^B00:00:11
>> Kevin Amer: We are about ready to start Session 3 of today's roundtable.  Session three has to do with state policies and practices to prevent and address infringement.  Just to remind everyone, again, of a few housekeeping matters.  Panelists, if you could please remember just to keep your audio muted when you're not speaking. That would be helpful.  To those watching on the public link, for anyone who is interested in participating in our open mic session at the end of the day, if you could please sign up using the link in the chat by 3:00 today, that would be great.  And our open mic session will start at 5:15.  So, let's get started on panel three. I'll be primarily asking the questions along with my colleague, Mark Gray and Regan Smith.  We're really grateful to all of you for participating.  We wanted to have a specific panel that focuses on state policies and practices to address infringement.  In this session, we may sort of spend a little more time with each of the panelists to sort of drill down on specific policies, so just would invite all the other panelists to be patient.  We will get to you, and we just want to sort of get as much specific information as we can about particular policies. So, why don't we sort of combine the introductions with sort of a brief overview statement, if you would, about your overall policies and practices in your state or your entity that are designed both to avoid infringement and then also to address instances of infringement when they do arise.  Mr. Butler, I'd like you to start.  
>> Brandon Butler: Absolutely, thanks Kevin. So, hi. I'm Brandon Butler. I'm the director of information policy at the University of Virginia library, and I'm a copyright lawyer who's been working with libraries and library groups for more than a decade now.  The bulk of my experience in this realm is not with any particular institution but actually sort of helping multiple institutions, libraries, educators, and students kind of understand their rights and frankly, typically, to overcome the sort of chilling effects of fear of copyright liability. And so, the notion that we feel unleashed by sovereign immunity always makes me kind of smile. So, I'm very happy to speak to my experience at UVA, but I'm also here actually kind of with a hat on for a couple of associations who play a big role in helping to ensure that folks understand copyright and live within it. And so, the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries is one group. We filed comments in this proceeding, written comments, and also, I'm the law and policy advisor to the Software Preservation Network.  And that's a group that joined an amicus brief in the Cooper case. And so, to say a little bit about those two organizations in particular, ASRL is a group of libraries in the Southeast, research libraries, and it has a broad array of programs that help ensure that all of its members have access to good information about copyright.  And so, there's a scholar communications interest group within ASRL with a list serve where people talk to each other about copyright questions they're having.  They're able to compare best practices.  We have a webinar series, a really rich webinar series that ASRL hosts where, again, copyright lawyers and experts are a very common fixture in that webinar series with the goal of helping aid in compliance on ASRL member institution campuses. A more specific example, during the, you know, the aftermath of the COVID crisis, when all the institutions when on lockdown, ASRL hosted a series of copyright office hours where some of the resources, some of the institutions with the greatest resources and access to kind of really strong expertise made themselves available to talk to other institutions who might not have access to that and so that there could be, again, conversations within the ASRL community about the best way to sort of reckon with this sort of unprecedented change in circumstances.  And then, of course, ASRL also joins amicus briefs and these cases to, in cases like Cooper, to try to make, again, that the law is consistent with our practices and vice versa, right.  I'll say a couple words about SPN, and then I'll be done, I promise.  The Software Preservation Network similarly has been really focused on copyright in part for, something I'll talk, I hope I get a chance to talk about later, which is the really powerful, chilling effect that copyright has had specifically on software preservation and anxiety about copyright and uncertainty about copyright.  And so, one of the first things that the Software Preservation Network did as a relatively young organization was to engage with the DMCA process. So, we were aware of how the DMCA affected software preservation. There was certainly no one who said, but wait a minute, you know, nine of us are public institutions. The law doesn't matter, right.  Instead, the response was, well, how do we interact productively with the legal system. So, we obtained a DMCA exemption. We developed resources for members explaining the scope of that rule, so there's literally a sort of checklist. You know, if you can tick all 12 of these boxes, then you qualify for the exemption. We publicized that.  We held webinars about it. We host monthly chats similar to ASRL for folks to talk about the questions that are coming up on their campuses and how best to resolve them. And again, we engage with court cases. We watch court cases closely, and we engage with them as amicus filers.  And so, I guess my overall point with those two hats on is, you know, this is a world where if we thought there was no, this was not a big issue for us or that we could afford to be lackadaisical about it, that certainly isn't evidenced in the way that we coordinate and invest our time together to try to understand and comply with the law. So, thanks a lot. It's good to be here. 
>> Kevin Amer:  Thank you very much.  Ms. Dooley.  
^M00:07:08
^M00:07:15
>> Yvonne Dooley: Hello. My name is Yvonne Dooley, and I'm the business librarian and copyright specialist at the University of North Texas, and as far as our policies and procedures with regard to copyright, copyright law, we are very, we have very strong policies outlying our copyright compliance. We have a copyright compliance policy that specifically states what kind of, where we outline the law. We give example in compliance with the U.S. copyright law, and we also outline copyright infringement and what, and what that means and various discipline, criminal penalties as well as disciplinary actions that UNT can take place in.  So, my overall statement is just that as a university we respect copyright law. We try to install that in our faculty, staff, and students, and that's what I'm here to demonstrate today. 
>> Kevin Amer: Thank you.  Mr. Evans. 
^M00:08:32
^M00:08:43
Oh, I think you're muted, sir. 
^M00:08:44
^M00:08:49
>> Harold Evans: Did you not hear me?  
>> Kevin Amer: No. We can hear you now though. 
>> Harold Evans: Oh, I'm sorry. My apologies. I had to switch to the headphones because I was having some audio problems earlier.  But what I was saying though, I the associate vice president legal and research for the University of Arkansas System, which is comprised of 20 campuses and units, probably more than 50,000 and thousands of faculty and staff members, and I'm essentially the in-house intellectual property counsel for the university.  You know, and one of my duties is to be a resource for questions about use of copyright and materials, particularly in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. And I, on an annual basis, try to visit as many of those campuses as I can, and I have a presentation called copyright 101, you know, that essentially goes, you know, it's an introduction to copyright law and to advise faculty and staff on what their rights and responsibilities are under the copyright act.  And one of the things that I go through is, you know, the things that they can and cannot do or should and should not do, both to protect their own copyright materials but to ensure that they do not run afoul of the copyright law and explain explicitly to those individuals, you know, the possible penalties that may be assessed against them on an individual basis.  You know, the issue of sovereign immunity is really the very last issue that I mentioned in my presentation because basically it's to impress upon them what their personal liability may be regarding, you know, their use of materials for which they have not sought permission. And I, you know, go through the, you know, the four-factor test for fair use and explain to them, you know, just what the limitation are and to the extent that, you know, the damages are part of a claim brought against them, and that is the issue, that's when the issue of sovereign immunity does rise, because as the, as the intellectual property counsel for the university, one of the things that I, you know, that I have to be aware of are the financial resources of the university, and really, you know, I have no authority to agree to pay damages for anyone. One thing that may not be unique about the State of Arkansas but that should be understood that the university as a state entity has no authority to pay damages unless those damages have been assessed by the Arkansas State Claims Commission. So, there is a process and a remedy for those who believe that their, you know, their copyright works have been infringed by a state entity, you know, they can file a claim for damages in the same claims commission. So, that's one resource that is available to those individuals, but I as a legal counsel for the university have no authority to agree to pay damages to anyone based on claims for infringement. But in any case, you know, the university does make a suitable effort to make those students and staff aware of rights and responsibilities under the copyright act.  And that's, you know, that's sort of a summary of my presentation. 
