View source for Talk:Module 4: Rights, Exceptions, and Limitations

'''CHRIS NOTES'''

* I barely touched http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/copyrightforlibrarians/Module_4:_Rights%2C_Exceptions%2C_and_Limitations#Library_Exceptions because the comments in the critique are so pervasive and prevalent (i.e. "this entire section needs to be redone") that it seemed foolish of me to do anything more than just fix typos and links. (i.e. I did not do any readability work).
* in the reading questions
**" If Angela wants to reuse entire works, but she want also to translate excerpts of works and comment on them, will such a usage be considered as non-substantial?"
**what does this mean?

KAI Comments:

+ Is the discussion of Austrailian copyright in databases properly included in the discussion of neighboring rights? The write up makes it sound like it's a true "copyright," rather than a neighboring right.

+ eIFL takes issue with this sentence -- See, for example, [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML/ Article 5, Section 3 of the EU Copyright Directive], which provides 15 specific exceptions that member countries can enact, as well as one exception member countries are required to enact. -- eIFL asserts that there are actually 21 exceptions enumerated.  Their count seems to include the exceptions in Article 5, Section 2.  The exceptions in Section 2 only apply to rights under Article 2, while Section 3 applies to rights under Articles 2 and 3.  Is it misleading to discuss the exceptions in Section 3, but not those in Section 2? They do have a point that the exception for libraries, which is included in Section 2, would seem to be particularly relevant for this course.

+ In the discussion of the first sale doctrine, eIFL takes issue with the fact that the only limitations to this doctrine discussed are limitations on the rental of copyrighted works.  I don't know this area well enough to know if countries have enacted limitations on lending copyrighted works.  If so, we should probably mention them.

+ eIFL wants a discussion of the relative merits for libraries of general versus specific limitations.  I'm not sure exactly what should be said about that.  Presumably, specific limitations would have the benefit of providing clear guidance, while general limitations would have the benefit of potentially allowing for a broader range of uses.  But I'm not sure if there are other costs/benefits of the two approaches that I'm missing.

+ Fair use/fair dealing would seem to merit more than a two sentence discussion.  I could draft something if it would be useful.

+ eIFL takes issue with including a discusion of the public lending right in the discussion of library exceptions, on the grounds that its inclusion may legitimate calls for a treaty on the issue.  While I understand the concern, it seems that omitting a discussion of the public lending right would detract from providing a comprehensive discussion of library exceptions.

+ The discussion question - If Angela wants to reuse entire works, but she also wants to translate excerpts of the works and comment on them, will such a usage be considered as non-substantial? - seems to conflate three separate issues: the amount of the work copied, the creation of derrivative works, and the reproduction of material for comment.  That seems like a lot to unpack in one question.

+ The round two requirement to determine what country has the most favorable laws based on their colleauges' answers would seem to require reading every other student's answers. Is this even supported by Rotisserie?

++May want to consider deleting the discussion of the three part test from the library exceptions part. Specifically: "For countries that have signed the Berne Convention, a statutory library exception must comply with Article 9(2), which contains the previously discussed “three-step test.” This article is incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement, and is echoed by Article 10(1) of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT). The three-step test has been incorporated into many countries’ statutory exceptions for libraries. For example, the library exception statutes for Australia, Bolivia, and South Africa all incorporate the language of the three-step test."