Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
There is a big difference between a performance and making a copy for download. A streamed performance (of a recorded reading) of a book actually might very well fall under TEACH, even if the book were read in its entirety. It depends on whether or not it would meet all the criteria in the law, most specifically what kind of work it is and how one defines nondramatic literary work. See the Exceptions for Instructors eTool for more information, specifically this page and the notes: http://librarycopyright.net/etool/reasonableandlimited.php?ca=1 Entire works - books, video, etc. - may also be used in their entirety (streamed, made available for download, etc.) for research and teaching if they are in their last 10 years of copyright protection and are not being commercially exploited. I know that these are specific exceptions, but it is important for people to understand that there is no prohibition on using entire works without the permission of the copyright holder. There are exceptions in 110, 108 and 107 (Sony, Bill Graham Archives, etc.), among others. mb On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Jessica Rosner wrote: My paranoia. You mean about saying fair use means an entire film can be streamed if a professor says he needs it which is directly contrary to the entire history of fair use and would be another likely fatal blow for independent film distribution. I would still like to know why you sell your books as opposed to making them available for free as downloads since that appears to be what you want filmmakers to do. I wish I could figure a way to make this my sig for videolib posts The mere fact that the portions copied by Kinko’s were those that the college professor singled out as being critical parts of the books demonstrates that even if not “the heart of” the works in question, the parts copied were substantial in quality ( Yes I know Kinko's was for profit but I can't see how that changes the long established concept per above that fair use is PORTIONS of works used to create NEW WORKS) On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Patricia Aufderheide pauf...@american.edu wrote: It would be great to do more education, and ARL is eager to do so! Thank you! Enough with the paranoia! On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Sarah E. McCleskey sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu wrote: Would a proposal for a program on the new code of best practices be welcome at National Media Market, or would such a session it just turn into a rant session? I'm thinking of a general discussion then breakout into smaller groups with real life examples to discuss, is a particular use covered by fair use, 110-b, etc. But I don't want to bad feelings!! Sarah Sarah E. McCleskey Head of Access Services Acting Director, Film and Media Library 112 Axinn Library Hofstra University Hempstead, NY 11549-1230 sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu 516-463-5076 (o) 516-463-4309 (f) -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Stanton, Kim Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:16 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Representative from CSM and ALA have often stressed that the use of items in instruction is not always Fair Use or 110, but could be both. I was hoping this code would provide more guidance in defining when Fair Use is in play in pedagogy. I feel that the Fair Use of feature films in instruction is FARILY clear cut. In my experience, outside of Film Studies, most faculty use fairly short portions of features films in a way that seems clearly transformative or illustrative. We've all seen examples of this at our universities. A Sociology of the Family course uses a scene from Big Love to illustrate nontraditional family structures. A clip from Triumph of the Will is compared with a clip from Star Wars of Darth Vader commanding imperial forces. Etc, etc , etc. This is not as straightforward when you start talking about the use of documentaries in online education, especially those with intrinsic instructional value. When a faculty member contacts me and wants to put an educational documentary online, 90% of the time they want the entire film up. In my gut, I feel that this is almost always something better covered by 110(2) and/or licensed for use, but this Fair Use code is so vague in this regard that I don't feel like I can provide instructors with useful information about the nature and the scope of fair use based on the information outlined here. Additionally, Michael Brewer just brought up the idea that 110(b) is essentially a way to take a physical classroom space and translate it into the online environment (within those limitations set by 110b). When I first began working with faculty who were moving their courses online it was fairly simple to distinguish between a core resource and an ancillary
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
This is NOT about TEACH Michael which has it's own rules and this discussion has been about wholesale digitizing and streaming of feature works as fair use On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Brewer, Michael brew...@u.library.arizona.edu wrote: There is a big difference between a performance and making a copy for download. A streamed performance (of a recorded reading) of a book actually might very well fall under TEACH, even if the book were read in its entirety. It depends on whether or not it would meet all the criteria in the law, most specifically what kind of work it is and how one defines nondramatic literary work. See the Exceptions for Instructors eTool for more information, specifically this page and the notes: http://librarycopyright.net/etool/reasonableandlimited.php?ca=1 Entire works - books, video, etc. - may also be used in their entirety (streamed, made available for download, etc.) for research and teaching if they are in their last 10 years of copyright protection and are not being commercially exploited. I know that these are specific exceptions, but it is important for people to understand that there is no prohibition on using entire works without the permission of the copyright holder. There are exceptions in 110, 108 and 107 (Sony, Bill Graham Archives, etc.), among others. mb On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Jessica Rosner wrote: My paranoia. You mean about saying fair use means an entire film can be streamed if a professor says he needs it which is directly contrary to the entire history of fair use and would be another likely fatal blow for independent film distribution. I would still like to know why you sell your books as opposed to making them available for free as downloads since that appears to be what you want filmmakers to do. I wish I could figure a way to make this my sig for videolib posts The mere fact that the portions copied by Kinko’s were those that the college professor singled out as being critical parts of the books demonstrates that even if not “the heart of” the works in question, the parts copied were substantial in quality ( Yes I know Kinko's was for profit but I can't see how that changes the long established concept per above that fair use is PORTIONS of works used to create NEW WORKS) On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Patricia Aufderheide pauf...@american.edu wrote: It would be great to do more education, and ARL is eager to do so! Thank you! Enough with the paranoia! On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Sarah E. McCleskey sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu wrote: Would a proposal for a program on the new code of best practices be welcome at National Media Market, or would such a session it just turn into a rant session? I'm thinking of a general discussion then breakout into smaller groups with real life examples to discuss, is a particular use covered by fair use, 110-b, etc. But I don't want to bad feelings!! Sarah Sarah E. McCleskey Head of Access Services Acting Director, Film and Media Library 112 Axinn Library Hofstra University Hempstead, NY 11549-1230 sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu 516-463-5076 (o) 516-463-4309 (f) -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Stanton, Kim Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:16 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Representative from CSM and ALA have often stressed that the use of items in instruction is not always Fair Use or 110, but could be both. I was hoping this code would provide more guidance in defining when Fair Use is in play in pedagogy. I feel that the Fair Use of feature films in instruction is FARILY clear cut. In my experience, outside of Film Studies, most faculty use fairly short portions of features films in a way that seems clearly transformative or illustrative. We've all seen examples of this at our universities. A Sociology of the Family course uses a scene from Big Love to illustrate nontraditional family structures. A clip from Triumph of the Will is compared with a clip from Star Wars of Darth Vader commanding imperial forces. Etc, etc , etc. This is not as straightforward when you start talking about the use of documentaries in online education, especially those with intrinsic instructional value. When a faculty member contacts me and wants to put an educational documentary online, 90% of the time they want the entire film up. In my gut, I feel that this is almost always something better covered by 110(2) and/or licensed for use, but this Fair Use code is so vague in this regard that I don't feel like I can provide instructors with useful information about the nature and the scope of fair use based on the information outlined here. Additionally, Michael Brewer just brought up the idea that 110(b) is essentially a way to take a physical classroom
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Hi, Jessica, I think Michael is pointing out that there is no explicit ruling against use of an entire work, depending upon the way Fair Use or Teach or 108 is interpreted and the circumstances. Kim Stanton also points out that the distinction between core resources and ancillary ones is blurring. Your apparent insistence that the streaming and performance of a full feature is illegal under any and all circumstances including fair use isn't supported by case law at this point. - - Roger Brown Manager UCLA Instructional Media Collections Services 46 Powell Library Los Angeles, CA 90095-1517 office: 310-206-1248 fax: 310-206-5392 rbr...@oid.ucla.edu On 2/16/12 7:53 AM, Jessica Rosner jessicapros...@gmail.com fashioned the following lines: This is NOT about TEACH Michael which has it's own rules and this discussion has been about wholesale digitizing and streaming of feature works as fair use On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Brewer, Michael brew...@u.library.arizona.edu wrote: There is a big difference between a performance and making a copy for download. A streamed performance (of a recorded reading) of a book actually might very well fall under TEACH, even if the book were read in its entirety. It depends on whether or not it would meet all the criteria in the law, most specifically what kind of work it is and how one defines nondramatic literary work. See the Exceptions for Instructors eTool for more information, specifically this page and the notes: http://librarycopyright.net/etool/reasonableandlimited.php?ca=1 Entire works - books, video, etc. - may also be used in their entirety (streamed, made available for download, etc.) for research and teaching if they are in their last 10 years of copyright protection and are not being commercially exploited. I know that these are specific exceptions, but it is important for people to understand that there is no prohibition on using entire works without the permission of the copyright holder. There are exceptions in 110, 108 and 107 (Sony, Bill Graham Archives, etc.), among others. mb On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Jessica Rosner wrote: My paranoia. You mean about saying fair use means an entire film can be streamed if a professor says he needs it which is directly contrary to the entire history of fair use and would be another likely fatal blow for independent film distribution. I would still like to know why you sell your books as opposed to making them available for free as downloads since that appears to be what you want filmmakers to do. I wish I could figure a way to make this my sig for videolib posts The mere fact that the portions copied by Kinko¹s were those that the college professor singled out as being critical parts of the books demonstrates that even if not ³the heart of² the works in question, the parts copied were substantial in quality ( Yes I know Kinko's was for profit but I can't see how that changes the long established concept per above that fair use is PORTIONS of works used to create NEW WORKS) On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Patricia Aufderheide pauf...@american.edu wrote: It would be great to do more education, and ARL is eager to do so! Thank you! Enough with the paranoia! On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Sarah E. McCleskey sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu wrote: Would a proposal for a program on the new code of best practices be welcome at National Media Market, or would such a session it just turn into a rant session? I'm thinking of a general discussion then breakout into smaller groups with real life examples to discuss, is a particular use covered by fair use, 110-b, etc. But I don't want to bad feelings!! Sarah Sarah E. McCleskey Head of Access Services Acting Director, Film and Media Library 112 Axinn Library Hofstra University Hempstead, NY 11549-1230 sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu 516-463-5076 (o) 516-463-4309 (f) -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Stanton, Kim Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:16 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Representative from CSM and ALA have often stressed that the use of items in instruction is not always Fair Use or 110, but could be both. I was hoping this code would provide more guidance in defining when Fair Use is in play in pedagogy. I feel that the Fair Use of feature films in instruction is FARILY clear cut. In my experience, outside of Film Studies, most faculty use fairly short portions of features films in a way that seems clearly transformative or illustrative. We've all seen examples of this at our universities. A Sociology of the Family course uses a scene from Big Love to illustrate nontraditional family structures. A clip from Triumph of the Will is compared with a clip from Star Wars of Darth Vader commanding imperial forces. Etc, etc , etc