>> Kevin Amer: Thank you very much.  Mr. Klaus, I believe that you're the only nonrepresentative of a state entity here. So, we're very much interested in your perspective. 
>> Kurt Klaus: Well, it's great to be here.  Right.  I was wondering if I was in the right section.  Yeah.  My name's Kurt Klaus. I'm a partner at the law firm of Dunlap, Bennett, and Ludwig over here in Washington, DC, and I lead the media and entertainment law practice here. And prior to the practice of law, I actually shot regional and national TV commercials and worked on feature films in the production department, feature films. And to the extent of my practice, and I'm a commercial attorney, so I do transactions. I'm not a litigator.  So, I'm on the front lines with folks, people that are producing the content that you're seeing. We do have occasion to interact with libraries.  We do have occasion to interact with other state agencies.  A lot of what I do as far as going through processes with state and local governments has to do with access, and to the extent that clients have asked me, you know, such and such a state, or I've seen a photograph of mine being used by a state that's not licensed or a local government or something like that, you know, what are my options to be paid for that. You know, the typical response from me is, well, you know, there's this thing called state sovereignty, and I'm not sure, you know, that you would want to engage a state.  You might want to.  Our first route would be to try to negotiate some sort of a license or at least make them aware, try to find the responsible party within the state and make them aware of this usage that's not authorized.  That's what I'm going to say now.  So, I hope to get some good questions and be more responsive.  
>> Kevin Amer: Great. Great.  Thank you very much.  I believe Ms. Lanier is next.  
>> Raven Lanier: Hi. I'm Raven Lanier, and I work at the University of Michigan. I have a split position that's between the Library Copyright Office and our Center for Academic Innovation, which works closely with faculty and teams across the university in developing online learning initiatives including both online degree program courses, so only credit-bearing courses, and massive open online courses or MOOCs.  I've worked at the university for almost two and a half years now. My major role in each of my positions is to educate and consult on matters of copyright. This frequently involves talking to people about how they can lawfully use the works of others either through fair use or another exception or from asking permission to use the work. So, I consult regularly with students, faculty, staff with the library when there are issues, and I'm generally involved with the Center for Academic Innovation whenever there are any copyright issues or concerns that come up there.  
>> Kevin Amer: Great. Thank you.  Ms. Samberg, I believe you're next. 
>> Rachael Samberg: Thank you very much for this opportunity.  My name is Rachael Samberg, and I am also a copyright lawyer as well as the scholarly communication officer and program director of UC Berkeley Library's Office of Scholarly Communication Services.  My office offers literally thousands of consultations and dozens of trainings every single year for scholars, faculty, and students on our campus about responsibly using and managing copyright in their research, publishing, and teaching.  My office also sets policy for and advises the library and supports other university campus departments regarding the copyright decisions that they and we make on behalf of the university.  One of the core questions in the roundtable is whether or how copyright-related behavior is undertaken by the university as opposed to individual employees. So, I think it will be helpful today to understand what offices like mine across the country actually do to set policy and to educate and guide campus units and departments on copyright-related decision making. I'm going to address that today by dividing policies and procedures for two categories of purported state actors. One, the individual researchers, instructors, and students, and two, the state institution itself. 
^M00:17:56 
So, departments, units, or programs or university-created policies that guide individuals to take action. And in doing that, I'll underscore that we not only don't see credible evidence of widespread or reckless infringement but in fact, the policies that we actually have and the procedures that we undertake prevent and address any potential infringement. 
>> Kevin Amer: Thank you.  And Mr. Shontz, I think you were last but not least. 
>> Douglas Shontz: Thank you.  Well, thanks, all, for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Douglas Shontz. I'm the chief intellectual property counsel for the University of Illinois. I'm also here today part representing the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities, of which the University of Illinois is a member. And, you know, I'm speaking, in terms of, you know, policies and practices, I'm speaking about my home university's policies and practices, not the association, but I can tell you that in addition that what we do specifically here at the University of Illinois that, you know, my counterparts and fellow members of the APLU also are generally extremely diligent about having policies and practices to comply.  You know, our policies, you know, across the board comply with copyright law.  We all, you know, collectively spend, you know, millions of dollars in license fees each year.  We have contracting offices that handle license agreements.  We have dedicated copyright librarians. We have posted policies, and I think Ms. Samberg was actually making an excellent important distinction that some of the folks listening on the round table today might not be aware of is that, you know, we as universities, we have duties to our institution in terms of institutional work but that we also have a large population of students and faculty who are, you know, largely independent actors, and we still spend, you know, hundreds of hours, and you know, and put tremendous resources into helping them comply with copyright law as well. For example, our copyright librarian here at the University of Illinois probably had, you know, in the neighborhood of 200+ individual one-on-one consultations over the course of the last year with students and faculty talking about how to comply with copyright law for their work. She also gives about 50 workshops a year to students, faculty, and staff across campus. We have a website laying out, you know, providing resources and guidance to people about both their roles as faculty and students for complying with copyright law as well as for institutional work for, you know, for staff and for, you know, for research purposes. So, you know, in general, as I think as Ms. Samberg said, and as you've probably heard from folks throughout the day so far is that we really, you know, we really put a lot of effort into compliance with all intellectual property law including copyright law and that our practice is to address each allegation of infringement in the same manner, that we examine it, we take it seriously, and we address it as believe appropriate and compliant in compliance with the law.  
