The IITF is organized into three
committees: the Telecommunications Policy Committee, the Committee
on Applications and Technology, and the Information Policy Committee.
The Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter
"Working Group"), chaired by Assistant Secretary of
Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Bruce A. Lehman,
was established within the Information Policy Committee to examine
the intellectual property implications of the NII and to make
recommendations on any appropriate changes to U.S. intellectual
property law and policy.4
Following a public hearing in November
19935, and review and analysis of both solicited written comments
and extensive public comments submitted, the Working Group released
a preliminary draft of its report ("Green Paper") on
July 7, 19946. Following release of the Green Paper, the Working
Group heard testimony from the public in four days of hearings
in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., in September 1994.
The Green Paper expressed significant
concerns over the ability of the limitations on copyright owners'
exclusive rights, particularly those contained in the fair use
provisions of the Copyright Act, to provide the public with adequate
access to copyrighted works transmitted digitally.
that the principles underlying the guidelines for library and
educational use of printed matter and music should still apply,
the Working Group believed it would be "difficult and, perhaps,
inappropriate, to apply the specific language of some of those
guidelines in the context of digital works and on-line services."
The Working Group convened a Conference
on Fair Use (CONFU) to bring together copyright owner and user
interests to discuss fair use issues and, if appropriate and feasible,
to develop guidelines for fair uses of copyrighted works by librarians
and educators.10 At the time of issuance of the Report of the Working
Group on Intellectual Property Rights (hereinafter "White
Paper"),11 in September 1995, CONFU was still meeting and
had not concluded its work.
Meeting regularly in public sessions,
CONFU grew from the forty groups which were invited to participate
in the first meeting on September 21, 1994, to the more than ninety-five
organizations participating as of November 1996.12
Group has facilitated meetings and coordinated the flow of information
for CONFU13, and a five-person Steering Committee, selected by the
participants, acted as the formal structure guiding the CONFU
Return to the Table of Contents
The most significant and, perhaps,
murky of the limitations on a copyright owner's exclusive rights
is the doctrine of fair use.18 Though now embodied in statutory
language, the doctrine of fair use is rooted in more than 200
years of judicial decisions. Fair use is an affirmative defense
to an action for copyright infringement. It is potentially available
with respect to all manner of unauthorized uses of all types of
works in all media. When the fair use doctrine applies to a specific
use of a work, the person making fair use of the work does not
need to seek permission from the copyright owner or to compensate
the copyright owner for the use of the work.
Before examining the work of CONFU,
it is useful to examine the statutory language concerning fair
use. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A,
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section [sic], for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,
is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the
use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors
to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the
potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.19
The copyright law allows copyright
owners to exercise the rights granted to them, to license their
rights, or to give them away. Some copyright owners are not motivated
by any commercial considerations. Those creators and authors
who wish to dedicate their works to the public domain may, of
course, do so notwithstanding the availability of protection under
the Copyright Act. Nothing in the law prevents those who do not
wish to claim copyright from waiving their rights and allowing
unrestricted reproduction, distribution and other uses of their
works. As the White Paper notes, "[c]opyright protection
is not an obstacle in the way of the success of the NII; it is
an essential component. Effective copyright protection is a fundamental
way to promote the availability of works to the public."20
While the NII and other digital
technology present myriad opportunities for fair uses of works,
[i]t is reasonable to expect that
courts would approach claims of fair use in the context of the
NII just as they do in 'traditional' environments. Commercial
uses that involve no 'transformation' by users and harm actual
or potential markets will likely always be infringing, while non-profit
educational transformative uses will likely often be fair. Between
these two extremes, courts will have to engage in the same type
of fact-intensive analysis that typifies fair use litigation and
frustrates those who seek a 'bright line' clearly separating the
lawful from the unlawful21.
Given the lack of such bright lines,
interested parties, including the user communities, copyright
owners, and those who act in an intermediary role, such as libraries,
educators, and publishers, have over the years developed voluntary
guidelines to address practical use situations. The fair use,
and educational use 24provisions of the Copyright
Act have been the subject of four sets of guidelines for libraries
and educational institutions, to which affected parties have agreed.
These various guidelines, while having no force of law, are
contained at different places in legislative history. The current
guidelines cover certain copying by and for teachers in the classroom
context25, the copying of music for educational purposes,
26 the copying
of relatively recent journal articles by one library for a patron
and the off-air videotaping of educational broadcast
materials.28 The result has been, in certain circumstances, a quantitative
gloss on the construction of fair use and library copying privileges.