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Actually it is supported by the law. The Kinko's case is literally the only case directly on point and it has not been overturned. The problem is that the people concerned about this simply do not have the legal resources to fight it in court. I could claim that there is no precedent that says I can not make copies of every Seinfield episode and hand them out for free on the street because there has been no EXACT case saying that I could not. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Brown, Roger rbr...@oid.ucla.edu wrote: Hi, Jessica, I think Michael is pointing out that there is no explicit ruling against use of an entire work, depending upon the way Fair Use or Teach or 108 is interpreted and the circumstances. Kim Stanton also points out that the distinction between core resources and ancillary ones is blurring. Your apparent insistence that the streaming and performance of a full feature is illegal under any and all circumstances including fair use isn't supported by case law at this point. - - Roger Brown Manager UCLA Instructional Media Collections Services 46 Powell Library Los Angeles, CA 90095-1517 office: 310-206-1248 fax: 310-206-5392 rbr...@oid.ucla.edu On 2/16/12 7:53 AM, Jessica Rosner jessicapros...@gmail.com fashioned the following lines: This is NOT about TEACH Michael which has it's own rules and this discussion has been about wholesale digitizing and streaming of feature works as fair use On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Brewer, Michael brew...@u.library.arizona.edu wrote: There is a big difference between a performance and making a copy for download. A streamed performance (of a recorded reading) of a book actually might very well fall under TEACH, even if the book were read in its entirety. It depends on whether or not it would meet all the criteria in the law, most specifically what kind of work it is and how one defines nondramatic literary work. See the Exceptions for Instructors eTool for more information, specifically this page and the notes: http://librarycopyright.net/etool/reasonableandlimited.php?ca=1 Entire works - books, video, etc. - may also be used in their entirety (streamed, made available for download, etc.) for research and teaching if they are in their last 10 years of copyright protection and are not being commercially exploited. I know that these are specific exceptions, but it is important for people to understand that there is no prohibition on using entire works without the permission of the copyright holder. There are exceptions in 110, 108 and 107 (Sony, Bill Graham Archives, etc.), among others. mb On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Jessica Rosner wrote: My paranoia. You mean about saying fair use means an entire film can be streamed if a professor says he needs it which is directly contrary to the entire history of fair use and would be another likely fatal blow for independent film distribution. I would still like to know why you sell your books as opposed to making them available for free as downloads since that appears to be what you want filmmakers to do. I wish I could figure a way to make this my sig for videolib posts The mere fact that the portions copied by Kinko¹s were those that the college professor singled out as being critical parts of the books demonstrates that even if not ³the heart of² the works in question, the parts copied were substantial in quality ( Yes I know Kinko's was for profit but I can't see how that changes the long established concept per above that fair use is PORTIONS of works used to create NEW WORKS) On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Patricia Aufderheide pauf...@american.edu wrote: It would be great to do more education, and ARL is eager to do so! Thank you! Enough with the paranoia! On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Sarah E. McCleskey sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu wrote: Would a proposal for a program on the new code of best practices be welcome at National Media Market, or would such a session it just turn into a rant session? I'm thinking of a general discussion then breakout into smaller groups with real life examples to discuss, is a particular use covered by fair use, 110-b, etc. But I don't want to bad feelings!! Sarah Sarah E. McCleskey Head of Access Services Acting Director, Film and Media Library 112 Axinn Library Hofstra University Hempstead, NY 11549-1230 sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu 516-463-5076 (o) 516-463-4309 (f) -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Stanton, Kim Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:16 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Representative from CSM and ALA have often stressed that the use of items in instruction is not always Fair Use or 110, but could be both. I was hoping this code would provide more guidance in defining when Fair Use is in play in pedagogy. I
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
We do have the resources NOT to sell to UCLA until and unless they modify their position in this regard, and this our policy, and we urge all other distributors to adopt the same position as Icarus Films and Fanlight Productions. And if we learn/know that any other library/university does or intends to assert the same thing, we won't sell to them, either. JM Jonathan Miller President Icarus Films 32 Court Street, 21st Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 www.IcarusFilms.com http://HomeVideo.IcarusFilms.com Tel 1.718.488.8900 Fax 1.718.488.8642 jmil...@icarusfilms.com -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:53 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Actually it is supported by the law. The Kinko's case is literally the only case directly on point and it has not been overturned. The problem is that the people concerned about this simply do not have the legal resources to fight it in court. I could claim that there is no precedent that says I can not make copies of every Seinfield episode and hand them out for free on the street because there has been no EXACT case saying that I could not. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Brown, Roger rbr...@oid.ucla.edu wrote: Hi, Jessica, I think Michael is pointing out that there is no explicit ruling against use of an entire work, depending upon the way Fair Use or Teach or 108 is interpreted and the circumstances. Kim Stanton also points out that the distinction between core resources and ancillary ones is blurring. Your apparent insistence that the streaming and performance of a full feature is illegal under any and all circumstances including fair use isn't supported by case law at this point. - - Roger Brown Manager UCLA Instructional Media Collections Services 46 Powell Library Los Angeles, CA 90095-1517 office: 310-206-1248 fax: 310-206-5392 rbr...@oid.ucla.edu On 2/16/12 7:53 AM, Jessica Rosner jessicapros...@gmail.com fashioned the following lines: This is NOT about TEACH Michael which has it's own rules and this discussion has been about wholesale digitizing and streaming of feature works as fair use On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Brewer, Michael brew...@u.library.arizona.edu wrote: There is a big difference between a performance and making a copy for download. A streamed performance (of a recorded reading) of a book actually might very well fall under TEACH, even if the book were read in its entirety. It depends on whether or not it would meet all the criteria in the law, most specifically what kind of work it is and how one defines nondramatic literary work. See the Exceptions for Instructors eTool for more information, specifically this page and the notes: http://librarycopyright.net/etool/reasonableandlimited.php?ca=1 Entire works - books, video, etc. - may also be used in their entirety (streamed, made available for download, etc.) for research and teaching if they are in their last 10 years of copyright protection and are not being commercially exploited. I know that these are specific exceptions, but it is important for people to understand that there is no prohibition on using entire works without the permission of the copyright holder. There are exceptions in 110, 108 and 107 (Sony, Bill Graham Archives, etc.), among others. mb On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Jessica Rosner wrote: My paranoia. You mean about saying fair use means an entire film can be streamed if a professor says he needs it which is directly contrary to the entire history of fair use and would be another likely fatal blow for independent film distribution. I would still like to know why you sell your books as opposed to making them available for free as downloads since that appears to be what you want filmmakers to do. I wish I could figure a way to make this my sig for videolib posts The mere fact that the portions copied by Kinko¹s were those that the college professor singled out as being critical parts of the books demonstrates that even if not ³the heart of² the works in question, the parts copied were substantial in quality ( Yes I know Kinko's was for profit but I can't see how that changes the long established concept per above that fair use is PORTIONS of works used to create NEW WORKS) On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Patricia Aufderheide pauf...@american.edu wrote: It would be great to do more education, and ARL is eager to do so! Thank you! Enough with the paranoia! On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Sarah E. McCleskey sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu wrote: Would a proposal for a program on the new code of best practices be welcome at National Media Market, or would such a session it just turn into a rant session? I'm thinking of a general discussion then breakout into smaller
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
I would strongly advise every distributor on this list to only sell titles with a signed contract that clearly lays out the terms of use ( as in no streaming without a license) It is a contract. However I would not try this with UCLA I know for a fact that there were titles that came with such a contract and UCLA ignored it. However this only protects new releases and educational media from abuse. The bottom line is that there does in fact have to be a legal case. If the Georgia State case gets past Sovereign Immunity it would likely be sufficient. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Jonathan Miller jmil...@icarusfilms.com wrote: We do have the resources NOT to sell to UCLA until and unless they modify their position in this regard, and this our policy, and we urge all other distributors to adopt the same position as Icarus Films and Fanlight Productions. And if we learn/know that any other library/university does or intends to assert the same thing, we won't sell to them, either. JM Jonathan Miller President Icarus Films 32 Court Street, 21st Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 www.IcarusFilms.com http://HomeVideo.IcarusFilms.com Tel 1.718.488.8900 Fax 1.718.488.8642 jmil...@icarusfilms.com -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:53 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Actually it is supported by the law. The Kinko's case is literally the only case directly on point and it has not been overturned. The problem is that the people concerned about this simply do not have the legal resources to fight it in court. I could claim that there is no precedent that says I can not make copies of every Seinfield episode and hand them out for free on the street because there has been no EXACT case saying that I could not. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Brown, Roger rbr...@oid.ucla.edu wrote: Hi, Jessica, I think Michael is pointing out that there is no explicit ruling against use of an entire work, depending upon the way Fair Use or Teach or 108 is interpreted and the circumstances. Kim Stanton also points out that the distinction between core resources and ancillary ones is blurring. Your apparent insistence that the streaming and performance of a full feature is illegal under any and all circumstances including fair use isn't supported by case law at this point. - - Roger Brown Manager UCLA Instructional Media Collections Services 46 Powell Library Los Angeles, CA 90095-1517 office: 310-206-1248 fax: 310-206-5392 rbr...@oid.ucla.edu On 2/16/12 7:53 AM, Jessica Rosner jessicapros...@gmail.com fashioned the following lines: This is NOT about TEACH Michael which has it's own rules and this discussion has been about wholesale digitizing and streaming of feature works as fair use On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Brewer, Michael brew...@u.library.arizona.edu wrote: There is a big difference between a performance and making a copy for download. A streamed performance (of a recorded reading) of a book actually might very well fall under TEACH, even if the book were read in its entirety. It depends on whether or not it would meet all the criteria in the law, most specifically what kind of work it is and how one defines nondramatic literary work. See the Exceptions for Instructors eTool for more information, specifically this page and the notes: http://librarycopyright.net/etool/reasonableandlimited.php?ca=1 Entire works - books, video, etc. - may also be used in their entirety (streamed, made available for download, etc.) for research and teaching if they are in their last 10 years of copyright protection and are not being commercially exploited. I know that these are specific exceptions, but it is important for people to understand that there is no prohibition on using entire works without the permission of the copyright holder. There are exceptions in 110, 108 and 107 (Sony, Bill Graham Archives, etc.), among others. mb On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Jessica Rosner wrote: My paranoia. You mean about saying fair use means an entire film can be streamed if a professor says he needs it which is directly contrary to the entire history of fair use and would be another likely fatal blow for independent film distribution. I would still like to know why you sell your books as opposed to making them available for free as downloads since that appears to be what you want filmmakers to do. I wish I could figure a way to make this my sig for videolib posts The mere fact that the portions copied by Kinko¹s were those that the college professor singled out as being critical parts of the books demonstrates that even if not ³the heart of² the works in question, the parts copied were substantial in quality ( Yes I know Kinko's was for profit but I can't see how
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Thank you, Gary! I think your example of Avatar is very interesting. If I were the librarian, I would ask the professor to explain why the prof needs the entire film, and how the students will interact with the entire film to demonstrate the point. There are, for instance, hilarious mashups of Pocahantas and Avatar (just Google both names on Youtube) that accomplish that basic insight quite efficiently. I can also imagine, although just barely, a situation where I as an instructor might assign the whole film, but analytically such that I would assign any particular stretch of a film to different groups in class to tag (yes, it would be a lot easier in html5 but that's coming) for a variety of techniques/approaches, and ask each group also to critique and comment on the tagging of the others. This might mean putting up the film, but not necessarily in one whole stream. But I say this not as a lawyer but as a teacher. The point being, fair use is not a pass to use material for the same purpose as the original with a figleaf excuse (hey, I'm looking for imperialism!), but it is possible to imagine needing 100% of any work with a legitimate fair use. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM, ghand...@library.berkeley.edu wrote: Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these guidelines) I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations and enhancements not withstanding. If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted video work that is central to the curriculum (the instructor’s pedagogical purpose) could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of transformative use (I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of imperialism, bingo! Transformative!) It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential significant economic stake in making content available online. Thanks as always for your views and input. Gary Handman Thank you for reading these! 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general assertion, and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case of e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that there are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is always an issue. *LIMITATIONS * Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook, workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use. The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which they have been made available at an instructor’s direction. Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors’ graduate assistants) should have access to materials. Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent that, there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s pedagogical purpose and the kind and amount of content involved. Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed requests. When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to online materials may be limited. Students should also be given information about their rights and responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials. Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should be provided for each work included or excerpted. *ENHANCEMENTS:* The case for fair use is enhanced when libraries prompt instructors, who are most likely to understand the educational purpose and transformative nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular material is requested, and why the amount requested is appropriate to that pedagogical purpose. An instructor’s justification can be expressed via standardized forms that provide a balanced menu of common or recurring fair use rationales. In order to assure the continuing relevance of those materials to course content, libraries should require instructors of recurrently offered courses to review posted materials and make updates as appropriate. 2) In terms of copying to preserve (e.g. VHS to DVD), again it's important to look at the limitations; in this area, the existence of commercial
