No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Survey and Critique of Photocopying Provisions of the New American Copyright Act
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 February 2019
Extract
Copyright statutes have traditionally dealt primarily with questions related to reproduction of writings by the printing press. Since the previous general revision of United States copyright law in 1909, a variety of technological advances such as the phonograph, the tape recorder, radio, television, the photocopier, and the computer have generated other copyright issues. The need for a new law which would resolve these questions led to five years of Congressionally-funded study of copyright in the 1950's. Thirty-four separate reports came out of this research. In the 1960's the Register of Copyrights, in consultation with copyright attorneys and experts, drafted a general revision bill. The Copyright Office modified this draft and had it introduced in Congress in 1965. Although it did not pass at that time, it became the basis for copyright revisions introduced in subsequent sessions of Congress. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a copyright bill in 1967 but the Senate did not act on the proposal. In 1974 the Senate passed a copyright bill but it failed in the House. Not until 1976 were draftsmen able to write a law acceptable to both legislative bodies. The President approved the act on October 19, 1976, and most provisions of the law became effective on January 1, 1978.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © International Association of Law Libraries 1978
References
1 For background information, see Julius J. Marke, United States Copyright Revision and Its Legislative History, 70 Law Library Journal 121-52 (May 1977).Google Scholar
2 The Register of Copyrights is director of the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. 17 USCA, Sec. 701 (1977).Google Scholar
3 See Nimmer, Melville B., Nimmer on Copyright. New York: Matthew Bender, 1976; Sec. 145, The Defense of Fair Use.Google Scholar
4 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Report No. 94-473, November 20, 1975, p. 62 (94th Cong. 1st Sess.).Google Scholar
5 Supplementary Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law: 1965 Revision Bill, pp. 25–26 in Omnibus Copyright Revision Legislative History, George S. Grossman, ed. Buffalo, New York: William S. Hein & Co., n.d.), vol. 4; U.S. Congress, House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Report No. 2237, October 12, 1966, p. 65 (89th Cong., 2nd Sess.), in Grossman, vol. 11; Marke, op. cit., p. 130.Google Scholar
6 This term is not easily defined but it is often used to denote rules which some agency announces it will follow in interpreting and implementing specified statutes. Most commonly applied to statements of administrative agencies of the government, the word is here being applied to agreements reached by certain interest groups whose members are potential plaintiffs or defendants under the Copyright Act. Two sets of guidelines were drawn up by representatives of major groups interested in copyright revision, at the suggestion of the chairman and members of the House subcommittee which handled the copyright bill. The Congressmen hoped that the parties could “achieve a meeting of the minds as to permissible educational use of copyrighted material.” The third set of guidelines was drafted by the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU), in consultation with representatives of interested groups. See Marke, op. cit., pp. 145–50. The interlibrary loan guidelines are set out in an appendix which follows this article.Google Scholar
7 The conference committee stated, for example, that it understood “that the guidelines are not intended as, and cannot be considered, explicit rules or directions governing any and all cases, now or in the future. It is recognized that their purpose is to provide guidance in the most commonly encountered interlibrary photocopying situations, that they are not intended to be limited or determinative in themselves or with respect to other situations, and that they deal with an evolving situation that will undoubtedly require their continuous reevaluation and adjustment. With these qualifications, the conference committee agrees that the guidelines are a reasonable interpretation of the proviso of Section 108(g)(2) in the most common situations to which they apply today.” U.S. Congress, House of Representatives Copyright Bill Conference Committee, Report No. 94-1733, September 29, 1976, pp. 71–72 (94th Cong., 1st Sess.), in Grossman, vol. 17.Google Scholar