MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

When this question came in, our first thought was that it was addressed in answers such as ATL 191 and ATL 104, and even older ATL 55, where we tackled the types of limits streaming services impose on accounts via contract. 

These answers (and others) discussed how most[1] commercial streaming service contracts limit the ability to transfer a personal streaming services account to another person (temporarily or permanently), even if the transfer is limited to one person at a time.

The member replied that we hadn't yet addressed their issue.

This question was submitted in June of 2021, and I have had a chance to chew it over.[2]

As I chewed, I reminded myself of a few things:

• librarians, as a profession, need to see information flow; 
• librarians, as a profession, are innovators;
• librarians, as a profession, are service-oriented.

This is different from lawyers.  If you say: "An enforceable contract with no loophole means no one gets to borrow a Firestick to access 'If Beale Street Could Talk' during Black History Month," to a lawyer, they will say "Hmm.  When does that contract end?  Let's make a note for future negotiations."

However, from what I've seen, if you say something like that to a librarian, they will reply: "There has to be a way."

This may have something to do with why the librarians have a more popular profession than lawyers.[3]

So...is there a way?  I see three ways.

First way: enable the lending through a stark and deliberate violation of the streaming service's terms.  Just do it.

Of course, choosing to do such a thing runs a heavy risk of potential liability (for both the library and the borrower), so this is a VERY, VERY, VERY, BAD IDEA. Don't do it, unless you have worked with a lawyer on a strategic defense and are planning to use any potential litigation as publicity to negotiate changes to streaming contracts (a sort of contractual "civil disobedience").

Second way: reach out to the streaming service and see if you can negotiate a custom arrangement.  For instance, it would be very interesting to see if a library could negotiate up to 10,000 viewing hours on an annual basis to be on accounts specially created to be shared.  Clever lawyers at the streaming service could even make sure that this was regarded as a charitable donation by a streaming giant, and of course, they would also milk it for positive publicity.

Third way: You need to Go Big.

What do I mean by that?

This question is yet another example of the troubling trend of for-profit content aggregators using their market share to restrict information access.

This used to be the bleeding edge of concerns created by the intersection of copyright/contracts/capitalism, but it is now a firmly established Problem.

In my work, I have consulted with academic libraries and other institutions on how scholarly and public service-oriented content providers can guarantee access is not completely cut off on the basis of money. I have worked on checklists for contract negotiation, and provided model contract terms to help libraries use their market power to ensure big aggregators don't use their market power to stifle access, innovation and collaboration. This is not new work and I am not the first person to say this; it's an issue to which the library community is very much aware, and is closing ranks.

To solve this issue, there are a few ways to go. The best way would be to seek amendments to the copyright law to carve out further protections for libraries who are sharing electronic resources and streaming access in furtherance of their missions. This type of discussion is happening in Washington right now, and it is critical that everyone is rooting for the right revisions to be put into the law.

The second way is of course a version of my second answer above...use contract, and the market share of libraries, as leverage to negotiate for terms that enable the type of access the member is suggesting.  While I am a fan of using contracts to come up with creative solutions, this will not create an even playing field for the different types of institutions who need to benefit from this, so I prefer the legislative option.

I encourage all librarians to monitor this discussion at https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section108/, because the question the member has provided is exactly where the rubber hits the road on that type of legislation.

I am putting screenshots of the Netflix terms of service below this answer, which I took on February 11th, 2022, to show that at least as of this date, that particular streaming service continues to restrict access to personal use (first red box), with very limited exceptions for certain educational showing of certain documentaries in educational settings (second red box).

Thank you to the member for your tenacity, and for submitting this question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

The short answer to this question is: IF the video is only going to include the YouTube animal clips, and IF it is only going to be used in the school for instructional purposes, the proposed use is fine, since copyright section 110(1)[1] allows schools to play videos in class if the topic is related to a class, and YouTube doesn't limit use of its service to "personal" uses.

Now, I say "mostly" fine because, technically, the combination of the YouTube content into another video compilation could be considered the creation of a "derivative work" (like a sequel or a mash-up), instead of just "performing" (playing) the video as allowed by law.  But if the copy truly isn't leaving school grounds, and the "performance" is to promote a reading program in the classroom, and the footage really is just being swapping in and out with interviews with school staff, it would be a stretch for anyone to claim infringement.

With respect to the other issue that I detect in the question--would "School X" have a claim against the school for pinching its idea? I don't think so.  The project you describe is sufficiently different from theirs; after all, they got their author for their endeavor, and your school is focusing on local talent.  You can't copyright an idea[2]...just its expression.

When it comes to a school generating original educational content inspired by others, for use only within that school, the key is to model the type of respect for others that educators want to instill in their students, while taking full advantage of the protections educators have under the law.

In this case, "Respect" means not using pirated copies when a school plays instructional movies, and not using more content than the school is entitled to when the instruction is online.  "Protections," among other things, means that for in-person instruction, videos can be played, and for online instruction, parts of videos can be played, so long as the performance is from legitimate copies.[3]

[NOTE: For schools that want to up their game and start producing original content they will share with the world: this answer is not for you.  If any school out there is thinking of becoming an author/producer/provider of educational materials, don't rely on this answer, and develop a business plan that includes how to respect and protect IP.]

And finally, I have to say: thank you for this question.  First, it got me onto Animoto, which I am totally going to check out.[4]  And second: I love PARP.  Some of my fondest circa-1980 memories are of filling out my PARP form with my folks, after some time reading together on the couch,[5] so this question made me smile.  It's good to see the program is going strong, and the hamsters of the world are showing us how to cope with the ups and downs of life.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Welcome to "Back to School 2021"...a year unlike any other!

I have weathered many K-12 "back-to-schools."  For instance, second grade back-to-school, for me, was in 1980.  For my son, it was in 2010.  And for my daughter, it was just a few days before I sat down to write this.

That 1980-to-2021 time span has allowed me to realize two things:

Realization #1: Erasers smell the same in 2021 as they did in 1980; and

Realization #2: Back-to-school 2021 kicked off in a world that has gone through a lot of rapid and (at times) de-stabilizing change.[1]

The good news about realization #2 is that the law--which tends to change much more slowly than the world around it-- is much the same.  So, for this answer, where we can, we'll be linking back to prior "Ask the Lawyer" answers, and where there is something new, we'll add it.

QUESTION 1: Can a teacher use a Spotify account in their classroom?

ANSWER: Not unless the license has changed to allow more than "personal use."  For more on that, see "Using Streaming Services (Hulu, Netflix) in the Classroom - 4/17/2019" at https://www.wnylrc.org/ask-the-lawyer/raqs/79

QUESTION 2: Can a teacher use music with face-to-face instruction?

ANSWER:  Yes, so long as the music is part of the instruction, and the copy of the song was legally obtained.[2]

QUESTION 3: Can a service provider (counselor, therapist, social worker...) use music with students?

ANSWER:  There is no automatic permission or exception to the copyright law that allows a mental health service provider to use recordings, sheet music, or other copyright-protected property for purposes of licensed service.[3]

QUESTION 4: Can music be played during sporting events?

If the recorded or streamed music is protected by copyright, it should only be played with a license.

NOTE: Public schools will want to consult their lawyers about their risks in this regard now that the U.S. Supreme Court has (arguably) struck down the ability to sue "the state" and its subdivisions for copyright infringement.
 

5. Can music be used as part of the morning announcements?
If the music is protected by copyright, it should only be played with a license. 

NOTE: Public schools will want to consult their lawyers about their risks in this regard now that the U.S. Supreme Court has (arguably) struck down the ability to sue "the state" and its subdivisions for copyright infringement.

And with that, I wish you a joyous back-to-school.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

This submission is a "fair use”^[1] question coming at us from a private college, so before we delve into a reply, I have to emphasize that the specific analysis in this case is limited to that type of entity (a private, accredited school).

