Understanding copyright laws and fair use guidelines in important for teachers. Please read the article from the Standford Libraries, http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
In the comment section of this blog, write 2 important things that you learned from this reading.
Melissa Cast-Brede, from the UNO library was the guest presenter in our class. She is an expert on copyright, on-line library resources, and information literacy.
1. Parodies are actually fair use because it is necessary to take from the original work to create a comic ridicule of it.
ReplyDelete2. An important fair use factor is whether it deprives the copyright owner of income or a new/potential market.
1. The definition of "transformative" use as it applies to Fair Use in Copyright law is explicitly vague so it can have "expansive meaning, open to interpretation.
ReplyDelete2. It surprised me that in many cases rulings for similar cases can be contradictory and based on the judge and/or jury's moral compass (i.e. the Garbage Pail Kids example from the text). Though surprising, I found this to be a little refreshing, too.
The two main points I took from the article:
ReplyDelete1. A critical element of fair use is whether or not the use is "transformative". Did you add something substantial to create something new? Or did you simply copy from the original work, or take from the "heart" of the original work? The amount used is also critical in fair use cases, but using a small amount is not as much of a defense if that small part represents, again, the "heart" of the original. Parodies have quite a bit more leeway in terms of fair use.
2. Another major point was whether or not a usage infringed upon the ability of the original creator to make money from the original work. This also includes *potential* earnings. From what understand, it's not so much about whether the new user made money him or herself, but whether or not the original creator's market was damaged.
The scariest part about fair use is the nature of the law itself: left unintentionally vague, it sounds to me as if determining "fair use" is very much up to whatever judge or jury is given a particular case/situation.
1. Something that I hadn't really considered when thinking about fair use was "good or bad." The article points out that while offensiveness is not supposed to be considered, that judges and juries are human, so they might be influenced if they are offended by your work, even if it probably is fair use.
ReplyDelete2. While I had heard about the Google case about thumbnails, I didn't think this would apply to other situations with photos. The article talks about reproducing a movie poster inside of a time line in a book. Obviously this was a much smaller size and therefore, was ruled to be fair use.
Transformatives and infringements are two terms addressed in the article. Is it own creation or copied from others, whether or not it causes financial damage to the owner of the article. Very vague terms and can be subjective when before a court setting. One important aspect that is not addressed is the damage to our children and the underlying moral and ethical code. One recent example that supports my concern is the newly discovered books sold by amazon.com which provide guide to child molesters of how to get away with their actions!!!
ReplyDeleteThe two most important things that I learned from this article are:
ReplyDelete1. When you are taking portions of work that has been copywrited for your own use, it is important to 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? If you are going to take portions of copywrited work, it is important that you add to it to significantly change the intent of the work.
2. The fair-use law usually depends on the amount of material you use from a copywrited work. For the most part, if you are only using small portions of the work, and not the heart of the work, you should pass the fair-use law. Also, it is important that you are not using your own additions to the work to take profit away from the owner.
What I learned from the Fair Use article - – I am an infringer. So really, fair use comes down to not getting caught, using parody or de minimis. It seems that parody is the best option for using another person’s material. Those who make parody are able to use a substantial part of the work and they can also use the “heart” of the work to make their point. De minimis, on the other hand, allows a person to use such a small tidbit of the work that if taken to court, the judge may make a determination without conducting a fair use investigation.
ReplyDeleteThe part that really caught my attention was about “acknowledging the source” and the possibility of an infringement claim. I have been told many times that as long as you acknowledge your source that it is proper. I am very confused with this one.
The court cases are what really helped me decide what was fair use and what is not. It could be just one or two small details that are the deciding factor in whether or not someone infringed upon another’s work. I will put these in my folder for future use.
The two things I took from this article was the understanding of "transformative" and the difficulty of a person to actually claim fair use.
ReplyDeleteThe article discusses transformative as being "ambiguous or vague." Then it lists four rules that judges use to determine if you are violating copyright law. I believe this the fair use law leaves it too open for people to get sued. Most decisions that are made on court cases come down to the judge's opinion on if the person really did not "transform" the idea or writing enough. I understand authors and people who have created copyrighted material not wanting others to use the material to make money, but I believe the law needs to elaborate more on what is allowed or not allowed.
