PowerPoint Presentation

COPYRIGHT LAW for
the DIGITAL AGE

Review outcomes Slide # 3 (2 minutes)*

ISTE STANDARDS FOR TEACHERS
SOCIAL, ETHICAL, LEGAL, AND HUMAN ISSUES Promote and model digital citizenship and responsibility:

Teachers will understand local and global societal issues and responsibilities in an evolving digital culture and exhibit legal and ethical behavior in their professional practices.

Teachers will advocate, model and teach safe, legal and ethical use of digital information and technology, including respect for copyright, intellectual property, and the appropriate documentation of resources.

MARYLAND TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS FOR TEACHERS
LEGAL, SOCIAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES

Demonstrate an understanding of the legal, social and ethical issues related to technology use.

Establish classroom policies and procedures that ensure compliance with copyright law, Fair Use guidelines, security, privacy and student online protection.

WHAT IS COPYRIGHT? . . .Cornell University via ArtStor

So what is copyright? What does that term refer to?

WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?

"to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.- United States Constitution, Article I Section 8

Slide # 7 Background: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, states that government can establish a copyright system - To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

In 1790 the very first copyright law was signed into effect by President George Washington, and today the Copyright Office remains under the jurisdiction of the Library of Congress, as it has for over 100 years. The law has seen legislative updates over the years including two major overhauls in 1976 (the introduction of fair use) and 1998 (The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) which broadened protections on computer software and other digital products).

The moment you create something new it automatically becomes copyrightable and you can protect your property in civil court. Why then copyright something through the copyright office? It allows you to protect your intellectual property by having your copyright registered which in turn makes it easier to defend.

Just a Note: copyright does not protect ideas (such as aviation) or facts (unless used in a creative way). *

COPYRIGHT LAW BEGAN IN 1790-
THE LAW WAS BASED ON THE BELIEF THAT: Anyone who creates an original, tangible work deserves to be compensated for that work.Compensation encourages more creative works.Society as a whole benefits from the creative efforts of its members.

WHEN IS SOMETHING COPYRIGHTED? An author does not have to register the work, announce that the work is copyright protected, or display the copyright symbol to enjoy copyright protection.

All he or she must do is create an original work in
tangible form.

COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 GRANTS FIVE RIGHTS TO A COPYRIGHT OWNER:

Slide #13 - A few years back, Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1976.

Read the rights granted to copyright owners.

Background: Copyright does ensure the rights of owners to control access to their intellectual property. But that is not the whole story...

The Copyright Act of 1976 also includes Section 107, the Doctrine of Fair Use - which states that fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright. In fact, the kinds of copying, borrowing, and sharing supported by fair use allows and supports the creative processes essential to a creative society.

Media literacy today requires, more than ever, that our students understand both copyright limits, and the exceptions.*

COPYRIGHTABLE WORKS OF AUTHORSHIP INCLUDE:Literary worksMusical works (including words)Drama (including music)PantomimeChoreographic works

Pictorial and graphical worksSculptural worksMotion pictures and other audiovisualsSound recordingsArchitectural works

Slide #8 Review list of copyrightable works. *

WHAT DO THESE FOLKS HAVE IN COMMON?http://thecurvature.com/http://www.findagrave.com/http://www.celebuzz.com/2014-10-30/http://www.eonline.com/news/618553

Slide #11 - WARM-UP: (10 minutes) Ask group to identify photographs of famous celebrities What do they have in common? All subjects of copyright lawsuits.

It is important to know that copyright law is shaped by court rulings in civil cases. Intellectual property law is one on the growing areas of legal practice. However, getting lawyers or copyright experts into a room together doesnt always mean they will agree on the same outcome as you will see later. Read: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/03/17/robin-thicke-pharrell-williams-and-a-blurry-copyright-law

Larry Fine 3 Stooges copyright/trademark/intellectual property lawsuits throughout their lives example: https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/supreme-court-rules-three-stooges-t-shirts-are-not-protected-art

Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act(CTEA) of 1998 - This law, also known as theSonny BonoCopyright Term Extension Act,Sonny Bono Act, or (derisively) theMickey MouseProtection Act,[2]effectively "froze" the advancement date of thepublic domain in the United Statesfor works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still protected by copyright in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterward (depending on the date of the product) unless the owner of the copyright releases them into the public domain prior to that. Unlikecopyright extension legislation in the European Union, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired.

George Harrison - "My Sweet Lord" was at the centre of a heavily publicized copyright infringement suit, due to its similarity to the Ronnie Mack song "He's So Fine", a 1963 hit for the New Yorkgirl groupthe Chiffons. In 1976, Harrison was found to have subconsciouslyplagiarisedthe earlier tune, a verdict that had repercussions throughout the music industry. He claimed to have used the out-of-copyright "Oh Happy Day", aChristianhymn, as his inspiration for the song's melody.

