COPYCENSE

This is the supplement to the second of two virtual workshops that discuss the management of digitization projects. The first workshop, presented by Jill Hurst-Wahl, addressed the context and landscape of digitization programs. This workshop will address legal issues that affect digitization programs.

Specifically, this workshop analyzes how copyright affects different phases of a digitization project, including:

• What “intellectual property” really means (including an introduction to the IP landscape);
• Identifying the copyright issues inherent in digitization projects (including the public domain, the library and archival limitations, and fair use);
• Why licensing agreements and subscriptions may curb your digitization project;
• Why confidential and proprietary information must be handled differently; and
• An update on the IP issues in Google Book Search project.

Slide Presentation

K. Matthew Dames. Managing Legal Issues in Digitization Projects. (.pdf, 1.39 MB) Presented to SLA Click U. Live! April 26, 2006.

Supplementary Materials: Websites

Seso Digital LLC. CopyCense. (Ed. K. Matthew Dames) (See also: CopyCense Digitization Archive)

Hurst Associates Ltd. Digitization 101. (Ed.L Jill Hurst-Wahl)

Digitizationblog (Ed. Mark Jordan)

Digitize Everything. (Ed. Michael Yunkin)

DigitalKoans. (Ed. Charles W. Bailey Jr.)

Cornell University Library. Moving Theory Into Practice: Digital Imaging Tutorial.

File Formats Blog. (Ed. Gary McGath)

Peter B. Hirtle. Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States. Cornell Copyright Information Center. Jan. 1, 2006.

OCLC. Digitization & Preservation Online Resource Center.

The Ten Thousand Year Blog. (Ed. David Mattison)

University of Buffalo’s UBdigit. UBdigit Conditions of Use. No date.

University of California at San Diego. diglet. (Ed. Jim Jacobs)

Supplementary Materials: Articles, Guides & Papers

K. Matthew Dames. “Associations’ Silence on Google Book Search Is Not Golden.” Online. March/April 2006.

K. Matthew Dames. Demystifying Fair Use. CopyCense. March 2, 2006.

Mary Sue Coleman. Google, the Khmer Rouge and the Public Good (Address to the Professional/Scholarly Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers). (.pdf, 180 KB) Feb. 6, 2006.

K. Matthew Dames. Library Schools & the Copyright Knowledge Gap. Information Today. February 2006.

K. Matthew Dames. Library Copying in the Digital Age. Copycense. Jan. 31, 2006.

Paul Ganley. Google Book Search: Fair Use, Fair Dealing and the Case for Intermediary Copying. Social Science Research Network. Jan. 13, 2006.

Jonathan Band. The Google Library Project: The Copyright Debate. (.pdf) ALA Office for Intellectual Property Policy. January 2006.

Robin Jeweler. The Google Book Search Project: Is Online Indexing a Fair Use Under Copyright Law? (.pdf, 37 KB) Congressional Research Service. Dec. 28, 2005.

Siva Vaidhyanathan. A Risky Gamble With Google. Sivacracy.net. Nov. 28, 2005.

Jonathan Band. The Authors Guild v. The Google Print Library Project. LLRX.com. Oct. 15, 2005.

K. Matthew Dames. Google Shouldn’t Punt on Litigation. CopyCense. Oct. 4, 2005.

Jonathan Band. The Google Print Library Project: A Copyright Analysis. (.pdf, 174 KB) Policybandwidth.com. August 2005.

Peter B. Hirtle. Digital Preservation and Copyright. Copyright & Fair Use/Stanford University Libraries. No date.

Mary Minow. Library Digitization Projects: U.S. Copyrighted Works That Have Expired into the Public Domain. LibraryLaw.com. April 15, 2004.

Melissa Smith Levine. Overview of Legal Issues for Digitization. Northeast Document Conservation Center. April 9, 2004.

National Information Standards Organization. A Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections, 2d. Ed. 2004.

June M. Besek. Copyright Issues Relevant to the Creation of a Digital Archive: A Preliminary Assessment. Council on Library and Information Resources. June 2003.

Western States Digital Standards Group. Western States Digital Imaging Best Practices Version 1.0. (.pdf) January 2003.

Mary Minow. Library Digitization Projects and Copyright. LLRX.com. June 28, 2002.

National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage (NINCH). The NINCH Guide to Good Practice in the Digital Representation and Management of Cultural Heritage Materials. October 2002.

