80 FR 32614 - Mass Digitization Pilot Program; Request for Comments
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
United States Copyright Office Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 110 (June 9, 2015)
United States Copyright Office
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 110 (June 9, 2015)
| Page Range | 32614-32615 | |
| FR Document | 2015-14116 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 2015)] [Notices] [Pages 32614-32615] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-14116] [[Page 32614]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- LIBRARY OF CONGRESS United States Copyright Office [Docket No. 2015-3] Mass Digitization Pilot Program; Request for Comments AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Notice of inquiry. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is developing a limited pilot program and corresponding draft legislation that would establish a legal framework known as extended collective licensing for certain mass digitization activities that are currently beyond the reach of the Copyright Act. This request provides the opportunity for interested parties to submit specific recommendations regarding the operational aspects of the pilot program, within the parameters and legal framework described in the Office's Orphan Works and Mass Digitization report. DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on August 10, 2015. ADDRESSES: All comments should be submitted electronically. To submit comments, please visit http://copyright.gov/policy/massdigitization. The Web site interface requires commenting parties to complete a form specifying name and organization, as applicable, and to upload comments as an attachment via a browser button. To meet accessibility standards, commenting parties must upload comments in a single file not to exceed six megabytes (MB) in one of the following formats: A Portable Document File (PDF) format that contains searchable, accessible text (not an image); Microsoft Word; WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF); or ASCII text file (not a scanned document). The form and face of the comments must include both the name of the submitter and organization. The Office will post the comments publicly on the Office's Web site exactly as they are received, along with names and organizations. If electronic submission of comments is not feasible, please contact the Office at 202-707-1027 for special instructions. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Amer, Senior Counsel for Policy and International Affairs, by telephone at 202-707-1027 or by email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The U.S. Copyright Office has completed a multi-year study on the issues of orphan works and mass digitization, respectively, and has published a report detailing its findings and recommendations.\1\ In the report, the Office proposes separate legislative solutions for each issue. With respect to orphan works, the Office has proposed, with certain conditions, a limitation on liability for good faith users, improving upon its 2006 Orphan Works Report as well as the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act passed by the Senate in 2008.\2\ With respect to mass digitization, the Office has concluded that the addition of extended collective licensing (ECL) in U.S. law would help to facilitate the work of those who wish to digitize and provide full access to certain collections of books, photographs, or other materials for nonprofit educational or research purposes. An ECL framework can facilitate lawful uses that are not otherwise possible (e.g., because they are beyond the reach of case-by-case licensing or the application of fair use or both). The Office's full analysis can be found at http://copyright.gov/orphan/. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ See U.S. Copyright Office, Orphan Works and Mass Digitization: A Report of the Register of Copyrights (2015), available at http://www.copyright.gov/orphan. \2\ See id., Appendix A. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Congress were to establish a limited and voluntary pilot program at this time, it would help the United States copyright community to garner experience with the kind of ECL experience that is either in place or being discussed in other countries. The pilot program would permit users to obtain licenses under specified conditions. Under the proposed framework, a collective management organization (CMO) representing copyright owners in a particular category of works would be permitted to seek authorization from the Register of Copyrights to issue licenses on behalf of both members and non-members of the CMO for certain mass digitization activities. To qualify for licensing authority, a CMO would be required to submit an application to the Office providing evidence of its representativeness in the relevant field, the consent of its membership to the ECL proposal, and its adherence to sufficient standards of transparency, accountability, and good governance. Once authorized, a CMO would be entitled to negotiate royalty rates and terms with users seeking to digitally reproduce and provide online access to a collection or body of copyrighted works for the benefit of the public, a community, or other specified users. Because the pilot is a limited project, such uses at this early juncture could be made only for nonprofit educational and research purposes and without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage. The