Sam Smith and Tom Petty - The two parties settled out of courtthis past October that the two songs are so much alike that Smith now pays Petty royalties on the track specifically, a 12.5% credit, according toThe Sun. Jeff LynneandTom Pettywere also added as cowriters on "Stay with Me" after Smith's lawyers settled the suit with Petty, despite the Brit claiming anylikeness was "a complete coincidence. Read more:http://www.businessinsider.com/sam-smith-pays-tom-petty-royalties-over-stay-with-me-2015-1#ixzz3YX6hMx5Bhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkcZV97O3pw

Robin Thick and Pharrell Williams - Los Angeles federal juryruledthat musiciansRobin ThickeandPharrell Williams committed copyright infringement by using elements ofMarvin Gayes songGot to Give It Upin their pop hitBlurred Lines. Musiciansandcriticshave called the ruling unfair and claim that the case is a sign that the law needs to be updated. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/03/17/robin-thicke-pharrell-williams-and-a-blurry-copyright-law

*

THE "MY SWEET LORD"/"HE'S SO FINE" PLAGIARISM SUITThis law extends by 20 years the length of protection afforded to copyrighted works, and thus lengthens the amount of time it will take for a work to enter the public domain.Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998In 1971- George Harrisons debut single blanketed the airwaves, a struggling New York publisher, Bright Tunes Music, mustve heard divine intervention in the melody of My Sweet Lord. It was identical to a chestnut in their dusty catalog, Hes So Fine.

On Jan. 26, 2015 Sam Smith's rep acknowledged that the songwriting credits of the singer's Grammy-nominated hit "Stay With Me" now include Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne, writers of Petty's "I Won't Back Down," via an "immediate and amicable agreement" owing to similarities between the songs that were a "complete coincidence." TOM PETTY vs. SAM SMITHRobin Thicke, Pharrell Lose Multi-Million Dollar 'Blurred Lines' Lawsuit
http://www.theguardian.com/music/video/2015/mar/11/blurred-lines-got-to-give-it-up-video

THE DOCTRINE OF FAIR USE
SECTION 107 COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976

Slide #14 review how fair use may be used based on slide.Background: Assess the specific context and the situation of the use of a copyrighted work to determine if fair use applies. There are virtually no legal issues when copyrighted work is shared within the four walls of the classroom for educational purposes. But when the materials are put online, on websites, blogs, and wikis, for instance, where we can't really confine the content to educational purposes and an intended audience, then it's time to ask if we are exercising fair use of copyrighted materials.

It's a little messy in that fair use requires using reasoning and judgment - these are important media literacy and 21st century skills.

*

DETERMINING FAIR USE

Slide #15 So how do we determine Fair use?

Background: Four questions you need to ask:

What is the nature of the work? Is it factual (= easy to make a case), creative (= a little more challenging to make a case), consumable or stock photos (= no case for fair use)?

What is the purpose? Did you transform the unlicensed material - or repeat the original intent?

How about the amount? Did you use only the amount needed for your purpose?

Effect - What effect might your use have on the market value?

Using Mike Robbgreico's piece - http://www.youtube.com/mediaedlab?v=8tWhKeb-fUQ&lr=1 - within 3 minutes, students will be able to explain user's rights under Section 107.

*

THE FIFTH FACTOR:
TRANSFORMATIVE USE

When a user of copyrighted materials adds value to, or repurposes materials for a use different from that for which it was originally intended, it will likely be considered transformative use; it will also likely be considered fair use. Fair use embraces the modifying of existing media content, placing it in new context.

Joyce Valenza, School Library Journal

http://blogs.slj.com/neverendingsearch/2008/04/01/fair-use-and-transformativeness-it-may-shake-your-world/

Slide #16

Background: Courts recognize that educators and students use copyrighted materials for scholarship, teaching, and learning.

But what about when you or your students want to post work - beyond the classroom wall? "Transformativeness" is key to presenting a case for fair use, and an essential word on the digital citizenship vocabulary list. Again, the question to ask is does my use of a copyrighted materials transform the material by using it for a different purpose than that of the original?*

THE DOCTRINE OF FAIR USE (VIDEO)
SECTION 107 COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tWhKeb-fUQ&list=PLvzOwE5lWqhTbOCIFp_OxsN6nC-l20kMT&index=7

Slide #17 - Length: 3:10 Show music video - reinforcing the Doctrine of Fair Usehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tWhKeb-fUQ&list=PLvzOwE5lWqhTbOCIFp_OxsN6nC-l20kMT&index=7*

THE FIFTH FACTOR:
TRANSFORMATIVE USE

A derivative work is transformative if it uses a source work in completely new or unexpected ways. Importantly, a work may be transformative, and thus a fair use, even when all four of the statutory factors would traditionally weigh against fair. - University of Minnesotahttps://www.lib.umn.edu/copyright/fairuse Parody New Technologies Other Uses

Slide #18 -

Background: Transformative use is a relatively new addition to fair use law, having been first raised in a Supreme Court decision in 1994. (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994.)

