Copyright Clearance Center

Last updated

Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) is a U.S. company based in Danvers, Massachusetts, [1] (although it is incorporated in New York State), [1] that provides collective copyright licensing services for corporate and academic users of copyrighted materials. CCC procures agreements with rightsholders, primarily academic publishers, and then acts as their agent in arranging collective licensing for institutions and one-time licensing for document delivery services, coursepacks, and other access and uses of texts.

Contents

History

CCC was founded in 1978 as a not-for-profit organization in response to negotiations preceding the United States Copyright Act of 1976. [2] The I.R.S. revoked CCC's tax-exempt status in 1982 and the United States Tax Court affirmed that holding, finding that whatever public benefits CCC's activities might produce, its primary purpose was to "further the economic interest of publishers and copyright owners" and its founders (a group of publishers) had no "interests of any substance beyond the creation of a device to protect their copyright ownership and collect license fees". [3] CCC still maintains a state-level not-for-profit status in the State of New York, [4] but for federal purposes is a for-profit company.

Licensing work

CCC is a broker of licenses, [5] earning a 15% commission on the fees it collects. [5] The company passes more than 70% of its revenues to publishers in the form of royalty payments to rightholders, and another 30% is kept by the company as a fee for its services. [1]

CCC is a primarily US-based rights broker for materials, including millions of in- and out-of-print books, journals, newspapers, magazines, movies, television shows, images, blogs and e-books. CCC licenses copyright-protected content to businesses and academic institutions, and compensates publishers and content creators for the use of their works. Amsterdam-based RightsDirect, the wholly owned European subsidiary of Copyright Clearance Center established in 2010, provides copyright licensing services for European-based companies for print and digital content in books, journals, newspapers, magazines and images.

The "collective licensing" model that CCC employs is distinct from statutory licensing, in that it is voluntary, as opposed to mandated by statute. As a voluntary industry-developed model, CCC has been able to develop and initiate a variety of different licensing schemes, as well as to litigate and legislate on behalf of rightsholders. The voluntary licenses available from Copyright Clearance Center are of two kinds: repertory (or, annual) and transactional. The license systems are offered through various services, for instance, to corporations (the Annual Copyright License) or to academic institutions (the Academic Permissions Service, among others). Through these, and multiple other mechanisms, CCC collects fees which represent royalty payments and then periodically distributes these monies to participating rightsholders. CCC meets its operating expenses through allocating a fraction of these fees.[ citation needed ]

Products

In 2000, CCC released RightsLink, a product that handles automated permission and reprint requests. [6]

CCC later expanded into the search domain, with a suite collectively known as RightFind. To expand this, the company acquired Pubget, a search engine for scientists, in 2012, [7] although this was subsequently closed in 2017. In 2014 the company acquired Infotrieve, a text mining company. [8] In 2015 the company announced that RightFind could now allow users to search CCC for documents and then export them into 3rd party text mining software, currently limited to only Linguamatics or SciBite. [9]

Lobbying and litigation

CCC, along with the Association of American Publishers (AAP), recruited three publishers (Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Sage Publications) to sue Georgia State University, alleging that GSU's e-reserves system infringed copyright. [10] CCC and AAP jointly underwrote the costs of the litigation in the case, Cambridge University Press v. Becker , which cost the plaintiffs several million dollars to litigate initially. [10]

The plaintiffs lost the case, and were ordered to pay the defendant's legal fees when Georgia State University was deemed the "prevailing party". [11] Notwithstanding the "prevailing party" decision, the plaintiffs characterized the case as "flawed" but not a "loss", [12] and nonetheless filed an appeal. [13] The attorneys' fees were estimated by plaintiffs to be "substantial". [12] CCC has announced it will continue to fund 50% of litigation costs on appeal. [12]

CCC has been involved in lobbying and litigation to expand the scope of copyright, and is a founding member of the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO), which has a similar position. [14]

Related Research Articles

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the defendant. A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, operating as Access Copyright is a Canadian not-for-profit copyright collective. It collects revenues from licensed Canadian businesses, government, schools, libraries, and other copyright users for the photocopying of print works and distributes those monies to the rightsholders, such as publishers and authors from Canada and around the world.

A copyright collective is a non-governmental body created by copyright law or private agreement which licenses copyrighted works on behalf of the authors and engages in collective rights management. Copyright societies track all the events and venues where copyrighted works are used and ensure that the copyright holders listed with the society are remunerated for such usage. The copyright society publishes its own tariff scheme on its websites and collects a nominal administrative fee on every transaction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">PRS for Music</span> British music rights society

PRS for Music Limited is a British music copyright collective, made up of two collection societies: the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society (MCPS) and the Performing Right Society (PRS). It undertakes collective rights management for musical works on behalf of its 160,000 members. PRS for Music was formed in 1997 following the MCPS-PRS Alliance. In 2009, PRS and MCPS-PRS Alliance realigned their brands and became PRS for Music.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Research Council Canada National Science Library</span>

The National Science Library (NSL), formerly known as the Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information or CISTI, began in 1917 as the library of the National Research Council of Canada (NRC). NRC is the Government of Canada's premier research and technology organization (RTO), working with clients and partners to provide innovation support, strategic research, scientific and technical services. The library took on the role of national science library unofficially in 1957 and became the official National Science Library in 1966.

Music licensing is the licensed use of copyrighted music. Music licensing is intended to ensure that the owners of copyrights on musical works are compensated for certain uses of their work. A purchaser has limited rights to use the work without a separate agreement.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the standards governing awards of attorneys' fees in copyright cases. The Copyright Act of 1976 authorizes, but does not require, the court to award attorneys' fees to "the prevailing party" in a copyright action. In Fogerty, the Court held that such attorneys'-fees awards are discretionary, and that the same standards should be applied in the case of a prevailing plaintiff and a prevailing defendant.

