Author: ksuchor

Responsibilities

• Serve on the nominating committee for one year, beginning officially upon
  election (in October) and completing the roster of candidates by the following
  May 1. One Chair will be determined by incoming members and reported to the Chair of CCCC within two weeks of election results.
• Work with the Nominating Committee Chair to solicit nominations from CCCC members.
• Initiate suggestions for nominations, individually and as a group.
• Attend the open meeting and the closed meeting of the nominating committee at the CCCC Annual Convention (usually on Friday afternoon). CCCC does not provide funds for committee members to attend the meeting.
• Work within standard policies of NCTE and CCCC on multiple roles, involvement of people of color, and related matters.
• Advise the following years nominating committee.

 

Candidates agree not to campaign during the election process.

NCTE Policy on Campaigning

 

Past CCCC Nominating Committee Members

 

Click here to go back to the main CCCC Election page.

FORUM: Issues about Part-Time and Contingent Faculty is a peer-reviewed publication concerning working conditions, professional life, activism, and perspectives of non-tenure-track faculty in college composition and communication. It is published twice annually (alternately in CCC and TETYC) and is sponsored by the Conference on College Composition and Communication. Faculty and scholars from all academic positions are welcome to contribute.

Editor
Forum is currently between editors, and the next editor will be announced soon. Until then, please send submissions and inquiries to the Forum production office at ttiller@ncte.org.

 

2024

Esther Milu, University of Central Florida, Chair
Nancy Bou Ayash, University of Washington, Seattle
Jessica Edwards, University of Delaware
Gabriel I. Green, Xavier University of Louisiana
Teresa Grettano, The University of Scranton

2023

Eunjeong Lee, Assistant Professor of English, University of Houston, Texas, Chair
Forster Kudjo Agama, Professor of English, Tallahassee Community College, Florida
Quanisha Charles, Associate Professor of English, North Central College, IL
Jada Patchigondla, Lecturer, UCLA Writing Programs, CA
Shane Wood, Assistant Professor of English, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg

2022

RAsheda Young, Rutgers University and New York University, Chair
Adam Hubrig, Sam Houston State University, Texas
Gavin P. Johnson, Christian Brothers University
Lisa King, University of Tennessee-Knoxville
Federico Navarro, Universidad de O’Higgins, Chile

2021

Cristina Sanchez-Martin, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Chair
Trent M. Kays, Hampden-Sydney College, VA
Ashanka Kumari, Texas A&M University, Commerce
Hannah J. Rule, University of South Carolina, Columbia
Erin McLaughlin, University of Notre Dame, IN

2020

Jaquetta Shade-Johnson, Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, OK, Chair
Jacob Babb, Indiana University Southeast, Albany
Genevieve Garcia de Mueller, Syracuse University, NY
Mara Lee Grayson, California State University Dominguez Hills, Carson
Brooke R. Schreiber, Baruch College (CUNY), New York, NY

2019

James Chase Sanchez, Middlebury College, Vermont, Chair
Jeffrey Klausman, Whatcom Community College, Bellingham, Washington
Rebecca Lorimer Leonard, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Santos Ramos, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Michigan
Rachel Riedner, George Washington University, Washington, DC

2018

Jennifer Wingard, University of Houston, Texas, Chair
Franny Howes, Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls
Andrea Malouf, Salt Lake Community College, Utah
Steve Parks, Syracuse University, New York
Andrea Riley Mukavetz, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Michigan

2017

Christie Toth, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Chair
Isabel Baca, University of Texas at El Paso
M. Melissa Elston, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville
Candace Epps-Robertson, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
Lori Ostergaard, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan

2016

Staci M. Perryman-Clark, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Chair
Timothy R. Amidon, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins
Christina V. Cedillo, Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, Oklahoma
Mike Edwards, Washington State University, Pullman
Erika Lindemann, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

2015

Lauren Fitzgerald, Yeshiva University, New York, New York, Chair
Jennifer Richardson Burg, Southern Vermont College, Bennington
Cheryl Glenn, Pennsylvania State University, University Park
Clancy Ratliff, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
Jim Webber, University of Nevada, Reno

2014

Shirley K. Rose, Arizona State University, Tempe, Chair
Will Banks, Eastern Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
Derek Mueller, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti
Michelle Bachelor Robinson, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Cheri Lemieux Spiegel, North Virginia Community College, Sterling

2013

Linda Bergmann, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, Chair
Amy Kimme Hea, University of Arizona, Tucson
Seth Kahn, West Chester University of Pennsylvania
Elaine Richardson, Ohio State University, Columbus
Rochelle (Shelley) Rodrigo, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia

2012

Kelly Ritter, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, Chair
Michael Day, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb
Zandra L. Jordan, Spelman College, Atlanta, Georgia
Carlos Salinas, University of Texas-El Paso
Blake Scott, University of Central Florida, Orlando

2011

Martine Courant Rife, Lansing Community College, Michigan, Chair
Kay Halasek, Ohio State University, Columbus
Anne Herrington, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Les Perelman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
Mya Poe, Penn State University, University Park

2010

William Condon, Washington State University, Pullman, Chair
Damián Baca, University of Arizona, Tucson
Susan K. Miller-Cochran, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Mary P. Sheridan-Rabideau, University of Wyoming, Laramie
Katherine Kelleher Sohn, Pikeville College, Kentucky