Since it can get boring "emphasizing" disclaimers in prose form, I will emphasize it in verse:

          If ye a public library be

          This analysis is not for ye

          If a SUNY or public school

          Do not swim in this legal pool

Okay.  With that out of the way (and for those of you not put off by either the disclaimer, nor the crude verse), here is my answer:

Riffing on, parodying, and building on popular songs can be an effective way to convey a unifying or powerful message to a group.  The use of a known work of art can build on shared familiarity, while modifying it with a unique twist can create a unique and unifying experience. 

The technique described by the member is a very popular approach for higher education institutions, and for unrecorded performances/parodies/riffs that are done live on campus, the school's ASCAP/BMI may even apply (meaning, the site of the performance has permission).

Of course, this is 2021, and that means, it doesn't happen if it isn't on video (or in a picture).  And since we are still in the midst of a pandemic (although things are looking a tad brighter, here in May of 2021), having a video that is an experience customized, created and controlled by the school is a desirable way to build remote cohesion.

When considering the use of copyright-protected content without permission, there are two factors a private institution must consider:

1. Risk management

2. Copyright infringement

"Risk management" is not about the actual legality of one's actions, but the risk that one's actions will be observed and perceived as illegal.

In this case, the additional circumstances the member lists here (not using YouTube to post the final product) enables "risk management" in two ways: a) the resulting video will not be "purged" from YouTube due to a copyright "red flag" (which can happen even if there is a fair use); and b) by hosting it on a less popular server, it is less likely to be seen by services and bots that are "out there"^[2] policing copyright laws.

But of course, an educational institution doesn't want to get away with infringement, it wants to not commit it.  And that is the essence of the member's question: is creation of this derivative work^[3] a "fair use"?

In their question, the member has walked us through some of the "fair use" factors. The member identifies as an educational institution. The member states that the use of the work will be "transformative." The institution will use all of the audio, and be evocative of but different from the video.  And, although it is not specifically mentioned as such, the described use of the resulting derivative work will (clearly) not be a replacement in the market for the original.

What is missing from the submission is the consideration: why this particular work?  In order to justify a fair use-especially of an entire work (the audio), the use must not only be transformative, but there must be a reason why that particular work is chosen, and the message sent by the "transformed" work must relate to that reason.

In other words, you don't select the underlying work to re-transmit it at face value; you select the works to say something new, that at least in part, relates back to the riffed/parodied work.

The best example I have seen of this lately is a complete, unaltered use of the "Avengers, assemble," scene from the "Endgame."  The clip is exactly as it is in the movie, with no changes to audio or video, except the author puts captions near the various super-heroes as they show up, giving the characters new names, and drawing an analogy to how they saw the protests of 2020 developing. 

The end result of this modified "Avengers, assemble" clip is not only highly transformative--the clip is no longer in any way about the original superheroes--but the author uses the identities of the originals to make comments about both those iconic comic book figures, and the categorical names he ascribed to them.  It's such a good example, it could be used to teach "fair use" in a law school class (you can see it here, or just search "endgame protestors 2020 avengers" and it'll pop right up).

With regard to this use of audio and video, it is this question--why this particular work was selected--that is the missing piece of the puzzle.  So long as that piece fits in, there is a good claim for fair use.

If it is decided that there is a good reason to select the original work, the other thing to be cautious about is how the end result (the new video with the unmodified audio) is used.  If it is used only as described and is built into a structured discussion about equity and inclusion--especially if the lyrics and images are used as focal points in the discussion-there is a strong case that this is an academic, non-commercial use. 

However, we have to remember that at the end of the day, a college is a place where students pay to be.  If the video bleeds into recruitment materials, or is not coupled with the education/discussion, the more likely the use could be found to be commercial. 

So: the more "academic" the end result (and its context) is, and the more the initiative functions as both a comment on the source material, and its own, stand-alone message, the better.  Since fair use is not simply an additive analysis (it's not just one factor vs. another, but rather, how the factors resolve and then inter-relate to each other), every aspect of this is critical.

Within those parameters, and if care is taken so the video is only used in the educational context (not simply sending a link to it out in a newsletter, without the educational content and context), there is a strong case to make that the new video, inspired by the song’s current video and using that unmodified song, is not a copyright infringement. 

I am sorry I could not be more definitive...answers like this are why very often, people just ask for permission!^[4]

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Your understanding is correct, but there are three additional details it is helpful to consider in this type of situation:

First, when a school confronts a concern like this, it should take a careful look at the license (the permission to use a copyright-protected composition) it purchased. 

This is because a license for sheet music can convey not only permission for on-site performance and broadcast, but also "recording" and "publishing" (posting).  I have observed that the range of these permissions will vary not only between publishers, but even between songs at the same publisher.  So, before recording (or deliberately not recording), check the fine print; you might have more (or less) permission than your district thought.

Second, it is good to consider why the school wants to make the recording and post it on the school website.  Is it to simply showcase the band on a page dedicated to the school's achievements?  Is it for fundraising purposes?  Or is it posted as part of a student newspaper or student club newscast?  If the post is part of an academic endeavor--especially one related to commentary or gathering news--posting part of a recorded performance could be a fair use. 

And third--though still on the topic of fair use--it is important to remember that "Circular 21" pertaining to "Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians" confirms that the Copyright Act allows educators to make:

"A single copy of recordings of performances by students...for evaluation or rehearsal purposes...."

Now, under no circumstances am I saying that this provision gives a school permission to record and publish (post) a copyright-protected musical work.  But a copy that is created incident to streaming^[1] can be retained by the school or teacher, and perhaps posted to an intranet, if they plan to use it for rehearsal or evaluation later. 

The important take-away from all of these is: your school may have options from not only within but additional to the license.  By assessing the precise permission your school received, the reasons for recording, and the reasons for posting, a school can consider their full range of options.^[2]

Of course, what copyright law can give, contract law can take away.  So, if your school has secured a license with a specific agreement that you will not make and post a recording, remember that's a contract term it agreed to, even if fair use would otherwise authorize the use.^[3]

I know, I know, thinking about copyright while planning to make the most of a performance can feel like allegro, adagio, adagio, allegro...

Just andante, like the question models, plan what you need, and you'll find a good pace!
Thank you for a thoughtful question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

This question is a good question for the bar exam!  It is a great blend of contract law and copyright.

Well, that's enough positivity for today; time for the answer, which is...

No.

Here’s the simply reason why I say “no”: as the member states, Netflix, Hulu, etc. tend to^[1] restrict their content for personal use, meaning: no classroom/board room viewings.  This means that even if the use is "fair" or otherwise non-infringing, non-personal-use viewing is barred by the agreement the account holder has with the service.

The more sophisticated basis for me saying "no," is this: Netflix, Hulu, and their ilk bar group viewing not only because of the contractual obligations they have to their content owners, but also because to do otherwise would mess with their economic model.  In short: it will cost them money.  So even if a copyright owner says it's okay, they might not be inclined to consent to a use contrary to their contract.

That said, to add to the law-school-ness of your question, I'll add to your scenario:

If the student obtains a DVD or finds an online copy of the 5 minutes they need, and plays that copy (not the one from a commercial content service) to the class, if the student truly has proper permission of the copyright owner, then what would otherwise be an infringement is not.^[2]

Of course, this requires a DVD,^[3] or an online copy from a source that doesn't bar the use via contract.^[4]  And of course, my scenario defeats the purpose of your question, which is to view the 5 minutes of the film in the format that is (likely) the most convenient: streaming.

I am sorry to be a bummer.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

My favorite DJ-related story is about how "scratching" a record,[1] as both a musical instrument and an act of composition, evolved in the hip-hop scene of the late 1970's and early 80's.[2]  It is a story of technological innovation, of community culture, and (as all good stories are) controversy.[3]  DJ's, like all contributing figures to culture, make for compelling scholarship.  So I am not surprised to see this question about audio-visual content portraying a DJ on a library archive.

The short answer is: sure, it could be a violation; but there are five things that can keep it on the right side of the law—or at least mitigate the risk if there is an unintentional violation.

Here are those five "things":

First thing

Is the posted video part of a well-developed and organized collection or archive?