Return to the Table of Contents
Participants were encouraged to
follow the example of previous successful efforts to develop voluntary
fair use guidelines -- the Classroom Guidelines in 1976,32 and the
National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works
(hereinafter "CONTU"), which dealt with the issues raised
by photocopiers and computers in 1978.33
In addition, there was a recognition
that the Consortium of College and University Media Centers (CCUMC),
which had convened a working group composed of many of the same
participants as CONFU, had begun in June 1994 a process to develop
fair use guidelines for educational multimedia uses. While a
parallel effort, the CCUMC multimedia working group was open to
all CONFU participants, its progress reported at CONFU meetings,
and its results, ultimately, were considered part of the CONFU
At three half-day meetings on October
21, 24, and 26, 1994, there was an initial effort to organize
the discussion and work of CONFU by means of subgroupings of participants
into library, elementary-secondary, and higher education subcommittees.
These meetings identified a variety of new uses and issues for
discussion. However, because they reflected the same copyright
owner and user concerns, they crossed all organizational subgroupings;
hence, this approach did not prove to be a useful organizing structure.
Since individuals had volunteered to present short papers or
reports on these discussion issues at future meetings, it was
decided, rather, to meet in plenary sessions to hear and discuss
the topic presentations. This process began in early December
The presentation and discussion
of these topics and scenarios laid the foundation for informed
discussion before participants turned to the subject of drafting
various guidelines. The topic presentations and discussions allowed
participants to decide which topics were appropriate for guidelines,
and how to deal with them, if at all, in the process of drafting
guidelines. Furthermore, the topic discussions allowed participants
to decide which topics should be explored as scenarios and which
were useful solely as background.
Following presentations on twenty-one
different topics34, certain topics were selected for discussion
of specific scenarios which would provide concrete examples of
how schools and libraries might use copyrighted works under fair
use and whether such uses were covered by current law. These
scenarios, which included distance learning, multimedia, electronic
reserves, visually impaired, transient copying, use of software
in libraries, preservation, visual image archives, interlibrary
loan/document delivery, downloading for personal use, and browsing,
35provided a range of examples of what, in the opinions of the drafters
of the scenarios, may or may not be considered fair use or, in
the case of interlibrary loans, guidelines for Section 108.
Subsequently, following further sessions devoted to topic and
scenario discussions, and as a result of the extensive background
discussions at monthly sessions, six working groups,36 with appropriate
representatives of rightsholders and educational and library users,
emerged to draft and negotiate fair use guidelines in five specific
areas and a statement of scenarios on the use of software in libraries.
These working groups met and negotiated
throughout 1995 and most of 1996, running concurrently with monthly
plenary sessions to discuss issues and drafts of voluntary guidelines
with the entire group of participants. In addition, a
number of individuals and organizations interested in nonprofit
music education and music publishing met on April 26, 1996, at
Columbia University, under the auspices of CONFU, to discuss whether
current guidelines for educational uses of music needed revision
in the digital environment.37 The general consensus was that no
change was needed at this time, but that music publishers, music
educators, and music librarians would need to be aware of the
guidelines being developed by CONFU, which might include uses
of music in digital form.
As progress was being made in some
areas and not in others, it was decided at the plenary session
meeting on May 30, 1996, that a concerted effort would be made
by all working groups to complete, if possible, the drafting of
widely acceptable guidelines in light of a general consensus to
end the CONFU process by November 30, 1996. The multimedia working
group stated at that time that should it reach agreement on fair
use multimedia guidelines sooner, it would seek to have such voluntary
guidelines included in legislative history.
