Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Grants and conjunto music

Well, the IMLS grant thing fell through. Not enough time to get it together. The library director heading abroad...yadda, yadda, yadda. But they said they hope to use this to apply for a state grant. My take is that they should start smaller, and start to plan steps for preservation. Survey their materials of audio tape, develop strategies for ways to bake the tape or do digital transfer off-site. We'll see. Still, many possibilities ahead. And I'm still going to the ARSC conference in Austin. :-)

There are so many exciting possibilities and challenges to creating a digital library of sound recordings. It's hard to know where to begin. I feel that my MLS curriculum has given me some of the basics in terms of the general approach. I've definitely had to supplement that with readings and other material online. I could stay in this program, get an MIS, an Archives Specialization, and an MA in Musicology and Folklore, and still not know everything--and it keeps changing. I just don't have that many hours in the day. But we do the best with what we know at the time.

In cataloging news, I'm cataloging this for the Music Library,

or rather a recent re-release of many 78s and 45s on one CD. I've been having fun with the 505 field. I get to be very detailed and descriptive with the titles, composers, and artists. I love giving this level of access to popular and ethnic music. It deserves this sort of structure, because our patrons will demand it (hopefully). San Antonio's Conjuntos in the 1950s is a really cool album with dozens of conjuntos (bands), singers, and other artists including Flaco Jiménez.

Monday, February 21, 2005

While I've been away (from blogging)

I've been a pretty inactive blogger these last two weeks. But then I've been really busy in real time. Things I wanted to catch people up on:

I've been working on a grant for some folks in West Virginia that have a public radio station and a library, and are applying for an IMLS Collaboration Grant. The deadline's March 1--and I'm trying to squeeze all the stuff in my brain and get it down on paper. Hope we make it! They have a bunch of oral history materials (tapes, photographs, etc.) they want to digitize and get online. Great...preservation (of the physical object--like decaying analog audio tapes), preservation (of the digital objects we'll create), and access (via the Internet), and access (to locals who might not have Internet). I'm going there over Spring Break to see what it's like. Might just be spending next year with sights like this:

or this...

Not bad, huh? Take me home, country roads.

It would be a wonderful, wild thing (like West Virginia itself! HA!) to work in a rural library that'd be exploring these sort of issues. The collaboration would be between the library, the radio station (the only one in the county thanks to the enforced silence of the FCC due to the proximity of the National Radio Observatory), and the local Historical Society. A lot of the work would be done with volunteers and the local library staff. I've always wondered how we could get the public radio stations in on the preservation curve. They're so much in the moment--yet if they produce, create, or record original content, then their stuff is definitely worth saving and archiving, (and making available to all). To have a broadcast or production studio that takes all this into account would be awesome. And then there's the library who'd be the likely people to manage the access least the physical copies and the servers. So much to think about-metadata, T1 lines, mirror sites, webpage creation, offsite archiving, and collection-level records. And to think of the amount I've learned in two years here at Indiana. I have been very lucky to come here and study with the best.

Thursday, February 17, 2005

Conferencing in Austin

Yay! I just found out I can afford to go to the ARSC conference!

WOW, SORRY--ACRONYM SOUP: ARSC = Association of Recorded Sound Collections

There are a lot of good, and relevant (to both sound recordings and metadata) sessions this year. Especially these:

Preconference Workshop, Wednesday March 30:

The Assessment, Preservation, and Access of Audio
Collections in the Digital Age: an Archival Case Study

Presenters and Their Topics:

Mike Casey, Coordinator of Recording Services, Archives of Traditional Music, Indiana University:

Risk assessment for audio collections
Ranking tool to develop priorities for preservation

The following speakers from the University of Missouri–Kansas City on the digital audio project “Voices of World War II: Experiences from the Front and at Home - KMBC Radio”:

Rob Ray, Special Collections Librarian, Miller Nichols Library, Dept. of Special Collections:

Creation of digital library projects
Wendy Sistrunk, Music Catalog Librarian, Miller Nichols Library

Metadata for digital audio preservation
Relationship to the OPAC
Chuck Haddix, Director, Marr Sound Archives, Miller Nichols Library

