Copyright and visually impaired people

iANSYST Ltd specialises in technology for dyslexia. We locate, tell people about and sell various products which help overcome the difficulties that dyslexic people have with reading and writing (amongst other things), and products which teach these skills. We also publish and resell a number of traditional printed books. We sell a lot of computer systems which include scanners so that the dyslexic users can convert printed text via OCR so that they can read it on the computer, often with the help of text to speech synthesis. On a smaller scale we also provide similar equipment for people with visual impairments.

We thus feel that we are at all three focal points affected by the proposals: the publisher, the person with a reading difficulty and the organisation converting media from the one for the benefit of the other. Hopefully we can appreciate all sides of the argument. A high proportion of our customers are students. For them the ability to have quick and convenient access to the written word is essential to their studies. Even with the help of text to speech their reading productivity is still way below that of a “normal” reader. If they also have to OCR their text, this is a substantial additional handicap. We are under no illusion that our technology gives a “level playing field” to our customers. It merely reduces the uphill slope. This response is designed to help reduce it further.

We are a Supporting Corporate Member of the British Dyslexia Association and a number of other charities concerned with dyslexia and other special educational needs.

Summary:

To summarise very briefly, the consultation paper suggested changing the law of copyright in two ways:

1. that the making of a single copy of copyright material in an alternative format for the personal use of a visually impaired person who has lawfully obtained the material does not infringe copyright. [eg it's OK to scan a book for your own use into a computer] and:
2. if the publisher itself does not provide a licence for alternative formats [eg large type, Braille, talking books or electronic] others can make such conversions without having to seek permission [but they would have to check that the publisher wasn't making them available itself].

The paper goes on to discuss a number of possible conditions and limitations.

We have no quarrel with the suggestions to regularise scanning and make the work of Talking Book and Brailling organisations easier.

But, IMHO, the paper is way off target in looking to the future, for two reasons:

A) ‘Visually Impaired’ should read ‘Reading Impaired’:

The paper talks throughout of ‘Visually Impaired people’ only. All the points made apply equally to other reading impaired people (eg some dyslexic people) and there can be no justification for not substituting the words ‘Reading Impaired’ throughout, and changing the definition to include other people with reading difficulties. (It has been commented that “reading impaired” may also be the wrong term in that “reading impaired” people may be able to read perfectly well once the materials are provided in an accessible form. But I can think of no better.)

B) Publishers’ duty under the DDA:

To give readers and their support organisations a licence to convert text is to approach the problem from entirely the wrong end, and as might have been appropriate 20 years ago. It seeks concessions for the disabled when the law should be demanding positive action from publishers. It is better than nothing, but not good enough. If it gives publishers the idea that the problem has been solved, then it may even be worse than nothing.

The authors of the Disability Discrimination Act 95 may not have had publishers in their sights but is there any argument that it covers them? See http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950050_en_1.htm. Publishers are discriminating against reading impaired people if they only provide their material in standard printed form. Under the DDA they are obliged to take reasonable steps to make it available to the reading impaired. I would suggest that at a minimum this means making it available in electronic form (which, these days, it has almost certainly been in, before reaching print). It is absurd that reading impaired people should be additionally handicapped by having to spend time each individually scanning documents back into electronic form when they could nearly instantly collect them (over the web) in their original electronic form. We sell large numbers of scanners and it bugs me to think how much unnecessary labour they entail. Dyslexic people are more likely than visually impaired people to do their own scanning/conversion.

Any solution which relies on individuals converting materials for ther own use is not a solution. Conversion (usually involving scanning) is tedious and laborious and should only ever need to be done once. Electronic distribution, on the other hand, is normally easy and convenient and must be the preferred route.

