The Ohio State University The Ohio State University

 

Copyright Corner

Category: Copyright Education (page 6 of 7)

Public Domain Day: Another reason to celebrate the New Year

January 1, 2014 / / 4 Comments

For many individuals, a new year represents a fresh start. January 1st also signifies a new beginning for numerous creative and scholarly works around the world. Public Domain Day commemorates the occasion as copyright expires for a new batch of works and ushers them into the public domain. The Tale of Little Pig Robinson by beloved children’s author Beatrix Potter is just one of the items entering the public domain in 2014 for many countries.

Release some of your own works from copyright in honor of Public Domain Day

If you have ever taken a photo, written a story, or recorded a video you hold the copyright to that work.

To dedicate a work to the public domain, you may apply the Creative Commons CC0 license to waive all copyrights.

Images may also be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under a public domain license.

If you hold the copyright to a work archived by HathiTrust, you may grant permission to make the full text publicly available and/or dedicate the work to the public domain.

This is indeed cause for celebration. Once a work enters the public domain, anyone may freely copy, distribute, adapt, remix, translate or otherwise use the material without permission or other limitations. The annual influx of public domain material results in a trove of restriction-free source material for artists, writers, musicians, and other creators. Jane Austen’s novels, for example, are all in the public domain and have been adapted numerous times for film and television.

‘Public domain’ may be a familiar term, but misconceptions abound regarding its true meaning. For instance, works that are widely available to the public, such as images, videos, and text on the Web, are not necessarily also in the public domain.

In the United States, copyright protection extends instantly and automatically to new works created since March 1, 1989. In order to qualify for copyright, a work must require at least a minimum amount of creativity to produce and it needs to exist in some tangible format (for example: written down, coded into HTML, saved to a hard drive, or sculpted in clay). Therefore, most material on the Web is actually protected by copyright whether or not a copyright notice is present.

The public domain actually consists of items that either were never covered by copyright law or their copyright protection has expired. For example, most works created by employees of the U.S. federal government in the scope of their employment enter the public domain immediately. Those items initially protected by copyright enter the public domain once the copyright term expires.

Copyright duration varies from country to country, so works will not enter the public domain at the same time for everyone. For example, Canada has a copyright term of the author’s lifetime plus 50 years, while many European countries have a copyright term of the author’s lifetime plus 70 years.

In the United States, the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1988 increased copyright duration to the author’s lifetime plus 70 years, after which the work enters the public domain. This legislation also extended copyright terms for many earlier works, with the result that no published works will enter the public domain in the United States until 2019.

Creators may also voluntarily remove copyright at any time by dedicating a work to the public domain. Determining the copyright term for works published under earlier versions of U.S. law can be complicated, but Peter Hirtle’s chart “Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States” can help resolve many questions.

Find works in the public domain

Many sites collect public domain material. Here are a few places you can find items in the public domain (note: some also contain copyrighted materials).

HathiTrust

Internet Archive

Project Gutenberg

Wikimedia Commons

Public Domain Music

For a more comprehensive list, please see Columbia University’s list of public domain resources.

Although copyright law in the United States has changed over time, the public domain remains indispensable to accomplishing the stated purpose of copyright: to promote the progress of science and the arts. Copyright law grants creators exclusive rights for a limited time to control how their work is used and distributed. While this protection encourages creativity and innovation by providing an opportunity for authors to profit from their work, the fact that copyright eventually expires is equally important to creative culture.

Creators from all disciplines take inspiration from existing works and a continuously replenished public domain provides a rich, unfettered source of materials to draw upon. Residents of the United States can look forward to 2019 when the annual cycle of works entering the public domain will resume. Until then, we may only celebrate vicariously the many treasures joining the public domain on January 1st for the rest of the world.

Along with the Beatrix Potter story mentioned earlier, the public domain in various countries welcomes creations from other authors, artists, musicians, and notable figures such as George Washington Carver, Sophie Taeuber-Arp, Fats Waller, and Nikola Tesla in 2014.

