Reference Services Review

Copyright in light of ethics

George J. Aulisio,
Article information:
To cite this document:
George J. Aulisio, (2013) "Copyright in light of ethics", Reference Services Review, Vol. 41 Issue: 3, pp.566-575, https://
doi.org/10.1108/RSR-01-2013-0001
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-01-2013-0001
Downloaded on: 22 April 2019, At: 18:28 (PT)
Downloaded by Lourdes College, Mrs Annabelle Acedera At 18:28 22 April 2019 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 18 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2296 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2011),"Copyright concerns triggered by web 2.0 uses", Reference Services Review, Vol. 39 Iss 2 pp. 303-317 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321111135501">https://doi.org/10.1108/00907321111135501</a>
(2014),"Text a librarian: a look from the user perspective", Reference Services Review, Vol. 42 Iss 1 pp. 34-51 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-10-2012-0067">https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-10-2012-0067</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:612291 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


RSR
41,3
566
Received 10 January 2013
Revised 17 March 2013
7 April 2013
Downloaded by Lourdes College, Mrs Annabelle Acedera At 18:28 22 April 2019 (PT)
Accepted 13 April 2013
Reference Services Review
Vol. 41 No. 3, 2013
pp. 566-575
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0090-7324
DOI 10.1108/RSR-01-2013-0001
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0090-7324.htm
Copyright in light of ethics
George J. Aulisio
Weinberg Memorial Library, The University of Scranton, Scranton,
Pennsylvania, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This article aims to explore the relationship between copyright law and how an academic
reference librarian could and should ethically comply with copyright when considering the Code of
Ethics of the American Library Association and the Library Bill of Rights.
Design/methodology/approach – The Code of Ethics and the Library Bill of Rights are examined
to determine how they would affect a reference librarian’s ability to comply with copyright rules while
conducting a reference interview.
Findings – Adhering to the Code of Ethics would prevent reference librarians from entering into
difficult situations. The Code of Ethics serves as an ethical framework on which librarians can rely to
prevent the need to choose between complying with copyright rules and providing a patron with the
information s/he is requesting. In addition, the author explains why supplemental instruction or
volunteering information on copyright to patrons above that which is required by law should be
provided only after careful consideration.
Originality/value – Academic reference librarians have much to gain from a better understanding
of the Code of Ethics, the Library Bill of Rights, copyright law, and the relationship between the three
doctrines. Reference librarians who read this article will acquire a practical knowledge of how
copyright and the Code of Ethics affects their reference duties and librarianship in general.
Keywords Academic libraries, Copyright, Ethics, Fair use, Professional standards, Reference
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
Reference librarians are on the front lines of copyright compliance and information
dissemination. On the face of it, the dual nature of our responsibilities could make for a
difficult balancing act between the two ideals. However, the Code of Ethics of the
American Library Association and the Library Bill of Rights limit the actions a
librarian could take in regards to copyright protection. The principles of the Code of
Ethics implicitly provides a framework for librarians to assist users in their quest for
information, while also enabling users in their pursuit of information. Section one of
this paper introduces the reader to the dilemma of copyright compliance versus
information provision that reference librarians face. Section two briefly explains the
controversial nature of copyright law and the culture of copyright creep. Section three
illustrates the complex nature of copyright by listing examples of copyright provisions
which are not matters of legal interpretation. Section four, in light of information from
the previous sections, closely examines the Code of Ethics and the Library Bill of Right
and posits a theory of how reference librarians should comply with copyright law.
The author thanks Sarah Barbara Watstein, University Librarian, William Madison Randall
Library, for her invaluable comments during the review process. Special thanks to Bonnie Strohl,
Associate Dean, Weinberg Memorial Library, for her very helpful comments and suggested
revisions that she provided with each of the drafts of this article.
 Section five concludes that librarians should carefully consider when and how they Copyright in
provide copyright instruction to users and makes recommendations in light of the light of ethics
findings.
The purpose of copyright is “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries” (US Constitution (n.d.) Art. I, Sec. 8). According to
the Code of Ethics of the American Library Association (2008), libraries are inextricably 567
linked to copyright law because librarians play a role in “the selection, organization,
preservation, and dissemination of information.” Ultimately, this means librarians have a
duty to comply with copyright law in light of our relationship to information. As
information disseminators, librarians have a duty to protect the rights of the authors
Downloaded by Lourdes College, Mrs Annabelle Acedera At 18:28 22 April 2019 (PT)

