>> David: I would like to
introduce register of copyrights
and my boss, Register Shira
Perlmutter; Shira take it away.
>> Shira Perlmutter:
Thank you David.
And welcome everyone
to the public -
Copyright Public Modernization
Committee, to the members
and also members of the
public who are joining us.
And just as a reminder for those
who may not have joined before,
this committee was established
by the Library of Congress
in order to allow us to
hear from stakeholders
about the work we're doing
on copyright modernization.
And also to share our
progress with you.
And that progress
has been substantial.
So I'm very please to say
that since we last met,
we passed two more
of our quarterly software
development milestones,
resulting in work that
you're going to see today.
And some major public releases.
So I do want to start
with breaking news.
After two years of development
and extensive user
experience testing,
the new copyright
recordation application,
the online recordation system of
the enterprise copyright system
or ECS will be made
available for use
by the general public
beginning on Monday.
So you heard it here first,
even before the press release.
And we gave this
group a sneak preview
of the recordation application
in our previous meeting.
And you may remember two of
the major points about this.
First it's the first piece
of our enterprise copyright
system that's reached this
important milestone.
And it also replaces the
oldest of our processes,
which was a purely paper
recordation system.
So this is overdo and we're
very excited about it.
Second on public records,
later this summer our new public
records system will achieve the
same accomplishment.
And we will be releasing
it fully to the public,
this system that's used by
researchers and the public
to look up information
about copyrights.
And this will be the second
major application release
of the ECS.
And finally, yesterday morning
we released yet another set
of 300 historical
record books on LOC.gov,
which contain many thousands of
additional registration records.
So these are available
as you know for your use
on Loc.gov including the ability
to download the scans
themselves.
So in a moment you will
be hearing a recap along
with a demonstration of
some of the work we've done
in the six months since
our last public meeting.
But before we do that
I'd like to hand the mic
over to our chief information
officer, Judith Conklin
for some additional remarks.
So Judith.
>> Judith Conklin:
Thank you Shira.
And good afternoon to
everyone who joined us.
As Shira said I am the CIO
at the Library of Congress.
And I want to join
Shira in welcoming you
to the third official meeting
of the copyright public
modernization committee.
And I'm very glad to
see everyone here.
Since this is the third public
meeting of this committee,
I wanted to state
that we've already
in the first two meetings
extensively covered our -
how our technology
team is developing,
the enterprise copyright system.
And how we're partnering
with the copyright office.
And if you missed the first two
meetings you can find the videos
on our loc.gov website, as
well as several ECS webinars
on the copyright
modernization website.
But before we go on, I want
to remind you about two points
that we've discussed before.
And I hit on the first
one a little bit already.
But this is a true partnership
between the Library OCIO
and the copyright office.
We - and that's at every level.
I want to assure you that Shira
and I talk about ECS a lot
and we have a great partnership.
And the technology side,
the team, the developers,
the project manager, managers
- there's several of them.
Down to you know, our
infrastructure people.
They have - they're
working fantastically
with the copyright team.
And the experts in copyright.
They do it every day
and that's to ensure
that we're delivering a
platform that meets the needs
of the copyright community.
And we do that - the saying
that Shira and I like to use -
I actually stole it from Shira.
And we can only be
successful together.
And Shira and I take
that very seriously.
Our teams need to work
very closely together,
and they are working
closely together.
And the second thing is,
and I really can't
emphasize this enough.
That our entire development
process is built on feedback.
We, OCIO, the design team
relies significantly on feedback
from the copyright
office staff, the experts.
And real users, like you.
So we - we want to know
that everyone will be able
to use what we're developing, to
accomplish their business needs.
And be able to use
what we're developing.
So - and that's every
type of user.
Whether it's a high-end
user, a power user
or the first time
ever person going
into a copyright application.
So that's why these public
meetings are very important
to us.
We've been making great
progress as Shira said.
And we have a lot of
good news to share.
And I'm looking forward
to a lively discussion
with you, and the committee.
And with that, David
I'll hand it back
to you to get us started.
>> David: Thank you Judith.
It's a really exciting time
in the copyright office.
Before I introduce our
next speaker, who is going
to be doing some
software demonstrations,
I'd like to provide a short
background reminder to people
who may be joining us
for the first time,
that the copyright office uses
the scale of agile methodology
to manage our software.
And this means that every
quarter we have a big meeting
of the whole group between
OCIO and the copyright office,
with the CIO is there.
The register of copyrights is
there and the staff who work
on each of these projects.
And we do a set of
- of software demos.
And most of what you're
going to see today is cribbed
from our most recent
software demo.
We call this in scale
of agile terminology,
it's an inspect and
adapt ceremony.
So this is a - this is a
little bit of the highlights
of the inspect and
adapt ceremony
to members of the public.
I also wanted to point out that
the demos that you're going
to see today are heavy on
two of the ECS components
that we have not looked
at a lot previously.
So we looked at the
recordation system,
we looked at the
historical public records,
we looked at the public
records system, all of which are
out in the public now.
And Sara is going to
provide some demos of systems
that are used by copyright
office staff today, and not just
by members of the public.
And then finally, for those
of you who are waiting
with bated breath for the
- for the next big demo
of the registration system
that's what we're shooting for,
for our next public meeting
that we'll do together.
Where we'll do this
style of demonstration
of the largest you know,
sort of the centerpiece
of the enterprise
copyright system.
So without further ado I would
like to introduce Sara Garski.
Sara is the Deputy Director of
the Product Management Division
of the United States
Copyright Office.
And is the product manager for
the enterprise copyright system
which is the star of
our modernization work.
Sara take it away.
>> Sara: Thank you David.
And as always, I am delighted
to be providing an
update on ECS progress.
It has been an eventful time
for the ECS since I spoke
to you last, several months ago.
We do continue to make great
development strides towards our
vision of an intuitive and
flexible enterprise system.
That incorporates registration,
recordation, licensing,
public record and shared
services capabilities
to benefit the creative
- creative community
and the copyright staff.
Shira already gave you
sort of the highlights
of what's happening
in the next month.
I won't tell you again.
In our most recent quarterly
development checkpoint,
all of the ECS product teams
demoed work in progress
and refined their
plans, development plans
for the upcoming quarter.
And I'm going to give
you a few highlights.
So the registration product
team recently completed work
on a range of internal
and external features.
On the staff side, development
work supported correspondence
and activity tracking features
as well as enhancements
to the message center.
Notably enabling support
for inline images
as part of messages.
Work on the applicant side
included claim, search, file,
upload, account management
and support
for standard application
payments.
The registration product team
also completed design work
in support of the registration
of a group of unpublished works
as well as on a born
digital claims refusal letter
and process.