Visit these sites around the Web for more coverage of Public Domain Day 2014 and works entering the public domain:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

By Jessica Meindertsma, Rights Management Specialist at the Copyright Resources Center, The Ohio State University Libraries

Copyright duration for musical compositions and sound recordings

May 15, 2013 / / 1 Comment

This is the second of a 4-part series on issues in music copyright. Part 2 will provide an overview of the duration for musical composition and sound recording copyrights.

As we discussed in part 1 of our series, music copyright is broken down between musical compositions and sound recordings. It is important to keep this distinction in mind when considering the duration of either of these copyright terms, because different sets of laws will govern the duration of the copyright depending on the type of work being considered (sound recording or musical composition) and when that work was created.

Musical Compositions: Copyright duration for fixed musical works, including original compositions and original arrangements or versions of earlier works, follows the same termination timeline as other literary works. Duration for the musical composition copyright will depend on a number of factors including the time in which the work was created (the time in which the work was fixed), the time in which it was published, who created the work, and whether proper renewal and registration was filed. The following tables explain how copyright duration varies:

Created on or after 1/1/1978

Duration
One author Life of the author + 70 years
Joint authorship Life of the last surviving author + 70 years
Work-made-for-hire; anonymous works; pseudonymous works 95 years from publication or 120 years from fixation, whichever is shorter. If an anonymous author is later revealed, life of the author + 70 years.

 

Published before 1/1/1978

Duration
Works published before 1/1/1923 In the public domain
Works published on or after 1/1/1923 and before 1/1/1964 + proper renewal (including registration) filed 95 years from publication
Works published on or after 1/1/1923 and before 1/1/1964 + proper renewal (including registration) NOT filed In the public domain
Works published on or after 1/1/1964 and before 1/1/1978 95 years from publication

 

Created but not published before 1/1/1978

Duration
All works In no case does copyright expire before 12/31/2002.
Not published on or before 1/1/1978 and on or after 12/31/2002. Use same rules for works created on or after 1/1/1978 (from chart 1 above), but in no case will copyright expire before 12/31/2002.
Meanwhile published on or after 1/1/1978 and on or before 12/31/2002. Use same rules for works created on or after 1/1/1978 (from chart 1 above), but in no case will copyright expire before 12/31/2047.

Prior iterations of U.S. copyright law required published works to contain a notice including either © or ℗ (for sound recordings), the year of first publication, and the name of the copyright owner.  Works created on or after 3/1/1989 no longer need to contain a notice, but earlier works are still bound by the requirement. To see how compliance and noncompliance with notice requirement affect copyright duration, see Peter B. Hirtle’s Public Domain chart.

Sound Recordings: Sound recordings were not granted federal copyright protection until the passage of the Sound Recording Act of 1971. As a result, the law governing the duration of a sound recording copyright will vary depending on the time in which the work was created.

For works created on or after 2/15/1972, copyright duration mirrors the general rules that we see above for musical compositions created on of after 1/1/1978.

Created on or after 2/15/1972

Duration
One author Life of the author + 70 years
Joint authorship Life of the last surviving author + 70 years
Work-made-for-hire; anonymous works; pseudonymous works 95 years from publication or 120 years from fixation, whichever is shorter.If an anonymous author is later revealed, life of the author + 70 years.

Like musical compositions, sound recordings made on or after 2/15/1972 must also comply with proper renewal, registration, and notice requirements.

Works published on or after 2/15/1972

Duration
Works published on or after 2/15/1972 and before 1/1/1978 + proper notice filed 95 years from publication
Works published on or after 2/15/1972 and before 1/1/1978 + proper notice NOT filed In the public domain
Works published on or after 1/1/1978 and before 3/1/1989 + proper notice NOT filed + subsequent registration NOT filed In the public domain
Works published on or after 1/1/1978 and before 3/1/1989 + proper notice filed Use same rules for works created on or after 1/1/1978 (from chart 1 above).
Works published on or after 3/1/1989 Use same rules for works created on or after 1/1/1978 (from chart 1 above).

