ARL Public Policy Briefing
June 2025
|
Katherine Klosek, Director, Information Policy and Federal Relations, ARL
Contributions from the Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) by Katherine McColgan, Manager, Administration and Programs, CARL
|
The monthly Public Policy Briefing highlights developments in ARL’s public policy priorities, issues that are relevant to the research library community in the United States and Canada, and details on advocacy conducted by ARL and CARL. Please encourage your colleagues to sign up for the Public Policy Briefing.
If you have questions or suggestions, please email me at kklosek@arl.org.
This month, the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) submitted comments on the site-blocking proposal by US House of Representatives IP Subcommittee Chair Darrell Issa (R-CA). ARL joined higher education associations in an amicus brief opposing the NIH cap on indirect cost reimbursement. The Coalition for National Science Funding (NCSF), which ARL is a member of, issued a statement opposing the Trump administration’s budget proposal for the US National Science Foundation (NSF). In a report, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the administration unlawfully withheld funds from the US Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). And, ARL joined an amicus brief in support of Harvard’s motion for summary judgment in the case President and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Read on for summaries of two recent decisions on AI and fair use from the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
The 2025 CARL Spring Member Meeting was held in Winnipeg, Manitoba, on May 26–29. This annual gathering serves as a vital platform for the exchange of ideas, strategic planning, and collaborative discussions that shape the future of research libraries across Canada. The program included sessions on intellectual freedom, the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) and the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), updates on the work of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, and the impacts of the current North American political environment on research, collections, and equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), among other topics. CARL was happy to welcome ARL Executive Director Andrew Pace and ARL Vice President/President-Elect Melissa Just as guests to the meeting.
The 2025 G7 Leaders’ Summit was held in Kananaskis, Alberta, on June 15–17. While much of the summit was focused on global security concerns and trade talks, AI was also a focus area and resulted in the “G7 Leaders’ Statement on AI for Prosperity,” which focused on collective governance and signaled ongoing support for AI adoption across the public and private sectors.
Read on for more details!
|
Copyright and Fair Use/Fair Dealing
|
Federal Funding for Library Priorities
|
Breaking with tradition established under the Trudeau government, Prime Minister Carney released a single mandate letter publicly for his entire cabinet, rather than the traditional spate of individual assignments. The letter was brief and primarily focused on high-level concerns, including housing affordability and Canada’s relationship with the United States—there was no mention of anything relevant to CARL’s advocacy work. As a result of this consolidated approach, we have less insight into the priorities of individual ministers at this time.
CARL has sent letters of congratulations to select newly appointed Liberal cabinet ministers along with the appointed Conservative shadow minister for each ministry. The letters introduce CARL and its advocacy positions to the ministers and identify our key advocacy priorities.
|
Copyright and Fair Use/Fair Dealing
|
Library Copyright Alliance Comments on Site-Blocking Framework
|
US House of Representatives IP Subcommittee Chair Darrell Issa (R-CA) shared with stakeholders a discussion draft of the American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA), proposing a four-phase procedure for US copyright holders to obtain court orders blocking access to “foreign copyright piracy sites.” The discussion draft excludes libraries and universities from obligations to block access to foreign websites. However, as the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) explained in comments to Chairman Issa, the framework proposed in the ACPA could lead to over-blocking, which could restrict access to information and harm library users.
LCA recommended that the standard for courts to determine whether to impose a blocking order give more weight to the potential harmful impact of a blocking order on users. The bill should also clarify that users have the right to challenge and appeal a court’s designation of a site as a foreign piracy site. And, LCA suggested that copyright owners should be liable for all injuries resulting from the blocking orders they seek.
In a separate letter to Chairman Issa, the Re:Create Coalition explained how site blocking would destabilize the open internet and put user privacy at risk.
Earlier this year, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced the Foreign Anti-Digital Piracy Act (FADPA), which the Re:Create Coalition also opposed due to concerns that the harms of over-blocking would outweigh any purported public benefit.
|
Canadian Creators Issue Manifesto on Copyright, AI, and Text and Data Mining
|
Members of six Quebec unions representing more than 25,000 artists, creators, performers, craftspeople, and technicians in the audiovisual and music industries came together to release their “Manifesto for the Protection of Authentic Creation.” The statement outlines the core principles they believe must guide the responsible and cautious development of AI tools, along with their demands and recommendations, including that the government assert that AI cannot be deemed a creator under the Copyright Act, and that an exception not be made for text and data mining.
|
Courts Rule Training AI on Copyrighted Works Is Fair Use
|
Two federal judges in California have ruled that training AI models on copyrighted books constitutes fair use.
In Bartz v. Anthropic, authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson sued Anthropic for copying their books to train AI models. Judge William Alsup of the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that training AI on lawfully acquired copyrighted books was an “exceedingly transformative” fair use. Alsup further held that purchasing physical books and converting them to digital copies to save storage space and enable searchability was fair use.
