Cynthia Vaskis

SLM521 Spring 2004

4/23/04

File: copyrite.htm

Copyright Assignment

Discussion 1 about the following situation.

“A teacher in your school (who has a really rowdy bunch of monsters) makes an agreement with them that they learn how to make power point presentations on sports, war, hunting, rock music and such. She lets them get graphics from anywhere on the Internet. Sites such as Sports Illustrated, ESPN. DOD, Rock Music Hall of Fame. They make great presentations and become great kids. What are the copyright implications?”

My response to this situation is below.

The only time you can use someone else’s work is when it is considered to be in the public domain (no one owns the copyright) or it is used as “fair use” for scholarly or research purposes. This is sometimes hard to determine since the creator does not have to identify themselves on their work anymore (copyright notice) after March 1, 1989. Copyright infringement, unauthorized use of copyrighted material, has legal consequences but plagiarism, taking credit for someone else’s work that is not copyrighted, deals with ethical issues. The public domain consists of materials published before 1923 unless it was extended during Clinton’s term another 20 years to the year 2019. If the owner never renewed the copyright, or never affixed a proper notice to the material, it is also in the public domain. The article “New Rules for Public Domain Material” mentioned in your articles-to-read list describes other public domain works to be those produced by the U.S. Government, state judicial opinions, legislative enactments and official documents, unadorned ideas and facts, etc. The question above asks about the DoD (Department of Defense) which is part of the government whose work is in the public domain so it is okay to copy it. But the others mentioned would have rights to the material they produced and have copyright protection. I mention NASA below and their Mars images and NASA sponsored robotic competition video clips. As long as NASA owns the rights to the images and videos they are in the public domain but sometimes the authors retain the rights to their work even though it was for the government.

If the web site containing the material has a copyright notice (check at bottom of the web page) then anything on the page is considered a copyrighted material except possibly pop-up advertisements which would not be covered under that web site’s copyrights. The producer of the pop-up advertisement has their own copyrights to their displays and trademarks (check for labels) along with their display. Sometimes there is more than one author on a web page and each would retain their rights to the material that they created. Even if something is not copyrighted it may be protected under trademark laws or under trade secret or contract laws. Even photos of famous Hollywood people that pop-up in current news blurbs should not be used for advertising or republishing because they have a right to control how their image and name is used. If in doubt about whether something is copyrighted, consult an intellectual property attorney.

The “fair use” laws consider whether the copying of others’ protected material is for so called “socially productive purposes”, such as use by scholars and researchers, or for commercial gain or notoriety (helping you to win a contest or obtain public recognition). These “fair use” laws consider the type of use by its purpose and character, in other words, is the copied material going to help that individual, or entity, make a profit or not off that material or gain some recognition from using it. The nature of the material being copied must also be considered and the amount of the material in relationship to the total body from which it was derived. The rule should be only to borrow what you need and no more to make your point clear. If the borrowed material is the main body or concept of the original work, or if it is used to promote your own work, especially for financial gain or detracts from the original work’s profits, then you should not use it. Artwork and visually displayed works have very strong protection because it is the creation of someone like a painting or physical work of art. You should always look for proper copyright notices such as identifying logos or trademarks on the images (the copyright symbol like a C in an @ sign) and look in the video’s credits for the copyright identification. Ignorance is not a protection against copyright infringement.

Anyone who publishes anything on the Net should register their works with the U.S. Copyright Office and their domain name as a service mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The 1976 Copyright Act protects author’s rights even if the book is out of print or the work is still around (artwork) and the author is no longer alive.

Therefore, in answer to the topical situation above, the teacher should not tell the students to copy whatever they like in photos or video clips from the Internet to use in their own work unless the web site specifically says it is public domain images (or comes from the public domain places mentioned above) and can be downloaded for personal use. The teacher may be able to argue that the graphical data is for educational use and then it would fall into the realm of “fair use” but even schools are not protected from legal action against them if the author has copyright protection. Some of the Mars rover images are in a gallery of photos for public viewing. If it says or offers that you can download the material, by giving you the download file type links on the web page, then you can assume it is okay because they are offering a way for you to get the image or video clip. It is probably still assumed that it is for personal use only and not to be used to gain profit. It probably would be okay to show in a classroom if it is okay for personal use as long as you did not have to pay for its use. This does not mean you can use those video clips to show to others for profit.

