Printing and Binding Someone Else's Thesis

Factual Questions
1

So, my sister is a massive nerd (aren’t we all?) and has always wanted to read her favorite celebrity’s senior thesis. It turns out getting a copy is really easy in the internet age as you can put in an order with the university library and for a small fee they will send you an electronic copy of any thesis you want (if it’s from years ago and only in the bound paper copy, they will digitize it for you).

So I was thinking, for my sister’s birthday this year, I could order a copy of the celebrity’s thesis, print it and get it bound up by a thesis bindery so she could have a real physical copy for her bookcase. I know she would really love that.

My question is on the legality of doing this. It seems perfectly acceptable to me under fair use - it’s not for sale or anything, it’s for her own personal use and it’s not like she’s presenting it to anyone as her own work or anything like that. It seems to me no different than if you, say, downloaded a bunch of journal articles from JSTOR and printed and bound them for easier reading.

But I am not a lawyer so just wanted to check in case the bindery had issues with it as it would be pretty obvious I’m not asking for a copy of my own thesis to be bound lol. I can’t find anything on the internet dealing with this specific instance, everything relating to copyright on theses and dissertations is about people’s own work or about quoting things from a thesis. It seems no one else has ever thought of binding a copy of someone else’s thesis for their own use.

So, any intellectual property attorneys here able to provide an answer?

2

It’s fine. Back in the day, you had to bind 2 copies of your thesis or dissertation for the university library. You’re not selling it, you’re protecting a copy you paid for.

3

No, it’s not fair use. The fact that it’s for personal use and not for sale is irrelevant. That’s why downloading music for your personal use is piracy.

The issue is whether it’s under copyright. If the work was created before 1977, it probably isn’t. After that, it is.

Technically, you need to get permission. Thinking about your OP, it’s likely that the school holds copyright, so you could ask them for permission. They allow downloads, so the should be amenable to printing out a hard copy.

When you download the file, are there any condition attached? Look at the website to see what their terms are.

4

i applaud you on this venture, biblio … years ago, i thought of gathering together all of my robin-cook’s novels … binding them in leather … just so they’d look appreciated; and be of uniform appearance within my bookcase.

however … be aware of at least two limiting factors. the way i see it, the university will digitize a book for you … meaning they prop open the book and scan the pages with a camera. if the text comes very close to the binding, there will be a noticeable “warp” as the camera takes only one pic for two-page spread. take note, some warpage can manifest quite severely. the only way around this warping effect/signature would be to unbind the book before the scan process.

the university probably will send you the digitized book as a *.pdf file … whereas, each page of the pdf will envelop a single two-page scan. or, if you wish, you can try using ocr (optical character recognnition) to convert the scanned image into actual text … this has the capacity to offer a more consistent layout. however … ocr is not 100% accurate … therefore, you’d need to proof-read each and every word … re-typing as necessary. benefit of having text is that you could choose different font … and could also search for a word or phrase within the pdf.

hence, i present to you the second limiting factor: another benefit of having text, rather than image, is it’s ability to being printed on different papers. a scanned image probably needs same color white paper as background of the image. however … may be such a thing that the university applies scanning filters … so there is not much background present. even then … probably some “aliasing” may occur.

adobe’s free “acrobat-reader-dc” can not convert images into text. their “acrobat-professional” versioin can … but, it’s a tad bit expensive, biblio.

a bit curious … i took a screen-cap (100% @ 72dpi) of your post … and saved it on my desktop as a png file. i then accessed www.onlineocr.net to see how accurate they could reproduce the image into text … here are the results:


