- Access Copyright Interim Post-Secondary Educational Institution Tariff, 2011-2013
- Access Copyright Elementary and Secondary School Tariff, 2010-2014 (There is no such tariff. It has not been certified and there is no “interim” tariff)
- Access Copyright Provincial and Territorial Governments Tariff, 2010-2014 (There is no such tariff. It has not been certified and there is no “interim” tariff)
The tool is not intended to advise whether you are required to obtain authorization from Access Copyright to make a copy of a publication. The user acknowledges sole responsibility for determining whether a licence to copy a publication is required, including determining whether the publication is in the public domain.
Click here to search Access Copyright's repertoire and determine whether you can make a copy of a publication.
One needs to know the precise ISBN number and publisher. This may not be known, if one does not have the “original” in one’s hands. Why can’t one simply quaere, for example, whether a particular work of Margaret Atwood or Jack Granatstein or a publication by Oxford University Press are in AC’s repertoire? Why force the user to provide an ISBN number? That is the kind of thing that people need to know. For example, here is a link to my paper from 1999 on setting up an alternative collective to AC that would be run by academics themselves. You won’t find the ISBN number on this scanned reproduction. You could search it out, but this may be very time consuming unless you have the original journal from which this scan came – or unless it can be readily easily found online, which would not be the case in this instance. There are simple ways of fining some ISBN numbers, at least for most recent books, but AC does not tell you how.
In fact, the ISBN system was not even implemented in 1967, which means that countless books and journal articles still protected by copyright do not have ISBN numbers.
AC does make its exclusion list available online, if you can find it. But this list does not allow for “cut and paste” copying of ISBN information, which would be a simple courtesy to users. Why isn’t this list linked to the repertoire finding tool, so that if a work is clearly excluded, this will be obvious?
Nor does it follow that, just because a work is not listed in AC’s exclusion list, it is in AC’s repertoire either directly or indirectly through a valid foreign affiliation. In fact, most of the millions of works in Canada’s post secondary libraries likely are neither directly nor indirectly part of AC’s repertoire. If that is the case, AC has no basis to license such works. Reliance on AC’s questionable indemnity scheme in such cases raises other questions in turn.
Above all, this implies that no work can be copied unless it is in AC’s very limited repertoire. This is incorrect. If the work is protected by copyright, and if the copying requires permission – which will often not be the case in either the K-12 or post-secondary or governmental context if the concepts of “substantial part” and “fair dealing” are correctly understood – then the work can be copied with permission obtained directly from the rights holder. This is what dozens of universities that have opted out of the AC Interim Tariff are doing.
If you do not have the ISBN/ISSN of the publication you wish to copy, you can seek permission to copy the publication by filling out our online permission request form. We will respond in 1-2 business days.
How does it follow that AC can give permission to copy because a user does not have the ISBN number, which will often be the case? AC has no legal basis to grant permission to copy for works not in its limited repertoire. In any case, this takes 1-2 business days and requires giving AC the requester's email address. Those concerned with risk aversion and privacy may not be very happy about giving their email addresses to AC in an inquiry about repertoire status. In any event, this is clearly not much of a database if it requires what appears to be a manual search and manual response by old fashioned email.
At least AC says that this is the Beta version. It clearly has a long way to go before it’s ready for prime time, even as version 1.0. Never mind the six year old vapour-ware promise of a public domain registry. This latest effort raises many more questions than it provides answers.