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Thank you for noticing that fair use does not threaten content owners. Indeed, most of us are content owners, after all. One of the benefits of having clear understandings at the level of professional practice about fair use is that it reduces marketplace friction, and makes it easier for content holders to clearly identify when uses might reasonably exceed fair use. At the same time, fair use enables content creation at every point. You couldn't have documentary film or journalism without it, and those are communities that are legitimately and correctly passionate about ownership rights. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Bob Norris b...@filmideas.com wrote: Three cheers to Gary for sticking up for the content owners. Bob Film Ideas, Inc. On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:55 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote: When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of videolib digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: ACRL Best Practices (ghand...@library.berkeley.edu) *From: *ghand...@library.berkeley.edu *Date: *January 30, 2012 10:50:13 AM CST *To: *pauf...@american.edu, videolib@lists.berkeley.edu *Subject: **Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices* *Reply-To: *videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these guidelines) I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations and enhancements not withstanding. If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted video work that is central to the curriculum (the instructor’s pedagogical purpose) could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of transformative use (I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of imperialism, bingo! Transformative!) It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential significant economic stake in making content available online. Thanks as always for your views and input. Gary Handman Thank you for reading these! 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general assertion, and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case of e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that there are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is always an issue. *LIMITATIONS * Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook, workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use. The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which they have been made available at an instructor’s direction. Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors’ graduate assistants) should have access to materials. Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent that, there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s pedagogical purpose and the kind and amount of content involved. Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed requests. When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to online materials may be limited. Students should also be given information about their rights and responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials. Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should be provided for each work included or excerpted. *ENHANCEMENTS:* The case for fair use is enhanced when libraries prompt instructors, who are most likely to understand the educational purpose and transformative nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular material is requested, and why the amount requested is appropriate to that pedagogical purpose. An instructor’s justification can be expressed via standardized forms that provide a balanced menu of common or recurring fair use rationales. In order to assure the continuing relevance of those materials to course content, libraries should require instructors of recurrently offered courses to review posted materials and make updates as appropriate. 2) In terms of copying to preserve (e.g. VHS to DVD), again it's important to look at the limitations; in this area, the existence of commercial
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
As you said - you are not a lawyer. JM From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Patricia Aufderheide Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 9:36 AM To: ghand...@library.berkeley.edu Cc: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Thank you, Gary! I think your example of Avatar is very interesting. If I were the librarian, I would ask the professor to explain why the prof needs the entire film, and how the students will interact with the entire film to demonstrate the point. There are, for instance, hilarious mashups of Pocahantas and Avatar (just Google both names on Youtube) that accomplish that basic insight quite efficiently. I can also imagine, although just barely, a situation where I as an instructor might assign the whole film, but analytically such that I would assign any particular stretch of a film to different groups in class to tag (yes, it would be a lot easier in html5 but that's coming) for a variety of techniques/approaches, and ask each group also to critique and comment on the tagging of the others. This might mean putting up the film, but not necessarily in one whole stream. But I say this not as a lawyer but as a teacher. The point being, fair use is not a pass to use material for the same purpose as the original with a figleaf excuse (hey, I'm looking for imperialism!), but it is possible to imagine needing 100% of any work with a legitimate fair use. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM, ghand...@library.berkeley.edu wrote: Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these guidelines) I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations and enhancements not withstanding. If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted video work that is central to the curriculum (the instructor's pedagogical purpose) could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of transformative use (I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of imperialism, bingo! Transformative!) It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential significant economic stake in making content available online. Thanks as always for your views and input. Gary Handman Thank you for reading these! 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general assertion, and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case of e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that there are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is always an issue. *LIMITATIONS * Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook, workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use. The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which they have been made available at an instructor's direction. Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors' graduate assistants) should have access to materials. Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent that, there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor's pedagogical purpose and the kind and amount of content involved. Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed requests. When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to online materials may be limited. Students should also be given information about their rights and responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials. Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should be provided for each work included or excerpted. *ENHANCEMENTS:* The case for fair use is enhanced when libraries prompt instructors, who are most likely to understand the educational purpose and transformative nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular material is requested, and why the amount requested is appropriate to that pedagogical purpose. An instructor's justification can be expressed via standardized forms that provide a balanced menu of common or recurring fair use rationales. In order to assure the continuing relevance of those materials to course content, libraries should require
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Nor does this contribute to clear understanding in any way. And asserting that this something (ill-defined and subject of much debate - i.e. a moving target) does not threaten content owners does not make it so. Content owners are a diverse lot, as are their rights and interests. I can tell you this, for example: in my experience over 30+ years, the #1 way that people (and companies) try and avoid paying for someone else's work in the film/TV business, is to argue fair use. And, that trend is only increasing. I write this as someone who worked w/ Marlon Riggs and on the distribution of COLOR ADJUSTMENT, a film that could exist and be shown at all only because of Fair Use. I can also testify to the increasing claim of Fair use by e.g. PBS stations, well funded independent filmmakers, etc. to avoid paying for other peoples footage and work. Why not? If you can get away with it, as long as it does not gore your ox, why not? This is not a dis interested discussion or argument. (and on at least one other level not addressed). JM From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Patricia Aufderheide Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 9:39 AM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Thank you for noticing that fair use does not threaten content owners. Indeed, most of us are content owners, after all. One of the benefits of having clear understandings at the level of professional practice about fair use is that it reduces marketplace friction, and makes it easier for content holders to clearly identify when uses might reasonably exceed fair use. At the same time, fair use enables content creation at every point. You couldn't have documentary film or journalism without it, and those are communities that are legitimately and correctly passionate about ownership rights. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Bob Norris b...@filmideas.com wrote: Three cheers to Gary for sticking up for the content owners. Bob Film Ideas, Inc. On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:55 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote: When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of videolib digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: ACRL Best Practices (ghand...@library.berkeley.edu) From: ghand...@library.berkeley.edu Date: January 30, 2012 10:50:13 AM CST To: pauf...@american.edu, videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these guidelines) I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations and enhancements not withstanding. If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted video work that is central to the curriculum (the instructor's pedagogical purpose) could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of transformative use (I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of imperialism, bingo! Transformative!) It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential significant economic stake in making content available online. Thanks as always for your views and input. Gary Handman Thank you for reading these! 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general assertion, and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case of e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that there are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is always an issue. *LIMITATIONS * Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook, workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use. The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which they have been made available at an instructor's direction. Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors' graduate assistants) should have access to materials. Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent that, there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor's pedagogical purpose and the kind and amount of content involved. Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the nature and the scope
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
You seem to be putting words in my mouth if the below reply is directed to my comment. I do agree that the world would be a better place if everyone had a clear understanding of all copyright law. I applaud ACRL taking a step in that direction. My concern is an overly aggressive interpretation of Fair Use does threaten content owners. On Feb 6, 2012, at 9:00 AM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote: From: Patricia Aufderheide pauf...@american.edu Date: February 6, 2012 8:39:10 AM CST To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Reply-To: pauf...@american.edu, videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Thank you for noticing that fair use does not threaten content owners. Indeed, most of us are content owners, after all. One of the benefits of having clear understandings at the level of professional practice about fair use is that it reduces marketplace friction, and makes it easier for content holders to clearly identify when uses might reasonably exceed fair use. At the same time, fair use enables content creation at every point. You couldn't have documentary film or journalism without it, and those are communities that are legitimately and correctly passionate about ownership rights. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Bob Norris b...@filmideas.com wrote: Three cheers to Gary for sticking up for the content owners. Bob Film Ideas, Inc. On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:55 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote: When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of videolib digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: ACRL Best Practices (ghand...@library.berkeley.edu) From: ghand...@library.berkeley.edu Date: January 30, 2012 10:50:13 AM CST To: pauf...@american.edu, videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these guidelines) I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations and enhancements not withstanding. VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Pat, If you and the people who developed these best practices guidelines are sincere that you are not the enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes. I mean it is cute to come up with a scenario about tagging a film, but we all know what it is going on. More and more universities are simply allowing entire films to be streamed for classes because professors and students find it easier and the institutions find it cheaper. Heck buy one copy and just stream it to the entire class. Your document is filled with vague references to fair use and educating professors on it, but for those of us in the content business it is nothing but a cover for stealing our stuff. Don't get me wrong I believe strongly in real fair use and I know many content owners big and small have often not accepted legitimate uses, but as universities increasingly steal our work ( sorry but this IS the correct word) I believe it has become I think it is fair and I am going to use it. The use of the terms fair use and transformative are thrown out like candy with absolutely no restrictions beyond asking an instructor to say why they need to use it. Again a simple statement from the ACRL group that these guidelines are NOT meant to claim fair use' covers entire films being assigned for regular viewing (not clips, mash ups, tags etc) would be a huge step towards working with the content community, but I am not holding my breath. Also I will ask again for you two answer two questions I have asked before but never received an answer to. 1. What is the difference in copyright between a book and a film? If a professor can show the need for an entire film in a course, why can't an instructor show the need for an entire book and have it scanned and posted online. 2. The UCLA case is at present dismissed on the basis of Sovereign Immunity, standing and oddly PPR rights sold with the title in question, but as a matter of your view and others with the best practices was it legal for UCLA to digitize, stream and use thousands of full length feature films? On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Patricia Aufderheide pauf...@american.edu wrote: Thank you, Gary! I think your example of Avatar is very interesting. If I were the librarian, I would ask the professor to explain why the prof needs the entire film, and how the students will interact with the entire film to demonstrate the point. There are, for instance, hilarious mashups of Pocahantas and Avatar (just Google both names on Youtube) that accomplish that basic insight quite efficiently. I can also imagine, although just barely, a situation where I as an instructor might assign the whole film, but analytically such that I would assign any particular stretch of a film to different groups in class to tag (yes, it would be a lot easier in html5 but that's coming) for a variety of techniques/approaches, and ask each group also to critique and comment on the tagging of the others. This might mean putting up the film, but not necessarily in one whole stream. But I say this not as a lawyer but as a teacher. The point being, fair use is not a pass to use material for the same purpose as the original with a figleaf excuse (hey, I'm looking for imperialism!), but it is possible to imagine needing 100% of any work with a legitimate fair use. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM, ghand...@library.berkeley.edu wrote: Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these guidelines) I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations and enhancements not withstanding. If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted video work that is central to the curriculum (the instructor’s pedagogical purpose) could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of transformative use (I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of imperialism, bingo! Transformative!) It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential significant economic stake in making content available online. Thanks as always for your views and input. Gary Handman Thank you for reading these! 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general assertion, and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case of e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that there are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is always an issue. *LIMITATIONS * Closer scrutiny should be