Transfer of original analog audio to digital files
Public access

Friday April 1

8:15-10:30 a.m. Recording Technology: Past and Future

In the Trenches: Surveying the Groove
GEORGE BROCK-NANNESTAD (Gentoft, Denmark); BILL KLINGER (Chardon, Ohio)

Correction of Wow and Flutter Artifacts: Theoretical Implications for Analog Signal Degradation
ROBERT HEIBER, Chace Audio, Burbank, California

New Magnetic Tape Restoration Process to Eliminate the Sticky Shed Problem from Magnetic Tapes
CHARLES A. RICHARDSON, Annapolis, Maryland

Saturday April 2

10:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Technical Measures and Comparisons

Preservation Metrics for Audio Collections
MICHAEL OLSON, Stanford University, Stanford, California

A Comparison of Software Based Digital Audio Restoration Methods
MARK SARISKY, University of Texas, Austin

Technical Trials

More Than We Can Chew? Audio Preservation Digitization and Small Profit Institutions
ANDY KOLOVOS, Vermont Folklife Center, Middlebury, Vermont

WRVA Radio, the “Voice of Virginia”
JAY GAIDMORE, The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia
Also written by James Sam, Ryan Davis, and Anji Cornette, The Cutting
Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland

2:00-4:00 p.m. After the Converter: Moving Forward with Enduring Preservation of

Audio in the Digital Domain – ARSC Technical Committee

An Overview of Worldwide Developments in Digital Preservation of Audio
MIKE CASEY, Indiana University. Bloomington, Indiana

Digital Preservation Plans at the Library of Congress
PETER ALYEA, Library of Congress

Technical Metadata and Storage Issues for Small Archives
JOHN SPENCER, Bridge Media Solutions, Nashville, Tennessee

When Audio Becomes Data: The Management and Storage of Digital Audio Files
JON DUNN, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana

That's just some of the fun! Now I have to find flights, hotel rooms, etc.

Monday, February 14, 2005

Archives, FRBR, and Digital Preservation

Blogging time was rather limited last week--so I hope to make up for that this week.

Just a quick rundown on last week's activities--

1) Archives- Worked on some listening exercises and tape configuration exercises. I really got my hands into open-reel tape (after washing my hands, of course). I attended a very interesting Brown Bag Luncheon with Jen Riley and Jon Dunn on digitizing and delivering audio and video. I knew a lot of the physics for audio that Jon was talking about, but the video stuff just floored me. To think it takes something like 150 gb/hour to deliver high-definition, uncompressed video (including sound) over the web. No wonder video preservation is nowhere close to where audio is now.

2) During work at WFIU this week, I couldn't help thinking that a lot of people just can't separate out in their minds the idea of a piece of music (work), a performance of music (expression or instantiation), and a physical object that might hold those things. We probably have over thirty recordings of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. In that list could be ten recordings with Claudio Abbado conducting (for example). Then maybe Abbado was conducting the Vienna Philharmonic on five of those. And of those five, three have the same recording date (let's say March 15, 1991 at the Musikverein)--meaning that that one performance is imprinted on five items that are issued by a record label (ex: Deutsche Grammophon). But it's doesn't stop there, because DG could publish it multiple times, and in various forms: 1) the entire work; 2) separate movements of that work (on a highlights album); 3) excerpts of those movements (like on a "Beethoven for Your Brain" album). And hopefully, this is all clear on the disc you're holding. More often that not, it's not clear--and major discographic searching ensues. It's even more problematic for folk music and church hymns, whose music is often "traditional" (i.e. we've forgotten who wrote it, or we assume it's PD by now) and whose lineage is lost because attribution was never given.

Of course this models assumes a master-servant hierarchy.

