David R. Hansen et al. have self-archived "Educational Fair Use Brief in Support of Georgia State University on Behalf of Amici Curiae Academic Authors and Legal Scholars" in SSRN.

Here's an excerpt:

In this case, Plaintiff Publishers accuse GSU and its faculty of violating their copyrights through this practice. But, as the district court correctly found, such uses are fair, especially because they primarily use factual information to promote the purposes of education and teaching, the amount taken was reasonable in light of its purpose, and because Plaintiffs' evidence of a cognizable copyright market harm was speculative at best. However, the district court erred when it incorrectly concluded that these uses are not transformative. Using an unduly narrow definition of the concept, it failed to consider how educators repurpose scholarly works in productive ways that bring new meaning to and understanding of the works used.

As scholars and educators who produce and repurpose such works, amici urge this Court to affirm that these uses constitute a transformative use under the first fair use factor, and to reaffirm the findings under the other factors that these uses are fair. A finding of fair use in this case not only furthers the underlying goals of scholarship and education – access to knowledge – but also the very purposes of the Copyright Act itself.

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

The Library Copyright Alliance has filed a brief in the Cambridge U. Press et al. v. Mark P. Becker et al. e-reserves copyright case that was prepared by the EFF and Jonathan Band.

Here's an excerpt from the EFF announcement:

In the amicus brief filed today, EFF urges the appeals court to see what the district court saw: the vast majority of uses at issue were protected fair uses. Moreover, as a practical matter, the licensing market the publishers say they want to create for e-reserves will never emerge—not least because libraries can't afford to participate in it. Even assuming that libraries could pay such fees, requiring this would thwart the purpose of copyright by undermining the overall market for scholarship. Given libraries' stagnant or shrinking budgets, any new spending for licenses must be reallocated from existing expenditures, and the most likely source of reallocated funds is the budget for collections. An excerpt license requirement thus will harm the market for new scholarly works, as the works assigned for student reading are likely to be more established pieces written by well-known academics. Libraries' total investment in scholarship will be the same but resources will be diverted away from new works to redundant payments for existing ones, in direct contradiction of copyright's purpose of "promot[ing] progress."

Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Sitemap

The Justice Department has filed a brief in the Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al. case by for a 21-day extension in which to "to file any amicus brief in support of appellants or in support of neither party."

Here's an excerpt from "Obama Administration Considers Joining Publishers in Fight to Stamp out Fair Use at Universities":

In digging into this, we've heard from a few sources that it's actually the US Copyright Office that has asked the DOJ to weigh in on the side of the publishers and against the interests of public universities and students.

Read more about it at "Publishers and Library Groups Spar in Appeal to Ruling on Electronic Course Reserves," "Unwelcome Intervention?," and "U.S. Attorneys May Weigh in On GSU E-Reserves Case."

| Google Books Bibliography (XHTML website; over 320 entries) | Digital Scholarship |

Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and Sage Publications have filed an appeal in the Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al. case.

Here's an excerpt from the press release announcing the publishers' intent to appeal:

This case had the potential to mark a significant first step toward addressing the need for clarity around issues of copyright in the context of higher education, where current practices around fair use in a digital environment vary widely and could benefit from sound judicial guidance. Our hope was that the District Court would provide that guidance.

Instead, the Court's rulings, culminating in the August injunction decision, shift radically from long-accepted fair use principles and introduce, among other errors, unsustainable policies regarding the proportion of a work not readily available for digital licensing that can be digitally copied without restriction. We have no alternative but to appeal, to protect our authors' copyrights and advocate for a balanced and workable solution.

Read more about it at "Publishers Appeal Ruling in GSU E-Reserves Case."

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010: "SEP [Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography] is compiled with utter professionalism. It reminds me of the work of the best artisans who know not only every item that leaves their workshops, but each component used to create them—providing the ideal quality control." — Péter Jacsó ONLINE 27, no. 3 (2003): 73-76. | Digital Scholarship |

The publisher plaintiffs have issued a statement on Judge Orinda Evans' order in the Georgia State University e-reserves copyright case.

