Re: [ARSCLIST] Copyright and the LOC - was "Incompetence..."

[James L Wolf <jwol@xxxxxxx>]

Once again, I don't speak in any way for the Library. But having worked here 12 years, I've gained some understanding of the different forces in regards to copyright. I see no malevolence in any of these forces. Each follows its own mandate which leads to an inevitable "conflict" within the institution.

First, the Library of Congress is the administrator of copyright. All copyright submissions are examined and proper status accorded or rejected. This section of the Library has no issue with copyright law or terms of copyright. It simply applies the law as it stands.

Second, the Library of Congress is one of the largest, if not the largest, storehouse of books, manuscripts, recordings, films, etc. etc. in the world. Most of these items came in through copyright submissions. The purpose of the divisions which oversee these collections is to preserve the materials and make them available to Congress, scholars, researchers, and the general public. I know of not a single "hoarder" in all of Library Services. Rather, a desire to make more materials available to more people is everywhere the rule. Naturally, overly long copyright terms and restrictive regulations are inimical to this mission. Many people who work with collections can and do advocate for easier copyright conditions (especially in the case of orphaned works). They propose different interpretations of law, commission studies on the law and its effects, etc.

Third, there is the Office of General Council, whose primary mission is to protect the institution of the Library from legal harm. This office must err on the side of caution. Which means that those who advocate  for easier copyright interpretations must first convince the OGC that no legal harm could come to the Library. This is very hard to do. It's easy imagine the uproar if the Library were seen to take its collections of materials made possible by copyright and then make certain of those items freely available before it was legal to do so. 

That's what I meant by the Library's obligations as the "house of copyright." To prevent a true conflict of interest from arising, the Library has generally applied the strictest of measures to itself. I can't say that I'm happy with this situation, but I feel that I understand it and I can't blame any party or person. The only hope for change is that in the complications of the law (especially regarding sound recordings) someone will find ways that we can make more material available and still be following the law.

James

As always, all statements are personal and do not reflect LOC policy or position.


>>> lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 11/01/06 11:50 AM >>>
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006, James L Wolf wrote:

> As the "house of copyright" the LOC is, and must be, bound by the letter of the
copyright law. So please do not blame the Library for its inability to make
available most early recordings. Thanks.

To what extent has the library pushed for changes in the copyright as it
applies to access to unique materials? Or does the library see its posture
as reactive versus being proactive.

I ask this because of the questions I have raised in my posts and quite simply,
having been born in 1947, I would have to live to ripe old age of 120 to have
"reasonable" access to recordings I would like to study.

Karl