If "yes," go on.

Second thing

Does the metadata on the unique video reflect that it is part of a well-developed and organized collection?

If "yes," go on.

Third thing

Is the music part of a recording of an event, or is the music a separate track with all other ambient sound (the crowd, street noise, the DJ talking over the music) removed (or never there)?

Even if "no" go on, but have the next two really, really tight.

Fourth thing

Has your library[4] conducted and documented[5] a "fair use" analysis[6]  of its posting of this particular content, and to the best of its ability, reflected accurate ownership of the item in the metadata and item information on the archive?

If “yes,” go on.

Fifth thing

Does your library have a "notice and takedown" contact point posted on its website, so anyone who believes the content is an infringement can complain, AND has your library registered[7] for "safe harbor" under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?[8]

If "yes," DJ on!

Why do I have to do the "5-step hustle" to answer what seems like a simple (if compound) question?  Because how and why content is used can transform "infringing use" to non-infringing "fair use."  For a component of a scholarly or historic video archive, this means being able to show that a musical recording incorporated into an audio-visual record is not merely a gratuitous use of the audio content, but rather, a critical element of a work that transcends (and doesn't simply replace) the purpose of the original. 

This is, in some ways, a tall order.  But if you follow steps "1" through "4" above, you significantly increase your likelihood of getting it right. And as for step 5: the DMCA has been in the news, recently, as a part of the national info-tech infrastructure that is due for an overhaul.  But for now, it can protect certain kinds of service providers (like search engines, directories, and other information location tools) from liability for third-party infringement, and it is an essential part of any information database's copyright compliance toolkit.

Thank you for a good question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Before attempting to answer this one, my team and I looked to see if anyone else "out there" has tackled this question.

We scoured the usual places (NYS Empire Development's COVID site, Committee on Open Government, NY Archives, NYLA, etc.), but my staff and I didn't find anything right on point. That said, the COVID landscape changes fast, so please let us know if you find anything, and we'll post an update to this answer.

And with that shameless disclaim/plea on the record, here is my answer:

As I read it, the currently-governing Executive Order[1] requires an entity subject to the Open Meetings Law to keep the recordings until they have been transcribed—not just until the minutes have been created.

Here is my reasoning: Executive Order 202.1[2] changed the Open Meetings Law as follows:

...to the extent necessary to permit any public body to meet and take such actions authorized by the law without permitting in public in-person access to meetings and authorizing such meetings to be held remotely by conference call or similar service, provided that the public has the ability to view or listen to such proceeding and that such meetings are recorded and later transcribed. [emphasis added]

Although the normal application of the LGS-1 would allow for the recording to be erased upon creation of the minutes—just as the member points out—the Executive Order is an overlay that super-cedes (or at least, exceeds) normal record-keeping requirements.

I realize this means a library that can't afford to transcribe the recording any time soon will have to keep the audio around.  It's possible that the state, after considering the fiscal reality of the conditions the "later transcribed" condition imposes, may eventually tinker with the requirement, perhaps simply insisting the audio be retained for a certain time after the minutes are generated.[3]

I am leaning on the side of retention, and not taking the easy way out by swapping it out for creating minutes, because access to the process, in all its glory, is the default purpose of the law.  Further, Committee on Open Government Advisory Opinion has stated that while masks and social distancing remain requirements, entities subject to the Open Meetings Law must be making the proceedings contemporaneously available via audio or video[4].  So with all that, I have to err on the side of retention, access, and transparency.

Fortunately, digital sound file storage is not too costly these days.[5]

Thank you for a thoughtful question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

In the spirit of the season, and the answer I must give, this answer will be a modified version of a scene from Macbeth.

[Cue sounds of wind, rain, and small children trying to line up while thinking about candy and their itchy "Frozen II Elsa" costume.]

ENTER THREE WITCHES

FIRST WITCH: Educator!  I sense thou wouldst put on a show!  And Zoom it to demesnes beyond thy institution!  But if the music is protected by copyright and the school does not have a license to use the music in that manner it will be a violation of the copyright!!!

SECOND WITCH:  And, Educator, know this, as well! The Zoom terms of use state: "Zoom may deny access to the Services to any User who is alleged to infringe another party's copyright!" So be warned, or you be twice-condemned for the foul deed of infringement, by both the copyright's master, and the Powers of Zoom!!!

[Lightning.  Thunder.]

THIRD WITCH:  Ahem.  Of course, you'd have to get caught, first....

[Pause.  The cauldron bubbles.  FIRST WITCH and SECOND WITCH give THIRD WITCH the side-eye.]

THIRD WITCH:  Ahem.  Of course, you'd have to get caught, first....

FIRST WITCH and SECOND WITCH:  Gasp!

THIRD WITCH: What? We're witches!  We have to be sneaky, why do you think we're camped out here in the woods?  And seriously, do you think in the midst of everything happening on Zoom, someone's going to notice?  The world is going so crazy, I'm expecting it to rain toads at any moment!  Give this poor Educator a break.

FIRST WITCH:  Oh, Alecto, you always were a rebel.

Okay, back in the real world...

Sadly, my three witches are right, and this is the answer I have to give.  Since the parade won't be a part of a class, there is no TEACH Act exception, so transmitting the music via Zoom is just like putting it out over a streaming service or live TV: a no-go without permission[1].

That said, I dug around in my cauldron, and I can offer this possible solution:

Round about the copyright go

In the creative solution throw

Songs that "copyleft" be

Can help thee celebrate Halloween

For works freely used and easy got

Search "Copyleft Halloween Songs," and find a lot.

Not very much toil and trouble

"Copyleft" works make music bubble!

Just in case my Shakespearean verse is too obtuse, what I'm saying is: Hop on your favorite search engine and type "copyleft Halloween songs."[2]

What will this do?

For those of you who don't know: "Copyleft"[3] is slang for: "I could own and control this copyright, but I am so cool, I am letting you use it, so long as you let others use it, too."  Meaning: "copyleft" work is free to use, by anyone, so long as whatever you generate using the work is also free to use.[4]

Now, as with all clever solutions, this one calls for thorough planning.  I listened to a few of the songs I found this way; not all of them are, as they say, "safe for work" (or at least safe for school) so check out the songs before you Zoom them out to parents. But since this is music the authors have proudly composed and released for free use by a wide audience, I suspect at least some of it will meet your needs.[5]

[NOTE: I don't know if it would work for your school, but this one by Frannie Comstock is hilariously clever[6] (and mentions lawyers)!  If nothing else, give it a listen just for a fun 5 minutes.  Here is that YouTube link written out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzvlAuUiM5s]

Happy Halloween!

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

The need to migrate ceremonies online has created a tsunami of copyright concerns.  What is a ceremony without the right music?  But this question pertains specifically to high school graduations for public schools, so we’ll confine it to those institutions.

Readers, I have to be real with you: a newly minted Supreme Court Case, Allen v. Cooper[1], means public high schools (which are arms of the state) are arguably immune from liability for copyright infringement.  In that case, the court invalidated the “Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (“CRCA”), which had expressly removed state’s “sovereign immunity” to a copyright suit. So on a very pragmatic level, some public schools, colleges, and universities may be adding that to their risk assessment of questions like this.

But professional educators likely don’t want to do the wrong thing simply because they are arguably immune from being punished for it.  As Justice Kagan, writing in Allen and quoting an expert witness put it: “what State, after all, would “want [] to get a reputation as a copyright pirate?”   So we’ll proceed just as the member’s question suggests: that they want to do the right thing.

With that in mind, here is my answer to the question: “[T]he students would like to have songs from “High School Musical” added to the slideshow. Is this possible?

My first bit of guidance is to check the school district’s license with either ASCAP or BMI (this is the license that covers permission to play music at a high school dance). It may be that some streaming rights got thrown into your public performance license. This isn't typical, but you never know, and if you have the right clause in your contract your problem could be solved right away (and in fact, your problem never existed).

If there isn't a contract that already gives your school permission to use the song(s) as the member describes, your school needs permission. This can be done through any number of licensing agencies.

