Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

Last updated
Fair Copyright in Research Works Act
Legislation History
Bill Name H.R. 801
Alternate namesConyers Bill
Submitted to United States 111th Congress
Published onFebruary 3, 2009
Introduced by Representative John Conyers (D-MI14)
Committee Assignments
Committee House Committee on the Judiciary
Sub-committee Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy
Status
Pending
Related Legislation
H.R. 6845

The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (Bill H.R 801 IH Archived 2015-11-05 at the Wayback Machine , also known as the "Conyers Bill") was submitted as a direct response to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy; intending to reverse it.

Contents

The bill's alternate name relates it to U.S Representative John Conyers (D-MI), who introduced it at the 111th United States Congress on February 3, 2009. [1]

The initiative of the bill is to amend Title 17 of the United States Code with respect to works associated with specific funding agreements. It would ultimately prohibit federal agencies from placing any conditions for copyright transfer on funding agreements; effectively making the current NIH policy illegal.

Background - Related statutory laws and policies

Title 17 of the United States Code is the title that outlines United States copyright law. Sections 106 – on the exclusive rights in copyrighted works – and 201 – on copyright ownership and transfer of ownership – are both referenced in H.R.801. The amendment it proposes would be in reference to funding agreements in the scope of those segment of the title.

The NIH Public Access Policy is a policy which mandates that articles reporting research funded by the National Institutes of Health must be made available to the public for free through PubMed Central within 12 months of publication.

The proposed statute

H.R.801: The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act would, specifically, amend Sections 201 (d) and (e) of Title 17 of the United States Code – which pertain to the transfer of copyright ownership.

The code would be amended by way of adding limitations on the Federal Government, with regard to funding agreements – i.e. "a contract, grant, or other agreement entered into between a Federal agency and any person under which funds are provided by a Federal agency, in whole or in part, for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research activities" – on extrinsic works – i.e. "any work, other than a work of the United States Government, that is based upon, derived from, or related to, a funding agreement" which represents or stems from the value or process of one or more non-federal and non-party affiliated entities – who have "funded [it] in substantial part". [1]

The bill states that:

1. On the transfer of copyright ownership:

2. Federal agencies are also prohibited from imposing or facilitating terms that may result in the approval or waiver of any of the previously stated bans, for a funding agreement. [1]

3. Federal agencies may not apply any of the rights granted by Title 17 in an extrinsic work, to material developed under a funding agreement that may "restrain or limit the acquisition or exercise of [said rights]." [1]

Provisions of the bill

Conditions

The law would only be applicable in the event that:

Process

"review and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on [its] views on section 201(f) of title 17, United States Code,
as added by subsection (a) of this section, taking into account the development of and access to extrinsic works and materials developed
under funding agreements, including the role played by publishers in the private sector and others" [2]

H.R.801's legislative history

As of March 16, 2009 H.R.801 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, which has in turn referred it to the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. [3]

This bill has not become law. Sessions of Congress last two years, at the end of which all proposed bills and resolutions that have not been passed are removed. Members may and often do reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate. [4]

An exact replica of this bill (H.R. 6845.IH Archived 2009-08-07 at the Wayback Machine ) was first introduced in the 110th Congress, where it died. [5]

Reception

Initial reactions

The bill has been the topic of numerous articles, in online civic and scholarly publications. Its supporters are predominantly professional associations and publishing houses, while the opposition includes library associations and educational institutions. [6]

Support

Groups, including the Association of American Publishers (AAP), support Conyers' bill, as they feel that the NIH Policy "infringes on their business rights, insofar as it grants the public a right to this publicly funded work". [7] In December 2008, the AAP contacted President Barack Obama voicing concerns that "the NIH mandate severely diminishes both the market and copyright protection for these copyrighted works to which not-for-profit and commercial publishers have made significant value-added contributions". [8]

