©ollectanea

I don't often lose sleep over copyright issues anymore. But last night I could not stop thinking about the Copyright Office's new resource for *children.* Please have a look if you haven't already: Taking the Mystery Out of Copyright. There's a text only version if you want to skip the cartoons and the music (assuming you are not 13). This bothers me on so many levels, but I'm only going to address one level here, the most obvious. My experienced, calm, collected voice is telling me to wait a few days before I write this. Ok, at least wait a few days before I publish it. Clearly, I am ignoring that voice. I should at least acknowledge that I'm probably overreacting. I no doubt will feel differently about it after I have thought about it for awhile. Maybe I'll write about it again after a few days.

That said, do children really need to know about copyright? Well, I reluctantly must admit that yes, they do. Should they need to know about copyright registration, copyright history, and the role copyright plays in protecting film, music, art and literature? Well, it's not like they need to be protected from this, like it was senseless death, war violence or something cruel and ugly. So, it is commendable that the Library of Congress offers a well-done, straightforward, and fairly neutral informational piece. What would we expect the Library to talk about, other than what it does, which is, in this case, copyright registration. A narrow slice of the copyright pie, to be sure, but again, that's one of the things the Library does that no one else does.

But on the other hand, remember what it was like to be 13? Was registering your copyrights something you were all that concerned about? Should you have been? Have things changed that much with respect to how likely it is that the metaphorical box of things you created during your 13th or 14th year of life needs protection? From what? From becoming part of the stream of creativity (my metaphors are all over the place) from which you yourself borrowed to create?

If I had one opportunity to tell kids about copyright, I suppose I would mention its role in protecting the commercial interests of creators and distributors like the film, music, art and publishing industries, but in the next breath I would appeal to their own sense of how most things we all create are not meant for commercial exploitation, but instead are meant to be shared, reused, remixed and borrowed from. I'd say, "Look inside that box of things you created last year. Let's look at where all your things came from. Let's see how borrowing and modifying and adding your own ideas works in real life, and what we all need to keep that going."

The lesson I would teach is about the fact that *YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING* if you want your own creativity to be added to and be a part of a flowing, lively stream, rather than be caught up in a little eddy that goes nowhere. Congress (something here about infinite wisdom) has created a set of rules that, without your doing anything beyond the mere act of creating (tangible things, of course), keeps everything you create in that box, locked away, maybe forever, but at least for, let's see, you're 13? Let's say you'll live to 78, your box of stuff stays locked away for the rest of your life (65 years) plus 70 more years. Yes, in 135 years your box of stuff will possibly join the stream of creativity. If the box is still around then. And somebody finds it. And they know you and only you created it, and when you died. And they know about copyrights. If that doesn't fit your idea of what you want, then YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. You have to let people know that you have something else in mind for your box of stuff. Fade to Creative Commons logo/website.

The assumption that everything needs "protection" for 1 1/3 centuries is so out of step with the reality of how we all create and most importantly, *why* we all create (overwhelming, not to make a living from our creations), and the serious consequences of being out of step with reality makes me very sad, and angry. The waste, the untapped creativity, and the criminalizing of creativity cannot be defended in my opinion. One size does not fit all. Given the enormity of the explosion of creativity enabled by the networked environment, to say nothing of creativity in the real world, the lessons we need to teach are about taking responsibility to do individually what Congress cannot seem to do for us as a nation -- create a copyright that fits our widely divergent needs, rather than one that both stifles us creatively and turns us into criminals (or potential civil litigants -- there's another interesting copyright lesson for kids) if we ignore it. We need to tag our creative works with simple statements that express how we feel about their place in the creative stream. I would recommend Creative Commons licenses for many reasons, but any statement about sharing is better than doing nothing and thereby consigning your work to copyright's centuries-long holding bin, or perhaps appropriately named, wastebasket.

I've just finished reading Pam Samuelson's initial thoughts on overhauling copyright law, linked from Boing Boing, Boing Boing: Proposal to reboot and de-cruft US Copyright Law. This is a very good framework document, easy to read (sort of like the law she's suggesting we need), and very thoughtful. If anyone could pull together the kind of massive project she's talking about, Pam could.

Still, she is very realistic about the likelihood that actual legislative reform would result from the effort. She knows it's highly unlikely at least for 10 years out and that, once started, it would take another couple of decades to complete. She sees a lot of other advantages to her effort though, even if we still are stuck with our bloated 1976 Act, but I'm not so sure how realistic they are.

