Vol. 1, No. 1 (June 2007), pp. 28–43 http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/ Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike License E-ISSN 1934-5275 Copyright Essentials for Linguists Paul Newman Indiana University, University of Michigan This paper addresses copyright issues that linguists confront in their capacity as users and creators of scholarly work. It is organized in a simple question-answer format. Questions 1–3 present the basics of U.S. copyright law, including the fundamental nature of copyright as a bundle of intellectual property rights and the role of registration. Questions 4–5 treat issues of copyright notice. Questions 6–8 explain licenses, especially Creative Commons licenses, and the function of an Author’s Addendum. Questions 9 –10 look at copyright in the context of online open access publishing. Question 11 discusses the concept of Fair Use. Question 12 analyzes the problem of what are called Orphan Works. Questions 13–19 explore issues of copyright ownership, including Work for Hire, joint authorship, and attribution. Questions 20–22 deal with copyright with specific reference to fieldwork situations and indigenous rights. The paper concludes with a brief presentation of key sources for further study and clarification. Sharing information is the fundamental nature of [science and] education. Restricting the sharing of information is the fundamental nature of copyright law. MARC LINDSEY 1. INTRODUCTION. The first question the reader is likely to ask is: why include an article on copyright in the first number of LD&C, a journal primarily concerned with field linguistics? The answer lies in an alternative reading of the LD&C acronym, namely “Language Documentation and Communication.” However important basic fieldwork is, the communication of the results of this research is equally important. These are not separate enterprises, as people heading off to the field often think, but flip sides of the same coin. Those of us who value empirical linguistic research have decried the dominance of linguistic theory in our discipline, but we have tended to remain silent about an equally serious weakness affecting the descriptive linguistic enterprise, namely the phenomenon of field linguists who fail to write up and publish their findings. All of us, whether specialists in Africa or Southeast Asia or Latin America, know of legendary figures—whom we usually mention in reverential terms—who have mountains of knowledge in their heads and masses of materials in their files but who have published very little. These materials cry out for both readings of the C in LD&C, conservation and communication, with the latter being as urgent as the former. Even if one agrees that scientific communication is essential, one still might ask what this has to do with copyright law. Why do linguists need to bother about this? Isn’t this what lawyers are for? There probably was a time when individuals involved in scholarly linguistic work, whether functioning as fieldworkers, authors, or editors, didn’t have to concern themselves with such matters, but this is no longer the case. (It is striking—and
Transcript
Vol. 1, No. 1 (June 2007), pp. 28–43 http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/
Thispaperaddressescopyrightissuesthatlinguistsconfrontintheircapacityasusersandcreatorsofscholarlywork.Itisorganizedinasimplequestion-answerformat.Questions1–3presentthebasicsofU.S.copyrightlaw,includingthefundamentalnatureofcopyrightasabundleofintellectualpropertyrightsandtheroleofregistration.Questions4–5treatissuesofcopyrightnotice.Questions6–8explainlicenses,especiallyCreativeCommonslicenses, and the functionofanAuthor’sAddendum.Questions9–10lookat copyrightin the context of online open access publishing. Question 11 discusses the concept ofFairUse.Question12analyzestheproblemofwhatarecalledOrphanWorks.Questions13–19exploreissuesofcopyrightownership,includingWorkforHire,jointauthorship,andattribution.Questions20–22dealwithcopyrightwithspecificreferencetofieldworksituations and indigenous rights.The paper concludeswith a brief presentation of keysourcesforfurtherstudyandclarification.
Sharing information is the fundamental nature of [science and] education.Restricting the sharing of information is the fundamental nature of copyright law.
Marc LINdSEy
1. introduCtion. The first question the reader is likely to ask is: why include anarticle on copyright in the first number ofLD&C, a journal primarily concernedwithfieldlinguistics?TheanswerliesinanalternativereadingoftheLD&Cacronym,namely“Language Documentation and Communication.” However important basic fieldworkis, thecommunicationof theresultsof thisresearchisequallyimportant.Thesearenotseparateenterprises,aspeopleheadingofftothefieldoftenthink,butflipsidesofthesamecoin.Thoseofuswhovalueempiricallinguisticresearchhavedecriedthedominanceoflinguistictheoryinourdiscipline,butwehavetendedtoremainsilentaboutanequallyseriousweaknessaffectingthedescriptivelinguisticenterprise,namelythephenomenonoffieldlinguistswhofailtowriteupandpublishtheirfindings.Allofus,whetherspecialistsinAfrica or SoutheastAsia or LatinAmerica, know of legendary figures—whom weusuallymentioninreverentialterms—whohavemountainsofknowledgeintheirheadsandmassesofmaterialsintheirfilesbutwhohavepublishedverylittle.ThesematerialscryoutforbothreadingsoftheC inLD&C,conservationandcommunication,withthelatterbeingasurgentastheformer.
TheapproachthatIhaveadoptedisasimplequestion-and-answerformat,inwhichI have triedmy best to avoid legalese and to provide answers in plain conversationalEnglish.Before starting in,however, letmemake twodisclaimers.First, I shallnotbetreatingcopyrightfromaninternationalperspective.Rather,IamlimitingmyselftoU.S.copyrightlawasembodiedintheCopyrightActof1976(andamendmentsthereto),whichwentintoeffectonJanuary1,1978(U.S.CodeTitle17).Copyrightlawelsewhereintheworld—especiallyEuropeanandCanadian law,withwhich Ihavesomefamiliarity—issimilartoU.S.lawinmostrespectsbuttherearedifferences.Second,thesketchthatIamprovidingisforgeneralinformationpurposesandisnottobetakenaslegaladvice.Ifyoushouldeverhavethemisfortuneofcomingupwithacopyrightproblemthatthreatenstospilloverintolegalaction,goseeyouruniversitycounselorconsultacopyrightattorney.Itishopedthattheinformationpresentedherewillprovideacontextwithinwhichtoplaceyoursituationandwillhelpyouframethequestionsthatyouwanttoask.Butbeawarethatthisisjustabriefsketchandnotalegaltreatise.