Judge Alsup’s reasoning emphasized the transformative nature of AI training, noting that the training uses copyrighted works “not to race ahead and replicate or supplant them—but to turn a hard corner and create something different.” The court found that copying entire works was necessary for this transformative purpose, and rejected the authors’ claims that any market dilution caused by the AI training should weigh against Anthropic under the fourth fair use factor. Anthropic lost on the issue of using copies downloaded from shadow libraries for its central library, and will go to trial on this issue in December.
In a similar case, Kadrey v. Meta, Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that Meta’s training AI models on pirated copies of specific novels was a “highly transformative” fair use. Judge Chhabria emphasized that the burden of proof of a fair use defense is on the party invoking it, and that the 13 author-plaintiffs failed to prove Meta’s copying would flood the market with similar works. While Judge Chhabria held that market dilution could tilt the fair use calculus against an AI firm, Kadrey had not provided any evidence supporting this argument in this case.
|
Federal Funding for Library Priorities
|
ARL Joins Amicus Brief in Lawsuit Opposing NIH Cap on Indirect Cost Reimbursement
|
ARL joined COGR, EDUCAUSE, the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), and other education organizations in an amicus brief asking the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to affirm the District Court’s permanent injunction on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) 15 percent cap on indirect cost rates for facilities & administrative (F&A) costs.
As the brief explains, NIH unlawfully upended the decades-long policy that academic research institutions negotiate with federal agencies for indirect cost rates that account for each institution’s circumstances. The rate cap would jeopardize cutting-edge research and clinical trial programs and drive scientific talent from American universities, with negative long-term implications for national security and local economies.
The brief supports lawsuits brought by higher education associations, states, and medical and public health organizations opposing the NIH indirect cost rate cap. A judge in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts converted the preliminary injunction in this case into a permanent injunction, preventing NIH from enforcing the F&A cap while the case proceeds. The US government appealed the District Court’s decision to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
On June 20, a judge in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated the 15 percent rate cap, declaring it invalid, arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law. The government can appeal this order.
|
Coalition for National Science Funding Opposes Administration’s Budget Proposal for NSF
|
In response to the US National Science Foundation (NSF) FY 2026 budget request to Congress, the Coalition for National Science Funding (CNSF), which ARL is a member of, issued a statement opposing deep cuts. The administration proposes cutting NSF funding by 57 percent. According to the budget proposal, about 90,000 people would be involved in NSF programs and activities, down from 330,100 in FY 2024. This includes senior researchers, postdoctoral associates, graduate students, as well as pre-K–12 teachers and students. In the statement, CNSF called for Congress to reject the massive cuts, which CNSF said would “greatly diminish our research ecosystem and future STEM workforce.”
NSF funding is included in the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) appropriations bill, which is scheduled for a markup by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on July 7, and the full House Appropriations committee on July 10.
|
Government Accountability Office Finds Administration Unlawfully Withheld Funds from IMLS
|
In a June report, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA). The violation occurred when IMLS withheld congressionally appropriated funds and ceased performing agency actions in response to executive order (EO) 14238, “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy,” which directed that the “non-statutory components and functions of [IMLS]…shall be eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.”
Under the ICA, the president can withhold funds, but only under certain conditions, and only after justifying the withholding to Congress. The report noted that grants to states in particular cannot be withheld under the ICA’s fourth disclaimer, which covers funds that are allotted to recipients under a specific formula.
In the report’s conclusion, GAO noted that IMLS can lawfully make changes to the appropriation provided by Congress by proposing funds for recission, or by proposing statutory changes for Congress to consider.
|
ARL Joins Amicus Brief in Support of Harvard
|
ARL joined the American Council on Education (ACE) and 26 other higher education organizations in an amicus brief in support of Harvard’s motion for summary judgment in the case President and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) et al.
Harvard sued HHS after the department froze $2 billion in federal funds in April of this year, following the administration’s demands that Harvard reshape its governance and operations. The associations argued in the brief that the funding freeze, coupled with the administration’s demands, were attempts to threaten Harvard’s institutional autonomy and undermine the separation of powers.
While Harvard is the only plaintiff in the case, the reasoning of the court in this lawsuit will likely influence how other courts view similar cases related to the administration’s assault on higher education. Peter McDonough, vice president and general counsel for ACE, said, “There really are enormous issues here at stake…because if the government can do this to Harvard, it can do it to any institution of higher education, probably any secondary school and maybe even to public school districts that rely on federal funds.”
|
|
|
Manage your preferences | Opt Out using TrueRemove™
Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails.
View this email online.
|
1025 Connecticut Avenue NW #1200 | Washington, DC 20036 US
|
|
|
This email was sent to .
To continue receiving our emails, add us to your address book.
| | |
|
|