When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions: Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning? Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings?

- See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#sthash.V1VKqlMT.dpuf

*

PARODY?

Source: http://www.printmag.com/article/review-garbage-pail-kids-from-grade-school-samizdat-to-art/Source: http://nameberry.com/blog/a-cabbage-patch-namefest

Slide #19

Background: Parody is one of the most clearly identified transformative uses, but any use of a source work that criticizes or comments on the source may be transformative in similar ways. Legal analysis about this kind of transformative use often engages with free speech issues.

In one case a manufacturer of novelty cards parodied the successful childrens dolls the Cabbage Patch Kids. The parody card series was entitled the Garbage Pail Kids and used gruesome and grotesque names and characters to poke fun at the wholesome Cabbage Patch image. Some copyright experts were surprised when a federal court considered the parody an infringement, not a fair use. (Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 642 F. Supp. 1031 (N.D. Ga. 1986).) - See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#sthash.V1VKqlMT.dpuf

As was stated early about lawyers in a room agreeing this is a prime example. The judge in this ruling was thought to have a bias toward the general grossness of the product that was created.*

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

Source: Amazon.com

Slide #20

Background: New Technologies: Courts have sometimes found copies made as part of the production of new technologies to be transformative uses. One very concrete example has to do with image search engines: search companies make copies of images to make them searchable, and show those copies to people as part of the search results. Courts found that those thumbnail images were a transformative use because the copies were being made for the transformative purpose of search indexing, rather than simple viewing (and also sells products).*

OTHER TRANSFORMATIVE USES

Slide #21

Background: Other Transformative Uses: Because transformative use is a relatively new part of copyright law, it is still developing. Many commentators suggest thataudio and video mixes and remixesare examples of transformative works, as well as other kinds of works that use existing content to do unexpected and new things. There is a lot of room for argument and interpretation in transformative use! Examples of mash-ups, audio and video remixes.*

GROUP ACTIVITY -TRANSFORMATIVE OR NOT?AP Photo/Manny Garcia/ Shepard Faireyhttp://www.allartnews.com/photographer-and-associated-press-drop-claims-against-each-other/

Slide #23

Group Activity 10 minutes

Background: Transformative can also come down to more fair/less fair - as illustrated by the much contested Obama Hope Poster. Street artist Shepard Fairey claimed fair use, and also claimed he found the image via a Google search of Obama and George Clooney, and, in fact, denied and destroyed evidence that he had used an AP photo from freelancer Mannie Garcia.

From posters, to T-shirts and more, the Hope poster became a money maker. The case prompted discussions on how transformative Fairey's use of Garcia's photo really was.

When the AP demanded compensation for its use in Faireys work. Fairey responded with the defense of fair use, claiming his work didnt reduce the value of the original photograph.

ACTIVITY: Based on what you know at this point about fair use grab a partner and using the four factors determine whether you think the Shepard Fairey poster is transformative or not? and would you consider it fair use?

Four questions you need to ask:

What is the nature of the work? Is it factual (= easy to make a case), creative (= a little more challenging to make a case), consumable or stock photos (= no case for fair use)?

What is the purpose? Did you transform the unlicensed material - or repeat the original intent?

How about the amount? Did you use only the amount needed for your purpose?

Effect - What effect might your use have on the market value?

RESULT: We will never know for sure as the artist and the AP press came to a private settlement in January 2011, part of which included a split in the profits for the work.

Though there wasnt a court case and an actual verdict, this case created a lot of discourse around the value of work in these copyright battles. Its unlikely that Garcias work could have ever reached the level of fame it did, if not for Faireys poster. Garcia himself stated he was so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it has had, but still had a problem with the fact that Fairey took the image without permission and without credit for its originator. http://99designs.com/designer-blog/2013/04/19/5-famous-copyright-infringement-cases/

The poster soon became a model for parody and imitation - (Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster

Are Your Instagram photos safe?http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/05/25/a-reminder-that-your-instagram-photos-arent-really-yours-someone-else-can-sell-them-for-90000/

*

DETERMINING FAIR USE Lets review the Tool for Supporting the Fair Use Reasoning Process

What decision will you make? Ask for Permission Claim Fair Use Pay a License Fee Choose Another Source (Creative Commons)

Source: http://copyrightconfusion.wikispaces.com/Reasoning

Slide #27 (20-30 minutes)Background: Here is a great resource everyone can use to walk through the process of determining fair use from the Copyright Confusion web site.

