In Memoriam: Joan Cochet

Remembering our colleague, Joan Cochet, who passed away on Oct. 9, 2014. Joan's Obituary

From the National Center for State Courts:

NCSC and nation's court community experience loss
NCSC Library resource manager touched many lives

NCSC and the nation's court community lost a friend and colleague October 9 with the unexpected death of Joan Cochet, NCSC Library resource manager. Joan worked at NCSC for 10 years, during which time she touched the lives of court professionals around the country. In addition to her NCSC colleagues, Joan worked closely with court leaders, members of the nation's court associations, and Fellows of the Institute for Court Management. Joan was the court community's go-to person, no detail or resource too obscure for her to locate. "Joan possessed the unique combination of being extremely knowledgeable and professional and equally genuine and personable. She made an impact on everyone she met," said NCSC President Mary McQueen. Joan's reach is evident through the outpouring of condolences NCSC has received upon word of her death. "Joan's passion for NCSC's library was evident and she was truly dedicated to helping all of us be successful," said ICM Fellow Faye Guertin, deputy court administrator, Chandler Municipal Court, in Arizona. Joan is survived by her husband, Anthony Andrew Cochet, Sr.; son Anthony Andrew Cochet, Jr.; daughter, Cheryl Cathleen Cochet; grandchildren, Camile Joan, Noah, and Drew; twin sister Jean Ann Gentry; and father, David Galliart.

Orbis-Cascade Summit

By Jennifer Gonzalez

This program at the 2014 AALL Annual Conference was an open and honest discussion on the challenges of creating a shared catalog among many libraries.  Three speakers from the University of Washington Gallagher Law Library shared their view of the Alliance, specifically illuminating their struggles and how reality was different from what they expected.

The Orbis-Cascade Alliance is a partnership between 37 academic libraries (both public and private) in Oregon, Idaho, and Washington that will share an Integrated Library System —both the front end and back end.  The goal is to seek efficiency and productivity, or to “do more with less.” In fact, they found it to be a “moral obligation” to save the library money in participating in this alliance.

The entire migration will take quite some time to complete. The University of Washington was in the first of four cohorts, or divisions, of the 37 libraries. It is the largest university in the alliance and wields great influence in creating the shared ILS, particularly by being one of the first libraries to migrate. 

Richard Jost spoke first, offering the systems librarian or technical aspect. He was involved in the early stages of planning and leading the change in the law library. He spoke about the choice of Ex Libris as the ILS for this partnership. While Ex Libris was more expensive than other options, it was willing to be a development partner and had a greater understanding of the consortial concept.

Richard then explained some of the challenges he faces as the technologist in charge of the project. Among those were the fact that this was an “untested, untried product,” poor training from Ex Libris for the staff, a lack of flexibility in handling data migration issues, a mental adjustment from a bibliographic-centered ILS to a network-centered system. The UW Law Library also had to do a double migration, moving its records first from an independent law library system into the UW system, then into the new Ex Libris system. He then shared some of the rewards they would receive when the kinks were worked out of the system: shared cataloguing, shared collection development, potential staff savings, potential cost savings, and potential sharing of electronic resources.

Next, Alena Wolotira spoke from a public services perspective. Her job was to serve as the representative of law library staff and users at meetings. From her perspective, the main challenge was the lack of flexibility of the new system. Specifically, she believes that this system is created more for the general undergraduate user and therefore may not meet the needs of a typical law library user.  She also noted the poor training for staff, but spoke about the closer sense of community among the Pacific Northwest universities that will occur as a result of sharing an ILS.

Finally, Penny Hazelton spoke of the Alliance from a director's point of view. She said one of her biggest challenges was to find a way to explain to faculty and law school administration why this was a difficult time for the law library. She was especially concerned with staffing resources being diverted to create this product and the stress that the migration brings to the law library staff. Her bottom line was that technology systems will likely never be stable because customers constantly build and improve the systems. This is an opportunity to learn new skills and create a project that will bring the Northwest community together and increase potential staff savings.

Despite the challenges that each presenter discussed, the overall sentiment was one of great optimism with a sense that this type of collaboration is the future of libraries and that all challenges will eventually be worked out in the end.

 

Our Own Section of the Copyright Act: Section 108

by Paul Hellyer

In this third installment of VALL’s copyright column, we’ll take a look at Section 108 of the Copyright Act, which covers copying by libraries and archives.

This section made its first appearance in 1976, the last year the Copyright Act was completely overhauled. Section 108 expressly allows libraries to make copies of protected works without the owners’ permission under certain circumstances. Here’s a quick summary of what a library may copy (check the code section for more details):

·         Up to three copies of an unpublished work owned by the library for deposit in another library or for preservation. (Section 108(b)).

·         Up to three copies of a published work to replace copies that are damaged, deteriorating, lost or stolen, or that are in an obsolete format, if authorized new copies can’t be obtained at a fair price. (Section 108(c)).

