Copyright notice hung in library?

March 2, 2008 9:46 AM

What kind of copyright notice should I display near the computers at my library?

I work at a small college library. We have computers, but, at this time, no printer and no copy machine. Should I hang a copyright notice at all? My boss thinks we need one just to alert the students about taking work of the Internet and incorporating it in to their own projects.

Most libraries hang this:

"Notice: The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, U.S. Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material; the person using this equipment is liable for any infringement."

but is this appropriate for computers with no printing, scanning, or photocopying capabilities? Can anyone recommend a better notice? I am looking for something brief like the one above.

posted by foxinthesnow to education (15 comments total)

So, to clarify - is your boss concerned about plagiarism rather than copyright infringement? Plagiarism is sort of a gray area from a legal perspective, so if that's the concern, I doubt you'll be able to come up with a pithy warning sign. The blanket Title 17 warning should be sufficient.
posted by Pontius Pilate at 9:56 AM on March 2, 2008

As a student, I'm really sick of hearing plagiarism and intellectual property speeches and having to write "this is original work ... " on all of my assignments and papers. I've been hearing this since about grade 3. If someone is committing academic fraud at the college/university level, they do it with full knowledge of the ethical, legal and academic issues and consequences.

Does the college not have a computer code of conduct? If you do, placing a large copy of it somewhere conspicuous should be enough.
posted by Ctrl_Alt_ep at 10:03 AM on March 2, 2008

No, I don't think you need to do this. I think it's nannying and weird. Libraries post the copyright notice you refer to on their photocopy machines because they are nervous rule-following types. There are no copyright issues with internet content that are the library's business or responsibility.

Your boss is wrong and putting notices on computers about what to do with content is not the library's job and leads to a slippery slope where the whole monitor is covered by stickie notes saying things like "take a break every fifteen minutes to avoid eye strain!" I am employing hyperbole for effect here, but it is not the library's job to tell people what to do with information, it is their job to provide information and possibly context on interpreting it and/or understanding and evaluating it. If you have no notices on your books saying "plagiarism is bad and against the rules" do not put them on your computers.

On a more positive note, what might be appropriate is any one of the following

- a library class or handout on what plagiarism is and how to avoid it (presumes good faith in the part of everyone, puts the librarian in a place where they are being helpful and informative, not shaming and mistrustful). If you want to satisfy your boss you can place these near the computers.
- a notice on the website where people access the databases -- I presume this is mostly about database content, if you need to tell collecge students to not copy information off the internet you're already in trouble -- with a link to the copyright/plagiarism handout or better yet the plagiarism policy on the school website.
- an internet policy that is part of students getting their library card that has them acknowledging that their access to the Internet is for [whatever] purpose and they agree to abide by applicable laws and academic rules governing the use of that access. Make them sign this once, at the beginning of the year, when they get their library cards and then treat them like the adults they (almost) are for the rest of the school year.

Unless your boss is getting a lot of pressure from teachers/staff at the college, I would encourage you to recommend other ways of getting the "copying information from the internet and using it as your own is likely a bad idea" message across that will be more palatable to students and don't put the library staff in a position of having some sort of policy type statement in place that is impossible to enforce.

I am sorry if "don't do this" isn't really the answer you are looking for and I know you're likely in a difficult place with regards to this issue and how your boss wants to deal with it, but I think there are things you can do that are a lot more effective at solving the problem and you might want to look at implementing one of them. Good luck!
posted by jessamyn at 10:16 AM on March 2, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]

The computer code of conduct is terrible, and I refuse to hang it. Besides, it is two full pages long. They wrote it, and it says things like, "pornography and other obscenities are not to be viewed on these computers." Um? The way it is worded makes it sound like we are telling our students that pornography is obscene. It makes me crazy that they would insert their morals into something that should be straight-forward. The policy also says something like, "it is illegal to put stuff you find on the Internet in your homework." And it is really is that poorly worded. Now, we (and I mean you and I) all know about Fair-Use, and all the intricateness of Title 17, but the authors of my school's computer use policy do not. So I cannot hang it.

I am just trying to find something general and simple to hang so it doesn't look like I poo-poo the idea of copyright all together, you know? It is a new job for me, and I am afraid to cause a stink.
posted by foxinthesnow at 10:17 AM on March 2, 2008

I, for one, am tired of seeing useless warnings everywhere. Please don't do this.
posted by grouse at 10:20 AM on March 2, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

I work at a small college library. We have computers, but, at this time, no printer and no copy machine. Should I hang a copyright notice at all? My boss thinks we need one just to alert the students about taking work of the Internet and incorporating it in to their own projects.

As others have said, that's really a plagiarism issue then a copyright issue. It's very, very rare for people to get into trouble via the copyright angle when they plagiarize, because they original copyright holder has to know about it, and it would need widespread, like plagiarizing someone in a published book. Plus, copyright actually allows you to take small samples of things and use them in your own work.

On the other hand, Students do get into trouble for plagiarism all the time, because it's a violation of school rules.