As but one example, the music to “High School Musical” is available for licensed streaming through the Harry Fox Agency:

(As can be seen, your school could even decide to use the karaoke version.)

The bad news is that it’s sort of a pain to obtain the license; you have to register and there is a fee.  Further information can be found at the link here: https://secure.harryfox.com/songfile/faq.jsp#faq2.

[NOTE: since a school district is one legal entity, it is also good to check and see if the district itself has an account already.  Signing up for a service like this does not need to be done on a school-by-school basis. Of course, this brings us to school policy and procurement issues, and for that, I refer to the attorneys serving the BOCES that serves your school!]

I hope the red tape doesn’t get in the way of the students having a good ceremony.  They have been through enough this semester.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Not only can the students play, record, and stream “Pomp & Circumstance,” but they can also create an original musical based on it, rap over it, score an original movie with it, and in short: do anything they want with it.[1]

While anyone graduating in 2020 deserves this kind of red-carpet legal treatment, not only can the students do it, but everyone else can, too.  That is the beauty of a work being in “the public domain.”[2]

Thanks, and may all your virtual ceremonies be joyous.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Can a library sponsor an online class open to the public?  YES.

There are just a few details to attend to:

1.  The financial details

Libraries do not charge for programming, but can pay others to offer library programming for free, so as the member says, this online program should be open “to anyone.”^[1]

The instructor can still be paid, but the payment should come from the library, while the on-line attendees tune into this library program for free. 

The trick in this is to avoid “fiscal hybridization,” (with the library hosting and promoting the event, and the instructor getting some payment from some attendees).

2.  The online content details

Once your library has confirmed the financial details,^[2] there should be complete understanding about the following questions:

Can the library promote the class using the instructor’s name and likeness?

Will the session be recorded?

Who owns the recording?

Will the library be able to use the recording for as long as it wants?

What platforms will the session and recording be hosted on?

Will the recording be put in the collection of the library?

What social media will the session be promoted on?

Will the session use music (that could stop it from being posted some places, like YouTube)?

That’s it, nothing fancy, just have some things to have clarity about.

3.  The participant details

Once you have the details of the way the class will go “out there,” confirm:

Who is our target audience?

Do they have any particular vulnerabilities?

Do we need to consider ADA access such as captioning?

How will we collect feedback on the programs?

4.  The contract details

With all that minutia settled, here is a template agreement to organize the details. 

Of course, as with all template contracts, if you can,^[3] have this template customized for your library by your local lawyer or insurance carrier.

ONLINE INSTRUCTION AGREEMENT

The [LIBRARY] (“Library”)and [NAME] (“Instructor”), with an address of [ADDRESS], to provide critical health programming at a time of state-wide pandemic emergency, agree as follows:

Instructor will offer classes in ____________ (“__________ Classes”) from [PHYSICAL LOCATION] to Library’s patrons and others via:

[INSERT HOSTING METHOD AND STREAMING SITE(S)]

Classes will be live streamed at [INSERT TIMES, DATES].

The ___________ Classes will be a target audience of those who can benefit from online social gatherings to participate in ___________________. 

[in case of activity involving a professional license] Instructor’s professional license was granted by [LICENSING AUTHORITY] and is current; if the license expires or is revoked during the term of this agreement, Instructor will notify Library immediately.

[in case of instruction involving physical activity] To promote safe participation, at the start and end of every class, the screen will read, or the Instructor will say:

[INSERT Instructor’s preferred safety and wellness message; here is a sample that is customized for the times:

[ACTIVITY] is intended as a gentle but serious exercise.  Please consult your physician prior to any physical activity that could impact your health, and only participate within your know abilities.  Please stay safe during this time of social distancing and enjoy our class.]

___________ Classes will be promoted as a free program of the library and Instructor shall not charge individual attendees for these sessions.

Library will pay Instructor _____ per session. 

[OR]

Instructor has agreed to provide this programming on a volunteer basis.

Instructor agrees that no music or other copyrighted work other than content owned or properly licensed to Instructor and Library shall be used during recorded or live-streamed __________ Classes.

Instructor agrees that Library may use their name, likeness, and image when promoting ____________ Classes. Library agrees that Instructor may use its name, likeness, and image when promoting _____________ Classes.

All sessions of __________ will be recorded by [INSERT] and the recording will be jointly owned by Instructor and Library.  This means both parties shall have the right to make copies, distribute in any way, or otherwise use the copyrights to the recordings.

Instructor hereby agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Library for any claim, cause of action, or injury arising from the creation, promotion, and participation in ________ Classes.

Instructor is an independent contractor and no partnership, joint venture, or relationship other than what is in this Agreement is created or implied by this Agreement.

The Parties both understand that this is an agreement during a time of emergency and this contract may be terminated without notice.  Any changes to this contract shall be confirmed via e-mail reflecting clear mutual agreement by the parties.

This agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York.

Signed for Library on _________:_______________________

                                                                        [NAME]

Signed for Instructor on _________:_______________________

                                                                        [NAME]

5.  The assessment details

As with any library program, a live-streamed event is one for the staff to watch, monitor, and assess on a continual basis.  This will allow you to assess if the promotion, the session, and the recordings comply with the Agreement, and to make enhancements based on participant feedback.  It is also another way to limit the risks inherent in the activity. 

Just as critical, though, will be feedback that the class felt accessible, gave good instruction, and had a positive impact.

I wish you many valuable and rewarding online programs.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Can a library sponsor an online chair yoga class open to the public?  YES.

There are just a few details to attend to:

1.  The financial details

Libraries do not charge for programming but can pay those who offer library programming for free, so as the member says, this online chair yoga program should be open “to anyone.”^[1]

In this instance, it sounds like perhaps the instructor has (perhaps) been paying for space in the library, while offering on-site or online classes for a fee.  In the new arrangement proposed by the member, the classes become a free library program.  This means the instructor can still be paid, but the payment should come from the library, while the on-line attendees tune in for free. 

The trick in this is to avoid any “fiscal hybridization;” in no event should the library host and promote the event, while the instructor gets some payment directly from attendees.

2.  The online content details

Once your library has confirmed the financial details,^[2] there should be complete understanding about the following questions:

Can the library promote the class using the instructor’s name and likeness?

Will the session be recorded?

Who owns the recording?

Will the library be able to use the recording for as long as it wants?

What platforms will the session and recording be hosted on?

Will the recording be put in the collection of the library?

What social media will the session be promoted on?

Will the session use music (that could stop it from being posted some places, like YouTube)?

That’s it, nothing fancy, just have some things to have clarity about.

3.  The participant details

Once you have the details of the way the class will go “out there,” confirm:

Who is our target audience?

Do they have any particular vulnerabilities?

Do we need to consider ADA access such as captioning?

How will we collect feedback on the programs?

4.  The contract details

With all that minutia settled, here is a template agreement to organize the details. 

Of course, as with all template contracts, if you can,^[3] have this template customized for your library by your local lawyer or insurance carrier.

CHAIR YOGA AGREEMENT

The [LIBRARY] (“Library”) and [NAME] (“Yoga Instructor”), a yoga instructor certified by [CERTIFYING BODY], to provide critical health programming at a time of state-wide pandemic emergency, agree as follows:

Yoga Instructor will offer classes in chair yoga (“Chair Yoga Classes”) from [PHYSICAL LOCATION] to Library’s patrons and others via:

[INSERT HOSTING METHOD AND STREAMING SITE(S)]

Classes will be live streamed at [INSERT TIMES, DATES].

The Chair Yoga Classes will be a target audience of those who can benefit from online social gatherings to participate in routine chair yoga. 

To promote safe participation, at the start and end of every class, the screen will read, or the Yoga Instructor will say:

[INSERT Yoga Instructor’s preferred safety and wellness message; here is a sample that is customized for the times:

Chair Yoga is intended as a gentle but serious exercise for the mind and body.  Please consult your physician prior to any physical activity that could impact your health, and only participate within your know abilities.  Please also know that Yoga, in general, can connect you to feelings that you may wish to address with your mental health provider.  Please stay safe during this time of social distancing and enjoy our class.]