On May 30, 1996, participants agreed
to adopt for all sets of guidelines the uniform preamble,38 which
had been drafted and coordinated by Mary Berghaus Levering, Associate
Register for National Copyright Programs in the U.S. Copyright
Office. On September 6, 1996, participants agreed that a brief
factual report of the CONFU process, attaching any resulting guidelines,
should be prepared with advice and comment from the CONFU Steering
Return to the Table of Contents
It was recognized at the outset
of CONFU that digital images collections raise issues different
from text issues; that these considerations and concerns were
not addressed by text norms and understandings (e.g., quality/distortion/accuracy
issues, commercial exploitation potential, and the critical mass
necessary for educational uses). Moreover, print issues were
well represented within the CONFU process, and, because not much
attention had been paid to the issues regarding images in the
old technologies, it was even more difficult to grapple
with the issues in the new technologies. These issues
were discussed at early CONFU plenary sessions and separately
at a College Art Association (CAA) meeting in April 1995, in New
York, convened by Barbara Hoffman, CAA counsel. Subsequently,
various versions of scenarios and drafts of proposed guidelines
were prepared and presented by Barbara Hoffman and discussed at
several CONFU plenary sessions. Recognizing the scope of the
issues, and the disagreements on threshold understandings of copyright
issues relating to digital images, it was recommended at the CONFU
plenary session in December 1995 that a more formal CONFU working
group, representing both educational users and copyright owners,
was needed to review and negotiate the working drafts. After
a few sessions in early 1996, it became clear that, in order to
make significant progress on the drafting of widely acceptable
guidelines, other disciplines, in addition to art history and
art scholarship, needed to be represented in the working group
in order to represent broader interests and concerns regarding
educational fair use of digital images.
Drawing also on representative parties
from the scientific, biomedical, and mathematics communities,
the working group was reorganized under the leadership of Patricia
Williams of the American Association of Museums, with the assistance
of Anita DiFanis of the Association of Art Museum Directors, and
others, including, Mary Levering of the U.S. Copyright Office,
Hope O'Keeffe of the National Endowment for the Arts, and Victor
S. Perlman, General Counsel of the Association of Media Photographers,
with more than twenty participating organizations providing support
and guidance to this expanded process. This effort led to new
Educational Fair Use Guidelines for Digital Images being drafted
with input from the copyright owner and user communities. The
purpose of the Guidelines is to clarify the application of the
fair use doctrine to the creation of digital archives, digital
images and their use, for educational purposes, including the
digitizing of pre-existing analog image collections and newly
acquired analog visual images.
Having completed the drafting process
in November 1996, the working group concluded that, while there
was not consensus within the working group as to recommending
the guidelines for endorsement, there was consensus that the draft
guidelines could be disseminated to organizations for review,
discussion, and possible endorsement over the next several months.
As with other sets of guidelines, participation in the process
of drafting these guidelines does not assume the endorsement by
any of the participating organizations, and organizations may
or may not choose to endorse the digital images guidelines. On
November 25, 1996, it was decided to submit these for consideration
as a proposal for fair use guidelines for digital images.
The working group met under the
leadership of Laura Gasaway, Director of the Law Library at the
University of North Carolina, representing the Association of
American Universities, to discuss the issues involved in distance
learning activities and to draft guidelines.
After considerable discussion, the
working group determined that at this time it was feasible to
draft guidelines which only apply to the real time performance
and display of a lawfully acquired copyrighted work not covered
under Section 110 (2) of the Copyright Act but not to asynchronous
delivery of distance learning over a computer network. Although
participants in the working group believe that fair use applies
in some aspects of such instruction, they did not develop fair
use guidelines to cover these situations because they felt that
the area was still unsettled, in that the technology is rapidly
developing, educational institutions are only now beginning to
experiment with such distance learning courses, and publishers
and other content creators are in the early stages of developing
materials and marketing strategies for publisher-produced computer
network delivery of distance learning materials. The working
group suggested that the issue of fair use guidelines for asynchronous
computer network delivery of distance learning courses be revisited
within three to five years.
The purpose of the Educational Fair
Use Guidelines for Distance Learning is to provide guidance on
the application for the performance and display of copyrighted
works in some of the distance learning environments that have
developed since the enactment of Section 110 and that may not
meet the specific conditions of Section 110(2). It is the belief
of the working group that these Guidelines basically extend the
face-to-face teaching exemptions in Section 110 of the Copyright
Act to distance learning with certain restrictions. As with other
sets of guidelines, participation in the process of drafting these
guidelines does not assume the endorsement by any of the participating
organizations. On November 25, 1996, it was decided to submit
these for consideration as a proposal for fair use guidelines
for distance learning.40
The Consortium of College and University
Media Centers (CCUMC), which convened a large group of representatives
of both copyright owners and educational institutions which became
the educational multimedia working group, had begun its process
of discussing and drafting possible educational multimedia fair
use guidelines four months prior to the convening of CONFU. This
working group acted under the leadership of Ivan Bender, counsel
to CCUMC, and Lisa Livingston, Director of Instructional Media,
City College/City University of New York, and chair of the CCUMC
Government Relations Committee.
