may not be the best solution.

4. "The effect of the use on the market for or value of the work." The ARL report states that this factor may be less important if the library sticks to the previous three factors. However, I think this entirely depends on the University and if they have a University Press. There may be several factors that contribute to #4 that relate only to the library.

One point someone brought up in class was to remember that "if you don't use it, you lose it" with fair use. I guess I hadn't thought of that until this class. There is a fine balance between knowing when to ask permission and knowing how/when to claim fair use.

More to come on the Carrie Kruse talk!