Publishing House Research - Marybeth Peters

Steve Greechie's Interview with Marybeth Peters
Register of Copyright
Library of Congress
October third, 2008

SG: There's so much going on in intellectual property and copyright. From your point of view, what are the major issues?

MP: Where does one start? You know, the issues depend on where you sit. If you're an author, you have one set of issues. If you're a publisher you have another, and if you're a user, it's different too. A lot of the issues we see at the Copyright Office have to do with the digital environment. If I'm a user, what rights are implicated, and if I need permission, where do I go to get those rights? We're struggling right now with regard to music, and for some of the new services, the questions are very similar. If there's stream, is there a reproduction involved that needs to be licensed? Is there a public performance? Are there copies that are distributed?

If I were to talk about the issues worldwide, I would say that there is some tension between the developed countries that have vibrant copyright industries and export their work, and developing countries who don't have large copyright industries. They're on the user side and more interested in international activities that create exceptions that allow them to use work in ways that the law hasn't allowed in the past.

The bottom line in copyright today is: who can make money when so much of the material is available online for free? How do you monetize a copyright owner's, an author's ability to earn a living in a society where technology makes it very easy to find almost everything for free?

SG: How will these issues be solved? Will they be solved through the legal system or through business paradigms or through product development?

MP: They're gonna be solved on many, many levels. The marketplace is one place where things will be solved. We've just recently seen record companies, music publishers, and the online services get together to figure out how to move forward and what kind of money should be paid and based on whether it's a sale of a tonal record or a performing right. Advertising seems to be doing much better as a means of monetizing the use of product than it has in the past, where it's been a percentage of each sale.

Certainly some of it is happening in the courts. They make a decision on whether they can or can't use a work, or whether it's permitted or not permitted. Sometimes they just go and do it and they are sued by a copyright owner and the question is: is it infringing activity under the law as it exists? Some issues are settled through litigation and some are going to be settled by Congress, but that's increasingly difficult.

I worked very hard with regard to libraries around whether law, which was created in a photocopying environment, needs to be updated. That was a very difficult exercise. There were wonderful people who years coming up with the recommendations that the Copyright Office now has. They came up with some very definitive recommendations on areas where change is needed, but they couldn't agree on what the solution should be. All the people who worked on that thought there would be a huge urge to change the law, but it's very quiet. My own personal belief is that the librarians felt that they didn't get as many exceptions as they wanted, and the publishers thought they gave too much. Neither side is very happy - so neither side is pushing it.

SG: But you were happy with the recommendations.

MP: Well, I was happy that people actually looked at what was going on in libraries, and that issues were brought to the forefront around activities that are currently taking place, and what parts of the law should be changed - whether it was that you need to license an activity, or that an exemption should be brought in as a natural progression of an existing exception. It'll be interesting to see how that moves forward.

We've been very involved in orphan works legislation. I actually happen to think it's very good. It would allow more productive uses of existing works when copyright owners are not found. It has been one of the most difficult legislative activities that I have ever seen. One group says "Well, I think this is okay", another group comes forward and says "This is gonna kill me."

This is where formal requirements are really not a part of our system. We really don't know who owns works in the same way that we did many years ago when, in order to have protection, you had to register. Registering a claim, you had to put a notice on a work, so you knew who the owner was. Now, that's all voluntary, so it isn't as easy to find out who owns a work. As stuff is uploaded on the internet, it's not always easy to find out if it's protected, and if it is, who the owner is?

That work was an attempt to make material more accessible, to try to get copyright owners to make themselves known, or, absent that, to put in place legislation that would encourage people to come forward. And ultimately, if nobody did, there would be a way to use the work subject to reasonable compensation when the copyright owner did come forward. But a number of people who are upset with that... a lot of illustrators and photographers whose name is typically not on a work. Legislation today is very, very difficult.

SG: Can we expect the issue will be resolved soon?

MP: I have no idea. The issue will not go away. Whether there will be a legislative solution remains to be seen.

SG: I know that you've worked with the World Intellectual Property Organization. How does globalization affect these issues? How should intergovernmental organizations respond?

MP: The World Intellectual Property Organization is a group of member states. Some of them are very well-developed countries, some are developing and some are the least developed. I will tell you that, in the copyright arena, getting agreement on almost anything has become very problematic. The last time WIPO, did a treaty was in 1996. It has attempted to basically conclude several treaties in the past 12 years - but there has been no agreement.

SG: I have one more question, a little off-topic. As I understand it the Library of Congress is not a legal depository library in the same sense that, say, the Bibliothèque Nationale de France is. Could you clarify this?

MP: Most countries have what's called a legal deposit law that requires people who publish books in those countries to give those books to the national library. The Copyright Law of the United States has a similar requirement except that it's limited to works that are covered by copyright. The legal deposit laws of other countries cover only books. In the United States, the law covers works that are protected by copyright, which the bulk of them are. But it's not just books - all materials are subject to a mandatory deposit provision. You must send two copies of the best edition within three months of publication to the Library of Congress. If you don't, then the Library has the right to demand those works.

I think we have a stronger mandatory deposit law than other countries in the sense that it covers all categories of works.

Any work that comes in through voluntary registration is also available to the Library and that would satisfy the mandatory deposit requirement. But the registration is really part of the mandatory system; they just choose to register, as opposed to just send the copy. The copyright coverage the same.

We transfer probably about one million copies to the Library each year. Maybe 50 percent comes in through registration and 50 percent comes in from mandatory deposit. The bulk of the material is sent automatically by the publisher. If it's expensive, they're probably not gonna send it, and the Library does demand it. The Copyright Acquisitions Division does demands for works that are copyrighted and published in the United States.

We have two parts of this office. One is a registration side where people actually submit applications and copies. And then there's The Copyright Acquisitions Division. It only deals with copies that are sent in through mandatory deposit. There's no application, there's no registration. It's just sending copies for the collections of the Library.

SG: Copyright is automatic, and it applies to all creative works. Is that correct?

MP: It does. Under the mandatory deposit requirement even though you have copyright protection, you have an obligation to send copies of that work to the Library for their collection. The Library has exempted certain categories of work that it doesn't collect.

Interviews