Criticism

One of the concerns regarding this bill is the possibility that average Americans will lose access to medical research, that the NIH Public Access Policy grants them. The American Research Libraries, the Alliance for Taxpayer Access, [9] and a coalition of patients' rights organizations, are among numerous critics of the act. [10] Academic institutions including Harvard University, Cornell University, [11] and Earlham College are openly supporting the NIH Public Access Policy and opposing Conyers' Bill along with their respective libraries, also stressing the importance of public access to biomedical research and results. [12] Cornell University claims to be affected as the NIH is one of the components of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), "the largest funder of research at Cornell. According to the Office of the Vice Provost of Research, the DHHS accounted for more than 50 percent of federally sponsored research – or over $190 million per fiscal year – in both 2007 and 2008". Their Libraries view the bill as a threat to the "state-of-the-art digital repository where research can be preserved," that the policy provides and a potential loss of acquired research due to the bill's prohibition of copyright transfer from author to publisher. [13]

Related Research Articles

The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act (DMCRA) was a proposed law in the United States that directly challenges portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and would intensify Federal Trade Commission efforts to mandate proper labeling for copy-protected CDs to ensure consumer protection from deceptive labeling practices. It would also allow manufacturers to innovate in hardware designs and allow consumers to treat CDs as they have historically been able to treat them.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Conyers</span> American politician from Michigan (1929–2019)

John James Conyers Jr. was an American politician of the Democratic Party who served as a U.S. representative from Michigan from 1965 to 2017. The districts he represented always included part of western Detroit. During his final three terms, his district included many of Detroit's western suburbs, as well as a large portion of the Downriver area.

A work of the United States government, is defined by the United States copyright law, as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties." Under section 105 of US copyright law, such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law and are therefore in the public domain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1968</span> United States law

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 is a landmark law in the United States signed into law by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during the King assassination riots.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bayh–Dole Act</span>

The Bayh–Dole Act or Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act is United States legislation permitting ownership by contractors of inventions arising from federal government-funded research. Sponsored by senators, Birch Bayh of Indiana and Bob Dole of Kansas, the Act was adopted in 1980, is codified at 94 Stat. 3015, and in 35 U.S.C. § 200–212, and is implemented by 37 C.F.R. 401 for federal funding agreements with contractors and 37 C.F.R 404 for licensing of inventions owned by the federal government.

Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. 302 (2012), was a Supreme Court case that dealt with copyright and the public domain. It held that the "limited time" language of the United States Constitution's Copyright Clause does not preclude the extension of copyright protections to works previously in the public domain.

PubMed Central (PMC) is a free digital repository that archives open access full-text scholarly articles that have been published in biomedical and life sciences journals. As one of the major research databases developed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), PubMed Central is more than a document repository. Submissions to PMC are indexed and formatted for enhanced metadata, medical ontology, and unique identifiers which enrich the XML structured data for each article. Content within PMC can be linked to other NCBI databases and accessed via Entrez search and retrieval systems, further enhancing the public's ability to discover, read and build upon its biomedical knowledge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uruguay Round Agreements Act</span> US free trade law with implications for intellectual property

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act is an Act of Congress in the United States that implemented in U.S. law the Marrakesh Agreement of 1994. The Marrakesh Agreement was part of the Uruguay Round of negotiations which transformed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) into the World Trade Organization (WTO). One of its effects is to give United States copyright protection to foreign works that had previously been in the public domain in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">FAIR USE Act</span>

The "Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing United States Entrepreneurship Act of 2007" was a proposed United States copyright law that would have amended Title 17 of the U.S. Code, including portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to "promote innovation, to encourage the introduction of new technology, to enhance library preservation efforts, and to protect the fair use rights of consumers, and for other purposes." The bill would prevent courts from holding companies financially liable for copyright infringement stemming from the use of their hardware or software, and proposes six permanent circumvention exemptions to the DMCA.

The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 is a United States law that increases both civil and criminal penalties for trademark, patent and copyright infringement. The law also establishes a new executive branch office, the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Term Extension Act</span> United States copyright law

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act – also known as the Copyright Term Extension Act, Sonny Bono Act, or (derisively) the Mickey Mouse Protection Act – extended copyright terms in the United States in 1998. It is one of several acts extending the terms of copyrights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Act of 1976</span> United States law

The Copyright Act of 1976 is a United States copyright law and remains the primary basis of copyright law in the United States, as amended by several later enacted copyright provisions. The Act spells out the basic rights of copyright holders, codified the doctrine of "fair use", and for most new copyrights adopted a unitary term based on the date of the author's death rather than the prior scheme of fixed initial and renewal terms. It became Public Law number 94-553 on October 19, 1976 and went into effect on January 1, 1978.