CMO would be required to collect and distribute royalties to rightsholders within a prescribed period and to conduct diligent searches for non-members for whom it had collected payments. Copyright owners would have the right to limit the grant of licenses with respect to their works or to opt out of the system altogether. To assist it in developing specific legislation within these general parameters, the Office invites public comment on the topics below regarding the practical operation of such a system. The Office will then seek to facilitate further discussion through stakeholder meetings and, if necessary, additional requests for written comment. Based on this input, the Office will draft a formal legislative proposal for Congress's consideration. II. Request for Comment 1. Examples of Projects. Comments are invited regarding examples of large digitization projects that may be appropriate for licensing under the Office's proposed ECL framework. The Office is particularly interested in the views of prospective users who may be interested in digitizing and offering access to a specific collection or body of works. The Office believes that information about the types of mass digitization projects that users have the desire and capacity to undertake will provide a useful starting point for stakeholder dialogue on various elements of the ECL pilot. Other interested members of the public, however, are also invited to submit their views. Specifically, commenters should address the following issues: a. Qualifying Collections. The Office has recommended that ECL be available for three categories of published copyrighted works: (1) Literary works; (2) pictorial or graphic works published as illustrations, diagrams, or similar adjuncts to literary works; and (3) photographs. Within these categories, please describe or provide examples of the types of collections that you believe should be eligible for licensing under the ECL pilot. For example, should the pilot be limited to collections involving a minimum number of copyrighted works? If so, what should that threshold number be? Should collections that include commercially available works be eligible for ECL, or should the program cover only out-of-commerce works? Should the program be limited to works published before a certain [[Page 32615]] date? If so, what date would be advisable? b. Eligibility and Access. Please describe any appropriate limitations on the end-users who should be eligible to access a digital collection under a qualifying mass digitization project. For example, should access be limited to students, affiliates, and employees of the digitizing institution, or should ECL licensees be permitted to provide access to the general public? In addition, please describe any appropriate restrictions on methods of access. Should licensees be permitted to offer access to a collection remotely, or only through onsite computer terminals? c. Security Requirements. The Office has recommended that CMOs and users be required to include, as part of any ECL license, terms requiring the user to implement and reasonably maintain adequate digital security measures to control access to the collection, and to prevent unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or display of the licensed works. Please describe any specific technical measures that should be required as part of this obligation. In addition, the Office invites stakeholder views on the extent to which specific security requirements should be set forth by statute or defined through Copyright Office regulations. 2. Dispute Resolution Process. The Office has recommended that the ECL pilot provide for a dispute resolution process before the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) when an authorized CMO and a prospective user are unable to agree to licensing terms. The Office is interested in receiving public comment on what form this process should take. Should the legislation authorize informal mediation, with the CRB's role limited to that of a facilitator of negotiations? Or should the statute provide for binding arbitration? Some foreign ECL laws provide voluntary procedures under which parties can agree to submit their dispute to a binding proceeding, but are not required to do so.\3\ Do those laws provide a workable dispute resolution model for a U.S. ECL program? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See LOV 1961-05-12 nr 02: Lov om opphavsrett til [aring]ndsverk m.v. ([aring]ndsverkloven) [Act No. 2 of May 12, 1961 Relating to Copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works], as amended on Dec. 22, 2006, Sec. 38 (Nor.), translated at http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=248181 (unofficial translation), last amended by LOV-2014-06-13 nr 22 [Act No. 22 of June 13, 2014] (translation unavailable); Lag om medling i vissa upphovsr[auml]ttstvister (Svensk f[ouml]rfattningssamling [SFS] 1980:612) [Act on Mediation in Certain Copyright Disputes] (1995) art. 5 (Swed.), translated at http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=241666 (unofficial translation), as amended by Lag, May 26, 2005 (2005:361), translated at http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129617 (unofficial translation), last amended by Lag, June 27, 2013 (2013:690) (translation unavailable). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Distribution of Royalties. To ensure that rightsholders receive compensation within a reasonable time, the Office has recommended that the legislation or regulations establish a specific period within which a CMO must distribute royalties to rightsholders whom it has identified and located. Both the United Kingdom's ECL regulations and the European Union's February 2014 Directive on collective rights management generally require that such payments be made no later than nine months from the end of the financial year in which the royalties were collected.\4\ In the United States, there is some industry precedent for distributions by CMOs on a quarterly basis.\5\ What would be an appropriate timeframe for required distributions under a U.S. ECL program? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ Copyright and Rights in Performances (Extended Collective Licensing) Regulations 2014, S.I. 2014/2588, art. 18, ] 3 (U.K.) (``U.K. ECL Regulations''); Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Rights in Musical Works for Online Use in the Internal Market, art. 13(1), 2014 O.J. (L 84) 72, 87, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0026&from=EN. \5\ See, e.g., Copyright Clearance Center, Royalty Payment Schedule (2014), available at http://www.copyright.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Royaltypaymentschedule.pdf; General FAQ, SoundExchange, http://www.soundexchange.com/about/general-faq/. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Diligent Search. The Office has recommended that a CMO be required to conduct diligent searches for non-member rightsholders for whom it has collected royalties. The Office believes that this obligation should include, but not be limited to, maintaining a publicly available list of information on all licensed works for which one or more rightsholders have not been identified or located.\6\ What additional actions should be required as part of a CMO's diligent search obligation? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Cf. U.K. ECL Regulations, S.I. 2014/2588, art. 18, ] 5; Directive 2014/26/EU art. 13(3). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Other Issues. Please comment on any additional issues that the Copyright Office may wish to consider in developing draft ECL legislation. Dated: June 4, 2015. Karyn A. Temple Claggett, Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Policy and International Affairs. [FR Doc. 2015-14116 Filed 6-8-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
![32614 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 9, 2015 / Notices
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS issues of orphan works and mass Because the pilot is a limited project,
digitization, respectively, and has such uses at this early juncture could be
United States Copyright Office published a report detailing its findings made only for nonprofit educational and
[Docket No. 2015–3] and recommendations.1 In the report, research purposes and without any
the Office proposes separate legislative purpose of direct or indirect commercial
Mass Digitization Pilot Program; solutions for each issue. With respect to advantage. The CMO would be required
Request for Comments orphan works, the Office has proposed, to collect and distribute royalties to
with certain conditions, a limitation on rightsholders within a prescribed period
AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library liability for good faith users, improving and to conduct diligent searches for
of Congress. upon its 2006 Orphan Works Report as non-members for whom it had collected
ACTION: Notice of inquiry. well as the Shawn Bentley Orphan payments. Copyright owners would
Works Act passed by the Senate in have the right to limit the grant of
SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 2008.2 With respect to mass digitization, licenses with respect to their works or
developing a limited pilot program and the Office has concluded that the to opt out of the system altogether.
corresponding draft legislation that addition of extended collective To assist it in developing specific
would establish a legal framework licensing (ECL) in U.S. law would help legislation within these general
known as extended collective licensing to facilitate the work of those who wish parameters, the Office invites public
for certain mass digitization activities to digitize and provide full access to comment on the topics below regarding
that are currently beyond the reach of certain collections of books, the practical operation of such a system.
the Copyright Act. This request provides photographs, or other materials for The Office will then seek to facilitate
the opportunity for interested parties to nonprofit educational or research further discussion through stakeholder
submit specific recommendations purposes. An ECL framework can meetings and, if necessary, additional
regarding the operational aspects of the facilitate lawful uses that are not requests for written comment. Based on
pilot program, within the parameters otherwise possible (e.g., because they this input, the Office will draft a formal
and legal framework described in the are beyond the reach of case-by-case legislative proposal for Congress’s
Office’s Orphan Works and Mass licensing or the application of fair use consideration.
Digitization report. or both). The Office’s full analysis can II. Request for Comment
DATES: Comments must be received no be found at http://copyright.gov/
later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on August 10, 1. Examples of Projects. Comments
orphan/.