Works created prior to 2/15/1972, will be governed by state law. Protection typically comes from state statutes, state copyright common law, misappropriation, or unfair competition.

Traditionally, common law protection ceases at the time of the publication of the work, though state law protection may still exist under a separate property right or theory of unfair competition. Following the 1976 Copyright Act, “publication” of sound recordings under federal law included the public distribution or sale of those phonorecords, but not the public performance or display of the work. The Act, however, only applies to those sound recordings made on or after 2/15/1972.  As to sound recordings made prior to 2/15/1972, states may define what is required for publication under their own law, and may specify whether publication of pre-1972 sound recordings is required to cease state law protection.

Because copyright duration for sound recordings could be potentially indefinite under state law, Congress set the latest date for protection as 2/15/2067. After that point all sound recording created before 2/15/1972, if they have not done so already (California, for example, provides for exclusive ownership in a sound recording until 2/15/2047) will enter into the public domain.

*Termination of Transfer: It is also important to keep in mind that the duration of the grant of a copyright may be affected by the termination of transfer right provided in the Copyright Act. For more information on this right see part 3 of our series on music copyright in which we discuss how the termination of transfer right works.

This blog has provided an overview of the duration or music copyrights. In the next part of our series we will look closer at the termination of transfer right and how it may be used.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maria Scheid is a legal intern at the Copyright Resources Center at OSU Libraries and is currently a student at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

What is music copyright?

March 25, 2013 / / 1 Comment

What is Music Copyright?

This is the first of a four-part series on issues in music copyright. Part one will provide a basic introduction to music copyright.

Musical Composition v. Sound Recording:

When you hear a song on the radio you are hearing two separate copyrights: one for the underlying musical composition and one for the sound recording. The distinction between these two is important, because even though they are both attached to one song, they are two separate works for copyright purposes and may be independently licensed or enforced. It is easier to understand this distinction if we look a little closer at what each copyright consists of:

  • A musical composition consists of music, including any accompanying words. The author of a musical composition is normally the composer of the work along with the lyricist (if the lyricist and composer are separate). A musical composition can be in the form of a notepad copy (such as sheet music) or in the form of a phonorecord (tape, CD, LP, etc.)
  • A sound recording (or master recording) results from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds. The author of the sound recording is typically the performer(s), the record producer, or both.

In many cases an artist will enter into a publishing agreement in which they will sign over all or part of their copyright in their compositions to a publisher in return for the administration of those compositions. As part of this administration, a publisher will seek out people who want to use the artist’s composition in their own works or performances, issue the necessary licenses, collect the money, and give the artist their agreed upon percentage. It is also common to see performers grant their copyright in their sound recordings to the record label they are recording under.

When an artist wants to release a cover song, they must get permission from the copyright holder of the musical composition. If, however, a recorded song is being used, the person using the song would potentially have to seek permission from two people: the person that has the copyright in the musical composition (usually the composer or publisher) and the person who holds the copyright in the sound recording (typically the performer, record label, or producer).

As an example, consider the popular song “Respect” made famous by Aretha Franklin. The song “Respect” was originally composed by Otis Redding and released in 1965. Two years later Aretha Franklin released her version of the song. Because Ms. Franklin was not composing a new song, but rather using Otis Redding’s composition, she needed to secure a license to use the underlying musical composition. Ms. Franklin, however, went into the studio and recorded her own version, so it was not necessary to secure a license for Mr. Redding’s sound recording.

Now consider a different situation: a film producer wants to use Ms. Franklin’s cover of “Respect” for his upcoming film. In this situation the producer would need to secure two licenses: one to use Ms. Franklin’s sound recording and another to use Mr. Redding’s musical composition. If the producer wanted to instead use Mr. Redding’s version in his film he would still need to secure two compositions: one for the musical composition and one for Mr. Redding’s sound recording.