LaNguagE docuMENtatIoN & coNSErvatIoN voL. 1, No. 1 JuNE 2007
Copyright Essentials for Linguists 30
2. Copyright gEnEraLitiEs.
Q1. What is copyright?
A1.Thebestwaytoanswer thisquestionisnot toofferafacileanduninformativedefinition,butrathertosetoutsomeofthecriticalattributesofcopyright.(1)Copyrightprovides authors with exclusive (monopolistic) control over their works. (Note: Inaccordancewithnormalcopyrightlawusage,thecreatorofawork,whetheritbeanovel,a painting, a piece of sculpture, amusical composition, or a photograph, is called the“author.”)(2)Althoughusuallydescribedintheaffirmative,copyrightisbetterthoughtofinthenegative,i.e.,asetofprohibitionsonwhatotherscannotdowithoutthecopyrightholder’spermission.(3)Copyrightisautomatic.Whatthismeansisthataworkbecomescopyrightedonceit iscreatedandreducedtoconcreteformwhethertheauthorhasanyinterestinhavingthecopyrightornot.Thisisasituationwherethepassive,whichallstylemanualsencourageustoeschew,isapt.(4)Copyrightisaformofintellectual“property,”andassuchcanbetransferredbysale,gift,inheritance,etc.(5)Copyrightisnotasinglethingbutratherabundleofrightsencompassingreproduction(theoriginalrighttomakecopies), distribution, performance, display, and themaking of derivativeworks (e.g., atranslationof a bookor a theatrical adaptationof a story).Eachof these rights canbeconveyedseparately,e.g.,youcangiveonepublisherthepublicationrightsandanotherthetranslationrights,andeachisdivisible;e.g.,youcouldgivetranslationrightstotwoindividualsorcompanies,eithercoveringdifferentlanguagesorevenapplyingtothesamelanguage. (6)Copyrighthasanexceedingly longduration. It iscurrently the lifeof theauthor plus seventy years, or ninety-five years in the case of employer-createdworks.Before thecurrent copyright lawwent into effect in1978, copyright lasted for twenty-eight years, with the possibility of renewal for another twenty-eight+ years, the exactdurationdependingon subsequent extensions.Aconsequenceand, inmyopinion,verygreatbenefitoftherenewalsystemwasthatthecopyrightonthelargemajorityofworksendedafter twenty-eightyears. (7)Most creativework is coveredby copyright: songs,poems, books, scholarly articles, paintings, sculpture, photographs, and even computerprograms.Amodicumoforiginalityisrequired—ashoppinglistprobablywouldn’tmakeit—butnotmuch, e.g., abanal teenage love letterprobablywouldqualify.What isnotcoveredareideas,facts,data,realworldphenomena,andpractical/usefulprocesses.AlsonotcoveredareStateconstitutions,statutes,andjudicialopinions,andallworksoftheU.S.Government.(8)Worksthatlackcopyrightprotectionforwhateverreason—whethertheworkneverqualifiedforcopyrightorthecopyrightexpiredorwaslost—aresaidtobeinthepublicdomain.Asfarascopyrightlawisconcerned,thesepublicdomainworksarefreeforalltouse.
Q2. how does one reconcile the notion that copyright is automatic with the requirement that one must pay a fee and file for copyright?
A2.Thissupposedcontradictionisbasedonamisconception.ThefactisthatonedoesnothavetofileanythingwiththeU.S.CopyrightOfficetoestablishyourcopyright.Youcanregisteryourworkifyoulike,butthisisentirelyvoluntary.Peoplewhohavecreatedworksthat theyexpect tohaveeconomicvalueusuallyoptforregistration,notbecauseit is required but because it confers a number of potential legal benefits. For example,
LaNguagE docuMENtatIoN & coNSErvatIoN voL. 1, No. 1 JuNE 2007
Q3. I am a Ph.D. student just about to finish up. Should I copyright my thesis?
A3.Althoughonecantalkabout“copyrighting”something,inthesamewaythatonecantalkaboutthesunrising,nooneactuallycopyrightsanythinganymore:itjusthappens.Onceyoufinishaworkandgetitreducedto“tangibleform,”i.e.,onpaper,onacomputer,on a disk, on tape, on film, etc., but not just in your head, the work is automaticallycopyrighted.Itjusthappens.YouruniversityprobablyrequiresthatyoupublishyourthesiswithUniversityMicrofilmsInternational(nowacompanycalledProQuest)aspartofthedegreerequirements,butthisdoesn’taffectthecopyrightstatusoftheworkonewayortheother.
