Marty wrote:
========
When my wife was threatened with a copyright infringement lawsuit a few
years back, I did some research on copyright law. I think it's pretty
clear
that use of copyrighted material without consent that is restricted to
presentations in your own classroom for teaching purposes would fall under
the fair use doctrine (i.e., it is legal). Administrators may be biased to
err on the side of caution to prevent lawsuits, imho.
That depends on the extent of the use, Marty.
For example, if you copy a brief excerpt from a book/journal and use it as
a teaching tool, it's fair use. But if you were to copy the entire book or
journal it clearly be copyright infringement.
A cartoon is a complete work (as is a painting, a sculpture, etc.), not a
portion of a greater work. In addition, while it can be argued that an
excerpt from a professional journal that was copied and distributed to
students was a legitimate teaching tool, and thus fell under fair use
guidelines, it's an entirely different matter to claim that a work
designed for _entertainment_ purposes (as is a cartoon) falls in the same
category.
Most magazines/artists are happy to permit use of their work for
educational purposes-it's good PR and it's a good way to insure a steady
supply of new readers/viewers. Often if your write a
publication/syndicate/artist and ask, they'll be happy to provide blanket
permissions for use of _any_ of their cartoons for that purpose. It's only
when it is done w/o asking that they get antsy-as improper (and
unprosecuted) use in such a setting can inadvertently place their work in
the public domain and cost them money. Writing is not only the safest
legal approach, but it's the most ethical and will meet the requirements
of even the most stringent institution.
Rick