And finally, the registration
product team explored methods
to manage and create and
manage the massive volume
of supporting help content that
will be needed for the system.
And completed the
journey map of a claim.
The registration product
team is currently focused
on capabilities for
capturing claims, submission
and examination information
enabling registration certified
preview and staff
workflow capabilities.
At the next meeting, as David
noted, I will be excited
to show you the work we
have completed to date,
thus far on the registration
product.
As was previously noted
in Shira's breaking news,
ECS recordation release
1.8 is imminent
and will mark the availability
of recordation section 205
submission capabilities
to the general public.
The product team
recently has spent much
of it's time preparing
for this release.
The team has also worked
on enhancing canned reporting
capabilities, instructional
and help text content
enhancements,
activity tracking features and
account management functions.
In addition to supporting
the imminent release,
the team is getting to work on
the next large set of features
for examining section 203
notices of termination.
The public record system
released 5.0 is intended
to include the ability to
render reference copies
on registration certificates
processed
through the echo system, as well
as certificates of recordation.
A future release is anticipated
to include further enhancements
to the detailed record
view, including such things
as hyperlinks to
related registration
and recordation records.
Recent quantitative usability
tests showed marked improvements
in search relevancy and
[inaudible] compared
to baseline results
from last year.
The team has also
worked on methods
for improving user
adoption to the new system
versus the legacy
public record catalog.
And now I would like to
demonstrate some software.
And so I will share screen.
And hopefully everyone can see.
>> David: Looking great Sara.
>> Sara: Okay good.
All right.
So what I'd like to show
you first is the beginnings
of a new product
to support records
and research certification
services
that are provided by the office.
When completed, this ECS product
that we call service request
processing will provide users
access to research services and
requests for deposit copies.
The public will be
able to submit and pay
for requests via
this online portal.
And copyright office
staff will be able
to estimate non-flat
fees for research as well
as manage the internal
assignment
of requests and track progress.
So we - what you see
here is the beginnings
of that external portal.
So as a user I am going to
request a copy estimate.
You will see here that we
have additional services
that we intend to
make available.
They are not ready yet.
So we're just going
to do a copy estimate.
So I'm going to select
copy estimate.
And I'm going to click next.
Okay, so then the next question
that I get is do I
have a copyright number
for the work I am requesting?
The answer is yes, I do.
So I click next and I'm
going to enter that number.
And I see my - my
language has changed
to something that
is non-English.
Okay, now we're good.
All right.
I'm going to enter this number.
1737, that was right the
first time, 1737396, okay.
You will see here
we have options,
or we have additional
fields here where envision
in the future is the
ability to pull the title
and your publication
information based
on the registration number.
Again that's planned
for future work.
So I am going to click add.
And then you'll see here that I
am requested, or I'm being asked
for the kind of service
that I am requesting.
In this case I want an
additional certificate
and I would like for
it to be certified.
We see here if there is an
additional registration number
associated with this, I have
the ability to enter that.
I'm not going to do
that at this point.
I am just going to click next.
And now I'm being asked
what my relationship is
to the request that I have made.
I am the copyright owner.
I am going to click next.
And here I have the ability
to select regular
processing or expedited.
I'm going to select regular.
And then I'm going to enter
all of the various information
that will help the
office process my request.
And as you can see, I'm just
entering dummy information.
Because we are on a test
- we are in a test site -
>> David: Sara we've had a
couple of questions come up.
And if you don't
mind if I weigh in.
>> Sara: Sure.
>> David: One is,
is there a reason
that it says copyright
number rather
than copyright registration
number?
>> Sara: No.
I don't believe that there is.
And that is a piece of feedback
that I can take back
to the team.
And perhaps we add that.
It seems like it would be
a very easy thing to add.
>> David: Yeah.
And then a second question was
whether it would be possible
to expand on your -
about born digital works.
And - from one of our panelists
and if there are any additional
clarifications or questions
about that, I'd welcome
the panelists
to unmute and ask as well.
>> Jim Neil: Sara
in your comments
and introducing the work
that has been done
- this is Jim Neil.
>> Sara: Yes.
>> Jim Neil: You mentioned
some work that was being done
on born digital works.
And I just - I didn't mean to
interrupt this presentation.
I wanted you to comment further
on that when you were done.
>> Sara: Okay.
Sure. Happy to do that.
Okay.
>> David: Thank you Jim.
And sorry to put
you on the spot.
I could have saved
that for the end.
>> Sara: That's okay.
That is all right.
Okay, so I have - that
gave me the opportunity
to enter all of my information.
And I'm going to select review.
And this - the fact that we're
seeing this screen again may be
a bug that we need to fix.
But again, I'm going
to click next.
And now I see that there
is a request number
that is associated with
what I have just done.
And you can also see that our
payment review component is not
yet implemented.
So this is - this is
where we are with this.
But I can also tell you that
near planned development work
for this product includes
enabling the payment
capabilities that are
needed via pay.gov as well
as the ability to
generate receipts.
And process the ability
for staff to look
at in process requests.
And for - actually that's for
both staff and external users.
Okay and now I'm going to -
>> David: Sara while
you're jumping over to the -
>> Sara: Yes.
>> David: The other system,
I'm going to answer a couple
questions I got on a side chat.
One of which is a question we
also receive via email before
the meeting today, which is
will there be a separate deposit
account for those who are
using deposit accounts?
For different ECS applications?
Or will it be a single
payment system
that is used across all of ECS?
>> Sara: Right.
So the intent - the eventual
intent is a single deposit
account across all work streams.
>> David: Perfect, thank you.
And we have another
question about the requests,
which is who has access
to these requests?
And how long will
they be retained?
I know the question about
retention is a - is a document -
there's a document
retention policy
for these requests already.
But can you start
with who has access
to the requests once
they are submitted?
>> Sara: So if we're talking
about the research requests,
so there's a limited
group of people whose roll
in the office it is to
process these requests.
There is a specific group
of staff that do this.
It's a very limited number.
Maybe 10, maybe give or take.
And so that's the
group of people
who would have access to it.
>> David: Great.
And as far as the
document retention,
I believe that these fall
under the standard 20-year
document retention policy,
but I will follow up
with the members to find
out what the document
retention policy
on research requests
specifically - specifically is.
I don't see any additional
questions coming
through about this
part of the demo.
We do have another - we
do have another question
about another one of the
areas, which I'll save
for after this part of the demo.
>> Sara: Okay I can
- you know I can only
like single thread things David.
>> David: Yes, exactly.
>> Sara: All right.
Okay, so now we are looking
at the licensing product.
So for those of you who may not
have heard this spiel before.