>> Kevin Amer: Great. Thank you.  That's a very helpful overview from all of you, and you've identify, you know, several issues that I think we want to drill down on. I think I want to just start by just asking a little bit about kind of what the bases for your adherence, you know, for your handling of intellectual property cases may be.  You know, we saw in some of the comments that, you know, there's a strong set of sort of informal institutional norms among state libraries and universities. We've heard today that, you know, how important it is that universities are themselves generators of lots of copyright works and active participants in the intellectual property ecosystem. I'm wondering, you know, to what extent your copyright policies are sort of governed by those sorts of norms or whether there are sort of more formal laws or policies that we should be aware of as well.  Yes, Ms. Samberg. 
>> Rachael Samberg: So, I know that a lot of us can build on this, so I'll just take one piece of what you asked, and I'll talk about policy that's set by campus, different campus departments and specifically the library.  So, one way in which the library utilizes or consumes copyrighted content is through special collections digitization or making our collections materials available online. We've expressly set policy regarding the workflows and guidance on how to do that responsibly, our responsible access workflows.  They are to express comply with copyright law whenever we review collections or materials for digitization and online hosting.  That's there. With that express policy there's no intentionality of infringement, much less a widespread effort to infringe. Importantly, we also have a policy on what happens if we make a mistake. Again, this is a public policy that apply to the library. To the extent that we err in the research we do about a collection or make an incorrect fair use determination, at least one that someone disagrees with anyway, we have something called a community engagement policy that invites people to contact us if they think we've gone astray in our assessment.  And under that policy, we expressly take material down or other remedial measures as appropriate including with respect to metadata and other materials.  We do not, as part of that policy, and have not ever resulted to relying on sovereign immunity to stand on keeping the content available.  Again, we take it down, review it for copyright, if we ever receive such a complaint, but in the five years I've been at UC Berkeley, we have not even had to take anything down because we've never even received a takedown request based on purported copyright infringement. I also want to point out that these policies that I just mentioned are adoptable and adaptable by other institutions and have already been adopted and adopted by other U.S. cultural heritage institutions and state institutions so that they can also understand how to provide responsible online access to research-rich collections.  I can keep going, but I'll turn it over to others to add more about their policies  too.  
>> Kevin Amer: Thank you very much.  Would others like to weigh in? 
^M00:25:37
^M00:25:42
>> Brandon Butler: I can just echo Rachel.  We have very similar policies at the University of Virginia. We have a policy for folks who find something in our digital collections that they believe shouldn't be there. There's a contact point that's routed to, you know, a set of people within the library including me. The item is taken down immediately. We vet that claim, and we resolve it.  And similarly, you know, we've just adopted a new digital collections workflow, and again, I was involved in writing that policy, and the policy put a very high premium on, you know, confidence about the status of the works that we're digitizing and whether we can make them lawfully accessible. And then I'm on the, I'm also on the team that evaluates proposals. And so, when somebody says, here's a collection I want to digitize, that doesn't make it past the post until I say yes, that's okay.  And so, those are the kinds of policies that I think or actually you'll find fairly common, and thanks to, you know, superheroes like Rachael and some other leaders in the field who write these policies and publish them, there are standards that folks are, I think, adopting so that we're all kind of doing similar stuff because we work together and talk to each other about this.  
>> Kevin Amer: Thank you.  And so, just to clarify, so it's a policy you're referring to, you know, it sounds like is sort of written at the library level. Is it then sort of ratified at the university level, or, you know, does it have some sort of official effect? 
>> Rachael Samberg: So, different departments have different policies throughout the university.  However, they are governed at a super structure by system-wide and campus-wide, at least within the University of California system. So, system-wide copyright policy and a campus-wide university policy.  And that campus-wide policies provides similar guidance and instruction and repercussions for complying with copyright law in various contexts.  So, for example, use of materials in instruction, use of materials in research. Our policy at the library was created in the specific context of some activities that the library needs to undertake. So, we both adhere to the system-wide policy, but we have these extra additional policies we've created to govern, that comport with the university policy, to govern the specific needs that our department has.  
>> Brandon Butler: Yeah, precisely. We have an umbrella policy at the highest level, and you know, I mean to give you a sense, it took us, it was, you know, as these things do, many months of multiple stakeholder convenings to develop this kind of a policy and then kind of promulgate it within the library, you know, taking the digitization policy as an example. So, it's a, you know, it's a serious thing that is taken very seriously, and now that it's in place, it is followed because it took a lot of time to make it. But, you know, it's an internal policy, so you won't find it on, you know, on our website, but it governs how we operate internally in terms of what we're willing to digitize. 
>> Rachael Samberg: And our policies at our library are online. We've made them available expressly to be used and adopted by other institutions. Again, I just gave one example of the policies we set around digitization. I'm happy to provide other policies we've set such as related to course, electronic course content material or duplication of library materials.  We've, again, set policy to support copyright compliance with respect to other library-specific functions as well.  
>> Kevin Amer: Thank you.  That's helpful. One thing I wanted to ask about, and others, you know, will have the opportunity to talk about specific policies, but I did want to ask a question that we were discussing during the last panels, which is that, you know, we've really heard a very clear message from the state representatives who have been here and that sovereign immunity is not something that they assert very frequently, you know.  It's sort of a last resort, I think, you know, people have mentioned. So, I wonder, you know, but at the same time there's a lot of concern that we've heard and in the comments expressed about the idea that sovereign immunity could be taken away. So, I wonder, you know, if you could talk a little bit about sort of what role you see sovereign immunity playing in terms of, you know, your institution's ability to carry out their work. And if it, you know, I think you can tell what I'm getting at. You know, if it's something that is rarely, if ever, asserted, you know, just that how do you reconcile that we the idea that it's a threat to take it away? 
^M00:31:13
[ Inaudible Comments ]
^M00:31:14
>> Douglas Shontz: Go ahead, Mr. Evans.  Sorry. 