Many news photos are the private property of the photographer which gave permission to the new network or publisher to use that photo in their published materials. The photographer got paid for that image and should be paid every time it is used for public display. The “fair use” method of using photos may be okay or you to keep a copy to view on your own computer if it is needed for you research efforts or study or personal viewing (not for profit) but because there is a delicate between what is fair use or not it is wise to not copy it unless you get permission from the author.

This assignment mentioned whether DoD material could be used or not. I think that if some private company produced the material for the government such as created a nice web site but for government purposes that anything there would be copyrighted under that company’s name and not the government unless the government’s contract with the company specifically states that the government owns anything from that company that it paid for them to develop. I worked for many years on government projects and the company I worked for had rights to any software I developed at work or at home on my own time that was related to the project. Because that company was being paid by the government to create the software, the government had ownership rights of the software as well. The finished product of my software development efforts would be considered a “work for hire’” meaning I got paid for it so I don’t own it. The only way I could make money would be to develop software that had nothing to do topically with the projects at work, and even then, the company I worked for could decide if that was true or not. It was not left up to me to decide if the software was my own private property but this was all in the agreement I had to sign when I joined the company as an employee.

I found a NASA web site that lets you download video clips of their robotics competitions across the country in different cities. They give you the video link to download the video and, by assumption, are giving you the permission to view it on your computer. They are also allowing you to keep a copy if it lets you save it after the download. Since NASA is marketing these competitions to get people to build robots in teams (from schools and the general public), it can be assumed that these video clips are okay to show in schools because NASA stated on its web page that it wants high school robot building teams to participate in the competitions so that they want the high school students to know about the competitions and see what is happening there.

But there is the other side to this issue. You cannot take that downloaded material (photo or video) and use it for profit or recognition as your own. It is still copyrighted material even though they have given you permission to put it on your computer to view there.

Also, even though something may be considered okay to use in the United States it may not be okay to do so in another country or if the material is from another country because their laws would then apply. For example, Europe respects “moral rights” of an author to object to changes made to their work and claim rights even after their death by the heirs of that person’s estate. It also depends on where the original copyright was given because the rules are different for different countries.

Discussion 2 about the following situation.

“Mr. Jamweimer, the parent of one of our most intellectual students, has paid to download a wonderful computer software program for his little Einstein. Mr. Jamweimer wants "our school" to be the best and sends a copy of the download file to be used by the students on the computers at school. P.S. all of the kids use it and win Nobel prizes in science, literature, physics, chemistry, and playground.”

My response to this situation is below.

With any material that must be purchased, the buyer cannot make copies of that material for others to use no matter who the “others” are (educational or not) without the express permission of the copyright holder or author. I really like the Magic School Bus game discs for my kids to learn about science which I had to purchase. I thought that the science teacher at school might like to use it in class so I bought them a copy for their use but I found out that there are special licenses for groups of people to use a material versus a person with their own private home computer. The teacher could use it themselves but could not use it to teach the class.

The Blockbuster video store pays somewhere around a $100 (or more now) per video to license it to rent it out to others even though I can buy one for about $15 to $20 and view it at home. The rule is that if you use someone else’s work to make a profit for yourself, you have crossed the legal line and are liable. You need the author’s permission to use it which will normally require payment to the author. If you show a video at home for friends and charge them to watch it that is also wrong and illegal.

The man who made and gave copies of the software to the school is legally wrong and could be sued. The school for using the material could also be sued since they did not pay a license fee to use that software. The fact that the students learned from the software is okay but they may not be able to keep the prize if their work was directly derived from the software’s examples or presentation.

The “Fair Use in a Nutshell” article mentions that you should never copy something to avoid paying the fee or so that you do not have to create something new of your own. I have a cousin who built a business on chasing down people who break copyright laws. She started doing this for MicroSoft to catch people copying their software and then expanded her business for other company’s electronic products. She travels around the world setting up “sting” operations to catch people who are selling other’s copyrighted electronic material and her business is doing very well which tells you there is a big problem out there with illegal use of software.

The schools, as mentioned above, are not protected under the “fair use” concept (for educational use) if the author has clear legal rights, which it would since it is selling the software to the general public. The man who copied the software and the school could be held responsible for their illegal use of the copied forms of the original software.