Launched on May 8, 2017 LawArXiv is an open access repository for legal scholarship. The repository was developed by LIPA, MALLCO, NELLCO and Cornell Law Library. “Our partnership in the LawArxiv project is a reflection of Cornell Law School’s deep and enduring commitment to open access principles, and the availability of legal information to all,” said Femi Cadmus, Edward Cornell Law Librarian, in this press release. — Joe
Category Archives: Electronic Resources
“ROSS Intelligence, the artificial intelligence legal research platform, outperforms Westlaw and LexisNexis in finding relevant authorities, in user satisfaction and confidence, and in research efficiency, and is virtually certain to deliver a positive return on investment” wrote Bob Ambrogi about the findings of a benchmark report by Blue Hill Research. For details, see ROSS AI Plus Wexis Outperforms Either Westlaw or LexisNexis Alone, Study Finds. — Joe
Paul Harpur’s new book, Discrimination, Copyright and Equality: Opening the e-Book for the Print-Disabled (Cambridge UP, March 31, 2017) explores how restrictive copyright laws deny access to information for the print disabled, despite equality laws protecting access. From the book’s blurb:
While equality laws operate to enable access to information, these laws have limited power over the overriding impact of market forces and copyright laws that focus on restricting access to information. Technology now creates opportunities for everyone in the world, regardless of their abilities or disabilities, to be able to access the written word – yet the print disabled are denied reading equality, and have their access to information limited by laws protecting the mainstream use and consumption of information. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Marrakesh Treaty have swept in a new legal paradigm. This book contributes to disability rights scholarship, and builds on ideas of digital equality and rights to access in its analysis of domestic disability anti-discrimination, civil rights, human rights, constitutional rights, copyright and other equality measures that promote and hinder reading equality.
Recommended. — Joe
From the announcement:
[W]e are launching a new project to download all of the free opinions and orders that are available on PACER. Since we do not want to unduly impact PACER, we are doing this process slowly, giving it several weeks or months to complete, and slowing down if any PACER administrators get in touch with issues. … In this project, we expect to download millions of PDFs, all of which we will add to both the RECAP Archive that we host, and to the Internet Archive, which will serve as a publicly available backup.1 In the RECAP Archive, we will be immediately parsing the contents of all the PDFs as we download them. Once that is complete we will extract the content of scanned documents, as we have done for the rest of the collection.
H/T to Gary Price’s InfoDocket report. — Joe
Spurred by customer complaints about the difficulty they experienced navigating BLaw, Bloomberg Law has rolled out a streamlined user interface for conducting searches and finding specific types of content. For much more, see Bob Ambrogi’s In Major Redesign, Bloomberg Law Streamlines Its Search Interface. — Joe
Going digital only: CALL responds to possibility that print publication of annual Statutes of Canada may be discontinued
From Connie Crosby’s, (President of the Canadian Association of Law Libraries (CALL)) letter to Minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada wherein she explains the concern Canadian law librarians have about the possibility that the annual Statutes of Canada will stop being published in print:
Recordkeeping is an important foundation of any advanced democracy. In Canada, the Publication of Statutes Act and its regulations were designed to ensure that all Canadians were provided with long term access to archival versions of our statutes. This law was necessary at the time to ensure that the medium chosen (paper) conformed to the best standards known at the time for archival formats. In a common law system history matters; this means that all citizens are entitled to long term access to our statutes, and the government must keep this squarely at front of mind at all times.
The question is, what law is necessary today to ensure that the medium chosen (digital) conforms to the best standards known at the time for archiving?
And on CALL recommendations in the Crosby letter:
If the government continues on the path towards “digital only” publication of the Statutes of Canada, we would encourage you to REPLACE the Publication of Statutes Act with a comprehensive plan that considers:
maintaining a small print run for long-term preservation purposes;
the future of the Canada Gazette, and in particular the Canada Gazette Part Three which provides our only official online version of annual statutes, as well as the helpful Table of Proclamations;
the future of the Table of Public Statutes. This Table was published as a stationary publication in the Statutes of Canada each year. The online version on Justice Laws is not sustainable in its current format – an annual archived version could be contemplated;
what will be the official version of our Statutes of Canada moving forward in a digitalage?
a way to maintain the side-by-side, English/French comparison, which can be an important part of some statutory interpretation exercises, while still meeting accessibility requirements.