The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time limit, and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1928, are in the public domain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

The copyright law of South Africa governs copyright, the right to control the use and distribution of artistic and creative works, in the Republic of South Africa. It is embodied in the Copyright Act, 1978 and its various amendment acts, and administered by the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission in the Department of Trade and Industry. As of March 2019 a major amendment to the law in the Copyright Amendment Bill has been approved by the South African Parliament and is awaiting signature by the President.

An open-access mandate is a policy adopted by a research institution, research funder, or government which requires or recommends researchers—usually university faculty or research staff and/or research grant recipients—to make their published, peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers open access (1) by self-archiving their final, peer-reviewed drafts in a freely accessible institutional repository or disciplinary repository or (2) by publishing them in an open-access journal or both.

The Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) is a proposal to require open public access to research funded by eleven U.S. federal government agencies. It was originally proposed by Senators John Cornyn and Joe Lieberman in 2006 and then again in 2010, and then once more in 2012.

Fair dealing is a statutory exception to copyright infringement, and is also referred to as a user's right. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, it is more than a simple defence; it is an integral part of the Copyright Act of Canada, providing balance between the rights of owners and users. To qualify under the fair dealing exception, the dealing must be for a purpose enumerated in sections 29, 29.1 or 29.2 of the Copyright Act of Canada, and the dealing must be considered fair as per the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Research Works Act</span>

The Research Works Act, 102 H.R. 3699, was a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives at the 112th United States Congress on December 16, 2011, by Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) and co-sponsored by Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY). The bill contained provisions to prohibit open-access mandates for federally funded research and effectively revert the United States' National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy, which requires taxpayer-funded research to be freely accessible online. If enacted, it would have also severely restricted the sharing of scientific data. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of which Issa is the chair. Similar bills were introduced in 2008 and 2009 but have not been enacted since.

The NIH Public Access Policy is an open access mandate, drafted in 2004 and mandated in 2008, requiring that research papers describing research funded by the National Institutes of Health must be available to the public free through PubMed Central within 12 months of publication. PubMed Central is the self-archiving repository in which authors or their publishers deposit their publications. Copyright is retained by the usual holders, but authors may submit papers with one of the Creative Commons licenses.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Bill Text 111th Congress (2009-2010) H.R.801.IH". The Library of Congress. Archived from the original on 2015-11-05. Retrieved 2010-12-01.
  2. ↑ "The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act". Archived from the original on 2015-11-05. Retrieved 2010-12-01.
  3. ↑ "govtrack.us- H.R. 801: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act". Civic Impulse, LLC.
  4. ↑ "H.R. 801: Fair Copyright in Research Works". govtrack.us.
  5. ↑ "H.R.801 - Fair Copyright in Research Works Act". Open Congress. Archived from the original on 2011-08-19.
  6. ↑ "H.R.801 - Fair Copyright in Research Works Act". Open Congress. Archived from the original on 2011-08-19.
  7. ↑ Willinsky, John (18 March 2009). "A (Publishing) House Divided: Scholarly Publishers in Support and Opposition to Public Access to Research". Slaw.
  8. ↑ Willinsky, John (18 March 2009). "A (Publishing) House Divided: Scholarly Publishers in Support and Opposition to Public Access to Research". Slaw.
  9. ↑ "Who Opposes the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act". The Alliance for Taxpayer Access. Archived from the original on 2011-06-26.
  10. ↑ Wojcicki, Esther (February 25, 2009). "Bill Before Congress May Close Medical Research to Average American". The Huffington Post.
  11. ↑ "Cornell Librarians Protest Bill Closing Access to NIH Research". Cornell University. 30 March 2009.
  12. ↑ "Harvard's letter opposing the Conyers bill". Earlham College.
  13. ↑ "Cornell Librarians Protest Bill Closing Access to NIH Research". Cornell University. 30 March 2009.
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.