66
satellites. A particular difficulty exists when such transmissions extend over several time zones within the same state, such as in Alaska. Unless individual schools in such states may make an off-air recording of such transmissions, the programs may not be received by the students during the school’s daily schedule. The committee believes that the making by a school located in such a remote area of an of-the-air recording of an instructional television transmission for the purpose of a delayed viewing of the program by students for the same school constitutes a “fair use.” The committee does not intend to suggest however, that off-the-air recording for convenience would under any circumstances, be considered “fair use.” To meet the requirement of temporary use the school may retain the recording for only a limited period of time after the broadcast.
Another special instance illustrating the application of the fair use doctrine pertains to the making of copies or phonorecords of works in the special forms needed for the use of blind persons. These special forms, such as copies in braille and phonorecords of oral readings (talking books), are not usually made by the publishers for commercial distribution. For the most part, such copies and phonorecords are made by the Library of Congress’ Division for the Blind and Physically Handicapped with permission obtained from the copyright owners, and are circulated to blind persons through regional libraries covering the nation. In addition, such copies and phonorecords are made locally by individual volunteers for the use of blind persons in their communities, and the Library of Congress conducts a program for training such volunteers. While the making of multiple copies or phonorecords of a work for general circulation requires the permission of the copyright owner, the making of a single copy or phonorecord by an individual as a free service for a blind person would properly be considered a fair use under section 107.
A problem of particular urgency is that of preserving for posterity prints of motion pictures made before 1942. Aside from the deplorable fact that in a great many cases the only existing copy of a film has been deliberately destroyed, those that remain are in immediate danger of disintegration; they were printed on film stock with a nitrate base that will inevitably decompose in time. The efforts of the Library of Congress, the American Film Institute, and other organizations to rescue and preserve this irreplaceable contribution to our cultural life are to be applauded, and the making of duplicate copies for purposes of archival preservation certainly falls within the scope of “fair use”.
When a copyrighted work contains unfair, inaccurate, or derogatory information concerning an individual or institution, such individual or institution may copy and reproduce such parts of the work as are necessary to permit understandable comment on the statements made in the work.
During the consideration of the revision bill in the 94th Congress it was proposed that independent newsletters, as distinguished from house organs and publicity or advertising publications, be given separate treatment. It is argued that newsletters are particularly vulnerable to mass photocopying, and that most newsletters have fairly modest circulations. Whether the copying of portions of a newsletter is an act of infringement or a fair use must be judged by the general provisions of this legislation. However, the copying of even a short