>> Harold Evans: No, no.  I was just going to say that, you know, I sort of see it as a catastrophic insurance policy, you know, to prevent tremendous damage to the treasury of the State of Arkansas, but more specifically to the financial resources of the University of Arkansas and its various campuses. The thing that I mentioned before thought that may be different about the state Arkansas is that we do have a state claims commission.  So, if an individual does feel aggrieved by an action of a state entity and particularly of the University of Arkansas, that then that claim can be brought in the state claims commission. You know, I've been representing the university both inside and outside for 35 years, so I've seen, you know the kinds of complaints and actions taken against the university.  But there have been very, well, there's been only one federal lawsuit brought against the university actually for copyright infringement. It was in, I believe, it was in 2007, and the damage portion of the claim was dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds, but the [inaudible] part was allowed to go forward. And the federal district court at the time had noted that same plaintiff had brought a claim in the state claims commission and had been awarded $15,000 for infringement of copyright.  So, the court basically dismissed the entire case because the judge took the position that the issue had been resolved within the state claims commission.  But over the years, you know, the claims that we have received have been almost always involving a student who has downloaded a video game, in fact I get those probably on a biweekly basis for some student, or for some reason in recent years Sims 4 have become very popular among students on a particular campus. But opposition of that, you know, those come to me because I'm the designated agent under the DMCA, and so I get all of those. And so, you know, I refer as soon as I get them to the person in charge of our information technology department on the respective campus, and that person deals directly with the students.  And usually their computer privileges are suspended for a period time, you know, as a deterrent. And if the person continues to do it, then their privileges are terminated, and that student may be subject to other disciplinary under the student conduct policy. So, those are the kinds of things, you know, that we deal with.  There have been a few instances where I received claims of infringement because of the inadvertent use of photograph on a newsletter. In fact, the most recent one was a newsletter that had been published by our agricultural extension service.  We immediately took that down and responded to the individual and explained the actions taken. Now, to the extent that a license fee is demanded, if we want to continue the use of the photograph, we pay the license fee, but when it's presented to us as a damage claim for past use, we have no authority to do that unless the individual, you know, presents a claim to the state claims commission.  
^M00:35:24
^M00:35:29
[ Inaudible Comments ]
^M00:35:30
>> Kevin Amer: I'm sorry, go ahead, Doug. 
>> Douglas Shontz: I was going to say that I think one of the things I would start by pointing out is what we're talking about here is abrogating a foundational constitution right, and that should never be taken lightly. It should never be, you know, treated in the manner that, you know, it should be sort of, you know, it should be a very, very high standard, you know, probably to the point of, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt.  You know, in the same way if you were going to contemplate legislation that's going to impinge or abrogate parts of First Amendment rights or, you know, any other, you know, Fourth Amendment rights. I mean this is a constitutional right for states that we're talking about here. So, there should be a very, very high bar to it, and what the, you know, what I'm hearing over this, you know, over the course of the multiple panels is, and I think what Mr. Evans was just laying out is a great example, right, is that the injunctive relief went forward. The harm that was alleged was taken care of. What was not permitted to go forward was, you know, was a large damage claim, and the theme that I'm hearing throughout these panels during the course of the day is really that folks are upset that they don't get to pursue statutory damages, that there isn't, you know, that there isn't a big payday associated with it. But the reality is, in my time, you know, I'm not aware of any lawsuits against the university of Illinois for copyright infringement, but what I am aware of and have dealt with personally are instances of, you know, claims that there was a misuse of a photograph or something of that nature, and we addressed those, and there have been times when we settled for what were reasonable licensing fees. You know, we always take, you know, as a first step we, you know, in our good practice we look at, as I said we investigate. We, you know, look as whether there is, you know, a basis for an infringement claim. You know, generally it's a very, you know, we're very quick to take down something that appears to infringe, even if it, you know, even if there might be a fair use basis for it at the time, and we're very, you know, we're very quick to respond to copyright owners, and then investigate it and work with them, and if there is, you know, if there is a basis for, you know, a claim of licensing fees, there have been times when the university has settled for that. And that's really what we're talking about here is making the copyright owner whole, and you know, to get to, to abrogate a bedrock constitutional right for the states just for the purposes of allowing people to pursue statutory damages, that seems like that should be a very, very, very high bar.  
>> Brandon Butler: Yeah. Can I add two thing real quick?  One is, one of the trends in my work almost, you know, for the last decade has been I've engaged in a lot of dialogs with different practice communities in an academic context, and over and over again what we find is what we call a permissions culture. And, you know, academics generally are afraid to engage in anything they think might come within a mile of something unlawful. A part of that, part of that is, you know, they're lawful people, and universities are conservative places, believe it or not, and they don't want to do things that are crazy, but part of is that the word of statutory damages has traveled fast over the last couple of decades, and people are aware of things like the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case.  They feel that the stakes in copyright can be extraordinarily high, and that chills them. And a part of what we've tried to do and the work that a lot of us have done on campuses is to help people understand that they have rights and that they should feel comfortable exercising those rights, and they shouldn't be afraid a troll is going to show up and shake them down. And that's the other point I wanted to make, which is I think a part of what state sovereign immunity seems demonstrably to do is to reduce the incentives to go chasing after big paydays by suing folks, institutions and folks who work at our institutions, and it wouldn't take too many stories about that to have a chilling effect, again, on lawful activity, things that are clearly fair use. You get a nasty letter, and you know, everyone in that academic community knows that someone in their community got a nasty letter when they tried to publish a screenshot from a video game or when they tried to -- and that really shapes practice and really chills teaching and scholarship. Even now with sovereign immunity in place and with not a huge amount of lawsuits as a result, I really fear what would happen if the threshold came down and the folks with opportunistic lawsuits came out to play. 
^M00:40:35
^M00:40:42
>> Rachael Samberg: You're muted. 
>> Kevin, you're muted. 
>> Kevin Amer: Sorry.  Thank you.  Do you think that state institutions, universities and libraries in particular, are more susceptible to the sorts of lawsuits that you're describing or threats that you're describing compared to private institutions, because it seems to me that the similar concern could be expressed by private institutions, but you know, they're certainly subject to copyright suits when they do infringe.  
^M00:41:23
^M00:41:33
>> Brandon Butler: That's a good question, and it's a part of the kind of puzzle here that, you know, honestly, I think the front-line practitioners in those private institutions do not behave as if, or rather, the front-line practitioners in public institutions don't behave as if they have, you know, carte blanche to infringe. And I think that largely explains the difference.  Everyone is behaving more or less responsibly, and so, I think that is a major part of why the, you know, the entire community has similar kind of outcomes in terms of behavior.  
>> Kevin Amer: Ms. Samberg? 
>> Rachael Samberg: Yeah.  Picking up on Brandon's [inaudible]. The reputation of the university is at stake whenever the university is taking action with respect to its policies  and decision making on copyright.  So, I, before coming to UC Berkeley, I was six years at Stanford University, and while I was in a slightly different role, I can say that we had the same kind of responsible behavior without formally calling them responsible access workflows or policies because universities as a whole are interested in their public relations and their community relations, and they're very visible and high-profile members of the community and take that seriously, which is why you see so much proliferation of copyright policies regarding what people can do with other people's materials, what you can do with your own materials, what individual apartments can do, and that isn't necessarily going to change private versus public, but I will say that if we thought we were going to be sued constantly, every single time we made a decision, we wouldn't be able to make as robust uses of state resources as we are currently able to make to support scholarship. So, for example, I mentioned the responsible access workflows. If we thought we were going to be sued constantly, you know, our responsible access workflows depend on having good information about the collections that are in our possession or that we steward, and the information that we have isn't always perfect. But we have the ability to rely on the metadata that we have as well as exceptions like fair use or where applicable 108 to make informed decisions.  If we felt though that we were going to get sued every single time and risk, you know, risk fair use or risk 108, then we would absolutely choose not to make this content available for the community.  And that harms the advancement of science [inaudible]. So, taking away our sovereign immunity is directly in direct contravention to the purpose of the copyright act.  
>> Regan Smith:  If I can jump in for a second. I'm having, I'm struggling with trying to figure out if there's not really a difference in action between private and public universities, what role state sovereign immunity is playing is ensuring that productive uses, fair uses, and such can continue to be enabled.  And I also would like to understand any specific evidence of actions that may have been chilled, because I think, you know, we're trying to get data here to consider. Thank you. 
>> Rachael Samberg: And I can give you two examples, one from when I was in a private context and one in a public context, which is in a private context at Stanford, because we lacked certain information about a collection, we chose not to make that content available for research, and now, because we have responsible access workflows and have good metadata at UC Berkeley and know that we have some level of protection to make, not for us to rely on sovereign immunity, but to make it, to make us less attractive potential litigants, that we can go forward and make more content available for research. 
>> Regan Smith: Did you feel that fair use was not sufficiently reliable in the Stanford example to proceed with the project? 
>> Rachael Samberg: It was -- 
>> Regan Smith: Or 108? 
>> Rachael Samberg: Sorry, it was part of an overall examination, and it deterred us from embarking kind of systematically on a digitization project.  
^M00:46:29
^M00:46:35
>> Kevin Amer: Ms. Lanier, I think you raised your hand? 
>> Raven Lanier: Yeah. I think another important distinction to remember between, you know, private and public universities is that the things that we do at public universities are all foible, and they're very transparent, and we are accountable to both our constituents in Michigan and also to the broader public.  So, we need to make smart decisions about copyright not only because we want to follow the law, and it's the correct thing to do, but because what we do is very transparent, and people can look into the agreements we've made, the things that we've done, and it can all be under public scrutiny. I think it's also important, you haven't seen large changes in the behavior of public universities when it comes to sovereign immunity because we're, I think that we're all aware that there is a line there of widespread intentional and reckless copyright infringement that we don't want to cross. Sovereign immunity is important because it emboldens us and our faculty and students to take advantage of the rights given to us in the copyright act, and it kind of insulates us in ways that help us to make, to feel more comfortable relying on the fair use analysis of our faculty and staff, and we don't want to lose that. And so, we're very careful that we're not intentionally and recklessly infringing copyright because we are aware that if there is widespread intentional and reckless copyright infringement, which we do not believe that there is, that the sovereign immunity can be abrogated by Congress. 
>> Brandon Butler: And to the point about fair use, just really quickly, and I apologize, I think we've seen some comments earlier in the roundtables that show the differences of opinion about the scope of that, right, and that we can't rely on our rights holder friends to agree with us about what is willful infringement, what is even infringement at all. And so, you know, there's sort of what we believe very strongly to be fair use, and then there's what do we think is going to draw a lawsuit and how devastating will that lawsuit be. And I do know there's, you know, anecdotally I can say, you know, private institutions do tend to be a little more conservative. None of them are on the panel here, but, you know, I believe that that's true, to their detriment.  That is, not that they're less crazy but rather that they're less able to take full advantage of their rights, because there is a penumbra of litigation fear that pushes them back from the line of where the copyright act actually wants them to go because it's not worth incurring the ire of folks like Dr. Bough [phonetic].  
>> Regan Smith: I'm not sure if we're going to be inclined to say that the need to resort to the judicial system sometimes to figure out fair use, because certainly people can, you know, have their day in court means there's an inability to exercise rights. I mean on either side, right. But I think if you're stating that public universities are making uses that private institutions may not, it would be helpful to understand some examples of what those uses may be. Is that what you're saying? 
^M00:50:04
^M00:50:10
>> Brandon Butler: That's what I'm saying, and I think, I mean one example, I think if you look at the participation of different institutions and in HathiTrust Digital Library in the early days, right, I think that if I'm remembering correctly, and you can go and look, the private institutions were more conservative in terms of what were they willing to place into that collection, which was ultimately vindicated as a fair use activity. You had institutions that were private and institutions from countries that didn't have a fair use doctrine, but that we're pulling back and saying, you know, we're only going to put in materials that are clearly public domain, even though, again, ultimately, that was a lawful use that was blessed as a lawful use.  And so, those institutions weren't able to participate as fully because they feared the litigation risk more than public institutions did. 
>> Raven Lanier: And I don't think I totally agree with Brandon's points, but I don't think that this is a question of public universities can do different things that private institutions can't. It's not like I can and cannot. It's a will and won't.  Like public universities and private universities can do the same things.  What's the difference is what they will do, and I think Hathi is a great example there, that Brandon brought up.  
>> Regan Smith: Yes, we're talking about that judgment that public universities may make that private universities wouldn't because they have the benefit of sovereign immunity, which might deter litigation for better or for worse, right.  So, Mr. Evans, did you want to chime in on that? 
>> Harold Evans: Well, yeah.  I wanted to jump on something that Ms. Lanier had mentioned earlier in terms of being subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Well, I think it actually goes beyond that because the thing is, public universities have additional bosses beyond their presidents or their chancellors or their board of trustees.  They also have bosses in the state legislature, and that's what we have to deal with. You know, the state legislatures would be very concerned if any of the institutions were subject to paying damages for copyright infringement. We get into the political realm at that point in terms of what some congressmen who, I'm sorry, you know, some state legislators, to who is in the district, you know, where one of our campuses, you know, is located, and that particular campus is hit with a major copyright lawsuit, you know, literally heads will roll in those kinds of instances. And so, public universities have to be very concerned about taking actions that will upset members of a state legislature who control the purses of those institutions. So, it's been conservative not in terms of the uses of materials. It's been conservative in damaging the financial resources of the university and those financial resources are controlled by the state legislature. 
^M00:53:29
[ Inaudible Comment ]
^M00:53:32
>> Kevin Amer: Oh, sorry. Go ahead. 
>> Regan Smith: This is my last question [inaudible].  Is there evidence of lawsuits or a pattern of lawsuits or [inaudible] letters, other types of enforcement activities against private institutions that you are aware of to set a basis for the alternative behaviors [inaudible] by public institutions? 
>> Rachael Samberg: I think that goes back to some of what the great point that Raven made about the will and the won't, which is far more eloquent than I was able to do with respect to our decision when I was at Stanford, which is that you're less likely to undertake the activities if you're worried about the result or outcomes when you're at private institutions. And so, I saw the same kind, although, again, I was in a different role. I saw the same kinds of complaints against individual actors.  Again, want to make sure we distinguish between people doing things that maybe they shouldn't do themselves versus what the institution does, but the institution as a whole or in itself doesn't make certain decisions because it fears statutory damages.  
>> Regan Smith: It does sound like perhaps a no in terms of being aware of litigation or [inaudible] specific things received at private institutions, right.  Okay.  
>> Douglas Shontz: Well, like I also, I guess I have to object a little bit to the premise of the question because what we're talking about here is a discussion about abrogating a bedrock constitutional right. And so, the threshold should be extremely high. So, rather than a sort of, you know, a research study, which no one apparently hears or wherever is undertaken comparing public and private institutions, which I don't even know how you'd even begin to conduct such a study since we keep, you know, the private institutions are going to keep quiet about their settlements and the like in that domain. What we're talking about is, you know, abrogating a constitutional right, and so it should really be a discussion about what can be demonstrated that the public agencies, the states, are misbehaving in the realm of copyright.  And the answer is that there really is no evidence that we've seen, and in fact, to the contrary what we've seen is that we have, you know, dedicated staff, dedicate resources, hundreds of person hours per year consulting with people on our campuses, on, you know, my counterparts' campuses, and you know, deep thorough investigation into allegations of copyright, you know, to the point of almost sometimes being afraid of our shadows. You know, I mean, and it's not just, you know, it's not just images on a website. I mean I'm consulted by our, you know, we operate to performing arts centers.  We have multiple departments of fine arts, music theater, dance, etc., and all of those departments are very careful about the, you know, issues around copyright. They come to our office to consult about it. They come to our copyright librarian to consult about it. And so, it really seems to be just kind of a red herring to try to make a comparison in a vacuum -- 
>> Regan Smith: Okay, thank you. Thank you.  I think we need to move on because of the time, Mr. Amer. 
>> Kevin Amer: Yes. Well, I would like to get Mr. Klaus's perspective on this just as someone who has, you know, worked with state entities.  I wonder what your perspective is in terms of how central a role or not sovereign immunity plays in your dealings with the state either in negotiations, litigation, or other areas. 
>> Kurt Klaus: Okay.  I've been fascinated listening to the conversation. It's encouraging to hear about the extent of, the degree of, I guess you could say that libraries go to, very established and esteemed libraries go to to comply with copyright law and to reduce their, mitigate their risks related to potential litigation.  My experience has not been so much with libraries, although licensing materials to libraries, content to libraries, certainly it's been more with other agencies involving the states.  And those who may not be as educated or have as solid of policies in place. And you know, I know you're looking for specific data and specific examples, and I can't share those for a couple of reasons. One, it's because maybe as I suggested earlier, the inquiries that I receive sometimes are pretty fleeting. They're like, you know, what's my potential here?  What can I do to stop this. And people have already mentioned, look, cease and desist letters, try to negotiate a rate.  One of the things that was brought up in a previous panel was, you know, it sounds like the libraries are pretty good with taking down potentially infringing materials if it's an ephemeral issue.  But one of the panelists brought up, you know, and I represent photographers, so it's like, you know, what if my photograph is used, and the market for that photograph is eviscerated?  Then suddenly do the libraries still stand up and say, well, look, we're going to plead for mercy, and if that doesn't work, then we're going to invoke the sovereign immunity.  I mean at what point, at what point is there value seen in a, let's say even a minor work that's affected majorly for the content creator?  
>> Kevin Amer: So, that's an interesting point, I mean, and you make a good point in suggesting that it may well be it seems reasonable to think that the libraries, university libraries are more well versed and perhaps careful with respect to copyright than other state entities.  Do you have experience working with or dealing with other state entities that, you know, in your experience, that would suggest that maybe there's a difference between libraries and universities compared to other state entities? 
>> Kurt Klaus: Well nothing direct, but upon observation, okay. So, and having talked with other attorneys that work in this space and other content creators.  You know, there have been materials that, for example, photographs is probably the easiest example that states sometimes post, you know, hey come see Tennessee. You know, and there's a photograph, and it winds up [inaudible] what's the agency that's responsible for that? There's also sometimes misunderstandings, the public might see a photograph on the state site or something like that, and they'll assume that since the government is posting it it's public domain. I mean I've had that question asked to me a lot. So, there's a lot, I think even within the library system but potentially more so outside the library system of states, it's an education and a uniform understanding that has to be, I guess, proliferated across, and that's a big task, right, that has to be proliferated across state agencies, relative to copyright, because I can tell you that if I had a conversation with the sheriff's department in Alaska about a copyright versus the University of Berkeley, you know, Berkeley, California, it's going to be an entirely different conversation because the knowledge is just not there, and I guess the resources are less available to folks outside of the major content users, which, you know, from my point of view is universities, among other agencies, but especially universities. 
>> Kevin Amer: Ms. Samberg. 
>> Rachael Samberg: Mr. Klaus, I want to give you some good news, if not a complete panacea of the problem, but the some good news is that, that we within libraries are universities are involved in national organizations that provide training beyond universities to other state agencies and institutions, and I agree, it is not as robust to the nonuniversity community because we ourselves are employed in a certain context and only have so many hours of the day, and I would love to see more state funds devoted to the education for other agencies. 
^M01:02:56
But I myself am on a, am part of a national group that goes around and provides training on scholarly communication and copyright.  There are, and Brandon can talk about this too, there's a copyright training program for HBCUs and for school districts. So, we are there providing that beyond just the university community. But I do want to just maybe correct one thing. I don't think it was necessarily wrong, but just to clarify it a little bit, that you said, which is that, you refer to the decisions that, acknowledging that the libraries are very responsible about the decisions we make, which I agree, but I want to just clarify that we're not just making decisions for ourselves. We are providing this training for our campuses and for the public. So, we do it for the public through robust online content and through our consultations, which as a state university we provide not just to UC Berkeley requestors but also to the public, so we're educating the public through the consultations and through our presentations.  And just to give you a sense of scope, in 2019 to 2020, my office provided 1380 consultation regarding copyright, that 62% of all our consultations were three people, and that represented an increase of close to 60% over the previous year, and 1239% since our first year, showing that we are reaching a good deal of campus and also that they are aware of their copyright responsibilities and that we're available to help.  
>> Regan Smith: So, what percentage of those consultations were outside of UC Berkeley to the general public or to other parts of California? 
>> Rachael Samberg: I don't have that statistic on hand, but many of the ways in which the general public requests come up are because people want to utilize materials we have in our collections in their scholarships.  And I can, I separate out that data, and I can find more data for that if you'd like. 
^M01:05:16
^M01:05:20
>> Brandon Butler: One thing I wanted to mention is that it sort of cuts both ways, that is, if, and I agree, I think I agree with Rachel and with Kurt that libraries do a great job handling copyright and educating our communities about copyright. And the flip side of that is that libraries and campuses are really heavy users of copyrighted material, and we're the ones that rely on fair use a lot and rely on 108 a lot and really on 110 and 121, right, accessibility. I've worked in the accessibility community, and they are terrified of copyright to the point, again, of, you know, they need to learn their, they're working on learning more about their rights and not being so afraid. And so, it would be a bad outcome and not proportional or tailored, as Cooper requires, I think, if what happens is, you know, state sovereign immunity is abrogated in a way that has a colossal, that has an effect on the folks who are responsible users, who are the heaviest users because of, you know, the less heavy users who are more likely to make a mistake or whatever, right.  So, we have to think about that too when we think about proportionality and tailoring. The reason we're all here is that we have so much at stake.  
>> Kevin Amer: Great.  Thank you.  There's a fair amount of overlap in these topics, but I think that we wanted to ask a few questions about the processes that are in place for addressing infringement claims by state institutions when they do arise. So, I'm going to turn it over to Mark Gray to ask some questions on that.  
>> Mark Gray: Sure. Thank you, Kevin.  So, one of the things I was curious about, I mean I think we spoke to it more in the last panel, but, you know, we've talked a little bit already today about sort of the volume of consultations. But I'm curious sort of for people who are coming from the state university side, you know, what is sort of the general volume of copyright claims that you come across. Mr. Evans, you mentioned that you get a lot of DMCA claims just by virtue of being the DMCA designee for your university, but sort of outside of that in terms of claims involving the university, rather than student activity, sort of what is the relative volume there and maybe some details about kind of what common patterns you might see. 
>> Harold Evans: Well, outside of the, you know, the claims of infringement from, and the [inaudible] coming from one association, I think it's a, you know, the entertainment software association and regarding the [inaudible] students that are rather enthusiastic about certain video games, we get very few claims.  And almost invariably they relate to illegal software download by a student.  Occasionally, claims regarding a photograph that was used without permission, but those have been very rare.  I get maybe one or two of those a year, and those are usually resolved very amicably by agreeing to remove the allegedly infringing photograph once an investigation has been determined that, you know, the use was not fair. You know, we take immediate action regarding those kinds of claims. But beyond that, it's almost always been alleged illegal download of software by a student. 
^M01:09:14
^M01:09:16
>> Mark Gray: So, and then, maybe as one quick followup question.  You talked earlier about the state claims commission. Is that sort of like a quasi-state court proceeding?  Is that more of an administrative proceeding?  Kind of what's the flavor of that? 
>> Harold Evans: Well, actually it falls under the jurisdiction of the state legislature.  It was created, and I can't remember the exact day, but it was created really to address issues of primarily contract and injury claims against the state because of sovereign immunity, you're an injured party not being able to sue in either federal or state court because amendment 20 to Arkansas State Constitution basically says that states should never be a defendant in its courts.  So, we have sovereign immunity both at the state and at the federal level.  But in response to that, of legislature created the state claims commission, you know, to provide some redress to those who believe that they have somehow all but injured those physically and financially by a state agency. 
>> Mark Gray: That's very interesting, thank you. 
>> Harold Evans: And the commission has authority to, well it's a three, it's a three-person panel that makes the decision regarding whether or not an award or damages should be made to the complainant.  
>> Mark Gray: And then, anyone else? 
>> Douglas Shontz: I'll just jump in and say that, you know, my experience is probably very similar to Mr. Evans's in that volume of alleged copyright infringement demands that we get in a course of a year is extremely low, and we're talking single digits.  But again, we take them all very seriously, and that's kind of the point here. We're stewards of the public resources.  We have a duty to comply with the law, a duty to provide educational services to disseminate knowledge, and we have to balance all that. And so, we take all of these claims and allegations very, very seriously, and, you know, in each case we look at them.  In some cases, there have been settlements for reasonable license fees, and that actually makes me want to go back to something Mr. Klaus had said, and it's a little bit of a red herring to say that, you know, posting a photograph on a state website eviscerates the value for the photographer because the state would have had to pay the license fee to that photographer for that use, and to claim that somehow the value is eviscerated, the photographer can't get anymore value out of that photograph anymore is just a red herring. I mean we could have paid a reasonable license fee in the instances where there were, you know, an intentional unlicensed use of a photo.  But a lot of times when these allegations come in, they are, you know, making demands for expenses well over the purchase price of all the rights for the photograph.  And that's just completely unreasonable.  
>> Mark Gray: So, in the last panel, we actually had someone bring up the photograph issue, I think it was Mr. Wassam, in the context of a book cover right.  Like the idea being that if a very recognizable photograph has already been on one book cover, no one is going to want their book to have the exact same cover as a different book.  Do you see that as different from kind of the website issue? 
^M01:13:01
^M01:13:12
Mr. Shontz. 
>> Douglas Shontz: Oh, sorry, I Ms. Samberg stick her hand up, so I was going to give her an opportunity. 
>> Mark Gray: Oh, I'm sorry. I've got a lot of things to keep track of, so if I missed you, Ms. Samberg, I'm sorry.  We'll get with you in a second. 
>> Douglas Shontz: And so, I didn't hear the particular example about the book cover, so if someone else heard that comment from an earlier panel, I would defer to them to provide some input.  
>> Rachael Samberg: I just wanted to add that when that comment was made in the earlier panel, there wasn't any suggestion, that I heard anyway, and I apologize if I misheard, but there was not a suggestion or evidence that the use of an image on a book was done by a state agency, institution, or actor.  It seems very unlikely to me that in commercial or even scholarly publication that a state actor, like a university press would use images for books without paying a license fee. I work very closely with the University of California Press and know what their policies are, and I don't know of a single university press that wouldn't license images to put on a book content.  So, I'm not sure the question really has a good factual basis.  
>> Kurt Klaus: Right -- 
>> Mark Gray: And then -- sorry go ahead. 