Here's an excerpt:

The District Court's decision is marred by a number of serious legal errors. The fair use exception cannot be stretched beyond recognition simply because course materials are delivered in a digital format by an educational institution. The ruling excuses copyright violations by GSU and endorses unauthorized copying and distribution of academic works well beyond what the law allows and what universities across the country consider reasonable. The decision devalues academic scholarship by treating such work as 'factual' compilations. . . .

As with the initial decision to bring suit, the decision regarding an appeal will be based on a considered assessment that takes into account the extent to which this ruling, which we believe to be legally vulnerable on multiple grounds, endangers the creation and dissemination of high-quality academic work

Georgia State University has also issued a statement about the order.

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog | Digital Scholarship |

Judge Orinda Evans has issued an order in the Georgia State University e-reserves copyright case that says, in part, that the defendants's attorney's fees and other defense costs will be paid by plaintiffs.

Here's an excerpt from the order:

In this litigation, the Court limited Plaintiffs to claims arising in three semesters in 2009 but did not require Plaintiffs to pursue all claims. When the trial began, Plaintiffs chose to pursue 99 claims out of 126. They then dropped 25 claims (and added one) during the trial. As to the remaining 75 claims, no prima facie case was proven in 26 instances. Digital permissions were unavailable in 33 instances. Neither digital nor hard copy permissions were available in 18 cases. Although the Court does not doubt Plaintiffs' good faith in bringing this suit, and there was no controlling authority governing fair use in a nonprofit educational setting, Plaintiffs' failure to narrow their individual infringement claims significantly increased the cost of defending the suit.

For these reasons, the Court exercises its discretion to award to Defendants their reasonable attorneys' fees. Other costs will also be taxed in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs to the extent permitted by statute.

Read more about it at "Judge Denies Publishers' Request for Relief in Georgia State U. E-Reserves Case" and "The Prevailing Party."

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 | Digital Scholarship |

The Association of American Publishers has issued a statement on the Georgia State University e-reserves copyright case ruling.

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

At the same time, we are disappointed with aspects of the Court's decision. Most importantly, the Court failed to examine the copying activities at GSU in their full context. Many faculty members have provided students with electronic anthologies of copyrighted course materials which are not different in kind from copyrighted print materials. In addition, the Court's analysis of fair use principles was legally incorrect in some places and its application of those principles mistaken. As a result, instances of infringing activity were incorrectly held to constitute fair use. . . .

The Court's ruling has important implications for the ongoing vitality of academic publishing as well as the educational mission of colleges and universities. Contrary to the findings of the Court, if institutions such as GSU are allowed to offer substantial amounts of copyrighted content for free, publishers cannot sustain the creation of works of scholarship. The resources available to educators will be fundamentally impaired.

| E-science and Academic Libraries Bibliography | Digital Scholarship |

ARL has released "Issue Brief: GSU Fair Use Decision Recap and Implications."

Here's an excerpt:

Although the decision is certainly not perfect (the use of bright line rules for appropriate amount under factor 3 is particularly troubling), Judge Evans has written a thorough and thoughtful analysis of the issues, and her opinion represents an overwhelming victory for Georgia State individually, a major defeat for the plaintiff publishers and for the AAP and CCC, and overall a positive development for libraries generally. The substance of the opinion is not ideal, but it is far more generous than the publishers have sought, it establishes a very comfortable safe harbor for fair use of books on e-reserve, and libraries remain free to take more progressive steps.

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Weblog | Digital Scholarship |

The ruling is in for the Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al. case.

Here's an excerpt from the ruling:

Of the 99 alleged infringements that Plaintiffs maintained at the start of trial, only 75 were submitted for post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law. This Order concludes that the unlicensed use of five excerpts (of four different books) infringed Plaintiffs' copyrights. The question now is whether Georgia State's 2009 Copyright Policy caused those infringements. The Court finds that it did, in that the policy did not limit copying in those instances to decidedly small excerpts as required by this Order. Nor did it proscribe the use of multiple chapters from the same book. Also, the fair use policy did not provide sufficient guidance in determining the "actual or potential effect on the market or the value of the copyrighted work," a task which would likely be futile for prospective determinations (in advance of litigation). The only practical way to deal with factor four in advance likely is to assume that it strongly favors the plaintiff-publisher (if licensed digital excerpts are available).