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Whether streaming an entire film for a class for the same purposes (and amount) as 110 is legally fair or not, I don't see how the effect on the copyright holder would be any different than if the title were used under 110, especially if the limitations put forward by these best practices are considered and abided by (I don't have the document in front of me, but I think it addresses those situations where the content was created for the educational market in streaming format, or if the content can easily be purchased/licensed in streaming form - FMG, Alexander Street Press, etc.). Can someone describe for me how the effect on the copyright holder would be different for a work streamed to a course than it is for a work performed in a classroom, i.e. 110 (assuming the limitations listed above are not in effect)? It seems the only difference is a greater opportunity for instructional efficiency, expanded access, and, potentially improved student learning. mb Michael Brewer University of Arizona Libraries brew...@u.library.arizona.edu -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:36 AM To: pauf...@american.edu; videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Pat, If you and the people who developed these best practices guidelines are sincere that you are not the enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes. I mean it is cute to come up with a scenario about tagging a film, but we all know what it is going on. More and more universities are simply allowing entire films to be streamed for classes because professors and students find it easier and the institutions find it cheaper. Heck buy one copy and just stream it to the entire class. Your document is filled with vague references to fair use and educating professors on it, but for those of us in the content business it is nothing but a cover for stealing our stuff. Don't get me wrong I believe strongly in real fair use and I know many content owners big and small have often not accepted legitimate uses, but as universities increasingly steal our work ( sorry but this IS the correct word) I believe it has become I think it is fair and I am going to use it. The use of the terms fair use and transformative are thrown out like candy with absolutely no restrictions beyond asking an instructor to say why they need to use it. Again a simple statement from the ACRL group that these guidelines are NOT meant to claim fair use' covers entire films being assigned for regular viewing (not clips, mash ups, tags etc) would be a huge step towards working with the content community, but I am not holding my breath. Also I will ask again for you two answer two questions I have asked before but never received an answer to. 1. What is the difference in copyright between a book and a film? If a professor can show the need for an entire film in a course, why can't an instructor show the need for an entire book and have it scanned and posted online. 2. The UCLA case is at present dismissed on the basis of Sovereign Immunity, standing and oddly PPR rights sold with the title in question, but as a matter of your view and others with the best practices was it legal for UCLA to digitize, stream and use thousands of full length feature films? On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Patricia Aufderheide pauf...@american.edu wrote: Thank you, Gary! I think your example of Avatar is very interesting. If I were the librarian, I would ask the professor to explain why the prof needs the entire film, and how the students will interact with the entire film to demonstrate the point. There are, for instance, hilarious mashups of Pocahantas and Avatar (just Google both names on Youtube) that accomplish that basic insight quite efficiently. I can also imagine, although just barely, a situation where I as an instructor might assign the whole film, but analytically such that I would assign any particular stretch of a film to different groups in class to tag (yes, it would be a lot easier in html5 but that's coming) for a variety of techniques/approaches, and ask each group also to critique and comment on the tagging of the others. This might mean putting up the film, but not necessarily in one whole stream. But I say this not as a lawyer but as a teacher. The point being, fair use is not a pass to use material for the same purpose as the original with a figleaf excuse (hey, I'm looking for imperialism!), but it is possible to imagine needing 100% of any work with a legitimate fair use. On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM, ghand...@library.berkeley.edu wrote: Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these guidelines) I am a still
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Michael, The first obvious answer is the need for only one DVD instead of multiple copies at the library on hold for students. And of course, a streamed version can be used for multiple campuses or for distance learning use where more copies would have been needed. And there's always the fact that replacements aren't needed because you're not touching the DVD. That last one may sound like a corporate greed answer, but let's face it, from the 16mm days onward, replacement copies for damaged material from multiple use has been a fundamental backbone of the film distribution model -- and if you think about it, a Darwinian one. Multiple and replacement copies are needed most for films that are used the most. In this case, Jessica's comparison is apt. Do you photocopy text books so the original books don't get damaged? But here's my thing. There's the artistic objection in that converting a feature DVD to streaming is a bastardization of the original content where only (at most) a tenth of the information is seen from the original version. Filmmakers can spend years to make a film, we spend months to years restoring a film, then there's months on authoring and creating DVD editions (proofing each disc five or six times for flaws) -- and then having a student see a version that has been converted from 4GB (DVD) to 50GB (BluRay) compressed down to 500mb -- is a rip off of the artist's intentions and looks like crap. And just as importantly, it's a rip-off of the students who deserve to see films in optimal conditions. I have to say that this bothers most of all that this point never enters into our discussions. That convenience seems to be the most essential requirement for media today. And of course, fair use has nothing to do with most of this. Breaking the encryption code without permission for anything other than clips as prescribed by the most recent agreement is still illegal. How does that prescribe to colleges that are supposed to be teaching ethics and morals in today's societies? Is it fair use to cheat on only a portion of your exams? (Sorry, I'm not sure if that analogy works, but I just loved writing it!) Dennis On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Brewer, Michael brew...@u.library.arizona.edu wrote: Whether streaming an entire film for a class for the same purposes (and amount) as 110 is legally fair or not, I don't see how the effect on the copyright holder would be any different than if the title were used under 110, especially if the limitations put forward by these best practices are considered and abided by (I don't have the document in front of me, but I think it addresses those situations where the content was created for the educational market in streaming format, or if the content can easily be purchased/licensed in streaming form - FMG, Alexander Street Press, etc.). Can someone describe for me how the effect on the copyright holder would be different for a work streamed to a course than it is for a work performed in a classroom, i.e. 110 (assuming the limitations listed above are not in effect)? It seems the only difference is a greater opportunity for instructional efficiency, expanded access, and, potentially improved student learning. mb Michael Brewer University of Arizona Libraries brew...@u.library.arizona.edu -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:36 AM To: pauf...@american.edu; videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Pat, If you and the people who developed these best practices guidelines are sincere that you are not the enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes. I mean it is cute to come up with a scenario about tagging a film, but we all know what it is going on. More and more universities are simply allowing entire films to be streamed for classes because professors and students find it easier and the institutions find it cheaper. Heck buy one copy and just stream it to the entire class. Your document is filled with vague references to fair use and educating professors on it, but for those of us in the content business it is nothing but a cover for stealing our stuff. Don't get me wrong I believe strongly in real fair use and I know many content owners big and small have often not accepted legitimate uses, but as universities increasingly steal our work ( sorry but this IS the correct word) I believe it has become I think it is fair and I am going to use it. The use of the terms fair use and transformative are thrown out like candy with absolutely no restrictions beyond asking an instructor to say why they need to use it. Again a simple statement from the ACRL group that these guidelines are NOT meant to claim fair use' covers entire films
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
First of all 110 is blessedly specific and requires that the showing be in a CLASSROOM or similar place of instruction and that the instructor be PRESENT and I assure legally this is not even a close call and I don't even get the impression that the best practices tried for that one. Under no circumstances can 110 be used to claim the right to stream films at will to a student say in a dorm, off campus housing or the local Starbucks. If you can not understand how just streaming any film a professor says they need for a course to students wherever they are effects the market for a distributor it is hard for me to explain ( though I see as was typing it Dennis tried) On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Brewer, Michael brew...@u.library.arizona.edu wrote: Whether streaming an entire film for a class for the same purposes (and amount) as 110 is legally fair or not, I don't see how the effect on the copyright holder would be any different than if the title were used under 110, especially if the limitations put forward by these best practices are considered and abided by (I don't have the document in front of me, but I think it addresses those situations where the content was created for the educational market in streaming format, or if the content can easily be purchased/licensed in streaming form - FMG, Alexander Street Press, etc.). Can someone describe for me how the effect on the copyright holder would be different for a work streamed to a course than it is for a work performed in a classroom, i.e. 110 (assuming the limitations listed above are not in effect)? It seems the only difference is a greater opportunity for instructional efficiency, expanded access, and, potentially improved student learning. mb Michael Brewer University of Arizona Libraries brew...@u.library.arizona.edu -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:36 AM To: pauf...@american.edu; videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Pat, If you and the people who developed these best practices guidelines are sincere that you are not the enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes. I mean it is cute to come up with a scenario about tagging a film, but we all know what it is going on. More and more universities are simply allowing entire films to be streamed for classes because professors and students find it easier and the institutions find it cheaper. Heck buy one copy and just stream it to the entire class. Your document is filled with vague references to fair use and educating professors on it, but for those of us in the content business it is nothing but a cover for stealing our stuff. Don't get me wrong I believe strongly in real fair use and I know many content owners big and small have often not accepted legitimate uses, but as universities increasingly steal our work ( sorry but this IS the correct word) I believe it has become I think it is fair and I am going to use it. The use of the terms fair use and transformative are thrown out like candy with absolutely no restrictions beyond asking an instructor to say why they need to use it. Again a simple statement from the ACRL group that these guidelines are NOT meant to claim fair use' covers entire films being assigned for regular viewing (not clips, mash ups, tags etc) would be a huge step towards working with the content community, but I am not holding my breath. Also I will ask again for you two answer two questions I have asked before but never received an answer to. 1. What is the difference in copyright between a book and a film? If a professor can show the need for an entire film in a course, why can't an instructor show the need for an entire book and have it scanned and posted online. 2. The UCLA case is at present dismissed on the basis of Sovereign Immunity, standing and oddly PPR rights sold with the title in question, but as a matter of your view and others with the best practices was it legal for UCLA to digitize, stream and use thousands of full length feature films? On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Patricia Aufderheide pauf...@american.edu wrote: Thank you, Gary! I think your example of Avatar is very interesting. If I were the librarian, I would ask the professor to explain why the prof needs the entire film, and how the students will interact with the entire film to demonstrate the point. There are, for instance, hilarious mashups of Pocahantas and Avatar (just Google both names on Youtube) that accomplish that basic insight quite efficiently. I can also imagine, although just barely, a situation where I as an instructor might assign the whole film, but analytically such that I would