2009

Cristina Kirklighter, Texas A & M University-Corpus Christi, Chair
Jennifer Clary-Lemon, University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Tom Deans, University of Connecticut, Storrs
Jenn Fishman, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Shirley Wilson Logan, University of Maryland, College Park

2008

William DeGenaro, University of Michigan, Chair
Karen Lunsford, University of California Santa Barbara
Cecilia Rodriguez Milanes, University of Central Florida
Annette Harris Powell, University of Louisville
Howard Tinberg, Bristol Community College

2007

Rebecca Moore Howard, Syracuse University, Chair
Sandie McGill Barnhouse, Rowan-Cabarrus Community College
Julie Lindquist, Michigan State University
William J. Macauley, Jr., College of Wooster
Raul Sanchez, University of Florida

2006

Gwendolyn D. Pough, Syracuse University, Chair
Jennifer Beech, University of Tennessee
Paul Heilker, Virginia Tech
Jody Millward, Santa Barbara City College
Charles Schuster, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee

2005

Paul M. Puccio, Bloomfield College, Chair
Krita Ratcliffe, Marquette University
Jess Enoch, University of New Hampshire
Irwin Weiser, Purdue University
Jeanne Gunner, Chapman University

2004

Joyce Irene Middleton, St. John Fisher College, Chair
Paula Gillespie, Marquette University
Paul Kei Matsuda, University of New Hampshire
Gail Y. Okawa, Youngstown State University
Ben R. Wiley, St. Petersburg College

2003

Lynn Quitman Troyka, Chair
Lisa Albrecht, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
William Condon, Washington State University, Pullman
James Inman, University of South Florida, Tampa
Morris Young, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio

2002

Sidney Dobrin, Chair
Charles Coleman
Donna Reiss
Patricia A. Stephens
Rebecca Taylor

2001

Diana Hacker, Chair
Linda Adler-Kassner
Kay Halasek
Chet Pryor
Peter Vandenberg

2000

Christine R. Farris, Chair
Janice Albert
Susanmarie Harrington
Joseph Janangelo
Rosentene Bennett Purnell

1999

Chris Anson, Chair
Kristine Hansen
Pearl Saunders
Keith Walters
Art Young

1998

Kathleen Blake Yancey, Chair
Akua Duku Anokye
Deboran Brandt
Scott DeWitt
Kay Halasek

1997

Xin Liu Gale, Chair
Gayle Duskin (was elected but didn’t serve)
Diana George
David Jolliffe
Kim Lynch
Nancy Shapiro

1996

Freddy Thomas, Chair
Mara Holt
Linda Johnson
Sarah-Hope Parmeter
Elizabeth Rankin

1995

Susan C. Jarratt, Chair
John Clifford
Donald Cunningham
Christine A. Hult
Shirley Wilson Logan
Teresa M. Purvis

1994

James Reither, Chair
Beth Daniell
Joyce Neff Magnotto
Susan McLeod
Jerrie Cobb Scott

1. To take action!

As writing professionals, the subject of our work — writing — is at often the center of discussions about teaching, students, and learning. Share your successes and learn new strategies from others!

You can:

• Participate in the Taking Action Workshops!
• Visit the Action Hub!

 

2. To develop new approaches to teaching and research!

You’ll help others develop their ideas and bring home new ones for your own work!

You can:

• Choose from  the 406 concurrent sessions, 53 poster sessions, 31 roundtable discussions, and more taking place at the convention.
• View handouts and contribute your own via the Online Searchable Program.
• Attend a full- or half-day preconvention workshop (morning or afternoon) to dive deeply into a topic.

 

3.  To make connections!

CCCC’s Special Interest Groups, caucuses, and informal talking times offer great opportunities to make connections with others and around issues important to you!

You can:

• Explore the online program for meetings of special interest groups and caucuses.
• Connect with those offering the latest resources in the CCCC Exhibit Hall.
• Network with other attendees during social events in the area. See the local website for more information on these opportunities.
• Strike up valuable conversations simply standing in line for coffee!

  

Why do others attend?

Each year, educators and researchers from around the world attend the CCCC Annual Convention for a multitude of different reasons. These include:

• Topical range of convention sessions
• Exposure to new concepts/cutting edge ideas
• Access to information for teaching and scholarship
• Chance to make professional contacts/renew connections
• Meeting new colleagues and networking
• Visiting the exhibit hall of professional materials

Are you attending CCCC 2016?  Share YOUR reasons for attending on social media using the hashtag #4C16!

  

 

Getting to Portland…

Save up to 10% on your travel by using NCTE’s discount code with Delta!

Reservations and ticketing are available via Delta’s Website. Select “Book a Trip” and then enter meeting code NMNKJ in the box provided.

Reservations may also be made by calling Delta Meeting reservations at 800-328-1111, Monday to Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. CDT.

 

Getting around Portland…

Use the Tri-Met MAX Light Rail System.

The MAX Light Rail System is Portland’s public transportation system that consists of buses, street cars, and light rail trains. It’s inexpensive and very convenient. If you are staying in a hotel reserved through the NCTE/CCCC housing block, you will receive two complimentary passes per room.

 

 

Keynote Speaker:  Jose Antonio Vargas
9:30 a.m.–10:30 a.m.