However,ifyouwanttoregisteryourthesis,UMIwilldoitforyouforanominalfee($65atthecurrenttime).Moststudentsdosobecausetheymistakenlythinkthatthisisaconditionforobtainingtheirdegreeandthatitisnecessaryinordertocopyrighttheirwork.Theyarealsoinfluencedbyuniversitygraduateschoolsandcopyrightmanagementcenters,almostallofwhichadvisestudentstodoso.Ipersonallytakeaminoritypositiononthisissueandrecommendthatstudentsdonotregistertheirtheses.Notonlyisitanunnecessarywasteofmoney,butphilosophicallyitmakesthewrongstatement.Tomeathesisisanacademicexerciseintendedtodemonstratethatastudenthasagraspofhis/hersubjectandispreparedtofunctionasaprofessionalacademic,i.e.,issomeonewhovaluesscienceandknowledgeandbelieves inscholarlycommunication in thebroadestsense.Tostartoutbybuyingtherighttopotentiallysuesomeonewhomightwanttomakeuseofyourworkstrikesmeasawrongfirststep.Onegoodthingabouttheregistrationsystemasitissetupisthatlackofregistrationdoesnotinvolvelossofcopyright,andthusonecanalwaysdoitlaterifthereshouldbesomegoodreasontodoso,whichisalmostnever thecase. In themeantime, scholarsandscholars-to-be should resist the insidious“commodification”ofideasandculture”(seePorsdam2006).
A4.Yesandno.Tobeginwith,ideascannotbecopyrighted,onlytheexpressionofthoseideas,soifyouareworriedaboutbeingscooped,copyrightisnotgoingtohelpyou.Second,itisahugemistaketoconfuseplagiarismwithcopyrightinfringement.Plagiarismisatypeofliteraryfraud—nottheftasoftenmistakenlyclaimed—whichmaycomeintoplaywhetherthemisuseconstitutescopyrightinfringementornot.(Foranentertainingandeasy-to-readdiscourseonplagiarism,seePosner2007.)Inauniversitysetting,plagiarismconstitutesacademicdishonesty,potentiallyleadingtostudentdisciplineorprofessionalcensure. If, forexample, a studentplagiarizes somethingofyours inanMA thesis, the
LaNguagE docuMENtatIoN & coNSErvatIoN voL. 1, No. 1 JuNE 2007
A6.Thereasonthatcopyright,whichisan intangible, is referredtoas“intellectualproperty” is that, like concrete property, it can be sold,willed, donated, exchanged, orotherwisetransferredtoothers.Inlieuofconveyingcopyrightintoto,onecangivesomeoneelsepermissiontoexercisesomeoftheelementsthatmakeupthebundleofrights.Ifonethinksofcopyrightasthenegativerighttopreventpeoplefromusingyourwork,onecanthinkofalicenseasthepositivepermissionwhichallowssomeonetomakespecificuseofyourwork.Mostjournalsrequirethattheauthortransferthecopyrighttothem. LD&C, on theotherhand,allowstheauthortoretainthecopyrightperse,butrequiresthattheauthorgivethemexplicitpermissiontopublishthepaperalongwithcertainassociatedrights.TheagreementthatauthorssignwhentheypublishpapersinLD&Cisalicense.
Licensesareoftwomaintypes,andfromalegalperspectivethedifferenceishighlysignificant. Exclusive licenses are those that give someone the right to exploit aworkinsomewayorother to theexclusionofeveryoneelse, includingthecopyrightholder.Exclusive licensesmust be inwriting.Nonexclusive licenses permit someone tomakeuseofaworkinsomespecifiedway,butdonotprecludeothers(includingthecopyrightholder) from alsomaking similar uses. For example, the standard agreement that PhDstudents sign authorizing UniversityMicrofilms International (UMI) to distribute theirthesesisanonexclusivelicense.Itdoesnotprohibittheauthorsfrompublishingthesameworkelsewhere,whether inmodified form, ina seriesof journal articles,or exactlyasis.Nonexclusivelicensesneednotbeinwriting,althoughgoodbusinesspracticewouldusuallyexpectit.Theycanbeoralorevenimplied.Forexample,ifsomeonesubmitsanarticletoaninformaldepartmentaljournal,thatactofsubmissionconstitutesanimpliedlicenseauthorizingthejournaltopublishthearticleevenintheabsenceofaformalletterexplicitlysayingso.
Q7. What is a Creative Commons license?
A7. Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization devoted to the goal ofmakingcurrent intellectualoutputs andour rich cultural legacy aswidely available andopenlyaccessible as possible. Creative Commons, which has developed into an energeticinternationalmovement,aroseinreactiontowhatwasviewedasunnecessarilyrestrictivebehavioronthepartofbookpublishers,moviestudios,themusicrecordingindustry,andother copyright holders, especiallywith regard to activities on the internet (seeLessig2004,McLeod 2005). In contrast to the standard phrase “AllRightsReserved,”whichtypically accompanies copyright notices, Creative Commons’ mantra is “Some RightsReserved.”A betterway to appreciate their approach is to reword their catchphrase as“SomeRightsnot Reserved.”Thatis, thegoalofCreativeCommonsistohaveauthors(andartistsandphotographers,etc.)freeuptheirworkssothatotherpeoplecanmakeuseofthem.Itdoesn’tmeangivingupone’scopyrightperse,anditdoesn’tmeanthatauthorsarenotentitledtoproperattributionfortheirworks—thisisrequiredinallCClicenses.Ratheritsimplymeansgivingawayrightsthatonedoesn’tneedandthatoneispreparedtomakeavailabletoothers.