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Hello everyone, Jessica Rosner asks If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes. I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, well, it has no basis in the law. We all know the drill by heart, don't we? Each fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use (perhaps assigned to class, in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work (perhaps feature material), the amount being used (perhaps the whole film, perhaps not), and the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative effect, perhaps it will stimulate interest and sales). The law deliberately requires us to reflect on each of these aspects. It is not a mere check-list that makes simplistic assertions about whether using one highly-generalized type of material (feature films) in another highly generalized setting (classes) is, or is not, fair use. Why on earth would librarians and educators (or any sane individual, for that matter) voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law? If the law was intended to exempt feature materials from the fair use provisions in this manner, I am confident it would have been written to say that. Perhaps content owners might make a similarly simple and clear statement saying that license agreements shall not under any circumstances supersede the rights already granted to users under the fair use, or any other, provision of the copyright law, just to prove they are not the enemy of education. The law as written does not protect those librarians, students, faculty, or administrators who seek to use fair use as a shield to avoid buying sufficient licensed or legally acquired copies. I'm sure there are folks out there, possibly even on this list, who do that. There are unethical practitioners in every field - yes, including librarians, educators, and even media distributors - but the law already prohibits, for example, showing a film in a public setting without permission just because someone wants to save on licensing fees. Oh, and my understanding about books is that, when it comes to fair use, the same factors apply. As far as I know, there is no blanket legal prohibition on libraries scanning an entire book and posting it online. Using the entire work, whether in the case of a film or a book, certainly and appropriately makes satisfying the fair use test that much more difficult. But it does not automatically render it impossible, however much Ms. Rosner or anyone else would like it to be so. Terry Terry Simpkins Director, Research and Collection Services Library Information Services Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753 (802) 443-5045 -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 10:36 AM To: pauf...@american.edu; videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Pat, If you and the people who developed these best practices guidelines are sincere that you are not the enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes. I mean it is cute to come up with a scenario about tagging a film, but we all know what it is going on. More and more universities are simply allowing entire films to be streamed for classes because professors and students find it easier and the institutions find it cheaper. Heck buy one copy and just stream it to the entire class. Your document is filled with vague references to fair use and educating professors on it, but for those of us in the content business it is nothing but a cover for stealing our stuff. Don't get me wrong I believe strongly in real fair use and I know many content owners big and small have often not accepted legitimate uses, but as universities increasingly steal our work ( sorry but this IS the correct word) I believe it has become I think it is fair and I am going to use it. The use of the terms fair use and transformative are thrown out like candy with absolutely no restrictions beyond asking an instructor to say why they need to use it. Again a simple statement from the ACRL group that these guidelines are NOT meant to claim fair use' covers entire films being assigned for regular viewing (not clips, mash ups, tags etc) would be a huge step towards working with the content community, but I am not holding my breath. Also I will ask again for you two answer two questions I have asked before but never received an answer to. 1. What is the difference in copyright between a book and a film? If a professor can show the need for an entire film in a course, why can't an instructor show the need for an entire book
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Representative from CSM and ALA have often stressed that the use of items in instruction is not always Fair Use or 110, but could be both. I was hoping this code would provide more guidance in defining when Fair Use is in play in pedagogy. I feel that the Fair Use of feature films in instruction is FARILY clear cut. In my experience, outside of Film Studies, most faculty use fairly short portions of features films in a way that seems clearly transformative or illustrative. We've all seen examples of this at our universities. A Sociology of the Family course uses a scene from Big Love to illustrate nontraditional family structures. A clip from Triumph of the Will is compared with a clip from Star Wars of Darth Vader commanding imperial forces. Etc, etc , etc. This is not as straightforward when you start talking about the use of documentaries in online education, especially those with intrinsic instructional value. When a faculty member contacts me and wants to put an educational documentary online, 90% of the time they want the entire film up. In my gut, I feel that this is almost always something better covered by 110(2) and/or licensed for use, but this Fair Use code is so vague in this regard that I don't feel like I can provide instructors with useful information about the nature and the scope of fair use based on the information outlined here. Additionally, Michael Brewer just brought up the idea that 110(b) is essentially a way to take a physical classroom space and translate it into the online environment (within those limitations set by 110b). When I first began working with faculty who were moving their courses online it was fairly simple to distinguish between a core resource and an ancillary one (usually items previously assigned to Reserves or considered optional). However, faculty are now regularly creating online courses from scratch and are no longer tied to the concept that the core instructional materials is what can be cover in a 50 minute time span. This is not a bad thing but it makes applying 110(b) more and more difficult. Kim Stanton Head, Media Library University of North Texas kim.stan...@unt.edu P: (940) 565-4832 F: (940) 369-7396 -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 11:38 AM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices First of all 110 is blessedly specific and requires that the showing be in a CLASSROOM or similar place of instruction and that the instructor be PRESENT and I assure legally this is not even a close call and I don't even get the impression that the best practices tried for that one. Under no circumstances can 110 be used to claim the right to stream films at will to a student say in a dorm, off campus housing or the local Starbucks. If you can not understand how just streaming any film a professor says they need for a course to students wherever they are effects the market for a distributor it is hard for me to explain ( though I see as was typing it Dennis tried) On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Brewer, Michael brew...@u.library.arizona.edu wrote: Whether streaming an entire film for a class for the same purposes (and amount) as 110 is legally fair or not, I don't see how the effect on the copyright holder would be any different than if the title were used under 110, especially if the limitations put forward by these best practices are considered and abided by (I don't have the document in front of me, but I think it addresses those situations where the content was created for the educational market in streaming format, or if the content can easily be purchased/licensed in streaming form - FMG, Alexander Street Press, etc.). Can someone describe for me how the effect on the copyright holder would be different for a work streamed to a course than it is for a work performed in a classroom, i.e. 110 (assuming the limitations listed above are not in effect)? It seems the only difference is a greater opportunity for instructional efficiency, expanded access, and, potentially improved student learning. mb Michael Brewer University of Arizona Libraries brew...@u.library.arizona.edu -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:36 AM To: pauf...@american.edu; videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Pat, If you and the people who developed these best practices guidelines are sincere that you are not the enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes. I mean it is cute to come up with a scenario about tagging a film, but we all know what
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Would a proposal for a program on the new code of best practices be welcome at National Media Market, or would such a session it just turn into a rant session? I'm thinking of a general discussion then breakout into smaller groups with real life examples to discuss, is a particular use covered by fair use, 110-b, etc. But I don't want to bad feelings!! Sarah Sarah E. McCleskey Head of Access Services Acting Director, Film and Media Library 112 Axinn Library Hofstra University Hempstead, NY 11549-1230 sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu 516-463-5076 (o) 516-463-4309 (f) -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Stanton, Kim Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:16 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Representative from CSM and ALA have often stressed that the use of items in instruction is not always Fair Use or 110, but could be both. I was hoping this code would provide more guidance in defining when Fair Use is in play in pedagogy. I feel that the Fair Use of feature films in instruction is FARILY clear cut. In my experience, outside of Film Studies, most faculty use fairly short portions of features films in a way that seems clearly transformative or illustrative. We've all seen examples of this at our universities. A Sociology of the Family course uses a scene from Big Love to illustrate nontraditional family structures. A clip from Triumph of the Will is compared with a clip from Star Wars of Darth Vader commanding imperial forces. Etc, etc , etc. This is not as straightforward when you start talking about the use of documentaries in online education, especially those with intrinsic instructional value. When a faculty member contacts me and wants to put an educational documentary online, 90% of the time they want the entire film up. In my gut, I feel that this is almost always something better covered by 110(2) and/or licensed for use, but this Fair Use code is so vague in this regard that I don't feel like I can provide instructors with useful information about the nature and the scope of fair use based on the information outlined here. Additionally, Michael Brewer just brought up the idea that 110(b) is essentially a way to take a physical classroom space and translate it into the online environment (within those limitations set by 110b). When I first began working with faculty who were moving their courses online it was fairly simple to distinguish between a core resource and an ancillary one (usually items previously assigned to Reserves or considered optional). However, faculty are now regularly creating online courses from scratch and are no longer tied to the concept that the core instructional materials is what can be cover in a 50 minute time span. This is not a bad thing but it makes applying 110(b) more and more difficult. Kim Stanton Head, Media Library University of North Texas kim.stan...@unt.edu P: (940) 565-4832 F: (940) 369-7396 -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 11:38 AM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices First of all 110 is blessedly specific and requires that the showing be in a CLASSROOM or similar place of instruction and that the instructor be PRESENT and I assure legally this is not even a close call and I don't even get the impression that the best practices tried for that one. Under no circumstances can 110 be used to claim the right to stream films at will to a student say in a dorm, off campus housing or the local Starbucks. If you can not understand how just streaming any film a professor says they need for a course to students wherever they are effects the market for a distributor it is hard for me to explain ( though I see as was typing it Dennis tried) On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Brewer, Michael brew...@u.library.arizona.edu wrote: Whether streaming an entire film for a class for the same purposes (and amount) as 110 is legally fair or not, I don't see how the effect on the copyright holder would be any different than if the title were used under 110, especially if the limitations put forward by these best practices are considered and abided by (I don't have the document in front of me, but I think it addresses those situations where the content was created for the educational market in streaming format, or if the content can easily be purchased/licensed in streaming form - FMG, Alexander Street Press, etc.). Can someone describe for me how the effect on the copyright holder would be different for a work streamed to a course than it is for a work performed in a classroom, i.e. 110 (assuming the limitations listed above are not in effect)? It seems the only difference is a greater
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
The discussion on this issue has been very interesting and thought provoking and I appreciate all the well thought out contributions. Perhaps we need to think about another way to go about providing film resources for classes. Think outside the box, especially for feature films. That's a discussion I'd like to see on this list or at NMM. As we do more and more media in support of classes I begin to think I have better things to do than copy a link to a resource that we've purchased into a course page or reserve system item. And with the volume we do I just don't have time to help everyone through the copyright maze. Maybe institutional subscriptions to sites such Netflix, Blockbuster, Amazon, and HuluPlus are part of the answer. Then faculty and students could browse and link to what they needed themselves and access could be limited by IP range. Because there would be high volume I'd expect it to be cheaper than purchasing individually. This is something that would probably have the best chance for success if it's a group effort demonstrating just how large the market is. It certainly bears examining some sort of pricing model for institutions. I can see both sides of this very interesting discussion, filmmakers can't continue without revenue and educational institutions don't have unlimited resources even though the demand for e-stuff is growing. A focus on developing an efficient and effective online delivery system that protects filmmakers and makes a wider variety and number of films available with a minimum of intervention is my ideal. How can we make an easily accessible online film library that doesn't break the bank or result in piracy? Jo Ann Reynolds Reserve Services Coordinator University of Connecticut Libraries 369 Fairfield Road, Unit 2005RR Storrs, CT 06269-2005 jo_ann.reyno...@uconn.edu 860-486-1406 860-486-5636 (fax) http://classguides.lib.uconn.edu/mediaresources -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Stanton, Kim Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:16 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Representative from CSM and ALA have often stressed that the use of items in instruction is not always Fair Use or 110, but could be both. I was hoping this code would provide more guidance in defining when Fair Use is in play in pedagogy. I feel that the Fair Use of feature films in instruction is FARILY clear cut. In my experience, outside of Film Studies, most faculty use fairly short portions of features films in a way that seems clearly transformative or illustrative. We've all seen examples of this at our universities. A Sociology of the Family course uses a scene from Big Love to illustrate nontraditional family structures. A clip from Triumph of the Will is compared with a clip from Star Wars of Darth Vader commanding imperial forces. Etc, etc , etc. This is not as straightforward when you start talking about the use of documentaries in online education, especially those with intrinsic instructional value. When a faculty member contacts me and wants to put an educational documentary online, 90% of the time they want the entire film up. In my gut, I feel that this is almost always something better covered by 110(2) and/or licensed for use, but this Fair Use code is so vague in this regard that I don't feel like I can provide instructors with useful information about the nature and the scope of fair use based on the information outlined here. Additionally, Michael Brewer just brought up the idea that 110(b) is essentially a way to take a physical classroom space and translate it into the online environment (within those limitations set by 110b). When I first began working with faculty who were moving their courses online it was fairly simple to distinguish between a core resource and an ancillary one (usually items previously assigned to Reserves or considered optional). However, faculty are now regularly creating online courses from scratch and are no longer tied to the concept that the core instructional materials is what can be cover in a 50 minute time span. This is not a bad thing but it makes applying 110(b) more and more difficult. Kim Stanton Head, Media Library University of North Texas kim.stan...@unt.edu P: (940) 565-4832 F: (940) 369-7396 -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 11:38 AM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices First of all 110 is blessedly specific and requires that the showing be in a CLASSROOM or similar place of instruction and that the instructor be PRESENT and I assure legally this is not even a close call and I don't even get the impression that the best practices tried
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would that extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments of the program? I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law. Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much weight that statement carries. Bob Norris Managing Director Film Ideas, Inc. Phone: (847) 419-0255 Email: b...@filmideas.com On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote: From: Simpkins, Terry W. tsimp...@middlebury.edu Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Hello everyone, Jessica Rosner asks If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes. I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, well, it has no basis in the law. We all know the drill by heart, don't we? Each fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use (perhaps assigned to class, in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work (perhaps feature material), the amount being used (perhaps the whole film, perhaps not), and the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative effect, perhaps it will stimulate interest and sales). The law deliberately requires us to reflect on each of these aspects. It is not a mere check-list that makes simplistic assertions about whether using one highly-generalized type of material (feature films) in another highly generalized setting (classes) is, or is not, fair use. Why on earth would librarians and educators (or any sane individual, for that matter) voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law? If the law was intended to exempt feature materials from the fair use provisions in this manner, I am confident it would have been written to say that. Perhaps content owners might make a similarly simple and clear statement saying that license agreements shall not under any circumstances supersede the rights already granted to users under the fair use, or any other, provision of the copyright law, just to prove they are not the enemy of education. The law as written does not protect those librarians, students, faculty, or administrators who seek to use fair use as a shield to avoid buying sufficient licensed or legally acquired copies. I'm sure there are folks out there, possibly even on this list, who do that. There are unethical practitioners in every field - yes, including librarians, educators, and even media distributors - but the law already prohibits, for example, showing a film in a public setting without permission just because someone wants to save on licensing fees. Oh, and my understanding about books is that, when it comes to fair use, the same factors apply. As far as I know, there is no blanket legal prohibition on libraries scanning an entire book and posting it online. Using the entire work, whether in the case of a film or a book, certainly and appropriately makes satisfying the fair use test that much more difficult. But it does not automatically render it impossible, however much Ms. Rosner or anyone else would like it to be so. Terry Terry Simpkins Director, Research and Collection Services Library Information Services Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753 (802) 443-5045 VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer that the people pushing the best practices and other similar views on fair use (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to rights and use. The term educational film really does not have any legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a more costly educational film might be more damaging than a standard feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim that in essence fair use is whatever the institution decides it is and that any use they accept is tranformative . On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris b...@filmideas.com wrote: This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would that extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments of the program? I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law. Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much weight that statement carries. Bob Norris Managing Director Film Ideas, Inc. Phone: (847) 419-0255 Email: b...@filmideas.com On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote: From: Simpkins, Terry W. tsimp...@middlebury.edu Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Hello everyone, Jessica Rosner asks If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes. I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, well, it has no basis in the law. We all know the drill by heart, don't we? Each fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use (perhaps assigned to class, in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work (perhaps feature material), the amount being used (perhaps the whole film, perhaps not), and the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative effect, perhaps it will stimulate interest and sales). The law deliberately requires us to reflect on each of these aspects. It is not a mere check-list that makes simplistic assertions about whether using one highly-generalized type of material (feature films) in another highly generalized setting (classes) is, or is not, fair use. Why on earth would librarians and educators (or any sane individual, for that matter) voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law? If the law was intended to exempt feature materials from the fair use provisions in this manner, I am confident it would have been written to say that. Perhaps content owners might make a similarly simple and clear statement saying that license agreements shall not under any circumstances supersede the rights already granted to users under the fair use, or any other, provision of the copyright law, just to prove they are not the enemy of education. The law as written does not protect those librarians, students, faculty, or administrators who seek to use fair use as a shield to avoid buying sufficient licensed or legally acquired copies. I'm sure there are folks out there, possibly even on this list, who do that. There are unethical practitioners in every field - yes, including librarians, educators, and even media distributors - but the law already prohibits, for example, showing a film in a public setting without permission just because someone wants to save on licensing fees. Oh, and my understanding about books is that, when it comes to fair use, the same factors apply. As far as I know, there is no blanket legal prohibition on libraries scanning an entire book and posting it online. Using the entire work, whether in the case of a film or a book, certainly and appropriately makes satisfying the fair use test that much more difficult. But it does not automatically render it impossible, however much Ms. Rosner or anyone else would like it to be so. Terry Terry Simpkins Director, Research and Collection Services Library Information Services Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753 (802) 443-5045 VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Michael, I have no problem and never did with reasonable and limited portions, but let's not pretend that is what we are arguing over. On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Brewer, Michael brew...@u.library.arizona.edu wrote: Just some clarification. TEACH exempts films produced specifically for use in mediated online instructional activities, not just anything made exclusively for instruction. Also, fiction films do fall under TEACH act parameters, but only in reasonable and limited portions. mb Michael Brewer Team Leader for Instructional Services University of Arizona Libraries brew...@u.library.arizona.edu -Original Message- From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 1:51 PM To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer that the people pushing the best practices and other similar views on fair use (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to rights and use. The term educational film really does not have any legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a more costly educational film might be more damaging than a standard feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim that in essence fair use is whatever the institution decides it is and that any use they accept is tranformative . On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris b...@filmideas.com wrote: This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would that extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments of the program? I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law. Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much weight that statement carries. Bob Norris Managing Director Film Ideas, Inc. Phone: (847) 419-0255 Email: b...@filmideas.com On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote: From: Simpkins, Terry W. tsimp...@middlebury.edu Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Hello everyone, Jessica Rosner asks If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes. I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, well, it has no basis in the law. We all know the drill by heart, don't we? Each fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use (perhaps assigned to class, in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work (perhaps feature material), the amount being used (perhaps the whole film, perhaps not), and the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative effect, perhaps it will stimulate interest and sales). The law deliberately requires us to reflect on each of these aspects. It is not a mere check-list that makes simplistic assertions about whether using one highly-generalized type of material (feature films) in another highly generalized setting (classes) is, or is not, fair use. Why on earth would librarians and educators (or any sane individual, for that matter) voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law? If the law was intended to exempt feature materials from the fair use provisions in this manner, I am confident it would have been written to say that. Perhaps content owners might make a similarly simple and clear statement saying that license agreements shall not under any circumstances supersede the rights already granted to users under the fair use, or any other, provision of the copyright law, just to prove they are not the enemy of education. The law as written does not protect those librarians, students, faculty, or administrators who seek to use fair use as a shield to avoid buying sufficient licensed or legally acquired copies. I'm sure there are folks out there, possibly even on this list, who do that. There are unethical practitioners in every
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Feature films seem to be a particularly controversial area, because if I understood Peter Jaszi correctly when he responded to questions about the Best Practices today: to use a film that was originally marketed for entertaininment purposes for educational purposes would be a transformative use. Page 8-9 talk about legal precedents for this, but it's not very detailed. To me this seems to fly in the face of Fair Use factor 4 because feature films tend to be readily accessible for loan, rent, or purchase at reasonable prices. But I can see how it would apply to videos priced at institutional tiered rates because what student or instructor is going to shell out $250 to watch a film as part of a class assignment? If streamed, it's not going to affect sales anyway. But if a video were only marketed as educational, then Peter Jaszi's transformative use wouldn't come into play, though a high price could make it fair under factor 4. This doesn't apply to most books because students have been enculturated to pay for expensive text books, which is why it wouldn't be fair to scan an entire book and post it online under factor 4. that's my two cents anyway Janice Woo On Feb 6, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote: I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer that the people pushing the best practices and other similar views on fair use (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to rights and use. The term educational film really does not have any legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a more costly educational film might be more damaging than a standard feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim that in essence fair use is whatever the institution decides it is and that any use they accept is tranformative . On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris b...@filmideas.com wrote: This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would that extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments of the program? I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law. Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much weight that statement carries. Bob Norris Managing Director Film Ideas, Inc. Phone: (847) 419-0255 Email: b...@filmideas.com On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote: From: Simpkins, Terry W. tsimp...@middlebury.edu Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Hello everyone, Jessica Rosner asks If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes. I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, well, it has no basis in the law. We all know the drill by heart, don't we? Each fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use (perhaps assigned to class, in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work (perhaps feature material), the amount being used (perhaps the whole film, perhaps not), and the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative effect, perhaps it will stimulate interest and sales). The law deliberately requires us to reflect on each of these aspects. It is not a mere check-list that makes simplistic assertions about whether using one highly-generalized type of material (feature films) in another highly generalized setting (classes) is, or is not, fair use. Why on earth would librarians and educators (or any sane individual, for that matter) voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law? If the law was intended to exempt feature materials from the fair use provisions in this manner, I am confident it would have been written to say that. Perhaps content owners might make a similarly simple and clear statement saying that license agreements shall not under any circumstances supersede the rights already granted to users under the fair use, or any other, provision of the copyright law, just to prove
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
the best practices and other similar views on fair use (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to rights and use. The term educational film really does not have any legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a more costly educational film might be more damaging than a standard feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim that in essence fair use is whatever the institution decides it is and that any use they accept is tranformative . On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris b...@filmideas.com wrote: This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would that extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments of the program? I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law. Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much weight that statement carries. Bob Norris Managing Director Film Ideas, Inc. Phone: (847) 419-0255 Email: b...@filmideas.com On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote: From: Simpkins, Terry W. tsimp...@middlebury.edu Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Hello everyone, Jessica Rosner asks If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes. I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, well, it has no basis in the law. We all know the drill by heart, don't we? Each fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use (perhaps assigned to class, in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work (perhaps feature material), the amount being used (perhaps the whole film, perhaps not), and the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative effect, perhaps it will stimulate interest and sales). The law deliberately requires us to reflect on each of these aspects. It is not a mere check-list that makes simplistic assertions about whether using one highly-generalized type of material (feature films) in another highly generalized setting (classes) is, or is not, fair use. Why on earth would librarians and educators (or any sane individual, for that matter) voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law? If the law was intended to exempt feature materials from the fair use provisions in this manner, I am confident it would have been written to say that. Perhaps content owners might make a similarly simple and clear statement saying that license agreements shall not under any circumstances supersede the rights already granted to users under the fair use, or any other, provision of the copyright law, just to prove they are not the enemy of education. The law as written does not protect those librarians, students, faculty, or administrators who seek to use fair use as a shield to avoid buying sufficient licensed or legally acquired copies. I'm sure there are folks out there, possibly even on this list, who do that. There are unethical practitioners in every field - yes, including librarians, educators, and even media distributors - but the law already prohibits, for example, showing a film in a public setting without permission just because someone wants to save on licensing fees. Oh, and my understanding about books is that, when it comes to fair use, the same factors apply. As far as I know, there is no blanket legal prohibition on libraries scanning an entire book and posting it online. Using the entire work, whether in the case of a film or a book, certainly and appropriately makes satisfying the fair use test that much more difficult. But it does not automatically render it impossible, however much Ms. Rosner or anyone else would like it to be so. Terry Terry Simpkins Director, Research and Collection Services Library Information Services Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753 (802) 443-5045 VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
sales anyway. But if a video were only marketed as educational, then Peter Jaszi's transformative use wouldn't come into play, though a high price could make it fair under factor 4. This doesn't apply to most books because students have been enculturated to pay for expensive text books, which is why it wouldn't be fair to scan an entire book and post it online under factor 4. that's my two cents anyway Janice Woo On Feb 6, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote: I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer that the people pushing the best practices and other similar views on fair use (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to rights and use. The term educational film really does not have any legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a more costly educational film might be more damaging than a standard feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim that in essence fair use is whatever the institution decides it is and that any use they accept is tranformative . On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris b...@filmideas.com wrote: This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would that extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments of the program? I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law. Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much weight that statement carries. Bob Norris Managing Director Film Ideas, Inc. Phone: (847) 419-0255 Email: b...@filmideas.com On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote: From: Simpkins, Terry W. tsimp...@middlebury.edu Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Hello everyone, Jessica Rosner asks If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes. I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, well, it has no basis in the law. We all know the drill by heart, don't we? Each fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use (perhaps assigned to class, in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work (perhaps feature material), the amount being used (perhaps the whole film, perhaps not), and the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative effect, perhaps it will stimulate interest and sales). The law deliberately requires us to reflect on each of these aspects. It is not a mere check-list that makes simplistic assertions about whether using one highly-generalized type of material (feature films) in another highly generalized setting (classes) is, or is not, fair use. Why on earth would librarians and educators (or any sane individual, for that matter) voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law? If the law was intended to exempt feature materials from the fair use provisions in this manner, I am confident it would have been written to say that. Perhaps content owners might make a similarly simple and clear statement saying that license agreements shall not under any circumstances supersede the rights already granted to users under the fair use, or any other, provision of the copyright law, just to prove they are not the enemy of education. The law as written does not protect those librarians, students, faculty, or administrators who seek to use fair use as a shield to avoid buying sufficient licensed or legally acquired copies. I'm sure there are folks out there, possibly even on this list, who do that. There are unethical practitioners in every field - yes, including librarians, educators, and even media distributors - but the law already prohibits, for example, showing a film in a public setting without permission just because someone wants to save on licensing fees. Oh, and my understanding about books is that, when it comes to fair use, the same factors apply. As far as I know
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
all they were written for entertainment. And you people wonder why I don't trust the lawyers working on this. On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:07 PM, jwoo j...@cca.edu wrote: Feature films seem to be a particularly controversial area, because if I understood Peter Jaszi correctly when he responded to questions about the Best Practices today: to use a film that was originally marketed for entertaininment purposes for educational purposes would be a transformative use. Page 8-9 talk about legal precedents for this, but it's not very detailed. To me this seems to fly in the face of Fair Use factor 4 because feature films tend to be readily accessible for loan, rent, or purchase at reasonable prices. But I can see how it would apply to videos priced at institutional tiered rates because what student or instructor is going to shell out $250 to watch a film as part of a class assignment? If streamed, it's not going to affect sales anyway. But if a video were only marketed as educational, then Peter Jaszi's transformative use wouldn't come into play, though a high price could make it fair under factor 4. This doesn't apply to most books because students have been enculturated to pay for expensive text books, which is why it wouldn't be fair to scan an entire book and post it online under factor 4. that's my two cents anyway Janice Woo On Feb 6, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote: I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer that the people pushing the best practices and other similar views on fair use (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to rights and use. The term educational film really does not have any legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a more costly educational film might be more damaging than a standard feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim that in essence fair use is whatever the institution decides it is and that any use they accept is tranformative . On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris b...@filmideas.com wrote: This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would that extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments of the program? I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law. Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much weight that statement carries. Bob Norris Managing Director Film Ideas, Inc. Phone: (847) 419-0255 Email: b...@filmideas.com On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote: From: Simpkins, Terry W. tsimp...@middlebury.edu Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Hello everyone, Jessica Rosner asks If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes. I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, well, it has no basis in the law. We all know the drill by heart, don't we? Each fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use (perhaps assigned to class, in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work (perhaps feature material), the amount being used (perhaps the whole film, perhaps not), and the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative effect, perhaps it will stimulate interest and sales). The law deliberately requires us to reflect on each of these aspects. It is not a mere check-list that makes simplistic assertions about whether using one highly-generalized type of material (feature films) in another highly generalized setting (classes) is, or is not, fair use. Why on earth would librarians and educators (or any sane individual, for that matter) voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law? If the law was intended to exempt feature materials from the fair use provisions in this manner, I am confident it would have been written to say that. Perhaps content owners might make
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
if a video is streaming and copy-protected and can only be viewed during a short period whereas a book could be easily copied and kept indefinitely. On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:31 PM, jwoo j...@cca.edu wrote: No, that logic doesn't follow: literature classes read Catcher in the Rye etc. as the literary work it was intended to be when published. However, if one were doing linguistic analysis of Catcher in the Rye, then it would be fair use to digitize and use that text for computational purposes. On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote: Wow just Wow that is one the craziest things I have heard but not surprised. So I assume by the same logic' most written works from Catcher in the Rye to Conspiracy of Dunces can be scanned and posted on line for classes since after all they were written for entertainment. And you people wonder why I don't trust the lawyers working on this. On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:07 PM, jwoo j...@cca.edu wrote: Feature films seem to be a particularly controversial area, because if I understood Peter Jaszi correctly when he responded to questions about the Best Practices today: to use a film that was originally marketed for entertaininment purposes for educational purposes would be a transformative use. Page 8-9 talk about legal precedents for this, but it's not very detailed. To me this seems to fly in the face of Fair Use factor 4 because feature films tend to be readily accessible for loan, rent, or purchase at reasonable prices. But I can see how it would apply to videos priced at institutional tiered rates because what student or instructor is going to shell out $250 to watch a film as part of a class assignment? If streamed, it's not going to affect sales anyway. But if a video were only marketed as educational, then Peter Jaszi's transformative use wouldn't come into play, though a high price could make it fair under factor 4. This doesn't apply to most books because students have been enculturated to pay for expensive text books, which is why it wouldn't be fair to scan an entire book and post it online under factor 4. that's my two cents anyway Janice Woo On Feb 6, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote: I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer that the people pushing the best practices and other similar views on fair use (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to rights and use. The term educational film really does not have any legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a more costly educational film might be more damaging than a standard feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim that in essence fair use is whatever the institution decides it is and that any use they accept is tranformative . On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris b...@filmideas.com wrote: This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would that extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments of the program? I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law. Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much weight that statement carries. Bob Norris Managing Director Film Ideas, Inc. Phone: (847) 419-0255 Email: b...@filmideas.com On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote: From: Simpkins, Terry W. tsimp...@middlebury.edu Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Hello everyone, Jessica Rosner asks If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes. I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, well, it has no basis in the law. We all know the drill by heart, don't we? Each fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use (perhaps assigned to class, in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work (perhaps feature material