Chair Yoga Classes will be promoted as a free program of the library and Yoga Instructor shall not charge individual attendees for these sessions.

Library will pay Yoga Instructor _____ per session. 

[OR] Yoga Instructor has agreed to provide this programming on a volunteer basis.

Yoga Instructor agrees that no music or other copyrighted work other than content owned or properly licensed to Yoga Instructor and Library shall be used during recorded or live-streamed Chair Yoga Classes.

Yoga Instructor agrees that Library may use their name, likeness, and image when promoting Chair Yoga Classes. Library agrees that Yoga Instructor may use its name, likeness, and image when promoting Chair Yoga Classes.

All sessions of Chair Yoga will be recorded by [INSERT] and the recording will be jointly owned by Yoga Instructor and Library.  This means both parties shall have the right to make copies, distribute in any way, or otherwise use the copyrights to the recordings.

Yoga Instructor hereby agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Library for any claim, cause of action, or injury arising from the creation, promotion, and participation in Chair Yoga Classes.

Yoga Instructor is an independent contractor and no partnership, joint venture, or relationship other than what is in this Agreement is created or implied by this Agreement.

The Parties both understand that this is an agreement during a time of emergency and this contract may be terminated without notice.  Any changes to this contract shall be confirmed via e-mail reflecting clear mutual agreement by the parties.

This agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York.

Signed for Library on _________:_______________________

                                                            [NAME]

Signed for Yoga Instructor on _________:_______________________

                                                                                [NAME]

5.  The assessment details

As with any library program, a live-streamed event is one for the staff to watch, monitor, and assess on a continual basis.  This will allow you to the promotion, the session, the recordings to comply with the Agreement, and top make enhancement based on participant feedback.  It is also another way to limit the risks inherent in the activity. 

While there is very little risk of liability for personal injury during livestreamed chair yoga (compared to say, in-person “Acroyoga”…you should see the case law on that!^[4]), “chair yoga” is targeted to a population with some physical limitations,^[5] so attention to these details is a good idea. 

Just as critical, though, will be feedback that the class felt accessible, gave good instruction, and had a positive impact.

And finally, the most important detail for busy library professionals scrambling to serve their communities right now…

6. Remember to breathe

…it helps with stress.

Best wishes for a good program, and happy utkatasana.^[6]

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

I must be very clear: Unless I obtained a written representation signed by an officer of Netflix, I would never advise a corporate client[1] to rely on the Swank umbrella license to show a video from a “personal and non-commercial” Netflix account.

Why is this?  Because the one license does not trump the other.

To illustrate this concern, here is the best analogy of I could come up with[2]: if it’s bow hunting season and I get a bow hunting license, I can bow hunt.  I can commune with nature, test my skills, and if I’m lucky, come home that night and make some venison stew.[3]

But if, while eating my dinner, the police stop by to investigate an allegation that I shoplifted the bow and arrows, they won’t say: “Oh, you have a license?  Sorry, back to your stew.”

The same principle applies here.  A Swank license can definitely allow your institution to watch a covered movie you lawfully obtain.  But the Netflix license quoted by the member does not allow the movie to be shown beyond the account holder’s “household.”  And the language makes it clear the account is for “non-commercial” uses.  In other words: a copy used to further institutional operations was not lawfully obtained. 

Unfortunately, Swank is pretty coy about this concern.  Here is the language from the link provided by the member:[4]

Where can I acquire movies after we receive our license?

You can use movies that are secured from any legal source (DVDs, digital copies or any other legal format). While we cannot speak for other companies, we recommend checking the terms and conditions of any streaming service used to confirm that they do not prohibit public performance.  [emphasis added]

Now, in copyright law, everything is up for debate.  If I put this topic on the table at a gathering of three copyright attorneys, I guarantee you’d get six answers (maybe seven).  And of course, attorneys love it when their clients test the boundaries of the law: it gives us a chance to engage in high-stakes, nuanced, and learnedly arguments—and sometimes, it comes with a paycheck.

But one thing most attorneys in the business world respect is risk.  There is a risk that Netflix[5] could view the use as unauthorized.  And I stated above, unless there is rock-solid assurance from the vendor (in this case, Netflix) that it is authorized, use of a personal Netflix account for an institutional purpose is just too risky. 

How does this play out in the real world?  Large services like Netflix look for “teachable moments,” to bring lawsuits.  They send out private investigators, track IP addresses, and look for evidence of broad misuse.  Once they gather the evidence, they select a victim, and sue[6] (although in the case of Neflix, Section 7 of the License allows for them to resolve the matter via private arbitration).

What is the protection against that?  An institutional policy that bars use of personal accounts for professional purposes. 

There are some approaches to this educational dilemma that do pass my “sniff test.”  Some colleges encourage students to get Netflix accounts if they are taking a film class, so they can watch movies at home.  Near as I can see, unless Netflix starts putting some new “not for class” terms in its license, this is okay (but does not extend to the entire class using one student’s account…unless they are all in the same household).  

Similarly, if a history teacher wants to use their Netflix account to view “13,” at home, even if it is to prepare for a lecture or a discussion of the film in class the next day, that strikes me as a “personal” use.  But if their institution asked them to do it, or they wanted to use their account to watch the movie in class, that would not be allowed.[7]

I wish I could give the member clever answer informed by Fair Use, or coming up with some special rule that applies to libraries.  But licensing is a creature of contract, and if you accept the terms, they will generally govern.

So, just like this member, read those licenses carefully!

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Schools, libraries, prisons, museums, student clubs, companies…from time to time, these places just want to hand out snacks, and let people watch a movie.

The problem is, the simple act of gathering people to watch a movie is governed by an intricate web of copyright law, and the legal filaments of that web change from place to place.

To help institutions navigate this variability, movie studios and agencies (including Swank, the agency mentioned in the question) offer suites of “licensing” options.  Swank’s website even features helpful[1] copyright guides to help customers assess their needs and obligations, so they can select the right license—including an array of broad permissions called an “umbrella license.”

Under an “umbrella license,” movies that the agency has the rights to may be shown by the licensee (under an array of qualifying circumstances).  And as the member writes, this can include showing movies from a borrowed physical copy (like a DVD), even if the copy isn’t supplied by the service.

How does that work?  Here’s an example:

Let’s say my daughter’s kindergarten teacher wants to show the class “My Neighbor Totoro.”[2]  The teacher stops at a local library to obtain a copy on DVD, which bears the warning “licensed for home viewing only.” 

Next, the teacher checks in with the school and confirms that the school is licensed to show “Totoro” under the school’s umbrella license.  My daughter’s class can now watch a masterpiece of Japanese animation, without fear of copyright infringement.

Now let’s switch the scenario up: the teacher wants to stream the movie from his iTunes.  The school still has that same umbrella license.  Can the teacher use his personal account to show the movie?

No.  Unless Apple has changed their “Terms of Use” (usually some version of “You agree that your use will be for personal, noncommercial purposes”[3]), the use would be in violation of the teacher’s license. 

That said, depending on how broad it is, the school could try and claim the “umbrella license” to get the school out from under a claim of direct infringement.[4]  But that could leave the teacher twisting in the wind!  - Not very good for union relations.

To switch the scenario one last time: let’s say the school has an “umbrella license” from an agency like Swank, and also subscribes to a streaming movie service (Amazon Prime).  Before a class views a movie via the Prime stream, the school would need to review both licenses to ensure the Prime license was consistent with, or trumped by, the “umbrella.”[5]

This issue here isn’t really about streaming v. hard copies.  It’s about licenses.  In our first scenario, the “generic” license on a hard copy is (potentially[6]) trumped by the “umbrella license” held by the school.  In the second scenario, the personal license held by the teacher could be violated when he uses his account for more than “personal” use—even though the school is licensed to show the movie.  And in the third scenario: well, it depends.