who are responsible for the creation of the creative works that make up the library’s
collection. However, librarians “are members of a profession explicitly committed to
intellectual freedom and the freedom of access to information” (Code of Ethics of the
American Library Association, 2008). It would seem that there is at least a partial conflict
between the duty to insure freedom of access to information with the responsibility to
comply with copyright law. The American Library Association (ALA) understands that
there is a dilemma between librarians’ roles as information providers and information
protectors and addresses this in Principle IV of the ALA Code of Ethics:
We respect intellectual property rights and advocate balance between the interests of
information users and rights holders (Code of Ethics of the American Library Association,
2008).
Weiss and Shelfer (2011), rightly posit that Principle IV “commits librarians to (1)
accepting the validity of intellectual property rights and (2) acknowledging the
library’s (and their own) responsibilities to abide by copyright laws” (p. 18).
Unfortunately, the Code of Ethics, like most ethical doctrines, does not give the
individual a hard and fast rule on how to act in specific situations. Action is left up to
the individual, based on his or her knowledge of the Code of Ethics and his or her
experience as an information professional, to decide how to act appropriately when a
dilemma arises. This article will bring to light the arguably excessive powers of
copyright and how the Code of Ethics, in light of our duties as information
disseminators, implicitly guides librarians to ethically comply with the law.

2. Copyright creep
All individuals have an obligation to comply with copyright law, however, the law is
not entirely straight forward; in fact many find certain aspects of copyright law to be
rather controversial. Lessig (2008) expounds, “the form and reach of copyright law
today are radically out of date” (p. 253). Lessig (2004) warns about the power of the US
Congress to continue to expand the length of copyright ad infinitum and how the
already exorbitantly long length of copyright harms users and creators (pp. 213-28). In
addition, the scope of copyright law and the need to interpret what constitutes a fair
use have made infringement a daily activity for all Americans, which include such
harmless acts as posting gifted photographs to a personal web site, having a tattoo of a
famous cartoon character, singing the happy birthday song, taking a video where a
famous artwork might appear in the background, and more (Tehranian, 2011, pp. 2-4).
In addition, Patry (2009) points out that high civil statutory damages that can be
 RSR awarded to industries has given the distributors of copyrighted works powerful
41,3 leverage over users and allows distributors to practice “anti-consumer,
anti-competitive, and anti-innovative conduct” (pp. xix-xx).
Academic and educational permissions, fair use, and section 108 (Limitations on
exclusive rights: reproduction by libraries and archives) are supposed to loosen the
grip of copyright, affording certain individuals and institutions the power to promote
568 progress without violating copyright. Fair use allows the use of limited portions of a
work for purposes of commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports.
Fair use is determined by weighing four factors equally, with no single factor that will
constitute a use as fair or infringement ( Jasper, 2000, p. 41):
(1) The character of the use.
Downloaded by Lourdes College, Mrs Annabelle Acedera At 18:28 22 April 2019 (PT)

(2) The nature of the work to be used.

(3) The quantity of the work to be used.
(4) The effect the intended use would have in the marketplace for the original.