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Thank you for reading these! 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general assertion, and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case of e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that there are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is always an issue. *LIMITATIONS * Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook, workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use. The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which they have been made available at an instructor’s direction. Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors’ graduate assistants) should have access to materials. Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent that, there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s pedagogical purpose and the kind and amount of content involved. Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed requests. When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to online materials may be limited. Students should also be given information about their rights and responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials. Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should be provided for each work included or excerpted. *ENHANCEMENTS:* The case for fair use is enhanced when libraries prompt instructors, who are most likely to understand the educational purpose and transformative nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular material is requested, and why the amount requested is appropriate to that pedagogical purpose. An instructor’s justification can be expressed via standardized forms that provide a balanced menu of common or recurring fair use rationales. In order to assure the continuing relevance of those materials to course content, libraries should require instructors of recurrently offered courses to review posted materials and make updates as appropriate. 2) In terms of copying to preserve (e.g. VHS to DVD), again it's important to look at the limitations; in this area, the existence of commercial availability is the very first reference. This is a transformative purpose, in the sense that this material, which had been unuseable for teaching purposes (usually what drives such a decision is a teacher's need for materials that are either fragile or that no longer have players in the classroom) is made useful again. This clause in no way undercuts a distributor's ability to offer a commercial service, and in no way does it give librarians a blank check to copy over their collections wholesale from format to format. You know, most librarians don't want to spend their time transferring material from obsolete formats, and at the end of the day getting poor-resolution copies with limited functionality. Really. *LIMITATIONS*: Preservation copies should not be made when a fully equivalent digital copy is commercially available at a reasonable cost. Libraries should not provide access to or circulate original and preservation copies simultaneously. Off-premises access to preservation copies circulated as substitutes for original copies should be limited to authenticated members of a library’s patron community, e.g., students, faculty, staff, affiliated scholars, and other accredited users. Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should be provided for all items made available online, to the extent it can be determined with reasonable effort. *ENHANCEMENTS:* Fair use claims will be enhanced when libraries take technological steps to limit further redistribution of digital surrogates, e.g., by streaming audiovisual media, using appropriately lower-resolution versions, or using watermarks on textual materials and images. Fair use claims will be further enhanced when libraries provide copyright owners a simple tool for registering objections to use of digital surrogates, such as an e-mail address associated with a full-time employee. On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:37 PM, ghand...@library.berkeley.edu wrote: So? Has anyone had an opportunity to read em? I've had several quick reads and it seems to me that the two most significant principles being supported relevant to video are: 1. A fair use justification for digitizing and delivering of library video collections to classes...pretty heavy! The notion of
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these guidelines) I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations and enhancements not withstanding. If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted video work that is central to the curriculum (the instructor’s pedagogical purpose) could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of transformative use (I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of imperialism, bingo! Transformative!) It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential significant economic stake in making content available online. Thanks as always for your views and input. Gary Handman Thank you for reading these! 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general assertion, and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case of e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that there are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is always an issue. *LIMITATIONS * Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook, workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use. The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which they have been made available at an instructor’s direction. Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors’ graduate assistants) should have access to materials. Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent that, there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s pedagogical purpose and the kind and amount of content involved. Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed requests. When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to online materials may be limited. Students should also be given information about their rights and responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials. Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should be provided for each work included or excerpted. *ENHANCEMENTS:* The case for fair use is enhanced when libraries prompt instructors, who are most likely to understand the educational purpose and transformative nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular material is requested, and why the amount requested is appropriate to that pedagogical purpose. An instructor’s justification can be expressed via standardized forms that provide a balanced menu of common or recurring fair use rationales. In order to assure the continuing relevance of those materials to course content, libraries should require instructors of recurrently offered courses to review posted materials and make updates as appropriate. 2) In terms of copying to preserve (e.g. VHS to DVD), again it's important to look at the limitations; in this area, the existence of commercial availability is the very first reference. This is a transformative purpose, in the sense that this material, which had been unuseable for teaching purposes (usually what drives such a decision is a teacher's need for materials that are either fragile or that no longer have players in the classroom) is made useful again. This clause in no way undercuts a distributor's ability to offer a commercial service, and in no way does it give librarians a blank check to copy over their collections wholesale from format to format. You know, most librarians don't want to spend their time transferring material from obsolete formats, and at the end of the day getting poor-resolution copies with limited functionality. Really. *LIMITATIONS*: Preservation copies should not be made when a fully equivalent digital copy is commercially available at a reasonable cost. Libraries should not provide access to or circulate original and preservation copies simultaneously. Off-premises access to preservation copies circulated as substitutes for original copies should be limited to authenticated members of a library’s patron community, e.g., students, faculty, staff, affiliated scholars, and other accredited users. Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should be provided
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
I dunno about that, Bob...I'm just trying to get some clarity in these concepts and guidelines. gary Three cheers to Gary for sticking up for the content owners. Bob Film Ideas, Inc. On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:55 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote: When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of videolib digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: ACRL Best Practices (ghand...@library.berkeley.edu) From: ghand...@library.berkeley.edu Date: January 30, 2012 10:50:13 AM CST To: pauf...@american.edu, videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these guidelines) I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations and enhancements not withstanding. If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted video work that is central to the curriculum (the instructor’s pedagogical purpose) could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of transformative use (I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of imperialism, bingo! Transformative!) It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential significant economic stake in making content available online. Thanks as always for your views and input. Gary Handman Thank you for reading these! 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general assertion, and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case of e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that there are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is always an issue. *LIMITATIONS * Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook, workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use. The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which they have been made available at an instructor’s direction. Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors’ graduate assistants) should have access to materials. Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent that, there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s pedagogical purpose and the kind and amount of content involved. Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed requests. When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to online materials may be limited. Students should also be given information about their rights and responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials. Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should be provided for each work included or excerpted. *ENHANCEMENTS:* The case for fair use is enhanced when libraries prompt instructors, who are most likely to understand the educational purpose and transformative nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular material is requested, and why the amount requested is appropriate to that pedagogical purpose. An instructor’s justification can be expressed via standardized forms that provide a balanced menu of common or recurring fair use rationales. In order to assure the continuing relevance of those materials to course content, libraries should require instructors of recurrently offered courses to review posted materials and make updates as appropriate. 2) In terms of copying to preserve (e.g. VHS to DVD), again it's important to look at the limitations; in this area, the existence of commercial availability is the very first reference. This is a transformative purpose, in the sense that this material, which had been unuseable for teaching purposes (usually what drives such a decision is a teacher's need for materials that are either fragile or that no longer have players in the classroom) is made useful again. This clause in no way undercuts a distributor's ability to offer a commercial service, and in no way does it give librarians a blank check to copy over their collections wholesale from format to format. You know, most librarians don't want to spend their time transferring
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
Thanks Gary but I think it is more than that. Face to Face really can not be used at all as it is VERY specific that this applies ONLY to films shown in physical location with an instructor present. Luckily it is one of the few copyright exemptions that is very very clear. It strikes me that Pat company put in a lot of vague phrases claiming that digitizing and streaming an entire work could be transformative without anything more than the professor says he needs it and again some vague claim that professors should be made aware of copyright laws. Since you have basically given a free card to stream anything in any amount they want to use in a class or in many cases outside of a class since rarely are they streaming a film they actual showed in full in a class, there is basically no requirement at all to limit the portion or have the work be used to create a new work as fair use requires. A question for Pat. If an intro to film course used City Lights, Citizen Kane, Fantasia, The Bicycle Thief, Rosie the Riveter, Hoop Dreams and Star Wars in their course you believe it would be OK to digitize and stream the entire films because the instructor says he needs them to watch the entire films? What if any limitations are there and how would this not take a very direct hit and both the rights and revenues of the owners? Also I never seem to get an answer to this question. If it is OK to stream entire films, why is it not OK to make full length books ( both fiction and non fiction) available on line for a class so there is no need for the students to buy them? Please tell me under copyright law what the difference is? On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM, ghand...@library.berkeley.edu wrote: Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these guidelines) I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations and enhancements not withstanding. If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted video work that is central to the curriculum (the instructor’s pedagogical purpose) could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of transformative use (I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of imperialism, bingo! Transformative!) It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential significant economic stake in making content available online. Thanks as always for your views and input. Gary Handman Thank you for reading these! 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general assertion, and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case of e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that there are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is always an issue. *LIMITATIONS * Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook, workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use. The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which they have been made available at an instructor’s direction. Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors’ graduate assistants) should have access to materials. Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent that, there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s pedagogical purpose and the kind and amount of content involved. Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed requests. When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to online materials may be limited. Students should also be given information about their rights and responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials. Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should be provided for each work included or excerpted. *ENHANCEMENTS:* The case for fair use is enhanced when libraries prompt instructors, who are most likely to understand the educational purpose and transformative nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular material is requested, and why the amount requested is appropriate to that pedagogical purpose. An instructor’s justification can be
Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
I only had a quick look and the scary thing is that those are exactly the two issues that upset me and I think are totally unsupportable by copyright law. I will comment in detail tomorrow but how can one remotely claim that copying a VHS to DVD is any way shape or form transormative? really scary that for the moment we seem to be on the same page Gary. On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:37 PM, ghand...@library.berkeley.edu wrote: So? Has anyone had an opportunity to read em? I've had several quick reads and it seems to me that the two most significant principles being supported relevant to video are: 1. A fair use justification for digitizing and delivering of library video collections to classes...pretty heavy! The notion of transformative use comes into play--shades of UCLA! On quick reading I find this principle more than a bit problematic: it says It is fair use to make appropriately tailed course-related content available to enrolled students via digital networks What does that mean, exactly, though? A fair use claim for digitizing DVDs and/or vhs tapes to support specific classes, regardless of content type, regardless of license availability? Regardless... I feel like I'm missing something. (If Pat Aufderheide is lurking...I'd really like to hear her thoughts). 2. Going beyond current 108 allowances by claiming fair use for a) preemptive preservation (not simply 108's requirement that the item being considered for preservation must demonstrate deterioration); and b) off-premises use of preservation copies to library patrons. (I didn't get the sense that the document supports network delivery of materials made under 108 provisions...) I'm interested in hearing what the rest of you think... gary Gary Handman Director Media Resources Center Moffitt Library UC Berkeley 510-643-8566 ghand...@library.berkeley.edu http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC I have always preferred the reflection of life to life itself. --Francois Truffaut VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors. -- Jessica Rosner Media Consultant 224-545-3897 (cell) 212-627-1785 (land line) jessicapros...@gmail.com VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.