The key to this question is license alignment.  If an institution has a license to view a movie, and gets the copy it views from another source, there must be no contradictory provisions in the stack of licenses—or, the umbrella license must clearly trump the previous license.  This is true whether the institution is using a hard copy or a streaming copy, and regardless of who the physical copy belongs to. 

The member’s question alerts us to this complexity, and the member is right to approach this issue with caution. 

So.  What constitutes “a legally owned copy?”  I wish I had a simple and rock-solid answer, but these days, that can be a tough call.  Reading the fine print on licenses might not be fun,[7] but it is an essential part of answering this type of question, and it needs to be done on a case-by-case basis.  This is why careful planning during procurement, and attention to details when negotiating licenses and services, is critical.

Thanks for a question that pulls the focus to this issue.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Flying at 10,000 feet, the answer to the first question is: if the class in in person (not online), AND the institution is non-profit, AND the only viewers are the instructor and the students enrolled in the class, AND the viewing is in the classroom or academic facilities, AND the content is part of the curriculum, AND the copy was legally obtained…then the showing is allowed under Section 110(1) of the Copyright Act (“110”).[1]

The answer to the second question is: if use of the precise copy is controlled by a SWANK license, then despite authorization under 110, the showing must be consistent with the terms of that license.  For that matter, the use of any other content service for viewing movies (Netflix, YouTube, etc.) must also conform to the terms of the service’s license.

Swooping a bit lower to the ground (but not into the weeds): exercising rights under 110 is why it is important that: 1) class syllabi show the relationship of materials to the goals of a course, 2) institutions maintain lists of enrolled students, and 3) institutions have designated spaces for instructional activities.

This is why reading the fine print on content licenses is important, since contractual obligations can over-ride rights otherwise granted by law.

How does a school librarian help instructors stay within the bounds of the law or the license?  A good rule for educational institutions is to have clear and pro-active policies and outreach[2] for instructors who need to show movies.  In this world where education gets hit with new laws, regulations, and policies every year, while clear policies are important, a simple message to instructors: “Need to show a movie in class?  Ask us how!” is a great place to start.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

As the member shows here, there are a lot of questions within the big issue of “contributory infringement” via use of the internet in libraries.  And because they all relate to legal liability, they are scary for library staff and leadership.

To take the edge off that fear while defining “contributory infringement,” please enjoy this bad joke:

“Knock-knock.”

“Who’s there?”

“Contributory infringer.”

“Contributory infringer who?”

“Contributory infringer who is liable if, knowing of infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to infringing conduct of another.”

Ouch.  Sorry.  I know that really wasn’t funny.  I have been teaching knock-knock jokes to my 5-year-old daughter, and they are harder to write than you’d think. 

But while the joke was bad, the definition was good.  So, what is “contributory infringement?”  All (bad) jokes aside, contributory infringement—when a person/entity aids to infringement—is a recipe for serious liability, with the contributor “jointly and severally” liable along with the main infringer.

And yes, as the quote from the MPLA says, unlicensed exhibitions of movies in a library can result in a finding of liability for the library. However…

The MPLA is representing an industry.  This “warning” statement is a good example of an industry taking advantage of the complexity of the law to issue a statement that, unless carefully unpacked, will make the reader fear assertions that are grossly overbroad. 

Deconstruct the statement.  As the member fears, at a superficial level it seems to state that every copy of motion picture content accessed through a library’s wi-fi and played on any device might be a “contributory infringement” without a license.  Ouch.  That would be a recipe for disaster, indeed. 

But this is a typical industry over-step.  Fortunately, we fight such over-steps with information, and information is the librarian’s stock-in-trade.

Entire books, law journal articles, and Supreme Court opinions have been written on this topic, but I am going to focus on three bits of practical information that address the member’s concerns.

First, there are obviously sections of the Copyright Act that allow performances of audio-visual works in a library that would otherwise be infringing: Section 107, 108, and 110,[1] depending on the circumstances (including the type of library) can all apply.  I won’t unpack these sections here—the applications are too fact-specific—but let’s just say: “There are ways.”

Second, a user accessing content on a library computer may be doing so under their own personal license (Hulu being a possible example).  There is no requirement[2] in the Hulu license that a user access their personal Hulu account on a device they personally own; in other words, there is no concern if they access it on a library computer (so long as it is only for personal use).  On the flip side, there is no permission from Hulu to use my personal account, via my personal computer, to show a movie to 20 unrelated people and charge admission. So, it’s not so much about the streaming, as what I do with it.  This will vary from platform to platform, but the conditions of use will be in the license.

The third factor is the most important for this question, and is what the rest of this response is about, since it applies to the majority of the member’s hypothetical concerns.

To combat the fear that any re-posting or access to audio-visual copyrighted material via a library user account, website, database, or wi-fi connection is a potential infringement the library could be contributing to, every library should register under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), and have a policy for responding to reports of infringement.

Why?  Because under the DMCA, service providers may avoid liability for copyright infringement that occurs "by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider." [3]

This arrangement allows services like news aggregators (think Huffington Post), content providers (think YouTube) and internet access providers (think Verizon) to function without performing a chilling gate-keeping function, giving them what’s called a “safe harbor” from contributory infringement. 

To qualify for this “safe harbor,” a library must be ready to show that it:

(A) (i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;

(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and

(C) upon notification of claimed infringement . . ., responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

So powerful is this “safe harbor,” that sites hosting infringing content are routinely found non-liable, so long as they designate a DMCA “agent” with the Copyright Office and meet the above elements[4], and can show they acted promptly when the agent was notified of alleged infringement.

Of course, any library considering this approach must do so with its eyes wide open.  The DMCA is not beloved by libraries; the ALA has some choice criticism of the advantages the “notice and takedown” process gives content owners, and the rough road the process presents to fair use.[5]  Nevertheless, the DMCA remains a legal tool that addresses all of the member’s hypothetical concerns and solutions.

To illustrate, let’s run through the member’s examples a bit. 

First, the member lists the different types of technology access and use that could be used as a basis for a claim of contributory infringement.  The member is right to be concerned, because regardless of the ownership or type of device used in the library (library computer, or patron-owned device, phone, tablet, desktop computer), if an unlicensed movie is being shown at the library (with or without the use of library wi-fi), it runs the risk of being an infringing performance.[6]  But so long as the library is not aware of someone using the library’s wi-fi or website to show, post or share infringing content (or the use is not so flagrant that the library “should have known”), and the library meets the other elements listed above, DMCA “safe harbor” can apply.

Of course, this means the library must be able to show it does not have “actual knowledge” that an infringing performance is happening.  If the library is hosting obviously infringing activity (like a person sitting on top of the reference desk ripping movies in plain view while singing “I am pirating a copy of “Lego Batman, hooray!”), “safe harbor” might not apply.  But if the library is hosting someone quietly accessing a copy of “Lego Batman” on their personal computer (perhaps with a future fair use defense due to using the content in a documentary on deconstructing traditional notions of masculinity via comic-book-based animated children’s movies), and the library has no knowledge of the action, it would be tough to show “actual” knowledge. 

NOTE: again, this tension, and the fact that what looks like infringement can often be a fair use, is one reason the ALA and others have an issue with the DMCA.

How does a library relying on the DMCA determine the line between genuine lack of awareness and what it “should know”?  A library’s bar on using library resources for obvious and intentional copyright infringement should be in both its internet use policy, and its patron code of conduct.  “Obvious and intentional” use of library resources to infringe copyright can include:

• Making multiple unauthorized copies of articles;
• Screening movies to a group without a license;
• 3-D printing patent-protected medical devices.

These examples all bring serious intellectual property concerns, and libraries must be positioned through policy to deal with them.  But through a combination of the DMCA and respecting patron privacy, libraries do not need to consider blocking access or specifically restricting specific content to avoid contributory infringement.[7]

It’s an imperfect balance, to be sure.  The ALA and others are right to hold the line on concerns with the over-use of the “notice and takedown” provisions of the DMCA.  But within that imperfect system is the secret to the member’s concerns.

