Tag: copyright

Guilty as charged

I intend this post to be an object lesson. It concerns a copyright violation I must accept as my responsibility. The situation is worth explaining.

I am in the process of converting hundreds of web pages I have generated to be resources for teachers into a system I can manage more easily. The short version is I originally created this content over several years using Dreamweaver. As Adobe went from a business model based on customers purchasing their software to one requiring that customers lease their software, I continued to use software I had purchased. Leasing software in my situation irritates me as a mostly create content as a hobby and the ongoing cost of leased software was expensive for the amount of use I could make of this resource.

I have a couple of close calls with this approach. In both cases, my computer had serious problems and in one case I lost the motherboard. I was able to salvage the contents of the hard drive and transfer the contents of the hard drive to the repaired computer. About a year later, this happened again. The content is online, but the productivity software is on this computer. This had to be a sign.

I am switching my content over from individual web pages to an online tool called Concrete5. I can access this online tool from any computer and I can backup the online content to another location or even back to my local equipment. The new site is far from finished, but I like the look and it is available for anyone else who is curious. This project is intended to develop in two stages. Stage one – transfer the existing content. Stage two – redo this content to update the material as needed.

Back to the copyright story. I started creating an online presence in probably 2010 to offer open source resources that accompanied our textbooks. We use examples in our textbooks and online resources from classroom educators we work with. An early classroom application involved middle school teachers making a video based on a crime scene scenario. The scenario was created as the back story for the use of electrophoresis in genetic testing. The teachers had one kit and multiple classes so the video was a way to make use of the single test kit in multiple sections.

The video (it is available here) would be considered primitive by today’s standards, but the originality of the project still makes the example relevant in demonstrating the creative use of technology in a classroom project. When the teachers created the video, they used a short (very short) segment of music at the beginning to set the stage for the “crime” being investigated. To be clear, the use of this music was appropriate for them. The segment was only a few seconds long and was used in their classrooms and not online. It was my error in using their video online which is where the violation occurred.

This violation was not detected for many years because I was serving the video from my own server. As I have been creating my new site, I have been uploading the videos I have been using to YouTube because Google can serve the video faster than the service I pay for. As soon as the video hit Youtube, their detection algorithm identified the brief segment of music and issued the copyright notice I have included here. If you follow some vloggers, you may know they risk losing revenue when a podcast they generate contains copyrighted material. I don’t meet the Google standard for payment (1000 registered users) so there is no revenue for me to lose even though Google may add ads to my videos. This is their tradeoff for serving my content.

As you can see from the notice, I am not being required to take this down. It would be easy enough for me to eliminate (trim) the first few seconds from audio track accompanying the video, but I am leaving it up as is for now. I bring this topic to the attention of teachers as a way of explaining the difference between what fair use allows in your classroom and what you should do online.

Loading

Book Costs

The AERA conference offers us the opportunity to meet with our editor and to discuss issues related to our next book edition. Because we write about the use of technology in learning, we feel the need to push for a different kind of instructional content. We intend to generate a hybrid product that combines a scaled down book – we prefer to call it a Primer – and online resources. There are challenges in doing this. We are exploring what we think is the best way to offer content for our topic – the uses of technology in teaching and learning. However, separating content between a book and online can be tricky as it may appear the intent is to prevent resale of books. We certainly understand this issue as it applies to book resale, but what is the strategy when the online content is separated because some content really is not best experienced on the page.

The other issue we constantly encounter and we guess few consumers understand involves permissions. We all constantly encounter and may personally generate online instructional resources that involve screen captures or screencasts. YouTube, blogs, and web pages offer many resources containing such useful resources. The reality is that the screen captures and screencasts appearing within these resources are almost always used without permission and are a violation of copyright. When you purchase a commercial product the authors and developers cannot operate in this fashion. They must make the effort to secure permission to use the imagery. In our experience, payments have seldom been required, but the legal requirement requires time commitments from company personnel. Once you must involve lawyers, costs go up. So, to explain the situation in a simple way – it costs more to offer a resource that meets legal requirements. We intend to heavily focus our online resources on classroom examples and tutorials and so to offer what we believe to be most helpful we have the added burden of dealing with the issue of cost and permissions.

Loading

What changes were just made to copyright law?