Exclusive Rights:

Holding a copyright in a work means that you have exclusive rights to the use of that work. These exclusive rights include the rights of:

  1. Reproduction. The right of reproduction allows you to decide who may make a copy of your work, such as using it in a movie, using a sample, or publishing it as sheet music.
  2. Distribution. This right allows you to decide who may sell copies of your work.
  3. Derivative Works. This right allows you to decide who may make a new work based on your original work, such as the creation of a parody song.
  4. Public Display. This right is commonly seen in other copyrighted works such as art, but is not particularly applicable to music.
  5. Public Performance. This right controls the performance of your song on the radio, in clubs or restaurants, on television, or anywhere else where the performance would be deemed “public”.

While copyright holders for musical compositions and sound recordings enjoy the same exclusive rights in many respects, Congress imposed a limitation on the public performance rights of sound recordings through the Digital Performance Right and Sound Recording Act. Under this Act, the exclusive right of public performance exists for both the musical composition and the sound recording, but you only need to secure permission to use a sound recording if the recoding is being transmitted to the public through digital means. Depending on the nature of the digital audio transmission, that is whether it is interactive/non-interactive or subscription based, will determine the license that must be paid.

For public performance of musical compositions, licensing for public performance is usually handled through 3 main performance rights organizations (PRO): ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. For sound recordings that are digitally transmitted, licensing may be handled by SoundExchange or with the sound recording copyright holder depending on the nature of the license needed.

This blog has provided a brief introduction to the different copyrights involved when we speak of music copyright. In the next part of our series we will discuss the duration of copyrights for both musical compositions and sound recordings.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maria Scheid was a legal intern at the Copyright Resources Center at OSU Libraries and is an alumna of The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

Copyright Considerations with Electronic Learning

March 11, 2013 / / Comments Off on Copyright Considerations with Electronic Learning

Electronic learning consists of a number of different educational models that allow instructors to deliver instructional content through electronic means. These models include distance learning classes offered through educational institutions (online classes), university course management systems such as OSU’s Carmen, massive open online courses (MOOCs) such as Coursera or edX, and other open educational tools.

These models all function as learning tools, but their structural differences mean that various copyright considerations are raised. Here are some differences to keep in mind:

  • Open v. Closed Structure: Many distance learning classes and course management systems are closed structure, meaning that they are typically limited to a specific number of identifiable enrolled students. MOOCs operate under an open system, meaning a potentially unlimited number of students where enrollment may not be required.
  • Profit v. Non-Profit: Universities and other educational institutes that offer distance learning classes are typically non-profit entities, though for-profit institutes also exist. Two of the largest MOOC providers, Coursera and Udacity are for-profit entities.
  • Instructor Interaction and Student Participation: Like traditional classrooms, distance learning classes include student-instructor and student-student interaction, where individual grading may be based on electronically submitted material or proctored exams. For MOOCs, student-instructor participation may be limited, and students may play a larger role in orchestrating study groups and grading other classmates.
  • Cost: Students enrolled in distance learning classes must pay the tuition required by the provider of the course (ie. the university). MOOCs developed as a free resource and the majority of courses continue to be offered for free.
  • Academic Credit: Students who have completed distance learning courses may elect to receive academic credit for their work. Traditionally, MOOCs did not offer academic credit, however, some universities have been working to offer academic credit or provide the student with verified certificates.

Now that you are familiar with some of the differences in electronic learning models, we can start to look at the copyright issues these differences raise.

1.         Who owns the copyright in the online course? When an original work of authorship is created, such as the development of a course lesson plan or scholarly article, the author of the work holds a copyright in the work. When the author is an employee, however, it may be the case that the employer (the university) is actually considered the author of the work. This is known as the work-for-hire exception.

The general culture surrounding educational institutions is that works of scholarship, unlike lesson plans or other course work materials remain the intellectual property of the instructor. Though some institutions consider scholarly works to be a part of the general course work of the instructor, for clarity, this issue should be discussed so everyone understands the status of each work being produced.