2015. are invited regarding examples of large
If Congress were to establish a limited
digitization projects that may be
ADDRESSES: All comments should be and voluntary pilot program at this appropriate for licensing under the
submitted electronically. To submit time, it would help the United States Office’s proposed ECL framework. The
comments, please visit http:// copyright community to garner Office is particularly interested in the
copyright.gov/policy/massdigitization. experience with the kind of ECL views of prospective users who may be
The Web site interface requires experience that is either in place or interested in digitizing and offering
commenting parties to complete a form being discussed in other countries. The access to a specific collection or body of
specifying name and organization, as pilot program would permit users to works. The Office believes that
applicable, and to upload comments as obtain licenses under specified information about the types of mass
an attachment via a browser button. To conditions. Under the proposed digitization projects that users have the
meet accessibility standards, framework, a collective management desire and capacity to undertake will
commenting parties must upload organization (CMO) representing provide a useful starting point for
comments in a single file not to exceed copyright owners in a particular stakeholder dialogue on various
six megabytes (MB) in one of the category of works would be permitted to elements of the ECL pilot. Other
following formats: A Portable Document seek authorization from the Register of interested members of the public,
File (PDF) format that contains Copyrights to issue licenses on behalf of however, are also invited to submit their
searchable, accessible text (not an both members and non-members of the views. Specifically, commenters should
image); Microsoft Word; WordPerfect; CMO for certain mass digitization address the following issues:
Rich Text Format (RTF); or ASCII text activities. To qualify for licensing a. Qualifying Collections. The Office
file (not a scanned document). The form authority, a CMO would be required to has recommended that ECL be available
and face of the comments must include submit an application to the Office for three categories of published
both the name of the submitter and providing evidence of its copyrighted works: (1) Literary works;
organization. The Office will post the representativeness in the relevant field, (2) pictorial or graphic works published
comments publicly on the Office’s Web the consent of its membership to the as illustrations, diagrams, or similar
site exactly as they are received, along ECL proposal, and its adherence to adjuncts to literary works; and (3)
with names and organizations. If sufficient standards of transparency, photographs. Within these categories,
electronic submission of comments is accountability, and good governance. please describe or provide examples of
not feasible, please contact the Office at Once authorized, a CMO would be the types of collections that you believe
202–707–1027 for special instructions. entitled to negotiate royalty rates and should be eligible for licensing under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: terms with users seeking to digitally the ECL pilot. For example, should the
Kevin Amer, Senior Counsel for Policy reproduce and provide online access to pilot be limited to collections involving
and International Affairs, by telephone a collection or body of copyrighted a minimum number of copyrighted
works for the benefit of the public, a
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
at 202–707–1027 or by email at kamer@ works? If so, what should that threshold
loc.gov. community, or other specified users. number be? Should collections that
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: include commercially available works
1 See U.S. Copyright Office, Orphan Works and
be eligible for ECL, or should the
I. Background Mass Digitization: A Report of the Register of
program cover only out-of-commerce
Copyrights (2015), available at http://
The U.S. Copyright Office has www.copyright.gov/orphan. works? Should the program be limited
completed a multi-year study on the 2 See id., Appendix A. to works published before a certain
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Jun 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32724/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 110 / Tuesday, June 9, 2015 / Notices 32615
date? If so, what date would be workable dispute resolution model for a NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
advisable? U.S. ECL program? SPACE ADMINISTRATION
b. Eligibility and Access. Please
3. Distribution of Royalties. To ensure [Notice: (15–045)]
describe any appropriate limitations on
that rightsholders receive compensation
the end-users who should be eligible to
within a reasonable time, the Office has National Space-Based Positioning,
access a digital collection under a
recommended that the legislation or Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Advisory
qualifying mass digitization project. For
regulations establish a specific period Board; Charter Renewal
example, should access be limited to
students, affiliates, and employees of within which a CMO must distribute AGENCY: National Aeronautics and
the digitizing institution, or should ECL royalties to rightsholders whom it has Space Administration (NASA).
licensees be permitted to provide access identified and located. Both the United ACTION: Notice of advisory committee
to the general public? In addition, Kingdom’s ECL regulations and the renewal.
please describe any appropriate European Union’s February 2014
restrictions on methods of access. Directive on collective rights SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that in
Should licensees be permitted to offer management generally require that such accordance with the 2004 U.S. Space-
access to a collection remotely, or only payments be made no later than nine Based PNT Policy and continuing and
through onsite computer terminals? months from the end of the financial consistent Executive Branch PNT policy
c. Security Requirements. The Office year in which the royalties were objectives since that time, it has been
has recommended that CMOs and users collected.4 In the United States, there is determined that the PNT Advisory
be required to include, as part of any some industry precedent for Board comprised of experts from
ECL license, terms requiring the user to distributions by CMOs on a quarterly outside the United States Government
implement and reasonably maintain basis.5 What would be an appropriate continues to be necessary and in the
adequate digital security measures to public interest. Accordingly, NASA has
timeframe for required distributions
control access to the collection, and to renewed the charter of the National
under a U.S. ECL program?
prevent unauthorized reproduction, Space-Based PNT Advisory Board,
distribution, or display of the licensed 4. Diligent Search. The Office has effective May 8, 2015.
works. Please describe any specific recommended that a CMO be required FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
technical measures that should be to conduct diligent searches for non- James J. Miller, Human Exploration and
required as part of this obligation. In member rightsholders for whom it has Operations Mission Directorate, NASA
addition, the Office invites stakeholder collected royalties. The Office believes Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546,
views on the extent to which specific that this obligation should include, but (202) 358–4417, fax (202) 358–4297, or
security requirements should be set not be limited to, maintaining a publicly jj.miller@nasa.gov.