H/T to and for more, see Michel-Adrien Sheppard’s Slaw post. — Joe
Ensuring President Trump “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed:” There’s a blog for that
Take Care, a blog monitoring Trump’s adherence to the law of the land under Article II of the Constitution, has been launched and is staffed by an impressive list of contributors that includes Larry Tribe, Erwin Chemerinsky and more than 20 former Supreme Court clerks and numerous former senior Executive Branch officials. Recommended. — Joe
Want to search an out-of-date version of the National Survey of State Laws? There’s a very expensive online legal search service for that!
Westlaw carries the full text of the sixth edition of the National Survey of State Laws online. Therein lies the problem. In addition to not stating online that the sixth edition has been superceded by the much more recent seventh edition (which Westlaw is going to publish online), the compiliers of the State Laws Survey have released two updates and four (or is it five?) new chapters that are not online. Bottom line: if you are using the National Survey of State Laws on Westlaw, you are searching eight-year-old topical state laws surveys. Make a note of that, researchers, at least until the seventh edition is online.
Time for the folks in the Land of 10,000 Invoices to get the seventh edition of this valuable resource uploaded and to keep it updated once it is. Perhaps Lexis or BNA can do a better publishing job for this title.– Joe
PS: A reader has commented that the seventh edition of the National Survey of State Laws is available, apparently since Jan. 12, 2016, on HeinOnline.
10,000 documents is an awful lot. Truly a low precision, high recall search. But sometimes, one starts off searching very broadly because Westlaw and Lexis Advance provide a “search within results” option to narrow down initial search output. While I do not perform many broad searches in Westlaw, I have never once seen a figure higher than 10,000 documents in my search results. I have, however, seen “10,000+” documents in equally broad Lexis Advance searches on the same topic. Unfortunately 10,000 documents appears to be a search results limit in Westlaw.
If an initial search pulls up 10,000 documents in Westlaw, there is no reason to believe all Westlaw documents identified by one’s search are really all the potentially relevant documents in the Westlaw database. Searching within the initial 10,000 documents search results would be, therefore, based on a seriously flawed subset of the Westlaw database, one defined by West Search, not one’s search logic. This is not the case in Lexis Advance where a broad search may yield 10,000+ documents for searching within initial results. If this is indeed a flaw in West Search’s output, one must conclude that Lexis Advance offers more comprehensive searching of its database than Westlaw. — Joe
I was helping a cite checker with Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes when I came across this free site called WestlawNext State Government Sites. I’m not sure what TR is trying to do with this as FindLaw still exists. The collection features a small but haphazard collection of primary and quasi-primary materials from what I would describe as all over the place. The limited number of states represented are far from comprehensive. The materials presented are just as puzzling. Each collection has different ways to conduct searches. Take a look. Anybody with reactions please let me know.
Yes, it’s been a while. Between the ever present health issues and building and teaching a set of lesson plans on legal research to our first year students, it’s been tough to get back to the blog. Well, the teaching part is essentially over until the first week of classes in January. Let me catch up with a few things, a couple of business and one essentially fun.
The first business item is the announcement I received recently noting that Lexis has purchased Lex Machina:
Today LexisNexis announced that it has acquired Silicon Valley-based Lex Machina, creators of the award-winning Legal Analytics platform that helps law firms and companies excel in the business and practice of law.
A look into the near future. The integration of Lex Machina Legal Analytics with the deep collection of LexisNexis content and technology will unleash the creation of new, innovative solutions to help predict the results of legal strategies for all areas of the law.
With its acquisition, Lex Machina becomes part of the ongoing LexisNexis commitment to offer modern, next-generation solutions that help legal professionals work more efficiently, make better-informed decisions and drive success for their clients, practice and business.
The acquisition is described as a “prominent and fresh example of how a major player in legal technology and publishing is investing in analytics capabilities.” I can understand that. As we grew up with Lexis and Westlaw we were taught (or taught) the utility of field searching. The available information in a document allowed us to search particular judges or attorneys to do our own analysis of their involvement with topics and issues. We have the ability today to make more detailed analyses.
Expert witness reports are where Lexis and Westlaw mostly provide background information and the track record of particular witnesses. Both companies offer comprehensive details because there is quite a market for experts in litigation. Lex Machina is identified with analytics associated with copyright and a few other forms of intellectual property. I can imagine Lexis and Westlaw expanding analytics for other litigation prone subjects such as medical malpractice and products liability. I can see this as a new area of competition between the major research databases.
