As my friend, Hugh McGuire of Librivox, has pointed out, the transition to complex objects, particularly those that are web native and embed pointers to resources existing across the network, is one that the publishing industry has yet to get its head around. I know that publishers would ideologically like to have these assets bundled into a single physical file (or small set of linked files) for purposes of both ready technical translation and rights control, but I suspect that we will wind up with “narrative experiences” that are actually not wholly “owned” but increasingly have at least some of their aspects licensed for performance rights (instead of having been either commissioned or licensed for broader rights), or that rely on blanket proffered commercial license terms. UGC that is just-in-time and custom-embeddable into transmedia productions will only hasten the transition to more complex rights packages.

Already the issues of advanced publications, like Peter Collingridge’s work (e.g. Apt Studio, in London), are obvious in extremely large file sizes, and this kind of CD-size aggregation is probably not tenable long term for end-user device management as composite assets swell. So inevitably, I think the tendency is toward assemblage of pointers, versus assemblage of assets.

From the limited terrain that I can see, traditional publishers are not well positioned in terms of their competencies to compete in this area, and I think we will find a wide range of new entrants, particularly those from gaming, movie and audio recording and production studios, and other more innovative media groups. The consequences for the further attenuation of digital first sale are obvious, and one can expect that the “publisher” and end user relationship will be governed by restrictive licensing covenants.

The maintenance of rights information for any form of complex asset is difficult, and pricing is tied to accurate capture of rights data and rights attributions. In the absence of any international, distributed rights registry, the requisite tracking of rights data will fall laboriously into firm to firm arrangements, and incur the consequent risk of litigation and constant management as assets are re-used. Even if production companies establish collectives, the management costs will merely be mitigated. This is one reason that I think collecting agencies and their brethren are well positioned to innovate, particularly cross-border, in the development of new services to support new creative endeavors. [N.B.: There is a potentially relevant, prescient 2006-2007 Yahoo! WIPO filing].

From my point of view, another extremely serious shortcoming of the GBS Books Rights Registry is that it looks over its shoulder at publishing’s past, being too focused on historical interpretations of books from the perspective of a narrow range of commercial uses. It is ill equipped to accommodate the world of creation and use that we are heading into.

The screening of videotaped recordings from major TV broadcast news stations on the U.S. government supported Laos incursions by South Vietnam’s Army was compiled and produced by a then little-known initiative housed at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee called the Vanderbilt Television News Archive (VTNA).

VTNA’s story began in 1968, when its founder, Paul Simpson, began the systematic recording of the three major U.S. television networks through their local affiliates. Uninterrupted to the current day, VTNA continues to record, collect, index, and make available national news broadcasts, preserving them in a unique collection available via a lending program to anyone in the country, merely at the cost of duplication or recording onto DVDs.

Within a few years of its founding, VTNA would wind up enmeshed in a skein of litigation and legislation. Yet, VTNA’s valiant efforts to protect public access yields an accidental and instructive example for how positive legislative outcomes can emerge in a fight against attempts to leverage court rulings benefiting private parties, side-stepping Congressional engagement.

At the Internet Archive, we believe there is an opportunity for a similar and critical analogue to emerge out of the proposed class action settlement in the Authors Guild, et al v. Google case placed before the SDNY District Court concerning Google Book Search.

History Lessons

The utility of the VTNA’s recording of TV news — and in the eyes of conservative government representatives and the Nixon White House, capturing the alleged liberal biases of the New York media — was apparent even before the landmark 1971 screening. VTNA attracted several attempts to legislatively enshrine protections for its activities, ultimately inspiring two discrete bills that wound up incorporated into the later 1976 Copyright Act: a mandate for a national broadcast archive and an exemption from liability against infringement for libraries and archives recording broadcast content.

In an important new work on the history of home video, Inherent Vice: Bootleg Histories of Videotape and Copyright, Lucas Hilderbrand discusses the impact of new technology on interpretations of rights, piracy, and property. Hilderbrand includes an entire chapter on the history of VTNA’s stressful journey along the parallel tracks of litigation and legislation, observing that “Copyright became the means of both challenging and ultimately ensuring public access to television records.” (N.B.: I am working from pre-publication galleys generously provided by the author, and used here with his permission).

Contemplating VTNA’s founding in the late 1960s, Hilderbrand comments: “Thus nearly a decade before fair use (Section 107 of the copyright act) would provide the basis of the Supreme Court’s ruling that off-air recordings for private use must be permitted, off-air videotaping directly shaped legislation of the exemptions for libraries and archives. Although distinct from Section 107, Section 108 can be seen as the logical, institutional extension of fair use.”

In the 1960s and 1970s, CBS News, the most watched, revered, and influential news broadcast in the U.S., kept its own semi-public (restricted access) archive. CBS believed that VTNA was recording and collecting news broadcasts without permission or license. After several attempts to force VTNA to license its own recordings, CBS sued the archive for copyright infringement in 1973, alleging that the archive re-edited and leased its broadcasts to users, appropriating its content.

CBS maintained that a private solution was the best approach for broadcast news access; the situation did not require intrusive legislative action. As late as Congressional hearings in 1975 on the draft revisions to the copyright law, CBS vice president and general counsel Robert Evans testified, “Moreover, the problem addressed by these unusual provisions is not one that requires Congressional action because it is being resolved by private initiative.” Of course, as Hilderbrand notes, the private initiative that CBS advocated was the network’s, not the VTNA’s. Hilderbrand comments further:

Despite CBS’ efforts to establish television news collections through [its own] public archives, Vanderbilt maintained that its operations were essential to democratize user access to the tapes and to maintain the availability of the other networks’ news programs. Despite being a private university, Vanderbilt refused to cloister tapes in the ivory tower and adamantly supported the broadest feasible scenario for public access.

