New APS Member Survey

Yes, rogdcam, you made a direct statement that



I have read the various comments about digitizing many of APRLs holdings and I believe they were very clear that only those items with permission of the copyright holder or those in the public domain were being tackled. You implied you had knowledge of their e-distribution of works still under copyright. Please correct my understanding of your position ...

I've often wondered if APRL could setup a computer and install things like a single PC license stamp catalog or a single PC license of Newspaper.com subscription. APS members could then remote access this PC and use the resources. It would be equivalent to having a family member or friend come to your house and your PC or physically come to the APRL and use the PC there.

I assume the answer is buried somewhere in the T&Cs of the individual license agreements. If allowable, this would be a significant additional of value to an APS/APRL membership.
Don

Nothing was implied. You created your own argument. The simplest things....

I built solidly off your direct statement. Indeed very simple. I agree. Signing off here.

My initial post to rodgcam was not even remotely intended to be argumentative or become a catalyst for internet forum angst.

As for digitizing, I highly doubt that the APRL is failing to look at copyright notices prior to scanning. As for the number of pages of copyrighted material they're allowed to provide as scans or photocopies, I'm going to write to them now and ask. Will post back when I have an answer.

Essay_Proof - It will be interesting to see what they say.

Don - something similar to what you suggest is offered by many libraries for "borrowing" e-books. This wouldn't seem to me to be a tech problem, but perhaps a lack of creativity at the APS.

For those wondering about APRL digitization efforts this is informative:

https://stamps.org/news/c/news/cat/...rinted-items

In copy rite digital material requires DRM (Digital Rites Management) each publisher or copy rite holder can grant or licence it and restrict it. If you buy 1 licence to a book you can only have 1 person reading it at a time then you must have a way to remove that readers access before another can read it. Its on the same concept as a hard book. They buy a copy they can lend it but if they want to lend 2 copies they must buy another book.

There are services that do that for most libraries one example is https://company.overdrive.com/ they get the licence and manage it the libraries then pay them a fee. There are lots of other services like this.

So most other libraries just build digital collections on out of copy rite and then share these among others. Its just to much to manage and if you mess up the costs could bankrupt them.

That's the second post you had jdtrue that I agree with. My library works that way.
regards mark

Hello All,

Regarding the APRL's policies on providing photocopies/scans of copyrighted material versus lending books still in copyright, the following information comes from the ever-helpful Scott Tiffney, Librarian and Director of Information Services.

The APRL is a Research Library
Key to the APRL's mission is that it operates as a Research Library and an educational organization. To quote Scott, "under the provisions of 'fair use'...we are allowed to scan/copy items upon request by patrons for research/educational purposes only." Thus, copying articles or portions of books is allowed.

"If, however, a patron plans to use the scanned/copied items for anything other than research/educational purposes (i.e. to make further copies, copies for purchase, or to insert in a publication, etc.) we have the right to and do refuse the request."

The 5% Rule/Standard (my label)
From Scott, "We are limited to providing only a very small section of a larger work. The accepted percentage of a larger work among librarians and libraries is no more than 5% of the work..."

If someone wants more than that, the APRL advises them to borrow the material, and informs them that they cannot provide scans/copies.

Copyright Notice
When providing scans/photocopies, the APRL includes a copyright statement with the materials.

As both a researcher (patron) and published philatelic author (copyright holder), their policies sit perfectly well with me.

As for limitations (if any) regarding scanning/photocoying vs. borrowing of out-of-copyright or public domain works is concerned, that's a separate topic.

Hope everyone finds this information helpful.

The APRL policy is typical of library policies and represents a bet that the library will prevail in a litigated dispute applying the four-factor US fair use test in the vast majority of cases. However, the policy will not always insulate all parties from liability. If the 5% portion is the qualitatively most important part of the work and impacts the market for the work—e.g., the author or rights holder loses a sale of a copy of the work to an APS member because the APRL supplied a copy of the portion—the library still can be liable. Every infringer always argues they had an educational purpose, but the other factors of the test act as a check on that argument. A library would be most likely to lose by copying the 5% that readers most want to read from the recently published work of a successful author or publisher who has an economic incentive to pursue a claim.

Looking for copyright notices in the work is immaterial to post-1978 works, which do not need notice to be protected. A notice with a pre-1978 date often reduces risk, but not for all works as there are thousands of works published from 1930 to 1978 that are not in the public domain. The difficulty of determining whether the author or their heirs observed required formalities often causes copyists, like Google Books, to infringe first and apologize later.

The "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" of 1998 extended copy rite to to 120 years, or the life of the author plus 70 years, whichever ends earlier. It was also called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.

Right. It added 20 years to the previous extensions past an author's death. So whereas before the Act it was 50 years, now it's 70. In those cases where it was 100, now it's 120. As I see it, it allows an additional generation of an author's family or other rights holder to exercise control or monetize an author's work. I can hardly see a downside.

Just to stick a fork in the topic of the APRL's policies, Scott Tiffney informed me today of their policy regarding works out of copyright. As would be expected, there are no limitations on how much of such a work can be photocopied/scanned. But in general, if someone wants copies/scans of more than 5% of a work, the library will steer them towards borrowing the book or journal (et al) instead.

I think that at times there is some "talking past" one another.

When I speak of digitizing the APRL library for members to access online everything that they have it seems to always circle back to copyright laws.

So, what is the difference for copyright law purposes between being able to "borrow" a written work online through a portal which you enter your UN and PW to enter after having paid your dues and borrowing a book by having it mailed to you and reading it in hard copy form instead? Is it that you can more easily store and/or share it?