Re: Legal Deposit Libraries Act

[David Goodman <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>]

Though I am not an expert, the author's misconceptions are so 
clear that anyone with minimal knowledge can clarify them.

>From the whole article it is clear that the author is concerned 
about US and UK libraries, but is not aware of the differences 
between the educational and legal systems of the US and the UK.

The act referred to is UK. The UK Copyright site is at see 
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/legislation/copylaw.htmI

That page links to the site for The Legal Deposit Libraries Act 
2003 at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030028.htm, with 
the curious note that it is "not in force."

But it specifies the UK libraries as the  "British Library, and
(a) the National Library of Scotland,
(b) the National Library of Wales,
(c) the Bodleian Library, Oxford,
(d) the University Library, Cambridge,
(e) the Library of Trinity College, Dublin;"

I too cannot find meaning in "No one ever said it could be passed 
on in electronic form to a third party" As would be expected, 
there is nothing in this law prohibiting it either. There are 
regulations about just how copies are to used, but i have not 
searched them.

Interestingly, the UK law has an exemption for "making a 
temporary copy where this is necessary for the purpose of using 
the material" (Section 7(2)b) ) which clearly obviates one of the 
objections to GoogleBooks, as far as the UK is concerned.

The corresponding US provisions are in title 17, with the legal 
deposit provisions and somme of te regulations at 
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ07d.html. LC is the only 
copytight deposit library in th US, though some items are sent 
from there to the other national libraries.

The article says it is an edited version of a podcast, which I 
have not seen, at 
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevulture/archives/2006/03/04/ 
nigel_newton_addresses_the_guardian_review_world_book_day_forum.html

The article talks about "the Bodleian and Harvard" without 
realizing this differences. Do not the editors at the Guardian 
know about them? We have been citing the Guardian as a 
knowledgable source, but this affects its credibility.

The errors made in the UK when talking about US practice are 
legendary. The reverse is probably true as well. If I have 
misunderstood the UK please correct me, but I have at least read 
the relevant statutes.

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
and formerly
Princeton University Library

dgoodman@liu.edu
dgoodman@princeton.edu

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, March 6, 2006 6:30 pm
Subject: Legal Deposit Libraries Act
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu

> There is an opinion piece in the Guardian by Nigel Newton, head
> of Bloomsbury Publishing, in which Newton excoriates Google for
> the Google Print for Libraries project.  While Newton says
> nothing that would be news to members of this list, he makes a
> reference to the Legal Deposit Libraries Act that is unfamiliar
> to me:
>
> "And because they [participating libraries] are copyright
> libraries, publishers are obliged by the Legal Deposit Libraries
> Act to give one copy of each book to those six copyright
> libraries for free. No one ever said it could be passed on in
> electronic form to a third party."
>
> Can anyone shed light on this?  Is the Act a UK thing, American,
> something besides (Ruritanian?)? The URL is
> http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1722888,00.html, and
> the piece is entitled "Google's Literary Land-grab."
>
> Joe Esposito