What she doesn't give voice to is the pessimism I sometimes feel about the likelihood of the law's becoming so irrelevant that perhaps sooner than the next 2 decades, neither copyright owners nor users will be paying much attention to it. We will all have opted out of it to a large degree -- users by ignoring it; owners by licensing and or drm'ing around it. Those directions don't sound so good, but even a best case scenario could see people having opted out by turning to other ways to make a living off creative works (sort of what John Perry Barlow predicted almost 14 years ago). The signs that this strategy is increasingly employed are popping up here and there. Still, it's like the "innovator's dilemma." Only small potatoes at first, then gradually, the alternative business models begin to improve, pick up steam, and one day, they overtake the old ways of doing things, those industry giants who couldn't see the magic in the new ideas because there wasn't enough money in them, or their current best customers weren't interested. But for the existence of the state-granted monopoly that is copyright, in fact, the tide for the creative industries would have turned long ago. Copyright has worked to make creative industries innovation-proof to a much larger degree than other industries. Perhaps to their detriment ultimately. More certainly to the detriment of the public generally.

I'm sure many of you have read last week's Inside Higher Ed's interesting, if somewhat confusing, article entitled "Hitting Pause On Class Videos", http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/01/26/copyright.

In short, the story reports that the Association for Information and Media Equipment (AIME) is alleging that UCLA faculty members are infringing copyright by streaming entire (presumably) videos via their access protected course web sites. As I read the article, it appears as though UCLA is trying to defend this practice under Section 110(1), which only applies to traditional face to face (F2F) classroom settings. It is true that under that section an entire video can be show as long as it is lawfully made (p.s., rented movies are "lawfully made").

However, it doesn't matter, as suggested in the article, whether the online environment is a "class" and therefore, should qualify for the F2F exception; the TEACH Act amendments to 110(2) have already said that. The key is whether or not the performance or display is "transmitted". That is the difference between 110(1) and 110(2). Otherwise, no one would ever use 110(2) because its requirements are so many and so challenging.

The Copyright Act, §101, specifically says that "To "transmit" a performance or display is to communicate it by any device or process whereby images or sounds are received beyond the place from which they are sent." And that is exactly what is happening when videos are streamed online. Now, streaming (the transmission) a video online is allowed, under certain conditions, but not the entire thing. Only a reasonable portion of it. Not helpful, doesn't make sense, but there it is. While there is some indication that, on a case-by-case basis, showing the entire video may constitute what is reasonably necessary, but I have yet to see it condoned as a generally accepted practice.

There are also some interesting discussions occurring as to whether or not it is permissible to stream entire videos into a "live" F2F classroom from a central location on campus. Again, this would, strictly speaking, seem to be a "transmission", and, therefore, not authorized by 110(1); although there is probably some room for a fair use argument. But, as to a 110(1) (F2F) argument - hmm.

At the time 110(1) and 110(2) were authored, I believe Congress intended 110(1) to cover the scenario where the faculty, the students, and the work were in the same location. Here is the relevant legislative history for Section110(1) of the 1976 Copyright Act:
"There appears to be no need for a statutory definition of "face-to-face" teaching activities to clarify the scope of the provision. "Face-to-face teaching activities" under clause (1) embrace instructional performances and displays that are not "transmitted." The concept does not require that the teacher and students be able to see each other, although it does require their simultaneous presence in the same general place. Use of the phrase "in the course of face-to-face teaching activities" is intended to exclude broadcasting or other transmissions from an outside location into classrooms, whether radio or television and whether open or closed circuit."

It is that last sentence that gives the most cause for pause in the rush to stream entire videos from a central location into a "live" classroom. I fear that some of these distinctions between the various provisions of the act are being glossed over in the stretch to justify what certainly seem to be legitimate and non-threatening uses of technology which allow efficient use of resources for maximum educational experiences. I know from personal experience, though, that many libraries are reluctant to rest their e-reserves practices entirely on fair use. It seems only fair that they should also have the information that streaming entire videos online is not specifically sanctioned by the copyright act and instead relies much more on fair use.

Apparently, the time is ripe for a broader discussion about the use of 3rd party copyrighted material within an online educational setting, such as electronic reserves (including all types of works in addition to text) and streaming entire videos within a course management system. Yesterday I commented on an Inside Higher Ed article that reported a complaint by AIME against UCLA concerning the university's practice of streaming entire copyrighted videos within access-protected course web sites. That initial article "Hitting Pause on Classroom Videos" (see previous post) struck a real nerve within the higher education community and generated lots of comments, both there and on other blogs.

In fact, a follow-up article, "Who's Right On Video Copyright?" [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/02/04/copyrightredux] was posted today and is sure to keep the issue front and center. Between this controversy and the ongoing lawsuit against Georgia State University concerning their electronic reserves, the awareness of copyright's intimate connection and relevance to how higher education uses technology to teach ought to become painfully clear to academic affairs administrators and the culture they foster on their campuses.