The second business item is a one day conference at Ohio State University:
OSU reference librarian Ingrid Mattson is co-chairing a great one-day conference for the Legal Writing Institute. I’m sharing the announcement just in case you’d like to attend. There are several presentations by ORALL members.
Join us in Columbus, Ohio, on December 11 for our one-day workshop, “Collaboration In and Out of the Legal Writing Classroom.” Topics include collaborating with legal writing colleagues for successful scholarship; students working together in the classroom; librarians and legal writing faculty joining forces for more effective research instruction; and connecting with casebook and clinical faculty, the community outside the law school, and university offices to provide meaningful, resource-conscious instruction.
Columbus offers a number of unique experiences year round and particularly during the holiday season. Consider staying through the weekend to enjoy a dessert, coffee, or beer tour of a city with a dynamic food scene. Those who are more literary-minded will enjoy a Dickens of a Christmas and a Dickens Dinner at the historical Ohio Village. If you have an interest in politics, history, or architecture, touring the Ohio Statehouse is fun and free. A short walk from the workshop site you can explore the Billy Ireland Cartoon Library and Museum. Finally, for anyone visiting with children or who fondly remembers Jack Hannah and the Columbus Zoo on David Letterman, check out the zoo’s extraordinary holiday light tradition, Wildlights. For more information on the exciting goings-on in Columbus, visit Experience Columbus.
Columbus truly is the heart of it all. We are driving distance from places like Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Lexington, Chicago, Charleston; and a non-stop flight away from pretty much everywhere else.
We hope to see you in December! For more information about the conference, please feel free to contact us at Kelly.firstname.lastname@example.org or Mattson.email@example.com.
The conference cost is a very reasonable $45 aside from any lodgings. I’m not expecting to sample the charms of Columbus while I’m there. I was interested in going to a Blue Jackets game but it turned out the team is on the road in Winnipeg on December 10th. The Islanders come in to Nationwide Arena on the 12th but unfortunately I can’t stay over.
And now the fun part. As part of the Halloween picture extravaganza, I shared costumes and decorations from a number of libraries. One of those picture sets from Wayne State included periodicals turned into bat decorations. Well, it seems the bats have turned into turkeys for the coming holiday. See the pictures below.
Well, I hope to publish more frequently now that my major semester project is effectively over.
There is so much to catch up on. The recent news is that Ravel Law is teaming up with Harvard to scan significant portions of the primary law collection with the ultimate goal of placing the bulk online for use by the public. The story in the New York Times mentions the fact that the librarians are cutting the books apart so the pages could go through high speed scanners. The implication here is that there is no turning back for the project. Here is another story from the Harvard Law School News.
The interesting part for me aside from having as much primary law on the web is that this is the first major scanning project announced since the Google Book decision from October 16th. Most primary law is in the public domain so there shouldn’t be any question about the legality of scanning. Nonetheless, that decision should comfort the project managers. I wonder if the decision will be giving impetus to any other large scale digitizing projects.
The DMCA Exemptions for 2015 were announced by David S. Mao, the Acting Librarian of Congress, and effective as of October 28. This is a series of exemptions allowed every three years upon review. There is now a limited exemption for jailbreaking software in cars, 3D printers, phones, tablets, other portable devices, games, and allowance for the use of excerpted DVD clips for educational use. Some of the items on the list, such as limited use of DVD excerpts had been approved in last reviews. The process requires a renewal to prevent the exemption from expiring.
I often found the refusal to exempt making archival copies of DVDs a bit hypocritical as there are quite a few software packages that can accomplish this for sale on large commercial retail sites. And then there are stories such as a review of the Five Best DVD Ripping Tools from Lifehacker. Let me state up front that I am not encouraging anyone to violate copyright law. I’m merely pointing to examples that show how little the prohibition against copying/ripping seems to be enforced. Maybe this software is bought mostly by academics for classroom use.
I’m in the middle of creating lesson plans for three introductory legal research classes to be taught to first year students by librarians next month. That’s one reason why there has been a lack of posts in the last couple of weeks, among others. The task is, how can I put it, time consuming. That’s another story.