The purpose of the Fair Use Guidelines
for Educational Multimedia, which were drafted by copyright owners
and users after considerable discussion and negotiation, is to
clarify the application of fair use of copyrighted works as teaching
methods are adapted to new learning environments. The Guidelines
apply to the fair use of portions of lawfully acquired copyrighted
works in educational multimedia projects which are created by
educators or students as part of a systematic learning activity
at nonprofit educational institutions. Such institutions are
defined as nonprofit organizations whose primary focus is supporting
research and instructional activities of educators and students
for noncommercial purposes.
On September 6, 1996, CONFU accepted
the Educational Multimedia Fair Use Guidelines developed by the
organizations participating in the CCUMC working group, and, further,
indicated that such guidelines could be included in a Final Report.
Some organizations which participated in CONFU are opposed to
the Guidelines,41 and others have endorsed them. As with other
guidelines, the participation by organizations in the process
of drafting these guidelines does not assume the endorsement by
any of the participating organizations. On November 25, 1996,
it was decided to submit these for consideration as a proposal
for fair use guidelines for educational multimedia.42
The working group met under the
leadership of Kenneth D. Crews, Director, Copyright Management
Center, Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis,
representing the Indiana Partnership for Statewide Education,
Laura Gasaway, Director of the Law Library at the University of
North Carolina, representing the Association of American Universities,
Douglas Bennett of the American Council of Learned Societies,
Carol Risher, Vice President of Copyright and New Technology,
Association of American Publishers, and Mary Jackson of the Association
of Research Libraries, to discuss the issues involved in the application
of fair use to the creation of electronic reserve systems that
allow storage, access, display and downloading of electronic versions
of materials that support the instructional requirements of a
specific course within a nonprofit educational institution.
After considerable discussion, the
working group reached an impasse in late 1995 over the proposed
scope and language of possible guidelines. This disagreement
among the representatives of the copyright owner, educational
institution, and library communities led all parties involved
to conclude that it was not possible to draft fair use guidelines
capable of gaining wide acceptance at this time. Some members
of the working group, however, continued to meet and discuss these
issues, which culminated in their drafting and circulating for
comment proposed guidelines in March 1996, in the hope of finding
a middle ground position which could gain acceptance.
During a CONFU plenary session meeting
in May 1996, all parties interested in electronic reserve systems
were encouraged to discuss the proposed guidelines in an effort
to explore whether widely acceptable guidelines were achievable.
Subsequent discussions, however, again revealed significant differences
of opinion about the draft guidelines dated March 5, 1996.
During the CONFU plenary session
on September 6, 1996, there was a general consensus that the proffered
Fair Use Guidelines for Electronic Reserve Systems had not received
widespread acceptance at this time. While some participants expressed
a willingness to endorse or adopt them,43 other participants expressed
their opposition to the proffered guidelines44. In discussion of
whether the draft guidelines could be characterized as being an
understanding of fair use by those organizations which endorsed
them, there was only a consensus that they were not widely supported
at this time within CONFU. On November 25, 1996, it was decided
to not submit these for consideration as a proposal for fair use
guidelines for electronic reserve systems.
The working group met under the
leadership of Mary Jackson of the Association of Research Libraries,
and Douglas Bennett of the American Council of Learned Societies,
to discuss the issues involved both in digital interlibrary loan
and document delivery activities and to attempt to draft guidelines.
After considerable discussion, the working group unanimously
agreed on March 27, 1996, that it was premature to draft guidelines
for digital transmission of digital documents.
Subsequent discussions throughout
the spring and summer of 1996, failed to achieve agreement on
guidelines for digital delivery of print originals under interlibrary
loan arrangements. After considerable discussion by the working
group and in general plenary sessions, it was agreed by both the
copyright owner and user communities that it was not possible,
at this time, to draft widely acceptable guidelines for digital
delivery of print materials by libraries.
After plenary discussions of the
scenarios developed by Sarah K. Wiant, Director of the Law Library,
Washington and Lee University, representing the Special Libraries
Association, and Mark Traphagen, Vice President and Counsel for
Intellectual Property and Trade Policy, Software Publishers Association,
it was generally agreed by CONFU participants that, since the
scenarios developed by the working group clearly illustrated the
general rules and how particular uses of computer program software
in libraries either complied with or violated the Copyright Act,
there was no need to draft guidelines. On September 6, 1996,
the Statement on Use of Copyrighted Computer Programs (Software)
in Libraries -- Scenarios45 was adopted by CONFU participants.