In addition, educational institutions that work with MOOC providers have to understand the terms and conditions of their agreement. MOOC providers may use a Creative Commons licensing scheme, claim ownership of all content that is uploaded (consequently prohibiting copying and distribution of the course work), or something in-between. All terms and conditions should be reviewed to understand the full extent of the restrictions on copyright ownership.

2.          What material can be included in an online course? An instructor or creator of an online course should first consider including their own material to avoid copyright concerns. If the material has been used in the past, for example in the context of prior teachings or publications, the instructor should first confirm that they retain the copyright in the work. In addition, an instructor may include material through the following means:

  • § 110: Federal copyright law allows for some protected materials to be used by non-profit educational institutions, depending on a number of factors. Within a traditional classroom, instructors may display or perform a lawfully made copy of a work, within the context of face-to face teaching, and be protected under § 110(1).  For online courses, use of material is more easily handled through the TEACH ACT (§ 110(2)) (For a checklist of the requirements for protection under § 110(2) click here).  It is not clear whether a university that is non-profit on its own can lose that status when partnering with a for-profit MOOC to provide online classes. But even for non-profit MOOCs, statutory protection under § 110(1) or § 110(2) may be difficult because MOOCs do not limit use of material to a specified number of enrolled students, making limitation on the transmission of material difficult.
  • Fair Use: For-profit MOOCs may still be able to rely on the defense of fair use (§ 107) in the event that copyright issues arise. For a further explanation on fair use factors click here. The material being used in online courses is educational material made available for the purposes of teaching, an example cited within § 107. This may balance out the commercial nature of MOOCs. It is also important to consider the character of the use. Courts have been more inclined to find that the first factor of fair use (purpose and character) is fair when the use of the material is transformative. If an instructor is providing material for the purpose of facilitating discussion/criticism/analysis, then such a use is more likely to be determined to be transformative. It is also important to consider how much of the work is being used. If instructors limit their use to just the portions of the material that is needed, this will help the instructor/university in their fair use argument. Lastly, availability and feasibility of licensing of the material should be considered. If it is easy to obtain a license, and to do so at a fair price, this can weaken a fair use defense.
  • Public Domain: Instructors can include works from the public domain within the course material, or works that are otherwise under an open license.
  • Securing Permission: An instructor can secure permission to use the work from the copyright holder. This permission may often take the form of a licensing fee, which may be at odds with the free structure of many MOOCs.

In addition to considering which materials can be made available to individuals as part of their participation in the course, an instructor or course creator should also consider the issues that may arise in assigning outside reading materials. For traditional face-to-face teaching models, as well as distance learning classes, this usually means purchasing a textbook or other course material through the university book store or copy center. The underlying goal of MOOCs, however, is to provide a free experience to participants.

Many of the same options mentioned above for including material within the course are also options to consider for providing access to materials outside of the course plan: using Creative Commons works or works in the public domain, negotiating new licenses or otherwise obtaining permission from copyright holders for as low of a price as possible, arguing statutory protection under § 110(2), or relying on fair use.

3.         What can participants do with the material? Under the TEACH ACT students may view but not download or otherwise copy materials, but some use of the material may be protected under fair use. Once again, this sort of limitation can pose problems for open courses. If the course material being used is the instructor’s own work, with no limitations placed on further use, or if the work is from the public domain, this issue may be avoided. As with distance learning classes, participants may also wish to rely on fair use, so long as their use is non-commercial and otherwise limited in scope. Lastly, institutions participating in MOOCs may wish to negotiate licensing arrangements with copyright holders in order to allow participants to make copies of the work.

As more educational institutions provide electronic learning options, it is important to be aware of the advantages, limitations and uncertainties that can surround e-learning. Educational institutions and instructors should be conscious of the difference in existing e-learning structures, and how the chosen structure helps to dictate how copyrighted works may be used inside and outside of the electronic classroom. For further information or assistance with questions, please visit the Copyright Resources Center or email libcopyright@osu.edu.