Arts and media industry trade groups, such as the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), strongly oppose and attempt to prevent copyright infringement through file sharing. The organizations particularly target the distribution of files via the Internet using peer-to-peer software. Efforts by trade groups to curb such infringement have been unsuccessful with chronic, widespread and rampant infringement continuing largely unabated.

Denise Louise Cote is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright troll</span> Party that enforces copyrights for purposes of making money through litigation

A copyright troll is a party that enforces copyrights it owns for purposes of making money through strategic litigation, in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, sometimes without producing or licensing the works it owns for paid distribution. Critics object to the activity because they believe it does not encourage the production of creative works, but instead makes money through the inequities and unintended consequences of high statutory damages provisions in copyright laws intended to encourage creation of such works.

Collective rights management is the licensing of copyright and related rights by organisations acting on behalf of rights owners. Collective management organisations (CMOs), sometimes also referred to as collecting societies, typically represent groups of copyright and related rights owners, i.e.; authors, performers, publishers, phonogram producers, film producers and other rights holders. At the least, rights holders authorize collective rights management organizations to monitor the use of their works, negotiate licenses with prospective users, document correct right management data and information, collect remuneration for use of copyrighted works, ensuring a fair distribution of such remuneration amongst rightsholders. CMOs also act on legal mandates. Governmental supervision varies across jurisdictions.

The Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) is a UK non-profit organisation established in 1983 to perform collective licensing on behalf of its members the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS), Publishers' Licensing Services(PLS), the Design and Artists Collecting Society (DACS) and PICSEL. The Copyright Licensing Agency is based in 35 Ballards Lane, London, N3 1XW.

<i>Cambridge University Press v. Patton</i> American copyright case law

Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al., 1:2008cv01425, was a case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in which three publishers, Cambridge University Press, SAGE Publications, and Oxford University Press, initially filed suit in 2008 against Georgia State University for copyright infringement.

Prenda Law, also known as Steele | Hansmeier PLLP and Anti-Piracy Law Group, was a Chicago-based law firm that ostensibly operated by undertaking litigation against copyright infringement. However, it was later characterized by the United States District Court for Central California in a May 2013 ruling as a "porno-trolling collective" whose business model "relie[d] on deception", and which resembled most closely a conspiracy and racketeering enterprise, referring in the judgment to RICO, the U.S. Federal anti-racketeering law. The firm ostensibly dissolved itself in July 2013 shortly after the adverse ruling although onlookers described Alpha Law Firm LLC as its apparent replacement. In 2014, the ABA Journal described the "Prenda Law saga" as having entered "legal folklore".

Coursepacks are printed collections of readings assembled by teachers to supplement college and university courses.

<i>American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.</i> 1995 American copyright infringement case

American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 60 F.3d 913, was a 1995 U.S. copyright case holding that a private, for-profit corporate library could not rely on fair use in systematically making copies of articles in academic journals for its employees. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a ruling by Judge Pierre Leval of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in favor of the academic publishers who had filed the lawsuit. The case was the first heard by the Second Circuit to seriously consider the question of transformative use, a concept Leval had introduced, in evaluating a fair use claim.

Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court unanimously ruled that a copyright infringement suit must wait until the copyright is successfully registered by the United States Copyright Office.

Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation (IRRO) is a copyright society established under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Its main objective is to ensure that the copyrights of authors are protected and that copyright owners are respected and rewarded when their original works are used and reproduced. The guidelines of regulating copyrights by IRRO are curated in a fair way that rewards the authors, creators, and publishers and allows easy reproduction of their works and publications. The organization deploys the highest ethical standards when it comes to dealing with the rights of authors, collecting and distributing remunerations, and the bonafide funds they hold.

References

  1. 1 2 3 PrivCo Private Company Financial Intelligence
  2. ↑ "Response To Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.'s Request For Business Review Letter (View the related business review request letter)" (PDF). The United States Department of Justice. 7 May 1991. Retrieved 5 May 2022.
  3. ↑ Copyright Clearance Center v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 793 (1982).
  4. ↑ New York State Office of the Attorney General. "Charities Database". Charities NYS. Retrieved 6 May 2022.
  5. 1 2 Zick Rubin, "Let's Spread the Word About Fair Use", Chronicle of Higher Education , Sept. 23, 2012.
  6. ↑ Armstrong, Tracey (2005). "Copyright Clearance Center". In Rupp-Sorrano, Karen (ed.). Licensing In Libraries. Psychology Press. pp. 61–63. ISBN   9780789028792 . Retrieved June 30, 2013.
  7. ↑ "Florence Healthcare raises $1.7 million to move clinical trials research off paper, into the cloud". 3 March 2016. Retrieved 29 October 2018.
  8. ↑ "Copyright Clearance Center Acquires Infotrieve". 18 November 2014. Retrieved 29 October 2018.
  9. ↑ "Copyright Clearance Center Explores New Paths for RightFind". 18 August 2015. Retrieved 29 October 2018.
  10. 1 2 Meredith Schwartz, "Georgia State Copyright Case: What You Need To Know—and What It Means for E-Reserves", Library Journal , May 17, 2012.
  11. ↑ Steve Kolowich, 'The Prevailing Party', Inside Higher Ed (Aug. 13, 2012).
  12. 1 2 3 Andrew Albanese, "Publishers Appeal 'Flawed' Decision in GSU E-Reserves Case", Publishers Weekly , Sept. 11, 2012.
  13. ↑ See Publishers Brief in appeal Archived May 19, 2015, at the Wayback Machine , filed 2013.
  14. ↑ IFRRO website

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.