I thought I’d take a moment this afternoon and wander through Google Scholar to see what literature it contains on the process of legal research. I did the obvious and searched the phrase “legal research.” At about two or three pages into the search I noticed an entry for Land Use, Planning, and Zoning Legal Research Guide: Home by Vicky Gannon at Pace University. The citation came up because the title contains the words “legal research.” I have to admit that I had not expected a libguide to be one of the results in Google Scholar as I had not seen any prior to today. I use Scholar a lot. I mean, a lot.
I decided that I would try and search the word “libguide” all by itself and sure enough there were citations linking to any number of guides mixed in with the scholarly articles about the use of libguides. Many of them were listed as [citation] which linked to an entry in either Bepress or a university commons page that in turn linked to the actual guide. I found this all quite interesting. Scholar apparently can be another vehicle for researchers to get to the intellectual output of a law library staff. My suggestion is for all of you out there to give it a try. Create some sample searches and see what happens. I know I will. This may be another strategy I can use in teaching or advising at the reference desk.
It’s Only A Friday Fun If You Like The Result: Google Wins Again at Second Circuit Over The Book Scanning Project
The Second Circuit handed Google another victory in its battle with the Authors Guild, et al., by upholding the District Court’s determination that its book scanning project is fair use. Here is the Court’s own summary of the decision from the end of the opinion:
In sum, we conclude that: (1) Google’s unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. Google’s commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of fair use. (2) Google’s provision of digitized copies to the libraries that supplied the books, on the understanding that the libraries will use the copies in a manner consistent with the copyright law, also does not constitute infringement. Nor, on this record, is Google a contributory infringer.
The Court relied on its decision in the HathiTrust case for declaring that Google’s scans were transformative. The Court here noted that the libraries did not offer snippet view in local search in comparison to Google. That wasn’t a problem, however, as Google’s snippets were no substitute for a copy of the book. At best a research could determine whether the book would be useful in a research project. That would not be a lost sale necessarily if the researcher rejected using the book in a personal project.
I’m still digesting the opinion and may have more to say about this later. I’ll refer readers to c copy of the opinion on Google Drive as supplied by the Chronicle of Higher Education. I’ll also point to a copy linked in a statement of disappointment in the ruling by the Authors Guild. Note, however, that the Guild links ultimately to copy placed on Google Drive as well (oh the irony). I would also draw your attention to the fact that the link from the Chronicle allows the reader to download the document. The version from the Guild does not offer that option. I’m guessing the Guild is hard-wired in that regard.
The U.S. Copyright Office has issued a new report, Orphan Works And Mass Digitization, which identifies legislative proposals and other considerations to create mechanisms that allow for legal use of orphan works and mass digitization. The report builds on earlier examinations of the issues released in 2006 and 2011.
From the Executive Summary:
While the fundamental aspects of orphan works and mass digitization have remained unchanged since the Office’s prior reviews, a number of important domestic and international developments have affected the legal landscape. In the United States, it is difficult to separate the issue of mass digitization from two lawsuits arising out of the Google Books project, in which authors and book publishers have asserted violations of their exclusive rights and Google and libraries have asserted fair use.4 Recent decisions in these cases have magnified the public debate surrounding the costs and benefits arising from digitization projects more generally, and how best to license, except, or otherwise regulate them under the law.
Meanwhile, a growing number of countries have adopted legislative responses to both orphan works and mass digitization, ranging from calibrated exceptions to government licenses to extended collective licensing. And, private entities have developed innovative new copyright information registries and other resources to more efficiently bring rightsholders together with those seeking to use their works.
These combined developments – all of which will have substantial ramifications for U.S. copyright stakeholders – strongly suggest that it is time to revisit potential solutions in the United States. The goal in doing so is not to interfere with jurisprudence, but rather to ensure that the rules are clear and that all parties are on equal footing. Indeed, with so many equities at stake, the complexity and breadth of the issues make them well suited for legislative action.5 While the Office has addressed these issues together in this Report, we recommend separate solutions.
The Copyright Office was opposed to the Google Book Settlement which was ultimately rejected by the trial court. The current report (PDF) is available here. Perhaps Congress will get around to actually making reforms in the copyright laws to account for orphan works and digitization projects.
There is an interesting article from the CBC called Academic publishers reap huge profits as libraries go broke. The sub-title is “5 companies publish more than 70 per cent of research papers, study finds.” There is a constant cry from academic libraries in the United States, and I assume Canada, over the cost increases in scientific, medical, and social science journals. Harvard University in fact joined that chorus three years ago in encouraging its scholars to publish in open source publications. Academic libraries in some situations dropped Elsevier subscriptions in protest. Others joined in as well.
The CBC article documents a study of publishers by Vincent Larivière and others from the University of Montreal’s School of Library and Information Science. He found that the top five journal publishers held 53% of the academic journal market and had a 40% profit margin. This sentence explains why that is possible.
“The quality control is free, the raw material is free, and then you charge very, very high amounts – of course you come up with very high profit margins.”
Indeed. There is a link to the full paper within the article. Here’s the abstract:
The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers’ high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics. The paper also examines the migration of journals between small and big publishing houses and explores the effect of publisher change on citation impact. It concludes with a discussion on the economics of scholarly publishing.
It’s published in PLOS ONE, which is an open source journal.
There is an interesting discussion going on at my library. As others may be doing, we are considering the proper mix between print and online resources. ABA law school accreditation Standard 606 now allows for “a core collection of essential materials through ownership or reliable access.” It’s that last part, “reliable access,” that triggers deep soul searching of what to buy in print or what to buy as an electronic subscription. Tempering the rule are other qualifications that state the core collection should support faculty scholarship and the curriculum, and that a collection that consists of a single format may violate Standard 606.
In this context I’ve recommended that we drop the National Reporter System, ALRs, CJS, multiple state codes, and selected treatises that are online. This may sound radical to some. I know that law schools and libraries are experiencing budget cuts due to lower enrollment. That drives part of the analysis. Another factor that bears thought is what we teach these days. The legal writing program at DePaul started teaching all electronic research. We experienced a drop in library visits as a consequence. No more treasure hunts, no answering the same questions over and over at the reference desk.
I can remember how far we’ve come in electronic access. We used to teach print resources because that’s what the legal market had out there. Now electronic access to case law and other primary sources is ubiquitous. At one time it was viable to teach print because the databases were based on print. Understand the organization of print and the online version would make more sense. That’s not so true anymore. Online database providers no longer think in terms of echoing print other than citation and star paging. Certainly there was a time when case law on Westlaw was organized by reporter. Not anymore. It’s all jurisdictional, and that seems natural now compared to looking for a database containing the Northeastern Reporter.
Look at how citators have changed. There was a time when Shepards online would be no more current than the latest print update. Even the CD-ROM product mirrored print. Now everything is dynamic. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to subscribe to the print edition at this point. We cancelled our print copies years ago. If anything was made easier by online access, Shepards, KeyCite, and citators in general are it. They are more complete, can be filtered, and everything is spelled out instead of interpreting symbols attached to citations.
Then there are law reviews. I have to say how much I like Hein Online when it comes to law reviews. Everything back to day one is there in PDF format more or less. We still get paper copies of law reviews but discard them once they appear on Hein. No more binding these books for the collection. Google Scholar works as a handy index to Hein content as well as other scholarly databases.
So now the next question is what is the proper mix for print and online? I know that some libraries have already dropped major primary resources such as reporters. In one sense, we are behind the curve on making that set of decisions. Never in my career had I thought I would be part of this kind of decision. Times change. I find that I’m not very sentimental about physical materials that no one uses at my library.
One of the many issues coursing through law schools these days is revising the curriculum to produce more practice-ready graduates. This makes a school’s students more likely to be attractive to firms in that they would need less training on the job to be successful. I attended a panel discussion several months back at the LexisNexis offices here in Chicago that featured librarians from large firms, small firms, and the federal courts. The discussion centered on the expectations each of their respective organizations had for interns and new hires.
I found it pretty interesting as we in academics teach research from the perspective of skill and strategies without context. We talk about being cost effective here in the law schools but sometimes I’m not sure our version of cost effective is the same as that as a firm or legal practice. One would think that a firm would like to keep costs down as much as possible while at the same time getting the research right. That may be true generally, but the approaches the librarians discussed varied depending on the research topic and the available resources. The point really is that a student/graduate versed in online legal research should ask how research is conducted at the firm in order to use learned research skills effectively.
One of the other things that came up in the discussion was security. That’s something I admit I never really thought about. I’m used to seeing email messages with the standard disclaimer to the effect “this communication is intended for ….” Client privacy, after all, is an ethical issue. Those same issues come up in research where graduates find that they are restricted in where and when research is conducted. I’m sure firm librarians reading this will say “Yes, and?” It may be a shock to students to learn that firms and courts lock down information with prohibitions against thumb drives containing confidential information and other electronic devices that do the same. Remote access to a firm’s system is definitely not as casual as logging into a law library’s database list. Or putting it another way, there is a big difference between what is possible and what a firm allows and how it allows it.