Handout: Tool for Supporting the Fair Use Process Review the handout with participants.

Activity Directions: Work with a partner or in small groups (facilitator decide after seeing size of group). At each table you will find several scenarios using the Tool for Supporting the Fair Use Process have them read the scenario and respond to the questions posed. Make a final determination: Ask for permission, claim fair use, pay a license fee, choose another source. Project slide #23, read S1 (etc.) and then ask which of them have that scenario. Have them reveal their final determination and defend their decision.

Work through as many scenarios as you think you have time for. You will have to modify this activity based on the size of your group.

For the facilitator: sometimes there is not necessarily a clear right or wrong answer and that we are more interested in getting educators and students to reason through the process before reaching whatever decision they come to make. due diligence is a common defense in defending the choice of fair use.

*

In 2009, visual artist Fairey sued the AP arguing that his
artistic transformation of an AP photograph was
protected under the doctrine of fair use.The AP sued Fairey arguing that he misappropriated
its rights to the image when he created and sold
posters and other merchandise with the likeness.The parties settled out of court in
January 2011, with details of
the settlement remaining confidential.Shepard Fairey and The A.P. Settle Legal Dispute

GROUP ACTIVITY - TRANSFORMATIVE OR NOT?

Web Poster Exhibition -Shepard Fairey posters for Barack Obama - http://www.posterpage.ch/exhib/ex216oba/ex216oba.htm

Slide # 24 Background: One of the artists Shepard Faireys favorite parodies of his Obama poster. There is an entire web gallery devoted to these parodies located at: http://www.posterpage.ch/exhib/ex216oba/ex216oba.htm*

WHAT IS PUBLIC DOMAIN?When the intellectual property rights of works have expired, have been forfeited, or are inapplicable.
When copyright law does not apply to a work.

Works in the public domain may be used freely without permission or attribution.

PUBLIC DOMAINThere are five common ways that works transfer into public domain:

1. The copyright has expired. 2. The copyright owner published the work without a copyright notice.3. The copyright owner failed to renew copyright status.4. The copyright owner deliberately places or dedicates it to public domain using the Creative Commons Zero dedication.5. Copyright law does not protect this type of work.

We are going to talk through each of these five situations one by one so you feel comfortable with the process of identifying public content.

PUBLIC DOMAIN1. The copyright has expired.

PUBLIC DOMAIN1. The copyright has expired. Items published* before 1923 are public domain.

Remember that I said published materials means something specific and a little different than we are used to in the context of copyright.

WHAT IS PUBLISHED? (ACCORDING TO COPYRIGHT LAW) A work is considered published when the author makes it available to the public on an unrestricted basis.

To summarize, publication means distributed to the public. We generally think of publication as applying to items with publishers, like books, journals, newspapers, etc. But published according to copyright law is broader.

PUBLISHED OR UNPUBLISHED?The definition of publication according to copyright law is distribution to the public. Consider these examples

Potentially unpublishedCorrespondenceMost photographs
Postcards with writing*Likely publishedBooksPosters
BrochuresPamphlets
Blank Postcards*

Consider some of these examples. Items like posters and brochures that are distributed to the public are considered published. Unpublished materials include items like private correspondence and most photographs.

Adapted from: https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

Type of WorkCopyright TermWhat was in the public domain in the U.S. as of January 1, 2015?Unpublished worksLife of the author + 70 yearsWorks from authors who died before 1945Unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire 120 years from date of creationWorks created before 1895Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known120 years from date of creationWorks created before 1895

Copyright law is designed to offer the most protection to unpublished material, especially creative materials. Look at the top row of this chart in particular. Unpublished materials like the correspondence we discussed earlier gets a longer term of protection the life of the author plus 70 years. That means you add 70 years to the year that the creator passed away and only THEN does the item fall into the public domain.

PUBLIC DOMAIN2. The copyright owner published the work without a copyright notice.*Until 1989, a published work had to contain a valid copyright notice to receive protection under the copyright laws. But this requirement is no longer in force works first published after March 1, 1989 need not include a copyright notice to gain protection under the law. A copyright notice should contain:the word copyrighta c in a circle ()the date of publication, andthe name of either the author or the owner of all the copyright rights in the published work.

I mentioned that copyright law was a changing thing. For a period of time in the twentieth century, copyright owners were required to put a copyright notice on a published work to claim copyright. There are nuances, but the key window of time here is 1923-1977. So if you have an item published between 1923 and 1977, check it for a notice. If it doesnt have one, its in the public domain. As a note, copyright notices generally have the word copyright or the copyright symbol followed by the name of the copyright holder.