LaNguagE docuMENtatIoN & coNSErvatIoN voL. 1, No. 1 JuNE 2007
Copyright Essentials for Linguists 34
SomeCClicensesaremoreopenandlessconstrainedthanothers.Theydifferintermsofwhattheusercando(e.g.,makederivativeworksornot)andunderwhatconditions(e.g.,onlynoncommercialuseornot).AllpapersinLD&C,whichhasadoptedaprogressive,open-accesspublishingpolicy,carryaCClicense,authorsbeinggiventheoptionoftwotypes.Thefirstallowspeopletofreelyreproduceanddistributetheworkonconditionthatitisfornoncommercialpurposes,butitdoesnotallowpeopletomakederivativeworkssuch as adaptations or translations. (Note thatwhenwe talk aboutwhat people can orcannotdo,weareonlytalkingaboutthespecialprivilegethattheyarebeinggiven.Peoplecanalwaysdootherthingsiftheyobtainthenecessarypermission,forwhichtheremayormaynotbeafeeinvolved.)Theotherlicense,whichalsorequiresthattheusebefornoncommercialpurposes,allowsgreaterlatitudeinthatderivativesarepermitted,butthereisanaddedconditionthatanynewworkbuiltonthearticlemustbeissuedwiththesameCClicenseastheoriginal.Theideaisthatyoushouldnotbepermittedtotakeadvantageofsomeoneelse’sopennessandgenerosityandthenerectafencearoundyourownwork.
Q8. What is an author’s addendum?
A8.Normallywhenapaperisacceptedforpublicationinajournal,theeditorsendsyouaboilerplatecontract(=author’sagreement)tosignwherebyyoutransferthecopyrighttothepublisher.Authorsarenowbeginningtorealizethattheyshouldbeabletoretaincertainprivilegesforthemselvesandthattheyneedn’thavetocedealloftheirrights.Althoughtheauthormayhavenoobjectiontothejournalexercisingtheexclusiverighttopublishthepapernowandinthefuture,theauthormightliketobeabletodospecificthingsasamatterofcoursewithouthavingtobegthepublisherforpermission.(Theusualproblemisnotthepublisher’srefusal,butthepublisher’sfailuretorespondinatimelymanner,ifatall.)Exampleswouldbetherighttousethepaperinone’sownteaching;therighttoincludethepaperinavolumethatoneisediting;therighttodepositthepaperinone’sinstitutionaldigital repository; the right to have the paper translated into another language, such asHausaorQuechua;andtheright tomakemultiplecopiesof thepaper tobedistributedtomembersofthecommunitywhereoneworked.Onewaytodealwiththisistoaddanadditionalpagetothecontractthatwassenttoyou,the“Author’sAddendum,”spellingoutexactlywhatitisyouwant.(Onecommonlytalksaboutretainingrights;however,youarereallytransferringthecopyrighttothepublisherwhoineffectisthenissuingspecifiedlicensesbacktoyou.)Publishersmaybalkattheaddendum,butasthepracticebecomesmorecommon,theywillgraduallycomearoundtotheideathattheirstandardcontractscannotbetake-it-or-leaveitdocuments,andthatifyourrequestsarereasonable,theyarelikelytoagree.Ofcourse,giventhepowerimbalance,itisdifficultforfacultyandstudentstonegotiatewithmajorpublishersonanindividualbasis.ThisiswhyorganizationssuchastheAssociationofResearchLibraries(ARL)anduniversityconsortiasuchastheBig-Ten-basedCommitteeon InstitutionalCooperation (CIC)aredevelopingmodelauthorsaddendaforscholarstoadoptandwhicheventuallymaybenegotiatedataninstitutionallevelonbehalfofthefaculty.
LaNguagE docuMENtatIoN & coNSErvatIoN voL. 1, No. 1 JuNE 2007
Copyright Essentials for Linguists 35
5. onLinE opEn-aCCEss pubLishing.
Q9. how do copyright rules for online publication differ from normal copyright rules?
A9.Strictlyspeaking,theydon’t.Thelawisthesamebuttheculturalframeworkandprofessionalexpectationsaredifferent.Thewebisanincrediblydemocraticinstitutionandonedominated,oratleastheavilyinhabited,byyoungpeoplewhohavegrownupwiththeexperienceandexpectationthatthingsontheinternetarefree,asinfacttheyoftenare.Interestingly,evenwhenoneturnstotraditionallypublishedbooksissuedbycommercialandacademicpresses,oneisbeginningtofindpdfcopiesofbooksbeingmadeavailablefor freeby their authors simultaneouslywith the saleof theprint copies (e.g.,Benkler2006,Lessig2004).Thusonlinepublicationstendtohavefewercopyrightrestraintsandrestrictionsinpracticethancomparablepaperpublications,althoughthereisnoreasoninprinciplewhythiswouldhavetobeso.
Q10. if i take an article from a free, open-access online journal, is it fair to assume that i can use the material for whatever academic purposes i want?
A10.No,andthisfollowsfromthepreviousquestion.Peopleseemtothinkthatonlineopenaccessmaterialistherebyinthepublicdomain,butthisisnotthecaseatall.Eventhoughyouarefreetoreadanopen-accessjournalwithoutpaying,strictlyspeakingthecontentsof the journalarecopyrighted.Thus in theabsenceofanexplicitnotice (suchasaCreativeCommonslicense)thatauthorizesyoutoduplicate,distribute,orotherwiseusethematerial,youmaynot.Anopen-accessjournalislikeafreenewspaperthatyoumightfindatyourfavoritecoffeeshop.Youcanreaditoruseitforwrappingupsmokedmackerel,butthat’sit.ThearticlesinthefreejournalaresubjecttothesamepanoplyofcopyrightprotectionsandrestrictionsasanarticleintheWall Street JournalorLinguistic Inquiry.But,asindicatedearlier,peopledon’tfeelthatway.
6. fair usE.
Q11. if a work is copyrighted and doesn’t come with something comparable to a Creative Commons license, does this mean that i can’t use it in my work without tracking down and asking permission of the publisher? if i have to get permission every time i quote something in a book review or every time i reproduce some example or tree diagram in an article i am working on, everything is going to grind to a halt. is there no way out?
