Interviewer: Huijie Feng, University of Alberta.
Interviewee: Lesley Ellen Harris, publisher and editor, The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter.
I. Introduction:
Founded in 1997, The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter (CNMLN) is “specifically targeted towards those who create, use, license and distribute copyright-protected materials” (“The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter”, 2005). Its mission is to help its readers keep abreast of important copyright issues and news and to ensure practical solutions in their everyday activities (“The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter”, 2005). From its beginning at a kitchen table 10 years ago, “the newsletter has grown to a subscriber and contributor list that reaches across the globe” (“Copyright Newsletter in 10th Year”, 2006).
In Mar 18, 2007, I interviewed Lesley Ellen Harris, a publisher and editor of the CNMLN. The main purpose of this interview is to examine copyright-related issues of the CNMLN from both the copyright works user’s and the creator/owner’s perspectives and analyze how this organization may better profit from the copyright works it owns, licenses or uses.
II. Interview summary:
This section summarizes Lesley’s responses to my interview questions and outlines copyright-related issues of the CNMLN as follows:
Generally the articles in the newsletter are written by Lesley, the editor, are reprints (in which CNMLN licenses the necessary rights) or are original works (in which it licenses the necessary rights).
When using a copyright material of others, CNMLN obtains permissions through direct contact with authors and properly licenses the rights to all works published in the newsletter.
In order to consistently treat all of the contributors, protect their copyright, and avoid copyright infringement, CNMLN requires each contributor from any country to sign a contributor’s agreement. This agreement not only asks contributors’ permission to publish their article in the print newsletter and any e-versions including third party aggregators but also asks the authors to warrant that their work is original and does not infringe upon copyright. When the newsletter was started 10 years ago, it was in print only. Now it is available in PDF as well, and is sublicensed to aggregators like ProQuest. Therefore, the contributor’s agreement was changed about 5 years ago to include these additional e-versions and sub-licensing arrangements.
As a copyright lawyer, there is a copyright policy in Lesley’s head. However, because the organization is very small, currently it does not have a written copyright policy and it is unlikely that it would have a written one in the near future. But that could change if there were other staff.
Since all of the articles in CNMLN are about copyright and its audience is well versed in copyright, copyright violation hasn’t happened yet and Lesley believes that copyright violation is not likely to occur.
As a for-profit newsletter, CNMLN mainly collects revenues by subscription. Also, it has an arrangement with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) for photocopying of articles in the newsletter. CCC collects royalties for photocopying articles etc. To be better profiting, perhaps CNMLN will have more sublicensing arrangements, or special deals with associations who could sell the newsletter at a discount to their members.
III. Interview analysis:
As we have seen, CNMLN is a small copyright-based newsletter. Copyright works which CNMLN owns, licenses or uses are the articles in the newsletter. As mentioned above, usually the articles in the newsletter are: a). original works written by the editor, Lesley; b). original works from the contributors; or c). reprints. Therefore, CNMLN is both the creator/owner and the user of copyright protected works.
From the user’s perspective, CNMLN already has several effective strategies to ensure that it is legally using copyright works, such as developing the contributor's agreement, licensing the rights to all works published in their newsletter properly and obtaining permissions through direct contact with authors. Moreover, as CNMLN states in its website, “individual contributors may retain copyrights in their contributions”. I believe contributors are glad to cooperate with the CNMLN because their copyright are respected and used fairly.
From the owner’s perspective, CNMLN has an arrangement with the CCC to collect royalties and protect copyrights and interests of the newsletter.
Based on the above analysis of the copyright-related issues in CNMLN, we can say that CNMLN has done a good job on copyright from both the user and the creator/owner of copyright works perspectives. However, some additional strategies could be taken to help the organization better profit from the copyright works it owns, licenses or uses.
First, although CNMLN’s works enjoy automatic protection since creation and most of its audience is copyright professionals, I think it still should pay more attention to copyright protection within the organization. For example, it may mark its copyright-protected works with the universal copyright symbol ©, name of copyright holder, and year of first publication. Also, it may register those works using various government and non-government procedures. For instance, it may choose to register them with the Canadian Copyright Office.
Second, with the development of CNMLN, maybe having a copyright policy in the editor’s mind is not enough. The organization could develop a comprehensive and practicable written copyright policy to provide staff with a complete guideline covering various copyright–related issues, either as a copyright user or a creator/owner. The copyright policy should be firmly based on Canadian Copyright Act as well as the organizational policies and industrial rules and oriented to both internal and external copyright issues facing the organization. The following contents might be addressed in the copyright policy:
·what works are protected or not protected by the policy (I suggest that all works protected by the by Canadian copyright law should be protected by the policy) .
·what rights are its as a publisher, and what rights reside with the contributors (allowing individual contributors retain copyrights in their contributions is a good idea.)
·how to locate the copyright owner, obtain the necessary permission and/or pay a royalty for use of copyright works in the newsletter (the contributor’s agreement that the newsletter already has had is a good reference for this section)
·how to negotiate copyright concerns with the contributors (again, CNMLN should use the contributor’s agreement as an important reference here)
·how to obtain licensing or reprint permissions for use of copyright works in the newsletter
·how to license or assign the rights to all works published in the newsletter
·how to grant reprint permission to other works
·how to protect the newsletter from copyright infringement (see suggestions above: mark and register the copyright works it owns,etc.)
·how to seek remedies for the violation of copyright (notification of the infringement; law suit, etc.)
·any other issues as may arise from a consideration of the topic
All copyright issues should be dealt with according to this policy on a regular basis. The policy should be reviewed and revised once a year. I believe that this copyright policy will help the staff of CNMLN deal with copyright-related issues more properly and consistently and thus make a positive contribution to the organizational performance.
Third, in order to get more subscribers and achieve better financial profiting, CNMLN could: a). never stop to improve the quality of the articles in the newsletter; b). build and maintain a good network of copyright professionals working in libraries, archives, museums, corporations, educational institutions, governments, and law firms, and thus build a broader network of contributors and subscribers.
Four, as Lesley mentioned, CNMLN could build and maintain good relationships with copyright-related associations, recommend the newsletter to them, and offer some special deals with them and encourage them sell the newsletter at a discount to their members;
Five, I do agree with Lesley that CNMLN could have more sublicensing arrangements to receive more royalty payment.
IV. Conclusion
There is no simple answer for how CNMLN may better profit from the copyright works it owns, licenses or uses. But it becomes manageable when boiled down to the following essential elements: marking and registering the copyright works it owns, developing a comprehensive and practicable written copyright policy, building and maintaining good relationships with copyright professionals and copyright-related associations, and having more sublicensing arrangements.
References:
The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter. Retrieved March 22, 2007 from http://www.copyrightlaws.com/index2.html
Copyright Newsletter in 10th Year. Retrieved March 22, 2007 from http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing/direct-marketing-e-mail/1101731-1.html
