Page 12 of 16

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

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

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!

What Happens to Your Content on Social Media Websites?

We encounter Terms of Use for a lot of our online activities, but when was the last time you actually read through all the terms before agreeing to them?

Two recent issues involving popular social media sites Facebook and Pinterest illustrate the importance of reading and understanding a website’s Terms of Use. Earlier this year Facebook faced litigation over the use of its “Sponsored Stories” advertising feature. The “Sponsored Stories” feature allows Facebook to use a user’s profile picture in advertisements for products or services the user has indicated they “Like”.  While users in this case argued over Facebook’s right to use their image under state right of publicity law, the “Sponsored Stories” feature highlights just one example of the many ways in which users may license their intellectual property rights through their agreement to a website’s Terms of Use. Similarly, the rise of Pinterest has helped to bring attention to Terms of Use issues related to user content. Pinterest’s earlier Terms of Use explicitly stated that by using the site, users granted Pinterest the right to sell the user’s uploaded content. This language worried many people, causing Pinterest to change their Terms of Use. But while Pinterest’s revised Terms of Use removed the “sell” language, many commentators have correctly pointed out that the language seen in Facebook and Pinterest’s Terms of Use is not at all unusual to the language used by various other social media sites.

As a sample we compared the Terms of Use for 5 popular social media sites (Pinterest, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Tumblr) to show some common features in these use agreements. Full Terms of Use for each site can be found at:

Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/about/terms/

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

Instagram: http://instagram.com/legal/terms/

Twitter: http://twitter.com/tos

Tumblr: http://www.tumblr.com/policy/en/terms_of_service

1. Ownership of the uploaded content

Of the 5 social media websites we looked at, all provide that the user retains ownership over their uploaded content.

2. Licensing of user content

While users retains ownership over their uploaded content, all of the sampled sites condition use of the site on the granting of a license to use the uploaded content. For most social media sites, this license calls for non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, transferable and sub-licensable permission to use the uploaded content in accordance with the uses outlined in the agreement. This means that if you sign up for one of these social media sites and upload content such as a photograph, that site has the right to use that photograph anywhere in the world, and without paying you, if the site’s use conforms with the uses set out in the Terms of Use. This also means that the site has the right to allow others to use your work in the same way the site can. But because this license is often times non-exclusive, users retain the right to license out the use of the content to others besides the particular social media site they have uploaded their content to.

The duration of the license, in most cases, extends in some form past the date in which a user may delete their account with the website or remove the content from the website. In most cases, the license extends for a commercially reasonable time period for back up, audit, or archival purposes. Some sites, such as Tumblr, extend the license past termination of services for the express purpose of preserving speech, recognizing that in some circumstances removal of user content that has been commented on by others may result in censorship of speech. For Facebook, the license to use user content ends when the user deletes the content or their Facebook account, with a big exception. If the user has shared their content with others, such as by posting the content on another’s wall, the license does not end unless that other party has also deleted it.

3. How the site may use your content

As discussed above, in most cases use of a website constitutes agreement to the website’s Terms of Use. And in most cases those Terms of Use require a user to grant a license to the website for any user uploaded content. The perimeters of that use are further defined by additional language within the Terms of Use, and likely will state how the social media site itself may use the content, and how the social media site may allow others to use the content.

  • By social media site: The license granted by the user to the social media site typically allows the site to display, reproduce, modify, or distribute the content. Some sites expressly limit this use of the content for the purposes of operation, improvement of new services, and/or development of new services. Modification, such as recoding or reformatting, is also typically allowed to make sure that the content conforms with the service being offered.
  • By third parties: Once you have uploaded content onto a social media site, other users of the website may see that content and may be permitted to use the content within the website, all subject to any privacy or use setting you may have attached to your account. In addition, several sites rely on advertising revenue and will make the use of their site conditional on an agreement to allow third party companies to place their advertisements on or in conjunction with user uploaded content. When it comes to third parties actually being able to use your content, social media sites vary in their provisions. Facebook, for example, does not giver user content to third parties without the user’s consent. Twitter’s license, however, allows them to make the content you have submitted available to other companies, organizations, or individuals that partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication of the content on other media and services, without first obtaining your consent. On Tumblr, the license granted allows Tumblr to make all publicly-posted material available to third parties selected by Tumblr for the purpose of analyzing and/or distributing the content on other media or services.