PUBLIC DOMAIN3. The copyright owner failed to renew copyright status of a published work.*

*Published between 1923 and 1963

Copyright renewal requirements tripped up a lot of copyright owners before the current copyright law did away with them. Failure to renew caused many works originally published from 1923 through 1963 to enter the public domain. You can pursue these but it requires some research with the U.S. Copyright Office.

More info:The 1909 Act (the governing law for those works) provided for two copyright terms: a 28-year initial term and a 28-year renewal term. But the copyright owner didnt get the second term unless he or she filed a renewal application with the Copyright Office. If the renewal application wasnt filed on time, before the 28th year expired, the work entered the public domain.

When the 1976 Copyright Act was passed, Congress added 19 years to the renewal term, bringing it from 28 years to 47, for a total of 75 years. Copyrights already in their renewal term got the extra 19 years automatically. Copyrights in their initial 28-year term on 12/31/77 got the 47-year renewal term as long as the copyrights were renewed in their 28th year.

PUBLIC DOMAIN4. The copyright owner deliberately places or dedicates a work to public domain using the Creative Commons Zero dedication.

A work can enter the public domain because the copyright holder dedicates it to the public domain meaning that they waive their claim to copyright. A copyright holder can chose to do this at any point while the item is under copyright by publishing the item with a CC0 License from Creative Commons. (Well talk more about CC0 in a little while.)

It isnt that common to see content from cultural heritage institutions dedicated to the public domain with a CCO license. But on photosharing platforms like Flickr, its actually common to see people take photos and immediately waive their copyright protection. This photographer has thankfully made this adorable kit photo available to all for reproduction, meme-making, etc.

PUBLIC DOMAIN5. Copyright law does not protect this type

of work.Documents created by the federal government and its employees as part of their jobs are not protected by copyright.

They are, therefore, public domain.National Archives and Records Administration

Finally, there are certain works that by definition are in the public domain and never get copyright protection.

RECAP PUBLIC DOMAIN APPLIES IF . . .1. The copyright has expired. (published before 1923)2. The copyright owner published the work without a copyright notice. (1923 - 1977)3. The copyright owner failed to renew copyright status. (1923 - 1963)4. The copyright owner deliberately places or dedicates it to public domain using the Creative Commons Zero dedication.5. Copyright law does not protect this type of work.
Facts, ideas, general themes, plots and characters of fiction, research data, and government documents

So what have we learned so far? If you are assessing a piece of content and it fits into any of these five categories, digitize away. The content is in the public domain and therefore its digitization poses no risk to your institution.

Works within the copyright law toProtect works, and Provide access to content that might otherwise be inaccessible for decades.

Creative Commons develops, supports, and stewards legal and technical infrastructure that maximizes digital creativity, sharing, and innovation.

CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSES

Slide #34 - Review licenses with group. Creative Commons Licenses always have the attribution license to view their terms for more details. For facilitator background knowledge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKfqoPYJdVc*

CREATIVE COMMONS TERMSCC - Creative Commons

BY - Attribution (you must attribute to the copyright holder)

SA - ShareAlike (if you make a derivative work or adaptation, it has to be licensed the same way as the original)

NC - NonCommercial (no commercial use)

ND - No Derivs (cannot make derivative works)

0 - Copyright holder has dedicated his/her work to the public domain.* (Dont need to use in a rights field.)

Here is a key to decode the alphabet soup of Creative Commons. Lets talk through what each of these things means.

CREATIVE COMMONS SEARCH

Source: http://search.creativecommons.org/

Slide #35 Background: Creative Commons search allows to search different databases based on your preference for media type needed.If time permits allow participants to try some searches using the tool.

http://search.creativecommons.org/*

Shell Map of Ontario, 1955. Courtesy David Rumsey.

Copyright H.M. Gousha Company. This work is licensed for use under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike License (CC BY-NC-SA).

Heres an example of a CC license in practice? This license tells us that we can do what with this image? Use it non-commercially IF we attribute and any derivs have this same license and arent made less open.

Champion swimmer Eleanor Holm Jarrett shows off her flippers, 1937. Jones, Leslie, 1886-1967. Boston Public Library Print Department.

Copyright (c) Leslie Jones.This work is licensed for use under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License
(CC BY-NC-ND).

Weve seen a number of examples of this statement but just to reiterate.

GOOGLE MAKES IT EASY TO FIND USAGE RIGHTS

Source: http://google.com

Slide #36 Background: In a regular Google image search enter a search term like students. Once your search comes up then click on Search Tools. Then click on usage rights to determine the type of license you would like to search under.

If time permits allow participants to try some searches using the tool.*

I get all this but what about Digital Stuff? The Internet, YouTube, E-Books, Help!