Maxine K. Sitts, Editor. Handbook for Digital Projects: A Management Tool for Preservation and Access. Northeast Document Conservation Center. 2000.

Abby Smith. Why Digitize? Council on Library and Information Resources. February 1999.

Harvard University. Selection for Digitizing: A Decision Making Matrix. (.pdf) 1997.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

This is the supplement to the second of two virtual workshops that discuss the management of digitization projects. The first workshop, presented by Jill Hurst-Wahl, addressed the context and landscape of digitization programs. This workshop will address legal issues that affect digitization programs.

Specifically, this workshop analyzes how copyright affects different phases of a digitization project, including:

• What “intellectual property” really means (including an introduction to the IP landscape);
• Identifying the copyright issues inherent in digitization projects (including the public domain, the library and archival limitations, and fair use);
• Why licensing agreements and subscriptions may curb your digitization project;
• Why confidential and proprietary information must be handled differently; and
• An update on the IP issues in Google Book Search project.

Slide Presentation

K. Matthew Dames. Managing Legal Issues in Digitization Projects. (.pdf, 1.39 MB) Presented to SLA Click U. Live! April 26, 2006.

Supplementary Materials: Websites

Seso Digital LLC. CopyCense. (Ed. K. Matthew Dames) (See also: CopyCense Digitization Archive)

Hurst Associates Ltd. Digitization 101. (Ed.L Jill Hurst-Wahl)

Digitizationblog (Ed. Mark Jordan)

Digitize Everything. (Ed. Michael Yunkin)

DigitalKoans. (Ed. Charles W. Bailey Jr.)

Cornell University Library. Moving Theory Into Practice: Digital Imaging Tutorial.

File Formats Blog. (Ed. Gary McGath)

Peter B. Hirtle. Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States. Cornell Copyright Information Center. Jan. 1, 2006.

OCLC. Digitization & Preservation Online Resource Center.

The Ten Thousand Year Blog. (Ed. David Mattison)

University of Buffalo’s UBdigit. UBdigit Conditions of Use. No date.

University of California at San Diego. diglet. (Ed. Jim Jacobs)

Supplementary Materials: Articles, Guides & Papers

K. Matthew Dames. “Associations’ Silence on Google Book Search Is Not Golden.” Online. March/April 2006.

K. Matthew Dames. Demystifying Fair Use. CopyCense. March 2, 2006.

Mary Sue Coleman. Google, the Khmer Rouge and the Public Good (Address to the Professional/Scholarly Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers). (.pdf, 180 KB) Feb. 6, 2006.

K. Matthew Dames. Library Schools & the Copyright Knowledge Gap. Information Today. February 2006.

K. Matthew Dames. Library Copying in the Digital Age. Copycense. Jan. 31, 2006.

Paul Ganley. Google Book Search: Fair Use, Fair Dealing and the Case for Intermediary Copying. Social Science Research Network. Jan. 13, 2006.

Jonathan Band. The Google Library Project: The Copyright Debate. (.pdf) ALA Office for Intellectual Property Policy. January 2006.

Robin Jeweler. The Google Book Search Project: Is Online Indexing a Fair Use Under Copyright Law? (.pdf, 37 KB) Congressional Research Service. Dec. 28, 2005.

Siva Vaidhyanathan. A Risky Gamble With Google. Sivacracy.net. Nov. 28, 2005.

Jonathan Band. The Authors Guild v. The Google Print Library Project. LLRX.com. Oct. 15, 2005.

K. Matthew Dames. Google Shouldn’t Punt on Litigation. CopyCense. Oct. 4, 2005.

Jonathan Band. The Google Print Library Project: A Copyright Analysis. (.pdf, 174 KB) Policybandwidth.com. August 2005.

Peter B. Hirtle. Digital Preservation and Copyright. Copyright & Fair Use/Stanford University Libraries. No date.

Mary Minow. Library Digitization Projects: U.S. Copyrighted Works That Have Expired into the Public Domain. LibraryLaw.com. April 15, 2004.

Melissa Smith Levine. Overview of Legal Issues for Digitization. Northeast Document Conservation Center. April 9, 2004.

National Information Standards Organization. A Framework of Guidance for Building Good Digital Collections, 2d. Ed. 2004.

June M. Besek. Copyright Issues Relevant to the Creation of a Digital Archive: A Preliminary Assessment. Council on Library and Information Resources. June 2003.

Western States Digital Standards Group. Western States Digital Imaging Best Practices Version 1.0. (.pdf) January 2003.