From this perspective, the questions for consultation and debate become different. For example:

1. How much should the publisher be obliged to ensure that the electronic form contains all the changes/corrections/pictures/diagrams that may have been added to the original electronic form to make the printed form?
2. What changes should the publisher make to the electronic form to make it most usable for the reading impaired (tagging, indexing etc)?
3. How can the publisher protect its copyright, to avoid copying a la Napster?
   • technical mechanisms? (as in EBooks)
   • making the electronic versions available only through ‘gatekeepers’ who will ensure bona fide use (eg RNIB, Talking Books organisations, intermediaries like ourselves, perhaps). This might be a temporary solution until robust technical mechanisms are available.

What we should be looking for is a standard for digital publishing which meets the needs of those converting on into:

1. Braille;
2. Large Print;
3. Different colours;
4. Computer accessible text;
5. Audio formats;
6. E-Books.

The digital publishing - electronic form - standard should provide all that is necessary so that the further conversion can be, as far as possible, fully automatic, whichever ultimate form is needed. If it is fully automatic it can normally be done (with the help of a computer) by the end user. Relevant standards are being discussed at http://www.publishers.org/home/ebookstudy.htm and http://www.daisy.org/.

Argument A) is clearly relevant to the Copyright Directorate.

Argument B) is largely outside the powers of the Copyright Directorate, but should inform and influence the thinking of the Copyright Directorate. Ultimately it is more a matter for debate and campaigning amongst and by those representing the interests of the reading disabled, on the one hand, and publishers, on the other.

Detailed comments:

3) Easier licensing:

is essential, but as we made clear in B above, is not the solution. Electronic distribution, preferably from the publisher, is a much better solution.

4) Electronic distribution does not fail the three step test:

as long as there are reasonable safeguards: gatekeepers or technical mechanisms to protect copyright; perhaps the converter should be obliged to do a web search to check that the conversion is not already being supplied as part of the “normal exploitation” of the work. Where the publisher initiates electronic distribution as part of their “normal exploitation” , they would often charge a normal electronic sale price.

6) Definition of beneficiaries:

Other people apart from those with Visual Impairments and dyslexia should be covered. People with difficulty holding a book and turning pages may benefit from audio, ebook or computer screen, and should be covered. It may be relevant for people with writing difficulties. Students with handwriting problems may need to scan school workbooks so that they can fill them in on screen or enlarge them to allow for larger than normal handwriting.

Customs and Excise require disabled people who want VAT exemption for certain purchases to self certify, or for the supplier to have evidence of the disability. (see our explanatory article). It should be enough for people claiming a copyright exception to self certify in a similar way (giving, generally, less financial benefit than with VAT).

7.2.b It would be essential to allow conversion and distribution of digital copies,

as explained above. But suitable safeguards are, indeed, necessary. Digital copies should absolutely not be excluded from the exception, but must be encouraged.

7.2.d Superior versions should be allowed.

This will be an added incentive for publishers to set a decent standard for their own digital publications, for which they will be able to charge.

7.2.j & k We see no reason why conversion should be limited to non-profit bodies or to cost recovery only.

We already “compete” in some areas with non-profit organisations, which in principal can subsidise their activities with grant funding. If we or others can offer equally good service without subsidy why should we not do so? A commercial service will only survive if there is demand for it from the reading disabled. “Cost recovery” in one organisation could be a reasonable profit in a more efficient one.

7.2.l Reapplying technical protection measures may not always be reasonably possible -

(depending on the format, and the cooperation of the publisher). In this case it should not impede the conversion. But other reasonable safeguards will still need to be applied.

7.4 We agree with your relaxations for one to one conversions.

9.1 We consider that publishers should be obliged to make digital formats available

at least as a disk of the material as published — as we have explained above. Ebook commercial pressures as well as the DDA should encourage publishers to make the material available in a form more optimised for conversion.

10.1 The major alternative solution is to enforce digital publishing, or at least digital availability to converters.

But copyright exceptions will still be necessary for final conversions from the digital format.

Ian Litterick
Managing Director

iANSYST Ltd

Originally written May 2001 by Ian Litterick.

Article last updated: 20 November 2006