The purpose of the
licensing product is
to improve the efficiency
by which the office
ingests information
from licensing remitters.
And to improve specifically
timeliness and accuracy
of financial and
statistical reporting produced
by the office.
So I'm going to show
you like three features
that have been worked on
recently by the product team.
Because I'm already logged in
with a user that has this role.
We're going to look at what
is called the collections
tab first.
So this - this is the tab
we're looking at here.
You can see there's
a lot of information.
This is a pretty dense screen.
But this screen and this
tab provides fiscal staff,
so these are accountants in
the licensing division who need
to look at the licensing
payment information
that we receive from pay.gov.
Anybody who is associated
with the licensing product,
or the licensing process knows
that as of July 1 of this year,
all licensing payments must
be submitted via pay.gov.
Again I noted this is
a very dense screen.
There's lots of information
regarding the licensing
statement of account, that
is important to this team.
What I will say is that over
here on the right if there -
if I'm a member of that team
and I don't need to see all
of these columns I - we have
the ability to remove a number
of these to make the screen
a little more manageable.
Now I'm going to - before
we go to another view
as a different user,
I'm going to go back
to my statement of
accounts view.
And I'm going to drill
into one in particular.
Oh this is not a good one.
this one has an underpayment
detected.
Let's scroll back.
See if we can actually
get a payment.
Again this is all dummy data.
So -
We may not have any - may
not have any ability to look
at actual numbers here.
But you will - you can see that
there actually should be okay -
that it looks like we're
looking for a payment
to have been received by the
office associated with this SOA,
with the statement of
account, excuse me.
Okay so now I am going to -
I'm going to log out.
I'm going to stop
sharing briefly,
so that no one sees
what my password is.
>> David: Sara I told several
of our panelists and cohosts
that I prepared a
little dance number
for when we went off
of screen sharing.
And -
>> Sara: Great.
>> David: But I have to admit
now in front of everybody
in the audience that I
- that I was bluffing.
I didn't really prepare
a dance number.
But I did - I did want to say
there were a couple of questions
that came to me on a side
chat about the licensing -
licensing specifically.
And one of those questions
was about the amount
of licensing revenue that
the copyright office manages.
And I - I did want to share that
there's recent breaking news
that the copyright office
had a clean audit of our -
and we now have a
many years running
of a clean external audit
of the licensing management
of the licensing dollars.
I know that this will be
on the recording later.
And I'll be able to
verify what the number is.
But the number - the
amount of dollars manded
by the copyright office
in the licensing system is
over a billion dollars.
So it's a sizable -
sizable chunk of change.
And then we got one other
question about how -
how the licensing
statement of account -
statements of account come
to the copyright office,
which may be a thing if we're
not ready to show that today,
maybe we could just talk
through it a little bit.
>> Sara: How they come
to the copyright office?
>> David: Right.
>> Sara: Meaning
electronic or paper form?
>> David: Exactly.
>> Sara: Yeah, both ways.
>> David: Yeah.
>> Sara: Yeah.
Okay. Thanks for
vamping for me David.
>> David: It's my pleasure.
>> Sara: Yeah thank
you, appreciate that.
>> David: It's not as
good as a dance number,
if I had really prepared one.
But here we are, back to your
regularly scheduled programming.
>> Sara: Yeah.
Yeah, keep vamping for a
moment if you don't mind.
>> David: So one of the
things that you'll note
as Sara has gone through the
demos, and we actually trimmed
down the number of roles that
you're seeing demonstrated
from our original
attempted demo.
But one of the things
that you're seeing is
that there are actually a
number of different things
that people would see
in the enterprise copyright
system based upon their role
in the system.
So even inside the copyright
office it's not a one size
fits all.
The people who are reviewing
statements of account
versus the people who are
doing sort of a bulk review,
versus the people who
would be doing the research
and record certification
reviews are -
are different sets of people.
So one of the things that Sara
is juggling quite admirably
today is keeping track
of multiple credentials
so that she can show you
what the system looks
like from a vast array
of different entry points
and levels of - levels
of availability,
sort of user roles
that people have.
>> Sara: Right.
And it refuses to
log me out as myself.
And give me the ability to
log in as somebody else,
which is part of the
problem I'm having right now.
>> David: All right.
Well we may have a -
>> Sara: Well I mean I can just
talk about the third feature
that I was going to show,
which was the ability
to ingest a statement of account
where I would have noted the
fact that most of the statements
of account that we
would be ingesting via
that particular process are
received in electronic form.
So that feature shows you know,
basically shows you the screen
that an examiner separate
from the fiscal staff view
that I was just showing, the
examiner view has the ability
to actually perform
the ingestion.
To select a statement of account
file, and those are Excel files.
And then there's an
ingestion process
which notably is not
actually attaching the file
to - to the module.
But is rather pulling
the data out of the file
so that we can see it
in a different format.
And then also worthy of
noting is that as an examiner,
once I have successfully
ingested the statement account,
I have the temporary
option to remove that file,
if I've made an error.
But once I navigate away from
that screen as an examiner,
that option is no
longer available to me.
So my apologies for the
technical difficulties,
nothing like a live demo.
So on - on the - in - in
the near future front,
for the licensing product
work includes the ability to -
for fiscal staff to
process refunds as well
as additional support for
fiscal reconciliations.
And with that, I thank
you all for joining.
And I thank you for
your indulgence
of nothing like a live demo.
And as David said, juggling
multiple credentials
in order to show you this.
And with that, back
to you David.
>> David: Thank you Sara.
Much appreciated.
And you can feel free to
stop your screen share now
and I've got a couple additional
questions from panelists,
which - a couple of which
I may field directly.
And a couple of which I may
hand over to other panelists
from the copyright office
and/or our colleagues in OCIO.
So the - a question about the
just completed licensing demo
was whether the infrastructure
or functionality
on the licensing side is
built to anticipate licensing
of other kinds of works.
The example given
is literary works.
And the answer to that is -
is probably a resounding
yes and no.
I think the - the platform
is certainly extensible.
And the platform is owned
by the copyright office,
so it's not something
that we can't extend.
But I wonder if I might hand
it to - hand the microphone
to Jim Karamanos for a
minute or one of the -
our other colleagues and OCIO
Design and Development to talk
about what the process would
be for extending something
like the licensing system to
a different category of work,
or possibly Natalie
Buda-Smith if Jim is not on.
>> David let's actually
pass that on to Mike Nybech.
I think he's the best
person to answer that.
And he's on the call.
>> David: Perfect.
Mike I didn't even
see you on the call.
I appreciate it very much.
So again, the question is
could you talk a little bit
about the process for
extending the functionality
that has been built specifically
for - in this example
that we're built specifically
for satellite royalties
or if it were built specifically
for another kind of royalty.
What the process would look like
for extending it to something
like licensing of
literary works.
>> Mike Nybech: Sure
David thank you.
I'd be glad to speak
to that briefly.
Don't want to go into a
whole lot of technical detail
about how we build these
tools, except to state
that whenever we analyze
a business problem
that comes across.
We think of it not in terms of
just that very specific need,
but we do contemplate larger
similar needs to that.
And when we build the actual
components to do that,
we build it in a
way that is meant
to be extendable and dynamic.
And be able to change over time.
So it does depend on the
complexity of the change.
But our entire process, our
software engineering process
or program management
process is built
around that concept of change.
So we're constantly reaching
out to customers about changes.
We're looking at
bugs or enhancements.
And all of our cycle
about analyzing those
requirements just feed back
into the processes in the system
that built the component
in the first place.
So we're - our goal
here is to be in a kind
of continuous delivery
mode, and for the system
to grow dynamically as the needs
of the United States
Copyright Office changes.
We don't consider this
a done and walk away.
We're going to be here
working on the system
as long as it's needed.
>> David: Thanks Mike.
And that gives me an
opportunity actually to -
to give a brief advertisement
for the copyright
offices strategic plan,
which if you haven't seen
is quite a short document
and it's very readable and it's
meant to be very actionable.
But one of the things that
we've gotten the most positive
and consistent feedback
on is the -
the work of continuous
development, which is one
of the four high level strategic
goals of the copyright office.
And the continuous
development is the recognition
that in the past we have
had, we have made the mistake
of doing a flurry of
activity to build the system
and the system stagnates and the
goal of the current work is not
so much to build the single
system, but to put ourselves
on a footing that allows us
to continue the development
of those systems over time.
We had one more question
come in from a panelist now
that the demo is over.
And the question
was specifically
about registration deposit
material and who would be able
to access deposit material
under which circumstances
and are those deposit materials
limited to litigation context.
So with my apologies, our
Director of Registration
and our product manager for the
registration ECS development are
both on vacation today.
So we're a little bit short
handed in the specific way.
But this is a question
that I can answer at least
in the broadest sense.
So there is a statutory right
for inspection of deposits,
which doesn't mean that
we necessarily hand it
over to someone,
but for instance
if you make a physical
deposit of an item
with a copyright office now,
it's possible for somebody
to make a request to
inspect that deposit.
And that would not be limited
to the context of legal action.
But the functionality that
we looked at, actually was
for the request of
- requests that come
in for litigation
support essentially.
And with that, I would
like to invite our members
of the copyright public
modernization office to turn
on their cameras and get their
finger on the mute button.
And we may want to use that -
or get their finger
on the unmute button.
And we may be able to use
that as a jumping off point
for conversation by the group.
And I will - I will offer
again, that is our intent
in the next public meeting
to have our - our director
of registration,
our product manager
for the registration
product here in live
and in the flesh to
provide the demos.
Then maybe we can go into a
deeper answer of specific sort
of feature and functionality
questions there.
I would also note that there
is at least one case now
with electronic copies
that are deposited
with the copyright office.
Where they are selected into
Library of Congress collections
and presented to
patrons of the library
in a rights restricted context.
And that that would be
another specific case
where it's not done in a
specific litigation context.
So I'd like to next
recognize Jeff Sedlock
who is a CPMC member
and Jeff feel free
to unmute yourself
and jump right in.
>> Jeff Sedlock: Thank you.
So very interested in learning
about what the plans for the API
that will allow third
parties to develop systems
to enable creators and
other copyright holders
to submit registrations
through - through the software
that they work in
their normal workflow.
And I'd really like to hear
more about timeline for when
that might be available
and what kind
of progress has been
made to date.
>> David: Great.
So I think again
we don't have the -
the registration product
owners on the call today.
But I think we can flag that
for a - for a top topic.
I will say that in general
our approach has been
to build the interfaces
prior to the API interfaces
And that we are not - we
have not completed the work
of the human interfaces for the
copyright registration system.
So the human interface,
when I talk about that -
part of that is the in-context
help, which has been a big part
of what our user
testing has identified.
How do people know if something
is published or unpublished?
Is a great big question
that nobody really
knows the answer to.
Well somebody knows the answer
to, but it's a harder question
to answer than it seems
like it should be.
But I also did want
to offer that I think
that there has been - that
this is a broad area of -
that this is a broad area
of investigation by
the whole agency.
Sort of how system to system
access will be enabled
by various systems.
And that there has
been some work has gone
into if you've seen in the
broader agency there's a page
on loc.gov called LC for
robots, which sort of talks
about how some of that
kind of work has been done.
And I know that LC Labs has also
begun some investigatory avenues
about how to use Library of
Congress collections in -
in a programmatic way.
I will say that the - the work
on something as far as along
as what you just described.
The ability for someone
to programmatically submit
a registration claim is -
is essentially not the gun.
That's far on the horizon.
With that said, I think there
are some shorter you know,
some possible half steps
that are before even
if the registration claim
couldn't be done entirely
by API.
One of the things
that we're looking
at is whether it's
possible for you know,
to have uploads happen
via an API,
even if the registration
claim itself had to be made.
Or, if they're good - but again
this is really exploratory
at this point.
And we're really focused
on primarily the -
the human interface aspects.
>> Just a brief follow up then
so as a development philosophy,
there are any number of
ways to go as we all know.
One way is to build a
system kind of API first.
And I don't know what the
technical term for that is,
but then you build the copyright
office, UI and UX to attach
that API as one example
of a system
that can attach to that API.
Because if you first
build a system
without considering everything
that has to go on with the API
and circling back on
it, becomes a labor
of love shall we
say of many decades.
And so I think it would be -
because this is top of mind
for especially in the
photography space,
the visual artist space I think
it would be great for the office
or the library to
have some messaging
on what the plan is for that.
Because visual artists
especially are very focused,
and excited about the
prospect of being able
to submit registrations
from within their workflow.
And if that's just not going
to happen then they
should just be told that so
that they can be
excited about being able
to submit uploads
possibly through an API.
>> David: Right.
Jeff thank you and I have
flagged that in my notes
for additional follow up.
And I appreciate the input.
And certainly this is you know
not the only time the office has
sort of heard this about
photography in particular.
So it's good to have
it reconfirmed here
in this context.
>> Jeff: Thank you.
>> David: I'd like to throw
it open to the - I have -
I have prepared some
additional thought questions
for - for the group.
But it looks like Susan Jerkoff
has - has her hand raised.
So Susan go ahead.
>> Susan Jerkoff: So
this is sort of a follow
up to what Jeff was asking
about, but not directly I guess.
But it's the same question
I ask each time which is
about bulk processing.
So for large copyright owners,
I work for the recording
industry association of America.
My members are large
record companies.
They have new, you know
numerous new releases each week.
They would like to be able
to sit down once a week
and you know register
40 works at once.
And be able to do it in some
efficient way and not have
to refill all the
basic information
that goes in every application.
Not have to upload whatever
digital deposits they might be
submitting one by one.
I'd have to pay one by one.
And most importantly not
have the system freeze
when they're doing this,
which is what they tell
me happens all the time.
And so is that in the
pipeline yet for kind
of the first rendition
of the new system.
>> David: That's
a great question.
So one of the things that we
were hoping to do a little bit
with both the release of
the recordation system,
which is coming up
this next week.
As well as with the demo
of the licensing system,
is to show a little bit
of how the office has been
working on bulk processes.
Most of what - what
you would have seen
in the recordation demo that we
did before really is almost all
bulk processes that are
come out of a data file,
rather than just one
by one entry of fields.
And same goes for the
statement of accounts review
that we were looking at.
So certainly this topic is
near and dear to our hearts.
I wonder if on the topic
of bulk - bulk operations
if Natalie Buda-Smith from OCIO
who is our - who is our head
of user experience
design might want to talk
about that a little bit.
And about what we've heard
in some of the user feedback
that we've already gotten.
I know this has been a
topic that has been -
Natalie are you -
are you with us?
>> Natalie Buda-Smith:
Yeah I'm here.
Yeah I can just briefly -
we do know it is something
that is highly valuable
to our end users.
It comes up often in
our user research.
And it is something that
is in discovery in order
to understand you know
all the what's needed.
So it is currently
something that we're pursuing
from a design perspective
and understanding
through user research
and user feedback
that referenced earlier
in our call.
I don't have any more
specifics to give you.
But we do know, and the products
team does know that this is
of high value to our users.
>> That's great.
And if I could help
connect you with people
at my member companies
who could walk you
through what their
specific needs are,
I'd be happy to do that.
>> Sure thing, we
would love to have.
Any - any sort of
contact for people to use
in our user research,
we adore that.
Please send it our way.
Thank you.
>> David: I'm smiling
because this is something
that Natalie has often asking
the copyright office for.
So this is a good
connection to be made.
And thank you Susan for that.
>> Should I just correspond
with you David to -
>> David: Yeah, with
Ellis and I both,
and that's extremely helpful.
I will - I will confess now
that when we have reached
out to people who have
volunteered to do user testing
or user research with us, the
uptake has not always been
as high at the point of actually
getting to doing the work
as we hoped it would be.
And it is in fact, it's
kind of an onerous process.
So sometimes the time
delay between getting -
providing your feedback
and then sort
of seeing how the feedback has
been incorporated is quite long
for people who - people
are expecting to see it
on the same phone call
or - or the next day
and really what happens
is it gets fed
into the agile software
development process.
And goes you know; it sort of
takes time to percolate back
through subsequent releases.
So it's good to have the more
we can have the assistance
of people like yourself to
sort of get people excited
about helping us with
the testing process,
to give you all a sense
of the pilot program
for the recordation system
that's going live, has -
has I think gone through
something like eight -
over 8,000 recorded document
have been sort of taken
through the pilot system
during the feedback process.
And iteratively improved.
And as you - as you may have
noted the release 1.8 that's
going out, which is the release
that's going out to the public
that means that we've had eight
major releases that have gone
out while we've been
incorporating the feedback
from - from real users of the
system, who are using the system
to - to record documents.
So I know - I know we've had a
little bit of chat specifically
about a question that we had
expounding on digital work.
And I wanted to just give
Sara Garski a chance to put -
turn on your camera again
and talk to us a little bit
about the - the - what the
born digital work there
was referencing.
>> Sara Garski: Right.
So the - Jim asked the question
about born digital works.
And so my apologies
if I was not super,
super clear that the design
work that has been done is
on a born digital
refusal letter.
Claim refusal letter, so
it has nothing to do -
nothing inherently to do
with a specific kind of work,
whether it's born digital
or not born digital.
So again the intent
is that this is a sort
of an artifact associated
with the claim
that could follow
the registration
through the system throughout
it's entire life cycle.
And it would be primarily
digital, but could be printed
and you know, sent via
US Postal mail if needed.
Hope that helps.
>> David: Thank you,
that's very helpful.
>> Sara Garski: Okay.
>> David: It is interesting,
even - so I'm -
I'm coming up on my 15th
year of federal service.
And for those of you who
are also in federal service,
you know that 15 years is a big
time when the vacation time goes
up at the end of 15 years
in a federal agency.
But I - in my 15 years in the
agency one of the switches
that has happened is we tend
to think of the physical thing
as a printout of the original
now, rather than thinking
of the digital thing as a
scan of the printed one.
It does - it has just sort of
- it has flipped over entirely.
So we had another question on
the side from one of our members
that was talking
about what kinds
of users we would be interested
in doing user testing with.
And the specific question was
would there be interest in users
who are trying to ascertain
right status for something
like an exhibition or education
or research or scholarship
needs.
So I wanted - I wanted
to offer that there's a -
there's a I guess a
captive audience here.
We have a little bit of a
captive audience at the Library
of Congress of this
sort of user group
who have been extremely gracious
with their time in looking
at the way that these
systems work.
And those are the sort of
librarians and the state
of the Library of
Congress specifically.
However, this is - there
is a broad need for this -
particularly the systems that
are used for research by members
of the public to
ascertain rights.
There's a broad need for those
to be useful to the widest array
of purpose, you know for the
widest array of purposes.
Not just for the - the users
who are actually inputting the -
the data into the system
in the first place.
I would also note
that as we have begun
to publish the historic record,
the historical records online,
which previously
the primary way.
There were two primary ways
for people to get access
to the copyright offices
historical records.
The first and most common way
was to either live in or fly
to Washington DC and
come to a reading room
at the Library of Congress.
And look at books.
The copy of these - the primary
copy of these was just sitting
in a reading room
at the Library.
And there's all sorts of reasons
that that specific process was
not ideal for the researchers
and was not ideal for
the copyright office.
But there are - there are
extremely many new reasons
from a global pandemic that have
taught us that when we close
down the reading rooms and
that when people are unable
to travel, and that when
the economy is largely shut
down that the inability
to do that kind
of research is a
real impediment.
And then the second way is
actually we talked a little bit
about in the earlier
demo the research
and record certification.