As you read this article and the intensity of the opinions and comments both quoted in it and in response to the initial article, keep in mind a couple of things as you form your own opinion:
1. Whether it is accurate or not, the end of this 2/4/10 article suggests that the practice being challenged is probably not widespread: perhaps 14% or less of institutions. What does it mean that such an infrequent activity (maybe it isn't so infrequent?) triggers such - dare I say it - emotional responses? Is it 'just' another example of the fault line that exists between the academic model of sharing, even giving away, their works and the commercial information market that cannot exist without income in exchange for access?

2. Are you going to accept/believe everything you read as an accurate representation of copyright law and the facts simply because it is written and/or stated very firmly? For example, the most recent article refers to the "fair use" provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and then links to Section 107 of the copyright act. [I would expect many of you on this blog to find an number of questionably accurate statements in both articles]. If any hay is to be made of such sudden interest in copyright law, do you think we might benefit from a move towards more accuracy in restating the relevant copyright provisions and perhaps more established ways of changing ineffective or outdated laws than just ignoring them?

3. Do you think expecting faculty members to exhibit a thorough and nimble understanding of copyright and its opportunities is realistic or likely to succeed? Faculty members undoubtedly possess the requisite mental ability to absorb and apply copyright law, but, with a few exceptions, is simply is not how they want to spend their time. They want to use certain material for their classes and they expect to be covered by an "educational use" umbrella that is truly waterproof. I don't blame them one bit - but what does that mean for our current strategies for campus copyright education? Do they want the nuances or do they want bright lines?

These articles certainly provide us with plenty to think about as we consider all the other activities occurring on our campuses that are implicated. Technology moves fast; the law does not. As new projects and ways of delivering information online are developed, the cart is usually way behind the horse. That is, wonderful, imaginative, time-intensive technology vessels and delivery mechanisms are developed before the copyright implications of the anticipated content are even examined. Vessels without content don't look good. It does not follow that because technology permits something, that the law also does.

Thanks, Peggy

I meant to post this information when it came out recently but better late than never. For those of you following the conversation on whether or not the law permits educational institutions to stream entire movies or videos within an online course, the Library Copyright Alliance has joined the discussion with an issue brief accessible from this site: http://www.arl.org/news/pr/Streaming-Films-19feb10.shtml

One of the brief's authors is CIP's own Peter Jaszi, and the brief is certainly a valuable contribution to the debate. Some of the press reports I have seen about it, however, almost suggest that the brief settles the matter and institutions can rely on it for both policy and practice purposes. It is being stated that the library associations have determined that this practice is well within the law and the light is green.

It will be interesting to see whether policies or practices at institutions change in reliance on this issue brief - I would caution that, as usual, the press may be overstating the conclusions or analysis presented.

Peggy

Arnie Lutzker has taught many times for the Center for Intellectual Property. In the past, he presented at various CIP seminars and conferences. And he contributed a chapter to the CIP Handbook. Arnie is a great copyright teacher and the CIP staff welcomes his wisdom and insight.

Recently, Arnie wrote an article on the dispute between the Association for Information Media and Equipment (AIME) and UCLA. To be fair, Arnie is representing AIME and so this article should be read with an understanding that he is advocating on their behalf. Nevertheless, I think his analysis and observations should substantively contribute to the ongoing discussion of this very important subject of streaming video to classes.

Kimberly M. Bonner, J.D.
Executive Director, CIP

---

The much publicized educational video streaming dispute between AIME (Association for Information Media and Equipment, www.aime.org) and UCLA poses a number of complicated copyright questions. The following article, which I prepared recently as counsel for AIME, puts the dispute in context and addresses Fair Use, as well as the TEACH Act and face-to-face teaching exemptions in Section 110 of the Copyright Act. The thrust of the article is to underscore that the copyright law does not countenance a one-size fits all solution to video streaming. For educators who want to rely upon the legal exceptions rather than author permissions, they must be prepared to do serious homework on a work-by-work basis, and realize that use of many videos created by educational publishers, like AIME members, are not available for unlicensed streaming. Streaming without careful consideration of the nature of the work in question risks the real prospect that the use is outside the scope of the limitations and thus a copyright violation. I hope this piece will lead not only to a balanced and enlightened discussion of video streaming practices, but also to implementation of responsible digital practices.

Arnold Lutzker, J.D.
Lutzker & Lutzker, Washington, DC

Read Educational_Video_Streaming_A_Short_Primer_March2010 (PDF)