Jose Antonio Vargas  is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist and filmmaker whose work centers on the changing American identity. He is the founder of Define American, a nonprofit media and culture organization that seeks to elevate the conversation around immigration and citizenship in America. In 2015, MTV aired White People, a television special he directed on what it means to be young and white in America, as part of its “Look Different” campaign. In February 2016, Vargas launched #EmergingUS, a multimedia news platform he conceived focusing on race, immigration, and the complexities of multiculturalism.

In June 2011, the New York Times Magazine published a groundbreaking essay Vargas wrote in which he revealed and chronicled his life in America as an undocumented immigrant. A year later, he appeared on the cover of TIME magazine worldwide with fellow undocumented immigrants as part of a follow-up cover story he wrote. He then wrote, produced, and directed Documented, a documentary feature film on his undocumented experience. Its world premiere was at the AFI Docs film festival in Washington, DC, in 2013; it was released in theaters and broadcast on CNN in 2014, and it received a 2015 NAACP Image Award nomination for outstanding documentary. Documented is now available on various digital platforms.

Among other accolades Vargas has received are a Public Service Award from the National Council of La Raza, the country’s largest Latino advocacy organization; the Salem Award from the Salem Award Foundation, which draws upon the lessons of the Salem Witch Trials of 1692; and the Freedom to Write Award from PEN Center USA.

A very proud graduate of San Francisco State University ( ‘04), where he was named Alumnus of the Year in 2012, and Mountain View High School (‘00), he loves jazz, hip hop, and anything by Gershwin, and worships at the altars of Altman, Almodóvar, Didion, Baldwin, and Orwell.

  

The following information will be needed to submit your program proposal for CCCC 2025. All proposals must be submitted through the online proposal system by 9:00 a.m. ET on Friday, May 31, 2024.

Type of Session (select one)

• Concurrent Panel (3 or more presenters only)
• Roundtable Session (3 or more roundtable leaders)
• Engaged Learning Experience
• Individual 30-Minute Presentation (1-2 presenters)
• Poster
• Committee Meeting
• Event
• Cross-Caucus Event
• Workshop – Wednesday Morning
• Workshop – Wednesday Afternoon
• Workshop – Wednesday All-Day
• Workshop – Saturday Afternoon
• Standing Group-Sponsored Panel
• Standing Group-Sponsored Workshop: Wednesday Morning
• Standing Group-Sponsored Workshop: Wednesday Afternoon
• Standing Group-Sponsored Workshop: All-Day Wednesday
• Standing Group-Sponsored Workshop: Saturday Afternoon
• Special Interest Group/Business Meeting: Thursday
• Special Interest Group/Business Meeting: Friday

Proposal Level (select one)

• Two-year
• Four-year
• Graduate level

Title of Session (no more than 160 characters and spaces)

Abstracted Description (no more than 400 characters and spaces)

Description (no more than 4,000 characters and spaces)

Briefly describe the goals of the proposed session and the means by which those goals will be pursued. What should the audiences/participants take away from the session, and how will you help them accomplish that goal?

Do not refer to speakers/performers by name. If more than one presenter is included, identify separate presentations by “Speaker 1” and “Speaker 2.”

Individual proposals that are accepted will be combined into panels by the Program Chair and Stage 2 Reviewers.

For SIGs, Standing Group, and Workshop proposals, please also specify meeting day and space needs.

Clusters

Please select the most appropriate cluster for your proposal from the list below. Your proposal will be reviewed according to the cluster.

1. First-Year Writing
2. College Writing and Reading
3. Institutions: Labor Issues, Professional Lives, and Survival
4. Writing Programs
5. Writing Centers (including Writing and Speaking Centers)
6. Community, Civic, and Public Contexts of Writing
7. Approaches to Teaching and Learning
8. Inclusion and Access
9. Histories of Rhetoric
10. Creative Writing and Publishing
11. Information Literacy and Technology
12. Language, Literacy, and Culture
13. Professional and Technical Writing
14. Theory, Research Methodologies, and Praxis
15. Antiracism and Social Justice
16. Writing Abundance

Sponsored By

If the session will be sponsored by a Standing Group or Special Interest Group, please enter the group name in this field.

Proposal Form Queries

Note: These are for panel, workshop, roundtable, and engaged learning experience sessions – not for individual paper proposals.

Submitters will be asked to note if the following are applicable to the proposal:

• Our proposal includes a multinational slate of presenters or facilitators.
• Our proposal includes presenters and facilitators with diverse career trajectories (e.g., undergraduate and/or graduate students; staff, tenured, tenure-line, and adjunct faculty).
• Our proposal includes presenters or facilitators representing a diversity of identities (Black, Chicanx, Indigenous, Asian, 2SLGBTQIA+, multilingual, transnational, for example).
• Panelists or facilitators in our proposal represent multiple institutions and institutional types.

Participant Information

The following information is needed for each participant:

• Full Name
• Email Address
• Affiliation
• Role
  • Chair
  • Speaker
  • Respondent
  • Roundtable Leader
  • Workshop Facilitator
  • Chair and Speaker
  • Chair and Roundtable Leader
  • Chair and Respondent
  • Workshop Facilitator and Speaker
  • Standing Group or Caucus Chair
  • Special Interest Group Chair
  • Group Leader
• Session or Presentation Title
• Willing to Serve as Documentarian?

Special Note for Proposal Submitters:

• Please note that when you submit a proposal draft, a confirmation email will be sent to the 1st person listed on the proposal submission. Please make sure you, the submitter, is listed first so you receive the email as it will include information on re-entering the proposal system so you can edit the proposal, if needed.