The process of going through
and getting some - a researcher
at the library to do the - the
kind of - the kind of research.
So going - looping back one
more - one more time to the -
to the previous question
about what kinds of users we'd
like to have using the system.
We absolutely have room
now for users who are -
and Natalie has reconfirmed
this repeatedly with us,
for users who are of the novice
sort and I would also add
that there is - that [inaudible]
public record system,
which is the primary system
that would be used for this sort
of purpose right now is in
a live pilot and is starting
to come out of pilot but there's
actually a feedback mechanism
on public records.copyright.gov
for that - for that kind
of feedback to be
provided directly.
And I can tell you that
we - again we don't get
as much feedback
as we hope we will.
And we don't get as much uptake
on the user testing
as we hope we will.
And it means that the
more we get by this kind
of mechanism, the better.
I've just gotten a
note from our director
of copyright records saying
them ore feedback the better
with two exclamation points.
And that is really - that
is really an open invitation
to everyone who is listening
from members of the public
as well as members of
this committee to send
out to your stakeholders.
So I'd like to recognize
Keith Cooper-Schmidt next.
Keith take it away.
>> Keith Cooper-Schmidt:
Thank you.
So a lot of the things you
just said, everyone else
on the panel maybe
completely understand,
I did not so excuse my ignorance
here and maybe the stupidity
of my questions that
will come up next.
So my - okay so first off,
several different questions.
I'll start with the first one,
which is when you
talk about records.
What is encompassed in a record?
Is it just copyright data?
Is it the actual
copyright application
or registration certificate?
Is it all of that plus the copy
- what do you mean by records?
>> David: That's
a great question.
So when we talk about records,
we internally that's shorthand
for essentially in the olden
days you could think of that
as the form that was filled
out, not the deposit copy.
So typically when we talk
about the actual deposit
copies we say deposit copies.
And when we talk about records
we're talking about something
that has a record
retention policy with Nara.
Which means that we have a -
it has a - here's the number
of years that you keep it.
And here who is allowed
to see it.
And here's what happens
with it when it's -
here's the disposition
of it when it goes
out of the copyright office.
And thanks for that.
I don't think that
was a - I don't think
that was a stupid
question at all.
I just admitted to 15
years of federal service,
but I would say 12 years
into federal service,
I would not have known the
answer to the question.
And so I apologize for
using that shorthand.
So thank you for clarifying
that for everybody on the call.
>> Okay so then a follow up
question to that which is if -
is the record information
just the data
on the form, or the form itself?
And the reason I
ask is this came
up on a separate
Zoom or whatever.
Let's say somebody in their
application accidentally puts
their social security number
on there, or something else
that might be PII or
something like that.
So is it just the data that
is made - made available
or is it the actual
form and maybe some
of that form is redacted
or something like that?
>> David: So it is -
public records includes
the index information
from the registration,
which is like the data,
what you would think
of as the data.
But also includes
the application.
And I would point out too that
even though the shorthand,
when I talk about
- about records,
the deposit copies
are - they are subject
to a record retention
policy as well.
We do - those are
technically records.
When I was talking
about records,
so the copyright public record
system doesn't currently have
deposit - deposit copies in it.
>> Okay and last
of my questions,
and I see other people
lining up, so I'll stop.
But you mentioned that
it used to be that -
I think that you could only
get these records by going
to the reading room and
accessing these records.
And it sounds like either
before or during the pandemic,
I'd love to say after,
but unfortunately we're
still dealing with that.
But that - now you've
kind of loosened that up
and there's other ways.
Can you talk a little bit
about how without going
to a reading room obviously,
if the copyright office
people could access that,
those records and
I'll stop there?
>> David: Yeah that's
a great question.
I feel like that was almost a -
I mean I just swear Keith is
not a ringer in this context.
This is not - so this is a great
- this gives me a chance to sort
of give a - an advertisement
for some of the work we've done
to sort of open us up.
In some ways it was a
little bit coincidental
that it happened during the
pandemic, because it was work
that had been begun
before the pandemic.
So the first thing is that
the historical public records,
and in this context records
means the 26,000 bound volumes
of registration applications.
There - these are the actual
like physical registration copy
that was sent to the copyright
office beginning all the way
back in - in the 1800's.
Those volumes we have
begun to digitize
and post online at loc.gov.
And we began with the most
recent ones that were -
that were done in
the paper process
that we don't have
electronic claims for,
which are in the late '70's.
And I've been moving
backward in time.
So that's the first thing is
that for the first time someone
who used to have to come
to the copyright office
and request a book and then wait
for the book can just go on now
and browse the book on loc.gov.
Which is a big - it's
a big improvement.
And then the second thing is
that public
records.copyright.gov
which is it's the copyright
public record system has been
having increasing
data available in it
and increasing information
available to it, which is sort
of the second category
that you pointed out.
It's the data on the forms
primarily in this case.
And in this case if - if you go
to public records.copyright.gov
and you search for
David Brunton you'll see
that somebody named David
Brunton registered a poem
in the - with the United States
copyright office coincidentally
on what happened to be my
first day of work here.
And but you will not
see the poem itself.
It's just a record about the
registration of the poem.
And the publishing of
that information is -
is it's a statutory requirement
that that be made
available to the public.
And we are starting
now to make the 1870
to 1977 information
available in a way that's more
like the post 1977
information available.
So that's a slow process that
starts with scanning old books.
Much appreciated Keith and
I think the next person
with the hand up was
Jeff Sedlock again,
so Jeff could you unmute
yourself and jump in.
>> Jeff Sedlock: Sure.
So we're talking about
going digital and paper
and which comes first these
days and I think you're right.
And that brings to mind,
I know the registration
people are not on this call.
But this is being recorded
and we can watch it
and hopefully address
it in a later meeting
because there's these
gaps between the meetings.
The regulations in - in
good measure were written -
as to the registration
process we're written
to support paper registrations.
And the office has done a good
job of updating them to be more
in line with online
registration.
But that process has been
limited by the inefficiencies
of the current system,
which is not a good system.
Good people, bad system; right?
So - so a big deal for
those users of the system,
especially in the visual
arts world where I come
from is knowing whether it's
the offices intent to go through
and update the regulations once
there's a more efficient system
in place.
To kind of move out and
set aside the limitations
that were placed on
registrations at a time
when you had to fill
out a piece of paper
and somebody was designing a
form in the late '70's or '80's
and now we're suffering
with those regulations
that require things like
separating group registrations
by the year of - of
first publication,
which there's no statutory
justification for that.
there is statutory justification
for indicating the date -
the month and year
of first publication.
But it's a huge expense and a
huge burden for visual artists,
at least and I think
for all creators to have
to separate their registrations
by the year of first
publication.