* That there is one ultimate work created by discrete people or associations of people.
* That there is such a thing as a work, or a group of works that are bound together.
* That there is one master recording from which all others are pressed. Or in the case of today, a master file from which derivative copies can be made. It also assumes all copies from this master file or recording will be . That's not true of most uncompressed files, which can be copied ad nauesam without loss of fidelity or resolution, but it is for compressed files which introduces artifacts the further you get away from the original.
* So then, what is the value or benefit of having a first-edition WAV file, as opposed to a 10th generation one? Nothing in theory--it should have no more value than the tenth. But is that file signal processed, equalized, or altered in any way? Hopefully, there is documentation that will tell. Preservation metadata to save the day!

3) I've been thinking about how I would structure digitization/preservation projects of my own, if I had the opportunity. There's quite a lot to think about in constructing workflows and creating objectives, maintaining best practices, etc. Plus, the effort of getting the funding for such endeavors. In terms of access, what are the needs of your users? Where are they? How they will they listen/view what you have online? What kind of software will they need? If scholars are using it, how will they gain access to the uncompressed audio, if they need to inspect it for research purposes? The more you show, the more they want. That made me think of how expensive it is to stream audio and video, and just how proprietary many streaming servers are (Real, Windows Media). How can we really give long-term access if our fates are tied to those of corporations?

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

One track, two track, red track, blue track

Interning...coming to the end of my training soon.

One of my exercises at the Archives including editing out tape recorder in when the tape recorder is shut off. Annoying sound. But we only edit it if researchers ask us to do that, and only with Mike's permission. That way we preserve the context of the entire sound on the recording that collectors have made.
I didn't quite get this, so I did it again.

Yesterday, I got to work on an original catalog record for this disc of Beethoven piano concertos played by pianist Richard Cass, conductor Paul Freeman, and the Czech National Symphony Orchestra (label: Tintagel).

I'm starting to understand track configuration on tape. Kinda confusing. Full track means there's only string or track or channel of information recorded on the tape. Half track means there's two tracks. Quarter track means four, etc...
Of course, the number of tracks doesn't mean something is stereo or mono, or how many sides.

Recorded full-track tapes have only one channel of information. Mono. (More on playback in a minute)

See, you can have a half-track with two mono channels, one assigned for each program. Each program would go in the opposite direction. After you get one side done, flip the tape over. There can be one program using two tracks for stereo. The first track would be the left channel; and the second track would be the right one.

Then, there's quarter-track. That means four tracks on one tape. Theoretically, you could have 4 mono tracks of all different programs. This doesn't happen that often. Most often is 2 stereo programs, using two of the four channels. Which 2 tracks do a stereo program use? Is it 1 and 2? NO! (well, yes for a cassette it is). It's 1 and 3. Track 1 is for left, and Track 3 is for right. But...for the other side, it's not track 2 for left and track 4 for right. It's track 4 for left and track 2 for right....Got it? :-) It's just the opposite of the other side.

Now, on should use the appropriate head for the tape configuration. If you're playing a half-track stereo, you don't want to use a full track playback head; or you'll turn the resulting sound into mono. If you're going to listen to something recorded in quarter-track stereo, and you've got a half-track head--all kind of bizarre things could happen. But, listening to an old 1947 full track recording with a quarter-track head could be a really good idea. It gets rid of a lot of noise, because if you turn up the input from track 3 (right) which is the center for the tape you'll get most of the signal. The center is where most of the signal lies in those old full-track tapes.

Analog the midst of life, they are in death, as the Psalms tell us.

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Jay Weitz's "Music Coding and Tagging"

Got the first of my nine annotations for my cataloging internship done--eight to go!

Weitz, Jay. Music Coding and Tagging: MARC 21 Content Designation for Scores and Sound Recordings, 2nd ed. Belle Plaine, Minn.: Soldier Creek Press, 2001.

Weitz’s Music Coding and Tagging is an extremely useful reference tool for music catalogers. This second edition, written over a decade after the first, updates the first edition by incorporating changes made since format integration, new Library of Congress Rule Interpretations, new Music Cataloging Decisions, and often, clarifications made by Jay Weitz himself in the course of his work at the Online Computer Library Center in Dublin, Ohio. It begins with a brief synopsis of the development of music cataloging practices within the library community and with the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules (AACR), and the Machine Readable Cataloging format (MARC). It covers standard practice for cataloging scores and sound recordings within the MARC 21 communications format, particularly standard practice by the Library of Congress. Also, it gives best practice for interpreting the rules for fixed field elements, control fields, and variable fields. There are three useful appendixes: the first covers obsolete and pre-AACR2 fields (which one might uncover as they are editing older catalog copy), the second defines the differences between OCLC and RLIN formats for MARC, and the third includes many helpful full record examples of scores and sound recordings in both OCLC and RLIN formats.