Digital Copyright TimelineInternet Copyright Infringement

Resources

Review outcomes Slide # 3 (2 minutes)*So what is copyright? What does that term refer to?Slide # 7 Background: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, states that government can establish a copyright system - To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

In 1790 the very first copyright law was signed into effect by President George Washington, and today the Copyright Office remains under the jurisdiction of the Library of Congress, as it has for over 100 years. The law has seen legislative updates over the years including two major overhauls in 1976 (the introduction of fair use) and 1998 (The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) which broadened protections on computer software and other digital products).

The moment you create something new it automatically becomes copyrightable and you can protect your property in civil court. Why then copyright something through the copyright office? It allows you to protect your intellectual property by having your copyright registered which in turn makes it easier to defend.

Just a Note: copyright does not protect ideas (such as aviation) or facts (unless used in a creative way). *

Slide #13 - A few years back, Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1976.

Read the rights granted to copyright owners.

Background: Copyright does ensure the rights of owners to control access to their intellectual property. But that is not the whole story...

The Copyright Act of 1976 also includes Section 107, the Doctrine of Fair Use - which states that fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright. In fact, the kinds of copying, borrowing, and sharing supported by fair use allows and supports the creative processes essential to a creative society.

Media literacy today requires, more than ever, that our students understand both copyright limits, and the exceptions.*Slide #8 Review list of copyrightable works. *Slide #11 - WARM-UP: (10 minutes) Ask group to identify photographs of famous celebrities What do they have in common? All subjects of copyright lawsuits.

It is important to know that copyright law is shaped by court rulings in civil cases. Intellectual property law is one on the growing areas of legal practice. However, getting lawyers or copyright experts into a room together doesnt always mean they will agree on the same outcome as you will see later. Read: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/03/17/robin-thicke-pharrell-williams-and-a-blurry-copyright-law

Larry Fine 3 Stooges copyright/trademark/intellectual property lawsuits throughout their lives example: https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news/supreme-court-rules-three-stooges-t-shirts-are-not-protected-art

Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act(CTEA) of 1998 - This law, also known as theSonny BonoCopyright Term Extension Act,Sonny Bono Act, or (derisively) theMickey MouseProtection Act,[2]effectively "froze" the advancement date of thepublic domain in the United Statesfor works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this Act, additional works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still protected by copyright in 1998 will not enter the public domain until 2019 or afterward (depending on the date of the product) unless the owner of the copyright releases them into the public domain prior to that. Unlikecopyright extension legislation in the European Union, the Sonny Bono Act did not revive copyrights that had already expired.

George Harrison - "My Sweet Lord" was at the centre of a heavily publicized copyright infringement suit, due to its similarity to the Ronnie Mack song "He's So Fine", a 1963 hit for the New Yorkgirl groupthe Chiffons. In 1976, Harrison was found to have subconsciouslyplagiarisedthe earlier tune, a verdict that had repercussions throughout the music industry. He claimed to have used the out-of-copyright "Oh Happy Day", aChristianhymn, as his inspiration for the song's melody.

Sam Smith and Tom Petty - The two parties settled out of courtthis past October that the two songs are so much alike that Smith now pays Petty royalties on the track specifically, a 12.5% credit, according toThe Sun. Jeff LynneandTom Pettywere also added as cowriters on "Stay with Me" after Smith's lawyers settled the suit with Petty, despite the Brit claiming anylikeness was "a complete coincidence. Read more:http://www.businessinsider.com/sam-smith-pays-tom-petty-royalties-over-stay-with-me-2015-1#ixzz3YX6hMx5Bhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkcZV97O3pw

Robin Thick and Pharrell Williams - Los Angeles federal juryruledthat musiciansRobin ThickeandPharrell Williams committed copyright infringement by using elements ofMarvin Gayes songGot to Give It Upin their pop hitBlurred Lines. Musiciansandcriticshave called the ruling unfair and claim that the case is a sign that the law needs to be updated. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/03/17/robin-thicke-pharrell-williams-and-a-blurry-copyright-law

*Slide #14 review how fair use may be used based on slide.Background: Assess the specific context and the situation of the use of a copyrighted work to determine if fair use applies. There are virtually no legal issues when copyrighted work is shared within the four walls of the classroom for educational purposes. But when the materials are put online, on websites, blogs, and wikis, for instance, where we can't really confine the content to educational purposes and an intended audience, then it's time to ask if we are exercising fair use of copyrighted materials.

It's a little messy in that fair use requires using reasoning and judgment - these are important media literacy and 21st century skills.

*Slide #15 So how do we determine Fair use?

Background: Four questions you need to ask:

What is the nature of the work? Is it factual (= easy to make a case), creative (= a little more challenging to make a case), consumable or stock photos (= no case for fair use)?

