You are on page 1of 4

The original blog by Ms. Krista Cox, Esq.

(which I will not reproduce here) can be found at: US Copyright Act 1976 Section 602(a)(2) Submitted by jem40000 on 15. April 2011 - 1:57. Sections 601-603 of the 1976 US Copyright Act as documented in the Legislative History (below) were mainly focused on protection of the domestic printing industry. Section 602(a)(2), which neither in Ms. Cox's blog above nor in the US Copyright Office WIPO Question 71 response is directly referenced, says that any exportation without exception is subject to Section 106 exclusive rights of the copyright owner. 602(a)(2) Importation or exportation of infringing items. Importation into the United States OR EXPORTATION from the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords, the making of which either constituted an infringement of copyright, or which would have constituted an infringement of copyright if this title had been applicable, is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under sections 501 and 506. However the first paragraph of Section 121 states: (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is NOT an infringement of copyright for an authorized entity to reproduce or to distribute copies or phonorecords of a previously published, nondramatic literary work if such copies or phonorecords are reproduced or distributed in specialized formats exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities.

Ms. Cox does mention the (A)-(C) exceptions in 602(3) but those were the exceptions as they existed in the year 1976. The Section 121 'Chafee Amendment' was not enacted until 1996. Had the 'Chafee Amendment' been in force in 1976, it most likely would have been included as (D) under the Section 602(a)(3) exceptions list.

Exportation and 'Implied Authority' under Section 121 Submitted by jem40000 on 19. April 2011 - 19:17. So, if exportation of 'specialized format' materials under US Copyright Act Section 602(a)(2) IS in fact allowable via the Section 121(a) 'distribution' as non-infringement exception to Section 106, consider -if you will -- the following: The 1996 NLS fact sheet as referenced by Ms. Cox above also says: "To the extent that authorized agencies and organizations use or delegate authority to volunteers, special education teachers, and commercial producers under government contract to produce and distribute works under the exemption, those activities appear to be fully covered by the exemption. Such individuals can be said to be agents of authorized entities and are, therefore, acting under implied authority." Therefore, if a bona fide authorized entity in the US structured arrangements with NGOs in the developing world whereby those NGOs became 'agents' of that authorized entity, the 'AE' could de facto become a clearing house for accessible works rendered in such developing countries and provide those works under US Copyright Act Section 121 exemptions. And, as I referenced in my 9 APR 2011 comment on this same page, the US Publisher consortium and the American Association of Publishers (AAP) in their ORIGINAL Google Settlement Agreement stated:

"You should assume that you own a U.S. copyright interest in your Book, unless you are certain that your Book was published in, and that you reside and are located in, one of the few countries that have not had or do not now have copyright relations with the United States." "Attention Authors And Publishers Outside The United States: The Settlement May Affect Your Rights As Well" and at 5. "Who Is A Class Member?" (Original Notice) Regardless of prior opinions, the Publisher Interests *themselves* may have rendered absurd the notion that (as in Ms. Cox's blog above) "... US laws only apply domestically ..." There may then be a way under exportation provisions of current and existing US Copyright Law to serve the interests of the visually impaired absent any binding International Treaty -- maybe just not the way the US Copyright Office might have envisioned. US Response to WIPO Questionnaire Submitted by jem40000 on 9. April 2011 - 5:05. Ms. Cox stated the following in the above blog: "For example, a publisher could file suit against an exporter of accessible works and reasonably argue that if Congress had intended to exempt an "authorized entity" defined in Section 121(d)(1), Congress would have used the same term ("authorized entity") or, within the text of Section 602(a)(3) made a reference back to Section 121(d)(1)." As I was the person who at least on KEI raised this issue I would have this comment:

I think the notion of extra-territoriality was stood on its head by the extent to which US Publishers and the AAP felt that the Original Authors Guild et al / Google Settlement would be binding upon works published in countries that have any sort of bi- or multi- lateral Copyright agreement with the USA whether a book was ever published in the USA or not. For them to say now that US Copyright exceptions can have no extraterritoriality effect would be ludicrous at 5. Who Is A Class Member