·         One copy of an article or book excerpt for a patron, including through interlibrary loan, provided that the library has no notice that the use will be for anything other than private study, scholarship or research. (Section 108(d)).

·         One copy of an entire work (such as a book or journal issue) for a patron, provided that a new or used copy can’t be obtained at a fair price and the library has no notice that the use will be for anything other than private study, scholarship or research. (Section 108(e)).

Libraries were already engaging in these activities prior to the 1976 Act, but were doing it under the fair use doctrine. There’s a long history supporting these practices, including the 1973 U.S. Court of Claims case Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States,[1] which the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed without an opinion.[2] Section 108 was intended to clarify matters, not bring about any major changes in the status quo. It was never clear that Section 108 created any new rights that libraries would not have had under general fair use principles.

It’s important to note that Section 108 doesn’t extinguish libraries’ fair use rights—Section 108(f)(4) expressly reserves library’s fair use rights. So you don’t need to fit all your activities within Section 108 to stay within the law—you may also engage in copying that fits within the fair use section (Section 107). We saw a good example of that in my last copyright column on the HathiTrust case, where a library got away with copying and distribution that clearly had nothing to do with Section 108.

So if Section 108 was designed to clarify the law for us, has it succeeded? Increasingly, the answer seems to be no. Section 108 was never a model of clarity—from the start, it had to be supplemented with nonstatutory guidelines.[3] Over time, as we’ve moved into the digital age, Section 108 is looking even murkier. Several years ago, a distinguished group of librarians and copyright experts, convened by the U.S. Copyright Office and the Library of Congress, issued a very thorough report on how to update Section 108 for the 21^st century,[4] but in Congress, the report fell on deaf ears.

Another issue is that Section 108 has never attracted much litigation. That’s a mixed blessing. While it’s a good thing that publishers haven’t been aggressive in suing libraries over the boundaries of Section 108, it also means we don’t have much guidance from the courts on what Section 108 means. In West’s annotated U.S. Code, Section 108 has a single note of decision—a 1990 district court opinion that’s of little relevance to libraries. KeyCite reports that 36 cases have cited Section 108 since its creation, compared to over 1,300 cases that cite Section 107.

Let’s delve into some of the questions surrounding Section 108.

What counts as a library or archives in the digital age? Section 108 is limited to libraries or archives, but Congress didn’t define those terms for us. Maybe there wasn’t much need for definitions in 1976, but now we have some so-called archives whose collections exist only online. Does something like the Internet Archive (home of the Wayback Machine) qualify for Section 108 protection? It’s a question with no definitive answer. All we can say with certainty is that Section 108 doesn’t offer much that an online archive could make use of. As a practical matter, online archives are better served by the general fair use doctrine.

Can libraries within for-profit institutions participate in Section 108? Section 108 is limited to copying made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage,[5] but that restriction is directed at the copying itself, not the overall nature of the parent institution. There’s nothing in the statutory text that excludes libraries in for-profit institutions.[6] There is a requirement that the collections of the library be open to the public or available to researchers outside the parent institution, but a library could meet this requirement by making its collections available through interlibrary loan.

Can libraries make digital copies and deliver them electronically under Section 108? When Section 108 was first enacted, libraries were making copies through photocopying and microfilming. When digital copies appeared on the scene, publishers became alarmed, and it’s easy to see why. A digital copy facilitates further copying by users, who can easily forward copies via email or post them on the web. In 1998, Congress amended subsections (b) and (c) (covering copies for preservation and replacement) to expressly allow for digital copies, with the proviso that libraries are not permitted to distribute these digital copies outside the premises of the library. Subsection (d), which covers copies for patrons including ILL, was not affected by this change.[7] So the key question now is whether libraries may fill ILL requests by making digital copies and delivering them electronically. We know that many libraries are already doing so. Subsection (d) never specified what method of copying is permitted, and because a copy is a copy for purposes of copyright law, it would seem that digital copies would be permitted. The problem, as pointed out in the Section 108 Study Group Report, is that subsection (d) specifies only one copy, and making and delivering a digital copy involves creating more than one copy--at least one on the sender’s computer and one on the recipient’s computer.[8] Until there is further clarification from the courts or Congress, the best solution seems to be a compromise—if you have to make more than one copy, make sure you treat the extra copies as temporary and delete them. Even if this doesn’t fit neatly into subsection (d), remember that you always have fair use as a fallback position.

Can libraries use subscription databases for Section 108 purposes? As more and more of our content migrates from print and microfilm sources to subscription databases, we find that Section 108 is bumping up against our license agreements. Can a library fill an ILL request using content from a subscription database? As a default rule, the answer seems to be yes, but subscription databases always come with license agreements that change the default rules. If you try to use your subscription databases for Section 108 purposes, you might be inviting a breach of contract claim. Congress could step in here to say that Section 108 overrides license agreements, but don’t hold your breath.