Read more about it at "The GSU Decision—Not an Easy Road for Anyone" and “Inside the Georgia State Opinion.”

| Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010: "SEP [Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography] is compiled with utter professionalism. It reminds me of the work of the best artisans who know not only every item that leaves their workshops, but each component used to create them—providing the ideal quality control." — Péter Jacsó ONLINE 27, no. 3 (2003): 73-76. | Digital Scholarship |

College & Research Libraries has released a preprint of "Copyright Policy and Practice in Electronic Reserves among ARL Libraries."

Here's an excerpt:

This paper presents the results of a survey of 110 ARL institutions regarding their copyright policies for providing electronic reserves. It compiles descriptive statistics on library practice as well as coding responses to reveal trends and shared practices. Finally, it presents conclusions about policy-making, decision-making and risk aversion in ARL institutions.

| Digital Scholarship's Digital Bibliographies | Digital Scholarship |

U.S. District Court Judge Orinda D. Evans granted Georgia State University's motion for directed verdict in part in the Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al. case. A directed verdict for the contributory infringement claim was granted.

Here's an excerpt from "Publishers Lose Another Claim as GSU Trial Comes to a Close" by Brandon Butler:

And just like that, Judge Orinda Evans threw out the second of the publishers' three claims. Now indirect infringement is the only remaining claim against GSU. . . .

This claim is the hardest one for GSU to avoid because, in theory, the publishers just have to find one infringement by one professor to prove GSU is an 'indirect infringer.'

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |

Below is some recent commentary about the Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al. case.

"A Nightmare Scenario for Higher Education" by Kevin Smith. Here's an excerpt:

First, if this injunction were adopted as proposed, it would enjoin everyone at Georgia State, including students, who would seem to largely lose their fair use rights by virtue of enrolling at GSU. It would apply to e-reserves, faculty web pages and any learning management systems in use or adopted in the future. It would make GSU responsible for every conceivable act of copying that took place on their campus. In short, administrators at Georgia State would have to look over the shoulders of each faculty member whenever they uploaded course material to an LMS or any other web page. . . .

Not only would GSU have to micromanage each faculty member’s choices about how to teach every class, they would also have to give the plaintiff publishers access to all of the computer systems on campus so that they too could examine each professor’s decisions.

"The Georgia State Filing—A Declaration of War on the Faculty?" by Paul Courant. Here's an excerpt:

Call me gullible, but even now I am not fully persuaded that academic publishers are the enemies of faculty and the university. However, I do think that something has gone horribly wrong when entities that were created to serve scholarship employ legal procedures that would hamstring scholars and students who engage in customary and effective behaviors in their teaching and learning. I hope that Judge Evans will recognize that the publishers’ proposal is a plain violation of copyright and would be destructive of vital public purposes.

"What's at Stake in the Georgia State Copyright Case." The Chronicle of Higher Education published comments from prominent experts in this article. Here's an excerpt from Dorothea Salo's contribution:

Should a ruling come down that adds so much complication, cost, or risk to provisions about electronic reserves that institutions and their libraries no longer feel safe offering them, faculty and librarians will unite at last in shared outrage on the far shore of the Rubicon.

"Georgia State, Copyright and the Future of Higher Education" by Tracy Mitrano. Here's an excerpt:

We need senior leadership in our institutions, guided by national associations, to pull that campus radical of the 1960's out of the suits and high heels we now don and get serious about a direction of change that preserves us.

"The Georgia State University Lawsuit Injunction: Back to the Future" by Peggy Hoon. Here's an excerpt:

However, this proposed injunction is so onerous, so intrusive, so far-reaching, and so incompatible with the reality of teaching and learning in the 21st century, that simply widely publicizing the existence of and contents of the proposed injunction may well achieve what the library community has been trying to do for the last twenty years.

**WAKE UP THE FACULTY AND MOBILIZE THEM TO RECLAIM CONTROL OF THEIR OWN WORKS OF AUTHORSHIP AND THEIR OWN SYSTEM OF SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION.**

This injunction is your fuel—now LIGHT that fire!

| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |