Category: Copyright

Georgia State Claims Fair Use in E-Reserves Lawsuit

In a filing in the Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and SAGE Publications copyright infringement suit against Georgia State, Georgia State University has claimed that is use of materials from those publishers in its e-reserves system is permitted under fair use provisions.

Read more about it "In Lawsuit, University Asserts That Downloading Copyrighted Texts Is Fair Use."

U.S. Copyright Office to Implement Online Registration System

On July 1, 2008, the U.S. Copyright Office will implement an online registration system called the electronic Copyright Office (eCO).

Here's an excerpt from the announcement:

Filing an eService claim via eCO offers several advantages:

  • lower filing fee of $35 for a basic claim;
  • fastest processing time;
  • earlier effective date of registration;
  • online status tracking;
  • secure payment by credit or debit card, electronic check or Copyright Office deposit account;
  • and ability to upload certain categories of deposits directly into eCO as electronic files.

Even users who intend to submit a hard copy of the work being registered may file an application and payment online and print out an eCO-generated shipping slip to be attached to the hardcopy deposit. Beginning July 1 eCO may be used to register basic claims to copyright for literary works, visual arts works, performing arts works including motion pictures, sound recordings and single serials. Basic claims include (1) a single work, (2) multiple unpublished works if they are by the same author(s) and owned by the same claimant, and (3) multiple published works if they are all first published together in the same publication on the same date and owned by the same claimant.

New ACRL Publications Agreements FAQ

ALA's Association College & Research Libraries has made available a new ACRL Publications Agreements FAQ, which covers serials, book chapters, book editors, and podcasts.

The FAQ's statement about Creative Commons licenses and serials is of special interest:

We didn’t want to require our authors to publish their works using a Creative Commons license, but you are welcome to attach the CC license of your choosing to your work after it is published by ACRL. Visit the Creative Commons website (http://creativecommons.org/) to learn more about their licensing options.

This is welcome news, and ACRL is to be applauded for supporting the use of Creative Commons licenses.

It is very helpful to have a concise and clear explanation of ACRL's copyright and other publication policies regarding serials, and the information about book chapters, book editors, and podcasts is very helpful as well. It would be highly desirable for other ALA divisions to follow ACRL's lead in this matter.

Note that ACRL's copyright forms are on the ACRL Forms page.

Associated Press Charges By the Word for Quotes

The Associated Press has established a fee schedule for the use of excerpts from its articles by bloggers and others. There are different fees for standard, educational, and nonprofit use, but all fees are based on word counts. For example, the free for nonprofit use of 5-25 words is $7.50.

In "Associated Press Declares War on Bloggers, Fair Use," Public Knowledge blogger Mehan Jayasuriya says:

That’s right, if you want to quote an AP article in your blog post, you’ll be paying by the word for the privilege. What’s more, in order to purchase a license to quote AP content, you’ll have to agree to a Terms of Use agreement, which states, among other things, that you may not criticize either the AP or the author of the article in your post or article. If you do, the AP reserves the right to revoke the license granted.

The problem with the AP’s licensing structure is that it ignores existing fair use rights, which clearly state that a short quotation from any news story is fair game. . . .

Blogger Michelle Malkin decided to calculate, using the AP’s licensing structure, how much the AP owes her for quotations it has used from her blog posts in recent months (it’s also worth noting that the AP did not link to her blog in the articles where these quotes were used). By Malkin’s count, the AP owes her somewhere in the neighborhood of $132,125.

Code4Lib Journal Adopts Creative Commons Attribution License

Starting with its just released third issue, the Code4Lib Journal is using the Creative Commons Attribution License for its articles, making this freely available journal an open access journal under the strictest definition of that term (sometimes called "full open access").

Here's an excerpt from the editorial that discusses this change:

In order to facilitate the ability of our readers to build upon the ideas presented in the Journal, beginning with Issue 3 all articles are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license. The CC-BY license lets you reuse, share, and build upon the work presented in the article, as long as you credit the author for the original creation. This licensing is required for inclusion in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and to receive a SPARC Europe Seal. Code snippets included in the text are included under the CC-BY license. For other code included with an article, we recommend, but don’t require, an open source license. We are contacting all authors with articles published in previous issues to request they license their previously published Code4Lib Journal articles under the CC-BY license.

Associated Press vs. Drudge Retort: "Both Parties Consider the Matter Closed"

After a firestorm of criticism, the Associated Press has issued a press release saying that its dispute with the Drudge Retort over that blog's use of short quotes from AP stories is over: "Both parties consider the matter closed."

Read more about the controversy at "AP Battles Blogs"; "AP, Bloggers Clash over Wire Content Use"; "AP Exaggerates the 'Conversation' It's Having with Bloggers; Caught Copying Text from Bloggers as Well"; "The A.P. Has Violated My Copyright, and I Demand Justice"; "The Associated Press Plays Role of Metallica in Napster-esque War with Bloggers"; and "Biting the Hand that Feeds (Traffic to) Them."

Short Quotes Not Fair Use? Associated Press Sends Take-Down Letter to Drudge Retort

The Associated Press has sent the Drudge Retort a DMCA take-down letter demanding that 6 posts and one comment with short quotes from AP articles be removed from the site.

Negative reaction from bloggers and others against what was viewed as an assault on fair use was swift, resulting in a TechCrunch ban on AP story use, a broader AP ban by bloggers, and a wave of criticism.

As a result, AP decided to halt further action against other Weblogs until new guidelines could be established, but it has not withdrawn its letter the Drudge Retort.

Read more about it at: "Associated Press Digs Its Own Grave Deeper; Wants to Create Its Own Fair Use Rules," "The Associated Press to Set Guidelines for Using Its Articles in Blogs," "AP Rethinking Policy After Drudge Retort DMCA Takedowns," "AP Takes Action against Community News Website over Copyright Violation," "AP Wants Change in Blog Excerpting, Just Not Sure What," "DMCA Takedown Tiff Not a Battle the AP Should Be Fighting," "Netroots' Bloggers Boycott of Associated Press Is Working," and "Welcome to the Web Refactory, AP."

Reactions to the "Canadian DMCA" (Bill C-61)

There have been strong reactions to the "Canadian DMCA" (Bill C-61) by both advocates and opponents. Copyright for Canadians has put up a "Tell MPs What's Wrong with the Prentice Bill" page that helps opponents contact their Members of Parliament.

Here's a selection of articles and posts: "Appropriation Art Condemns Bill C-61," "Bill C-61: First Reactions," "Canadian Creator and Music Industry Groups Applaud Introduction of Copyright Bill," "The Canadian DMCA: A Betrayal," "Canadian Library Association Disappointed with New Copyright Legislation," "CIPPIC Disappointed with New Copyright Bill," "CMCC: Copyright Reform Bill Doesn’t Help Canadian Artists," "Conservatives Deliver Rehearsed Responses on Bill C-61," "Copyright Law Could Result in Police State: Critics," "Copyright Reform a Good First Step," "Industry Group Applauds Bill," "Software Industry Praises Federal Government Plans to Modernize Canadian Copyright Act," and "TPM and Bill C-61."

Copyright Legislation: Canadian "DMCA" Bill Introduced

The Canadian Industry Minister Jim Prentice has introduced Bill-C61, often called the Canadian "DMCA" by its critics, into the House.

Read more about it at "A Breakdown of the New Digital Dos and Don'ts," "Canadian DRM Bill Creates Partisan Uproar," "'Canadian DMCA' Brings 'Balanced' Copyright to Canada," "The Canadian DMCA: Check the Fine Print," "Copyright Bill: All Ours, or a DMCA Copy?," "David Fewer Of CIPPIC On Canadian DMCA Bombshell" (includes video), "Industry Minister Jim Prentice Introduces The Canadian DMCA" (includes video), "New Copyright Act Targets Online Piracy," and "Ottawa Tables Copyright Bill."

More about ALA, CLA, and Open Access

Peter Suber has commented on my "On ALA, CLA, and Open Access" posting:

PS: For background, see Charles' previous report on OA for ALA publications (July 2006). In my comment at the time, I pointed out some of the ALA's public statements in support of OA: "(1) the ALA Washington office has a page on OA, (2) the ALA Council adopted a resolution in support of FRPAA at its June 2006 annual meeting, and (3) the ALA has signed on to several public statements in support of OA, most recently a July 12 letter in support of FRPAA and a May 31 letter in support of the EC report on OA."

Of course, I had reviewed Peter's prior comment before writing the new post. Here's a further analysis:

A good summary of other ALA joint statements, along with those of ACRL, can be found at "ACRL Taking Action."

Here's more information on ALA's "green" and "gold" policies.

Let's assume that both ALA copyright agreements are in effect for all journals. The Copyright Assignment Agreement explicitly supports limited self-archiving ("The right to use and distribute the Work on the Author’s Web site"). The Copyright Assignment Agreement further says that the author has: "The right to use and distribute the Work internally at the Author’s place of employment, and for promotional and any other non-commercial purposes." While "any other non-commercial purposes" seems to permit broad self-archiving, the specification of the "distribute the Work internally at the Author's place of employment" right seems to imply that the right to distribute the work outside of the author's place of employment is in question, which would mean that self-archiving in digital repositories could be done only in the author's institutional repository and only if access to the work was limited to institutional users. Moreover, if broad self-archiving is permitted, why single out the right to self-archive on the author's Web site? I find the wording ambiguous, and I would not recommend that anyone who wants to self-archive use this license. If its intent is to allow broad self-archiving, this should be spelled out. The Copyright License Agreement supports all types of self archiving ("Copyright of the Work remains in Author’s name, and the Author reserves all other rights"). Consequently, we can say that ALA supports "green" self-archiving, but this may be very weak under the Copyright Assignment Agreement.

Without further information, it is not possible to say that any of ALA's major journals are "gold," although Public Libraries and School Library Media Research might be. If this were true, ALA's Public Library Association and its American Association of School Librarians divisions would be ALA's gold journal publishers, with the Association of College & Research Libraries division nearly being one.

Canadian Copyright Law: A Consumer White Paper Released

A coalition of consumer advocate organizations has released Canadian Copyright Law: A Consumer White Paper.

Here's an excerpt from the Executive Summary:

Copyright law is designed to balance the interests of creators with the interests of the public. Copyright grants creators exclusive rights in their works as a reward for creativity that also serves as an incentive for the creation of new works. These rights are not absolute, but limited in nature, scope and time. These limits are essential to copyright’s greater design, for it is at the limits of copyright owners’ rights that important consumer interests come into play.

From a consumer’s perspective, copyright’s current balance is far from perfect. In fact, many consumer dealings with copyrighted content – ordinary dealings, like copying digital music onto a portable device, or using the digital video recorders sold by cable companies – technically infringe copyright. In these and many other cases, the law is simply out of step with reality. Simple, uncontroversial amendments to the Copyright Act can fix many of these failings.

Unfortunately, copyright policy makers are not focusing on consumer interests. Instead, recent proposals to amend the Copyright Act focus on expanding rights holder’s interests at Canadian consumer’s expense. We call on Canada’s law-makers to accommodate consumer interests in any revision to the Copyright Act currently under consideration. Additionally, we call on lawmakers to revise the Copyright Act to address important consumer concerns that are not yet under consideration at all.

On ALA, CLA, and Open Access

The Canadian Library Association recently issued a new, strongly worded open access statement ("Position Statement on Open Access for Canadian Libraries"). Peter Suber commented on this statement, saying "Many organizations have called on their governments to mandate OA for publicly-funded research, but the CLA is first I've seen to regard embargo periods as a temporary compromise, justified only to help publishers adapt during a transition period."

The American Library Association is a member of the Alliance for Taxpayer Access and the Open Access Working Group, and. as such, has signed a variety of targeted statements about free access to government-funded research. The most active ALA Division in terms of open access support is the Association of College and Research Libraries, which has a number of activities geared towards promoting it.

Such statements and activities are praiseworthy, but the question remains: What kind of open access to these associations provide to their own journals?

CLA appears to embargo the current issue of Feliciter. If so, CLA cannot be said to be providing full free access to the journal; however, as embargoes go, it is a generous one.

Since it publishes more journals, the situation for ALA is more complex, and it is summarized below in a discussion of its major journals.

ALA Journal Free Access?
Children and Libraries: The Journal of the Association for Library Service to Children No
College & Research Libraries Embargo (current volume?), with e-prints that are removed on issue publication leaving a free access gap
Information Technology and Libraries Six month embargo
Library Administration and Management No
Library Resources & Technical Services Embargo? (last complete issue listed on site is from 2006 and last free volume is from 2006)
Public Libraries Embargo? (last listed issue on site is from 2007)
RBM: A Journal of Rare Books, Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage Embargo? (last listed issue on site is from 2006)
School Library Media Research Embargo? (last listed issue on site is from 2007)
Reference & User Services Quarterly No (there are no issues listed on site)
Young Adult Library Services No

Given that several journals are far behind in listing back issues, some have no listed 2008 issues, and one has no back issues whatsoever, it is difficult to make definitive statements about their open access policies. It is possible that this confusion arises from difficulties in the timely maintenance of ALA journal Websites. What can be said is that, as of today, those missing digital issues are not accessible to anyone from the ALA site.

One thing is clear: it would be very helpful if ALA journals would clearly and prominently state their open access policies. Although it will not be discussed here in any detail, several journals have conflicting or unclear copyright agreement policies. It is assumed that ALA offers its two copyright agreements (Copyright Assignment Agreement and Copyright License Agreement.) for all journals, but this cannot be verified from all journal Websites.

While it is not uniform, ALA is making progress towards providing more free journal content; however, it cannot be said that ALA fully supports free access to all of its major journals. Moreover, to my knowledge, ALA itself has never made an open access position statement that is similar to CLA's and those of other library organizations, such as IFLA's (this excludes any statements by ALA divisions or joint statements). As the open access movement nears the decade point, it would seem desirable for it to unambiguously do so.

ALA is a major voice in the library community, and, if its open access efforts are to be taken seriously by publishers and scholars, it should state whether it supports green access (self-archiving), gold access (open access journals), or both. If it wants to support gold access, it should first reform its own journal publishing business model. If not, it would be helpful for it to clarify and make consistent the terms of its embargo access at an organizational vs. a divisional level.

Back-Door Copyright Regulation: The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Switzerland, and the United States have been conducting low-profile meetings about a new trade agreement that would significantly effect copyright laws in the participating countries if passed. It is called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, and a discussion paper was leaked in May. It may include provisions such as ISP disclosure of suspected infringers without a warrant.

Read more about it at "An ACTA Call to Arms: No More Secret Government," "The Art of the End Around," "Secret ACTA Treaty May Include ISP Filtering," "The Real ACTA Threat (It's Not iPod-Scanning Border Guards)," and "Speculation Persists on ACTA as First Official Meeting Concludes."

Study Questions Accuracy of Media Companies' BitTorrent Infringement Detection Techniques

A technical report ("Challenges and Directions for Monitoring P2P File Sharing Networks—or—Why My Printer Received a DMCA Takedown Notice") by two researchers at the University of Washington's Department of Computer Science and Engineering calls into question the accuracy of media companies' BitTorrent infringement detection methods.

Here's an excerpt from the paper:

Copyright holders utilize inconclusive methods for identifying infringing BitTorrent users. We were able to generate hundreds of DMCA takedown notices for machines under our control at the University of Washington that were not downloading or sharing any content.

Read more about it at "The Inexact Science Behind DMCA Takedown Notices" and "Study Reveals Reckless Anti-Piracy Antics."

McGill's Centre for Intellectual Property Policy Launches CIPP Wiki

The Centre for Intellectual Property Policy at McGill University has launched the CIPP Wiki.

Here's an excerpt from the home page:

Join colleagues and friends at the CIPP in setting out a re-draft of the [Canadian] Copyright Act. Using this wiki platform, we would ask you to draft possible articles on pressing issues of copyright reform. McGill members of the CIPP wiki team have identified specific areas and articles of reform, but feel free to add others in the general comments section

.

STM, the Federation of European Publishers, and Others Sign Search Guidelines for Orphan Works Memorandum

STM, the Federation of European Publishers, and 23 other organizations have signed a "Memorandum of Understanding on Diligent Search Guidelines for Orphan Works." The text of the document does not appear to be available; however, the press release seems to reference the 2006 "STM Position: The Use of Orphan Works."

Here's an excerpt from the press release:

The Memorandum is an outcome of extensive discussions of the High Level Expert Group on Digital libraries set up by Commissioner Reding as part of the EU i2010 initiatives. It covers a broad range of copyright sectors, including the text sector, and has incorporated the previous STM work on orphan works (REF).

The memorandum is one of several outcomes agreed by all participants in the Copyright SubGroup of the High Level Expert Group and reflects the leadership of its Chair Tarja Koskinen-Olsson, Honorary President of IFRRO and the input of its members, especially Anne Bergman-Tahon of the Federation of European Publishers.

Presentations from the 152nd ARL Membership Meeting

ARL has released presentations from its 152nd membership meeting, which was titled "Institutional Strategies Supporting E-Scholarship & Multidisciplinary Research."

Here's a selection of the presentations:

Orphan Works Bills Clear House and Senate Committees

Orphan works bills in House (H.R. 5889, The Orphan Works Act of 2008) and the Senate (S. 2913, the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008) have been marked up by the appropriate Congressional committees. House testimony by Marybeth Peters, The Register of Copyrights, overviews the issues involved in the legislation.

The bills are not without controversy. Prominent copyright reformer Lawrence Lessig wrote an Op Ed piece in The New York Times opposing the bills, calling them "both unfair and unwise." Public Knowledge and others countered his objections. Various associations of content creators, such as photographers, have been vocal opponents of the bills.

Read more about it at "ASMP Urges Photographers to Oppose 'Orphan Works' Bill," "Issue Brief: Orphan Works," "Library Group Favors Senate over House Bill on Orphan Works," "Orphan Works," "Orphan Works Bill Clears Senate Committee, May Soon Find Home," "Release the Orphan Works!," "Senate Marks Up Orphan Works," and "Two Cartoon-Group Presidents Slam Possible 'Orphan Works' Legislation."

Further Coverage about and Commentary on the Georgia State Digital Copyright Lawsuit

Here's a selection of recent news articles and Weblog postings about the Georgia State copyright infringement lawsuit. See my prior postings for further information about the suit ("Georgia State Copyright Infringement Suit Coverage and Commentary" and "Georgia State Sued by Three Publishers for Alleged Digital Copyright Infringement in E-Reserves, Course Management, and Other Systems").

"Academic Publishers Sue US Uni over Digital Course Material"

It is an estimate that electronic course packs now constitute half of all syllabus reading at American colleges and universities. . . . Cambridge University Press, for example charges 17 cents a page for each student for electronic use, and generally grants permission for use of as much as 20 percent of a book.

"Copyright Suit Tests How Much Is Too Much"

Indeed, the complaint notes that the three plaintiffs have published more than 100 books and monographs authored by GSU professors. That GSU is a nonprofit institution shouldn't have any bearing on how much unauthorized copying it can do, Smith [Frank Smith, Cambridge University Press] says.

"We're a nonprofit," he points out. "I assume they wouldn't want their classes flooded with students who weren't paying tuition, but you could say there's no extra cost to filling another desk. I'm sure they would resist that, and I could see why."

"Publishers vs Academics"

The educational area is one where courts have traditionally afforded a greater degree of leeway in fair use and even the plaintiff's lawyer has to admit that he can't find a law or binding precedent stating how much digital copying would be "not too much." It seems likely that if the case ever makes it as far as a decision that decision would be appealed. My personal opinion is that they'll work out a settlement before it gets that far—neither side wants to see a precedent set that would go against them. Plus there's a core reality that academic publishers and educational institutions exist in a kind of death-grip dependency that would harm both if it was violently broken.

"Publishing Group Hires Qorvis for Lawsuit Messaging"

The Association of American Publishers hired Qorvis to handle messaging for three academic publishers' copyright lawsuit against Georgia State University.

"Suing Georgia"

So, . . . what's left if you really, really, really believe that educators ought to be able to use whatever they need to and want to use in their classrooms without worrying about what it costs or whether it's fair use?

Consumer resistance, or OA.

"Temperance Is a Virtue"

If that case every reaches the stage of arguing the fair use defense, I hope the court will look very hard at the second fair use factor—the nature of the copyrighted work. Previously, the action on this factor has been minimal and has largely focused on published versus unpublished works and how much originality is necessary for "thick" or "thin" protection. But the economics of a particular segment of publishing, especially one as dysfunctional as scholarly publishing, ought to be considered when analyzing fair use, and factor two is a good place to do that. If the system is structured in a way that undermines the whole incentive purpose of copyright, as I have argued the scholarly publishing is, factor two, which really focuses on the expectations of creators of different types of works, should strongly favor an expansive application of fair use.

"What Does the Lawsuit against Georgia State Mean?"

There are a number of possible outcomes in this case. Settlement is possible. The complaint itself is somewhat vague in its details; while specific examples are provided for some of the allegedly infringing uses, the publishers provide no specific details or examples of professors linking to course material from their open web pages, or any information about specifically infringing behaviors within the course management system. Although it claims the copying is in excess of what is permitted as fair use, the publishers do not offer a specific discussion of what it considers to be the bounds of fair use, nor does it adequately define course packs, nor offer any interpretation of the cited cases against copy shops, other than to broadly claim that they act as guiding precedence.

EDUCAUSE Podcast on P2P File Sharing: "Don't Download This Panel"

EDUCAUSE has released a podcast on P2P file sharing called "Don't Download This Panel." The podcast is from a panel discussion about the topic at the EDUCAUSE 2008 Western Regional Conference.