However, because fair use is usually a matter of legal interpretation, the protection it
offers is not always reassuring. Put differently, information consumers never have
assurance that their use of copyrighted material actually constitutes a fair use. Lessig
(2008) notes that “[fair use] remains, perhaps necessarily, an extraordinarily
complicated balancing act, and a totally inappropriate burden for most amateur
creators” (p. 255). Beyond the difficulty of interpreting fair use, it is rare to see negative
repercussions against copyright holders who send frivolous cease and desist letters to
individuals who are using copyrighted materials as a fair use. Because of this, it is not
uncommon for users to be intimidated by copyright holders, effectively limiting the
power of fair use. Ziccardi (2013) notes:
a cease and desist letter [. . .] from the entities holding the copyrights to those works cited
clearly has intimidating and repressive effects. Even in those cases in which, from a strictly
legal point of view, the use of a portion of the work cited would in fact be legitimate [. . .] the
mere intimation of legal action of any kind is enough, in the vast majority of cases, to spur the
speedy removal of the materials, in order to avoid even the risk of legal proceedings (p. 84).
Tehranian (2011) uses the term “copyright creep” to describe copyright holders’ ability
to assert and overextend their rights on individuals, which ultimately stifles legitimate
uses of copyrighted materials (p. 129). For example, McLeod (2001) shares a story of
how MTV sent a cease and desist letter to Professor Sut Jhally of the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst for using MTVs logo in an educational video that clearly
constituted a fair use. The professor continued to use the logo and MTV never pursued
legal action, presumably knowing they did not have a case. However, this example
shows the ease with which companies and industry interest groups can intimidate
users, exerting pressure that often causes an individual or library to back down
without a fight. Professor Jhally was conversant with fair use and copyright and was
able to make a stand against MTV, whereas if MTV had sent this letter to a student
who used their logo in a class presentation, it would be difficult to imagine the MTV
logo remaining in the presentation after receiving the threat of legal action.
Smith (2010) claims that “librarians tend to see the other side of the issues. It is often in
libraries that patrons find inspiration and begin the process of new creation. Librarians
see the benefits of reuse and remixing as new works emerge from old” (p. 6). Regardless
 of one’s own stance on the fairness of copyright law, it is not up to the individual Copyright in
librarian to decide how he or she wishes to comply with the law. According to Principle light of ethics
VII, “we distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do
not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our
institutions or the provision of access to their information resources” (Code of Ethics of
the American Library Association, 2008). Therefore, even if one does maintain that
copyright law is no longer serving its original intent and may benefit one party over 569
another, if one wishes to adhere to the Code of Ethics, then one cannot ignore copyright
law as a form of opposition to the law.
This section illustrated the controversial nature of copyright law; showing that
many copyright issues are matters of legal interpretation that cannot be determined by
Downloaded by Lourdes College, Mrs Annabelle Acedera At 18:28 22 April 2019 (PT)

an individual or a librarian. The following section contains copyright law examples

that are not matters of legal interpretation.

3. The law is the law

We are obligated to both know and follow the law, so whenever the law states that we
must act (or not act) in a certain way, then we must follow through with that. Anyone
who has researched copyright law knows that it is not always explicit what constitutes
infringement and what is a fair use, but even in controversial situations we must try to
adhere to copyright law.
Examples of copyright law that libraries and librarians must follow are instances in
the law that explicitly state that libraries and librarians must do or must not do a
specific task. For example, if the library does not want to be held liable for copyright
infringement done by patrons in unsupervised areas, then the library is obligated to
post a copyright notice in the area of an unattended photocopy machine:
(f) Nothing in this section – (1) shall be construed to impose liability for copyright
infringement on a library or archives or its employees for the unsupervised use of
reproducing equipment located on its premises: Provided, That such equipment displays a
notice that the making of a copy may be subject to the copyright law (Title 17 United States
Code § 108, 2011).
If a library wishes to make a reproduction of an item due to damage, deterioration, or if
the item is on an obsolete format, then the library is limited to three such reproductions
and must take certain steps before making the reproductions:
(1) the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused
replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price; and (2) any such copy or phonorecord that is
reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the
premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy (Title 17 United States
Code § 108, 2011).
Lastly, when fulfilling interlibrary loan requests of single articles or partial works of
copyrighted materials, libraries must first adhere to two copyright stipulations:
(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has
had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private
study, scholarship, or research; and (2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the
place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in
accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation
(Title 17 United States Code § 108, 2011).
 RSR These examples are not an exhaustive list of copyright rules that are concrete and not a
41,3 matter of legal interpretation, but they serve to demonstrate the complexity of
copyright law. The following section closely examines the Code of Ethics of the ALA
and the Library Bill of Rights to show how the two doctrines guide librarians in their
roles as information providers and copyright protectors.

