Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal |
|
COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT, LEGAL DEPOSIT OR LIBRARY DEPOSIT? : THE GOVERNMENT’S ROLE AS PRESERVER OF COPYRIGHT MATERIAL
JOHN GILCHRIST [∗]
The Australian Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) contains what is commonly
referred to as a library deposit provision. The provision is s 201. This
requires the publisher of library material which is published in Australia to
deliver a copy of the material at the publisher’s
own expense to the
National Library, within one month after publication. The provision is
restricted to material in which copyright
subsists under the Act. There is a
penalty for non-compliance of $100.
Section 201 is expressed to be not
intended to exclude or limit the operation of any law of a State or Territory of
similar effect, and each
State and one Territory of Australia similarly requires
the deposit of library material published in its State/Territory to its
prescribed
library.[1]
These
library deposit provisions have been a part of Australian copyright laws since
their inception as colonial laws. Their common
law origins can be traced back
beyond the first copyright statute in England (the Statute of Anne of
1709)[2] and into the licensing
regimes that preceded that statute and then into a private agreement between the
University of Oxford and
the Stationers' Company, the London-based guild of
printers, booksellers and publishers, in 1610.
There are similar
compulsory deposit laws throughout the common law world. Over recent years the
nexus between copyright laws and
deposit provisions has become weaker by the
increasing passage of specific laws outside copyright protection regimes called
library
deposit or legal deposit laws. One example is the United Kingdom
Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003. Nonetheless they are of similar
effect.
What is the justification for these laws? Should these laws as a
matter of policy be linked with copyright protection? If there
is a
justification, should the extent of material deposited under these laws be
specific and limited in scope, or should it be all-embracing
of everything
disseminated to the public?
This article examines the historical and
policy basis of these laws. It argues that the laws have at times been used for
motives
of scholarly endeavour and censorship, but in Australia and some other
jurisdictions they have subsisted as an element of national
copyright policy.
Nonetheless the paper argues that the laws have their most convincing rationale
in the preservation of national
culture and heritage. This rationale embodies
human values which ought to be respected and
promoted.[3]
Library deposit in the Anglo common law world commenced as a private
agreement between the University of Oxford and the Stationers
Company. This was
almost a century before the first copyright statute, the Statute of Anne.
On 12 December, 1610 the Stationers Company made (by indenture sealed in
Convocation at Oxford on 27 February, 1611) a grant of one
perfect copy of every
book printed by them, on condition that they should have liberty to borrow those
books if needed for reprinting,
and also to examine, collate, and copy the books
which were given to others.[4] The
obligations were essentially one-sided. The deed contained no penalty for
non-compliance.
The agreement was brought into effect by Sir Thomas
Bodley, a former diplomat and fellow of Merton College, Oxford, with the Master
of the Stationers Company. This formed an important part of Sir Thomas' great
and costly personal quest to restore and improve the
University's public
library. Sir Thomas on 23 February 1597-98 wrote a letter to the Vice
Chancellor offering that whereas ‘there
hath bin heretofore a publike
library in Oxford, which, you know, is apparant by the roome itself remayning,
and by your statute
records, I will take the charge and cost upon me, to reduce
it again to his former use’, first by fitting it up with shelves
and
seats, next by procuring benefactions of books, and lastly by endowing it with
an annual rent. This offer was extraordinarily
generous and was accepted with
great gratitude.[5]
However,
the concept of legal deposit began earlier in France. This would have been
known to Sir Thomas Bodley and his librarian,
Thomas James, who is credited with
conceiving the idea of the deposit agreement with the Stationers Company.
Partridge records
that the first system of legal deposit of books was
established by the Montpellier Ordinance of 28 December 1537.
Every
printer and publisher in France, without exception, was ordered to forward to
the learned Abbe Melin de Saint Gelais, who had
charge of the Royal Library at
Blois, a copy of every newly published book, irrespective of author, subject,
cost, size, date or
language, whether illustrated or
not.[6] The penalty for
non-compliance with the ordinance was the confiscation of the whole edition of a
work not deposited, together with
a heavy arbitrary
fine.[7]
The lack of sanction
or penalty underpinning the agreement between the Stationers Company and the
University of Oxford weakened its
effectiveness. Attempts were made to remedy
this. First, the Company at the commencement of 1612 passed a by-law, which
made it
obligatory on every one of their members to forward their books to the
Library. Subsequently, an order of the Star-Chamber was made
on July 11, 1637
in confirmation of the grant.[8] This
contained a sanction of imprisonment or a heavy fine for non-compliance. But the
Star Chamber was soon after abolished. The
1662 and 1665 Licensing Acts
broadened the deposit requirement to add the Royal Library and the Library of
the University of Cambridge
to the Library at Oxford. This increased the
hostility some printer members had to the deposit arrangements and the Acts
themselves
contained weaknesses which could be exploited by recalcitrant
printers. Thus, the extent of compliance by printer members of the
Stationers
Company, varied over the 17th
century.[9]
In 1709 the first
copyright statute - the Statute of Anne - was doubly insulting for printers in
that it imposed a reduced period
of copyright protection for works and at the
same time increased the number of deposit libraries to nine in England and
Scotland.[10] This number was
increased upon the Union with Ireland to 11, but finally reduced to five
(British Museum; Oxford; Cambridge; Advocates
Library, Edinburgh; and Trinity
College, Dublin) by 6&7 Will IV. c 110. Presently under United Kingdom law
there are six deposit
libraries, - the British Library Board, the University
Library at Cambridge, the Bodleian Library at Oxford, the National Libraries
of
Scotland and Wales and Trinity College in
Dublin.[11]
A What is the Justification for these Laws?
The origins of library deposit lie in a mix of rationales. Certainly Sir
Thomas Bodley sought to re-found the University Library
at Oxford after it had
become sadly denuded of works and fallen into disrepair, essentially for the
purposes of scholarly endeavour,
despite the fact it was and continues to be to
this day a public library.
Evidence of this motivation lies in the
selection of holdings Bodley and his 'Keeper' (librarian), James, made from
donated as well
as deposited works. This conscious selection is well documented
in Bodley's correspondence with James. In a letter sent to James
in Oxford in
1602, Bodley wrote from his London
home:[12]
‘Sir, For the
increase of your stipend, I doe not doubt but to giue yow very good
satisfaction, but till your trauels and troubles
are seene to euery student, it
will be best in my opinion, not to charge the spitte with too muche rostmeat.
