This solution to this case seemed pretty simple to me. I looked at five different areas concerning the case study to base my decision off of. I looked at who owned the copyright, and if a copyright had to be registered to be owned. Since the teacher knew that she had created her lesson plans before the other person, she owns the copyright. Hobbs clearly states this in chapter 2, "A work is automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation, as long as it exists in a fixed, tangible form." From this I gathered that the teacher clearly owned the graphics. The fact that the new text was just published shows that the teacher had the graphics first.
If the teacher did get her graphics from that other person, she would still be able to use them because they were for lesson plans. The Fair Use Doctrine shows that copyrighted works can be used without permission for educational purposes. The teacher was making no profit off of another's work. Even though the work was used at conferences, they were still for educational purposes and teachers have the right to share lesson plans in ways to educate.
Because it is actually the book that is in violation of the copyright law, I would recommend that she continues to use her graphics, and could potentially take legal action against the author for attempting to make a profit from her graphics.
Sunday, May 29, 2016
AlumNet
There are many things to consider in this case study. I looked at a few of them before I made my final decision. I looked at the purpose of the site, why the site was created/who created it, if the site was limiting the copyright holder's ability to make money, if a copyright has to be registered to be the owner and who first had the name.
The understanding of Fair Use that Hobbs describes states that if it was student made or if it serves and educational purpose, then copyright laws can be broken. In this instance, it was student made,but it did not serve and educational purpose, rather it served a social purpose. It was not in competition with the Copyright holder's site, so I think the school would have a good case for fair use for it. The case study also states that the school can prove that they used the name first. This makes one look at the copyright laws as to who would own the copyright. In chapter 2, Hobbs states, "A work is automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation, as long as it exists in a fixed, tangible form...You don't have to register a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office." Because of this the school would not have to change the name of their site because it is actually the other company that is in violation of the copyright law.
The understanding of Fair Use that Hobbs describes states that if it was student made or if it serves and educational purpose, then copyright laws can be broken. In this instance, it was student made,but it did not serve and educational purpose, rather it served a social purpose. It was not in competition with the Copyright holder's site, so I think the school would have a good case for fair use for it. The case study also states that the school can prove that they used the name first. This makes one look at the copyright laws as to who would own the copyright. In chapter 2, Hobbs states, "A work is automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation, as long as it exists in a fixed, tangible form...You don't have to register a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office." Because of this the school would not have to change the name of their site because it is actually the other company that is in violation of the copyright law.
Pooh's News
In this case study students are playing a radio broadcast that they call "Pooh's News." The school received a cease-and-desist letter. I took five things into consideration for this. They are: is the school using the name in an educational way, what does Fair Use cover, What is the purpose of the broadcast, does it matter if they used "Pooh's" voice or not, and does transformativeness play a role in this circumstance.
It seems clear that the purpose was to have a catchy name that rhymed that the students could relate to. I don't think the fact that images or sounds of Pooh were used, I think it is the name that is in copyright violation. The name itself is not being used to educate on Pooh but on other literature aspects that are considered educational. Hobbs describes Fair Use only in instances where the used plays and educational role directly. The broadcast is being used in an educational way. I think that transformativeness would play a big role in this case study. I don't see how using the name "Pooh" would add value to the broadcast or change the purpose. Pooh was created as an entertainment or book. I think it would be fine for the students to review book about Pooh and use the name in that context, but I do not think the school would be covered under the Fair Use doctrine in this instance. Though there is no infringement on money being made at the school, the popularity of the name is being used to endorse a broadcast that the copyright owner's did not approve of. Personally, I would change the name of the broadcast.
It seems clear that the purpose was to have a catchy name that rhymed that the students could relate to. I don't think the fact that images or sounds of Pooh were used, I think it is the name that is in copyright violation. The name itself is not being used to educate on Pooh but on other literature aspects that are considered educational. Hobbs describes Fair Use only in instances where the used plays and educational role directly. The broadcast is being used in an educational way. I think that transformativeness would play a big role in this case study. I don't see how using the name "Pooh" would add value to the broadcast or change the purpose. Pooh was created as an entertainment or book. I think it would be fine for the students to review book about Pooh and use the name in that context, but I do not think the school would be covered under the Fair Use doctrine in this instance. Though there is no infringement on money being made at the school, the popularity of the name is being used to endorse a broadcast that the copyright owner's did not approve of. Personally, I would change the name of the broadcast.
Movies All Day
This case study took a little thought and research. There are a few points that I looked at to figure out if the school could play videos for leisure. I looked at the difference if the movies were in the theaters or not, if the movies playing would be educational, what the purpose was for playing the movies, the first-sale doctrine and if it was a legal copy of the movie.
All of these things coincide with each other. Part of me would think that it would not be acceptable because the people who saw the movies would no longer go to the theater to see them, so that would cause a problem with interfering with profit that would have been made otherwise. If the movies were not in the theater I did not think it would be a big deal as far as interfering with profit. When looking at this for the Fair Use point of view, it would not be acceptable because the movies are being watched specifically for leisure. There is no educational context behind the movies, so they would not be able to play the movies. I would say they should not watch it.
I then looked into the First-Sale Doctrine. Hobbs defines it in chapter 3 as, " The Copyright Act of 1976 says that when you buy a legally produced copyrighted work, you can sell or loan that copy to others." I looked into some other sources online that would make one think that if it would be acceptable to play the movie. Hobbs goes on to describe that if a teacher owns a book she can share it, but not make multiple copies so that the owner's sales are limited. I would think that this would allow for the movies to be played as well.