570 4. Balancing is (usually) not a problem

According to Principle IV of the Code of Ethics, librarians must work to find a balance
between information protection and information distribution. Weiss and Shelfer (2011)
state “Patron privacy is protected – when it should be.” They make this claim because
libraries are classified as Online Service Providers (OSPs), which means libraries
Downloaded by Lourdes College, Mrs Annabelle Acedera At 18:28 22 April 2019 (PT)

benefit from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s Safe Harbor provisions, which
protects libraries or OSPs who have facilitated copyright infringement unknowingly
from most legal repercussions (Title 17 United States Code § 512, 2011). Though Weiss
and Shelfer use Principle IV of the Code of Ethics to justify their initial claim that
“libraries are committed to copyright,” they choose to work around the rest of the
Code’s principles and the Library Bill of Rights in order to justify giving copyright law
more authority over information provision than is necessary.
Reference librarians need to comply with copyright law, but we do not need to play
into the culture of copyright creep that Patry (2009) describes as “anti-consumer,
anti-competitive, and anti-innovative” (pp.xix-xx). The problem of balancing the two
ideals in Principle IV should rarely be an issue to a reference librarian, unless he or she
has been expressly told that the information requested would be used for infringement
purposes. According to Principle III of the Code of Ethics, librarians “protect each
library user’s right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or
received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted.” This should
ultimately mean copyright infringement should not be an issue in a reference interview
that is conducted under the guidance of the Code of Ethics. Principle III, the right to a
patron’s privacy, will come into effect before the need arises to balance copyright law
with information provision.
One practical implication of this is that reference librarians need to develop their
professional practice around the Code of Ethics of the American Library Association.
Doing this, reference librarians who unintentionally aid and abet a patron’s
infringement and reasonably believed the use would not be for infringement purposes
would usually not be able to jeopardize their library’s or university’s Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Safe Harbor status (Crews, 2006, pp. 81-2) or be
held liable for monetary damages (17 US Code § 504, 2000 and Crews, 2006, p. 81).
According to Heller (2004), “statutory damages for willful infringement can be as much
as $150,000. However, individuals who were unaware that they had infringed on
copyright and had no reason to believe that his or her acts were considered
infringement could see fines as low as $200” (p. 30 and 17 US Code § 504, 2000). As for
libraries and librarians, “a court may not assess any damages if the infringer is an
employee of a non-profit education institution, library, or archives who, acting under
the scope of his or her employment, actually and reasonably believed that the use was
fair under section 107” (17 US Code § 504, 2000).
There are certain situations where a reference librarian may instinctively believe
that a patron intends to infringe on copyright. Though these intuitions and situations
 are rare, when they do arise, the problem of balance becomes more prevalent. However, Copyright in
even in these situations librarians should not break Principle III based solely on a light of ethics
hunch. If a reference librarian has a strong belief that copyright infringement may
occur, then it is likely that the individual will do so unwittingly. In these situations, it
may be appropriate to volunteer any relevant knowledge of copyright law to the patron
while continuing to provide the information requested. If the patron is unaware that his
or her intent would constitute infringement, then it is possible he or she will end the 571
request, so as not to infringe on copyright. If he or she wishes to continue with the
request, and the reference librarian has no real evidence of infringement or intent to
infringe, then Principle VII of the Code of Ethics seems to dictate that the librarian
should continue to provide service to the patron. Principle VII states, “we distinguish
Downloaded by Lourdes College, Mrs Annabelle Acedera At 18:28 22 April 2019 (PT)

between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our
personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or
the provision of access to their information resources” (Code of Ethics of the American
Library Association, 2008). Undoubtedly, a hunch can at best be considered a personal
conviction; at worst, it can be considered a prejudicial bias. Even if the patron does end
up infringing, the library will have provided the copyrighted material unwittingly,
which ensures that the DMCA Safe Harbor provision is still intact. However, if the
librarian has evidence of infringement, then after volunteering all the relevant
copyright information, it becomes appropriate to explain that the patron’s intended use
would be an infringement of copyright. From that point, the reference librarian should
then explain the patron’s options if he or she still wishes to use the copyrighted
material, such as requesting permission for use.
One possibility that may be seen as a precaution to copyright infringement would
be to educate all patrons about copyright before or during every request. However, if
librarians do choose to begin educating patrons about copyright with little or no
impetus other than to ensure or at least support copyright rules, then it can be done
with two possible intentions:
(1) The librarian is assuming guilt before innocence.
(2) The librarian believes copyright education is a public good.