 

Kim Dian Gainer, Ph.D., Radford University, Radford, VA

OVERVIEW

Carol Loeb Shloss is a James Joyce scholar who teaches at Stanford University.  Her attempt to write and publish a biography about Joyce’s daughter (Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake [Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003]) was met with threats of litigation by the estate of James Joyce.  As a result, material that arguably should have fallen under the aegis of fair use was stripped from the book.  Her attempt to provide scholars with the missing material via a web-based electronic supplement was also met with threats of litigation.  With the help of the staff of the Fair Use Project of Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society, Shloss brought suit in federal court in an effort to win a ruling verifying that her intended use of the material was indeed protected by the doctrine of fair use.  The suit was filed in June of 2006, with an amended suit being filed in October of that year.  The estate of James Joyce filed for a dismissal in January of 2007.  In February the motion to dismiss was rejected by the Court in a twenty page ruling whose language exposed serious weaknesses in the estate’s defense against the amended complaint.  By the end of March, the estate had settled, and Shloss had not only prevailed but won concessions that went beyond her original request for relief.  One of the significant intellectual property cases of 2006 was settled in under a year, but its effects may be felt considerably longer. 

BACKGROUND

The James Joyce estate in general and Joyce’s grandson Stephen Joyce in particular have a well-established record of attempting to control the author’s reputation by threatening to file lawsuits alleging copyright infringement.  Thus, in 1988, for example, pressure by the estate forced the excision of material from Brenda Maddox’s biography of Nora Joyce (Nora: The Real Life of Molly Bloom [Houghton Mifflin, 1988]).  In the 1990s the estate blocked a performance based upon a short story by Joyce that, ironically, was itself based upon a folk tale.  In 1998 the estate sued to block live readings of Ulysses on the internet.  In 2000 the estate sought and won an injunction against a university press that wished to include an excerpt from Ulysses in an anthology but objected to the size of the licensing fee (7,000 Euros) demanded by the estate.  In 2002 the estate prevailed in a case against a publisher who wished to bring out a version of the 1922 edition of Ulysses, an edition that had entered the public domain but for which copyright had been retrospectively restored.  Perhaps most dramatically, in 2004 Stephen Joyce threatened legal action that would have derailed exhibits and readings intended to be a part of the ReJoyce Dublin 2004 festival.  This dispute led to an act of parliament. In order to safeguard this centennial celebration of Bloomsday, the Irish legislature hastily passed an act that protected public exhibits and readings from charges of copyright infringement.

THE DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK IN DISPUTE

Against this background, Carol Loeb Shloss, began work on a biography of Lucia Joyce (Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake [Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003]).  As had Brenda Maddox before her, Shloss ran into roadblocks thrown up by the Joyce estate.  In 1996 she contacted Stephen Joyce and requested his assistance in pursuing her project.  His reply went well beyond refusing his aid.  He stated that Shloss could not use the letters or papers of Joyce’s daughter.  He first granted and then withdrew permission for the use of a published poem, apparently taking the latter action because Shloss intended to use other materials of which he did not approve.   In 2002 Stephen Joyce wrote to Shloss to add to the list of materials that she was blocked from using.  Among these materials: the medical files and records of Lucia Joyce.  That same year Joyce contacted Shloss’ publisher, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, and in a series of contacts via phone and letter threatened legal action against the book.  He also enlarged his list of materials whose use he wished to block, adding to the roll letters written by individuals who were not members of the Joyce family.  The publisher’s attorney, Leon Friedman, responded to Joyce by adducing the fair use doctrine.  Joyce wrote in reply that the estate had shown itself willing in the past “to put our money where our mouth is.”  This and other statements suggested that Joyce intended to sue if he was not satisfied with the response to his demands.  Correspondence between Joyce and Friedman then broke off, as the attorney concluded that the estate would never grant Shloss permission to use any material for which it claimed to hold copyright, and the publisher’s attention turned to editing Shloss’ manuscript to avoid legal action by the Joyce estate.  These edits resulted in thirty pages being cut from the manuscript.  Shloss contended that these cuts removed vital evidence, and the reviews that the book received upon its publication in 2003 suggest that, if not eviscerated, the book had at the very least been enervated.

POST-PUBLICATION DEVELOPMENTS

Given that she had been blocked from including material in her book that she felt had been vital evidence for the support of her thesis, Shloss decided to make the material available in another form, via an electronic supplement at a password-protected website that would be available only to users with US Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.  Even though she felt that her use of the material was protected under the doctrine of fair use, she offered the Joyce estate the opportunity to review the material.  In the succeeding exchange, the Joyce estate once again refused to concede that Shloss had any right to use the materials and again raised the threat of litigation.  What followed could be considered a pre-emptive strike on the part of Shloss: an effort to put paid once and for all the question of whether her use of the materials was or was not protected under the doctrine of fair use.  In June of 2006, attorneys for the Fair Use Project of Stanford University’s The Center for Internet and Society filed suit against the estate of James Joyce in an effort to obtain injunctive relief and declaratory judgments for Joyce scholar Carol Loeb Shloss on the grounds that Professor Shloss’ ability to support her interpretations of Joyce’s writing had been severely compromised by repeated threats of litigation, especially on the part of Joyce’s grandson, Stephen Joyce.  Lawyers representing Shloss included Lawrence Lessig, well known for his studies of copyright law and its implications for scholarship and for the culture as a whole, and Robert Spoo, himself a Joyce scholar who had first-hand knowledge of the difficulty of pursuing studies of Joyce in the face of opposition from the estate.

