Mandatory Deposit of Published Electronic Works Available Only Online, 34286-34290 [E9-16675]
Download as PDF
34286
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 202
[Docket No. RM 2009–3]
Mandatory Deposit of Published
Electronic Works Available Only
Online
AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of
Congress.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the
Library of Congress is proposing to
amend its regulations governing
mandatory deposit of electronic works
published in the United States and
available only online. The amendments
would establish that such works are
exempt from mandatory deposit until a
demand for deposit of copies or
phonorecords of such works is issued by
the Copyright Office. They would also
set forth the process for issuing and
responding to a demand for deposit,
amend the definition of a ‘‘complete
copy’’ of a work for purposes of
mandatory deposit of online–only
works, and establish new best edition
criteria for electronic serials available
only online. The Copyright Office seeks
public comment on these proposed
revisions.
DATES: Written comments must be
received in the Office of the General
Counsel of the Copyright Office no later
than August 31, 2009. Reply comments
must be received in the Office of the
General Counsel of the Copyright Office
no later than September 28, 2009.
ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a
private party, an original and five copies
of a comment or reply comment should
be brought to the Library of Congress,
U.S. Copyright Office, Room 401, 101
Independence Avenue, SE, Washington,
DC 20559, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.D.T. The envelope should be
addressed as follows: Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office.
If delivered by a commercial courier, an
original and five copies of a comment or
reply comment must be delivered to the
Congressional Courier Acceptance Site
(‘‘CCAS’’) located at 2nd and D Streets,
NE, Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m.
and 4 p.m. The envelope should be
addressed as follows: Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office,
LM 403, James Madison Building, 101
Independence Avenue, SE, Washington,
DC 20559. Please note that CCAS will
not accept delivery by means of
overnight delivery services such as
Federal Express, United Parcel Service
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Jul 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
or DHL. If sent by mail (including
overnight delivery using U.S. Postal
Service Express Mail), an original and
five copies of a comment or reply
comment should be addressed to U.S.
Copyright Office, Copyright GC/I&R,
P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tanya M. Sandros, Deputy General
Counsel, or Christopher Weston,
Attorney Advisor, Copyright GC/I&R,
P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Telefax:
(202)–707–8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
specifies the required deposit in
instances where ‘‘two or more editions
of the same version of a work have been
published.’’
When the mandatory deposit
regulations were first issued in 1978, the
Copyright Office adopted a regulation
exempting machine–readable works. It
reads as follows:
Literary works, including computer
programs and automated databases,
published in the United States only in
the form of machine–readable copies
(such as magnetic tape or disks, punch
cards, or the like) from which the work
cannot ordinarily be visually perceived
except with the aid of a machine or
device [are exempted]. Works published
in a form requiring the use of a machine
or device for purposes of optical
enlargement (such as film, filmstrips,
slide films and works published in any
variety of microform), and works
published in visually perceivable form
but used in connection with optical
scanning devices, are not within this
category and are subject to the applicable
deposit requirements.
Historical Context
Under section 407 of the Copyright
Act of 1976, Title 17 of the United
States Code, the owner of copyright, or
of the exclusive right of publication, in
a work published in the United States
is required to deposit two complete
copies (or, in the case of sound
recordings, two phonorecords) of the
best edition of the work with the
Copyright Office for the use or
disposition of the Library of Congress.
The deposit is to be made within three
months after such publication. Failure
to make the required deposit does not
affect copyright in the work, but it may
subject the copyright owner to fines and
other monetary liability if the owner
fails to comply after a demand for
deposit is made by the Register of
Copyrights. These general provisions,
however, are subject to limitations.
Section 407 also provides that the
Register of Copyrights ‘‘may by
regulation exempt any categories of
material from the deposit requirements
of this section, or require deposit of only
one copy or phonorecord with respect to
any categories.’’ 17 U.S.C. 407(c).
Accordingly, the Copyright Office,
with the approval of the Librarian of
Congress, established regulations
governing mandatory deposit and
deposit for registration of copyright,
which are set forth in Chapter II, Part
202 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR). Section 202.19
establishes the standards governing
mandatory deposit of copies and
phonorecords published in the United
States for the Library of Congress.
Section 202.20 prescribes rules
pertaining to the required deposit for
registration of a copyright claim with
the Copyright Office under section 408
of Title 17, and section 202.21 allows
for a deposit of identifying material in
lieu of copies or phonorecords in certain
cases, for both mandatory deposit and
registration deposit. In addition, the
Library of Congress’s Best Edition
Statement in Appendix B of Part 202
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37 CFR 202.19(c)(5) (1978). At the
time this exemption was promulgated,
copies of such machine–readable works
were not widely marketed to the public.
Thus, the Library decided not to require
their deposit.
However, by the mid–1980s many
important reference materials
traditionally made available only in
print form were being published in
whole or in part in machine–readable
form (e.g, CD–ROM) and the public’s
demand for access to and use of these
materials had increased significantly. In
addition, the Library’’s interest in
collecting computer programs published
in IBM and Macintosh formats was
growing, and it needed a way to obtain
these works for its collection. As a
result, the Library established a
Machine–Readable Collections Reading
Room, and, in 1989, the Copyright
Office amended the machine–readable
copies exemption so that machine–
readable works published in physical
form were subject to mandatory deposit
and only ‘‘automated databases
available only online in the United
States’’ were exempted. 54 FR 42295
(Oct. 16, 1989).1
The 1989 amendments also added two
classes of works to the list of those not
covered by the exemption: ‘‘automated
databases distributed only in the form of
machine–readable copies (such as
magnetic tape or disks, punch cards, or
the like) from which the work cannot
1The 1989 rulemaking did not suggest that
electronic online–only works should also be subject
to mandatory deposit, and there is no evidence that
such an outcome was contemplated. In fact at that
time, the Library did not possess the technological
means of ingesting copies of online–only works.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
ordinarily be visually perceived except
with the aid of a machine or device’’
and ‘‘computerized information works
in the nature of statistical compendia,
serials, and reference works.’’ Two years
later, the Copyright Office amended
section 202.19(c)(5) yet again to
explicitly identify CD–ROM–formatted
works as another category of works no
longer included in the exemption. 56 FR
47402 (Sept. 19, 1991).
Regulatory Interpretation and Practice.
The term ‘‘automated database,’’
although used in the regulations to
characterize a class of works, is a term
that has not been defined in Title 17,
and neither the Copyright Office
regulations regarding mandatory
deposit, nor the relevant Federal
Register notices proposing and
implementing regulatory changes,
provide a definition of the term.
However, the Copyright Office did
provide a definition in its Circular 65:
Copyright Registration for Automated
Databases:2 The circular defines an
‘‘automated database’’ as ‘‘a body of
facts, data, or other information
assembled into an organized format
suitable for use in a computer and
comprising one or more files.’’ This
definition comports with the general
understanding of what constitutes a
database, in that a database usually
would not include works like journals,
newspapers or encyclopedias.
Even so, the Copyright Office practice
to date has been, for purposes of
mandatory deposit, to interpret this
category broadly to encompass all
electronic works published only online.
To understand how this interpretation
evolved, it should be noted that when
section 202.19(c)(5) was amended in
1989, there was no tension involved in
using the category ‘‘automated databases
available only on–line in the United
States’’ to refer to all online–only
publications. For all practical purposes,
the only works being published online
at that time were automated databases,
e.g. Westlaw and Nexis. The Copyright
Office, however, did not revise its
definition of automated databases as
other categories of works, such as
articles and serial titles, began to be
published online. It chose instead to
include these works in the exempted
category ‘‘automated databases available
only on–line in the United States’’ as a
matter of convenience because, at that
time, the Library exhibited neither the
intention nor the technological ability to
collect such works. Unfortunately, the
effect of these practices has been to
stretch the definition of the excluded
2
Circular 65 is currently under revision.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Jul 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
category ‘‘automated databases available
only on–line in the United States’’
beyond its generally understood limits.
Hence, the proposed revision to the
exemption will replace this category
with the more accurate ‘‘electronic
works published in the United States
and available only online.’’
Proposed Qualified Exemption:
Demand–Based Deposit of Electronic
Works Published in the United States
and Available Only Online
Twenty years have passed since the
adoption of the regulation used to
exclude from mandatory copyright
deposit electronic works published in
the United States and available only
online. In that time, the Internet has
grown to become a fundamental tool for
the publication and dissemination of
millions of works of authorship. To cite
just one pertinent example, the Library
has determined that there are now more
than five thousand scholarly electronic
serials available exclusively online,
with no print counterparts. In some
cases the Library has purchased
subscriptions to these periodicals, but
such subscriptions are typically ‘‘access
only,’’ and rarely allow the Library to
acquire a ‘‘best edition’’ copy for its
collections. Thus, the current inability
of the Library to acquire online–only
works through mandatory copyright
deposit places the long–term
preservation of the works at risk.
To fulfill its mandate of sustaining
and preserving a universal collection of
knowledge, the Library is currently
developing technological systems that
will allow it to electronically ingest
online–only works and maintain them
in formats suitable for long–term
preservation. As part of this process, the
Library will also establish policies and
practices to insure the security and
integrity of its electronic collections,
and to provide appropriate, limited
access as allowed by law. So that this
strategy may be implemented, the
Copyright Office proposes to amend the
mandatory copyright deposit regulations
and thus enable the on–demand
mandatory deposit of electronic works
published in the United States and
available only online (i.e., not published
in physical form). Via this notice, the
Office seeks public comment on the
proposed regulatory changes.
To date, mandatory copyright deposit
has been one of the most important
methods for building the Library’’s
collections and making it the world’’s
largest repository of knowledge and
creativity. There is no reason why
mandatory deposit cannot or should not
serve this function in the digital
environment as well. If, for example, a
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34287
scholarly journal is subject to
mandatory copyright deposit when
published in paper copies, it is logical
and reasonable to demand its deposit
once it is published solely in an online–
accessible format, and such is the goal
of the proposed amendments.
a. Qualified Exemption for Electronic
Works Published in the United States
and Available Only Online
This notice proposes that the current
section 202.19(c)(5) exemption be
amended so that all electronic works
published in the United States and
available only online enjoy a qualified
exemption from mandatory deposit,
which would mean that any work in
this class is exempt until the Copyright
Office issues a demand for its deposit.
This revised exemption would apply to
all published electronic works available
only online. It would apply to serials,
monographs, sound recordings,
automated databases, and all other
categories of electronic works.
Furthermore, because the revised
exemption would apply exclusively to
published online–only works, there will
be no need to retain the current list of
machine–readable works in physical
formats to which the exemption does
not apply. It is important to emphasize,
however, that the revised exemption
would not apply to those works
published in both physical and online
formats. These works, because they are
not published ‘‘only’’online, were never
exempted from mandatory deposit by
§ 202.19(c)(5).3
In proposing a qualified exemption,
the Office seeks to balance the current
needs of the Library of Congress against
the imposition of a mandatory
requirement on all copyright owners of
works published exclusively online to
deposit one complete copy of the best
edition. Guidance for adopting this
approach comes from the House and
Senate Reports for the Copyright Act of
1976 which state that:
The fundamental criteria governing
regulations issued under section 407(c)
. . . would be the needs and wants of the
Library. The purpose of this provision is
to make the deposit requirements as
flexible as possible . . . so that reasonable
3Note that the Library’’s current Best Edition
Statement for ‘‘Works Existing in More Than One
Medium’’ does not currently list electronic formats.
See, e.g., 37 CFR 202.20(b)(1) (‘‘For purposes of this
section, if a work is first published in both hard
copy, i.e., in a physically tangible format, and also
in an electronic format, the current Library of
Congress Best Edition Statement requirements
pertaining to the hard copy format apply.’’)
Nevertheless, the Library of Congress retains the
authority to determine what constitutes ‘‘best
edition’’ and it may decide at a future time that,
when a particular work is published in both print
and electronic editions, the electronic edition is the
‘‘best edition’’ for purposes of mandatory deposit.
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
34288
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
adjustments can be made to meet
practical needs in special cases. The
regulations, in establishing special
categories for these purposes, would
necessarily balance the value of the
copies or phonorecords to the collections
of the Library of Congress against the
burdens and costs to the copyright owner
of providing them.
H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476, at 150 (1976);
S. Rep. No. 94–473, at 133 (1975). By
exempting published electronic works
available only online until a demand is
made, the proposed qualified exemption
addresses the practical difficulties of
acquiring works published in non–
physical formats, ensures that the
Library will only receive those works
that it needs for its collections, and
reduces the burdens on copyright
owners, who will only have to deposit
those works demanded by the Copyright
Office.
b. Single Copy of Work Demanded
Title 17’s mandatory deposit
provision requires the deposit of two
copies or phonorecords [17 U.S.C.
407(a)(1)], but grants the Copyright
Office authority to reduce that number
to one by regulation. Pursuant to this
authority, the proposed qualified
exemption will state that only a single
copy or phonorecord of a demanded
work is required. The Office has
determined that transmitting duplicate
electronic files presents a risk of
slowing down the electronic ingest
system of the Library, particularly in the
case of a work consisting of a single
large file or of many small files. Upon
receipt of the single copy of a demanded
work, the Library may allow
simultaneous access by two on–site
users. This achieves the statute’’s goal of
providing two copies of a published
work to the Library of Congress in a
more efficient and flexible manner.
c. Demand Deposit Process
This notice proposes that published
electronic works available only online
be deposited only pursuant to a demand
issued by the Copyright Office, under
the authority of section 407(d) of Title
17. The Library intends to phase in its
collection of online–only works on a
category–by–category basis. The initial
revision of § 202.19(c)(5) proposed in
this notice identifies ‘‘electronic serials’’
as being exempt but subject to demand,
because that is the first category of
online–only works that the Library
intends to collect. As the Library
expands its collection of online–only
works to other categories, these new
categories would be identified in
§ 202.19(c)(5) as subject to demand,
following a notice and comment period.
Under the proposed regulation, once
a category of works is identified as being
subject to demand under the qualified
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Jul 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
exemption of § 202.19(c)(5), the
Copyright Office would be able to make
a demand on the owner of copyright or
of the exclusive right of publication for
one complete copy of a work in that
category, for any such work published
on or after the date that this proposed
regulation goes into effect. A demand
for a copy of an online–only periodical
or other serial would cover not only the
issue or issues specified in the demand,
but also all subsequent issues of the
serial title.
The owner of copyright or of the
exclusive right of publication would
have three months from the date of
receipt of the notice in which to make
the deposit, in keeping with the time
period allotted by statute for deposit of
the best edition of a published work not
subject to an exemption. See 17 U.S.C.
407(a). The proposed regulation also
includes a provision governing requests
for special relief from the requirements
of the demand process to accommodate,
for example, situations where the work
is no longer available in any of the
formats listed in the Best Edition
Statement.
d. Notice of Publication
The Library intends to commence the
demand–deposit program proposed by
this notice with the ‘‘electronic serials’’
category of electronic works published
in the United States and available only
online. The Library believes that
sufficient bibliographic information
exists on electronic serials (such as
indexes, online search tools, and
announcement lists) that it will be able
to independently determine which titles
to demand. However, experience with
the demand–deposit process may
demonstrate that a number of important
electronic serial titles are escaping the
Library’’s notice. Moreover, other
categories of online–only works likely
are not subject to the same level of
bibliographic control as electronic
serials, and hence may prove to be even
more elusive.
The Copyright Office is thus soliciting
comments on the question of whether
the owner of copyright or of the
exclusive right of publication in an
online–only work should be required to
notify the Library of Congress upon the
publication of a new online–only work
in the United States. Such a notice of
publication would provide an
additional source of information on
which the Library could rely in
ascertaining what works are available.
As a threshold matter, the Office is
interested in comments regarding
whether promulgating such a notice
requirement as a condition of the
qualified exemption from mandatory
deposit is within the Office’’s authority
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
as granted by 17 U.S.C. 407. In addition,
commenters should address whether a
notice requirement is necessary and
prudent and whether it would strike the
appropriate balance between the needs
of the Library for timely publication
information and the imposition of a
further requirement on copyright
holders. Comments are also welcome on
the content and frequency of notices of
publication. For example, would it be
preferable to require notification upon
the publication of each new work or
serial title, or instead to require the
submission of a list of all new
publications at a predetermined
frequency (monthly, quarterly, etc.)?
Finally, assuming the advisability of a
notice of publication requirement, what
should the consequences be for
noncompliance?
e. Revised ‘‘Complete Copy’’
Definition
Section 407 of Title 17 requires the
deposit of a complete copy of the best
edition of a work published in the
United States. Section 202.19(b)(2) of
the Copyright Office regulations defines
a ‘‘complete copy’’ of a work for
purposes of mandatory deposit as one
that ‘‘includes all elements comprising
the unit of publication of the best
edition of the work, including elements
that, if considered separately, would not
be copyrightable subject matter or
would otherwise be exempt from
mandatory deposit requirements under
paragraph(c) of this section.’’ Published
electronic works often contain elements
such as metadata and formatting codes
that, while they are not perceptible to
the naked eye or ear, are part of the unit
of publication. These elements are also
critical for continued access to and
preservation of a work once it is
deposited. Thus, this notice proposes to
clarify that a ‘‘complete copy’’ of a
published electronic work available
only online includes the associated
metadata and formatting codes that
make up the unit of publication.
f. Best Edition Statement for
Electronic Serials
This notice proposes the creation of a
new section of the Best Edition
Statement in Appendix B to Part 202,
describing best edition criteria for
published electronic works available
only online in the United States. These
criteria are based primarily upon the
potential sustainability of the various
digital formats currently in use. A work
deposited in a sustainable format is one
that is less difficult and more cost–
effective to transform or migrate to
future systems as technologies change.
Consistent with the Library’’s current
collection priorities, demands under the
proposed amendments will initially
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
focus on material that has traditionally
been published in hard copy. The first
category of electronic works published
in the United States and available only
online for which the Library is
proposing best edition criteria is
electronic serials, a term that this notice
proposes to define. It is the
understanding of the Copyright Office
that the formats listed in the proposed
Best Edition Statement for electronic
serials are all currently publication
formats used by some, if not all,
electronic serial publishers. Best edition
criteria for other categories of electronic
works published in the United States
and available only online will follow as
they are developed.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202
Copyright and registration of claims to
copyright
Proposed Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Copyright Office proposes to amend part
202 of 37 CFR, as follows:
PART 202 – PREREGISTRATION AND
REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO
COPYRIGHT
1. The authority citation for part 202
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702
2. Amend § 202.19 as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (b)(2);
b. By adding a new paragraph (b)(4);
and
c. By revising paragraph (c)(5).
The additions and revisions to
§ 202.19 read as follows:
§ 202.19 Deposit of published copies or
phonorecords for the Library of
Congress.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) A complete copy includes all
elements comprising the unit of
publication of the best edition of the
work, including elements that, if
considered separately, would not be
copyrightable subject matter or would
otherwise be exempt from mandatory
deposit requirements under paragraph
(c) of this section.
(i) In the case of sound recordings, a
(complete( phonorecord includes the
phonorecord, together with any printed
or other visually perceptible material
published with such phonorecord (such
as textual or pictorial matter appearing
on record sleeves or album covers, or
embodied in leaflets or booklets
included in a sleeve, album, or other
container).
(ii) In the case of a musical
composition published in copies only,
or in both copies and phonorecords:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:05 Jul 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
(A) If the only publication of copies
in the United States took place by the
rental, lease, or lending of a full score
and parts, a full score is a (complete(
copy; and
(B) If the only publication of copies in
the United States took place by the
rental, lease, or lending of a conductor’s
score and parts, a conductor’s score is
a (complete( copy.
(iii) In the case of a motion picture, a
copy is (complete( if the reproduction of
all of the visual and aural elements
comprising the copyrightable subject
matter in the work is clean, undamaged,
undeteriorated, and free of splices, and
if the copy itself and its physical
housing are free of any defects that
would interfere with the performance of
the work or that would cause
mechanical, visual, or audible defects or
distortions.
(iv) In the case of an electronic work
published in the United States and
available only online, a copy is
(complete( if it includes all elements
constituting the work in its published
form, i.e., the complete work as
published, including metadata and
formatting codes otherwise exempt from
mandatory deposit.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) For purposes of § 202.19(c)(5) of
these regulations, an electronic serial is
an electronic work published in the
United States and available only online,
issued or intended to be issued in
successive parts bearing numerical or
chronological designations, and
intended to be continued indefinitely.
This class includes periodicals;
newspapers; annuals; and the journals,
proceedings, transactions, etc. of
societies.
(c) * * *
(5) Electronic works published in the
United States and available only online.
This exemption includes electronic
serials available only online only until
such time as a demand is issued by the
Copyright Office under the regulations
set forth in § 202.24. This exemption
does not apply to works that are
published in both online, electronic
formats and in physical formats, which
remain subject to the appropriate
mandatory deposit requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Add a new § 202.24, as follows:
§ 202.24 Deposit of Published
Electronic Works Available Only
Online
(a) Pursuant to authority under 17
U.S.C. 407(d), the Register of Copyrights
may make written demand to deposit
one complete copy or phonorecord of an
electronic work published in the United
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
34289
States and available only online upon
the owner of copyright or of the
exclusive right of publication in the
work, under the following conditions:
(1) Demands may be made only for
works in those categories identified in
§ 202.19(c)(5) of these regulations as
being subject to demand.
(2)Demands may be made only for
works published on or after [the
effective date of the final regulation].
(3)The owner of copyright or of the
exclusive right of publication must
deposit the demanded work within
three months of the date the demand
notice is received.
(4)If the demanded work is not
available in any of the formats listed in
the Best Edition Statement, the owner of
copyright or of the exclusive right of
publication may request special relief
under paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Definitions. (1) ‘‘Best edition’’ has
the meaning set forth in § 202.19(b)(1) of
this part.
(2)‘‘Complete copy’’ has the meaning
set forth in § 202.19(b)(2) of this part.
(c)Special relief. (1) In the case of any
demand made under paragraph (a) of
this section, the Register of Copyrights
may, after consultation with other
appropriate officials of the Library of
Congress and upon such conditions as
the Register may determine after such
consultation,
(i)Extend the time period provided in
section 407(d) of Title 17[e1];
(ii)Permit the deposit of incomplete
copies or phonorecords; or
(iii)Permit the deposit of copies or
phonorecords other than those normally
comprising the best edition.
(2)Any decision as to whether to grant
such special relief, and the conditions
under which special relief is to be
granted, shall be made by the Register
of Copyrights after consultation with
other appropriate officials of the Library
of Congress, and shall be based upon the
acquisition policies of the Library of
Congress then in force.
(3)Requests for special relief under
this section shall be made in writing to
the Copyright Acquisitions Division,
shall be signed by or on behalf of the
owner of copyright or of the exclusive
right of publication in the work, and
shall set forth specific reasons why the
request should be granted.
4.Amend Part 202, Appendix B,
Section I as follows:
a.By redesignating section IX as
section X; and
b.By adding a new section IX.
The revision to Part 202, Appendix B,
Section I reads as follows:
Appendix B to Part 202 – ‘‘Best
Edition’’ of Published Copyrighted
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
34290
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 15, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Works for the Collections of the Library
of Congress
*
*
*
*
*
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
IX. Electronic Works Published in the
United States and Available Only Online
For all deposits, UTF–8 encoding is
preferred to ASCII encoding and other non
UTF–8 encodings for non–Latin character
sets in all categories below.
A.Electronic Serials
1. Content Format
a. Level 1: Serials–specific structured/
markup format:
(i)Content compliant with the NLM Journal
Archiving (XML) Document Type Definition
(DTD), with presentation stylesheet(s), rather
than without.
(ii)Other widely used serials or journal
XML DTDs/schemas, with presentation
stylesheet(s), rather than without.
(iii)Proprietary XML format for serials or
journals (with documentation), with DTD/
schema and presentation stylesheet(s), rather
than without.
b.Level 2: Page–oriented rendition:
(i)PDF/A (Portable Document Format/
Archival; compliant with ISO 19005).
(ii)PDF (Portable Document Format, with
searchable text, rather than without).
c.Level 3: Other formats:
(i)XHTML/HTML, as made available
online, with presentation stylesheets(s),
rather than without.
(ii)XML (widely used, publicly
documented XML–based word–processing
formats, e.g. ODF/OpenDocument Format,
OpenXML), with presentation stylesheets(s),
if appropriate, rather than without.
(iii)Plain text.
(iv)Other formats (e.g., proprietary word
processing or page layout formats).
2.Metadata Elements:
If it has already been gathered and is
available, descriptive data (metadata) as
described below should accompany the
deposited material.
a.Title level metadata: serial or journal
title, ISSN, publisher, frequency, place of
publication.
b.Article level metadata, as relevant/
applicable: volume(s), number(s), issue
dates(s), article title(s), article author(s),
article identifier (DOI, etc.).
c.With other descriptive metadata (e.g.,
subject heading(s), descriptor(s), abstract(s)),
rather than without.
3.Access and copy controls:
a.Editions without access and copy
controls, or with those controls disabled, are
preferred over editions with such controls.
Dated: July 7, 2009.
Marybeth Peters,
Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. E9–16675 Filed 7–14–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–S
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:05 Jul 14, 2009
Jkt 217001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 50
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0922; FRL– 8930–6]
RIN 2060–AO19
Public Hearings for Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Nitrogen Dioxide
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Announcement of public
hearings.
SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing two
public hearings to be held for the
proposed rule ‘‘Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Nitrogen Dioxide’’ which is published
elsewhere in this Federal Register. The
hearings will be held in Arlington,
Virginia, on Monday, August 3, 2009
and Los Angeles, California, on
Thursday, August 6, 2009.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking,
EPA proposes to make revisions to the
primary nitrogen dioxide (NO2) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
in order to provide requisite protection
of public health. Specifically, EPA
proposes to supplement the current
annual standard by establishing a new
short-term NO2 standard based on the 3year average of the 99th percentile (or
4th highest) of the annual distribution of
1-hour daily maximum concentrations.
The EPA proposes to set the level of this
new standard within the range of 80 to
100 parts per billion (ppb) and solicits
comment on standard levels as low as
65 ppb and as high as 150 ppb. Also,
EPA proposes to establish requirements
for an NO2 monitoring network that will
include monitors within 50 meters of
major roadways. In addition, EPA is
soliciting comment on an alternative
approach to setting the standard and
revising the monitoring network.
Consistent with the terms of a consent
decree, the Administrator will sign a
notice of final rulemaking by January
22, 2010.
DATES: The public hearings will be held
on August 3, 2009 in Arlington,
Virginia, and on August 6, 2009 in Los
Angeles, California. Please refer to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
additional information on the public
hearings.
ADDRESSES: The hearings will be held at
the following locations:
1. Arlington, VA: Environmental
Protection Agency Conference Center,
First Floor Conference Center South,
One Potomac Yard, 2777 S. Crystal
Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. All visitors
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
will need to go through security and
present a valid photo identification,
such as a driver’s license.
2. Los Angeles, CA: Sheraton Los
Angeles Downtown, 711 South Hope
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017,
telephone (213) 488–3500.
Written comments on this proposed
rule may also be submitted to EPA
electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or
through hand delivery/courier. Please
refer to the notice of proposed
rulemaking for the addresses and
detailed instructions for submitting
written comments.
A complete set of documents related
to the proposal is available for public
inspection at the EPA Docket Center,
located at 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying. Documents are also
available through the electronic docket
system at https://www.regulations.gov .
The EPA Web site for the rulemaking,
which includes the proposal and
information about the public hearings
can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/air/
nitrogenoxides/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you would like to speak at the public
hearings or have questions concerning
the public hearings, please contact Ms.
Tricia Crabtree at the address given
below under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
Questions concerning the ‘‘Primary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Nitrogen Dioxide’’ proposed rule
should be addressed to Dr. Scott
Jenkins, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division (C504–
06), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone (919) 541–1167, e-mail:
jenkins.scott@epa.gov .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposal for which EPA is holding the
public hearings is published elsewhere
in this Federal Register and is also
available on the following Web site:
https://www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/.
The public hearings will provide
interested parties the opportunity to
present data, views, or arguments
concerning the proposed rules. The EPA
may ask clarifying questions during the
oral presentations, but will not respond
to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information
submitted during the comment period
will be considered with the same weight
as any oral comments and supporting
information presented at the public
hearings. Written comments must be
E:\FR\FM\15JYP1.SGM
15JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 15, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34286-34290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16675]
[[Page 34286]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Office
37 CFR Part 202
[Docket No. RM 2009-3]
Mandatory Deposit of Published Electronic Works Available Only
Online
AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is proposing
to amend its regulations governing mandatory deposit of electronic
works published in the United States and available only online. The
amendments would establish that such works are exempt from mandatory
deposit until a demand for deposit of copies or phonorecords of such
works is issued by the Copyright Office. They would also set forth the
process for issuing and responding to a demand for deposit, amend the
definition of a ``complete copy'' of a work for purposes of mandatory
deposit of online-only works, and establish new best edition criteria
for electronic serials available only online. The Copyright Office
seeks public comment on these proposed revisions.
DATES: Written comments must be received in the Office of the General
Counsel of the Copyright Office no later than August 31, 2009. Reply
comments must be received in the Office of the General Counsel of the
Copyright Office no later than September 28, 2009.
ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five
copies of a comment or reply comment should be brought to the Library
of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office, Room 401, 101 Independence Avenue,
SE, Washington, DC 20559, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.D.T. The
envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel,
U.S. Copyright Office. If delivered by a commercial courier, an
original and five copies of a comment or reply comment must be
delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site (``CCAS'')
located at 2nd and D Streets, NE, Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. and
4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, LM 403, James Madison Building,
101 Independence Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20559. Please note that
CCAS will not accept delivery by means of overnight delivery services
such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service or DHL. If sent by mail
(including overnight delivery using U.S. Postal Service Express Mail),
an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment should be
addressed to U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400,
Washington, DC 20024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tanya M. Sandros, Deputy General
Counsel, or Christopher Weston, Attorney Advisor, Copyright GC/I&R,
P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707-8380.
Telefax: (202)-707-8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Historical Context
Under section 407 of the Copyright Act of 1976, Title 17 of the
United States Code, the owner of copyright, or of the exclusive right
of publication, in a work published in the United States is required to
deposit two complete copies (or, in the case of sound recordings, two
phonorecords) of the best edition of the work with the Copyright Office
for the use or disposition of the Library of Congress. The deposit is
to be made within three months after such publication. Failure to make
the required deposit does not affect copyright in the work, but it may
subject the copyright owner to fines and other monetary liability if
the owner fails to comply after a demand for deposit is made by the
Register of Copyrights. These general provisions, however, are subject
to limitations. Section 407 also provides that the Register of
Copyrights ``may by regulation exempt any categories of material from
the deposit requirements of this section, or require deposit of only
one copy or phonorecord with respect to any categories.'' 17 U.S.C.
407(c).
Accordingly, the Copyright Office, with the approval of the
Librarian of Congress, established regulations governing mandatory
deposit and deposit for registration of copyright, which are set forth
in Chapter II, Part 202 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). Section 202.19 establishes the standards governing mandatory
deposit of copies and phonorecords published in the United States for
the Library of Congress. Section 202.20 prescribes rules pertaining to
the required deposit for registration of a copyright claim with the
Copyright Office under section 408 of Title 17, and section 202.21
allows for a deposit of identifying material in lieu of copies or
phonorecords in certain cases, for both mandatory deposit and
registration deposit. In addition, the Library of Congress's Best
Edition Statement in Appendix B of Part 202 specifies the required
deposit in instances where ``two or more editions of the same version
of a work have been published.''
When the mandatory deposit regulations were first issued in 1978,
the Copyright Office adopted a regulation exempting machine-readable
works. It reads as follows:
Literary works, including computer programs and automated
databases, published in the United States only in the form of
machine-readable copies (such as magnetic tape or disks, punch
cards, or the like) from which the work cannot ordinarily be
visually perceived except with the aid of a machine or device [are
exempted]. Works published in a form requiring the use of a machine
or device for purposes of optical enlargement (such as film,
filmstrips, slide films and works published in any variety of
microform), and works published in visually perceivable form but
used in connection with optical scanning devices, are not within
this category and are subject to the applicable deposit
requirements.
37 CFR 202.19(c)(5) (1978). At the time this exemption was
promulgated, copies of such machine-readable works were not widely
marketed to the public. Thus, the Library decided not to require their
deposit.
However, by the mid-1980s many important reference materials
traditionally made available only in print form were being published in
whole or in part in machine-readable form (e.g, CD-ROM) and the
public's demand for access to and use of these materials had increased
significantly. In addition, the Library''s interest in collecting
computer programs published in IBM and Macintosh formats was growing,
and it needed a way to obtain these works for its collection. As a
result, the Library established a Machine-Readable Collections Reading
Room, and, in 1989, the Copyright Office amended the machine-readable
copies exemption so that machine-readable works published in physical
form were subject to mandatory deposit and only ``automated databases
available only online in the United States'' were exempted. 54 FR 42295
(Oct. 16, 1989).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The 1989 rulemaking did not suggest that electronic online-
only works should also be subject to mandatory deposit, and there is
no evidence that such an outcome was contemplated. In fact at that
time, the Library did not possess the technological means of
ingesting copies of online-only works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1989 amendments also added two classes of works to the list of
those not covered by the exemption: ``automated databases distributed
only in the form of machine-readable copies (such as magnetic tape or
disks, punch cards, or the like) from which the work cannot
[[Page 34287]]
ordinarily be visually perceived except with the aid of a machine or
device'' and ``computerized information works in the nature of
statistical compendia, serials, and reference works.'' Two years later,
the Copyright Office amended section 202.19(c)(5) yet again to
explicitly identify CD-ROM-formatted works as another category of works
no longer included in the exemption. 56 FR 47402 (Sept. 19, 1991).
Regulatory Interpretation and Practice.
The term ``automated database,'' although used in the regulations
to characterize a class of works, is a term that has not been defined
in Title 17, and neither the Copyright Office regulations regarding
mandatory deposit, nor the relevant Federal Register notices proposing
and implementing regulatory changes, provide a definition of the term.
However, the Copyright Office did provide a definition in its Circular
65: Copyright Registration for Automated Databases:\2\ The circular
defines an ``automated database'' as ``a body of facts, data, or other
information assembled into an organized format suitable for use in a
computer and comprising one or more files.'' This definition comports
with the general understanding of what constitutes a database, in that
a database usually would not include works like journals, newspapers or
encyclopedias.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Circular 65 is currently under revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even so, the Copyright Office practice to date has been, for
purposes of mandatory deposit, to interpret this category broadly to
encompass all electronic works published only online. To understand how
this interpretation evolved, it should be noted that when section
202.19(c)(5) was amended in 1989, there was no tension involved in
using the category ``automated databases available only on-line in the
United States'' to refer to all online-only publications. For all
practical purposes, the only works being published online at that time
were automated databases, e.g. Westlaw and Nexis. The Copyright Office,
however, did not revise its definition of automated databases as other
categories of works, such as articles and serial titles, began to be
published online. It chose instead to include these works in the
exempted category ``automated databases available only on-line in the
United States'' as a matter of convenience because, at that time, the
Library exhibited neither the intention nor the technological ability
to collect such works. Unfortunately, the effect of these practices has
been to stretch the definition of the excluded category ``automated
databases available only on-line in the United States'' beyond its
generally understood limits. Hence, the proposed revision to the
exemption will replace this category with the more accurate
``electronic works published in the United States and available only
online.''
Proposed Qualified Exemption: Demand-Based Deposit of Electronic Works
Published in the United States and Available Only Online
Twenty years have passed since the adoption of the regulation used
to exclude from mandatory copyright deposit electronic works published
in the United States and available only online. In that time, the
Internet has grown to become a fundamental tool for the publication and
dissemination of millions of works of authorship. To cite just one
pertinent example, the Library has determined that there are now more
than five thousand scholarly electronic serials available exclusively
online, with no print counterparts. In some cases the Library has
purchased subscriptions to these periodicals, but such subscriptions
are typically ``access only,'' and rarely allow the Library to acquire
a ``best edition'' copy for its collections. Thus, the current
inability of the Library to acquire online-only works through mandatory
copyright deposit places the long-term preservation of the works at
risk.
To fulfill its mandate of sustaining and preserving a universal
collection of knowledge, the Library is currently developing
technological systems that will allow it to electronically ingest
online-only works and maintain them in formats suitable for long-term
preservation. As part of this process, the Library will also establish
policies and practices to insure the security and integrity of its
electronic collections, and to provide appropriate, limited access as
allowed by law. So that this strategy may be implemented, the Copyright
Office proposes to amend the mandatory copyright deposit regulations
and thus enable the on-demand mandatory deposit of electronic works
published in the United States and available only online (i.e., not
published in physical form). Via this notice, the Office seeks public
comment on the proposed regulatory changes.
To date, mandatory copyright deposit has been one of the most
important methods for building the Library''s collections and making it
the world''s largest repository of knowledge and creativity. There is
no reason why mandatory deposit cannot or should not serve this
function in the digital environment as well. If, for example, a
scholarly journal is subject to mandatory copyright deposit when
published in paper copies, it is logical and reasonable to demand its
deposit once it is published solely in an online-accessible format, and
such is the goal of the proposed amendments.
a. Qualified Exemption for Electronic Works Published in the United
States and Available Only Online
This notice proposes that the current section 202.19(c)(5)
exemption be amended so that all electronic works published in the
United States and available only online enjoy a qualified exemption
from mandatory deposit, which would mean that any work in this class is
exempt until the Copyright Office issues a demand for its deposit. This
revised exemption would apply to all published electronic works
available only online. It would apply to serials, monographs, sound
recordings, automated databases, and all other categories of electronic
works. Furthermore, because the revised exemption would apply
exclusively to published online-only works, there will be no need to
retain the current list of machine-readable works in physical formats
to which the exemption does not apply. It is important to emphasize,
however, that the revised exemption would not apply to those works
published in both physical and online formats. These works, because
they are not published ``only''online, were never exempted from
mandatory deposit by Sec. 202.19(c)(5).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Note that the Library''s current Best Edition Statement for
``Works Existing in More Than One Medium'' does not currently list
electronic formats. See, e.g., 37 CFR 202.20(b)(1) (``For purposes
of this section, if a work is first published in both hard copy,
i.e., in a physically tangible format, and also in an electronic
format, the current Library of Congress Best Edition Statement
requirements pertaining to the hard copy format apply.'')
Nevertheless, the Library of Congress retains the authority to
determine what constitutes ``best edition'' and it may decide at a
future time that, when a particular work is published in both print
and electronic editions, the electronic edition is the ``best
edition'' for purposes of mandatory deposit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proposing a qualified exemption, the Office seeks to balance the
current needs of the Library of Congress against the imposition of a
mandatory requirement on all copyright owners of works published
exclusively online to deposit one complete copy of the best edition.
Guidance for adopting this approach comes from the House and Senate
Reports for the Copyright Act of 1976 which state that:
The fundamental criteria governing regulations issued under
section 407(c) . . . would be the needs and wants of the Library.
The purpose of this provision is to make the deposit requirements as
flexible as possible . . . so that reasonable
[[Page 34288]]
adjustments can be made to meet practical needs in special cases.
The regulations, in establishing special categories for these
purposes, would necessarily balance the value of the copies or
phonorecords to the collections of the Library of Congress against
the burdens and costs to the copyright owner of providing them.
H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 150 (1976); S. Rep. No. 94-473, at 133
(1975). By exempting published electronic works available only online
until a demand is made, the proposed qualified exemption addresses the
practical difficulties of acquiring works published in non-physical
formats, ensures that the Library will only receive those works that it
needs for its collections, and reduces the burdens on copyright owners,
who will only have to deposit those works demanded by the Copyright
Office.
b. Single Copy of Work Demanded
Title 17's mandatory deposit provision requires the deposit of two
copies or phonorecords [17 U.S.C. 407(a)(1)], but grants the Copyright
Office authority to reduce that number to one by regulation. Pursuant
to this authority, the proposed qualified exemption will state that
only a single copy or phonorecord of a demanded work is required. The
Office has determined that transmitting duplicate electronic files
presents a risk of slowing down the electronic ingest system of the
Library, particularly in the case of a work consisting of a single
large file or of many small files. Upon receipt of the single copy of a
demanded work, the Library may allow simultaneous access by two on-site
users. This achieves the statute''s goal of providing two copies of a
published work to the Library of Congress in a more efficient and
flexible manner.
c. Demand Deposit Process
This notice proposes that published electronic works available only
online be deposited only pursuant to a demand issued by the Copyright
Office, under the authority of section 407(d) of Title 17. The Library
intends to phase in its collection of online-only works on a category-
by-category basis. The initial revision of Sec. 202.19(c)(5) proposed
in this notice identifies ``electronic serials'' as being exempt but
subject to demand, because that is the first category of online-only
works that the Library intends to collect. As the Library expands its
collection of online-only works to other categories, these new
categories would be identified in Sec. 202.19(c)(5) as subject to
demand, following a notice and comment period.
Under the proposed regulation, once a category of works is
identified as being subject to demand under the qualified exemption of
Sec. 202.19(c)(5), the Copyright Office would be able to make a demand
on the owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication for
one complete copy of a work in that category, for any such work
published on or after the date that this proposed regulation goes into
effect. A demand for a copy of an online-only periodical or other
serial would cover not only the issue or issues specified in the
demand, but also all subsequent issues of the serial title.
The owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication
would have three months from the date of receipt of the notice in which
to make the deposit, in keeping with the time period allotted by
statute for deposit of the best edition of a published work not subject
to an exemption. See 17 U.S.C. 407(a). The proposed regulation also
includes a provision governing requests for special relief from the
requirements of the demand process to accommodate, for example,
situations where the work is no longer available in any of the formats
listed in the Best Edition Statement.
d. Notice of Publication
The Library intends to commence the demand-deposit program proposed
by this notice with the ``electronic serials'' category of electronic
works published in the United States and available only online. The
Library believes that sufficient bibliographic information exists on
electronic serials (such as indexes, online search tools, and
announcement lists) that it will be able to independently determine
which titles to demand. However, experience with the demand-deposit
process may demonstrate that a number of important electronic serial
titles are escaping the Library''s notice. Moreover, other categories
of online-only works likely are not subject to the same level of
bibliographic control as electronic serials, and hence may prove to be
even more elusive.
The Copyright Office is thus soliciting comments on the question of
whether the owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication
in an online-only work should be required to notify the Library of
Congress upon the publication of a new online-only work in the United
States. Such a notice of publication would provide an additional source
of information on which the Library could rely in ascertaining what
works are available.
As a threshold matter, the Office is interested in comments
regarding whether promulgating such a notice requirement as a condition
of the qualified exemption from mandatory deposit is within the
Office''s authority as granted by 17 U.S.C. 407. In addition,
commenters should address whether a notice requirement is necessary and
prudent and whether it would strike the appropriate balance between the
needs of the Library for timely publication information and the
imposition of a further requirement on copyright holders. Comments are
also welcome on the content and frequency of notices of publication.
For example, would it be preferable to require notification upon the
publication of each new work or serial title, or instead to require the
submission of a list of all new publications at a predetermined
frequency (monthly, quarterly, etc.)? Finally, assuming the
advisability of a notice of publication requirement, what should the
consequences be for noncompliance?
e. Revised ``Complete Copy'' Definition
Section 407 of Title 17 requires the deposit of a complete copy of
the best edition of a work published in the United States. Section
202.19(b)(2) of the Copyright Office regulations defines a ``complete
copy'' of a work for purposes of mandatory deposit as one that
``includes all elements comprising the unit of publication of the best
edition of the work, including elements that, if considered separately,
would not be copyrightable subject matter or would otherwise be exempt
from mandatory deposit requirements under paragraph(c) of this
section.'' Published electronic works often contain elements such as
metadata and formatting codes that, while they are not perceptible to
the naked eye or ear, are part of the unit of publication. These
elements are also critical for continued access to and preservation of
a work once it is deposited. Thus, this notice proposes to clarify that
a ``complete copy'' of a published electronic work available only
online includes the associated metadata and formatting codes that make
up the unit of publication.
f. Best Edition Statement for Electronic Serials
This notice proposes the creation of a new section of the Best
Edition Statement in Appendix B to Part 202, describing best edition
criteria for published electronic works available only online in the
United States. These criteria are based primarily upon the potential
sustainability of the various digital formats currently in use. A work
deposited in a sustainable format is one that is less difficult and
more cost-effective to transform or migrate to future systems as
technologies change.
Consistent with the Library''s current collection priorities,
demands under the proposed amendments will initially
[[Page 34289]]
focus on material that has traditionally been published in hard copy.
The first category of electronic works published in the United States
and available only online for which the Library is proposing best
edition criteria is electronic serials, a term that this notice
proposes to define. It is the understanding of the Copyright Office
that the formats listed in the proposed Best Edition Statement for
electronic serials are all currently publication formats used by some,
if not all, electronic serial publishers. Best edition criteria for
other categories of electronic works published in the United States and
available only online will follow as they are developed.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202
Copyright and registration of claims to copyright
Proposed Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, the Copyright Office proposes to
amend part 202 of 37 CFR, as follows:
PART 202 - PREREGISTRATION AND REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO COPYRIGHT
1. The authority citation for part 202 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702
2. Amend Sec. 202.19 as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (b)(2);
b. By adding a new paragraph (b)(4); and
c. By revising paragraph (c)(5).
The additions and revisions to Sec. 202.19 read as follows:
Sec. 202.19 Deposit of published copies or phonorecords for the
Library of Congress.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) A complete copy includes all elements comprising the unit of
publication of the best edition of the work, including elements that,
if considered separately, would not be copyrightable subject matter or
would otherwise be exempt from mandatory deposit requirements under
paragraph (c) of this section.
(i) In the case of sound recordings, a (complete( phonorecord
includes the phonorecord, together with any printed or other visually
perceptible material published with such phonorecord (such as textual
or pictorial matter appearing on record sleeves or album covers, or
embodied in leaflets or booklets included in a sleeve, album, or other
container).
(ii) In the case of a musical composition published in copies only,
or in both copies and phonorecords:
(A) If the only publication of copies in the United States took
place by the rental, lease, or lending of a full score and parts, a
full score is a (complete( copy; and
(B) If the only publication of copies in the United States took
place by the rental, lease, or lending of a conductor's score and
parts, a conductor's score is a (complete( copy.
(iii) In the case of a motion picture, a copy is (complete( if the
reproduction of all of the visual and aural elements comprising the
copyrightable subject matter in the work is clean, undamaged,
undeteriorated, and free of splices, and if the copy itself and its
physical housing are free of any defects that would interfere with the
performance of the work or that would cause mechanical, visual, or
audible defects or distortions.
(iv) In the case of an electronic work published in the United
States and available only online, a copy is (complete( if it includes
all elements constituting the work in its published form, i.e., the
complete work as published, including metadata and formatting codes
otherwise exempt from mandatory deposit.
* * * * *
(4) For purposes of Sec. 202.19(c)(5) of these regulations, an
electronic serial is an electronic work published in the United States
and available only online, issued or intended to be issued in
successive parts bearing numerical or chronological designations, and
intended to be continued indefinitely. This class includes periodicals;
newspapers; annuals; and the journals, proceedings, transactions, etc.
of societies.
(c) * * *
(5) Electronic works published in the United States and available
only online. This exemption includes electronic serials available only
online only until such time as a demand is issued by the Copyright
Office under the regulations set forth in Sec. 202.24. This exemption
does not apply to works that are published in both online, electronic
formats and in physical formats, which remain subject to the
appropriate mandatory deposit requirements.
* * * * *
3. Add a new Sec. 202.24, as follows:
Sec. 202.24 Deposit of Published Electronic Works Available Only
Online
(a) Pursuant to authority under 17 U.S.C. 407(d), the Register of
Copyrights may make written demand to deposit one complete copy or
phonorecord of an electronic work published in the United States and
available only online upon the owner of copyright or of the exclusive
right of publication in the work, under the following conditions:
(1) Demands may be made only for works in those categories
identified in Sec. 202.19(c)(5) of these regulations as being subject
to demand.
(2)Demands may be made only for works published on or after [the
effective date of the final regulation].
(3)The owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication
must deposit the demanded work within three months of the date the
demand notice is received.
(4)If the demanded work is not available in any of the formats
listed in the Best Edition Statement, the owner of copyright or of the
exclusive right of publication may request special relief under
paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Definitions. (1) ``Best edition'' has the meaning set forth in
Sec. 202.19(b)(1) of this part.
(2)``Complete copy'' has the meaning set forth in Sec.
202.19(b)(2) of this part.
(c)Special relief. (1) In the case of any demand made under
paragraph (a) of this section, the Register of Copyrights may, after
consultation with other appropriate officials of the Library of
Congress and upon such conditions as the Register may determine after
such consultation,
(i)Extend the time period provided in section 407(d) of Title
17[e1];
(ii)Permit the deposit of incomplete copies or phonorecords; or
(iii)Permit the deposit of copies or phonorecords other than those
normally comprising the best edition.
(2)Any decision as to whether to grant such special relief, and the
conditions under which special relief is to be granted, shall be made
by the Register of Copyrights after consultation with other appropriate
officials of the Library of Congress, and shall be based upon the
acquisition policies of the Library of Congress then in force.
(3)Requests for special relief under this section shall be made in
writing to the Copyright Acquisitions Division, shall be signed by or
on behalf of the owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of
publication in the work, and shall set forth specific reasons why the
request should be granted.
4.Amend Part 202, Appendix B, Section I as follows:
a.By redesignating section IX as section X; and
b.By adding a new section IX.
The revision to Part 202, Appendix B, Section I reads as follows:
Appendix B to Part 202 - ``Best Edition'' of Published Copyrighted
[[Page 34290]]
Works for the Collections of the Library of Congress
* * * * *
IX. Electronic Works Published in the United States and
Available Only Online
For all deposits, UTF-8 encoding is preferred to ASCII encoding
and other non UTF-8 encodings for non-Latin character sets in all
categories below.
A.Electronic Serials
1. Content Format
a. Level 1: Serials-specific structured/markup format:
(i)Content compliant with the NLM Journal Archiving (XML)
Document Type Definition (DTD), with presentation stylesheet(s),
rather than without.
(ii)Other widely used serials or journal XML DTDs/schemas, with
presentation stylesheet(s), rather than without.
(iii)Proprietary XML format for serials or journals (with
documentation), with DTD/schema and presentation stylesheet(s),
rather than without.
b.Level 2: Page-oriented rendition:
(i)PDF/A (Portable Document Format/Archival; compliant with ISO
19005).
(ii)PDF (Portable Document Format, with searchable text, rather
than without).
c.Level 3: Other formats:
(i)XHTML/HTML, as made available online, with presentation
stylesheets(s), rather than without.
(ii)XML (widely used, publicly documented XML-based word-
processing formats, e.g. ODF/OpenDocument Format, OpenXML), with
presentation stylesheets(s), if appropriate, rather than without.
(iii)Plain text.
(iv)Other formats (e.g., proprietary word processing or page
layout formats).
2.Metadata Elements:
If it has already been gathered and is available, descriptive
data (metadata) as described below should accompany the deposited
material.
a.Title level metadata: serial or journal title, ISSN,
publisher, frequency, place of publication.
b.Article level metadata, as relevant/applicable: volume(s),
number(s), issue dates(s), article title(s), article author(s),
article identifier (DOI, etc.).
c.With other descriptive metadata (e.g., subject heading(s),
descriptor(s), abstract(s)), rather than without.
3.Access and copy controls:
a.Editions without access and copy controls, or with those
controls disabled, are preferred over editions with such controls.
Dated: July 7, 2009.
Marybeth Peters,
Register of Copyrights.
[FR Doc. E9-16675 Filed 7-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-S