lines were included in its legislative history and have been cited by courts attempting to interpret Congressional intent. Additionally, some provisions of the Act were intentionally left ambiguous to allow for later interpretation by the courts.
Congress recognized the needs of educators, scholars, and librarians in the 1976 Act, although not always to their satisfaction. Teaching, scholarship, and research are specifically mentioned in section 107, the fair use provision. Library copying is addressed in section 108. Certain public performances for instructional purposes are permitted under section 110, which was amended to address distance education in the 2002 TEACH Act. Each of those sections is discussed in greater detail later in this book.
The 1976 Act also created a single structure of copyright, one which is governed by federal law. This means that if you research a copyright question, you need only use federal sources of law such as the United States Code and decisions from federal courts.
Copyright does not place an author’s work in a lockbox. The primary purpose of copyright is not to compensate creators. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated, many times, that copyright is a means to a greater societal end: the dissemination and promotion of knowledge.[1] As librarians, we promote the dissemination of knowledge. With this in mind, when there is a close call whether a certain use is or is not allowed, we tend to resolve the answer in favor of the library or the user, rather than the copyright owner.
Organizations that represent publishers and other copyright owners, such as the CCC and the Association of American Publishers (AAP), take a more restrictive view of user rights. When you read statements from organizations representing publishers and copyright owners about permissible uses of copyrighted works, remember whence they came.
- ↑ “The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly [i.e., copyright protection] lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.” Fox Films Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127 (1932). “[T]he ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.” Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975). See also United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U.S. 131, 158 (1948) (“[C]opyright law … makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration”); Feist Publ’ns v. Rural Tel. Serv., 499 U.S. 340, 349 (1991). Congress has made similar statements. Working on the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the House Judiciary Committee wrote, “The primary objective of our copyright laws is not to reward the author, but rather to secure for the public the benefits from the creations of authors.” H.R. Rep. No. 100-609, at 22 (1988).