The suit, as amended in October of 2006, alleged four causes of action in support of the request for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment.  The first count was that the web site intended to provide the documentation excised from the book would not infringe upon any copyrights held by the Joyce estate.  The second was that the use of any copyrighted material at the web site would fall under the aegis of “presumptively fair use.”  The third was that the estate had in fact misused its copyrights in its effort to control scholarship pertaining to James Joyce.  The fourth was an outgrowth of the third, depending as it did upon the notion that the estate’s misuse of copyright had left it with “unclean hands” so that it had in fact forfeited its right to wield its claims of copyright.  The lawyers for the estate filed a reply to the amended complaint in January of 2007.  In it they argued for dismissal of the suit on four grounds: first, that the correspondence between Shloss, her publisher, and her publisher’s attorney “could not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of suit”; second, that the electronic supplement did not exist in finished form at the time Shloss’ complaint had been filed and that as a result no cause for action existed (“no actual controversy”);  third, that the estate had stated its intention not to file a copyright infringement suit over the material at the website; and fourth, that since the original complaint was filed in June of 2006—and since the web site was still under development—no steps had been taken by the estate that could currently give rise to a “reasonable apprehension of suit” based upon the material at the web site as it currently existed.

In February of 2007 the Court issued an opinion in which it refused to dismiss any of the four counts and in its opinion systematically demolished the reasoning behind all but one of the arguments proffered in support of the call for dismissal or for, alternately, the striking of portions of the complaint.  The Court determined that it had jurisdiction, that there was a cause for action, and that any current statements by the estate abjuring litigation had no relevance or future force. The heart of the Court’s refusal to dismiss was that Shloss did indeed have a “real and reasonable apprehension” of legal action on the part of Joyce’s estate and this “real and reasonable apprehension” was a cause for action:

Plaintiff undertook to write a scholarly work on Lucia Joyce—the type of creativity that the copyright laws exist to facilitate.  Defendants’ alleged actions significantly undermined the copyright policy of “promoting invention and creative expression,’ as Plaintiff was allegedly intimidated from using (1) non-copyrightable fact works such as medical records and (2) works to which did not own or control copyrights, such as letters written by third parties.  The Court finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a nexus between Defendant’s actions and the Copyright Act’s public policy of promoting creative expression to support a cause of action for copyright misuse.
(Order Denying Motion to Dismiss 16)

The Joyce estate prevailed in only one small matter: the Court ordered the striking of a paragraph of the amended complaint that pertained to the physical destruction of documents that were in the possession of Stephen Joyce.  The Court ruled that no copyright issues were involved in the decision of the owner of the physical objects as to whether to keep or destroy personal property.

The ensuing settlement represented a complete capitulation by the estate.  First, the estate abandoned its pretense to a right to control the fair use of both the printed and unprinted writings of James Joyce, as well as of the materials pertaining to Lucia Joyce.  (The estate had already acknowledged in court filings that it could claim no control whatsoever over the letters written by individuals who were not members of the Joyce family.)   The estate provided the assurances that Shloss had originally sought from the court: that Shloss could publish the electronic supplement on the web without fear of being sued for copyright infringement.  Moreover, the settlement empowered Shloss to go beyond her original plans for rectifying the damage done to her book.  Instead of being password-protected, the website would be made available to any user, provided that the user had a US IP address.  Finally, the estate put in writing a commitment not to sue for copyright infringement should Shloss publish the material in more traditional form, leaving her free either to include the supplement in future editions of her book or to reintegrate the material into the actual text of her work.  As in the case of the website, such publication would be restricted to the United States.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF FAIR USE

Stephen Joyce attempted to restrict the use a scholar could make of materials by or related to James Joyce and his daughter Lucia.  The outcome of Professor Shloss’ suit suggests that by so doing he and the Joyce estate exceeded their prerogatives as copyright holders.  However, the Joyce estate is not the only one that has attempted to use claims of copyright infringement to inhibit scholarship that the Court described as “the type of creativity that the copyright laws exist to facilitate.”  Although no precedent was set by the Court’s refusal to dismiss Shloss’ suit, the outcome of the case suggests that future litigation may help establish the principle that, regardless of their personal preferences, copyright holders do not possess the power to veto scholarly and creative uses of copyrighted material.  In press releases and interviews, the attorneys associated with Shloss’ suit have indicated that they are willing to pursue additional cases such as this one.  In addition, Shloss has now filed suit to recoup expenses arising from her ten-year struggle to win acknowledgement of her rights as a scholar under the doctrine of fair use.  Both legal and financial pressure may now be brought to bear on copyright holders who attempt to inappropriately control the transformative use of copyrighted material.       

RELEVANT SOURCES
Anderson, Nate.  (2006, 13 June). Is James Joyce’s Estate Misusing Its Copyright?  Ars technica.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060613-7048.html.

Bollier, David. (2006, 31 July). James Joyce’s Estate vs. the Cultural Commons.  OntheCommons.org. Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://onthecommons.org/node/947.

Craven, Sarah.  (2006, Dec. 5). Update: Shloss v. Estate of James Joyce.  The Center for Internet and Society.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5045.

District Court Finds Plaintiff Satisfies “Case or Controversy” Requirement and Sufficiently Alleges Copyright Misuse in Declarat[ive Judgment].” (2007, March 9).  Packets. The Center for Internet and Society.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets/200703/district-court-finds-plaintiff-satisfies-case-or-controversy-requireme.

English Professor Raises Copyright Misuse in Complaint against Estate of James Joyce. (2006, July 6).  Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2006/07/06.asp.

Fair Use Project and Cyberlaw Clinic at Stanford Law School Represent Scholar in Lawsuit against Joyce Estate.  (2006, June 12).  The Cyberlaw Clinic.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/attachments/Shloss%20v.%20Joyce%20Estate%20Press%20Release.pdf.

Falzone, Anthony.  (2007, March 22.  An Important Victory for Carol Shloss, Scholarship and Fair Use.  The Center for Internet and Society.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5299. 

Foster, Andrea L. (2007, March 26). James Joyce Scholar, in Deal with Author’s Estate, Wins Right to Use Copyrighted Works.  The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/03/2007032604n.htm.

_____.  Lawsuit over Joyce Papers May Clarify Copyright’s Fair-Use Exemption for Scholars. (2006, June 14).  The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/06/2006061401t.htm.

Leff, Lisa. (2006, June 12).  Stanford Professor Sues Joyce’s Estate.  SFGate.com. Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/12/entertainment/e171020D91.DTL.

Max, D.T. (2006, June 19). The Injustice Collector: Is James Joyce’s Grandson Suppressing Scholarship?  The New Yorker.  Retrieved April 1, 2007 from http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/06/19/060619fa_fact.

Olson, David. (2007, Feb. 2). Victory in Shloss v. Estate of James Joyce.  The Center for Internet and Society.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5184.

Rimmer, Matthew. (2005, Sept.) Bloomsday: Copyright Estates and Cultural Festivals.  Script-ed 2.3 (Sept. 2005).  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=759244.

Shloss, Carol Loeb. (2007).  Lucia Joyce: Supplemental Material.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://www.lucia-the-authors-cut.info/.

Shloss v. Estate of James Joyce.  (2006, Oct. 25). Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 as attachment to http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5045.

_____.  (2006, June 12).  Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/attachments/Complaint%20Endorsed%20Filed%206-12-06.pdf.

_____.  (2006[, Oct. 25]). Declaration of Grace Smith. Exhibits 1-8.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Grace+Smith+Decl_Exhibits%5B1%5D.pdf.

_____.  (2006, Nov. 17). Declaration of Maria K. Nelson in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Carol Loeb Shloss’s Amended Complaint.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from  http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Nelson+Decl%5B1%5D.pdf. 

_____.  (2006, Oct. 24). Declaration of Séan Sweeney in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Carol Loeb Shloss’s Amended Complaint.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Sweeney+Decl%5B1%5D.pdf.

_____.  (2007, April 10).  Notice of Motion and Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 12, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Shloss+Fee+Motion.pdf.

_____.  (2006, Nov. 17).  Notice of Motion and Motion of Defendants Séan Sweeney and the Estate of James Joyce to Dismiss.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Motion+to+Dismiss+Shloss+Complaint%5B1%5D.pdf.

_____.  (2007, Feb. 9).  Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Strike.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Order+denying+Motion+to+Dismiss.pdf.

_____.  (2007, Jan. 22).  Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Motion to Strike.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Shloss+Brief+FINAL.pdf.
 
_____.  (2007, March 16).  Settlement Agreement.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Shloss+Settlement+Agreement.pdf.

Shloss v. The Estate of James Joyce. (2006, June 12).  News Center.  Stanford Law School.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://www.law.stanford.edu/news/pr/23/Shloss%20v.%20The%20Estate%20of%20James%20Joyce/.

Smith, Dinitia.  (2003, Nov. 22). A Portrait of the Artist’s Troubled Daughter.  The New York Times.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/arts/dance/22JOYC.html?ex=1176436800&en=e8c6e65047f7a49d&ei=5070.

Stanford Scholar Wins Right to Publish Joyce Material in Copyright Suit; James Joyce Estate Agrees to Settle. (2007, March 22).  News Center.  Stanford Law School.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://www.law.stanford.edu/news/pr/55/Stanford%20Scholar%20Wins%20Right%20to%20Publish%20Joyce%20Material%20in%20Copyright%20Suit%3Cbr%2F%3E%20%20%3Cem%3EJames%20Joyce%20Estate%20Agrees%20to%20Settle%3C%2Fem%3E/

Krista Kennedy, PhD Student, University of Minnesota
Assistant Chair, CCCC Intellectual Property Caucus

CASE OVERVIEW

In December 2004, Google announced an ambitious new attempt to scan and render searchable millions of volumes from the libraries of Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, and the University of Michigan, as well as the New York Public Library.  The original project name was Google Print, which was changed to Google Book Search in November 2005.  There are two central facets to the initiative:  Google Publisher and Google Library.  The first works with publishers to coordinate permissions, direct contributions of texts, and promotion.  Compensation is provided in the form of links that encourage searchers to purchase the product from booksellers or directly from the publisher.  Publishers may also share in contextual advertising (“Google ads”) revenue if they agree that advertising be included on the pages for their books.  All material generated under this project is digitized and offered with full permission of the copyright holder.