The member’s final three questions are:

Does this mean that we have to block access to these sites or provide proactive messaging at each computer, and/or monitor their computer use?

Should messaging that addresses this issue be included in our wi-fi and/or computer use policy?

Is this something that if we provide computer screens or privacy walls we would reduce or eliminate our role as a contributory infringer?
The answers to these questions are:

• To limit liability under the Copyright Act, there is no requirement to block, seek out, or repeatedly warn against infringement.[8]
• That said, outright theft of intellectual property should be prohibited through library policy and internet/computer access agreements, and observable violations should be addressed through a patron code of conduct.
• Liability for contributory infringement can be reduced by following the DMCA.
• Policies and design that ensure the privacy of users and the confidentiality of patron records can contribute to the reduced liability brought by the DMCA.

Thank you for a good, complex question.  For libraries that have not yet done so, a DMCA policy and registered agent are worth (very carefully) considering.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

The relationship between a person and their streaming content service is almost always[1] governed by a type of contract called a “license.”

As the members states, such a license (often accepted by clicking to accept terms left unread) can over-ride the infringement exceptions like those found in 17 U.S.C. §§107, 108, and 110.[2]

In other words, once a user voluntarily agrees to a contract restricting use of content, rights they may have once by law may become inaccessible.

Use of streaming content in the educational setting is a good example of this.  While Section 110 of the Copyright Act may allow a teacher to show a movie in class (if the movie is shown in the physical classroom and if the content is part of the curriculum), that same movie might not be accessible under the teacher’s Netflix license.

Why? Content providers change the terms of licenses all the time, but one thing is pretty constant: restricting subscription access to personal use.

Here is how Hulu puts it:

3.2 Your License. Hulu is pleased to grant you a non-exclusive limited license to use the Services, including accessing and viewing the Content on a streaming-only basis through the Video Player, for personal, non-commercial purposes as set forth in these Terms.

Netflix has a similar-sounding restriction.  Even the “Educational Screenings of Documentaries” the member references (found at https://help.netflix.com/en/node/57695) license is pretty narrow (and actually a shrewd PR move for a commercial service):

Educational screenings are permitted for any of the documentaries noted with this information, on the following terms:

The documentary may only be accessed via the Netflix service, by a Netflix account holder. We don’t sell DVDs, nor can we provide other ways for you to exhibit the film.

The screening must be non-profit and non-commercial. That means you can’t charge admission, or solicit donations, or accept advertising or commercial sponsorships in connection with the screening.

Please don’t use Netflix’s logos in any promotion for the screening, or do anything else that indicates that the screening is “official” or endorsed by Netflix.

We trust our users to respect these guidelines, which are intended to help you share and discuss our documentary content in your community.

To the extent your institution requires you to demonstrate that you have a license for your screening, please show them this page.

So there you have it: the only Netflix content that may be shown for classroom use is, as the member states, per this permission.

But (to address the other part of the member’s question) what are the consequences for not abiding by the license?  Is there a growing body of case law to show the fines, terminated accounts, and jail time[3] people are doing when they violate the terms of their streaming service license?

There is not. 

Why?  Most of these license agreements have arbitration clauses, meaning that disputes are settled without the publicly accessible process found in a court of law. 

Here is part of the arbitration clause from Netflix:

7.1. If you are a Netflix member in the United States (including its possessions and territories), you and Netflix agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating in any way to the Netflix service, these Terms of Use and this Arbitration Agreement, shall be determined by binding arbitration or in small claims court. … Arbitrators can award the same damages and relief that a court can award…. [4]

So there may be a number of instances where a license has been violated, and Netflix has sought “…the same damages and relief that a court can award” via arbitration.  But I don’t have access to that information.  Most of us just don’t know.[5]

I do know, however, that violating a license is wrong, and can have consequences. [6]  Further, I would hope that in the educational setting, modeling casual disregard for personal contractual obligations is not encouraged.

Teachers are usually barred by the contract from streaming Netflix services from their personal account in the classroom.  Unless there is an express license to the school from a streaming service, or for a particular film, I encourage teachers to obtain physical copies of films/DVD’s from the library, and play them in class on a good old-fashioned TV and DVD player, as Section 110 of the Copyright Act allows them to do. 

Thanks for this perceptive question.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

The TEACH Act was adopted in 2002 to enable the “digital transmission” of otherwise copyright-protected content for educational purposes. 

Schools meeting the Act’s requirements[1] can stream readings of poetry, images of paintings, and lines of computer coding, without fear of infringement claims.  This allows regular teaching activities—like analyzing a poem, assessing a painting, or teaching HTML--to happen online, without fear that the duplication or transmission of the copyright-protected content will bring a lawsuit. 

The TEACH Act positions online learning to use content as it would be used in a traditional classroom—as well as to novel and innovative things via distance learning technology.

But there are a few aspects of the “traditional classroom” the TEACH Act cannot replicate, and a critical one is: watching entire movies.

Per Section 110(1) of the Copyright Act, entire movies can be shown during an in-person class (if they are part of the curriculum…the law doesn’t allow a trigonometry class to kick back with “Wonder Woman” after finals are shown, unless they are calculating the angles of the bullets bouncing off her bracers). 

But there is no equivalent exception in the TEACH Act for streaming an entire video as part of an online course. 

In fact, in very plain language, the Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act states that only a “portion” of a film can be shown.  As stated right here:

…the performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or reasonable and limited portions of any other work, or display of a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of a live classroom session, by or in the course of a transmission…. [emphasis added].

Okay, I admit it: it’s possible the “very plain language” is only plain to lawyers (and copyright scholars—many of whom are librarians--who leave some lawyers in the dust on these issues). 

The “House Report” [2] below, explains how this language means performance of an entire movie is not allowed:

The exemption for instructional broadcasting provided by section 110(2) would apply only to “performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or display of a work.” Thus, the copyright owner’s permission would be required for the performance on educational television or radio of a dramatic work, of a dramatico-musical work such as an opera or musical comedy, or of a motion picture.   [emphasis added]

So what does this mean?  Schools that want to stream entire movies as part of an online course—even if those movies could be shown during an in-person class--should not rely on the TEACH Act as their protection from infringement.[3]

What are the other solutions?

• The institution can obtain a license to stream the movie(s);
• The institution can create a “hybrid” course (part online, part in-person) that shows the movies in a physical class, as authorized by 110(1);
• Students can be required to subscribe to a streaming service or other licensed source of the movies, just like they rent or buy textbooks;
• In some instances, fair use might apply, BUT that should be determined on a movie-by-movie basis and documented very carefully, since simple academic need is generally not a defense to infringement.

Thank you for this question!

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

Reading to kids is one of the best thing we can do for them.  If the law gets in the way of that, there is something wrong with the law!

That said, honoring the rights of authors and illustrators who create stories to charm and educate is one of the best ways we can make sure there is always something new to read. 

And it’s the law.  

The member’s concern is justified; copyright law rewards creativity by empowering rights holders to control how and when their work is duplicated--in this case, “performed”[1].  A reading on “Facebook Live”—no matter how many cute, be-jammied scholars it enriches—could infringe those rights[2]. 

But as the member also suggests, respecting copyright does not need to be the end of the line; there are many ways this type of real-time, remote reading can take place.

Below, please find my “Top 5 Ways for a Teacher to Remotely Read a Bedtime Story to Lots of Kids in Different Places Without Fear of Committing Copyright Infringement.”

1.  When choosing a book to read, select a work in the “public domain”…meaning, the book is no longer protected by copyright.  As of 2019, this means works published before 1924 (in the U.S.) and other select situations.[3]

For example, the “Brothers Grimm” who were writing in the 1800’s, are not suing anymore (nor are their heirs).  Just make sure the publisher hasn’t found a new way to assert the copyright of the copy you read from (a new version, new illustrations and layout, a slightly less sadistic version of the original, etc).

2.  Write your own story.

This one is my favorite.  Who knows?  You might discover you’re the next Eric Carle!

