The actions of librarians and educators should be guided, first and foremost, by a familiarity with the 1976 Copyright Law. However, my research revealed that interpretation of the law has changed somewhat over the years and that the latest updates or interpretations should be reviewed before copies are made of any work.

Within the area of photocopying, several recent court cases--including Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Service, Inc. (February 12, 1996)--seem to represent a reversal of Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corporation (March 28, 1991). Both of these cases are centered around the printing of coursepacks by the defendants for use by students in specific course studies by certain professors. In the 1991 case, the court argued that Kinko's violated the Copyright Act because they did not seek permission for use of the works in question. The copying entailed five to twenty-eight percent of the original works. The plaintiff was awarded injunctive relief and statutory damages totaling $510,000 in addition to attorneys fees and costs. In 1996, Michigan Documents, Inc. appealed the district court's decision and won in the Sixth Court, United States Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court determined the coursepacks to be a "fair use" of the copyrighted works, thereby reversing the lower court decision. Here, the copied material utilized five to thirty percent of the original works.

Both cases cited academic motivations as part of the defense. Regarding the latter decision, the judges did not rely on the existing Classroom Guidelines, but rather the language of the Copyright Act itself. They evaluated the four fair use criteria and found that Michigan Documents, Inc.'s actions fell within the wording of the statute. The opinion of a dissenting judge, however, expressed concern for the publishing industry concerning the continued large-scale copying of coursepacks. This could become a more pressing issue in the future if such copying within U.S. academic institutions rises to an appreciable extent. It should be noted that the exposure to copied material engendered by this practice could possibly stimulate additional purchases of the works in question.

The best plan of action would seem to be requesting prior permission to copy from the publisher. In cases where time limits exist, one should limit copying to what is essential for illustrative purposes.

"Copyright and the Educator" (Phi Delta Kappan, Match 1994), by Kenneth T. Murray, an assistant professor of school law at the University of Central Florida, represents an excellent source of copyright information for librarians and educators. The librarian is accorded some degree of protection from legal liability for purposes of preservation and security, research, and replacing a stolen, deteriorating, or damaged work when a replacement cannot be purchased at a fair cost.

Regarding videotapes, the safest path would consist of showing only those legally obtained from a reputable video rental outlet or regional education center in cases where the title has not been purchased for use in the school. Videotapes of television broadcasts are best employed in accordance with the guidelines available concerning educational and non-educational TV recordings. In Encyclopedia Britannica v. Crooks (Match 1983), the Board of Cooperative Educational Services, First Supervisory District, Erie County, New York was found in violation of copyright provisions in copying broadcasts onto tapes provided by teachers for classroom use. Because the copied broadcasts were readily available from the plaintiffs for a limited period of time, BOCES was ordered to pay statutory damages for each copying infringement and denied any future us of off-the-air videotapes.

Computer programs and software are governed by site license guidelines. The Computer Software Act of 1980 allows users to make "backup" copes for archival purposes only. In purchasing new programs, it is best to deal with reputable companies and observe the above dictates.

While many books and articles are available regarding copyright in education, it would appear prudent to focus on resources produced in the last few years due to the continued appearance of new technologies and updated legal enactments. Professional journals represent an effective means of monitoring recent lawsuits and legislation concerning copyright and their effect on education. The Internet also provides up-to-date information on this subject.

[adapted from an assignment submitted by Elaine Jackson]