A11. Fortunately copyright law contains an exception to the general rule that thecopyright holder has the exclusive right to exploit a work and this is what is called“FairUse.” If youmake reasonable use of someone else’swork for such purposes ascommentary,criticism, scholarship,orparody,and if thisusedoesn’t interferewith thecopyrightholder’s legitimate economic interests,FairUse allowsyou todo sowithoutgoingtothetroubleofrequestingpermission.AlthoughtherearenostrictguidelinesastowhatconstitutesFairUse,therearesetfactorstoconsiderthatgiveyousomemeasureofwhatwouldbeconsideredreasonable.Thesefactorsare:thenatureofyourintendeduse
LaNguagE docuMENtatIoN & coNSErvatIoN voL. 1, No. 1 JuNE 2007
Copyright Essentials for Linguists 36
(noncommercialvs.commercial);thenatureoftheworkbeingused(factualvs.creative,publishedvs.unpublished);thequantityorimportanceofthematerialused(afewlinesvs.anentirechapterorsection);andthepotentialimpactofyouruseonthefinancialvalueofthematerialused(littlevs.substantial).Iwouldsuggestthatthebestruleofthumbistoputyourselfintheotherperson’splace.Ifsomeoneusedsomeofyourworkwithoutpermission—assuming,ofcourse,propercitationandattribution—wouldyoubeannoyed,orwouldyou feel that itwouldhavebeen silly for theperson tohavebothered to askyou?
Inmost cases, I think that scholars have a good sense ofwhat is andwhat is notFairUse.Theproblemisthatpublisherstendtobeovercautious.Youmightfeelthatitiseminentlyreasonabletoincorporatematerialfromsomeoneelse’sarticleinabookthatyouareworkingon,butyourpublishermayfeelotherwiseandrequirethatyougetcopyrightpermission.EvenifyouareabsolutelysurethatyourusefallsunderFairUse,there’snotmuchyoucandoifyourpublisherinsists:thisisthecopyrightbottleneckthatweareallupagainst.
7. orphan Works.
Q12. There’s a great paper published in a small journal some twenty-five years ago that i would like to include in a volume that i am editing, but my publisher won’t agree because i haven’t been able to get permission from the author. the journal is long defunct and no one has any idea where the author is or whether the person is even still alive. since no one is being hurt, can’t we just go ahead?
A12.Copyrightedworkswhosecopyrightholderscan’tbelocatedarereferredtoas“orphanworks.”Thisisahugeproblemalreadyandonethatisonlygoingtogetworseinthefuture.Thisisbecauseoftheextraordinarilylongcopyrightduration(thecopyrightonworkscreatedtodaywilleasilyextenduntiltheyear2100),thegenerallyinsignificantcommercial value ofmost scholarlyworks, and the absence of a required andupdatedcopyrightregistrationsystem.Youmayaskwhypublishersaresosillyastobefrightenedbytheprospectofthecopyrightholdershowingup.Theansweristhatcopyrightlawisunforgivinganddoesn’tprovidegoodfaithasanexcuseforinfringement.Ifthepublisherpublished a book that included a chapter forwhich it lacked permission (because onecouldn’tget iteventhoughone tried), thecopyrightholdercouldsue thepublisherandmostlikelywouldwin,therebysubjectingthepublishertomonetarydamagesand,evenworse,theprospectofhavingtowithdrawthebookfrompublication.Therisksareveryslight indeed, but publishers, whose interests are usually economic and not scholarly,wouldrathernottaketherisk.Therehasbeenproposedlegislation,bothintheU.S.andabroad,todosomethingabouttheorphanworksproblembybuildinginduediligence/safeharborprovisions,butsofarnothinghashappened.Ultimatelytherehastobesomechangeinthelaw—thecurrentsituationisabsurd—butinthemeantimewearestuckwithwhatwehave.
8. Copyright oWnErship.
Q13. suppose an old and dear professor of mine, now deceased, left me her voluminous field materials (including notebooks, dictionary slips, and tape recordings),
LaNguagE docuMENtatIoN & coNSErvatIoN voL. 1, No. 1 JuNE 2007
Copyright Essentials for Linguists 37
lifelong professional correspondence, draft papers, and a partially finished book. they are extremely important materials that i intend to work up for publication so as to make them available to other scholars. since she has entrusted me with her materials, i presume that this is ok. given that i am going to have to devote a lot of time and effort into publishing these materials, the question I have is, whose name(s) should appear as author?
A13.Yourfirstbigproblem iswithyourpresumption.Althoughyounowhave thephysicalpapers,andalthoughitwasprobablytheprofessor’sintentionthatyouhelpgetthemout,unlessshetransferredthecopyrightstoyou—anditisverypossiblethatshedidn’t—youdon’tholdthecopyrighttothesematerialsandthusyoulacktheauthoritytopublishthem.Quellehorreur!Thisisaseriousandpervasiveproblem.Seniorscholarsgenerallyattendtoestateplanningandotherfinancialmatters,buttheyoftenoverlookwhatwassoimportant to themthroughout their lives,namely the resultsof their intellectualefforts.Thus,inordertopublishtheseworks,youwillneedtotrackdownthecurrentcopyrightholder(s),whichcouldbeaspouse,children,grandchildren,oreventheprofessor’sfavoritecharity,andconvincethemtotransferthecopyrightstoyou.Otherwise,you’restymied.