He also appropriately notes which fields are mandatory, and which are optional. Several fields (or subfields, such as those in field 007) that are not needed by libraries, are marked for archival use only. Most helpful for sound recordings catalogers are the extended discussion of the importance of standard numbers and publishers numbers issued by record labels. Field 007 describes the physical characteristics of an item (in coded form, vs. the descriptive version done in field 300, subfields a-c), and he talks at length about what the options are for each subfield. Those unfamiliar with physical formats of audiovisual materials will find elucidation in this area of the text.

One of the other sources for the book was Weitz’s own Q & A column, published in the periodical, Music OCLC Users Group (MOUG) Newsletter. The breadth and depth of his knowledge related to music and audiovisual cataloging serves him well, in giving examples that relate to everything from scores and commercial recordings to unpublished/archival manuscripts and sound recordings. The book is meant to be a complement to existing cataloging manuals and standards, such as AACR, 2nd edition, 2002 revision. It uses examples for illustrative purposes, even though “cataloging by example is a practice generally frowned upon…, because it falsely suggests that the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of cataloging can be safely ignored.” Still, it is very helpful in cases that are out of the ordinary.

I will use this manual in the course of my internship often as a quick reminder as to what one of a field’s subfield or indicator means, or to understand the applicability of a content designator. Part of why it’s so useful is that it is not as terse as MARC 21 Bibliographic Formats or OCLC Bibliographic Formats and Standards. A comparison to biblical interpretation might be appropriate here, for the manuals mean what they say, but they often do not say what they mean. Why should we trust one cataloger’s judgment? One need not in theory, but Weitz always clearly states the rationale and context of each decision and clarification he makes.

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Eyes on the Prize: Performance and Copyright

Pete wrote about what's been happening with Eyes on the Screen. And while I agree with him on all a lot of this and am incredulous by the actions of the license holders, fair use's application to movies is still very shaky, and does not really cover the "performance" of an audiovisual work, esp. As I've discovered by reading the report on rights clearing culture, filmmakers and documentarians do make claims of fair use in their pictures, but usually not publicly or too loudly.

Here's why:

Section 110, Title 17, Chapter 1:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:

(1) 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 that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made;"

So, the problem here is there's no way to get a lawfully made copy. The people responsible for the performance are probably unsure at best about the legality.

House Report No. 94–1476 elucidates some of this language:

"Face-to-Face Teaching Activities. Clause (1) of section 110 is generally intended to set out the conditions under which performances or displays, in the course of instructional activities other than educational broadcasting, are to be exempted from copyright control. The clause covers all types of copyrighted works, and exempts their performance or display “by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution,” where the activities take place “in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction.”
There appears to be no need for a statutory definition of “face-to-face” teaching activities to clarify the scope of the provision. “Face-to-face teaching activities” under clause (1) embrace instructional perform­ances and displays that are not “transmitted.” The concept does not require that the teacher and students be able to see each other, although it does require their simultaneous presence in the same general place. Use of the phrase “in the course of face-to-face teaching activities” is intended to exclude broadcasting or other transmissions from an outside location into classrooms, whether radio or television and whether open or closed circuit. However, as long as the instructor and pupils are in the same building or general area, the exemption would extend to the use of devices for amplifying or reproducing sound and for projecting visual images. The “teaching activities” exempted by the clause encompass systematic instruction of a very wide variety of subjects, but they do not include performances or displays, whatever their cultural value or intellectual appeal, that are given for the recreation or entertainment of any part of their audience."