Maria Scheid is a legal intern at the Copyright Resources Center at OSU Libraries and is currently a student at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

A New Tool To Help Figure Out Fair Use

February 21, 2013 / / Comments Off on A New Tool To Help Figure Out Fair Use

The Copyright Management Office at OSU Health Sciences Library has developed a new, interactive, online version of the Fair Use Checklist. It is available for anyone to use.

The Fair Use Checklist  is designed to help you work through the four fair use factors in order to make a proper assessment.  This version of the checklist is interactive, allowing you to check the options that pertain to your desired use of a copyrighted work. Once you have completed the four sections of the checklist, you get a summary that shows you the overall picture of your analysis. This is a good way to consider the factors as a whole to see if your use may fall under fair use or not. It also gives you a record of your analysis which you could use to possibly defend against a future claim of infringement.  A copy of your checklist can be sent to you by email.

One great feature of this version of the fair use checklist is that it was designed specifically to work with mobile devices. You can access fair use help wherever and whenever you need to on a smart phone or tablet. It can be a useful educational tool to teach students how fair use works. It can be used in meetings when discussing possible projects in your department. You can also access the checklist when traveling to or attending conferences. Or you can get help making fair use decisions for your own scholarly or research projects in the comfort of your office or lab.

Using the checklist does not give you a definitive yes or no answer as to whether or not your intended use of a copyrighted work is fair use. What it does is help you to think through the four factors of fair use and make an educated assessment. It also gives you the opportunity to rethink your use if it appears that what you originally intended to do may not be fair use. You also have evidence that you considered the fair use factors before you used the material.

For information on fair use and other copyright related issues, take a look at the OSU Libraries’ Copyright Resources Center website.  For help with using the checklist or for any other copyright questions you may have, you can call us at 688-5849, email us at libcopyright@osu.edu or email the Copyright Management Office at OSU Health Sciences Library at copyright@osumc.edu.

Copyright Education at OSU Libraries

November 9, 2012 / / Comments Off on Copyright Education at OSU Libraries

The Ohio State University Libraries has made significant changes in its copyright educational program in the past several months. The changes began in April when Sandra Enimil started as the Head of the Copyright Resources Center, a new department designed with the purpose of bringing greater outreach to the OSU community on the subjects of copyright and rights management. Along with Sandra, the new Copyright Resources Center includes Shannon Baird, Rights Management Specialist.

Since Sandra’s arrival the Copyright Resources Center has worked to develop a number of improved services to help educate faculty, staff and students about the legal uses of copyrighted materials in their teaching and research. One of the biggest projects so far has been to redesign the Copyright Resources Center website. The goal of this redesign is to improve the quality of information available and make it easier to access.

There are a number of changes in the new version of the website. The pages have been reorganized to deal with specific copyright related topics, such as Fair Use and Author’s Rights. The Fair Use page includes a video that was created in conjunction with the Digital Union as an introduction to the concept of fair use. It is a great resource to use in class as a quick introduction to fair use for students.

There are some additional topics, such as information for Libraries use of copyrighted materials and OSU policies on ownership and using copyrighted works. The new site also includes many more links to online resources for further study.  One can also keep up to date with new developments in copyright by following links to the Copyright Corner blog and Twitter feed, @OSUCopyright.

Please take a look at the new page and let us know what you think. Feedback is welcome on both the information included and the design. Is there a topic that you would like to see covered? Let us know by emailing us at libcopyright@osu.edu.

The Copyright Resources Center is always available to answer questions, provide consultations or present workshops. Send us an email or give us a call at 614-688-5849. You can also stop in and visit our new office located in Suite 221 of Thompson Library.

The Copyright Resources Center is here to help the OSU community!

Creativity, Copyright, and a Fair Use Video

November 10, 2011 / / Comments Off on Creativity, Copyright, and a Fair Use Video

Come on over to the Digital Union blog and learn about the creative and collaborative process of making our new fair use video.

What is a DMCA Exemption? Can It Be Appealed?

August 23, 2010 / / Comments Off on What is a DMCA Exemption? Can It Be Appealed?

The exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that the Register of Copyrights announced last month have garnered much publicity, especially the one that dealt with jailbreaking iPhones.  In the university community, the exemption that deals with educational video has also gotten some press.  But what is a DMCA exemption anyway?  And, as one of my first correspondents on this subject asked, is there an appeals process once an exemption is issued.

The DMCA, which was passed in 1998 and became part of various sections of the federal copyright law, contains provisions that address issues of copyright in the digital age, and, in some instances, brought us into line with international intellectual property treaties.  Some of its most notable sections are the anti-circumvention provisions, which forbid breaking copy-protection mechanisms on digital media.  These provisions are in force non-infringing uses, such as those allowed under fair use.  However, the law also allows the Register of Copyrights to recommend that the Librarian of Congress issue exemptions to the anti-circumvention statutes every three years.  Exemptions stay in force for the next three years and must be renewed in order to continue beyond that period.

Can an exemption be appealed?  There is no precedent one way or another.   Some observers believe that, rather than litigate, Apple’s way of dealing with the jailbreaking exemption will be a patent application for systems and methods that will allow the company to detect whether an unknown third party has tampered with a device and take corrective action in response.

“Among the Least Efficient Property Systems Known to Man”

March 4, 2010 / / Comments Off on “Among the Least Efficient Property Systems Known to Man”

For someone who has followed Lawrence Lessig’s career for a while and read his work, there was little new in his Wireside chat last Thursday.    The Open Video Alliance streamed the chat around the world, and, locally, members of the Ohio State University had a chance to watch it at Thompson Library.  Lessig touched on his usual themes: the harm to society and culture that comes from long copyright terms; the  importance of remix in our life today; and his decision, after losing Eldred v. Ashcroft,  to concentrate on combating political corruption.    His presentation followed his usual style as well and was filled with audio and image clips from a variety of sources.  My favorite comment is one I first read in his “For the Love of Culture” essay in The New Republic–“Copyright is among the least efficient property systems known to man.”

But the fact that these are not new points for Lessig doesn’t make them less true.  When a video of his talk was uploaded to YouTube, the audio track was first removed and then restored when Lessig filed a counterclaim, on the basis of fair use.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JIp3yStpmg[/youtube]

Copyright: It’s Not Just for Artists, or, Why Copyright Education in the Health Sciences?

August 25, 2009 / / Comments Off on Copyright: It’s Not Just for Artists, or, Why Copyright Education in the Health Sciences?

When I went to law school in mid-life, some people were admiring, some excited, some horrified.  Law elicits strong emotions, and sometimes mere acquaintances actively encouraged me or beseeched me to stop!  Some of the people who have been the most encouraging have been my doctors, perhaps because they identified with the impulse to follow a course of study that is rigorous and demanding.

Recently, I saw my optometrist for the first time since I’d gone to work for the Health Sciences Copyright Management Office and passed the bar.  He asked how the bar was (awful, but it’s over) and then about my work.  When I explained that I worked with copyright education for the Health Sciences at OSU, he asked what many wonder but seldom come out and ask:  Why copyright in the health sciences?   Patents are prevalent in the biomedical world to protect intellectual property, and trademarks are important in some areas of health-related business, but what does copyright, which people often associate with the arts and humanities, have to do with the health sciences?

As I went on to explain to my optometrist, copyright protects creative expression that is fixed in tangible form.  That expression can take the form of a painting, short story, or song, but it can also take the form of a paper describing a clinical trial, a medical illustration, or a podcast for continuing medical education.  Although the ideas behind the creative expression cannot be copyrighted, and inventions are protected by patent, not copyright, almost anyone who communicates with others creates and consumes copyrighted material.

Older posts Newer posts

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives 

Meta

The Ohio State University

© 2026 The Ohio State University - University Libraries

1858 Neil Avenue Mall, Columbus, OH 43210

Phone: (614) 292-OSUL (6785)

Request an alternate format of this page | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Creative Commons

Copyright Information | Details and Exceptions

Up ↑