Google Library, on the other hand, partners with libraries to arrange and facilitate scanning of materials under fair use doctrine.  No permission is sought from the publisher for reproduction of these materials.  The initial stage of the Google Library project involves a six-year partnership between Google and the University of Michigan called the Michigan Digitization Project.  The seven million volumes in the UM Libraries collection would constitute the initial acquisitions for Google Book Search.  In return for their cooperation, the Libraries will receive digitized copies for their own use.  While UM has been a leader in digital preservation and has pursued an internal digitization project for a number of years, they have only been able to digitize about 5,000 volumes annually.  At that rate, digitization of the entire collection would take approximately 1600 years.  By partnering with Google, they are able to drastically increase the pace of this project while also making strides toward opening their collection to users worldwide.  In the process, they also reduce their own digitization expenses, since Google bears the costs of reproduction, conversion, and transmission, as well as costs associated with pulling and reshelving materials.  Scanned and converted works are made available immediately through Google as they are processed and are stored in perpetuity on the company servers.

From the project launch, Google has drawn a sharp distinction between public and proprietary works.  Works that have passed into the public domain are made available in full.  Out-of-print works whose copyright is still in duration are made available in “snippets” consisting of approximately three sentences.  Availability of in-print works is at the discretion of the copyright holder, who may choose to allow availability of the entire work, of a few sample pages, or of a snippet.  The owner may also choose to opt out of the project altogether, much in the way that domain owners can request that Google not catalogue digital works.  On August 22, 2005, Google announced that it would not begin the project until November, so as to give publishers a chance to make decisions about participation and submit a list of works to be excluded from the project.

On September 20, 2005, the Author’s Guild (AG) filed a class action complaint against Google.  The three named plaintiffs were authors whose works are in the UM collection and the Class was initially defined as all persons or entities holding copyright to one of the seven million volumes in the UM Libraries.  It alleged that “by reproducing for itself a copy of those works that are not in the public domain, Google is engaging in massive copyright infringement.  It has infringed, and continues to infringe, the electronic rights of the copyright holders of those works.”  This infringement, it was claimed, adversely affected the market for their works and damaged their goodwill and reputations.  They also claimed that Google intended to derive revenue from those works by using them specifically to attract visitors and consequently generate advertising revenue. 

A month later, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) also filed suit.  The named publishers include McGraw-Hill, Pearson Education, Penguin, Simon & Schuster, and John Wiley & Sons.  They claimed that they were engaged or planned to engage in similar digitization endeavors that would eventually be made available to all search engines, including Google.  Google’s project impinges on this potential market.  The suit also objects specifically to Google’s announcement that publishers could provide the company with a list of books to be excluded from the project by November 2005, arguing that it is a clear inversion of the default rights afforded authors to control of reproduction, distribution, and display of their works in 17 U.S.C. §106.   It further characterizes Google’s actions as willful infringement executed with conscious disregard for author and publisher rights.

DISCUSSION OF THE CASE

The primary decision to be made in this case concerns the application and limits of fair use doctrine.  The application of fair use rests on a four factor test:  the purpose and nature of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the work taken, and the effect of the use upon the potential market. 

The precedent most often cited in fair use issues relevant to search engine operations is Kelly v. Arriba Soft, 336 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2003).  Much like Google Image Search, Arriba Soft created a database of images from websites without obtaining the permission of the site owners or copyright holders.  They then displayed the images as thumbnails that linked to the original content on external sites.  Kelly, a photographer, discovered that his images were being used as thumbnails and sued for copyright infringement.  The court found that the reproduction of the photographs as thumbnails did satisfy the conditions of fair use, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the opinion.  The opinion addressed the four factors as follows:

• Purpose and character of the use:  Arriba was not using the images to promote itself nor did it attempt to profit through their use.  Kelly’s images were only a few among many thousands in the database.  More importantly, their use of images served a different function than the original prints, namely directing access to material on the Internet rather than facilitating original expression. The court ruled that this use was sufficiently transformative, since the images were reduced in size and reproduced at a lower resolution.  Since their use was not exploitative, the commercial aspects of Arriba’s venture weigh only slightly against their favor.
• The nature of the work:  The court observed that while creative works are closer to the core intent of copyright law than factual works, “published works are more likely to qualify as fair use because the first appearance of the artist’s expression has already occurred.”  Kelly’s works were both creative and published.  Because of their publication, the court ruled that fair use only slightly favored Kelly.
• The amount and substantiality of the portion used:  Arriba copied each of the images in their entirety.  However, the court ruled that this was necessary in order to construct an identifiable link that would allow users to recognize the content and decide whether or not to continue on to the originating website.  In the end, this factor favored neither party.
• The effect of use upon the potential market:  By providing direct links to Kelly’s original site and content, Arriba steered potential customers directly to him.  Since the thumbnails were small and of low resolution, the court ruled that they did not dilute Kelly’s market for full size images.  This final factor favored Arriba.

The purpose and nature is a primary aspect of concern in both the AG and AAP complaints.  Fair use doctrine extends protections for specific types of use:  critical comment, parody, educational purposes, and news reporting.  Google satisfies none of these criteria.  While the materials in question largely come from educational institutions, Google itself is not a neutral or altruistic entity or technology.  Rather, it is for-profit, publicly traded venture.  Its business model relies heavily on contextual advertising, and a significant portion of its revenues come from advertisements of one sort or another.  It will in fact profit from advertising associated with this new material.  (The fact that Google’s market value three months after their IPO was half that of Viacom lends some perspective.)  However, it will not profit directly from the sale of reproduced copies.  On the contrary:  search results will bring the texts to the attention of the reader, and links to booksellers and the publisher will encourage the reader to purchase a hard copy of the text.

