ERIC Identifier: ED308855
Publication Date: 1989-06-00
Author: Reed, Mary Hutchings
Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Information Resources Syracuse NY.
Videotapes: Copyright and Licensing Considerations for Schools
and Libraries. ERIC Digest.
While ownership of a copyright is a property right, the type of property
involved is not tangible. An important distinction made by the Copyright Act is
the separation of ownership of a copyright from ownership of the object in which
it is embodied. Owning a videotape of a copyrighted motion picture does not give
its owner all the exclusive rights of copyright. The difference is obvious with
respect to videotapes and films where the right to play (perform) the tape
publicly is separate from the ownership of the tape.
Another complication arises from the use of restrictive license agreements on
videotapes similar to those on computer software. This section will focus on
purchased videotapes; videotapes that purport to be licensed should be treated
like computer software programs. (See ERIC Digest no. EDO-IR-89-2.)
Much of the concern and confusion among librarians
and educators as to the legality of library lending and classroom use of
copyrighted videotapes is a result of "Home Use Only" labeling and other
information supplied by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and
some of its members. Typical "Home Use Only" labels read as follows:
*Licensed for private home exhibition only. Any public performance, copying
or other use is strictly prohibited... (NOTE: The word licensed does not
necessarily create a licensing agreement. This language could be construed as
intended to restate the copyright law rather than state a condition of sale.)
*This videocassette is for home use non-public performance exhibition in the
United States of America or Canada only. Any other use is not authorized and is
Much of this labeling and information is misleading and inapplicable to
libraries or schools.
The distribution right is one of the exclusive rights belonging to a
copyright owner. One important exception to this right is the first-sale
doctrine of Section 109. Under it, anyone who owns a lawfully manufactured copy
of a copyrighted work may distribute that copy by resale, rental, or loan. Once
a particular copy has been the subject of a "first sale" or other transfer of
title, the exclusive distribution right as to that particular copy ceases. If
this were not so, libraries could not loan their copies of books and other
A library or school that resells, rents, or lends a copy of a copyrighted
videotape, which it owns, is not infringing on the copyright owner's rights. The
actions of the library or school are merely those of distribution--the act of
lending does not implicate the copyright owner's other rights of adaptation,
public performance, reproduction, and public display. The fact that a fee is
charged is irrelevant--the right to distribute a copy includes the right to rent
it--for a fee, deposit, or otherwise.
This view is consistent with both the language of the statute and, to some
extent, the opinion of the Motion Picture Association of America. The MPAA view
seems to be limited in that it states that "libraries which circulate cassettes
for use at home do not infringe the Copyright Act." However, libraries and
classrooms do not ordinarily inquire where borrowed materials will be used, and
such inquiries are not required under the Copyright Act.
It is important to keep in mind that the copyright owner's exclusive rights
include the right to authorize others to reproduce, adapt, publicly perform or
display, or distribute the work. Therefore, libraries and schools should refrain
from appearing to authorize infringements by their borrowers. This can be done
rather simply by insuring that the original "Home Use Only" labels remain on the
videotapes. Little else is required by the Copyright Act. If a borrower
expresses an intention to use the borrowed videotape for an unauthorized public
showing (at a public place for a fee, to take the easiest example), the lender
is under a duty to state that such a use may be prohibited by the copyright
The same general principles apply to liability for copying by borrowers. In
addition to the "Home Use Only" language, most labels also contain prohibitions
on copying. If the lender is asked if copying is permitted, or is informed of a
borrower's intention to copy, there is a clear duty to state that it is not
authorized. Like the situation described above in the context of unauthorized
public performances (showings), there is not clear duty to refuse to lend the
material. This is not different from the situation librarians or teachers face
concerning borrower's copying of any other materials.
Because of the first-sale doctrine, a library or school that lends videotapes
is not a direct infringer of the copyright owner's exclusive rights.
Additionally, since libraries can't control their patrons' activities, it is
unlikely that a library could be held to be a contributory infringer.