After a few modifications to the proposed copyright legislation before Congress, and a reconciliation in which the Senate accepted several House modifications (including in Sections 107 and 108), President Ford signed the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 into law on October 19. In early December, CBS requested the dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice, and the court officially dissolved the case on December 20, 1976.

Google Book Search

Today, in a case with some striking similarities, Google, the AAP, and the AG hope to rewrite copyright through a private, judicially approved agreement. As Marybeth Peters, the U.S. Registrar of Copyright, observed at the Columbia Law conference on the settlement, “The question is: When you have a private agreement, where there are private solutions, that are in the nature of legislative action … is this a good thing?” Ms. Peters also quoted Robert Clarida, then Chair, Committee on Copyright and Literary Property for the NYC Bar as stating, “The settlement in effect provides a privately legislated set of rules governing relations between an entire copyright industry and the world’s largest search engine”.

Orphan works legislation almost passed in the last session of Congress. It could pass in this session. As the Justice Department begins an inquiry into the settlement, we have an opportunity to consider anew the proper wisdom of a legislative cure for a problem that Google originally attempted to address in 2004: providing the greatest possible access to out of print books that are potentially in-copyright. Unfortunately, that initial effort has turned into a radically reshaped proposal: a court-approved monopoly for Google, and a bad deal for authors and publishers.

The complex issues of rights registries, access to orphan works, elaborating fair use in a digital age, and maintaining international compliance should be the province of public discussion. The goals of Vanderbilt’s archive — “the broadest feasible scenario for public access” — must be the primary consideration that drives a public and legislative solution, instead of a privately negotiated settlement for the benefit on a single corporation currently under investigation for antitrust.

At the Columbia conference, Google’s chief counsel for the Book Search project, Alex Macgillivray, loudly noted Google’s staunch support for orphan works legislation. Well, now is the time. Let’s halt the push for a court approved, private settlement that gives Google a monopoly on the largest digital library of books in the world. Instead, let’s launch a considered investigation of what the nation deserves, in a dialogue that is open and inclusive of all the sectors of our country that have a stake in defining the 21st Century of books, and the rights of readers.

I am most definitely not an expert on dissertations: I’ve always shied as far away as possible from discussions relating to ETD programs. In the context of the settlement, their presence had not really occurred to me. As someone suggested, this is probably just one of hundreds of cases of some consequence that were never explicitly thought about.

So what about dissertations? Are they covered under the settlement? The answer might be “yes” — at least, much of the time. Let’s turn quickly to the “Book” definition in the Settlement, §1.16:

“Book” means a written or printed work that (a) if a “United States work,” as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, has been registered with the United States Copyright Office as of the Notice Commencement Date, (b) on or before the Notice Commencement Date, was published or distributed to the public or made available for public access as a set of written or printed sheets of paper bound together in hard copy form under the authorization of the work’s U.S. copyright owner, and (c) as of the Notice Commencement Date, is subject to a Copyright Interest.

The quick consensus from those that I asked is that dissertations are usually considered “publications”, particularly if one assumes that UMI services satisfy the condition of public distribution. Proquest states:

ProQuest UMI Dissertation Publishing has been publishing dissertations and theses since 1938. In that time, we have published over 2 million graduate works from graduate schools around the world. We have over 700 active university publishing partners, and publish more than 70,000 new graduate works each year.

A 2000 CNI taskforce update [PDF] by the Library of Congress, discussing digital deposit of dissertations, observes:

Each year, UMI Dissertations Publishing receives over 40,000 U.S. Ph.D. dissertations and Masters’ theses for publication. As part of its services, UMI provides copyright registration through the U.S. Copyright Office for those authors desiring registration. An average of 17,000 to 20,000 authors take advantage of this service each year, making UMI the largest single contributor of copyright registration applications to the U.S. Copyright Office.

Registration is not necessary to secure copyright, but it does offer certain protections; in the settlement context, it is required to meet the definition of “Book”. Regardless of the initial registration, one would expect that at least those published up until 1963 are Public Domain (with no subsequent renewal of copyright), but they would have to be claimed as such by Google as Public Domain Works (See §3.1 Identification, Digitization and Use of Books. “Google shall identify to the Registry books that it has determined to be Public Domain Books pursuant to the process set forth in Attachment E (Public Domain) and for which Google wants the safe harbor described in Section 3.2(d)(v)(3) (Safe Harbor). For each such book, Google shall provide the supporting reasons and information that Attachment E (Public Domain) requires.”)

Some additional number of these dissertations may simply not be available (they might be withheld from public consultation for a variety of reasons). One would not necessarily know that by looking at thesis documentation, but they would not be part of the settlement presumably.

One also has to wonder if dissertations are “Commercially Available”. Those that are available through print on demand only, might not be so classified. (See §4.7 New Revenue Models. “POD copies of Books distributed by third parties. A Book’s availability through such POD program would not, in and of itself, result in the Book being classified as Commercially Available.”). However, many dissertations are available through the licensed Dissertation Abstracts service, but Google would have no way of knowing a priori which dissertations were available, unless they subscribed to the service.

There are probably many other convolutions, but I must turn to my readers for help and clarification.