4. Liability for Copyright Infringement

Another common provision affecting a user’s copyrighted work is the limitation of liability for social media sites when it is discovered that a user’s protected work is being used on the site, by a third party, and without the user’s permission. In this situation the user may not have any recourse against the website for their role in allowing an opportunity for infringement. This is because many of these social media sites fall within the definition of “service provider” under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Under the DMCA, if these sites comply with certain take down provisions upon being notified of an infringing use, they may be able to escape secondary liability.

Because of this Pinterest, Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr’s Terms of Use all contain a procedure for notifying the company of copyright infringement, while Instagram (recently purchased by Facebook) provides a similar procedure elsewhere on their website. In addition, to make clear that their liability is limited, many social media sites state in all caps that, to the extent permitted by law, their company (and all directors, officers, shareholders, employees, representatives, agents, consultants, suppliers, and distributors) are not to be held liable for any damages related to the unauthorized access, use, or alteration of user content. Twitter, example, states that in any event the total liability they can be held accountable for is $100 or the amount a user has paid to Twitter (if any) in the 6 months prior to bringing a claim. In all 5 social media sites we considered, the site does not take responsibility for the content posted by users but does reserves the right to remove content they believe is unlawful or objectionable.

Our review above covers some common clauses you are likely to see in Terms of Use for existing and upcoming social media sites. While there are a lot of commonalities in the Terms of Use for most social media sites, each website could potentially have their own unique provisions related to user content. For this reason it is important that users concerned with how their own content will be protected or exploited, read all the applicable terms of use prior to submitting their content.

The Terms of Use provided should make clear what content you retain control over, and any license you may be granting as a condition of your use of the site. If you have read the Terms of Use and wish to accept them, you may be able to limit the exposure of your content through configuration of your settings within the program or application. An individual concerned with their content being used without their permission by other users may want to adjust their settings to private, or otherwise limit the number of individuals who can access their content. In addition, some sites allow users to opt out of sharing with third parties such as advertisers.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

Private Negotiations Could Affect Public Internet Use

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a free trade agreement that is currently being negotiated on behalf of United States citizens by Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Barbara Weisel. There are currently nine countries involved in the negotiations; an invitation was extended to Mexico and Canada in summer 2012. The TPP includes a section on intellectual property (IP) law and enforcement that could affect privacy, free speech and even the application of fair use online. It is being negotiated entirely in secret and could affect copyright law in all eleven participating countries should they ratify this agreement.

Concerns over the process, as well as the potential outcome, of this trade agreement have been expressed at Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Ars Technica, and Techdirt.  Many concerns about the TPP have to do with the perception that this is yet another attempt to create wide-reaching policies in order to protect the intellectual property of private companies (one of the major issues with the failed SOPA and PIPA proposed bills in Congress).

Another common complaint is about the high level of secrecy under which the negotiations are being held. So far there has been no official release of any text of the TPP draft agreement, although a copy of the U.S. proposed IP chapter was leaked in February 2011. On August 3, 2012, the proposed text of the Exceptions and Limitations section of the IP chapter of TPP was leaked, as well.

Members of Congress, who have jurisdiction over all international trade agreements, have repeatedly requested access to the text of the TPP . So far they have been continuously denied. U.S. House Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), whose constituency includes San Diego, requested permission to sit in on the round of negotiations that was held there in July 2012, but he was also denied.

Although Mexico and Canada were both invited to join the TPP agreement, they were required to sign on without seeing the agreement first and without having the option to negotiate any already agreed upon portions. Additionally, a 90 day probationary period kept both countries from participating in the last two rounds of negotiations which were held in June and September 2012. Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and expert on Canadian copyright law, has expressed concern that if Canada signs on to the TPP, the newly updated Canadian copyright law would have to be drastically rewritten.

The public is also being locked out of the TPP negotiation process. On September 9, 2012, at the most recent round of negotiations held in Leesburg, Virginia, the public was invited to speak with negotiators and ask questions. Unfortunately, the public groups were not given access to the text on which they were supposed to provide feedback. According to EFF and Techdirt, the negotiators also refused to respond to questions based upon the leaked texts, which are the only versions available to the public.

If ratified, the terms of the TPP could require Congress to change U.S. law, including copyright law. The American public should have the opportunity to give input on any changes to U.S. law. These secret negotiations continue to block public discourse and may cause irreparable harm to the individual use of the Internet.