>> Kurt Klaus: I was just going to chime in. I was using that as an example. That was from a previous panel, and it was a book context, not the website. But the question Mr. Shontz brought up is the value and making a qualitative decision about the value of the creative product or the end-product being, you know, the market, the value of a person's creativity or expressed in content, of course, is what the market will bear. And if there's a wrongful user of that content, I don't see why, and I'm not talking about statutory damages. I don't see why they are not allowed. Are they not under copyright to seek the highest value for that content as possible? I mean isn't that part of the copyright?  And if the value is eviscerated, whose call is that?  I mean is it the university's right to make that call?  I don't think so.  I mean it's just a, it's a rhetorical question, and I'm just kind of throwing it out there.  
>> Mark Gray: Thank you. And then, I guess as a next question, you know, again, to keep going back to the last panel where I was also moderating, you know, we heard at the last panel from representatives from Colorado and Oklahoma about how when a copyright claim comes in, it gets routed to the AG's office specifically. Obviously, Mr. Evans, you mentioned just that there's kind of the claims commission process, but for everyone else, you know, how are claims routed, you know, to which office, and generally how long does that time take to route?  Ms. Samberg?
>> Rachael Samberg: So, at our institution, as Mr. Evans said, he's the DMCA agent at his. We have a DMCA agent at our, and I can say that in the five years that I, for the first three years, I was actually a separate DMCA agent for the library until the rules changed on that, and now we just use the main university one. And in five years, we have received zero claims. So, I can't tell you the time it takes between receipt of the claim for when we will take it down, but through DMCA takedowns, we've received zero claims, for all of the content that we make available online, zero in five years. We've received requests to take down content for other reasons such as people asserting privacy or other things, and again, our community engagement policy addresses that, but zero related to copyright.  
^M01:17:13
^M01:17:19
>> Brandon Butler: My experience is exactly the same. Since I've been at the University of Virginia, I have not seen any claims of copyright, DMCA or otherwise, come across my desk, but the routing is the same. Our DMCA agent is in our general counsel's office, and he vets all those claims. And the word I got from him echoes what we've heard today. You can count the alleged infringements he's seen in the last five years on, you know, one hand. 
>> Regan Smith: And Mr. Butler, just to make sure I understand, I think I understand what you're both saying, but you were saying that is university wide and not specific to the library's programs? Yes, I see nodding for the court reporter. Thank you.  
>> Raven Lanier: At the University of Michigan, our office works closely with our office of general counsel, who has someone on staff who handles copyright concerns, and like I said, we work closely with him.  So, in talking with him and preparing for this meeting, it seems like our office gets a lot of inquiries, but a lot of them are misunderstandings.  Like maybe misunderstandings about a license the university had purchased or how a creative comments license had worked, but we work, our OGC works with potential complainants, and sovereign immunity does not come up when dealing with those issues.  
>> Douglas Shontz: In a similar fashion how it is for the University of Illinois that our, you know, part of the routing of the things depends on what the entry point is for the allegation of infringement, because the person claiming infringement may go to, you know, may contact a sort of general email box for the university. They may try to contact an individual staff member, who they think is linked to the website that has the purported infringement material, and you know, so it's the -- but once, you know, once a human being puts eyeballs on, you know, a letter saying university has infringed my copyright, you know, please pay me x thousands of dollars in damages, they're very, generally very quick to get something over to our office of university counsel, and then it will end up very quickly in my inbox to handle. 
>> Mark Gray: Great. And then Ms. Dooley, do you have anything to add as well?
>> Yvonne Dooley: I do not, I'm sorry. 
>> Mark Gray: That's perfectly fine.  And then Mr. Klaus, you mentioned that there may be a distinction between universities and then other types of maybe noneducational state agencies. Have you noticed any peculiarities or differences in things like response time or routing of concerns between different types of agencies? 
>> Kurt Klaus: Well, again, this is not strictly in the context of copyright. It's more in the context of production, right, in the production world. I was former director of business and legal affairs at the National Geographic channel, and so I've got it both from the inside, in-house point of view and the outside counsel point of view.  The response time varies. It really depends upon the interest of the agency and what you're doing or what you're proposing. So, if you don't have their attention, they're slow to respond. And so, you know, in the context of a copyright issue, I have no direct experience like challenging an agency in that regard, but everything else is like a, you know, if they're on board, they're very tentative. I can say, however, that when topics do turn to copyright besides access, involving, you know, for example, a channel or a producer is going to own all the footage and there's no review rights of the materials, and you are not going to [inaudible] materials, that's where questions arise. And that becomes a negotiating point, right.  Not so much a direct copyright infringement or a copyright control issue but more of if you want access then we want access to your materials. So, that arises at some point, and you have to be careful about how they can use those materials once you deliver them, if you deliver them. 
>> Mark Gray: Great. And then one more question, and if no one has experience on this, that's totally fine. But are any of you with the state institutions aware of any sort of insurance contracts or sort of similar agreements that might cover, you know, inadvertent or, you know, intentional hypothetically infringement? 
^M01:21:59
^M01:22:06
>> Douglas Shontz: Sorry, just to clarify that. The question was whether any of the state institutions have insurance policies against infringement. Is that -- 
>> Mark Gray: Yeah, that would cover these sorts of, yeah, these sorts of claims. 
>> Douglas Shontz: I'm not aware that our university has one. 
>> Harold Evans: I'm not either. 
>> Rachael Samberg: I can't speak to that either, but it's an opportunity, I think, to talk about a related policy, which is, that the  University of California has, which is that the university will defend in litigation scholars or faculty who have made good faith fair use decisions in compliance with university policy.  
>> Mark Gray: Does that include indemnification or just defense? 
>> Rachael Samberg: As far as I know, just defense. 
>> Mark Gray: Okay.  
>> Douglas Shontz: And also, I should point out the University of Illinois at least, and I imagine my counterpart universities are the same, we have a self, you know, we're largely covered by our self-insurance policy. So, something like this, which is a very low-level, you know, activity, like I said, no more than single digits in a year for allegations wouldn't even rise to the necessity of like a separate third-party insurance coverage.  
>> Harold Evans: Yeah, our state law does cover the indemnification of employees who were acting in good faith in the course of their duties and responsibilities to the state entity. 
>> Mark Gray: Great. Okay.  Well, if no one else has anything else on that, I think I'm going to kick it back over to Kevin to get ready to wrap up.
>> Kevin Amer: Great. I don't think I have any further questions. Does anyone else from the Copyright Office have any additional questions?
>>(No Response.)
>> Kevin Amer: Okay. So I think we can wrap this session up a few minutes early.
Thank you all very, very much for your participation. It really is extremely valuable. We will be back at 3:45 for session four. Thank you very much.

^E01:23:55