![]() |
V.F. Photocopying for Educational Uses |
|
|
(Source: Office of the General
Counsel, August 19, 1983)
The enactment of a federal Copyright Act, effective January 1, 1978, has produced much misunderstanding among teachers regarding the permissible amount of photocopying for educational purposes. Only copyrighted works are protected by the act. This elemental point is often overlooked. Court opinions, legislative hearings and other government documents are not copyrighted, and may be freely photocopied. The same is true of works for which the copyright has expired, and of works which prior to January 1978 were sold or disseminated without proper notice of copyright. There is a danger, however, of acting unlawfully when one photocopies without permission works which are covered by the act. The act applies to all "original works of authorship" in written (or other tangible) form, from the moment the work is created, whether it was created before or after January 1, 1978 and whether or not it has been published. But even copyrighted materials may be photocopied without permission from, or payment to, the copyright owner, if it is a "fair use," a doctrine recognized by American courts for nearly a century and a half whose principal purpose is to protect the public interest in the dissemination of knowledge. This doctrine is endorsed in the text of the act, which explicitly refers to the allowable reproduction of copyrighted works for purposes such as "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." Congress appreciated the impossibility of announcing in a statute an exact quantitative measure that would distinguish copying which is a fair use from copying which is an infringement. Rather, the act provides factors to be considered:
During congressional deliberations on the act, a group of educational associations and commercial publishers developed a set of guidelines which purport to announce the minimum reach of the fair use doctrine as applied to educational photocopying. The guidelines are set forth below. In the report by the House committee submitting the copyright bill, these guidelines were said to constitute a "reasonable" construction of the fair use doctrine. Several misconceptions about these guidelines have developed and should be dispelled. Although some have read the guidelines as imposing limits upon educational photocopying, in fact they prohibit nothing. They purport to state only the minimum protection of the fair use doctrine and announce a "safe harbor" within which a teacher is assured of protection against claims of infringement. The guidelines acknowledge that there may be allowable photocopying beyond that which is set forth; they do not purport to state where the fair use privilege ends. Although some have treated the guidelines as though they have the status of legislation, that is not true, either. The text of the act, strengthened in committee deliberations, explicitly adverts to "teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use)" as a classic situation in which the fair use doctrine applies. This is the statutory text Congressmen had before them when they voted, and it is the statutory text which the courts will construe. The extent to which the privately developed "guidelines" will pre-empt other "reasonable" interpretations of fair use is a judicial question. A teacher should consider the potential consequences of an incorrect decision. If the teacher elects not to photocopy in circumstances constituting fair use, students must find the material in the library or elsewhere. Techniques for increasing student access to limited materials will vary; the question of permissible library photocopying for "reserve" purposes raises issues not addressed here. If a teacher decides to photocopy for classroom use, the possible legal sanctions for an incorrect decision must be appreciated. Book publishers have declared and demonstrated their intention to sue faculty members, universities, and copy centers for copyright infringement. As a general rule, a copyright infringer is liable for damages, measured by the loss of profits to the copyright owner and any additional profits acquired by the infringer. Since in the academic setting there will not generally be profits to the teacher or school, damages will be measured by the likely loss in sales of the copyrighted work, normally an uncertain figure. For this reason, the act permits the copyright owner to sue for "statutory damages" in lieu of actual damages, and the court is given discretion to enter an award between $250 and $10,000 (which may be increased to $50,000 for willful violations). If, however, a teacher had reasonable grounds to believe that the photocopying was a fair use, he is not liable for statutory damages (although he may be liable for actual damages). In all cases, the court may issue an order against the teacher or the educational institution barring future infringements. Without regard to legal implications, a teacher should be sensitive to the dictates of good practice and courtesy in the use of copyrighted material. Authors and copyright owners appreciate notification that uses are being made of their work. It is common for the copyright owner to permit substantial photocopying for educational purposes, provided that the author and copyright owner are identified and proper copyright notice is affixed. Questions regarding the application of the Copyright Act in specific situations should be addressed to the Office of the General Counsel. Guidelines
Definitions Brevity
|
Contact: Arberetta W. Bowles - arwillia@pobox.upenn.edu
Office of the Associate Provost
URL: http://www.upenn.edu/assoc-provost/handbook/v_f.html
Updated: Tuesday, 26-Jun-2001 13:46:52 EDT