For a more complete look at the TPP itself, take a look at Public Knowledge’s TPP Info page and EFF’s TPP page. If you would like to express concern about the lack of transparency involved in the TPP negotiations, you can go to the EFF’s Take Action page, or you can sign the petition at Stop the Trap.

Georgia State, A Brief Overview

Georgia State, In Brief:
Almost a year after the trial ended in Cambridge University Press, et al v. Becker, et al (more commonly referred to as the Georgia State case), we have received a judgment from Federal Judge Orinda Evans. The issue at stake was the placement of materials, still under copyright, on Georgia State University’s (GSU) e-reserves/course management system. The Plaintiffs, included Cambridge, Oxford University Press and Sage Publications, brought suit alleging copyright infringement and Georgia State responded that the use was fair under United States Copyright Law. The case experienced many twists and turns, but a decision finally came out on May 11, 2012.

Judge Evans’ 350 page decision shows a painstakingly thorough analysis. I do not want to rehash any of the insights provided in very well written entries that have appeared online over the last week or so – please see the ARL’s Issue Brief by Brandon Butler, and blogs by Kevin Smith and James Grimmelman. What I would like to do is talk about the highlights/interesting findings and to try to answer the “ok, now what?” questions.

Interesting findings for Libraries:

  • Judge Evans found GSU’s 2009 Copyright Policy to be a good faith effort to comply with U.S. Copyright law. She did reveal come criticism in the lack of stated allowable percentages that complied with the Fair Use standard.
  • Of the 74 instances of alleged infringement submitted for review, Judge Evans only found infringement in 5 (or 6% of cases were found to be infringing uses).
  • Under her application of Fair Use, she found that:

On Factors 1 and 2 (purpose and character of the use and the nature of the copyrighted work), libraries will prevail almost every time

On Factor 3 (amount and substantiality of the portion used)- she stated libraries will prevail if “where a book is not divided into chapters or contains fewer than ten chapters, unpaid copying of no more than 10% of the pages in the book is permissible…” (P.88). If the book is over ten chapters then no more than one chapter is permissible. On Repeated use- the court rejected the notion that professors cannot use the same unlicensed material from semester to semester.

On Factor 4 (effect on use on the potential market)- this factor favors content producers, but if no reasonably priced or readily available version (exactly what is being assigned) exists libraries can prevail/their ability to rely on fair use increases

  • De Minimus determination – The court did not review any alleged infringement instances where it was shown that no student had opened or viewed the material. Essentially arguing that since the material was not viewed, there was no real infringement.

What does this all mean?

I’ve been asked, several times, “what, if anything, does this mean for us?” “Do we need to change anything/everything?” “Should we change our policies?”

For universities not in the 11th Circuit, where this decision came down, the ruling can be found to be persuasive but not binding for other jurisdictions. Additionally, it’s important to note that this case may be appealed. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants may present reasons to appeal the decision. The publishers may determine that they have grounds for appeal based on what they may consider erroneous legal rationale used by the Judge Evans. For GSU, the judge found infringement in five cases, so they may consider appealing to argue the point that the uses were fair in those cases as well.

There are many positive things for libraries to take away from the decision. However, as others have pointed out, Judge Evans’ suggested percentage/on chapter provision may cause more harm than good, with the creation of an artificial delineation to an area that has operated without concrete boundaries.

Regarding the question of what libraries should do now, it would be a good idea to review current policy and procedures in regards to copyright law and fair use. While a complete overhaul may not be in order, it may be a good idea to tweak and refine some policies and procedures. It will also be a good idea to conduct seminars and presentations for faculty, staff and students on copyright basics and what fair use means for them as users and creators of scholarly work.

Is there a concrete victory for libraries in this case? Arguably yes. But many issues remain that will have to be navigated, negotiated and re-negotiated. These negotiations will have to happen between and among libraries, faculty, and publishers. It remains to be seen whether or not easier days are ahead.

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.

DMCA Rulemaking–Submit Examples by October 31

Recently the U.S. Copyright Office issued  a “Notice of inquiry and request for comments” with regard to anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).  See the Federal Register for the full text of the notice.

Sections of the DMCA forbid breaking copy-protection mechanisms on digital media, even for 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 that are in place from previous rule-making must be renewed every three years as well.  In the summer of 2010, the Librarian issued a number of exemptions, including one to allow de-encryption of educational video under certain circumstances.