...
...
In any wise take no riffe raffe bookes (for suche will but
proue a descredit to our Librarie) but because I knowe not, whether he
will be
wonne, to pay for the binding of suche as may neede it, and for their cariage to
Oxon (in bothe which pointes, yow may be
bold to vrge him, as of your self) it
will be requisit to take bookes, that we haue already, whereby those charges may
the better
be defraied. ...
....
Wherewith I commend yow to Gods good
tuition.
your owne assured
Tho Bodley.
Marche 31. [1602]’.
(‘he’ refers to a donor)
Similarly in 1612 he
wrote:[13]
‘Sir, I would yow had foreborne, to catalogue our London bookes, till I
had bin priuie to your purpose. There are many idle
bookes, & riffe raffes
among them, which shall neuer com into the Librarie, and I feare me that the
litle, which yow haue done
alreadie, will raise scandal vpon it, when it shall
be given out, by suche as would disgrace it, that I haue made vp a number, with
Almanackes, plaies, & proclamations: of which I will haue none, but such as
are singular. As yet Mr Norton hath not taken any
order, for the bringing in of
their bookes by reason of the sicknes of their Bedel: but he hath promised
faithfully, to doe it with
speede.
....
I thanke yow very muche, &
continue as euer
your true assured frind
Tho. Bodley
Fulham. Ian. 1. [1612]’
Another letter written shortly
after, expands on his outlook:
‘Sir'
...
I can see no good reason to alter my opinion, for excluding suche bookes as
almanackes, plaies, & an infinit number, that are
daily printed, of very
vnworthy maters & handling, suche as, me thinkes, both the keeper & the
vnderkeeper should disdaine
to seeke out, to deliuer vnto any man. Happely some
plaies may be worthy the keeping: but hardlie one in fortie. For it is not
alike in Englishe plaies, & others of other nations: because they are most
esteemed, for learning the languages & many of
them compiled, by men of
great fame, for wisedome & learning, which is seeldom or neuer seene among
vs. Were it so againe, that
some litle profit might be reaped (which God knows
is very litle) out of some of our playbookes, the benefit thereof will nothing
neere conteruaile, the harme that the scandal will bring vnto the Librarie, when
it shalbe giuen out, that we stuffe it full of baggage
bookes. And though they
should be but a fewe, as they would be very many, if your course should take
place, yet the hauing of those
fewe (suche is the nature of malicious reporters)
would be mightily multiplied by suche as purpose to speake in disgrace of the
Librarie.
This is my opinion, wherin if I erre, I thinke I shall erre with
infinit others: & the more I thinke vpon it, the more it doth
distast me,
that suche kinde of bookes, should be vouchesafed a rowme, in so noble a
Librarie. And thus at this time, with my kindest
commendations.
your very assured frind
Tho. Bodley
London. Ian. 15. [1612]’
The motivation was not to obtain a
complete bibliographic record of English printed works. Among the ‘riffe
raffes’ and
‘baggage’ books excluded from the collection were
first (quarto) editions of Shakespeare's plays. The first folio edition
of
Shakespeare's plays does appear in the Library's records in 1635 but appears
later to have been discarded in favour of the third
edition of
1664.[14] The library has continued
a selective retention strategy since that time.
Later, much of the
impetus behind the first statutory embodiment of library deposit under the
Licensing Acts - and its expansion from
the Bodleian Library to cover the Royal
Library and the University of Cambridge Library - was that of censorship, that
is to prevent
blasphemous and seditious works being gradually and secretly put
into general circulation.[15] 'The
Royal Library ... was under the inspection of Crown officials. Seditious
publications and libels and satires on court morals
would there be instantly
detected, with dire consequences to their
authors.'[16]
But by the time
of the Statute of Anne and the enlargement of the deposit libraries to nine,
something of the modern manifestation
or policy basis of library deposit
appears. That is, it was not a policy aimed at the enrichment of some public
libraries at private
expense but an instrument to gather a full and permanent
record of the nation's printed works and of a record of all the branches
of
knowledge contained within those works.
The deposit laws were, and are,
limited to publications within national
boundaries.[17] In the United
Kingdom, more than one deposit library was mandated in order to better preserve
these works and to provide access
for the public from diverse areas. Attempts
in the United Kingdom to restrict the number of deposit copies to one, have
failed.
Within Australia, which is geographically more diverse, there are at
least two copies required to be deposited under the combined
effect of
Commonwealth and State/Territory deposit laws.
The deposit system has
become so widespread that practically every civilised country in the world has
some form of legal deposit of
books.[18]
B Should They as a Matter of Policy be Linked with Copyright Protection?
In Anglo-Australian law, there has been a strong link between copyright
law and library deposit provisions, which has been evident
from the Statute of
Anne to the end of the 20th century. In some countries like the United States
of America, the deposit requirement
was historically linked with the subsistence
of copyright, but this is not the position in Australia or the United Kingdom
(and more
recently the United States of America) which are presently members of
the Berne Union, where compliance with formalities under national
laws as a
condition of copyright protection, such as registration, is
forbidden.[19]
Copyright law is concerned with the recognition and protection of creative
material by the creation of quasi-monopolistic rights.
While the rights of
copyright owners are termed exclusive rights, they are balanced with those
public interests in research, scholarship,
criticism and review and in access
to, and the encouragement of the free flow of, ideas, which are embodied in the
defences contained
in the law to the exclusive rights. These interests are
recognised in the international copyright conventions. In essence, copyright
law is a two-way street between owner and user and in the language of policy
makers the law strikes a balance between the owners
and the users of copyright
material.
The deposit provision in the Australian Copyright Act
1968 (Cth) is restricted to library material that is published in Australia
and in which copyright subsists. It could be argued that
there is a copyright
rationale for the deposit provision which includes the provision of best copies
by the publisher for the protection
of rights granted by the state. In
Australia under the preceding Copyright Act 1912 (Cth), copyright
registration of works, though not a condition of protection, was encouraged by
giving the copyright owner certain
additional remedies in the event of
infringement.[20] Registration
involved submitting a copy of the work to the Registrar of
Copyrights.[21] Under its
predecessor enactment, the Copyright Act 1905 (Cth), copyright
registration was required before the owner of copyright was entitled to
institute any proceedings for
infringement.[22]
The Spicer
Committee which reported to the Australian Attorney-General in 1959, suggested
that ‘it seems to us that the main
purpose of such a provision should be
to build up a complete collection of Australian
literature’.[23] The Whitford
Committee, which reviewed the law in the United Kingdom in 1977,
stated:
The fact that in this country all copyright legislation since the
early eighteenth century has also concerned itself with legal deposit
indicates
that a link originally existed between the establishment of an author’s
property right and the obligation to deposit.
The link is to be found, in
sixteenth century England and in France up till the Revolution, in royal
attempts to control the printed
word by making all publications illegal except
under licence (in England through a member of the Stationers' Company) or unless
a
'privilege' had first been obtained. This latter took the form, in both
countries, of letters patent conferring monopoly rights
on the author or printer
for a fixed term: the requirement for the deposit of one or more copies of the
work served to ensure that
the text had been printed as authorised and no doubt
was also regarded as part of the fee exacted for the grant of the monopoly.
The
Copyright Act of 1709, chiefly directed towards giving statutory form to an
acknowledged common law right which had become difficult to enforce,
required
registration of the work at Stationers' Hall as a prerequisite for any claim and
also re-enacted and extended the deposit
liability: in an “Act for the
encouragement of Learning” the interests of authors and scholars were both
to be protected.
Later Acts dropped the registration requirement but maintained
that of deposit. Deposit has thus, in the past, fulfilled a dual
function,
facilitating claims to copyright (and, initially, official control over content)
and establishing public archival collections
for scholars. The first function
is now of diminished importance, though the record of deposit of a copy of a
book can still serve
as evidence in a copyright action where date of publication
is at issue; the second function continues to be of major significance
in the
preservation and advancement of knowledge. There no longer seems to be any good
reason, however, why legislation for the
maintenance of libraries of deposit
should form part of the law of
copyright.[24]
The Committee
concluded that ‘[t]he link between the legal recognition of property
rights in published literary matter and its
deposit in one or more designated
libraries ceased to exist at a date now
remote’.[25]
With
respect to that Committee, copyright has not, through the grant of exclusive
rights to the authors of literary and other works,
divorced itself from the goal
of the encouragement of learning and knowledge even if that relationship may now
be merely one of a
number of goals in the protection granted by the law.
Nevertheless it must be recognised that various national parliaments have
broken
the nexus between copyright law and legal deposit by the passage of separate
legal deposit enactments. These laws are expressed
to rest on the preservation
of a national documentary heritage. If that concept is distinct, then the
encouragement of learning
and knowledge is complementary to it.
The
importance of the copyright link at the Australian federal level is of
significance because the deposit law must rely on a constitutional
head of power
to be a valid law.
The Australian Parliament has power to pass laws
with respect to copyrights, patents of inventions, designs and trade marks under
s 51 (xviii) of the Australian Constitution. Given the broad
interpretation given to this power by the High Court of Australia, it is likely
a law purporting to be a law with
respect to copyright, which requires the
compulsory deposit of copyright material in the National Library of the
Commonwealth, would
be a valid exercise of legislative power under s
51(xviii).[26]
It may be
argued from an historical perspective and in the light of present policy that
library deposit provisions are part of the
balance of interests between owners
and users of copyright material regulated by the law and that they promote the
public interests
in the encouragement of learning and other forms of creativity
recognised by that law for the benefit of present and future
generations.[27] That is, there is
a sufficient connection between the provisions and the head of
power.[28] On that basis s 201 of
the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) therefore is a copyright law within the
meaning of s 51(xviii).
Alternatively, if that view is wrong, reliance
may be placed on s 51(xxxix) which enables the Parliament to make laws with
respect to matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by the
Australian Constitution in the Parliament, such as the copyright power s
51(xviii).[29]
Assuming the
deposit provision is a valid exercise of power of the Australian Parliament
under s 51(xviii) or s 51(xxxix) then a further question arises. Should the
compulsory deposit provision require compensation or other just terms by virtue
of s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution? Publishers, printers and others have
argued at various times almost from their inception against deposit provisions
as an inequitable
impost upon their property rights. The level of observance of
them has varied over time. In general, deposit copies are supplied
at the cost
of the paper, printing and binding (the marginal cost) of the material and the
cost of doing so is normally passed on
to and borne by the purchasers of the
publication. Publishers in present day practice also make allowance for
author's presentation
copies and review copies when setting the price of a book.
They also distribute free desk copies to academics to encourage sales
of some
books. However deposit copies are delivered through an imposed statutory
arrangement. The others are delivered through
voluntary
arrangements.
Under s 51(xxxi) the Commonwealth Parliament is empowered
to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with
respect to
'the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person
for any purpose in respect of which Parliament has power to make
laws’.
‘Property’ in this provision has been broadly defined by the High
Court of Australia, to include interests
in tangible and intangible
property.[30]
It is
difficult to characterize compulsory deposit as a law dealing with the
acquisition of the intangible property (copyright) because
the delivery of a
copy does not amount to any act comprised in the copyright. That is, the
National Library does not acquire a proprietary
copyright under the law. Even
if it could be said that the Act authorises the publisher to make the copy for a
purpose which would
otherwise be an infringement of copyright, this does not
amount to acquiring an interest in the property and thus attract s 51(xxxi)
of
the Australian
Constitution.[31]
Similarly it would be difficult to characterise the deposit of the
tangible property (for example, the bound paper on which the intangible
property
is printed) as an acquisition of property without just terms since copyright
itself is intrinsically concerned with the
material expression of ideas. A work
is made under s 22 of the Act when the work is first reduced to writing or to
some other material
form and a work is published by virtue of s 29 of the Act if
reproductions of the work have been supplied (whether by sale or otherwise)
to
the public. Even if the delivery of the tangible property is not implicitly
sanctioned in this way, to the extent that a law
passed under s 51(xviii) or s
51(xxxix) of the Australian Constitution conferring rights on
authors and other originators of copyright material is concerned with the
adjustment of competing rights or obligations
of other persons, that impact is
unlikely to be characterised as a law with respect to the acquisition of
property for the purposes
of s
51.[32]
Whether the nexus
between copyright law and legal deposit will be broken in Australia at the
federal level remains to be seen, but
the powers discussed provide a basis for
constitutional validity. At the State level, the position is quite distinct.
State parliaments
have plenary power to enact laws in any field (subject to
valid federal laws) and may acquire property without just
terms.[33] State deposit laws,
which are expressly preserved by s 201(4) of the Copyright Act 1968
(Cth), are thus not subject to those federal constitutional
constraints.
Be that as it may, the common law countries of Canada, New
Zealand and the United Kingdom, under different constitutional regimes,
have
over the past eight years passed specific legal deposit laws which are
independent of copyright law. In New Zealand, for instance,
the National
Library of New Zealand Act 2003 (NZ) was passed with the purpose
of:
the preservation, protection, development, and accessibility, as
appropriate, for all the people of New Zealand, of the collections
of the
National Library ... and, to this end, to-
...
(g) enable the Minister to
notify requirements that copies of public documents be provided to the National
Library, for the purposes
of assisting in preserving New Zealand's documentary
heritage; and
(h) ensure that the power to require public documents referred
to in (g) extends to internet documents and authorises the National
Librarian to
copy such documents.[34]
It
is a rationale which has existed since the beginnings of the laws. As Partridge
states:
Legal deposit, the copy-tax, or the delivery of printed copies,
as it is severally termed, thus acts as a mirror wherein all the glory
of a
nation's literature is faithfully reflected. More than this, it stands as a
permanent record of the thoughts, aspirations,
and discoveries of each
successive age.[35]
Compulsory deposit preserves these works for their use in certain
libraries privileged to receive and store them. Here is, then,
an unfailing
guide to authors and research workers in all branches of knowledge of the past,
present, and future; and it is not surprising,
therefore, that the system merits
and earns their deepest gratitude, considering what weary searches and endless
expense are saved
thereby.[36]
It has the practical additional benefit of limiting the costs borne by
the taxpayer of maintaining a national collection. This is
effected by reducing
the costs burden on the library of searching for and purchasing copies of
everything that is published within
the country. In essence the purchase costs
are moved from the public purse to private expense.
III SCOPE TODAY
If there is a justification for library deposit laws, should the extent
of material deposited under these laws be specific and limited
in scope or
all-embracing of everything disseminated to the public?
In essence, the
library deposit s 201 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) is limited
to library material which is defined in sub-s 5:
Delivery of library
material to the National Library
(1)
The publisher of any library
material that is published in Australia and in which copyright subsists under
this Act shall, within
one month after the publication, cause a copy of the
material to be delivered at his or her own expense to the National Library.
Penalty: $100.
...
(5)
In this section:
...
library material means a book, periodical, newspaper,
pamphlet, sheet of letter-press, sheet of music, map, plan, chart or table,
being a literary,
dramatic, musical or artistic work or an edition of such a
work, but does not include a second or later edition of any material unless
that
edition contains additions or alterations in the letter-press or in the
illustrations.
There is a requirement for the 'best copy' of the library
material to be deposited. This is in the interests of the preservation
of that
material.
(2)
The copy of any library material delivered to the
National Library in accordance with this section shall be a copy of the whole
material
(including any illustrations), be finished and coloured, and bound,
sewed, stitched or otherwise fastened together, in the same manner
as the best
copies of that material are published and be on the best paper on which that
material is printed.
The best copy requirement has been a common
feature of all library deposit provisions since the Bodleian agreement's
‘perfect
copy’.[37] It
is inevitably linked with print media. The Australian Copyright Act
deposit provision does not extend beyond print media to electronic media as, for
example, does the present United Kingdom deposit
law. This is a serious
omission in the light of the comparatively increasing importance of electronic
dissemination of information
vis-à-vis print means of doing so. While
the need for reform of the deposit law has been pressed for some
time,[38] the National Library of
Australia has not waited for the slow pace of law reform and has embarked on a
program of its own initiative
with the cooperation of State libraries, to skim
websites and copy selected material from them, with publishers consent. The
program
is entitled PANDORA[39] and
the National Library effort has focused on archiving Commonwealth and ACT
Government websites, tertiary institution sites, conference
proceedings,
e-journals, titles referred by indexing and abstracting agencies and topical
sites (eg the 2003 Canberra bushfires,
elections, Bali bombing and the Sydney
Olympic Games).[40] In November
2005 this display archive held about 1 terabyte of
data.[41] Nonetheless this is only
a tiny proportion of all material published online in
Australia.[42]
This is at
best a stop-gap solution to what is becoming a chasm of rapidly expanding
dimensions.
A number of countries have already undertaken legal change to
bring communicators of electronic information under equivalent deposit
obligations as those born by traditional print publishers. In the United
Kingdom, the Legal Deposit Libraries Act
2003[43] provides a statutory
regime of deposit for print publications but leaves much of the scheme of
deposit of electronic material to
regulatory laws under that Act.
Section
1 of the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 (UK) provides:
(1) A person who publishes in the United Kingdom a work to which this Act
applies must at his own expense deliver a copy of it to
an address specified
(generally or in a particular case) by any deposit library entitled to delivery
under this section.
...
(3) In the case of a work published in print, this
Act applies to-
(a) a book (including a pamphlet, magazine or
newspaper),
(b) a sheet of letterpress or music,
(c) a map, plan, chart or
table, and
(d) a part of any such work;
but that is subject to any
prescribed exception.
(4) In the case of a work published in a medium other
than print, this Act applies to a work of a prescribed description.
(5) A
prescribed description may not include works consisting only of-
(a) a sound
recording or film or both, or
(b) such material and other material which is
merely incidental to it.
(6) Subject to section 6(2)(h), the obligation under
subsection (1) is to deliver a copy of the work in the medium in which it is
published.
(7) In this section, "address" means an address in the United
Kingdom or an electronic address.
The Legal Deposit Libraries Act
is the first legislative measure in the United Kingdom to address the
deposit of non-print media.
In Canada, under the Library and Archives
of Canada Act 2004, the scheme for legal deposit applies simply to
publishers who make publications available in
Canada.[44] While compulsory
deposit has its origins in Canadian copyright law, this Act also separates
compulsory deposit from the subsistence
of copyright. Some of the detail of
implementation is left to regulations made under the Act, including the
definition of ‘publisher’
and the classes of publications in respect
of which the obligation of deposit subsists. However the regulations extend the
obligation
to non-print
media.[45]
In New Zealand,
under s 31(1) of the National Library of New Zealand Act 2003 (NZ) the
Minister by notice in the Gazette may require a publisher of a public document
(other than an internet document) to give
to the National Librarian, at the
publisher's own expense, a specified number of copies (not exceeding 3)
of:
(a) the public document in printed form;
(b) if the document is an electronic document, the medium that contains the document.
Section 31(2) then makes provision for the time period after first
publication for the giving of copies - (20 working days or longer
notified
period) - and format, public access or other matters.
Section 31(3) of
the Act also empowers the Minister, by Gazette notice, to authorise the National
Librarian to make a copy, at any
time or times and at his or her discretion, of
public documents that are internet documents in accordance with any terms and
conditions
as to format, public access, or other matters that are specified in
the notice.
The Act also requires the
Minister,[46] before notifying a
requirement, to consult the publishers or representatives of the publishers
likely to be affected by the proposed
requirement about the terms and conditions
referred to in s 31(2).
In Australia, some States extend their deposit
requirements from print media to records, disks, film and audio and video tape.
Tasmania
and the Northern Territory are the only jurisdictions requiring the
statutory deposit of a comprehensive range of electronic as well
as print
material. In Tasmania, the definition of ‘book’ under the
Libraries Act 1984 (Tas) is so broad that it has been construed to cover
both print and all forms of electronic media. Electronic holdings are obtained
by electronic deposit of digital publications and by the State Library of
Tasmania itself undertaking its own electronic capture
of Tasmanian web
pages.[47] In the Northern
Territory, the deposit requirement under the Publications (Legal Deposit) Act
2004 (NT) which came into force in 2005, also covers all electronic media,
including documents made available to the public on the internet.
Nevertheless,
where no printed version of an internet publication is published, the Act
envisages the copying by government of the
internet publication, rather than
deposit.[48]
Another gap in Australian laws, at least, is that they generally do not apply
to government produced works, although governments have
observed their terms.
At the federal level, the obligation of deposit for government produced works is
not imposed by s 201 but
is the subject of ministerial directions. Similar
ministerial directions exist under most State laws. For example, the deposit
of
Western Australia government material with the State Library of Western
Australia and the National Library of Australia is subject
to a Premier’s
Directive, set out in Premier’s Circular
2003/17.[49] The reason for this is
that the relevant deposit enactments impose
penalties.[50] Nothing in the
enactments renders the Crown liable for an offence, either expressly or by
necessary implication, and rebuts the
general statutory presumption that the
Crown is not liable to be sued criminally for a
wrong.[51] Nonetheless compliance
by government has historically been strong, although over more recent years the
trend of devolution in government
publishing to individual agencies coupled with
proportionately more online publication has brought with it clear diminution in
coverage.[52] In the Northern
Territory, statutory deposit obligations are imposed on all publishers including
the Northern Territory
government.[53] However no sanction
is provided for non-compliance.
At the federal level there are both
Commonwealth-instituted Library and Free Issues Schemes which enhance legal
deposit beyond the
National Library to provide copies to libraries of
institutions having publicly funded principal University status as well as to
State Libraries. The intention is to create collections of Commonwealth
government publications which are freely available to library
users and the
public. This accords with the federal government’s access and equity
strategy to facilitate access to government
published
information.[54]
While there
are gaps in the scope of the deposit laws, nearly all deposit libraries have
developed selective retention strategies.
These have been conscious decisions
due from factors such as desire to eschew ‘riff-raff’ or matters of
transitory or
titillating moment from more serious literature, national goals
and priorities, limited library holdings space, staff and other resources.
Typically, libraries are not substantial repositories of ‘grey
literature’.[55] In the
National Library of Australia individual ephemera is selectively collected (for
example that relating to a specific event)
but is not separately catalogued.
Selection strategies are also determined by resources and role. For example,
the National Library
of Australia's selection strategy for Australian print and
electronic materials is consistent with its position of the national library
in
a federation of States. It reads:
3.9 The Library's broad collecting
intention is to continue to collect most of the printed material covered by the
legal deposit provisions
of the Copyright Act 1968 or by the various
arrangements applying to government publications and arrangements with
publishers and producers of electronic publications.
3.10 The sheer
volume of material published in the country makes it too costly for the Library
alone to attempt to collect and preserve
everything. The Library will,
therefore, concentrate on collecting publications that are relevant to an
understanding of the history
and development of Australia as a nation, and it
will cooperate with other institutions to ensure material it does not collect is
collected elsewhere in the country.
3.11 The overriding consideration for
the inclusion of an item in the Library's collection is always the information
content of a
publication.[56]
The National Library in its collecting guidelines lists a number of
categories which is selectively collects or omits. It states
it:
3.20 will not generally collect primary and secondary educational material published by State government bodies or by non-government educational authorities, or material from local organisations and associations. ...
3.21 Educational material from any source dealing with a national issue in
education, or of a topical interest to the Library will
be selectively acquired
if it is considered to contribute to an understanding of the history and
development of Australian education
and society. For example, educational and
curriculum materials will be collected on topics such as AIDS, indigenous people
of Australia
and the debate on the
republic.[57]
The Canadian
Library and Archives has a collection management policy which states that the
mission of the Library ‘is dedicated
to building a world-class national
resource enabling Canadians to know their country and themselves through their
published heritage
and to providing an effective gateway to national and
international sources of information. Fundamental to the achievement of the
National Library's mission is its collection, at whose core must be the foremost
collection of published Canadiana in the
world’.[58] Canadiana is
material published in Canada, and material published in another country if the
creator is Canadian or the publication
has a Canadian subject. The library
however excludes a number of publications including mass market paperbacks,
sound recordings
and videos merely printed or produced or pressed in Canada with
no Canadian creator, publisher or
subject.[59] The New Zealand
National Library collections policy also selectively addresses its identified
user groups and the variant ownership
and needs of its
collections.[60] The British
Library, by far the largest, ‘collects widely and in depth in its areas of
traditional strength’, and at
its core seeks to represent ‘the
collective memory of the nation by retaining for posterity the intellectual
output of British
publishing’.[61]
If library deposit laws seek to preserve our published literary and
cultural heritage, then one feature of their practice is that
they have never
been completely comprehensive.
Some selection of material received
under deposit laws has been characteristic of library policies in the United
Kingdom and other
countries. Further the scope of the deposit laws themselves
has hardly been completely comprehensive. Australian law in particular
has not
kept up to date with technological change and at present a vast amount of
electronic publication is subject to selective
voluntary arrangements. And
throughout Anglo-Australian history, the laws themselves have not been perfectly
observed. The history
of deposit observance in the United Kingdom evidences
this. The National Library estimate in 2005 is of an 85% to 90% compliance
for
all publishing required to be deposited under s
201.[62]
Deposit laws are an
instrument to gather a permanent record of the nation's published works and of a
record of all the branches of
knowledge contained within those works. While
those laws in the Australian States and in the other common law countries cited
are
now more commonly laws called library deposit or legal deposit laws,
Australian national deposit laws are likely to remain within
the Copyright
Act 1968 (Cth) for federal constitutional reasons. To that extent, as a
manifestation of national copyright policy, deposit laws are consistent
with the
goal of the encouragement of learning embodied in the first copyright statute in
England – the Statute of Anne of
1709. It is consistent with
Australia’s longstanding membership of the Berne Union – to which
almost all developed countries
are members - that the deposit laws should not be
a formality or condition of obtaining copyright protection. What is important
is that the laws be made current to take into account all forms of publication
and dissemination.
In essence the deposit laws are an important part of
the preservation of national cultural life and heritage. They are
manifestations
of a human value - the value of human identity: an understanding
and respect for who we are. The past is part of us. It is inherent
in all
artistic, social, economic, scientific and intellectual development. It is
important that future generations have access
to, and understand, the past, to
better understand themselves and to better deal with the future. In cultures
based on written records,
the greater proportion of material which is not
preserved, the less likely that value will be respected and promoted.
Appendix 1
|
New South Wales
|
Fisher Library
|
|
|
|
|
State Library
|
|
|
|
Parliamentary Library
|
|
Victoria
|
State Library
|
|
|
Queensland
|
Libraries Act 1988 s 68
|
State Library
|
|
|
|
Parliamentary Library
|
|
South Australia
|
Libraries Board
|
|
|
|
|
Parliamentary Library
|
|
Western Australia
|
Copyright Act 1895 s 7
This Act was repealed in 1994 and subsequent deposit with the State Library has been voluntary |
State Library
|
|
Tasmania
|
State Library
|
|
|
Northern Territory
|
Northern Territory Library
|
[∗] BA, LLB, LLM (Mon), Grad
Cert Higher Ed (UC), Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of the
Australian Capital Territory and
of the High Court of Australia, Solicitor of
the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of
Canberra.
[1] A list of the
current statutory provisions is set out in an Appendix at the end of this
article. The law discussed in this article
is that available to the author at
31 December 2005.
[2] Entitled
‘An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of
Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of Such Copies, During
the Times
Therein Mentioned’ 8 Anne c 19. The Act came into force on 10 April
1710.
[3] Those values are
presently reflected nationally and internationally in policies and laws for the
conservation and preservation of
moveable cultural heritage which stress the
importance to current and future generations of access to their own national
heritage
collections. In particular, refer AMOL, National Conservation and
Preservation Policy and Strategy (2003) Policy Statements 4-6
<http://sector.amol.org.au/publications_archive/national_policies>
at 16
December 2005, and the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and
Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and
Transfer of Ownership of Cultural
Property, to which Australia is a party. Article 5(c) of the Convention obliges
contracting states
to promote ‘the development or the establishment of
scientific and technical institutions (museums, libraries, archives,
laboratories,
workshops...) required to ensure the preservation and presentation
of cultural property’. ‘Cultural property’
includes
manuscripts, old books, documents and publications of special interest
(historical, artistic, scientific, literary, etc),
sound, photographic and
cinematographic archives. Refer UNESCO, Convention on the Means of
Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership
of Cultural Property (2001)
<http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/1970/html>
at 16 December 2005.
[4] In Liber C of the Court
Books of the Stationers' Company appears the following entry:
‘14
March 1610-11. Received from Oxon by the Delivery of Mr Doctor Kinge Deane of
Christ Church and Vicechauncellor of Oxon
the Certificate, under the
Universitie's Seale, of ane Indenture, before Sealed at Mr Leake's house in
Paule's Churchyard, under
the comon Seale. 15 Novbr ult. for one booke of every
new Copy to be gyven to the publique library at Oxon, that they appoynt Sr.
Thomas Bodley to receive the same'. RC Barrington Partridge, The History of
the Legal Deposit of Books Throughout the British Empire (1938) 17, note 3.
[5] How this agreement was brought
into effect is unclear. In 1695 the then University librarian Thomas Hyde
stated: ‘We have
been told that Sir Thomas Bodley gave to the Company 50
pounds worth of plate when they entered into this Indenture. But it's not
mentioned in our counter-part’. W D Macray, Annals of the Bodleian
Library, (2nd ed, 1984) 15, 41 (a reprint of the second edition published in
1890 at the Clarendon Press,
Oxford).
[6] Barrington Partridge,
above n 4, 2.
[7] Ibid
3.
[8] Clause XXXIII of the famous
Star Chamber decree of 11 July 1637 stated that one copy of every new book or
reprint,with additions
henceforth published had to be delivered to Stationer's
Hall before any sale of the work took place, the copy afterwards being required
to be sent to the Bodleian Library for preservation there. The penalty for
non-compliance by any printer was to be imprisonment
and a heavy fine. Three
years later an act for the abolition of the Star Chamber was passed reluctantly
by Charles I. Legal protection
for the Agreement virtually ceased immediately.
Barrington Partridge, above n 4,
22.
[9] Ayliffe says that the
agreement was very well observed until about 1640. He should rather have said
'about 1630' for in that year,
in a paper of notes made by the Librarian for the
use of Archbishop Laud, as Chancellor of the University, complaint is made that
the Company were very negligent in sending their books, and it is suggested that
a message from the Chancellor might quickly remedy
that neglect. Infrequent
mention of disputes with the London booksellers is made in speeches delivered by
Dr Ralph Bathurst as Vice-Chancellor,
sixty years afterwards, some of which were
printed by T Wharton in 1761 at the end of his Life. Macray, above n 5,
40.
[10] ‘Under the
preceding Licensing Acts the registration of a work at Stationers' Hall, and the
delivery of three copies, entitled
a printer to what amounted to a perpetual
copyright in that work, which privilege he could, of course, sell to another if
he chose.
On the old foundations, however, was built this new act whereby not
only was the number of deposit copies increased from three to
nine, but
curiously enough, the period of copyright in a work was fixed at twenty-one
years only for existing works, and at fourteen
years for all works printed after
10 April 1710’ (with the prospect of a further fourteen years if the
author were alive at
the end of the first fourteen years). Barrington
Partridge, above n 4,
35.
[11] Legal Deposit
Libraries Act 2003 (UK) c 28, ss. 1, 14.
[12] G W Wheeler (ed),
Letters of Sir Thomas Bodley to Thomas James (1926) 34-5 (letter no
26).
[13] Ibid 219, 221-2
(letter nos 220-1).
[14] 'In the
Bodleian Catalogues of 1603 and 1620 no entries whatever appear under the name
of Shakespeare. In the supplemental Catalogue
of 1635 the First Folio of 1623
is duly recorded; but in the catalogue of 1674 we find only the third edition,
that of 1664. The
inference is that the third edition seemed to the library
keepers of those times vastly preferable to the first and second editions,
and
so the precious volumes supplied by the Company in 1623 and 1632 were doubtless
regarded as little more than waste-paper and
were discarded'. Barrington
Partridge, above n 4, 21.
[15] Barrington
Partridge, above n 4,
24.
[16] Ibid.
[17]
One exception – based on historical grounds - is the reciprocal deposit
of material first published in the United Kingdom
in the Library of Trinity
College, Dublin and the deposit of material first published in the Republic of
Ireland in the British
Library.
[18] Barrington
Partridge, above n 4, 3.
[19] In Australia, under the
Copyright Act 1912 (Cth), there was an optional system of registration
but this entitled the copyright owner to certain remedies, which were not
otherwise
available without registration, but registration did not go to the
subsistence of copyright. The optional system of registration
was abolished by
the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
Article 5(2) of the Paris Act of the
Berne Convention, to which Australia is a party, provides that the enjoyment and
the exercise
of rights granted by the Convention and by national laws shall not
be subject to any formality; ‘such enjoyment and such exercise
shall be
independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the
work’.
In none of the surveyed common law countries does compulsory
deposit conflict with this principle. Compulsory deposit is not a condition
of
copyright protection in any of those countries. Under s 201 of the Australian
Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) there is a separate penalty ($100) for
non-compliance. The section operates independently and does not call up any of
the specific
copyright remedies under the Act, simply because failure to deposit
does not breach an act comprised within the copyright of the
library material
described in the section.
[20] Section 26 of the
Copyright Act 1912 (Cth) provided that: ‘Registration of
Copyright shall be optional, but the special remedies provided for by sections
fifteen, sixteen,
and seventeen of this Act can only be taken advantage of by
registered owners’. (Those provisions deal with unauthorised public
performance of musical and dramatic works, seizure of pirated copies of works
and forbidding performance of musical and dramatic
works in infringement of the
public performance right in those
works).
[21] Section 38(1) of the
Copyright Act 1912 (Cth) provided ‘Every person who makes an
application for the registration of the copyright in a book shall deliver to the
Registrar one copy of the whole book with all maps and illustrations belonging
thereto, finished and coloured in the same manner
as the best copies of the book
are published, and bound, sewed, or stitched together, and on the best paper on
which the book is
printed’. Section 40(1) of the Act also required the
deposit of best copy of the book with the Librarian of the Parliament.
[22] Section 74, Copyright
Act 1905 (Cth). An exception to this requirement existed in relation to the
infringement of lecturing rights.
[23] The Spicer Committee,
Parliament of Australia, Report of the Committee Appointed by the
Attorney-General of the Commonwealth to Consider What Alterations are Desirable
in The Copyright
Law of the Commonwealth (1959) 87, para
468.
[24] The Whitford Committee,
United Kingdom, Report of the Committee to Consider the Law on Copyright and
Designs (1977) 204, para
807.
[25] Ibid 210, para 831.
[26] The general principles of
interpretation of heads of power have been established in such cases as Bank
of New South Wales v The Commonwealth [1948] HCA 7; (1948) 76 CLR 1, 332-3; Lansell v
Lansell [1964] HCA 42; (1964) 110 CLR 353, 366-7, 370; The Queen v Public Vehicles
Licensing Appeal Tribunal (Tas.) [1964] HCA 15; (1964) 113 CLR 207, 225; Western
Australia v The Commonwealth [1975] HCA 46; (1975) 134 CLR 201, 245-6; Nintendo Company
Limited v Centronics Systems Pty Ltd [1994] HCA 27; (1994) 181 CLR 134, 160; and
The Grain Pool of WA v The Commonwealth [2000] HCA 14; (2000) 202 CLR 479, 492-5, 501.
[27] The preamble to the
Library and Archives of Canada Act, SC 2004, c 11, which incorporates the
legal deposit provision under Canadian law cites two of its objectives
that-
(a) the documentary heritage of Canada be preserved for the benefit of
present and future generations;
(b) Canada be served by an institution that
is a source of enduring knowledge accessible to all, contributing to the
cultural, social
and economic advancement of Canada as a free and democratic
society.
[28] The Grain Pool
of WA v The Commonwealth [2000] HCA 14; (2000) 202 CLR 479, 492.
[29] Sir Robert Garran was of
the view that an earlier deposit provision (s 75(4) of the Copyright Act
1905 (Cth)) was incidental to copyright: ‘it is an obligation of a
kind which is commonly dealt with in Copyright Acts, and it
can fairly be said
to have some relation to copyright, as being a duty imposed in consideration of
a right conferred’. Australia,
Attorney-Generals Department, Opinions
of the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, Vol
1:1901-1914 (1981) 562-3 (opinion no.
430).
[30] Minister of State
for the Army v Dalziel [1944] HCA 4; (1944) 68 CLR 261, 290; The Commonwealth v
Tasmania (The Tasmanian Dam Case) (1983) 158 CLR 1, 145, 246-7, 282-3;
Clunies-Ross v The Commonwealth [1984] HCA 65; (1984) 155 CLR 193, 201-2; Australian
Capital Television Pty Limited v Commonwealth of Australia [1992] HCA 45; (1992) 177 CLR
106, 165-6; Georgiadis v Australian and Overseas Telecommunications
Corporation [1994] HCA 6; (1994) 179 CLR 297, 303-4 (Mason CJ, Deane and Gaudron
JJ).
[31] Georgiadis v
Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation [1994] HCA 6; (1994) 179 CLR 297,
304, 306; Commonwealth of Australia v WMC Resources [1998] HCA 8; (1998) 194 CLR 1, 15,
50-1.
[32] Nintendo Company
Limited v Centronics Systems Pty Limited [1994] HCA 27; (1994) 181 CLR 134, 160-1 (Mason
CJ, Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron, and Mc Hugh
JJ).
[33] Durham Holdings Pty
Ltd v The State of New South Wales (2001) 205 CLR 399,
425-6.
[34] Section 3,
National Library of New Zealand Act 2003
(NZ).
[35] Barrington
Partridge, above n 4,
5-6.
[36] Ibid
6.
[37] Section 37 of the
National Library of New Zealand Act 2003 (NZ); reg 2 of the Library
and Archives of Canada Book Deposit Regulations 1995 (other copy may be
equal in quality to the quality of the largest number of copies produced); s
4(3) of the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003 (UK) c 28 (s 5(6) - for the
British Library Board - the copy is to be of the same quality as the best copies
which, at the time of
delivery, have been produced for publication in the United
Kingdom. For other than the British Library Board - the copy is to be
of the
same quality as the largest number of copies which, at the time of delivery,
have been produced for publication in the United
Kingdom); Copyright Act,
17 USC s 407(a)(2005) (USA); s 201(2) Copyright Act 1968
(Cth).
[38] In 1995, the National
Library of Australia joined with the National Film and Sound Archive in making a
joint submission on deposit
law reform (refer National Library of Australia
(1995)
<http://www.nla.gov.au/policy/clrcld.html>
at 10 August 2005) and
from time to time since 2001, the two agencies have also raised with the
Department of Communications,
Information Technology and the Arts, the
desirability of legal deposit provisions for electronic resources to ensure
their collection
and preservation. (Interview with Margaret Phillips, Director,
Digital Archiving, National Library of Australia (Telephone interview,
10 August
2005) and comments via email from Margaret Phillips to John Gilchrist, 11
November 2005).
[39] M
Phillips, Collecting Australian Online Publications, version 6 (2003)
National Library of Australia
<http://pandora.nla.gov.au/index.html>
at 12
April 2004.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Email from Margaret
Phillips, Director, Digital Archiving, National Library of Australia, to John
Gilchrist, 11 November 2005.
In June and July 2005 the NLA undertook a harvest
of the Australian web domain through the Internet Archive, a not-for-profit
company
in the United States if America. Approximately 185 million documents, or
files, were captured, the equivalent of 6.59 terabytes of
data. The NLA
estimate that that is approximately 95% of the Australia web domain. However
without legal deposit the access which
the NLA can give to this material will be
very limited. See also S Grose, ‘Staff Harvest Web for History’, 28
March
2005, The Canberra Times (Canberra), 17, column
4.
[42] The harvesting of
websites does not encompass all government publications and up to 2003 excluded
online daily newspapers, news
sites, data bases and the 'deep web', music, maps,
E-prints, CAMS, weblogs and various other sites: Phillips, above n 39.
Following
reviews, by 2005, music, weblogs, maps and publications in database
format were added to the publications harvested
<http://pandora.nla.gov.au/archived/selectionguidelines.html>
. The total
number of au domains in 2005 was above 500,000 (Grose, above n 41, 17, column
3).
[43] Legal Deposit
Libraries Act 2003 (UK) c
28.
[44] Section 10, Library
and Archives of Canada Act, SC 2004, c
11.
[45] Regulations 3 and 4,
Library and Archives of Canada Deposit Regulations
1995.
[46] Under s 36 of the
National Library of New Zealand Act 2003
(NZ).
[47] Interview with
Tony Marshall, Senior Librarian, Heritage Collections, State Library of Tasmania
(Telephone interview, 1 December
2005), and refer State Library of Tasmania,
Legal Deposit (2004)
<http://www.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/about/legaldep.htm>
at 1 December
2005.
[48] Section 13,
Publications (Legal Deposit) Act 2004
(NT).
[49] Western Australia,
Department of Premier and Cabinet, DPC Functions: Premier’s Circulars
2003/17 (2003)
<http://www.dpc.wa.gov.au>
at 23 August
2005.
[50] Eg s 7 Copyright
Act 1879 (NSW).
[51] And the
presumption against such a legislative intent would have to be
‘extraordinarily strong’: Bropho v Western Australia [1990] HCA 24; (1990)
171 CLR 1, 23, 26.
[52]
Interview with Margaret Phillips, Director, Digital Archiving, National Library
of Australia (Telephone interview, 10 August 2005).
[53] Section 6 of the
Publications (Legal Deposit) Act 2004 (NT).
[54] AusInfo, Guidelines for
Commonwealth Information Published in Electronic Format, version 1.1 (2000)
Department of Finance and Administration, [para 4.5.1],
<http://www.agimo.gov.au/information/publishing/formats>
at 29 November
2005.
The Guidelines are currently subject to review. Refer also: Australia,
Office of Government Information Technology, Management of Government
Information as a National Strategic Resource - Report of the Information
Management Steering Committee on
Information Management in the Commonwealth
Government: August 1997 (1997) 12, 15-16, 107-9.
[55] CP Auger, Information
Sources in Grey Literature, (4th ed, 1998) 3-7, cites various
definitions of grey literature - 'literature which is not readily available
through normal book-selling
channels, and therefore difficult to identify and
obtain' (Chillag (1985) 'non-conventional', 'informal', 'informally published',
'fugutive' and even 'invisible' (Van der Heij (1985)). Auger states that
uncertain availability, poor bibliographic information
and control,
non-professional layout and format, and low print runs are characteristics of
grey literature: at 3. He includes within
the categories of grey literature
'ephemera ' - works produced for short term purposes: at 6, such as leaflets and
posters. [Examples
of grey literature include reports, technical notes, and
specifications, conference proceedings and preprints, supplementary publications
and data compilations and trade literature: at
3].
[56] National Library of
Australia, Collection Development Policy, Australian Printed and Electronic
Materials (2005) [paras 3.9-3.11]
<http://www.nla.gov.au/policy/cdp>
at 15 August 2005.
[57] Ibid
paras 3.20-3.21.
[58] Library and
Archives of Canada, Collection Management Policy of the National Library of
Canada: A Summary (1999)
<http://www.collectionscanada.ca/9/9index-e.html>
at 15 August
2005.
[59] Ibid.
[60] National
Library of New Zealand, Collections Policy (2005)
<http://www.natlib.govt.nz/en/about/1keypolcollections.html>
at 15 August
2005.
[61] British Library Board,
The British Library - Collection Development Policy (2005)
<http://www.bl.uk/about/policies/collections.html>
at 16 August
2005.
[62] Interview with Ann
Triffett, Curator, Monographs, National Library of Australia (Telephone
interview, 11 August 2005).
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/QUTLawJJl/2005/12.html