The article also discusses that it only takes the owner of the copyrighted material to say that you have violated fair use and rack up legal fees and other unnessary fees due to litigation. I believe that if the law was precise as to the meaning of fair use, this would stop unnecessary legel proceedings. There also comes a point to where people are "sue happy" and the law needs to define fair use in terms that lay people can understand.
Two important things I learned from reading this article are:
ReplyDelete1.
When taking portions of copyrighted work, you have to consider if the material you have taken from the original work has been transformed by adding new expression or meaning. Also,if value was added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings.
2.
Another important fair use factor that I learned is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work.
The most difficult thing about fair use is it is not very clear what is allowed and what isn't. You don't know what you might get in trouble for doing. The fair use factors can often be subjective. Many things are decided in court by a judge.
1. Transformative is the adding of something of substance. This is a way to take something and make ityour own. Much like the example tht she gave from "2 Live Crew". I found this interesting because it is obvious to everyone, even her, that they used someone elses idea to make money, but they were still found not guilty??? That seems odd, "they added losts of stuff"...what the heck is the definition of "lots"???
ReplyDelete2. The second thing that I found interesting was the vague nature of the laws. Much like the top example there is soooo much grey area that it is hard to say even if you are an expert in some cases what is and is not illegel. I agree with Ray, it seems to be that the decision is in the hands of the judge or the jury. Depending on who you have presiding could be the difference in guilty or innocent and that seems too rbitrary to be fair.
The 2 important thing I learned is
ReplyDelete1. Sometimes it is really hard to know what is fair use and what is not, just to be safe we all have to run through the expert.
2. An important fair use factor is whether it deprives the copyright owner of income or a new/potential market.
The 2 things I learned are:
ReplyDelete1) Less is not necessarily better when it comes to fair use. Using more of the original may help you qualify for fair use.
2) You are more likely to be litigated if you are taking income away from the original material.
1. The fair use factor that is most interesting, and seemingly quite subjective, is whether or not it adversely affects the owner of the copyright. This seems like it would be difficult to prove.
ReplyDelete2. I remember the example she used about 2 Live Crew and whether or not it was transformative enough. I always thought this was a blatant rip off, but alas, sampling was born.
The two things I learned:
ReplyDelete1.) It is rampant mostly in the K-12 grades, not college.
2.) It's not just about plagiarism, but about fair use. I thought it was mostly an integrity thing and not anything to do with copyright.
According to the reading, there are two types of situations that are especially likely to cause legal problems regarding copyright and fair use:
ReplyDeleteFirst, your work causes the owner of the original work to lose money. Here, let’s suppose a parody is so good that the public cannot take the original work seriously any more. It may cause a loss of income. However, the article claims that it is a fair use because the loss of income is not the same type of loss when an infringer merely appropriates the work.
Second, the copyright owner is offended by your use. For example, you satirize the original work and your satire contains sexually explicit references or other offensive material. Then, it is not a fair use.
What if a parody contains offensive or satiric mentions so that the original work owner feels offended? Or what if the original work owner feels offended about a parody itself that ridicules or makes fun of his/her own work? Is any decision about this up to the judge? I am curious.
1- I learn that we can use others’ materials for education purposes and not for everyday use.
ReplyDelete2- It is up to the judge to decide if the case is fair use or not.
Two things I learned from this article are:
ReplyDelete1. Transformative work- You can use other people's work as long as you transform it enough, for example GirlTalk transforms others' work to make into his own original mash ups.
2. If something deprives the copyright user from money it is probably against copyright law.
Two things I learned from this article:
ReplyDelete1)I previously thought that copyright was much more of a black and white issue, I have since realized that there is alot more that goes into the decision than I had previously thought. Depending on the judge you get, some things can be labeled as fair use and others cannot, which surprised me.
2)For our personal use,it is really difficult to know what is fair use and what is not, just to be safe we all have to run through the expert.
1. Fair use is extremely vague. The term itself cannot be objective, as the word "fair" is not clearly defined.
ReplyDelete2. Judges therefore have an increased impetus to determine what is right and what is wrong, as they are not guided by law. What we have seen and will continue to see more and more is the use of legal precedent.