A more significant problem arises when video equipment is loaned with
videotapes; however, here too it is unlikely that the lender would be liable for
the unsupervised use of the equipment. This situation is similar to that of
unsupervised library copying machines. Section 108(f)(1) of the Copyright Act
provides that a library is not liable for infringing use of unsupervised copiers
on its premises as long as the equipment bears a notice that making such a copy
may be subject to the copyright law. Nothing in Section 108(f)(1) limits its
applicability to paper copiers (therefore video equipment capable of copying
would be included), but the notice is only required for equipment on library
premises. A notice on recording equipment to be used outside the library is not
required; however, it would be a good idea to use one to both educate and warn
patrons. It could read:
*Notice: The copyright law of the United States governs the making of
reproductions and the performance of copyrighted material; the person using this
equipment is liable for any copyright infringement.
The main concern with in-house use of copyrighted videotapes by library
patrons and students is the performance right. The Copyright Act states the
public performance right in broad terms and then provides specific exemptions
for educational and other nonprofit uses. However, the specific exemptions are
not exclusive: The same general standards of fair use are applicable to all
kinds of showings (performances).
Section 110(1) specifically limits a
copyright owner's exclusive performance and display rights. It states:
*performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of
face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a
classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a
motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of
individual images, is given by means of a copy the was not lawfully made...and
that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe
was not lawfully made...[is not an infringement].
All of these requirements must be met in order for the classroom exemption of
Section 110(1) to apply.
Most educational classroom uses of videotapes fall under Section 110(1). As
long as 110(1) applies, it is not necessary to purchase special licenses in
order to publicly show copyrighted materials in the classroom. To the extent
that the exemption does not apply, the fair use doctrine may permit some other
Because a library may be "a similar place
devoted to instruction," the classroom exemption also protects public showing of
videotapes in libraries that meet the requirements of Section 110(1) discussed
above. Where such performances do not fall under 110(1), they may be considered
infringing. It is clear that a library's showing a videotape to a large group of
persons would, in fact, constitute a public performance as it is defined by the
Copyright Act. In addition, previewing, in which prospective borrowers are
permitted to view portions of the videotape before borrowing it, could be
considered by some to constitute an infringing public performance, if done in
public areas. However, both previewing by an individual and viewing a videotape
in a private room in a library should probably be considered fair use.
What about libraries that permit individuals or small groups of persons to
watch videotapes in private viewing rooms? These showings may be thought to be
public performances, but they may also be a fair use of the materials and
therefore not infringing. In addition, recent case law indicates that a hotel
room is an extension of a person's home for purposes of determining what is a
public performance. By extension, it is reasonable to assume that a private
viewing carrel at a library is an extension of a person's living room. This case
law mitigates some of the problems with the statutory definition of "publicly."
A single viewer is a minimum. A larger audience might also constitute a fair
use (i.e., a parent and child, several members of a film class, etc.). However,
charging a user fee or permitting more than one person to view the work
increases the likelihood that the use would not be fair since there is also case
law that holds the repeated showing of videotapes for small groups of people in
mini-theaters to be public performances. Permitting a greater number would also
put librarians in the position of inquiring and making judgments about the
purposes of the use, which is not in keeping with other library policies
concerning rights of access, privacy, and intellectual freedom.
Libraries with meeting rooms that are open to the public may also face
questions of liability for public performances (showings) that take place in
them. The library might be liable by appearing to authorize such public showings
or performances (rather than actually doing the showing) under circumstances in
which it might be in a position to control the use of the copyrighted works.
While generally a landlord is not a contributory infringer merely by virtue
of the fact that he or she provides the premises whereon infringing works are
publicly performed or sold, active supervision of the place where the
performances occur (plus perhaps commercial gain from the operation and benefit
from the actual performance) could make one an infringer. Even in the absence of
commercial gain, the most prudent course, upon being informed of or bring asked
about a potentially infringing use, is to state that the proposed use is not
authorized. The case here seems slightly stronger for refusal to lend the
materials or give access to the room, although the duty is still not clear (and
may depend upon the individual library policies concerning such rooms). A safe
course would be to require those using meeting rooms to secure all necessary
licenses and to indemnify the library for any failure to do so.
Reprinted with permission of the American Library Association, "Videotape,"
pp. 29-33, as it appears in THE COPYRIGHT PRIMER FOR LIBRARIANS AND EDUCATORS,
by Mary Hutchings Reed, 1987. c 1987 by the American Library Association.