On November 25, 1996, it was decided that this Statement should
be appended to the Interim Report.
In summary, then, the CONFU process
resulted in the development of proposed fair use guidelines for
digital images, educational multimedia, some aspects of distance
learning, and a statement of scenarios dealing with the use of
computer software in libraries. The proposed guidelines in the
area of electronic reserve systems were not widely supported by
CONFU participants. It was determined by the parties involved
that it was premature to draft guidelines addressing digital transmission
of digital documents in the context of interlibrary loan and document
Some organizations and entities participating in the development of the various proposed guidelines have endorsed one or more of the draft fair use guidelines developed during the past two years. Many have indicated that they plan to submit them to their respective boards or memberships for consideration, which may or may not lead to their endorsement. As this process occurs, and through distribution of this report, copyright owners, educators, librarians, and users throughout the country will become more aware of the work of CONFU participants.
Return to the Table of Contents
Some organizations approached CONFU
initially in the belief that there was little chance of reaching
agreement on guidelines. Others expressed their misgivings and
skepticism as to whether such a negotiating process could yield
substantial and meaningful results. Yet, most participants, by
its conclusion, felt that it had been an instructive and productive
endeavor, even when the participants' good faith efforts and best
intentions did not always result in a meeting of minds. If, as
Gandhi observed, honest disagreement is a good sign of progress,
then CONFU made good progress in the understanding and appreciation
of fair use in a digital environment. While George Bernard Shaw
was convinced that "all progress depends on the unreasonable
man," CONFU made progress in dealing with fair use issues
precisely because many dedicated people acted reasonably, knowing
that their work was important, not only to them, but to many others
not directly involved in the effort.
Finally, CONFU serves as a reminder
that the art of progress in a democracy, to paraphrase Alfred
North Whitehead, is to preserve order amid change and to preserve
change amid order. In doing the work it was brought into being
to do, CONFU did both admirably, and all parties involved -- copyright
owners, educators, librarians, publishers and users -- will benefit
because of it.
Return to the Table of Contents
1. That a period for review and endorsement
of the proposals for guidelines be established, ending May 19,
1997, during which time the working groups and Steering Committee
shall continue in existence.
2. That this Interim Report be made
available electronically and in hard copy to CONFU participants
and the public during the endorsement period.
3. That statements endorsing or opposing
the proposed guidelines be directed to the CONFU facilitator during
said period, with a copy to the appropriate working group, so
that CONFU may consider which guidelines have received wide spread
endorsement in determining whether to adopt such guidelines as
CONFU Fair Use Guidelines.
4. That a Final Report be published
at some point after May 19, 1997, containing all adopted guidelines
and a listing of all entities endorsing or opposing said guidelines.
5. That the Final Report be submitted
to Congress by the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights
at an appropriate time as part of legislative history, so that
it can be referenced in connection with the Copyright Act provisions
on fair use.
6. That the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights of the Information Infrastructure Task Force, or another appropriate federal government body, should consider convening another conference on fair use within five years to address both those areas of concern where participants did not, or were unable to, reach agreement on fair use guidelines and any other concerns regarding fair use at that time.
Return to the Table of Contents Forward to the Appendix
1 See Exec. Order No. 12864, 3 C.F.R. 634 (1993).
2 Information Infrastructure Task Force, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action (1993).
3 Information Infrastructure Task Force, Global Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Cooperation (1995).
4 For list of participating agencies, see Information Infrastructure Task Force, Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights (1995) (hereinafter “WHITE PAPER”) at App. 3.
5 See Request for Comments on Intellectual Property Issues Involved in the National Information Infrastructure Initiative, 58 Fed. Reg. 53,917 (1993).
6 See Information Infrastructure Task Force, Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: A Preliminary Draft of the Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights (1994) (hereinafter “GREEN PAPER”).
7 See Notice of Hearings and Request for Comments on Preliminary Draft of the Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, 59 Fed. Reg. 42,819 (1994); Extension of Deadline for Comments on Preliminary Draft of the Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, 59 Fed. Reg. 50,222 (1994).
8 See GREEN PAPER at 133.
9 Id. at 134.
10 See Notice of First Meeting of Conference on “Fair Use” and the National Information Infrastructure (NII) 59 Fed. Reg. 46,823 (1994).
11 See Information Infrastructure Task Force, Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights, Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights (1995) (hereinafter “WHITE PAPER”).