For example, if you lifted a few sentences or phrases and put them in your own work without attribution, you would probably not be violating copyright law, but you would be plagiarizing. On the other hand, if you use proper citation you can quote other works at length without something being plagiarizing, while it might be considered copyright violation. For example, the guy who owns the copyrights to James Joyce's works won't let anyone quote even short passages without allowing him too censor the work to make sure it doesn't say anything bad about his grandfather (that's arguably an abuse of copyright law)

So anyway "Don't plagiarize" and "Don't infringe copyright" are two distinct issues.
posted by delmoi at 10:21 AM on March 2, 2008

With that in mind, maybe something a little more upbeat that just mentions that their use of Internet access is governed by

- the internet/computer use policy [cite it, don't display it]
- applicable copyright laws
- school plagiarism rules
- something about decent social conduct in a public space

that way you can refer to the rules without being pains about it and the social conduct thing gives you the ability to tell people "hey quit looking at porn in here" without you having to tell someone they're breaking a law.
posted by jessamyn at 10:21 AM on March 2, 2008

Jessamyn, this is good advice. You are right. I think I won't post anything and just see what happens... Oh! It is so wild of me, defying my boss. But it is probably the best way to handle this.

Thank you!

Also, if anyone was curious, my boss is not a librarian.
posted by foxinthesnow at 10:21 AM on March 2, 2008

On posting, foxinthesnow: I think it would be a much better idea if you posted a link to a web site about copyright where students could inform themselves than another stupid warning.
posted by grouse at 10:22 AM on March 2, 2008

If your boss insists, just hang the notice you mentioned in your post. It's like a banner ad... we've all conditioned ourselves to ignore them.
posted by happyturtle at 11:11 AM on March 2, 2008

There are no copyright issues with internet content that are the library's business or responsibility.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Vicarious liability and contributory liability are alive and well in United States intellectual property law, and a library would be foolish not to pay close attention to those doctrines of third-party liability. That said, it's likely that your small college already has a lawyer and doesn't need legal advice from random people on the internet.

Also, I'll add this: many of these notices and warnings at Universities aren't in place to teach or to warn or to protect from liability, but to take away an excuse when the student is later caught doing something they already knew was wrong. It's hard to say "I didn't know" when there are warnings plastered everywhere, ya know?
posted by toomuchpete at 11:51 AM on March 2, 2008

Also, I'll add this: many of these notices and warnings at Universities aren't in place to teach or to warn or to protect from liability, but to take away an excuse when the student is later caught doing something they already knew was wrong.

That's incorrect. The reason the notice is posted is because Title 17 provides an exemption for libraries from copyright infringement liability for unsupervised use of reproducing equipment, but only if the library posts a clearly visible notice that use of equipment is subject to copyright law. See section 108(f).

I'd also be amazed if there are any cases where the library was actually sued under either vicarious or contributory liability. Vicarious infringement liability requires showing of some financial benefit to the library, and contributory infringement requires showing of inducement. Considering the typical hypo situation of a library user copying something on library equipment, it seems like those elements would be difficult to prove.
posted by Pontius Pilate at 12:49 PM on March 2, 2008

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I'm not in any way debating the fact that there is potential liability there, however I do think it exists in the potential realm only, at this point. Important for librarians to be aware of, perhaps, but I think reasonable people might disagree to what lengths a public or academic library needs to go to to warn users about laws that (to the best of my knowledge) have not been applied in their particular situation yet.

If anyone has countercites, I'd like to know about them for my own edification, but I feel on a personal level it's important for libraries to act in reasonable ways to provide information to patrons and not be totally chilled by fear of liability lawsuits.
posted by jessamyn at 1:01 PM on March 2, 2008

Pointus Pilate: When I said "those messages" I meant the whole lot of them... the "I didn't cheat" requirements, and all that. Not just the Title 17 warning.

As for this: Vicarious infringement liability requires showing of some financial benefit to the library, and contributory infringement requires showing of inducement., I disagree.

It wouldn't be that difficult, for vicarious liability, to show that the library benefited financially from having computers available.

Your summary of contributory liability was not accurate, however. While inducement is sufficient, it is not necessary to meet that element. One can also be liable for materially contributing to the infringement (by providing the computer, for example).


Jessamyn: There are a lot of reasons why there aren't many (any?) examples of libraries being sued for the intellectual property misdoings of their patrons, but one of them is not the lack of "copyright issues" that are the "library's ... responsibility."

"There are no copyright issues with internet content that are the library's business or responsibility" is just not accurate in any way, shape or form. That's the kind of statement that, if taken as the gospel, could get some small town library in a lot of trouble should the "potential" for liability ever be realized.

It's one thing to say that a library is unlikely to be sued, or question what warning mechanisms might be best, but that's not really what that you said, at least initially.
posted by toomuchpete at 9:34 PM on March 2, 2008

No. As to vicarious liability, the plaintiff would have to show that the library had a direct financial interest / benefit *from the infringing activities*, not from having computers available. As to contributory liability, "materially contributing" by itself is going to get you nowhere unless you can prove the the provider had knowledge. These are both very difficult theories to prove in the context of a typical library setting.
posted by Pontius Pilate at 10:56 AM on March 3, 2008