Following the ‘hyperlinks do not infringe copyright‘ case at the CJEU, and bearing in mind the US ruling on Google books last year, the CJEU has now been asked to contemplate the library’s use of scanned material. This one could be interesting to libraries and archives that are, or are planning to, scan material in the collection.
See more at the site:
“[infosoc directive says]
“So far as there are no contractual provisions to the contrary, it shall be permissible to make published works available from the stocks of publicly accessible libraries, museums or archives, which neither directly nor indirectly serve economic or commercial purposes, exclusively on the premises of the relevant institution at terminals dedicated to the purpose of research and for private study. In principle, reproduction of a work in excess of the number stocked by the institution shall not be made simultaneously available at such terminals. Equitable remuneration shall be paid in consideration of their being made available. The claim may only be asserted by a collecting society.”
[…] the court decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following very important questions to the CJEU:
1. Is use subject to purchase or licensing terms within the meaning of Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC where the rightholder offers to conclude with the establishments referred to therein licensing agreements for the use of works on appropriate terms?
2. Does Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC entitle the Member States to confer on the establishments the right to digitise the works contained in their collections, if that is necessary in order to make those works available on terminals?
3. May the rights which the Member States lay down pursuant to Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC go so far as to enable users of the terminals to print out on paper or store on a USB stick the works made available there?
This case looks like one to follow closely. This is because of: (1) topicality of book scanning in general [yes: thinking of the Google Books saga, on which see here and here]; (2) national reform debates as regards exceptions and limitations [eg UK forthcoming revised exceptions for libraries and archives]; EU reform debate as regards – among other things – revision of the InfoSoc Directive; (4) international reform debates as to whether we should all embrace fair use [Australia thinks so: see here]; (5) finally: it’s a CJEU case! This means that we may expect some fairly interesting outcomes …”