3.  Hold a writing contest amongst the students that includes parental permission to read the entries/winners online. 

This could also bolster interest in the event, since kids could hear their own work read, and see their own pictures online.

4.  Explore making the reading exempt under the TEACH Act (section 110 (2) of the Copyright Act).

The TEACH Act exempts certain digital transmissions of work from the classroom environment.  It has several highly specific requirements, so educators should connect with their institution’s attorney and IT department to see if this option can work for them.  While not the solution for every “good night” reading, with some planning, it could be a way to make online reading sessions a part of a routine curriculum.

And finally…

5.  Explore getting permission from the rights holder!  While not all authors will be in a position to agree, many will say “Yes, of course!” when asked if a teacher can livestream a reading of their book (of course, if you also want to show their book as well as read it, you will need permission from the illustrator, too). 

Reaching out to an author or publisher takes time, but many children’s authors are very accessible.  My high school friend, Grace Lin, is a well-known children’s book author (and recent winner of a Caldecott Honor for “A Big Mooncake for Little Star”).  I reached out to Grace on Facebook to get her take on this issue (and got her permission to share her thoughts). 

For Grace, whose work contains lovely and carefully rendered illustrations, such a request would be about intent and quality.  She said if the reading was more about the not-for-profit reader and audience connecting over her story, and not the video dwelling on the pages (effectively copying them), she would consider giving permission.  On the flip side, Grace felt that serious duplication (with the video dwelling on the pages) could be an unwelcome duplication. 

Like many children’s book authors, Grace is accessible via her website, www.gracelin.com, and I encourage would be night-time-story-readers to reach out to her!

Thank you for this great question.  Copyright is an important law to honor in the educational environment.  But finding ways—lots of ways—to give children an early and deep love of books is an even greater service to the world.  It’s one of the reasons librarians are so important.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

The lawyer answers:

There is a simple answer to this question, although it stands on a mountain of conflicting law, international disputes regarding IP, and arguments about music rights[1]. 

Section 110 of the Copyright Act allows an entity to have one medium-sized tv (of a kind commonly used in private homes…no JumboTrons), showing a broadcast of anything but songs[2], so long as there is no admission charged, and the programming isn’t re-transmitted (streamed, split for viewing on another device, etc).

The member then took her question to the next logical place…

Taking this a step further, do live streaming of such events accessed via the Internet have such restrictions? i.e. during the recent hurricanes, a public library provided viewing access to live streaming news events to members of the public (public forum). Is such legal? Can a public library "broadcast" internally - for the viewing ability of the public - show television programs, news reports, live streaming videos, etc. 

The lawyer answers….

This is where things get complicated.  There are any number of law review articles, commentaries, and cases debating how copyright law, communications law, and contract law intersect on this issue.  While “streaming” has become a catch-all term for any audiovisual (or audio) work accessible via the internet, the precise technology behind the display plays into the analysis[3].  Further, many news sites require log-in information connected to an individual person to get full access, so the person whose account is associated with an allegedly non-conforming or infringing use could face personal consequences.

The bottom line: an institution would need to exercise caution on a case-by-case basis to re-transmit information, since the 110(5)(a) exception might not apply.  But if the content is on one screen, no admission is charged, and there is no re-transmission, it might be possible.

The member then asked the “Ultimate YouTube” question:

While not, in my opinion the same as showing the news, a television program, etc.....The following is known about YouTube "terms of service": "Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content."

This question highlights exactly what I had to talk about above: that the licensing terms of the websites may bring further restrictions than the copyright law.  That said, here is an important point for libraries, the guardians of information: Section 110 is not the only exception to infringement for the transmission of audiovisual works. Fair Use, in Section 107, and the “Library and Archive Exception, in Section 108, can also apply. 

Of course, every “Fair Use” requires a fact-specific analysis.  But it is certainly possible that a library could aggregate and then re-transmit select streamed information in a way that met both the emergency response needs of the public, and the 107 criteria (although there could still be a risk of a civil claim based on violating the “terms of use” of the site).  The key would be avoiding, generally, wholesale copying/displaying of non-transformative content[4], and making sure no particular staff member is vulnerable to being accused of violating a “terms of use” license.

As to Section 108, the capture and archiving (and perhaps, later, lending/copying) of streamed content goes beyond the scope of this reply, but it’s an issue to keep in mind.  Nowadays, a great amount of valuable content is “born digital,” and the meaningful archiving of such content may fall within a particular library’s mission.  For this, any library should consider exactly what it wants to do, the precise nature of the source material, the precise legal concerns….and develop a strategy to do it. This will only get more important in the decades to come.[5]

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

This is a lovely idea, but any library considering something like this should get assurance that the work is in the public domain[1], or have permission from the authorized licensor (who is not always the copyright holder), before filming/streaming. 

This is because an audio recording[2] of a copyright-protected book is likely a “derivative work” (a work based on the original[3]) that, without permission, constitutes an infringement. 

A great example of a permitted derivative work is a commercially published audiobook.  Check out the credits on an audiobook listing—they generally recite two copyrights: the first for the original work (used with permission), and the second for the audio recording.  This is how the law both limits and promotes such recording.

A few other legal considerations approach this scenario, but don’t quite apply:

• “Fair Use” would not apply, as the reading would likely use a large portion (if not the entirety) of the work, and the purpose is not transformative, nor for commentary/criticism. The fact that the transmission would be for a worthy goal, consistent with a library’s mission, is likely not enough to make the use Fair--even if the effect on the market would be insubstantial.
• If the recordings were purely for ADA accessibility[4], there could be an argument, but such a project would need to be planned carefully, but that is not the purpose in the example.
• The TEACH Act, which allow academics at TEACH-registered institutions to stream copyrighted content, but that only applies under very precise circumstances.[5]

That said, because a live reading could promote the works featured, I imagine there are publishers who would grant a limited license for such an endeavor.  However, depending on their contract with the author(s), a publisher might not be able to!  In any event, asking permission is a case-by-case exercise.

The good news is that the reading itself, at the physical location of the library, is allowed so long as it meets Section 110 (4)[6] of the Copyright Act (this probably isn’t news to most librarians). 

Very often, attorneys are perceived as throwing cold water on project like this, and hopefully this answer has shown why that is usually our only option.  That said, if there is ever a specific work a library wants to plan an event around (a specific book, etc), it is worth it to investigate the status and licensing posture of that work.  You never know what you’ll find when you check the status, or the ability to get permission, for a specific work.

I wish you all good reading.

MEMBER QUESTION

WNYLRC ATTORNEY'S RESPONSE

First question
As you say, a college can show a movie they own, without further licensing, so long as: 

• The institution is a not-for-profit
• The performance of the film is in connection with face-to-face teaching activities, in a classroom or similar place of instruction.
• The copy was legitimately acquired

This is a broad exemption, but it absolutely does not apply to non-instructional, non-classroom showing of movies by student clubs.  Such a showing would require express permission via license.

Of course, if a student club has an academic focus (for instance, Spanish Club) and the film is to be part of an academic experience (for instance, watching the movie in Spanish, to enhance learning), in an academic setting (class room, with a qualified academic instructor) one could argue that the required elements are still met. But the educational purpose must be bona fide…no watching “Deadpool” for entertainment and then having a half-hearted, academically disconnected discussion on modern comic book tropes.  And of course under no circumstances should money be charged.

Second question
The second question is very simple: the cover images of most commercial films are subject to copyright.  Because of that, and because there is no exemption allowing them to be duplicated, unless permission is obtained, the college is well-advised not to allow copies to be displayed to promote the event, and especially should not allow that image to be published on the college website. 

Keeping it off the website is critical.  Even smaller rights holders police the internet for images they own, and insurance companies, facing mandatory statutory damages and attorneys’ fees, will quickly settle claims…something that will eventually lead to higher insurance premiums for your institution.

The best way to promote the licensed showing is to either use the approved promotional material that comes with the license, or generate a version that does not infringe on the content of the original (or the film).