Works Affected.—Since there is no limitation on the types of works covered by the exemption, teachers or students would be free to perform or display anything in class as long as the other conditions of the clause are met. They could read aloud from copyrighted text material, act out a drama, play or sing a musical work, perform a motion picture or filmstrip, or display text or pictorial material to the class by means of a projector. However, nothing in this provision is intended to sanction the unauthorized reproduction of copies or phonorecords for the purpose of classroom performance or display, and the clause contains a special exception dealing with performances from unlawfully made copies of motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to be discussed below.

Instructors or Pupils.—To come within clause (1), the performance or display must be “by instructors or pupils,” thus ruling out performances by actors, singers, or instrumentalists brought in from outside the school to put on a program. However, the term “instructors” would be broad enough to include guest lecturers if their instructional activities remain confined to classroom situations. In general, the term “pupils” refers to the enrolled members of a class.

Nonprofit Educational Institution.—Clause (1) makes clear that it applies only to the teaching activities “of a nonprofit educational institution,” thus excluding from the exemption performances or displays in profit-making institutions such as dance studios and language schools.

Classroom or Similar Place.—The teaching activities exempted by the clause must take place “in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction.” For example, performances in an auditorium or stadium during a school assembly, graduation ceremony, class play, or sporting event, where the audience is not confined to the members of a particular class, would fall outside the scope of clause (1), although in some cases they might be exempted by clause (4) of section 110. The “similar place” referred to in clause (1) is a place which is “devoted to instruction” in the same way a classroom is; common examples would include a studio, a workshop, a gymnasium, a training field, a library, the stage of an auditorium, or the auditorium itself, if it is actually used as a classroom for systematic instructional activities.

Motion Pictures and Other Audiovisual Works.—The final provision of clause (1) deals with the special problem of performances from unlawfully-made copies of motion pictures and other audiovisual works. The exemption is lost where the copy being used for a classroom performance was “not lawfully made under this title” and the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to suspect as much. This special exception to the exemption would not apply to performances from lawfully-made copies, even if the copies were acquired from someone who had stolen or converted them, or if the performances were in violation of an agreement. However, though the performance would be exempt under section 110 (1) in such cases, the copyright owner might have a cause of action against the unauthorized distributor under section 106 (3), or against the person responsible for the performance, for breach of contract. [...]

Content of Transmission.—Subclause (B) requires that the performance or display be directly related and of material assistance to the teaching content of the transmission.

Intended Recipients.—Subclause (C) requires that the transmission is made primarily for:
(i) Reception in classrooms or similar places normally devoted to instruction, or
(ii) Reception by persons to whom the transmission is directed because their disabilities or other special circumstances prevent their attendance in classrooms or similar places normally devoted to instruction, or
(iii) Reception by officers or employees of governmental bodies as a part of their official duties or employment.
In all three cases, the instructional transmission need only be made “primarily” rather than “solely” to the specified recipients to be exempt. Thus, the transmission could still be exempt even though it is capable of reception by the public at large. Conversely, it would not be regarded as made “primarily” for one of the required groups of recipients if the principal purpose behind the transmission is reception by the public at large, even if it is cast in the form of instruction and is also received in classrooms. Factors to consider in determining the “primary” purpose of a program would include its subject matter, content, and the time of its transmission.

Paragraph (i) of subclause (C) generally covers what are known as “in-school” broadcasts, whether open- or closed-circuit. The reference to “classrooms or similar places” here is intended to have the same meaning as that of the phrase as used in section 110 (1). The exemption in paragraph (ii) is intended to exempt transmissions providing systematic instruction to individuals who cannot be reached in classrooms because of “their disabilities or other special circumstances.” Accordingly, the exemption is confined to instructional broadcasting that is an adjunct to the actual classwork of nonprofit schools or is primarily for people who cannot be brought together in classrooms such as preschool children, displaced workers, illiterates, and shut-ins."


The majority of the Supreme Court in the Aiken case based its decision on a narrow construction of the word “perform” in the 1909 statute. This basis for the decision is completely overturned by the present bill and its broad definition of “perform” in section 101. The Committee has adopted the language of section 110 (5) with an amendment expressly denying the exemption in situations where “the performance or display is further transmitted beyond the place where the receiving apparatus is located”; in doing so, it accepts the traditional, pre-Aiken, interpretation of the Jewell-LaSalle decision, under which public communication by means other than a home receiving set, or further transmission of a broadcast to the public, is considered an infringing act."

