Re: Braille copyright violations

On 11/1/96, Richard A. Schafer <schafer[_at_]mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> On 10/31/96, John Noble wrote:
>>
>> Not any more. See the new Copyright Office appropriations bill
>> (HR 3754, Pub.L. 104-197):
>
> Sigh. Naturally, I expect substantive law changes in an
> appropriations bill.

Hey, come on! They got it right. Let's not discourage them.

>> It amends Federal copyright law to provide that 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 in "specialized formats" exclusively for
>> use by blind or other persons with disabilities. Requires the copies
>> or phonorecords to: (1) bear a notice that any further reproduction
>> or distribution in a format other than a specialized format is an
>> infringement; and (2) include a copyright notice identifying the
>> copyright owner and the date of the original publication.
>
> Would that mean that making a Braille copy of a script of (say) West
> Side Story would still be an infringement (assuming it was until now),
> right? Why the limitation to "nondramatic literary work(s)"?

This is just a guess, but to the extent the law is intended to permit audio recordings of books for the blind, extending the exemption to dramatic works would provide royalty-free entree to a recorded performance market which is a) a primary market for screenplays, etc., and b) adequately addressed by market forces in forms equally accessible to the blind and sighted consumer. There are, obviously, dramatic works which are not available in sound recordings, and even works which are available in sound recordings that might usefully be made available in Braille. But all things considered, its a step in the right direction.

John Noble
<jnoble[_at_]dgs.dgsys.com> Received on Tue Nov 05 1996 - 12:37:45 GMT