The question of the nature of the work is easily satisfied in this case:  all of it is previously published.  While some of it is indeed creative, the majority of the texts in question are non-fiction and technical works.  (It’s perhaps relevant to note that all of the named authors in the AG suit are authors of creative works.)

As in Arriba, duplication of entire works is necessary in order to ensure effective operation of the search engine.  However, Google will not provide users with access to the entire text.  In most cases, users will receive only snippets or a few pages in their search results.  If the search term appears multiple times throughout the work, Google will return only three results.  Repeat access attempts will be blocked in order to reduce the chances of the searcher viewing too much of the text.

Through the use of direct links to purchasing opportunities, Google Book Search will increase the demand for searchable texts.  This should be particularly true for lesser-known texts that readers might not happen upon in any other fashion.  Even if the reader checked out the book at a library rather than purchasing it themselves, the libraries will in turn respond to increased demand.  If users were able to print out entire works, diminishment of the market would be conceivable.  A three-sentence snippet  simply cannot do similar harm.

The McGraw-Hill suit suggests that the project restricts their ability to license digitized copies themselves, thus reducing potential market share.  In his copyright analysis of the Google project, Jonathan Band argues that the existence of the Publisher program negates this complaint.  By opting to license works through the Publisher program, publishers receive revenue from contextual advertising and linkage, thus opening up revenue streams unavailable to them elsewhere.

Following the line of argument presented here, the Google Book Search project is lawful under U.S. fair use doctrine.  However, Google results are available internationally, and copyright exceptions vary from country to country.  Band reminds us that copyright infringement is specific to the jurisdiction it was committed within.  Since Google is working in the Untied States to scan books from United States libraries, the relevant law concerning these actions is U.S. law.  While few other countries would allow reproduction of entire texts, most countries do permit short quotations similar to what might appear in a snippet.  Band suggests that these exceptions for quotations should protect Google’s international transmission of search results.

IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATORS AND WRITING TEACHERS

In a statement issued the day after the AG suit was filed, UM associate provost and interim librarian James Hilton addressed the crux of this issue:

This is tremendously important public policy discussion.  … We need to decide whether we are going to allow the development of new technology to be used as a tool to restrict the public’s access to knowledge, or if we are going to ensure that people can find these works and that they will be preserved for future generations.

As educators, we should be particularly concerned about the preservation of our written culture and the access that we and our students have to written artifacts.  Our cultural history is rapidly disappearing, as Lawrence Lessig has pointed out in various books, articles, and lectures.  In his lecture on Google Print, he reminds us that only 9% of published American literature is currently in print and under copyright.  16% of it is in the public domain.  The remaining 75% is out of print but still in copyright.  Because of our loose registration requirements, there is no practical means of obtaining permission from the owners.  The volume in this predominant segment of written culture are largely orphaned works.  We are faced with opposing options:  either reproduce the materials without permission and preserve them, or observe the letter of the law and lose them.  Copyright exceptions (such as fair use doctrine) and complements (such as Creative Commons licenses) provide the only viable solutions to this current and future dilemma.

We are also faced with deciding exactly how we should harness emerging technologies.  Whenever we discuss issues of cultural production, be it text, audio, or video, we are also forced to discuss control of the technology that delivers and transmits them.  Will the Internet be a technology that helps us preserve and share our culture, or will it be a means for corporations to sell our culture to us bit by bit and destroy whatever isn’t profitable?

A different but related question is, what sort of texts do we want to see on the Internet?  As teachers of research and argumentation, we often caution our students about wholesale acceptance of materials found online.  We hold a wide variety of opinions about the value and reliability of collaboratively constructed resources such as Wikipedia.  If a wide range of vetted publications from established publishing houses was available for searches (whether the results be full-text or snippets), would we feel that the Internet had become a more reliable place?  Would a mix of commercial and personal publication increase its inherent value?

As educators who are also advocates of culture, our basic responsibilities lie in the preservation of cultural works.  As educators who are also intellectual property scholars, our responsibilities lie in the creation and dissemination of a technological philosophy that encourages progress and creativity.  And as writing teachers and disciples of text in all its forms, it is imperative that we work toward converting those commitments into policy and law.

RELEVANT SOURCES

Band, Jonathan.  “The Google Print Library Project:  A Copyright Analysis.”  www.policybandwidth.com/doc/googleprint.pdf

Google Books.  http://print.google.com/googlebooks/about.html 

Hilton, James.  “U-M Statement on Google Library Project.”  http://www.umich.edu/news/?Releases/2005/Sep05/r092105 

Kelly v Arriba Soft, 336 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2003).  http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/cyberlaw/KelllyvArriba(9C2003).htm

Lessig, Lawrence.  “Google Book Search:  The Argument.”  http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003292.shtml

Michigan Digitization Project.  http://www.lib.umich.edu/mdp/index.html 

Download Author’s Guild v Google
http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/google/aggoog92005cmp.pdf
Download McGraw-Hill et al. v Google
http://files.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/google/mcggoog101905cmp.pdf