 So, my sister is a massive nerd (are. we all?) and has always wanted to read her favorite celebrity's senior thesis. It tums out getting a copy is really easy in the memo[ age as you can put in an order with the university Library and for a small fee they will send you an electronic copy of a, thesis you want (if irs from years ago and only in the bound paper copy, they will digitize it for you). 
So Iu■,:clas th4nItg.ttof :tmy sister's birthday this year, I could order a copy of the celebrity's thesis, print it and get it bound up by a thesis bindery so she could have a real physical copy for her bookcase. I know she 
My question is on the legality of doing this. It seems perfectly acceptable to me under fair use - ifs not for sale or anything, if, for her own personal use and ifs not like she's presenting it to anyone as her own work or anything like that It seems to me no different than if you, say, downloaded a bunch of journal articles from JSIOR and printed and bound them for easier reading. 
Mt I am not a lawyer so just wanted to check in case the bindery had issues with it as it would he pretty obvious I'm not asking for a copy of my own thesis to he hound lol. I ca. find anything on the intern. dealing with this specific instance, everything relating to copyright on theses and dissertations is about people's own work or about quoting things from a thesis. It seems co one else has ever thought of binding a copy of someone else, thesis for their own use. 
So, a, intellectual. property attorneys here able to provide an answer?

there’s a plethora of free online ocr utilities out there, biblio … have a go at it yourself. see how good your proof-reading skills are with the above text. <grin>

one other caveat … make sure the university understands your plan is to create a manuscript/book from their scans. in this way, you can remediate with them based on a suitable size they will scan the pages at. it would benefit nobody if you receive pages that are only 50% as large as the original book. enlarging would not be successful and would be counter-productive … also, at this stage, ocr would prove impossible.

before closing, biblio … you might search for couple photos of the ‘celebrity’ … and, if still alive, have him write short letter to your sister … or maybe autograph one of his pictures. would compile into a nice presentation overall. if he does write short letter … ask him to omit her name from the letter. a couple generations from now, with her name omitted, that letter may prove even more valuable than the manuscript itself. same goes for autographing a picture … omit her name. if you wish to bind the pictures as part of the book … use superior stock paper for only those pics. ask the binder what type of stock he’d suggest for quality as well as longevity (nothing acid-based).

p.s. and … be mindful of copyright laws.

5

To clarify, works before 1977 required a copyright application in the US in order to be protected. After that it would be automatically copyrighted but full protection (able to sue for fees) requires registration.

1963 is another magic cut-off date and only for those whose copyright wasn’t renewed. If the copyright was renewed you have to go back quite a while before it’s in the public domain.

Very few theses would have a registered copyright, let alone renewed.

One question is who holds the copyright? I own the (unregistered) copyright to my thesis but I had to grant a license to University Microfilms*, now called ProQuest, for them to republish it. ProQuest is the source for obtaining many US theses.

All in all, you’re quite likely okay legally if it’s at all old. Fairly likely that the worst is you could get slapped with a “stop doing that” request (unregistered copyright). Slight chance of being in a position to get sued, pay copyright and legal fees.

Copy centers could easily have higher standards, of course.

  • Can’t imagine why they changed their name. :rolleyes:
6

If it’s not fair use, it is the university that is violating copyright laws, not the purchaser. Once you own a copy legally, I see nothing that would prevent you from printing and binding it.

I published a book once and the publisher returned the copyright after it went out of print. The original publisher is now selling copies of it for the own profit without a by-your-leave. Now that is a copyright violation.

7

Yeah, I gotta agree with that, Chuck. The OP specifically states that the thesis is being ordered. That allows for someone who is selling it. Once the OP has a copy, he or she may bind, fold, spindle, whatever to his or her heart’s content without bringing fair use or copyright into play provided there’s no reselling going on.

8

i can definitely see how hari’s latter scenario would incur a copyright infringement … and it blows my mind he did not seek some type of damage relief. however, i can’t really understand how a person creating a bound volume specifically for themself could … long as that person (biblio) purchased a copy themself. however, guess there could be a violation … seeing as how the manuscript would be given to someone else as a gift.

and, to that end, i would calmly infer “shhh-h-h-h”. :rolleyes:

9

This seems more akin to burning a CD for personal use after getting permission to download the file.

YMMV, but I hold the copyright to my dissertation.

10

Does the university site from which the OP ordered the PDF say anything about the copyright status of the theses it provides? Presumably a major institution wouldn’t be violating the rights of its graduates willy nilly, but it should make the copyright situation clear.

Have any courts ruled whether printing a (legitimately obtained) digital copy is making a new copy, i.e., violating copyright? Printing is literally making another copy, of course, so a narrow view would assert that it is a violation, but does any precedent permit or restrict it?

Of course, once he gets it, the OP may find that the PDF is locked to prevent printing or copying. That could be how the university provides the service while staying on the right side of the law.

11

Hey, I just noticed that my Master’s thesis (from the 1980s) is listed in Google books - though it’s not for sale (and not scanned). WorldCat lists one library that holds a copy - namely my university’s library. Heh.

12

Once you have a copy legally, you can even alter the text – change all the yeses to nos, and re-write the conclusion to negate what was really said – so long as it’s only for your own personal library and is never distributed to anyone else. It’s your property.

13

An electronic copy is just an electronic copy only. It’s not a right to print it! Printing it makes a 2nd copy. That is exactly why copyright laws are for. To restrict people making a copy.

14

Nope; totally fair use.

When we used to buy LPs of music, we often made a “playing copy” on cassette tape. Totally legal, so long as you don’t give the copy to anyone. For your own use only copyright does not apply.

(Nowadays, I use music import software to make mp3 files of my old LPs. Still totally legal.)

ETA: back in the day, some of us used to rent VHS tapes from a video rental store, and sometimes make copies of that tape for personal home use. THAT’S improper; it violates the terms of the rental agreement.

15

I have no idea where people get the idea that this is remotely fair use.

You are printing a completely new copy of a good sized work!

Let’s look at the big 4 of factors used in deciding fair use:

  1. Purpose and character of the use. The best out here is educational use but: “To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new.”

Definitely not applicable.

  1. Nature of the copyrighted work. If the thesis is copyrighted, then it’s clearly covered.

  2. Amount and substantiality. This is the killer. Copying an entire work is way beyond fair use in this regard.

  3. Effect upon work’s value. “[W]hen a commercial use amounts to mere duplication of the entirety of the original, it clearly supersedes the object of the original and serves as a market replacement for it, making it likely that cognizable market harm to the original will occur.”

The extra printed copy deprives the copyright owner of 1 sale of the thesis.

In short: It is blindingly clear that this is not fair use.

16

How is this different from duplicating and format shifting music that I legally possess?

17

That’s not actually clear. If the copyright owner is selling printed copies and they’re more expensive that the electronic copies, then there’s a harm from the buyer printing a copy.
If the copyright owner is not selling printed copies (and has no interest in doing so), or printed copies aren’t more profitable for them than electronic ones, then it’s really hard to make a case that there’s any harm to the copyright owner.

18

If it’s my property, can’t I sell it to someone else, even if I’ve altered it?

I can’t make more copies and sell them (unless there’s a fair use or other exception), but selling an existing physical book, even a folded, spindled, annotated or defaced book, is not making a copy, so I don’t believe copyright applies.

[College book stores and other used book stores are full of books that have had notes or highlighter added, then sold by the owner back to the book store]

19

Note: The term “fair use” means a particular legal idea.

If you do something that is unlikely to get you into trouble, well that’s something else. But you don’t call it “fair use”.

[QUOTE=Quercus]

That’s not actually clear. If the copyright owner is selling printed copies and they’re more expensive that the electronic copies, then there’s a harm from the buyer printing a copy.

If the copyright owner is not selling printed copies (and has no interest in doing so), or printed copies aren’t more profitable for them than electronic ones, then it’s really hard to make a case that there’s any harm to the copyright owner.
[/QUOTE]

This is a very well known, but incorrect, Internet apologia for violating copyright laws. It will never hold up in court. The owner of the copyright can merely assert that they may someday produce and sell new copies and that’s that. Having vast numbers of people making their own copies can be cited as a disincentive to actually start selling the item again.

Remember, you should never think in terms of one person making one copy. Think in terms of thousands of people making many copies.

20

Are you implying that duplicating and format shifting music that I legally possess is illegal, just unlikely to get me in trouble? If not, I’m not sure your point.