What is the purpose? Did you transform the unlicensed material - or repeat the original intent?

How about the amount? Did you use only the amount needed for your purpose?

Effect - What effect might your use have on the market value?

Using Mike Robbgreico's piece - http://www.youtube.com/mediaedlab?v=8tWhKeb-fUQ&lr=1 - within 3 minutes, students will be able to explain user's rights under Section 107.

*Slide #16

Background: Courts recognize that educators and students use copyrighted materials for scholarship, teaching, and learning.

But what about when you or your students want to post work - beyond the classroom wall? "Transformativeness" is key to presenting a case for fair use, and an essential word on the digital citizenship vocabulary list. Again, the question to ask is does my use of a copyrighted materials transform the material by using it for a different purpose than that of the original?*Slide #17 - Length: 3:10 Show music video - reinforcing the Doctrine of Fair Usehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tWhKeb-fUQ&list=PLvzOwE5lWqhTbOCIFp_OxsN6nC-l20kMT&index=7*Slide #18 -

Background: Transformative use is a relatively new addition to fair use law, having been first raised in a Supreme Court decision in 1994. (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994.)

When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions: Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning? Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings?

- See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#sthash.V1VKqlMT.dpuf

*Slide #19

Background: Parody is one of the most clearly identified transformative uses, but any use of a source work that criticizes or comments on the source may be transformative in similar ways. Legal analysis about this kind of transformative use often engages with free speech issues.

In one case a manufacturer of novelty cards parodied the successful childrens dolls the Cabbage Patch Kids. The parody card series was entitled the Garbage Pail Kids and used gruesome and grotesque names and characters to poke fun at the wholesome Cabbage Patch image. Some copyright experts were surprised when a federal court considered the parody an infringement, not a fair use. (Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 642 F. Supp. 1031 (N.D. Ga. 1986).) - See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#sthash.V1VKqlMT.dpuf

As was stated early about lawyers in a room agreeing this is a prime example. The judge in this ruling was thought to have a bias toward the general grossness of the product that was created.*Slide #20

Background: New Technologies: Courts have sometimes found copies made as part of the production of new technologies to be transformative uses. One very concrete example has to do with image search engines: search companies make copies of images to make them searchable, and show those copies to people as part of the search results. Courts found that those thumbnail images were a transformative use because the copies were being made for the transformative purpose of search indexing, rather than simple viewing (and also sells products).*Slide #21

Background: Other Transformative Uses: Because transformative use is a relatively new part of copyright law, it is still developing. Many commentators suggest thataudio and video mixes and remixesare examples of transformative works, as well as other kinds of works that use existing content to do unexpected and new things. There is a lot of room for argument and interpretation in transformative use! Examples of mash-ups, audio and video remixes.*Slide #23

Group Activity 10 minutes

Background: Transformative can also come down to more fair/less fair - as illustrated by the much contested Obama Hope Poster. Street artist Shepard Fairey claimed fair use, and also claimed he found the image via a Google search of Obama and George Clooney, and, in fact, denied and destroyed evidence that he had used an AP photo from freelancer Mannie Garcia.

From posters, to T-shirts and more, the Hope poster became a money maker. The case prompted discussions on how transformative Fairey's use of Garcia's photo really was.

When the AP demanded compensation for its use in Faireys work. Fairey responded with the defense of fair use, claiming his work didnt reduce the value of the original photograph.

ACTIVITY: Based on what you know at this point about fair use grab a partner and using the four factors determine whether you think the Shepard Fairey poster is transformative or not? and would you consider it fair use?

Four questions you need to ask:

What is the nature of the work? Is it factual (= easy to make a case), creative (= a little more challenging to make a case), consumable or stock photos (= no case for fair use)?

What is the purpose? Did you transform the unlicensed material - or repeat the original intent?

How about the amount? Did you use only the amount needed for your purpose?

Effect - What effect might your use have on the market value?

RESULT: We will never know for sure as the artist and the AP press came to a private settlement in January 2011, part of which included a split in the profits for the work.

Though there wasnt a court case and an actual verdict, this case created a lot of discourse around the value of work in these copyright battles. Its unlikely that Garcias work could have ever reached the level of fame it did, if not for Faireys poster. Garcia himself stated he was so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it has had, but still had a problem with the fact that Fairey took the image without permission and without credit for its originator. http://99designs.com/designer-blog/2013/04/19/5-famous-copyright-infringement-cases/

The poster soon became a model for parody and imitation - (Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster

Are Your Instagram photos safe?http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/05/25/a-reminder-that-your-instagram-photos-arent-really-yours-someone-else-can-sell-them-for-90000/

*Slide #27 (20-30 minutes)Background: Here is a great resource everyone can use to walk through the process of determining fair use from the Copyright Confusion web site.