Therawfieldnotes,thedrafts,andthecorrespondencepresentdifferentproblems.Thegoodnews about thenotes is that facts anddata are not copyrightable and soyou canuse theseasyouwish.Thedraftpapersandbookareprobablycopyrightedand thus topublish theseyouwouldneed thecopyrightholders to transfer thecopyright toyouorelseissueyoualicense.Thiswouldbenecessaryevenifyourfinalworksdifferedfromtheoriginalsinasubstantialway.Thebadnewsaboutthelettersisthatnotonlyaretheycoveredbycopyright,but thecopyrightholder isnot theprofessor (orher successors),buttheindividualwriters.Withouttheirpermission,orthatoftheirheirs—whoeverandwherevertheymaybe—youcannotpublishthelettersorevenpostthemonafreeonlinewebsite.Youown thephysical letters,whichyoucan sellorgiveawayordeposit inalibraryarchive,butyoulacktheintellectualrightsembodiedinthecopyright.
Q14. A graduate student who worked as my field assistant on an NSF grant has written up a publishable paper. Who owns the copyright? the student, i as principal Investigator (PI), or NSF?
A14. Strictly speaking, none of the above! Most likely your university owns thecopyright, even though it doesn’t know it and wouldn’t want it. This is because of aprovision of the copyright law covering “Work made for Hire.” This provision statesthatworkdonebyanemployeeaspartof thatemployee’snormaldutiesbelongstotheemployer.Normallythewriterofapaper—inthiscasethestudent—istheinitialcopyrightholder.InWorkforHiresituations,theemployeroccupiestheplaceoftheactualauthorandbecomesthelegalcopyrightholder.Assumingthatthestudentwasbeingpaidoutofyourgrant, i.e.,hewasnotavolunteer intern,and that thepapercameoutofhiswork
LaNguagE docuMENtatIoN & coNSErvatIoN voL. 1, No. 1 JuNE 2007
Inpractice,noonepaysanyattentiontothisandthestudentcouldpublishhispaperandsignwhateverauthor’sagreementwasrequiredaS Ifhehadthecopyright.Thereis,however,awayinwhichthestudentcouldhavehadthecopyrightinthefirstplace.TheWork forHire rule is adefault rule.Although thecopyrightonanemployee’s creationnormally belongs to the employer, if the employee and employer agree otherwise in asignedwrittendocument,theemployeecanbedeemedthecopyrightholder.Butlotsofluckinfindingsomeoneinyouruniversitylegaldepartmentwhowouldbewillingtosignsuchathing!
Q15. thinking about the “scope of employment” phrase, wouldn’t it follow that the academic papers that all of us professors produce would belong to our universities? i mean, sure we teach, but a good part of what we are paid to do is to do research and publish. so if the university owns the copyright to our work, how come we haven’t heard anything about this?
A15.That’s the $64,000 question. If you simply readwhat the law says regardingWorkforHire,youindeedwouldhavetoconcludethatuniversities,not theprofessors,aretherightfulcopyrightholders.Afewappellatecourtjudgeswhohavecommentedonthesubjecthaveproposedthatthereisa“teacher’sexception”totheWorkforHirerule;but these pronouncements are problematic indeed.The reality is that universities don’twantandarenotsetuptohandlethemultitudeofcopyrightsthatfacultygenerateeachyearandso theygenerally functionas if theWork forHire ruledidn’tapply (althoughtheyoccasionally fudgewhen it comes to copyrightsonpotentiallyvaluable software).Thusinpractice,professorsarethedefactoinitialcopyrightholdersoftheirownworks.Oneofthesedays,thematterisgoingtoendupinthecourts,andwemaygetaclear(ormorelikelymuddy)rulingonthesubject.Butinthemeantime,itisnotanythingtoworryabout.
Q16. if i hire someone to do a map for an article i am writing or hire someone to prepare an index for my book, is the copyright mine? that is, can i assume that this would fall under the Work for hire rule?
A16.Thecopyrightcouldbeyours,butitisnotautomaticallyso.Youmaythinkthatwhenyougivethecartographeracheckandhegivesyouthemap,youtherebyownthecopyright,butthatisnotthecase.Unlessyoutakeappropriatesteps,hehasthecopyright,notyou.Wecanassumethatyouhavetherighttousethemapinyourarticle—wetalkedearlieraboutimpliedlicenses—butyoudonothavethecopyright.Thereasonisthatwithcommissionedor speciallyorderedworks, thedefault is theoppositeofwhat it iswithemployees.Althoughyouspeakofhaving“hired”someone,thatpersonwasreallyafree-lance,independentcontractorratherthananemployee.Thisbeingthecase,thecartographerorindexerwouldownthecopyright,notyou,unlessyoutwohadanagreementinwriting
LaNguagE docuMENtatIoN & coNSErvatIoN voL. 1, No. 1 JuNE 2007
Q17. The director of a big fieldwork team insists that his name be on every paper that comes out of the project whether he personally was involved in the research and writing or not. is this allowed?
A17. This question raises both professional and copyright issues. U.S. copyrightlawisremarkablysilentaboutthequestionofwhosename(s)canappearonawork.Thecopyright lawsofmanyEuropeancountriesencompass“moralrights,”whichdealwithissuesofattributionandcreativeintegrity,butU.S.lawdoesnothaveanythingcomparable(exceptinthelimitedcaseofpaintingsandsculpture).Thus,noonecouldobjecttothedirector’sputtinghisnameon thepapersoncopyrightgrounds,althoughtheycertainlycouldonprofessionalandethicalgrounds.Thequestionherewouldbewhatisthegenerallyaccepted and expectednorm in such situations, thepracticebeingdifferent indifferentdisciplines.Note,however,thatifthedirectorwasnotacontributingauthorofthepaperinanyrealsense,thenstrictlyspeakinghewouldnothaveanycopyrightinterestinthepaperwhatsoever.That’sthelaw.Inpractice,oncethedirectorgothisnameonthepaper,everyonewould treat himas a joint authorwith equal copyright rights from that pointforward.