12 See list of CONFU Participants infra Appendix A.
13 This was done by having an attorney-advisor in the Office of Legislative and International Affairs of the Patent and Trademark Office act as an executive secretary for CONFU. From September 1994 until July 1995, this was Christopher A. Meyer, and from September 1995 until the present, Peter N. Fowler has acted in that capacity and authored this report.
14 The Steering Committee members were: Stan Cahill of Public Broadcasting System, Carol C. Henderson of the American Library Association, Mary Berghaus Levering of the U.S. Copyright Office, Carol A. Risher of the Association of American Publishers, and Mark Traphagen of Software Publishers Association. In 1995, Adam M. Eisgrau replaced Ms. Henderson, and Stan Cahill became less active, on the Steering Committee.
15 See WHITE PAPER at 7.
16 The Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, is codified at 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. (1994). Hereinafter, the Act is cited as “17 U.S.C. ___.”
17 See H.R. REP. NO. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 47 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659 (hereinafter HOUSE REPORT).
18 See 17 U.S.C. 107; see also, 3 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT 13 (1993). For websites devoted to copyright and fair use issues, see, e.g., Stanford University Copyright and Fair Use Site at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/; or the University of Virginia Law Library Copyright and Fair Use Site at: gopher.lib.virginia.edu.
19 17 U.S.C. 107.
20 See WHITE PAPER at 16.
21 See WHITE PAPER at 80.
22 17 U.S.C. 107.
23 17 U.S.C. 108.
24 17 U.S.C. 110.
25 See Agreement on Guidelines for Classroom Copying in Not-for-Profit Educational Institutions (hereinafter “CLASSROOM GUIDELINES”), contained in HOUSE REPORT at 68- 74, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5681-88. 26 See Guidelines for Educational Use of Music, contained in HOUSE REPORT at 70-71, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5684-85.
27 See CONTU Guidelines on Photocopying Under Interlibrary Loan Arrangements, contained in REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON THE NEW COPYRIGHT LAW (H.R. No. 1733, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., at 71-73) reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5812-14.
28 See Guidelines for Off-Air Recording of Broadcast Programming for Educational Purposes, contained in HOUSE REPORT ON PIRACY AND COUNTERFEITING AMENDMENTS (H.R. No. 495, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. at 8-9), reprinted in U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians (Circular 21) (1992) 26.
29 See GREEN PAPER at 134.
30 See list of Organizations Submitting Statements infra Appendix B.
31 See Summary of Initial Proposed Principles infra Appendix C.
32 See CLASSROOM GUIDELINES contained in HOUSE REPORT at 68-74, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5681-88.
33 See citation at supra n. 27.
34 See Topic and Issue Paper Presenters infra Appendix D.
35 See Topic Grid infra Appendix E.
36 The working groups were: Digital Images, Distance Learning, Educational Multimedia, Electronic Reserve Systems, Interlibrary Loan/Document Delivery, and Software Use in Libraries.
37 See list of Participants in Meeting on the Fair Use of Music Materials in a Digital Environment, which was held on April 26, 1996, at Columbia University, in New York, infra Appendix F.
38 See Uniform Preamble for All Fair Use Guidelines infra Appendix G.
39 See Proposal for Educational Fair Use Guidelines for Digital Images infra Appendix H.
40 See Proposal for Educational Fair Use Guidelines for Distance Learning infra Appendix I.
41 As of November 25, 1996, the following organizations are on record as opposed to the Multimedia Guidelines: American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, National Association of Independent Schools, National Education Association, National School Boards Association, and the U.S. Catholic Conference.
42 See Proposal for Fair Use Guidelines for Educational Multimedia infra Appendix J.
43 As of November 25, 1996, the following organizations are on record as either endorsing or supporting the proposed Fair Use Guidelines for Electronic Reserve Systems: American Association of Law Libraries, American Council of Learned Societies, Association of American University Presses, Indiana Partnership for Statewide Education, Music Library Association, National School Boards Association, and Special Libraries Association.
44 As of November 25, 1996, the following organizations are on record as opposed to the proposed Electronic Reserve Guidelines: American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers, American Society of Journalists and Authors, American Society of Media Photographers, Association of American Publishers, Association of Research Libraries, Authors Guild, Inc./Authors Registry, Inc., Recording Industry Association of America, and Software Publishers Association.
45 See Statement on Use of Copyrighted Computer Programs (Software) in Libraries--Scenarios infra Appendix K.