I seem to always find myself taking a conservative position on copyright issues and I find myself in much the same position today. The U.S. Copright Office just created some new policy regarding copyright and I have started to read speculation as to what this means for educators.  What the changes appear to address are the rights of anyone who purchases content to circumvent protection measures for the purpose of more flexible PERSONAL access. It does not appear to me that there has been any change in what represents fair use. So, for example, I can now use Handbrake to legally move a video I have purchased from a DVD to my desktop computer and then to move the movie to my iPod for viewing. I have circumvented the protection to offer myself a different viewing option.

Perhaps I could record the audio output from a Kindle if I would rather listen to a book than read it (or if I was unable to read it).

What is allowed certainly seems logical and simply allows practices that are already common. As described these allowances do not change revenue opportunities for providers, but allow access alternatives for consumers.

Loading

Still confused – after all these years

How copyright and fair use apply in an online world have long been issues that have confounded me? I think I have found an explanation that seems logical to me, but then find some “expert” advocating a practice that I would regard as an infringement. I think I understand “fair use” as it applies in my face to face classroom or to materials I might provide students. I understood that fair use did not apply to materials I might offer others online. This made some sense to me based on my experience being associated with a commercial product – I knew that if I wanted to use an image in our book the responsible individuals had to provide permission. Online was “publishing” whether the product was paid for or not.

The 2002 TEACH act seemed consistent with this perspective. It authorized online behaviors similar to classroom behaviors as long as those with access were enrolled students and efforts were made to exclude others (e.g, a sign-in CMS). This seemed logical. In addition, the act itself seemed unnecessary if my interpretation of online fair use was wrong.

EDUCAUSE has recently released a “research report” on copyright and fair use in a web 2.0 world. I thought this would make it clear that my interpretation was overly strict which is what the report says educators tend to do. I even thought I found the page on which my answer existed (page 9).

Copryighted content can be displayed openly on the web so long as it meets appropriate exceptions under fair use, compliance with the TEACH act, OR is licensed. (OR caps for emphasis – meaning different issues are in play)

I interpreted this to mean my existing interpretation was overly cautious – I might use an occasional image or short segment of music as such would meet fair use guidelines in my classroom and it would seem I could do the same on a web page.

I read on (unfortunately).

In discussing making lectures available to any interested party as is being done by many institutions via iTunes U, the authors state:

“..students are increasingly demanding recorded lectures, which commonly include copyrighted materials, such as photos or diagrams from books…”
(top of page 10 now):
To comply with copyright law, permissions must be obtained for the copyrighted materials, the materials must be removed, or the materials must be recreated …

Am I wrong about fair use, I would regard using a scan of a single image from the textbook in a powerpoint slide as fair use. If this is true, the experts authoring this EDUCAUSE article appear to have contradicted themselves (perhaps reversed themselves) within the span of three paragraphs.

What are the options here? This still makes little sense to me.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Loading

Hmm – maybe simple is not so good

compositesayings

Every Monday evening I teach a class but I am the only person in the room. It is a graduate educational psychology course which is supposed to be offered face to face and also at a distance. I guess the face to face students have decided they would rather have their dinner and watch me online. Anyway, I sit in this classroom with some fancy technology and a lot of empty seats. Because the technology is not fool proof (or Mark proof which I hope is different), I arrive early and make certain I get things up and running. Usually I can and this leaves me with time on my hands. One of the unusual things about this room that has captured my attention over the weeks are the “statements” on the wall. I was going to call them platitudes, but I looked up the meaning of platitude and decided this might seem derogatory. I will call them statements. This evening was my final virtual face to face meeting and I was able to get the technology working so I decided to spend my free time using my cell phone to capture some of  these statements.

What is it about such statements that would warrant painting them on the walls of a perfectly good classroom? I think we take comfort in simplicity. I think this is what bothers me – I don’t think the world is simple. I keep thinking of complexities and exceptions. I am guessing adding this complexity to the wall of knowledge would not be appreciated.

One of my recent self-imposed strategies for personal development (translate entertainment) is to force my way through books that present very different views on the same topic. My colleagues who are clinical psychologists would likely be fascinated by this behavior, but to my knowledge they do not read blogs so I think most will continue to assume I have a grip on reality. Anyway, I have completed this exercise with several topics. The most recent is copyright. Perhaps you have not read many recent books on this subject, but I can assure you that it is possible and you will find suggestions in the following material in case you feel the need.