What fees may libraries charge when making copies under Section 108? Section 108 doesn’t apply to any copying done for direct or indirect commercial advantage, but there’s no further guidance in the text of the section about charging fees. If we limit fees to cover direct expenses such as postage, paper and toner, libraries should be in the clear. But when fees go beyond this, we fall into a gray area. Covering some overhead costs for equipment and personnel seems reasonable, but there are no clear boundaries as to what counts as “overhead.” Spending part of your ILL revenue on your acquisitions budget would be an example of something that’s out of bounds, even if you’re at a non-profit institution. Remember that it doesn’t matter whether the parent institution is for-profit or non-profit, but rather whether the copying itself is for “direct or indirect commercial advantage.” Being part of a non-profit institution doesn’t give you carte blanche to charge whatever fees you like.

As a reminder, if you have questions about copyright law that you would like to see addressed in this column, please send them to me at phellyer@wm.edu.

---

[1] 487 F.2d 1345.

[2] 420 U.S. 376 (1975).

[3] Final Report of the National Commission on New Technological Uses Of Copyrighted Works (1979), more commonly known as the CONTU Guidelines.

[4] Section 108 Study Group Report (2008), available at http://www.section108.gov/docs/Sec108StudyGroupReport.pdf

[5] 17 U.S.C. § 108(a)(1).

[6] See also H.R. Rep. No. 94-1733 (Conf.), at 73-74 (1976).

[7] Pub.L. 105-304, Title IV, § 404, Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2889.

[8] Section 108 Study Group Report, supra note 4, at 100.



Down Memory Lane with Terry Long

by Suzanne Corriell

 

 

 
As E. Terry Long celebrates 40 years as an employee of the Commonwealth this October, she also celebrates 30 years with VALL. As a Librarian at the Virginia State Law Library, Terry was one of the founding members of VALL in 1984, helping it develop from a casual network of librarians who would gather over lunch into an official organization, and then into a chapter of AALL in 1998.

One of her most vivid memories of VALL was being in charge of local arrangements with the joint VALL/SEAALL meeting held in Richmond in 1995; at the time, she was serving as Vice-President/President-Elect of VALL (and de facto Chair of the Program Committee). Though she had prior experience in volunteering with the Junior League, serving on the board and chairing committees, working with local arrangements for the SEAALL meeting and conference was an incredibly intense volunteer role with a professional organization – and she had a good time! “I have a deep appreciation for the professional staff at AALL – putting on a meeting of that size is a huge undertaking. A lot goes into it.”

VALL has played a strong role in Terry’s professional development, helping her network with a variety of people; and in our profession,people are of immeasurable value. “We all benefit from knowing more about each other and helping each other out. Helping people, that’s what librarians are all about. I’m not a nurse because I can’t stand blood, but librarianship is a helping profession. Just hopefully not in a bloody situation.” 

To her, the secret to VALL’s success – in addition to inexpensive dues - is getting peopleinvolved in the organization. She suggests that small groups of members get together a few times a year in their own regions, harkening back to VALL’s roots. “VALL is a richer organization with a varied,active membership. Everyone should participate – it enriches the organization.”

 



AALL Hackathon

by Jennifer Gonzalez

 

 

For the 2014 AALL Annual Conference, I was fortunate to attend the first-ever AALL Hackathon. A Hackathon is an event where technology-focused people such as developers and designers meet to collaborate on new projects. For the AALL event, these technologists worked with subject specialists (law librarians) who have specific, in-depth knowledge in an area that is under-represented on the Internet.

At the beginning of the day, a representative from sunlight.org and the Census Bureau spoke about the importance of these types of projects and how much good they can do. Bringing together people who have the ideas (law librarians) and the people who can make it happen
(technologists) is a collaboration that can result in the creation of projects to solve problems.

Once the motivation was in place, groups were formed based on people’s interests. Some people came into the project knowing exactly what they wanted to pursue and most groups were formed around those ideas. Projects had to be identified quickly so that work could begin
immediately. Once the work began, it continued throughout the day in a very informal setting. Unfortunately, there was a shortage of technologists, so some groups of specialists adapted and made plans for what they would do once they had the resources to pursue a project. In upcoming years, this type of event might attract more people, especially if the event is held in a larger city.

At the end of the day, three judges evaluated presentations by each group and made comments before giving out the placements and grand prize. Projects addressed state materials and decisions in special education advocacy, consolidating and organizing state administrative
codes, working with the AALL inventory, improving a particular state’s search functions by creating a proxy search, and several more. The judges identified themes that were common across all of the projects. These themes included crowd-sourcing, the need for participants from all states for collaboration, accessibility, archiving, increasing functionality, open source (free, public access), the desire to inspire other projects, and adding value to legal information.

It was a fantastic experience and one I hope will become a staple in the AALL Annual Conference.