forth by statute or defined through available list of information on all SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Copyright Office regulations. licensed works for which one or more
2. Dispute Resolution Process. The National Space-Based PNT Advisory
rightsholders have not been identified Board provides advice on U.S. space-
Office has recommended that the ECL or located.6 What additional actions
pilot provide for a dispute resolution based PNT policy, planning, program
should be required as part of a CMO’s management, and funding profiles in
process before the Copyright Royalty
Board (CRB) when an authorized CMO diligent search obligation? relation to the current state of national
and a prospective user are unable to 5. Other Issues. Please comment on and international space-based PNT
agree to licensing terms. The Office is any additional issues that the Copyright services. The National Space-Based PNT
interested in receiving public comment Office may wish to consider in Advisory Board functions solely as an
on what form this process should take. developing draft ECL legislation. advisory body and complies fully with
Should the legislation authorize the provisions of the Federal Advisory
Dated: June 4, 2015. Committee Act (FACA). Copies of the
informal mediation, with the CRB’s role
limited to that of a facilitator of Karyn A. Temple Claggett, charter are filed with the General
negotiations? Or should the statute Associate Register of Copyrights and Director Services Administration, the
provide for binding arbitration? Some of Policy and International Affairs. appropriate Committees of the U.S.
foreign ECL laws provide voluntary [FR Doc. 2015–14116 Filed 6–8–15; 8:45 am] Congress, and the Library of Congress.
procedures under which parties can BILLING CODE 1410–30–P Patricia D. Rausch,
agree to submit their dispute to a Advisory Committee Management Officer,
binding proceeding, but are not required National Aeronautics and Space
to do so.3 Do those laws provide a 4 Copyright and Rights in Performances (Extended
Administration.
Collective Licensing) Regulations 2014, S.I. 2014/
[FR Doc. 2015–13977 Filed 6–8–15; 8:45 am]
3 See LOV 1961–05–12 nr 02: Lov om opphavsrett 2588, art. 18, ¶ 3 (U.K.) (‘‘U.K. ECL Regulations’’);
Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament BILLING CODE 7510–13–P
til åndsverk m.v. (åndsverkloven) [Act No. 2 of May
12, 1961 Relating to Copyright in Literary, Scientific and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on
and Artistic Works], as amended on Dec. 22, 2006, Collective Management of Copyright and Related
§ 38 (Nor.), translated at http://www.wipo.int/ Rights and Multi-Territorial Licensing of Rights in
wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=248181 (unofficial NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
Musical Works for Online Use in the Internal
translation), last amended by LOV–2014–06–13 nr ADMINISTRATION
Market, art. 13(1), 2014 O.J. (L 84) 72, 87, available
22 [Act No. 22 of June 13, 2014] (translation
unavailable); Lag om medling i vissa at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/ [NARA–2015–046]
upphovsrättstvister (Svensk författningssamling PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0026&from=EN.
Agency Information Collection
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[SFS] 1980:612) [Act on Mediation in Certain 5 See, e.g., Copyright Clearance Center, Royalty
Copyright Disputes] (1995) art. 5 (Swed.), translated Payment Schedule (2014), available at http:// Activities: Proposed Collection;
at www.copyright.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_ Comment Request
Royaltypaymentschedule.pdf; General FAQ,
id=241666 (unofficial translation), as amended by
Lag, May 26, 2005 (2005:361), translated at http://
SoundExchange, http://www.soundexchange.com/ AGENCY: National Archives and Records
www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=129617 about/general-faq/. Administration (NARA).
6 Cf. U.K. ECL Regulations, S.I. 2014/2588, art. 18,
(unofficial translation), last amended by Lag, June ACTION: Notice.
27, 2013 (2013:690) (translation unavailable). ¶ 5; Directive 2014/26/EU art. 13(3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:12 Jun 08, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09JNN1.SGM 09JNN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_32724/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 15:25:46
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 15:25:46
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of inquiry. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on August 10, 2015. | |
| Contact | Kevin Amer, Senior Counsel for Policy and International Affairs, by telephone at 202-707-1027 or by email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 32614 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR