Hello Tim and Tipsters,
Maybe it is just me and my belief that the world is a little too
legalistic, but I see a clear difference between plagiarism and showing a
tape one took from TV (or the other options being discussed here). The
essence of plagiarism is misrepresenting as one's own work that was done by
others. Showing a video and saying "here's a video I produced" would be the
equivalent. Showing a video and saying "here's a video I caught on tv last
night, done by so-and-so" involves no attempt to claim the work is your own,
only an effort to use the work to teach your students.
I know that doesn't make it legal, but it sure makes it different
morally, to this thinker at least.
Joe Hatcher
Ripon College
Ripon, Wi 54971 USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ----------
> From: Tim Shearon
> Reply To: Tim Shearon
> Sent: Saturday, January 30, 1999 6:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: cartoons/comics (U.S. Copyright)
>
> 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
>