With all of that, there is a recent study funded by Lexis that measured some of the expectations of some 300 hundred hiring partners for so-called practice ready graduates. Here is the executive summary with links to the full report:
Law Schools and individual faculty are in the process of revising their curriculum and classes to address the demand for more practice-ready graduates. But what are the most desired research, writing and transactional skills and how can law schools develop these skills most effectively? An independent survey was conducted by 5 Square Research, Inc. and funded by LexisNexis®, to answer these questions and more.
The result is a new white paper, Hiring partners reveal new attorney readiness for real world practice, which shares the responses of 300 hiring partners and associates from small to large law firms practicing in litigation and transactional law.
Key findings include:
- 96% believe that newly graduated law students lack practical skills related to litigation and transactional practice.
- 66% deem writing and drafting skills highly important with emphasis on motions, briefs and pleadings
- Newer attorneys spend 40% – 60% of their time conducting legal research
- 88% of hiring partners think proficiency using “paid for” research services is highly important
- Students lack advanced legal research skills in the areas of statutory law, regulations, legislation and more…
- The most important transactional skills include business and financial concepts, due diligence, drafting contracts and more…
- A law firm spends approximately $19,000 per year, on average, to train a new associate
This study reveals the most important and most lacking practical skills desired by legal employers and will help inform law schools of the specific content and tasks they can integrate into applicable classes and experiential learning programs pursuant to employer demand and the new ABA standards.
Read the full article with charts, Hiring partners reveal new attorney readiness for real world practice, or view this Executive Overview Prezi*.
*Chrome or Firefox is best for viewing Prezi
I haven’t read the decision yet, so I can’t comment about it yet. The opinion is here. The Court’ summary states:
Plaintiff‐appellant authors and authors’ associations appeal a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Harold Baer, Jr., Judge) granting summary judgment to defendants‐appellees and dismissing claims of copyright infringement. In addition, the court dismissed the claims of certain plaintiffs‐appellants for lack of standing and dismissed other copyright claims as unripe. We hold, as a threshold matter, that certain plaintiffs‐appellants lack associational standing. We also hold that the doctrine of “fair use” allows defendants‐appellees to create a full‐text searchable database of copyrighted works and to provide those works in formats accessible to those with disabilities, and that the claims predicated upon the Orphan Works Project are not ripe for adjudication. We vacate so much of the judgment as is based on the district court’s holding related to the claim of infringement predicated upon defendants-appellees’ preservation of copyrighted works, and we remand for further proceedings on that issue. Affirmed, in part; vacated, in part.
The American Library Association issued a statement on the case:
Today, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in Authors Guild v.HathiTrust, deciding that providing a full text search database and providing access to works for people with print disabilities is fair use. The court also ruled that the Authors Guild lacked standing, and therefore could not assert infringement claims against the HathiTrust. The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA), of which the American Library Association (ALA) is a member, filed an amicus brief in support of the HathiTrust.
ALA President Barbara Stripling released the following statement in response to the ruling:
“The Second Circuit today affirmed more than a lower court decision—it affirmed that the fair use of copyrighted material by libraries for the public is essential to copyright law. ALA is pleased that the court recognizes the tremendous value of libraries in securing the massive record of human knowledge on behalf of the general public and in providing lawful access to works for research, educational, and learning purposes, including access for people with disabilities.
“The continued acknowledgement of the importance of fair use to enable learning and support for the development of a well-informed citizenry makes the U.S. copyright law unique and well-functioning.”
This decision affirms that libraries can engage in mass digitization to improve the discovery of works and provide full access to those works to students with print disabilities enrolled at the respective HathiTrust institutions.
The general public can search the database using keywords and locate titles held in 80 member institutions. Full text access to the underlying works is allowed only for students with print disabilities enrolled at the University of Michigan and certified as disabled by a qualified expert. Students with print disabilities are blind or have a handicap that prevents them from reading printed text. Because of the full conversion of the texts to digital format that is accessible, these students can use adaptive technologies, such as text-to-speech, to read.
ALA will continue its defense of fair use in the HathiTrust case, should additional appeals be filed.
I expect that some of the reasoning in this case may affect the Guild’s case against Google. We’ll see. — Mark