Mary Minow. Library Digitization Projects and Copyright. LLRX.com. June 28, 2002.

National Initiative for a Networked Cultural Heritage (NINCH). The NINCH Guide to Good Practice in the Digital Representation and Management of Cultural Heritage Materials. October 2002.

Maxine K. Sitts, Editor. Handbook for Digital Projects: A Management Tool for Preservation and Access. Northeast Document Conservation Center. 2000.

Abby Smith. Why Digitize? Council on Library and Information Resources. February 1999.

Harvard University. Selection for Digitizing: A Decision Making Matrix. (.pdf) 1997.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

Via Copyfight, I found an entry about how trade publishers justify buying or not buying a title. It seems much of the decision is based upon profit-loss analysis.

A P&L is done a couple of different times. The first time is when we are estimating what we think we will spend on a book versus what we think we will make. If we buy the book, P&Ls are done throughout the book’s life.

In order to buy a book at Tor, we have to fill out a P&L to make sure that the book will be profitable. I am going to give you a basic rundown of the things that we include in our P&L. Every company includes this stuff in their P&L.

We are going to do two fake P&Ls. These are totally made up, but the numbers are real. For the sake of argument, we are going to make a P&L for a mass market original, and we are going to make a P&L for a book that goes from hardcover into mass market. For the sake of argument, the mass market P&L will be a negative P&L, while the hc/mm P&L will be a positive/neutral one.

This should help authors understand publishing economics, hopefully with an eye toward negotiating better contracts.

Anna Louise’s Journal. P&Ls and How Books Make (Or Don’t) Money. April 20, 2006.

See also:

Denise Little. The Profit Motive. Science Fiction Writers of America. 2001.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

For the second time in the last month, a mainstream news outlet has published an article about the mixtape. Two weeks ago, The New York Times published an op-ed article by a music store owner who wrote about the mixtape market and law enforcement’s focus on prosecuting retailers who sell them, despite the active role that copyright owning music labels play in distributing raw tracks for DJ remixes and the passive role the labels play in enforcing their exclusive rights.

Not to be outdone, USA Today last Friday weighed in on the mixtape market, focusing on how big the market has become. Writes USA Today‘s Steve Jones

Mixtapes long have been part of hip-hop’s culture, but the DJ-produced compilations that once existed underground are percolating much closer to the surface these days. The often unlicensed and frequently bootlegged collections of exclusive advance tracks, hot street jams, diss songs and freestyles — available for sale via the Internet, small retail shops and street vendors, or as free downloads and file swaps — aren’t just for hardcore fans anymore. They’ve become promotional tools for artists and record labels trying to build a buzz.

Hip-hop diehards looking to be the first with the latest sounds or seeking edgier material have always scooped up mixtapes. But 50 Cent (Curtis Jackson) is credited with changing the way they are viewed.

I find it curious that the mixtape market is getting attention from mainstream press. As Jones points out, DJs have been making and selling mixtapes forever: one of the first things a DJ does once he gets his mixer and two wheels of steel is make a mixtape and try to sell it. Back in the day (and I mean in the eighties), I was selling mixtapes for as much as $30 for a 90-minute cassette. (They really were tapes back then.) Now, artists like DJ Vlad are putting out mix-DVDs: mixtapes on DVD, complete with video and film footage. Many of Vlad’s titles sell for between $7 and $15.

To me, the real story is how the music industry allows this infringing activity to occur — encourages it, really — yet chooses to sue file traders. There can be no real debate that mixtapes are illegal: at a minimum, they violate a copyright owner’s exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution; arguably, they violate a copyright owner’s exclusive right to make derivative works from the original. Further, unlike some file traders, DJs who aggressively market and sell mixtapes clearly are deriving commercial benefit from the practice? So why would Big Music go after file sharers, but not mixtape DJs?

One plausible answer lies in perception: the labels perceive there is a promotional benefit to having a track — remixed or not — placed on a mixtape by Vlad, DJ Clue, or Whoo Kid. But isn’t it just as plausible that there is a promotional benefit to having a track active on the file sharing network? Isn’t that, after all, why several labels have hired BigChampagne for years?

Steve Jones. Money in the Mixtape. USA Today. April 20, 2006.

See also:

Alan Berry. The Tale of the Tapes. The New York Times. April 11, 2006.

Jeff Howe. BigChampagne is Watching You. Wired. October 2003.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.