The speakers are:

  • Greg DePriest, Vice President, Technology Policy, NBC Universal
  • Kenneth C. Green, Founding Director, The Campus Computing Project
  • Fred von Lohmann, Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • Session moderator: Kent Wada, Director, IT Strategic Policy, UCLA

Creative Commons Statement of Intent for Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses Made Official

The draft designation for the Creative Commons Statement of Intent for Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses has been removed, and the document is now the official explanation of the goals of this group of licenses.

Read more about it at "Creative Commons Statement of Intent for Attribution-ShareAlike Licenses Released."

Georgia State Copyright Infringement Suit Coverage and Commentary

Here's a selection of news articles and Weblog postings about the Georgia State copyright infringement lawsuit.

"Coursepack Sharing: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?": John Mark Ockerbloom, who maintains The Online Books Page, looks at the suit from an open access point of view. He says:

But in a world that's brought us global content sharing systems like Flickr, CiteULike, and PubMedCentral, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine systems that would let instructors provide and share open access course readings more readily. A well-designed, browsable and searchable repository of such readings could provide a convenient way for professors to upload, organize, and disseminate open coursepacks for their students ("Just go to the OpenCoursePacks website, and type in the name of my course", they could say). The same site could also let profs could tag, annotate, and recommend their readings, thereby making it that much easier for other professors to find and include suitable open access content in their own coursepacks. With a good design, and suitable scale and interest, a coursepack sharing site could make a lot more good instructional material widely and freely used and shared.

"Georgia State Sued For Copyright Infringement": Information Media Partners supports the suit and provides an interesting comment about publishers' fear of entering the "valley of death" of the print-to-electronic transition.

"Oxford, Cambridge and Sage Sue Georgia State": Paul N. Courant, University Librarian and Dean of Libraries at the University of Michigan, reacts to the suit. In summary, he says:

Things have come to a pretty pass when academic institutions sue each other over academic matters. Even if the publishers prove to be right on the merits, the lawsuit ought to be the last resort, and student use of academic materials produced by academic institutions ought be priced at something like marginal cost, rather than at the price that maximizes profit. And one wonders why three rich and distinguished institutions would go after an urban university that is much less well-resourced.

"A Press Revolt against E-Packet Practices": Andy Guess' Inside Higher Ed article overviews the suit, provides background information about prior communications between GSU and the plaintiff’s law firm, notes that the suit indicates that the e-reserves system wasn't restricted access until after a complaint to the university, and includes a call from Kenneth C. Green, director of the Campus Computing Project, for a iTunes-like system for scholarly material.

"Publishers Sue Georgia State for Copyright Infringement": Calvin Reid's Publisher's Weekly article overviews the suit and includes comments by Patricia Schroeder (AAP President and Chief Executive Officer), Allan Adler (AAP Vice President, Legal and Governmental Affairs), and Niko Pfund (Oxford University Press Vice President).

"Publishers Sue Georgia State University Over E-Reserves": Andrew Albanese's Library Journal article overviews the suit and includes comments by Pfund as well as a useful brief recap of prior e-reserves disputes and resolutions. (For more background, see Albanese's 2007 article "Down with E-Reserves: Confusing, Contentious, and Vital, E-Reserves Fuel Higher Education—And an Ongoing Copyright Battle.") Albanese notes that the "suit offers a remarkably detailed view of what the plaintiffs believe to be infringing activity at GSU, including specific examples of uses it considers to be well beyond the scope of fair use and a detailed appendix of alleged infringed materials."

"Trying to Sue State U": Kevin Smith, Scholarly Communications Officer at Duke University, analyzes the suit, weaving in an analysis of a recent case of state sovereign immunity and copyright infringement (discussed here in "Copyright Infringement Liability of State Employees"). In summary, Smith says:

A little bit of attention to the economics of scholarly publishing quickly undermines the claim in this complaint that, without permission fees for electronic reserves, the incentive system of copyright will be undermined. No monetary incentive currently exists for the vast majority of academic publishing, from the point of view of faculty, yet academics keep writing. There is no evidence at all that this well of free content will suddenly go dry if publishers are not able to collect an additional income stream from that well. If this suit goes forward in spite of sovereign immunity, that should be the issue on which the court focuses its attention.

For further reactions, see Jennifer Howard's "Librarians React to Lawsuit Against Georgia State U."