Q18. how about a situation where four people really did work together on a project (although to different extents) and thus all deserve to have their names on the paper. Assuming that the PI, whose name appears first, led the research effort and that the second author did the bulk of the write-up, what rights do the various authors have?
A18.Againoneneeds to separateprofessional scholarlypractices from legal rules.Professionally,thevariousmembersofaresearchteamneedtosortoutamongthemselveswhodoeswhat,whoisresponsibleforwhat,andwhoisentitledtowhat,ideallybeforeanyconflictarises.Undercopyrightlaw,theruleisthatallauthorsofasingleworkconstituteequal copyrightholders, i.e., thePIofabigprojector thepersonwhodidmostof thewritinghasnomorelegalclaimtotheworkthanapart-timeunpaidundergraduateassistant.Membersofagroupworkingonacommercialprojectcandecideamongthemselveshowtheproceedsaretobeallocated,butasfarascopyrightownershipisconcerned,iftherearefourauthors,eachhasaone-fourthinterest.Notethatanyofcopyrightholders,includingthemostminorcontributorintheteam,mayusetheworkastheyseefitandmayevenissuenonexclusivelicensesaslongastheyprovideafinancialaccountingtotheirjointcopyrightholders.Whattheycannotdoontheirownwithouttheagreementoftheothersistransferthecopyrightassuchorissueanexclusivelicense.
LaNguagE docuMENtatIoN & coNSErvatIoN voL. 1, No. 1 JuNE 2007
Copyright Essentials for Linguists 40
Q19. suppose the person who did most of the writing was a phd student. Could she rewrite the article a bit and use it as a chapter in her thesis?
The real issue in this case is one of possible academicmisconduct. If the studentremovedthenamesoftheotherauthorsandincorporatedthearticleinherthesisasifitwerehersalone,shewouldbeguiltyofplagiarism.Ifsheproperlycitedthearticleand/ordidamajorrewrite,shewouldbeOK.Butifshepresentedthematerialasherownwhenherchangeswereessentiallycosmetic,shecouldbesubjecttoacademicdiscipline.
9. Copyright and fiELd situations.
Q20. While I was in the field I collected quite a lot of oral literature, especially from two remarkable people. The first was an old woman who seemed to know an endless number of folktales, which she told in energetic fashion. both she and the village elders explained to me that she was the personal custodian of the folktales, but that the tales as such were the property of the community. the second was a blind man who was admired in the village because of his linguistically expressive poetry. i recorded both of these people and with the help of a local school teacher assistant transcribed everything in the local language and translated everything into English. from a copyright point of view, who owns what?
A20.Nooneownscopyrighttothefolktales.Theoldwomandoesn’tbecause,althoughsherelatedthem,shewasnottheauthor.Similarly,thecommunityhasnocopyrightinterestbecauseofthelackofidentifiableauthorship.Whentheelderstoldyouthatthecommunityowned the folktales, you may have acquired certain contractual or ethical obligationsregardingyouruseofthetales,butthiswouldbeoutsideofcopyrightlaw.Finally,neitheryounortheteacherhasanycopyrightinterestinthefolktalesassuch.Transcriptionofarecordingdoesnotconstituteauthorship.
LaNguagE docuMENtatIoN & coNSErvatIo voL. 1, No. 1 JuNE 2007
Copyright Essentials for Linguists 41
ifyoudidn’tgetanagreementinwritingsayingthathisfree-lanceworkwouldconstituteWorkforHire,theteacherobtaineda50%interestinthetranslation.Asajointholderofthecopyright,youwouldbefreetousethetranslationsforyourpurposesandevenissuenonexclusivelicenses—eachco-holderhasthatright.However,youcouldn’ttransferthecopyright as suchwithout the teacher’s approval, andyouwouldowehim50%ofanyroyaltiesorotherincomethatmightensuefromyourcombinedefforts.
Q21. Who owns the copyright on the photos that I took in the field, me or the individuals in the pictures? do i need their permission if i want to publish the photos? regarding the copyright, would it matter if i were using an expensive camera that was paid for out of an extra grant that i had received from the national Endowment for the humanities for the express purpose of taking high-quality pictures?
A21.Thegeneralruleforpicturesisthatthephotographeristheauthorandthereforethe copyright holder.The people being photographed have no copyright interest in thephotosatall.Ontheotherhand,whatyoumaydowiththephotosisadifferentmatter.Thisdependsnotsomuchoncopyright,butonprivacymatters,personalandprofessionalethics,culturalrules,wherethepicturesweretakenandofwhom,andonwhateverformalor informalagreementsyoumadewiththepeopleyouphotographed.That is,nooneislikelytosueyouforcopyrightinfringement;butsincemostpeoplefeelverystronglyaboutphotos,youneedtobeextracautiousnottooverstepyourbounds.
ThefactthatNEHpaidforthecameradoesn’tchangethefactthatyouasphotographerownthecopyrighttoyourphotos.IfyouwereanemployeeofNEHwhosejobitwastotakephotos,thencopyrightonthepictureswouldautomaticallybetheirsundertheWorkforHiredoctrine.Alternatively,ifthetermsofyourgrantspecifiedthatNEHwastoobtainthe copyright on the photos, then youwould have to sign over the copyright to them.Otherwise,thecopyrightonthephotosisyours.
