.png)
There is conversation happening at the highest level concerning the infrastructure of the Library of Congress and how it relates to the U.S. Copyright Office.
It is no surprise there is discussion around modernizing areas of our government that are heavily influenced by technology. Restructuring the U.S. Copyright Office may be something that is needed considering how diversified the nature of copyright issues have become with the use of the internet. It feels uncomfortable for me to state an opinion on such an intricate situation having only read one article on the matter. However, as someone who knows very little and has only explored one side of this topic, I would say that the Hudson Institute makes a very compelling argument to modernize the U.S. Copyright Office by separating it from the Library of Congress.
The main infrastructure of these departments was solidified in 1870 and remains in place today (Tepp & Oman, 2015). Today, the ability to produce and deliver original work is vastly easier than in the late 19th century, and therefore the number of copyright predicaments, complications, special cases, and need for development must be equally as vast. These authors go on to argue that the Library of Congress is unable to prioritize the Copyright Office because of all the other duties and responsibilities that take precedence. If the subject of copyright has increased in our country, then the management of that subject should increase as well. It is currently a structural problem that could be rectified. The suggested method to replace the current system is defended well as it proves to adhere to the Appointment Clause and will be compliant with our constitutional framework. Tepp and Oman (2015) conclude “this reform will leave a lasting legacy of innovation, creativity, and economic growth of which this generation of lawmakers can be proud” (p. 23). Again, I would agree that such a structural change would benefit multiple spheres of society moving forward.
I have quickly learned that there are more facets to copyright than just slapping a “circled c” of a piece of work. Plagiarism is one of those aspects and is roughly defined as taking someone else’s original work and presenting it as your own. An example of this is would be copying and pasting the lyrics of Louis Armstrong’s “What a Wonderful World” on my blog and claiming that I wrote it. Copyright infringement is something different; copyright infringement is when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, displayed, or made into a derivative work without the proper permission. If I were to write another novel for the Harry Potter series, this would be considered copyright infringement. Attribution lets others distribute or adapt original work as long as the creator is given credit. With an attribution license, I could use a photo in a slides presentation I’m building as long as I give credit to the photographer. Transformative use is when an original work has been significantly changed in appearance or nature that it can be used without threat of copyright infringement. An example of transformation is when libraries scan original works and display them electronically to accommodate the visually impaired.
Personally, copyright has been the most significant topic of this digital citizenship course. There is so much to understand and explore when it comes to the use of another’s work. To be a good digital citizen, we must know our own rights as creators and respects the rights of others.
References:
Tepp, S & Oman, R. (2015, October). A 21st-century copyright office: The conservative case for reform {PDF]. Hudson Institute. https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/files/publications/20151012TeppOmanA21stCenturyCopyrightOfficeTheConservativeCaseforReform.pdf
Comments