And for some they just give
up when faced with trying
to organize their registrations.
And incur that separate
expense for each and every year
in which something
was first published.
The second example would be in
2018 the office put a limitation
of 750 works on group
registrations of photographs,
both unpublished and published.
Previous to that there
was no limitation provided
that you didn't use
the continuation form.
You can submit 100,000 works
that some photographers did
on individual registrations.
And what that did was
put a tremendous burden
on the examiners who were using
this very inefficient difficult
to use system they
couldn't review images all
on the same screen.
It was a hot mess.
So there was a justification for
placing that limit temporarily.
But I would very
much like to know
if the office would
intend to relax that.
Because taking photographers
for example,
a photographer might
create 2,000 to 4,000 works,
distinct copyrighted
works in a single day.
It's very much unlike
registering a book or any type
of work even an illustration.
And so 2,000 to 4,000 works
they're being - they're faced
with this Hobson's choice now of
which works can they register?
Which works are most
likely to be infringed?
They can't afford to break
that apart and spend hundreds
of dollars to register
just one day's work,
let alone one weeks work.
And so it would be
great to see -
to know if the office would
be considering relaxing
that number, that limitation
that was placed in 2018
to allow us to register
more works
on a single group
registration, also to allow us
to register works that
were first published
in different calendar years on
the same group registration.
>> David: Thank you for that.
And those are great questions
and that's exactly the way
that the office is thinking
through many of these.
I think specifically
for the - the question
of the registration
policy aspects of it.
There are some parts of that
that are going to be subject
to the public comment process
and the rule making process.
But I can tell you that
from a technical perspective
specifically that there are two
areas where we have limitations
on our side that have
been sort of frustrating
to the copyright office and
frustrating to people who are -
who are users of the
copyright office.
People interact with
the copyright office.
One is limitations on
the size of an upload.
And that - I mean literally
just like the file size.
And two is the limitation
on the number
of file numbers, of file names.
And that from a technical
perspective those are very much
areas where we're looking at how
we can overcome the limitations
of the existing legacy system.
Now as far as would the
office revisit the -
the rule making process
and sort of how
that process would conduct.
I can't comment on that,
but I can - I can't tell you
that from a technical
perspective we're actively
pursuing ways to overcome
the technical limitations
that were put in place.
And those aren't the only
cases where the legacy system,
which none of us on this
call are huge fans of, have -
have sort of provided
limitations to what we can do.
Does that answer
your question Jeff?
And also I bookmarked this
- I've got my clipboard
where I'm making my notes.
I bookmarked this for - for a
specific question for us to dive
into in the registration
deep dive as well.
>> Jeff: It does.
Just a brief clarification
request.
So there - in earlier
presentation it was mentioned
that there was progress
on the group registration
for published works,
that's different
than the group registration
for public photographs.
And so I just want to find out
if those are proceeding together
or if the group registration
of published works is
going to get done first.
And then they're going to
begin the photography one.
>> David: So I think -
I don't know the answer
to that off the top of my head.
But I do know that the single
- the standard application
and one group registration
have gone through first.
And that that's the
intent is for other groups
to follow close on the heels.
But I also know that as the
work has gone forward on that,
that the user experience
has actually combined more
of what used to be completely
separate things into single -
into single work flows as well.
I want to pause here for just
a moment and invite members
of the public that we are
- we're about 15 minutes
from the end of our time.
And if you want to
submit questions
in the Q & A we can
continue to do that.
I'm going to continue
to call members
of the committee while
we're doing that.
And if you have questions
for members
of the committee you're
also welcome to have those.
Pamela Malbus can
I call on you next?
Go ahead and unmute yourself.
>> Pamela Malbus: Sure.
So I have two questions.
One of them is on recordation
and is related somewhat
to what Jeff was
talking about in the way
that the new system does or
does not reflect the regulations
and vice versa.
So in recordation in particular
the section 205 says that the -
the recordation is considered
constructive notice only
if the work on which the
recordation is being filed,
has been registered.
In a paper processing somebody
could have submitted this
recordation, paperwork request
documentation without having
that registration because
it wouldn't necessarily know
or they just didn't -
the sequencing was not -
you didn't have to do -
paper is paper in one form
versus the second, whatever.
But in this digital
environment I'm wondering is
that built into the system?
That when you go for the
recordation does it stop you
and say wait, is
this registered?
If it's not registered
don't go further.
I'm just curious
about that as a -
>> David: That's
a great question
and I think I could invite Kim
Kenyu who is our product manager
for the recordation application
to briefly unmute and address.
Is there - is there validation
of previous registration built
into the system at all?
>> Yeah I'd be happy
to take that question.
So there is actually a couple
scenarios that when we spoke
with our users during
feasibility testing
that they presented to us.
So one is that we have a
data validation that's there,
so you must provide at least a
title or a registration number.
So if you do not have
a registration number,
you can still proceed with
recording the document.
A lot of times we
hear folks tell us
that they're recording
a document
and their registrations
are still in progress.
So we also have functionality
where you can go in
and correct your application.
So once you get the registration
numbers for that work,
you can go ahead and go back
to your service request.
And make a modification or
amplify that work information
with the correct
registration number.
And one last piece, is that
if you go into the system
and you do not have a
registration number,
we do give our users
a nice little nudge
that says hey we
recognize that you know,
you didn't register your work.
Is this something that
you would like to do?
So we give them a notification
just after the fact,
just to remind themselves
that you might want
to register these works.
David back to you.
>> David: Thank you and Pamela
you said you had two questions.
Was that two combined or
was there one more question?
>> No that was one of two.
And I'm going to sneak in
a cheeky third question
since Kim mentioned it.
Which was a referenced to
the service request number,
which I also saw in
one of the prior demos.
On the screen just
appeared as SR number.
And I think like having
copyright registration number
rather than copyright number.
That maybe is not to people
who were outside the
development process.
The SR number, you can
sort of figure it out,
but it'd be helpful for
say service request number.
Also known as SR.
>> David: That's helpful
and I just got a note -
I've just gotten a note
from our product manager
that she has taken that
down as a future request.
>> Okay, all right.
But my more meaningful question
perhaps, not relevant for this
and shut me down if it is
because I know we're
here to talk about IT.
But I know part of the
modernization is - involves some
of the support systems
and that there is a news
or physical warehouse
for materials.
And as long as we're
talking about security and so
on of deposit materials I'm just
curious as to what extent the -
those new physical
facilities reflect new physical
considerations of
floods and fires
and stuff we're all doing now.
>> David: So, so that's a great
- I'm just trying to think
about who I would
- who I would -
Kim is that another
question - so -
>> I'm not sure.