Handout: Tool for Supporting the Fair Use Process Review the handout with participants.

Activity Directions: Work with a partner or in small groups (facilitator decide after seeing size of group). At each table you will find several scenarios using the Tool for Supporting the Fair Use Process have them read the scenario and respond to the questions posed. Make a final determination: Ask for permission, claim fair use, pay a license fee, choose another source. Project slide #23, read S1 (etc.) and then ask which of them have that scenario. Have them reveal their final determination and defend their decision.

Work through as many scenarios as you think you have time for. You will have to modify this activity based on the size of your group.

For the facilitator: sometimes there is not necessarily a clear right or wrong answer and that we are more interested in getting educators and students to reason through the process before reaching whatever decision they come to make. due diligence is a common defense in defending the choice of fair use.

*Slide # 24 Background: One of the artists Shepard Faireys favorite parodies of his Obama poster. There is an entire web gallery devoted to these parodies located at: http://www.posterpage.ch/exhib/ex216oba/ex216oba.htm*

We are going to talk through each of these five situations one by one so you feel comfortable with the process of identifying public content.Remember that I said published materials means something specific and a little different than we are used to in the context of copyright.To summarize, publication means distributed to the public. We generally think of publication as applying to items with publishers, like books, journals, newspapers, etc. But published according to copyright law is broader.Consider some of these examples. Items like posters and brochures that are distributed to the public are considered published. Unpublished materials include items like private correspondence and most photographs.Copyright law is designed to offer the most protection to unpublished material, especially creative materials. Look at the top row of this chart in particular. Unpublished materials like the correspondence we discussed earlier gets a longer term of protection the life of the author plus 70 years. That means you add 70 years to the year that the creator passed away and only THEN does the item fall into the public domain.I mentioned that copyright law was a changing thing. For a period of time in the twentieth century, copyright owners were required to put a copyright notice on a published work to claim copyright. There are nuances, but the key window of time here is 1923-1977. So if you have an item published between 1923 and 1977, check it for a notice. If it doesnt have one, its in the public domain. As a note, copyright notices generally have the word copyright or the copyright symbol followed by the name of the copyright holder.Copyright renewal requirements tripped up a lot of copyright owners before the current copyright law did away with them. Failure to renew caused many works originally published from 1923 through 1963 to enter the public domain. You can pursue these but it requires some research with the U.S. Copyright Office.

More info:The 1909 Act (the governing law for those works) provided for two copyright terms: a 28-year initial term and a 28-year renewal term. But the copyright owner didnt get the second term unless he or she filed a renewal application with the Copyright Office. If the renewal application wasnt filed on time, before the 28th year expired, the work entered the public domain.

When the 1976 Copyright Act was passed, Congress added 19 years to the renewal term, bringing it from 28 years to 47, for a total of 75 years. Copyrights already in their renewal term got the extra 19 years automatically. Copyrights in their initial 28-year term on 12/31/77 got the 47-year renewal term as long as the copyrights were renewed in their 28th year.A work can enter the public domain because the copyright holder dedicates it to the public domain meaning that they waive their claim to copyright. A copyright holder can chose to do this at any point while the item is under copyright by publishing the item with a CC0 License from Creative Commons. (Well talk more about CC0 in a little while.)It isnt that common to see content from cultural heritage institutions dedicated to the public domain with a CCO license. But on photosharing platforms like Flickr, its actually common to see people take photos and immediately waive their copyright protection. This photographer has thankfully made this adorable kit photo available to all for reproduction, meme-making, etc.Finally, there are certain works that by definition are in the public domain and never get copyright protection.So what have we learned so far? If you are assessing a piece of content and it fits into any of these five categories, digitize away. The content is in the public domain and therefore its digitization poses no risk to your institution.Creative Commons develops, supports, and stewards legal and technical infrastructure that maximizes digital creativity, sharing, and innovation.Slide #34 - Review licenses with group. Creative Commons Licenses always have the attribution license to view their terms for more details. For facilitator background knowledge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKfqoPYJdVc*Here is a key to decode the alphabet soup of Creative Commons. Lets talk through what each of these things means.Slide #35 Background: Creative Commons search allows to search different databases based on your preference for media type needed.If time permits allow participants to try some searches using the tool.

http://search.creativecommons.org/*Heres an example of a CC license in practice? This license tells us that we can do what with this image? Use it non-commercially IF we attribute and any derivs have this same license and arent made less open.Weve seen a number of examples of this statement but just to reiterate.Slide #36 Background: In a regular Google image search enter a search term like students. Once your search comes up then click on Search Tools. Then click on usage rights to determine the type of license you would like to search under.

If time permits allow participants to try some searches using the tool.*