Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, delivered an opening statement at the subcommittee’s hearing on “Copyright Issues in Education and for the Visually Impaired.”  

“One of the fastest trends in educational uses of technology is online learning. However, distance learning raises all sorts of questions about copyright protection in this environment,” said Congressman Nadler. “Teachers and educators want reliable guidance about what they are permitted to do in the learning environment. We want to teach our students how to be doctors, scientists, innovators, and discourage copyright infringement. So, we have to get this right and find the proper balance between protecting copyright holders’ rights while still ensuring fair use by students and teachers.” 

The following is the full text of Congressman Nadler’s opening statement (as prepared for delivery):

“Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on copyright issues related to education and accessibility.  As you know, the Copyright Act provides exceptions and limitations for education and for the benefit of blind and visually impaired persons.

“Publishers produce a wide variety of educational materials for students and teachers, many of whom now access material through interactive online classes and multimedia formats.

“One of the fastest trends in educational uses of technology is online learning. However, distance learning raises all sorts of questions about copyright protection in this environment.  I would like to hear from the witnesses about whether or not they think the current eligibility requirements for the distance education copyright exception are effective.  As it stands now, the distance education exception is only available to accredited nonprofit institutions and only allows the performance of portions of these types of works without a license.  The online learning environment is different from face-to-face learning, and publishers and authors believe these restrictions are important as there is a greater risk of piracy in an online learning environment. 

“As we examine the online education marketplace, we need to take a look at the Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act (TEACH Act).  The TEACH Act, is located in Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act, and was enacted in 2002, to deal with the increase in online education.  I understand that many educators now say that the TEACH Act is extremely complex, and I would like to hear from our witnesses about ways to make the TEACH Act more workable. 

“The Copyright Act supports uses that will benefit the general public while balancing the rights for authors.  The fair use doctrine applies for the creation of accessible format copies of copyrighted works and may also apply to educational uses. 

“I would like the witnesses to discuss fair use and educational activities as it relates to recent judicial decisions.  It is often difficult to predict how a court will rule when it comes to educational use because fair use is fact specific.  It is also often difficult to provide reliable guidance to teachers and educators, and this has been a major criticism of fair use law.  Teachers and educators want reliable guidance about what they are permitted to do in the learning environment.   We want to teach our students how to be doctors, scientists, innovators, and discourage copyright infringement.  So, we have to get this right and find the proper balance between protecting copyright holders’ rights while still ensuring fair use by students and teachers.

“We should also examine the exception for certain performances and displays of copyrighted works in classrooms.  Section 110(1) allows educators and students to screen films on topics that a class is studying and provides important benefits to the education community.  The use must only be in nonprofit institutions and must be in-person, in the classroom.

“In addition, the Copyright Act contains exceptions for blind and visually impaired persons. In particular, the Chafee amendment has helped provide access to copyrighted works, but the number of authorized entities that may create and distribute accessible works has been an issue of debate.  I look forward to hearing from the witnesses about whether or not the Chafee amendment ought to be read to include the Disability Services Office of a university or the accessibility service of a public library system, as those in the visually impaired community have argued.

“I thank Chairman Coble and Chairman Goodlatte for including these issues as part of the Subcommittee’s review of the Copyright Act.  I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and yield back the balance of my time.”

###