In H.R. 2215 (2002), Section 13301:

"Subtitle C: Educational Use Copyright Exemption - Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002 - (Sec. 13301) Revises Federal copyright law to extend the exemption from infringement liability for instructional broadcasting to digital distance learning or distance education. Excludes from such exemption (thus subjecting to infringement liability) any work produced or marketed primarily for performance or display as part of mediated instructional activities transmitted via digital networks, or a performance or display that is given by means of a copy or phonorecord that is not lawfully made and acquired and the transmitting government body or accredited nonprofit educational institution knew or had reasons to believe was not lawfully made and acquired. Allows under specified conditions the performance and display of reasonable and limited portions of any copyrighted work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of a live classroom session, by or in the course of a transmission.

Revises the conditions of such transmission to: (1) require the performance or display to be made by or at the direction of, or under the actual supervision of an instructor as an integral part of a class session offered as a regular part of the systematic mediated instructional activities of a governmental body or an accredited nonprofit education institution; (2) limit its reception to students officially enrolled in the course for which it is made or officers or employees of governmental bodies as a part of their official duties or employment; and (3) require the transmitting body or institution to take specified actions to promote faculty, student, and staff compliance with copyright law. Requires the transmitting body or institution also, in the case of digital transmission, to: (1) apply technological measures that reasonably prevent retention of the work in accessible form by transmission recipients for longer than the class session, and any unauthorized further dissemination of the work in accessible form by such recipients to others; and (2) refrain from engaging in conduct that could reasonably be expected to interfere with technological measures used by copyright owners to prevent such retention or unauthorized further dissemination.

Exempts governmental bodies and accredited nonprofit educational institutions from liability for infringement by reason of the transient or temporary storage of material carried out through the automatic technical process of a digital transmission of the performance or display of that material.

Extends the current ephemeral recording exemption, under specified conditions, to copies or phonorecords embodying a performance or display in digital and analog form for use in making transmissions authorized by this Act.

Declares that this Act does not authorize the conversion of print or other analog versions of works into digital formats, except that such conversion is permitted only with respect to the amount of such works authorized to be performed or displayed if: (1) no digital version of the work is available to the institution; or (2) such version is subject to technological protection measures that prevent its use.

Requires the Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property to report to specified congressional committees on technological protection systems that have been implemented, are available for implementation, or are proposed to be developed to protect digitized copyrighted works and prevent infringement, including upgradeable and self-repairing systems, and systems that have been developed, are being developed, or are proposed to be developed in private voluntary industry-led entities through an open broad based consensus process."

Now, let's look at the sections of US Code, Title 17:

Section 106: "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."

That's the basic one, Section 106, which is then modified by Sections 107-122. Parts 1 and 3-5 are relevant here.

Section 107 covers fair use. It states:

"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

The four factors for fair use are outlined. Factor #1 is probably the most compelling factor given that it is for a school, most of which are either supported by local government or non-profit. Factor #2-- I'm not sure what nature means. Seems like in the case of papers, books, and unpublished materials; the nature argument is more compelling. Documentary films seem to be on more of a sure footing, one would think. Materials consumed for purely/mostly entertainment value would probably be the least likely to meet this factor. Factor #3--Amount: Playing the whole thing. #4--Effect on market: None at the present time, but do any of you get the sense that this scarcity and demand is going to push this video back into the market? I do. The more people ask for something, the more likely it is to commercially redistributed.

That house report also takes note of the following:

"Reproduction and Uses for Other Purposes. The concentrated attention given the fair use provision in the context of classroom teaching activities should not obscure its application in other areas. It must be emphasized again that the same general standards of fair use are applicable to all kinds of uses of copyrighted material, although the relative weight to be given them will differ from case to case."