I have read several books by Lawrence Lessig over the past couple of years (The Future of Ideas, Free Culture). You may recognize the name and you may recognize his association with the concept of “Creative Commons”. You will find multiple references to Lessig in this blog (some should surface via the automatic “related post” feature. In general, I am a supporter of copyright and tend to see Lessig as much more liberal on this matter.

Anyway, I recently came across a reference to works by an individual who evidently had come into what is by now a fairly public disagreement with Lessig. A fiction writer, Mark Helprin, wrote a piece for the NY Times with the title “A great idea lives forever. Shouldn’t its copyright“. In response (at least as I can follow the story), Lessig opened a wiki site, pointed to the NY Times article, and asked folks to write a response. Helprin reacted to the wiki and eventually put together a recent book (some new material and some reprints) entitled “Digital Barbarism” (Helprin interview). This book focuses on multiple themes – the opposition to copyright, the limitations of collaborative text in contrast to a work that is the responsibility of a single author, the decline of culture, etc. NPR has an page with multiple links associated with this discussion – an excerpt from Digital Barbarism, a short interview with Lessig, a link to the Lessig wiki, etc.

Dueling books. What a great idea? Get folks to purchase the next salvo and pitch in to keep the controversy going.

Thanks for making it this far – there is a point here somewhere and it may surprise you. I turns out that I can agree with many of the positions taken by both authors. My concern is that others who have read less of their content may take a side. BTW – this is what I think Helprin says many do. I am not certain that you will make the effort, but listen to the Lessig audio. He does not claim anything in print is fair game for copying. I am also in fairly close agreement with Helprin and argue that those who feel copyright is retarding education, economic development, or whatever are probably living in an ivory tower, wealthy from works completed before they decided content should be free, or making their living giving speeches about free content. As far as perpetual copyright goes, that idea does seem excessive. You may find Helprin’s style a little too wordy – he generates an analysis and takes a position like a fiction writer. I get the feeling that saying this may brand me as somewhat backward culturally and he may seek me out to tell me so. The prose is somewhat entertaining and I am starting to enjoy it now that I am past the point of assuming that I was about to read was a legal or functional analysis.

I sometimes wonder if folks want to think their behaviors are justified and latch on to a related idea without a full consideration of the context within which it was embedded. They pass their perceptions around and the frequency with which similar snippets are encountered lends further justification. Simple is not necessarily good when life is complex. Simple is not good when it prevents one from dealing with the messiness of important issues.

BTW (I use this improper form knowing full well it has not been approved by the more literate among us), the image of Mickey Mouse is not necessary for the continuation or improvement of educational practice. I agree that holding the rights to the image of a mouse is silly, but just what do we assume we must borrow from the owners to do a better job. We are not talking here about patents and other legal impediments that prevent access to life saving drugs or devices that may assure our survival. We are describing words, sounds, and images. You are completely free to offer your interpretation of these forms and can do so without making a second copy. In addition, as an educational exercise, your efforts to do so likely has far more benefit anyway.

Don’t be evil (sorry if I copied this phrase) and don’t be lazy.

Loading

McCain in Trouble for Copyright Infringement

Perhaps it was the mention of disputed fair use that caught my attention.

Jackson Browne is not a conservative AND has a history of not allowing his music to be used in ads. Yet, part of “Running on Empty” evidently was matched to video in a McCain presidential ad.

Now, the lawyers are involved. Perhaps the participants failed to read the new treatise on copyright and fair use. Should politicians (and teachers) be models for the rest of us? It is interesting to read what lawyers have to say.

Wired account

Loading

I Agree with MicroSoft on This One

I have written previously arguing that it is the responsibility of educators to model and explain copyright issues. I simply do not agree with the position that easy copying makes the practice OK.

Microsoft has just released the results of a survey contending that teens are less likely to violate copyright when made aware of the law.

About half of those teens, however, said they were not familiar with these laws, and only 11 percent of them clearly understood the current rules for downloading images, literature, music, movies and software. Teens who were familiar with downloading rules credited their parents, TV or stories in magazines and newspapers, and Web sites — more so than their schools — as resources for information about illegal downloading.

Part of Microsoft’s strategy is to assist students in developing their own intellectual property and then make a decision regarding usage rights (mybytes – suggestions for teachers). Personalizing the creative process and thinking about how you want others to treat this content is a great idea.

Loading