Intention (1) should obviously be frowned on for ethical reasons. In the United States,
people are innocent until proven guilty; copyright is not the place to shift this backbone
principle of our legal framework and ethical philosophy. Presuming guilt before
innocence becomes especially difficult to justify when working in an academic library.
According to §108 Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright, “purposes for copying from
the library’s collection include teaching, scholarship, or research, such as preparation
in teaching, background research for drafting a court opinion, a client letter, a brief or a
memorandum of law, and writing an article or book” (Heller, 2004, p. 197). Academic
librarians who primarily serve students and scholars have valid reason to assume that
their patrons are using library materials for teaching, scholarship, or research and not
for infringement purposes.
Conversely, intention (2) may be a viable option for protecting copyright. However,
even though it does try to advance an admirable goal (education for education’s sake),
it advances this goal with considerably negative consequences. The first consequence
of which would be a new and added burden on librarians to be well-versed in copyright
law. In theory, librarians should be knowledgeable of copyright law; however, in
 RSR practice, this does not always seem to be the case. If librarians are going to provide
41,3 legal information and the occasional fair use interpretative opinion, then they should
have significant training in copyright law. According to Principle I of the Code of
Ethics, librarians “provide the highest level of service to all library users through
appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable service policies; equitable
access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses to all requests” (Code of Ethics
572 of the American Library Association, 2008). Accurately educating patrons may not be
an ethical issue according to the Code of Ethics, but it is at least distantly related to
providing accurate responses to all requests. Therefore, though the Code does not
address educating patrons, it seems a reasonable inference to assume librarians should
also strive to accurately educate patrons, even if it is not considered a matter of ethics.
Downloaded by Lourdes College, Mrs Annabelle Acedera At 18:28 22 April 2019 (PT)

The second negative consequence of copyright education simply for the sake of
complying with copyright is the possibility of copyright paranoia. As librarians we
should not scare patrons away with talk of copyright infringement and the possible
penalties they may face if they are caught infringing on the information they requested.
Few patrons could walk away from a short meeting with a reference librarian and have
a sufficient knowledge of the rules and exemptions of copyright law. However,
anything less than a complete presentation on copyright could violate Principles II, IV,
and VI of the Code of Ethics. A poorly worded or incomplete lesson on fair use or
educational use can (II) act as an information censor, unintentionally persuading the
patron to not use the information because of a possibility their intention does not
constitute a fair use. Undoubtedly, adopting this practice will also (IV) move us out of
balance, because we will be overcompensating for copyright law, unnecessarily
imposing rules that may or may not apply based on a misguided belief that copyright
protection somehow outweighs our ethical duties as information providers. By
protecting the interest of the library over the information needs of the patron, we are
(VI) advancing the private interest of the library, university, and copyright holders
over the interests of our patrons. In addition, we would also be turning our backs on
Principles III and IV of the Library Bill of Rights, which states:
III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide
information and enlightenment.
IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting
abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas (Library Bill of Rights, 1996).
Undoubtedly, copyright creep and copyright paranoia can be considered forms of
censorship that limit information consumers’ access to ideas. These two principles of
the Library Bill of Rights are exceptionally important when one considers the fact that
all knowledge creators are also information consumers – generating new knowledge
based in part from the ideas of others.
In addition, it is important to mention the Higher Education Opportunity Act
(HEOA) that was reauthorized on August 14, 2008. This act authorizes new programs
and makes changes to laws relevant to higher education (Sampson, 2008). One change
particularly relevant to this discussion is that institutions of higher education who are
receiving funds related to the Higher Education Opportunity Act (2008) must inform
students that “unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material [. . .] may subject the
students to civil and criminal liabilities” (Sec. 488, p. 3293). The HEOA does not
instruct mandatory copyright instruction in face to face situations, but it does make
 notifying all students about copyright penalties and campus policies in regard to Copyright in
digital infringement compulsory. This new requirement of the act is somewhat light of ethics
analogous to the copyright notices libraries are required by law to post in photocopier
areas. Currently, a general warning is all that is required by the HEOA. An example of
how this requirement might be satisfied is an annual e-mail sent out to all enrolled
students. The e-mail would need to include the previous disclaimer about civil and
criminal liabilities as well as “a summary of penalties for violation of Federal copyright 573
laws,” and information about campus policies in regards to peer-to-peer file sharing
and the relevant disciplinary actions students would incur if they were to break the
policy (Higher Education Opportunity Act, 2008, p. 3923). Currently, information on
intellectual property and copyright in the HEOA is closely focused on peer-to-peer file
Downloaded by Lourdes College, Mrs Annabelle Acedera At 18:28 22 April 2019 (PT)

