Lori Curtis's March 5 posting on copying, which I have only now seen,
warrants further discussion. She says--and I entirely agree--that libraries
and archives interpret copyright law differently. Some, including the
University of Tulsa, adopt "a conservative stance." Wishing to be on good
terms with copyright holders, they interpret the provision of a single copy
of a letter or chapter for study and research as a "publication" that
requires written permission of the copyright owner--though she herself
states that the copyright law defines publication "as the distribution of
COPIES" (my caps). One copy to one scholar MAY, in a year, become too many
COPIES to many scholars, so the library must keep statistics of each copy
and interlibrary loan "and it is a headache. And this is U.S. copyright
law."
If so, it is a headache that the U of Tulsa, Texas, and Buffalo, among
others, make for themselves by extending to a single copy for research a
statutory restriction pertaining to multiple copying for classroom use.
Harvard's Houghton, Yale's Beinecke, and Princeton's Firestone library, for
example (with, I daresay, as competent legal advice and as much concern for
copyright holders as Tulsa, Texas, and Buffalo) make no such headaches for
themselves or scholars. They provide a single copy stamped with the
requisite restriction that it is solely for research and study and copyright
permission must be obtained before any publication.
Curtis understands the headaches of librarians better than those of
scholars. I will here note just one. The key member of a copyright trust I
have dealt with repeatedly is a member of a law firm who must account for
his billable hours. When a library requires me to obtain his written
permission, it requires me to pay his charge for the time it takes him to
read, consider, and reply to my request.
Librarians who give themselves and their users needless headaches should
consult their colleagues at places like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton for
suitable medication.
Harold Orlans
horlans@erols.com