"The fair use doctrine would be relevant to the use of excerpts from copyrighted works in educational broadcasting activities not exempted under section 110 (2) or 112, and not covered by the licensing provisions of section 118. In these cases the factors to be weighed in applying the criteria of this section would include whether the performers, producers, directors, and others responsible for the broadcast were paid, the size and nature of the audience, the size and number of excerpts taken and, in the case of recordings made for broadcast, the number of copies reproduced and the extent of their reuse or exchange. The availability of the fair use doctrine to educational broadcasters would be narrowly circumscribed in the case of motion pictures and other audiovisual works, but under appropriate circumstances it could apply to the nonsequential showing of an individual still or slide, or to the performance of a short excerpt from a motion picture for criticism or comment."


"The problem of off-the-air taping for nonprofit classroom use of copyrighted audiovisual works incorporated in radio and television broadcasts has proved to be difficult to resolve. The Committee believes that the fair use doctrine has some limited application in this area, but it appears that the development of detailed guidelines will require a more thorough exploration than has so far been possible of the needs and problems of a number of different interests affected, and of the various legal problems presented. Nothing in section 107 or elsewhere in the bill is intended to change or prejudge the law on the point. On the other hand, the Committee is sensitive to the importance of the problem, and urges the representatives of the various interests, if possible under the leadership of the Register of Copyrights, to continue their discussions actively and in a constructive spirit. If it would be helpful to a solution, the Committee is receptive to undertaking further consideration of the problem in a future Congress."

What is a performance? Section 101 tells us the US Code definition.

To “perform” a work means to recite, render, play, dance, or act it, either directly or by means of any device or process or, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.

I'll have to take a trip to the library tomorrow to find out what Black's or West Law Dictionaries say. Luckily, you can't copyright government publications, so I can quote US Code till I'm blue in the face. Which I will be soon if I don't stop. Till tomorrow...

[Please no one take any of what I say as justification to do anything for which you should probably consult someone professionally licensed in these matters. I just want to go through the relevant sections relating to copyright, and get everyone's opinion. Maybe we can go over this section by section if people are interested.]

Burning discs and making labels

This morning, I finished up creating announcements for the file I was editing. It was a recording of Creek Indians from Oklahoma, collected by Frank J. Speck, ca. 1905. Really cool stuff. We create an opening technical announcement, followed by an ATM announcement relating to the content of the item and its provenance. We also add little bits of silence between items and between announcements and content.

I had to record the following announcement into a microphone, using Sound Forge:

This 16-bit, 44.1 k, mono digital file was created in February of 2005 and is considered an access file. It is a flat transfer of the source recording. The source was played back on an Otari 5050 MXIII open reel tape machine and the signal was sent to an Allen and Heath board and into a Mytek Stereo 96 A to D converter, using 16 Super Shaper HR, then into a Dell Optiplex 240 PC with an RME Digi 96 sound card using Sound Forge 6.0.

[Then the content announcement:]

Indiana University. Archives of Traditional Music. Accession number 54-141-F. Oklahoma, Creek Indians. Frank G. Speck, ca. 1905. A copy of EC10" 576.

The ATM data is recorded on the CD itself, while the technical announcement remains only on the digital file. I can see how all this information is important to future generations of archivists and conservators. The technical data helps engineers reconstruct and understand the preservation/digitization process; and maybe will be used as metadata itself (probably for technical and preservation metadata). The ATM announcement is digitized onto the access copies (ATLs) and are on all access copies to give researchers context about the contents of the recording, where the recording resides, the call number, the collector, and the original item shelf number. All this could be used for descriptive and provenance metadata as well.

Later, I burned a copy of the files to CD using CD Architect, and created labels to put in the CD tray. We use a special CD pen to label the disc, and never attach labels to the disc itself--for fear of how long adhesive labels will really last.

Today's preservation quiz was ok this morning--not too bad. We had an interesting lecture about the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC)'s Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. Very detailed and concerned for the proper process and conduct of conservators and organizations that do conservation work. One of the one's that struck me most is the degree to which one is expected to work within their area of competence or expertise. That should go without saying, but I think it's bold and a good practice to actually say it in writing.