sharing and likely impacts the campus information resources department more than
the library. However, it is important for librarians to be aware of this act, because it has
been modified, amended, and reauthorized a number of times since it was signed into
law in 1965. Future reauthorizations may directly affect a librarian’s duties in regards
to copyright protection. In which case, the ALA would need to directly address any
additional requirements for librarians because any change in regard to how we serve
our patrons would undoubtedly affect the Code of Ethics.

5. Conclusion
It is debatable whether the scope of copyright still upholds the original goal of promoting
science and the useful arts. However, the protections afforded by copyright law are both
necessary and important and should be respected and upheld. Regardless of one’s own
convictions about copyright, the Code of Ethics, when closely followed, provides a
framework so that reference librarians would rarely be placed in a situation where they
have to decide to withhold information from patrons due to copyright reasons.
Though libraries, reference librarians, and patrons may benefit from not educating
individual patrons about copyright in all and every situation, it is the case that all three
still have an obligation to comply with copyright. Though copyright law may be difficult
to understand and may seem foreign compared to other laws, it is a law that truly does
affect everyone. Patrons, like all US residents, have a responsibility to know and follow
the law to the best of their ability. Reference librarians, if not already versed in copyright,
should hone their knowledge and understanding of copyright and fair use. Librarians
who are tasked with copyright instruction should concentrate on the positive aspects of
copyright law and not simply the negative aspects. Ferrulo (2011), Director of Purdue
University’s Copyright Office, encourages copyright education that also focuses on what
can be done; she emphasizes that “the goal is to provide quality service to the users so
that [information professionals] can fulfill their university’s educational mission” (p. 114).
Adopting this philosophy, academic reference librarians should closely follow the Code
of Ethics and work to advance the mission of the university. Ultimately this means
librarians should promote information provision as much as possible and work
diligently to ward off the overreaching powers of copyright creep and paranoia.
It should become common practice for reference coordinators to train new reference
librarians so that those new to the profession can understand why the Code of Ethics is
important. Only by contextualizing this information will new reference librarians
understand that the Code of Ethics is multifaceted. Through a careful explanation of
the Code of Ethics and how it directly affects reference interviews, reference
 RSR coordinators will be teaching librarians new to the profession an important lesson
41,3 about copyright and the ideals of the profession. With this lesson, new librarians will
know that the Code of Ethics protects librarians from liability, it protects libraries from
losing their DMCA safe harbor status, it protects and serves the interests of our
patrons, and it implicitly serves as a framework for how reference librarians should
conduct reference interviews.
574 Libraries must continue to serve their legal obligations to copyright law by posting
the necessary disclaimers about copyright in public areas, tracking interlibrary loan
requests, securing the necessary permissions for electronic reserves, and so on. Any
supplemental copyright information that libraries decide to offer will need to be
decided after careful consideration by library administrators and library faculty
Downloaded by Lourdes College, Mrs Annabelle Acedera At 18:28 22 April 2019 (PT)

