Re: cartoons/comics (U.S. Copyright)

[Tim Shearon]

More on copyright law:
I've left the site from the Library of Congress for those who may have missed it. But we discovered a couple of things you might want to include in decisions to copy text and/or show videos. Most of the copyright law has been explained fairly well in earlier discussion but:

First, the information presented elsewhere that spontaneous use is excluded from the need to get permission: This is somewhat ambigious (i.e., a grey area). What exactly does it mean? A BBS special comes on on schizophrenia and you are covering the topic the next day. You'd probably be ok to copy _part_ of it and show it in class. A couple of court cases have shown that copying the whole thing to show and then destroying it is _not_ enough. Why? Because it clearly violates the "amount of the whole" question in the fair use statutes. You should not violate the spirit of _any_ of the four questions to be in the clear. (And remember that in the case of photographs and cartoons the single photo or cartoon constitutes the _whole_ work). Many institutions operate on the notion that copying off air and showing it within ten days (and erasing the video!) is acceptable. Well, you probably could get off with a warning and who's going to know? Except remember that this is in a class where we have probably included on the syallabus some statement about, "When in doubt about plagarism, don't do it." Ummmmmmm..... It is something to think about but a personal decision as to how to handle this.

Second, if you put it on your syllabus etc. (even if you used it spontaneously) it is probably considered intentional use and you should write for permission (you won't get in trouble even if they say no, by the way- the most they could do is say stop it).

Third, when it comes to showing videos in class remember that the "face to face teaching" exclusion assumes that you have a "legal" copy. You also cannot advertise in ANY way that you are showing the tape. And be careful if you put your syllabus on the web-site and put the film/video on the site- that's advertising it (a public presentation of the showing). Interestingly, you have created a double theft as you stole it from the broadcaster _and_ the original copyright holder.

Fourth, I am a bit non-plussed by my colleagues continued statements that "I did not know". The lawyers and courts don't care. The owner of the copyright does not care. Additionally, it seems a rather odd argument for academics to use an ignorance defense. In my opinion we are rather hypocritical to continually preach to our students about intellectual property and academic honesty and yet many of us continue to claim ignorance or expense are acceptable excuses for stealing someone else's property to make our teaching more convenient. I suggest that unless we are willing to take, "I'm sorry Dr. X for plagarising, but I did not know", or "I'm sorry but it made may term paper too expensive/hard to actually read and/or purchase the book".

Opps! Did not mean to get on that soapbox. And I do apologize to those who asked this question because you _did_ want to know what was proper. But if we are one of those who continually flaunt the law because "they'll never know" and "my budget just doesn't allow it" or "it really makes my classes better to get to hear it from another- but I cannot pay for it" well. . . . "But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong," (and I _know_ Dennis Miller deserves some credit for that one).

Tim Shearon (and thanks to each and every one of you who does make the tough decision not to show or copy and makes the extra effort to keep it clean
!!!!)
>Here is the law from the library of Congress site:
><http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/1-107.html>
>
______________________________________________________________________

Timothy O. Shearon, Ph.D.
Albertson College of Idaho
2112 Cleveland Blvd
Caldwell, Idaho 83605

Department of Psychology
Physiological Psychology/Neuroscience

"We're viruses with shoes!" - Bill Hicks, comedian