Can you - can you possibly
rephrase the question a
little bit?
>> Yeah as I say it may not
be relevant to this discussion
since we're talking about
IT and I'm just talking
about the physical structure.
But if there is a new
physical facility for storage
and it's a warehouse and it's
new, it's state of the art,
it's gun controlled,
it's XY and Z,
you know I think we've
all found that wherever
that location maybe we're
facing new kinds of threats.
And if this great new
facility, that now contains all
of these extremely precious
materials is you know,
subject to anticipated flooding.
I'm just - it's probably
not relevant for her.
>> David I think that's
a little bit different
than the recordation question.
I was going to see
if anyone else
on the panelists might
be able to take that.
>> David: So I think
we actually just -
I think that Denise Wolford
who would have been the person
to take that question
might have just jumped off
of the panel for
another meeting.
But I do - I do want to say that
now that I've been at the agency
for 15 years, and
I have - I have -
when the copyright
cards were digitized,
the primary driver
behind the digitization
of the copyright cards at
that time was not accessed.
It was - it was preservation.
It was the digitization of
because there was only one copy
of those copyright cards.
Anywhere - anywhere
in the world.
And I think it's a great
question for us to think about
and to bear in mind
that there are -
that this is like a real issue.
I would also say that you
know, we don't have the Library
of Congress's director for
preservation on the call today.
But this is an area where the
entire agency is extremely -
because we have in fact,
just moved into a
new warehouse space.
And we are - I can tell you that
there were experience you know,
items that were damaged
from the previous.
And so I think this is a great
thing for us to think about.
I'd like to bookmark it,
since we don't have -
since we don't have
the folks on the call
who like address that correctly.
>> Thanks.
>> David: Much appreciate it.
Kathleen if you would unmute
yourself and jump in now.
And then we have
another question for -
we have another question
from the - from the public.
>> Kathleen: Okay I just wanted
to be clear on the records
and the public record system
so the newer records
it's data only.
It's not copies of
any applications
or certificates or anything.
No plan for that,
or is it coming?
>> David: In case of the newest
records many times there have
not actually been
an application.
But those were submitted via a
system where somebody just fills
out a form and submits the -
or fills out electronic
and submits it.
So - so there would not
be in that case sort
of like print facsimile,
one has never existed.
>> Okay so there's
no plan to put a copy
of the final registration
certificate there
or anything like that right now?
>> David: So registration
certificates
that would be a question
for our product manager
for the public record system
who also is - who is here
and who also is the person who
the question from the member
of the public came in for, which
was a question about linkages,
planned between meta data
and the copyright
public record system.
And elsewhere, so not
- not directly related
to your question but Sean - Sean
Gallagher, would you be able
to unmute yourself briefly
and address these two topics?
So registration certificates
in the copyright public record
system and data linkages
between the copyright
public record system
and - and other systems.
>> Sean Gallagher:
Sure David, thanks.
Both of those things
are on our road map.
I know that in our requirements
there's been lots of reports
and analysis about accessibility
of copyright information
and there have been requests
to make the certificates
of registration and
certifications
of recordation available
in our public catalog.
Those are available
right now at the office
through the copyright
imaging system.
But you do have to
come onsite for that.
With the pandemic it made us
realize that was more important
than perhaps it used
to be at one point.
So that is definitely
on our road map.
And as far as interoperability
with other systems, that is also
on our road map as well.
We know that there are a
lot of industry standards
that people reference when
they do provide information
about their works to
the copyright office.
And so that is - that's a
linkage that we're looking
to make at some point when we -
when we move the system forward.
>> David: Thank you.
Thank you Sean and
much appreciated.
So we had a - sort of a
complicated multi-part question
from - from several panelists.
But I'd like to actually
start by just reading a -
reading a version
of the question
and then echoing it's important.
I think as soon as it - it
comes out it will be recognized
as important by everyone.
And maybe we can have this as
our final topic of conversation,
which is that as the
system - new systems go live
and as the number of records
grows, do we anticipate requests
to access and carry out
big data research projects?
And then we add a
second of the question
and then a follow-on
question to that which is,
if the answer is yes,
will there be a charge
for the bulk access
necessary to do the research?
And if so, who would receive
the money for that charge?
And I think this is a question
that goes straight to the heart
of something that every
organization is thinking
about right now.
And Jim Neil I don't know if
you wanted to talk a little bit,
I know you have some experience
in this area and thinking
about this more broadly.
Is there any more comment that
you'd want to provide on that?
I can say that we don't
have a policy framework
in place for this right now.
But I'd be interested to sort
of hear any additional input
from you or any of the
other members on that.
If there's interest.
>> Jim Neil: Yeah
I'll be brief David.
I've sat with a number of
organizations over the years
that have actually accumulated
lots of data, of various types.
And inevitably what
comes from behind
that is quickly is requests to
be able to mine that data of -
for big data research projects.
And it was very important to
have in place a policy framework
but also a review
and approval process
for dealing with those requests.
I think by raising my question,
I was only encouraging us
and you to anticipate that
and to begin to put those -
put that infrastructure
together.
>> David: That's a great
and much appreciated.
Are there any other CPMC members
who want to - want to sort
of echo that or take that
in another direction?
We're coming up on several
minutes remaining before the
close of our session.
And I would also throw
the topic open for -
you know throw the floor open
just in case anyone missed the -
the high points of
- of Sean's remarks
that there will be certificates
of registration and recordation
in the copyright public record
system in the next release.
So that is a thing that's coming
up specifically for
the certificates.
Not talking about any
additional - like not a form
that you would fill out.
But and then also
I did want to point
out that the new
copyright warehouse,
there was actually a
modernization webinar.
It's been I think 18 months ago
now, maybe in October of 2020.
But I would encourage anyone
who is following along,
who is sort of specifically
interested in that topic
to jump back and watch
that webinar as well.
We're getting notes from
a couple of the members
that they've got a
hard stop at 3:30.
So I wanted to give my - my
warmest thanks to the members
for joining us today on what
is in Washington a hot and soon
to be stormy summer afternoon.
Our next public meeting will be
in January or February of 2023.
It's hard to believe that
it's - it's that far along.
And we'll be in contact
with the members,
and we will also be
releasing a recording
of this webinar to the public.
That will go out on loc.gov.
We'll also send a note to all
of the copyright public
modernization committee members
as soon as that's posted for
- for wide sharing hopefully.
So without further ado I want
to thank you all for
joining us today.
We'll be following up with you
via email in the next couple
of days and that concludes
our third public meeting
of the Library of
Congress's Copyright Public
Modernization Committee.
Thank you all for joining.