members. Some possibilities include the creation of a mandatory online copyright

tutorial that all freshmen will need to complete before their first semester. Another
possibility is to widely disseminate information on copyright law in both physical and
virtual spaces. Another involves offering drop in copyright sessions for interested
students, staff, and faculty. However, for the same reasons as noted previously,
librarians should temper their desire to add supplemental copyright information
simply for the sake of educating users. The goal of copyright instruction must not be to
frighten information consumers; on the contrary, it must be used to empower new
knowledge creators. Patrons need to be protected from liabilities, but in order to do
this, copyright instruction must be carefully thought out. Adding this type of
information, if not done thoughtfully, could trample the Code of Ethics and negatively
impact patrons’ information pursuits which in turn could hinder the creation of new
knowledge.
In conclusion, academic librarians should attempt to teach copyright in the
appropriate settings and at the appropriate times. If librarians are going to provide
supplemental copyright instruction such as copyright tutorials and information sessions,
then librarians will need to be able to provide accurate information about copyright that
emphasizes fair uses and not just the limitations of the law. However, the need to
ethically comply with copyright might arise in any situation; therefore a librarian must
always be prepared to offer accurate descriptions of both copyright and fair use. Only by
being knowledgeable of copyright, fair use, and the Code of Ethics, will librarians
understand how to balance our delicate roles as both protectors and providers of
information. Hastily teaching copyright for the sake of education or for the misguided
notion that stringently adhering to copyright restrictions is the best safety measure will
come at the cost of upending the ethical code our profession is built on and result in
unintended negative consequences for libraries, librarians, and especially patrons. By
practicing reference services informed by the Code of Ethics, librarians will empower the
original intent of copyright, “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts [. . .]”
(US Constitution (n.d.) Art. I, Sec. 8) and not the culture of copyright creep.

References
Code of Ethics of the American Library Association (2008), Code of Ethics of the American
Library Association, American Library Association, Chicago, IL, January 22, available at:
www.ala.org/advocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics (accessed 10 January 2013).
Crews, K.D. (2006), Copyright Law for Librarians and Educators: Creative Strategies and
Practical Solutions, American Library Association, Chicago, IL.
 Ferrulo, D.L. (2011), “Managing copyright services at a university”, Reference & User Services Copyright in
Quarterly, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 111-114.
Heller, J.S. (2004), The Librarian’s Copyright Companion, W.S. Hein, Buffalo, NY.
light of ethics
Higher Education Opportunity Act (2008), H.R. 4137 – 110th US Congress, August 14, available
at: www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr41 (accessed 5 March 2013).
Jasper, M.C. (2000), The Law of Copyright, 2nd ed., Oceana Publications, Dobbs Ferry, NY.
Lessig, L. (2004), Free Culture: the Nature and Future of Creativity, Penguin Press, New York, 575
NY.
Lessig, L. (2008), Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy, Penguin
Press, New York, NY.
Downloaded by Lourdes College, Mrs Annabelle Acedera At 18:28 22 April 2019 (PT)

Library Bill of Rights (1996), Library Bill of Rights, American Library Association, Chicago, IL,
January 23, available at: www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill (accessed
10 January 2013).
McLeod, K. (2001), Owning Culture Authorship, Ownership, and Intellectual Property Law,
P. Lang, New York, NY.
Patry, W.F. (2009), Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars, Oxford University Press, New York,
NY.
Sampson, V. (2008), Dear Colleague Letter: Higher Education Opportunity Act Summary, Office
of Postsecondary Education, Washington DC, December, available at: http://ifap.ed.gov/
dpcletters/attachments/GEN0812FP0810.pdf (accessed 5 March 2013).
Smith, K.L. (2010), “Copyright renewal for libraries: seven steps toward a user-friendly law”,
portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 10 No 1, pp. 5-27.
Tehranian, J. (2011), Infringement Nation: Copyright 2.0 and You, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Title 17 of the United States Code (2000), Copyright Law of the United States of America and
Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code Circular 92, available at:
www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 (accessed 10 January 2013).
US Constitution (n.d.), US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8.
Weiss, R. and Shelfer, K.M. (2011), “How copyright theory affects practices: a primer for
information professionals”, Journal of the Library Administration & Management Section,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 4-24.
Ziccardi, G. (2013), Resistance, Liberation Technology and Human Rights in the Digital Age,
Springer, Dordrecht.

About the author

George J. Aulisio is Assistant Professor, Public Services Librarian, and Outreach Coordinator for
the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Memorial Library of The University of Scranton. He has taught
courses in the Department of Philosophy and the Media and Information Technology program. He
received his BA in Philosophy from Bloomsburg University, an MS in Library and Information
Science from Drexel University, and an MLA in Philosophy and Metaphysics from the University
of Pennsylvania. George J. Aulisio can be contacted at: george.aulisio@scranton.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Linda FrederiksenCopyright Specialization 39-46. [CrossRef]

2. Bibliography 123-129. [CrossRef]
3. Linda FrederiksenCopyright in Libraries 23-38. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by Lourdes College, Mrs Annabelle Acedera At 18:28 22 April 2019 (PT)