Here is an example of the situation the exemption is intended to address:  A faculty member wants to show some short video clips in class to make an educational point or perhaps comment on a social situation.  He or she would like to copy clips from a legally-obtained commercial DVD so that they could easily be taken into the classroom and shown as a compilation.  Without the exemption, if the DVD was encrypted with  the commonly-used Content Scrambling System (CSS), it would be illegal to break that system and copy parts of the video, even if everything else about the copying would fall under fair use.  Before the summer of 2010, an exemption that would allow copying high-quality video was available only if the faculty member was teaching in the area of film or media studies and the DVD was part of a collection in that subject area.

Under the rules announced in the summer of 2010, the exemption was extended to all university and college professors and to college and university film and media studies students.  The same exemption is available for documentary film-making and noncommercial videos.  The copier must reasonably believe that the circumvention is necessary in order to fulfill one of the above purposes. (In other words, a lower-level resolution screen capture video that did not circumvent would not fulfill the intended purpose.)  In all cases, the DVD from which the copy is made must be legally-acquired and the copier must still perform a fair use analysis.  This exemption states that it is for “short portions” only; it does not allow copying of entire works.  The exemption only covers DVD and CSS technology, not systems such as Blu-Ray, video streaming, or others.

The Library Copyright Alliance is an organization made up of three library associations that deal with intellectual property matters and “communicate with lawmakers…to express [the need for] changes that enhance, rather than harm, the ability of libraries and information professionals to serve the needs of the general public.”  They are preparing comments showing why it is important to extend this exemption for another three years.  The Library Copyright Alliance is asking those of us involved with university teaching to send them as many examples as possible of how this exemption is helpful in teaching.  From one staff member:  “We need LOTS of examples of faculty in all disciplines using clips and examples of film students using clips.”  Examples cannot be speculative; they must be real-life situations.

Ohio State folks, please send me examples by October 31.  I will compile them for the Library Copyright Alliance.  The final date to submit comments is December 1, but the Library Copyright Alliance will need some time to compile all the examples they receive.

Some of the Copyright News That’s Fit to Print

Several people here at Ohio State have asked me what’s going on with a few copyright issues and cases that have been in the news recently.  Some of you who follow the library press and social media closely may know all about these situations, but others may be not watch for this news as closely.

Georgia State Litigation

Cambridge v. Patton, the copyright litigation that most know as the Georgia State case, began in 2008 when Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and Sage Publications sued administrators at Georgia State University.  The plaintiffs alleged copyright infringement with regard to reproductions in electronic reserves and the university’s course management system.  The trial concluded recently and all the parties are waiting for a verdict.

One of the aspects of the case that has generated the most interest lately is the plaintiffs’ proposed injunction.  This injunction would require Georgia State to implement stringent controls on every faculty and staff member’s use of copyrighted materials and submit to monitoring to show that there is compliance. For a round up of various points of view on the impact and merits of the case, see the Chronicle’s What’s at Stake in the Georgia State Copyright Case.

Google Book Search Settlement

In March, a judge rejected a proposed settlement of the class action lawsuit that publishers and authors brought against Google for the digitization and display of books as part of the Google Book Search project.  Since the rejection, the parties have been attempting to reach an alternative settlement with an opt-in arrangement.  Most recently, they appeared before a judge and asked for more time.  There is another status conference on July 19.

In the Meantime…

…After a lengthy process to try to identify and contact each book’s rights holder, the University of Michigan will start making digitized copies of orphan works available to members of the UM community.   Orphan works are works that are still in copyright, but the rights holder is now unknown or unavailable.

Accessibility, E-Book Readers, and Copyright Issues for Colleges and Universities

 I’ll be at Innovate 2011 on Wednesday, April 27, talking about Accessibility, E-Book Readers, and Copyright Issues for Colleges and Universities with Ken Petri.   We’ll be on from 3:00-3:50 p.m.

Recent legal disputes over copyright and accessibility for e-books have highlighted the tensions in these two areas of law.  At the same time, accessible e-book formats and reader capabilities are developing rapidly.  Learn about conflicts between the rights of copyright holders and the rights of disabled students, accessibility features in popular e-book formats, and trends and compromises for the future.

« Older posts Newer posts »