Q22. some communities have awakened to the history of cultural exploitation by Western scholars and now want to exercise control over their language, specifically with regard to written or recorded documentation. some now insist that they be provided copies of research notes and recordings collected in the field and some want to have the final say on who can and who cannot make use of materials on their language that have been deposited in libraries and archives. how does copyright enter into the picture?
A22.Theshortansweristhatitdoesn’t.Onecannotcopyrightfactsorideasorreal-worldphenomena,whichmeans that languagesarenot copyrightable.There is a lotofdiscussion thesedays—moreso inanthropologyandfolklore thanin linguistics—aboutindigenous intellectualproperty rights.These includeaspectsof indigenousknowledge,suchastraditionalpharmacology,whicharepatentablesubjectmatter,aswellasliterature,music,andthearts,whichfallinthecopyrightdomain.Unfortunatelycopyrightlawasitnowexistsappearstobeofnohelpinpreservingtraditionalrights.Theproblem,aswasbrought tomy attentionbyAkiemiGlenn (personal communication), is that unlike thecopyrightover-protectionsituationthatCreativeCommonsdealswith,theprobleminthenon-Westernworld isoftenoneofcopyrightunderprotection(seeHardisonn.d.).Thus,
LaNguagE docuMENtatIoN & coNSErvatIoN voL. 1, No. 1 JuNE 2007
Copyright Essentials for Linguists 42
iftherearetobeanystandardstodetermineappropriatecommunitycontroloflanguagematerialsandoralliterature,orguidelinesregardingrespectfortraditionalcultures,theseare going to have to be drawn up by professional societies or university institutes orprovidedforbyadhoclegislationindependentofthecurrentcopyrightsystem.
10. summary and ConCLusion. Scholars tend to be both creators of and users ofcopyrightedmaterial.Thetensionincopyrightlawresultsfromthenaturalinclinationofauthors tobepossessiveabout theircreativeoutput,andthedesireofreadersanduserstohavemaximumaccesstoculturalandintellectualworksatminimalcost,wherecostismeasurednotjustintermsofmoneybutintime,effort,andinconvenience(whatareoftenreferredtoas“transactioncosts”).Andthenonehastotakeintoaccountthepublishers,whoplayanimportantroleinfacilitatingthecommunicationbetweenthecreatorsandtheultimatereadersandusers.Copyrightlawissupposedtostrikeabalanceinmeetingtheneedswishes,andinterestsofthevariousstakeholders.Manyindividualsinvolvedwithscholarlycommunication feel that the law isnowwayoutofkilter,whichexplains theemergenceof self-helpmeasures such asCreativeCommons licenses and theAuthor’sAddendum.Nevertheless, nomatter how one feels about the issue philosophically, allpeopleinvolvedinscholarlyproduction(andthisincludesfieldlinguistswhowouldmuchprefertothinkaboutotherthings)needtohaveabasicunderstandingofwhatcopyrightlaw is about inorder toknowhow to react intelligently to it andhow todealwith theproblemsthatitinevitablypresents.
11. sourCEs. Usefulbrochuresaboutcopyrightlawandaccesstothecopyrightactitself(U.S. Code Title 17)canbefoundonthewebsiteoftheU.S.CopyrightOffice.Anumberofuniversities,especiallyCornell,Duke,Maryland,Michigan,andStanford,haveextremelyhelpfulcopyrightpages,averygoodonebeingthatoftheCopyrightCenteratIUPUI.Thebestcomprehensiveone-volumetreatmentofcopyrightlawisLeaffer2005.Strong1999islessdetailedandinneedofupdating,butitisstillveryreliableandforthenonlawyerinterested in the subject,much easier to read thanLeaffer 2005. Information regardingCreativeCommonscanbeobtainedfromtheirwebsiteandfromnumerousonlineresourcessuchasEducause(2005,2007).
LaNguagE docuMENtatIoN & coNSErvatIoN voL. 1, No. 1 JuNE 2007
RefeRences
BENkLEr, yochaI.2006.The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress. (available for freeat<http://www.benkler.org/Benkler_Wealth_Of_Networks.pdf>)
<http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7023.pdf>hardISoN, PrEStoN.n.d.Indigenouspeoplesandthecommons. <http://onthecommons.org/node/1022>IuPuI coPyrIght cENtEr<http://www.copyright.iupui.edu>LEaffEr, MarShaLL a.2005.Understanding copyright law.4thed.Newark:LexisNexis.LESSIg, LawrENcE. 2004. Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock
down culture and control creativity.NewYork:PenguinPress. (available for freeat<http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/>)
LINdSEy, Marc. 2003. Copyright law on campus. Pullman, WA: Washington StateUniversityPress.
McLEod, kEMBrEw.2005.Freedom of expression: Overzealous copyright bozos and other enemies of creativity.NewYork:Doubleday.
NEwMaN, PauL, and Martha ratLIff, eds. 2001. Linguistic fieldwork. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
PorSdaM, hELLE,ed.2006.Copyright and other fairy tales: Hans Christian Andersen and the commodification of creativity. Cheltenham,UK;Northampton,MA:EdwardElgar.
PoSNEr, rIchard a. 2007. The little book of plagiarism.NewYork:PantheonBooks.StroNg, wILLIaM S. 1999. The copyright book: A practical guide.5thed.Cambridge,MA:
MITPress.uNItEd StatES coPyrIght offIcE<http://www.copyright.gov>
![Proquest Education [ENG]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/55549d96b4c90502618b4867/proquest-education-eng.jpg)