Personally, I would not play the movies. If the theaters are already watching and sent a cease-and-desist letter, then they will probably pursue action if the movies are played. I would say that the school should cancel the movie day because they were not using them educationally, or they should find an educational movie that they could claim Fair Use on. The First-Sale doctrine can be used and they may be able to get away with playing the movies, but I think it would be safer for them to play something educational instead.
All of these things coincide with each other. Part of me would think that it would not be acceptable because the people who saw the movies would no longer go to the theater to see them, so that would cause a problem with interfering with profit that would have been made otherwise. If the movies were not in the theater I did not think it would be a big deal as far as interfering with profit. When looking at this for the Fair Use point of view, it would not be acceptable because the movies are being watched specifically for leisure. There is no educational context behind the movies, so they would not be able to play the movies. I would say they should not watch it.
I then looked into the First-Sale Doctrine. Hobbs defines it in chapter 3 as, " The Copyright Act of 1976 says that when you buy a legally produced copyrighted work, you can sell or loan that copy to others." I looked into some other sources online that would make one think that if it would be acceptable to play the movie. Hobbs goes on to describe that if a teacher owns a book she can share it, but not make multiple copies so that the owner's sales are limited. I would think that this would allow for the movies to be played as well.
Personally, I would not play the movies. If the theaters are already watching and sent a cease-and-desist letter, then they will probably pursue action if the movies are played. I would say that the school should cancel the movie day because they were not using them educationally, or they should find an educational movie that they could claim Fair Use on. The First-Sale doctrine can be used and they may be able to get away with playing the movies, but I think it would be safer for them to play something educational instead.
Gap Steal
In this case study, a man put an image he took on to a website. Gap made baby clothes with what looks to be that image on it. The photographer thinks that he may be owed something by Gap because they are using his image.
In my opinion, there are many different images of cars. The question is raised about wires in the reflection, but it could very well be that man's image. In a business perspective, I think that if the man can prove he took the image before Gap worked on making that product, he would be able to sue for part of the profit of the shirt. The shirt was not made in any educational context. Hobbs states in chapter 2 that, "A work is automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation, as long as it exists in a fixed, tangible form." It is because of this that it would be illegal for Gap to use an image that was not theirs.
From an educational perspective, it would be legal to use the image. If the image was used for a project on cars, or a lesson plan to teach students abut cars, it would be legal. The educator and student would be covered under the Fair Use Doctrine to use the image under educational circumstances.
In my opinion, there are many different images of cars. The question is raised about wires in the reflection, but it could very well be that man's image. In a business perspective, I think that if the man can prove he took the image before Gap worked on making that product, he would be able to sue for part of the profit of the shirt. The shirt was not made in any educational context. Hobbs states in chapter 2 that, "A work is automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation, as long as it exists in a fixed, tangible form." It is because of this that it would be illegal for Gap to use an image that was not theirs.
From an educational perspective, it would be legal to use the image. If the image was used for a project on cars, or a lesson plan to teach students abut cars, it would be legal. The educator and student would be covered under the Fair Use Doctrine to use the image under educational circumstances.
Controversial Billboard
An image was used of a girl on a controversial billboard. The mother of the girl had signed a release, acknowledging that her daughter's image could be sold and used for other purposes. The copyright issue here is with the image and not the controversy of the ad itself.
The issue that is discussed was that the mother did not want her daughter endorsing a controversial issue in such a manner. I can understand why the mother thought it could be illegal for her daughter to "endorse" a program. One con to this issue is that the mother signed a release form, which allows for others to decide how her daughter's image to be used, not her. The mother would not be protected under the copyright law because of the release form. Even though she probably did not think it through it at the time, the release form is a written contract saying that she understands she has no ownership of the photos. I think that it is important to note that the billboard was taken down due to controversy, not because of the image itself.
From the educational perspective, it would be legal for educators or students to use the image. Hobbs states in chapter 2, "At the heart of copyright law, the doctrine of fair use states that people have a right to use copyrighted materials freely without payment or permission, for purposes such as criticism, comment,news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." The modeling agency would have full legal rights to the images. Because of the Fair Use Doctrine, the image could still be used in education without violating the owner's rights.
The issue that is discussed was that the mother did not want her daughter endorsing a controversial issue in such a manner. I can understand why the mother thought it could be illegal for her daughter to "endorse" a program. One con to this issue is that the mother signed a release form, which allows for others to decide how her daughter's image to be used, not her. The mother would not be protected under the copyright law because of the release form. Even though she probably did not think it through it at the time, the release form is a written contract saying that she understands she has no ownership of the photos. I think that it is important to note that the billboard was taken down due to controversy, not because of the image itself.
From the educational perspective, it would be legal for educators or students to use the image. Hobbs states in chapter 2, "At the heart of copyright law, the doctrine of fair use states that people have a right to use copyrighted materials freely without payment or permission, for purposes such as criticism, comment,news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." The modeling agency would have full legal rights to the images. Because of the Fair Use Doctrine, the image could still be used in education without violating the owner's rights.
A Family Christmas Card
A U.S. family learned that their family photo was taken from the internet and used in Prague to advertise a business. This could be in violation of the copyright law because the owner of the business did not request any type of permission to use a photo to advertise his business and essentially make money off the photo.
The Copyright law would essentially protect the person who took the photo. Assuming that the photographer gave the rights to the Smiths to do with their photo as they please, then it would be lawful for the Smiths to put the image on the internet. When the store owner used the photo on the internet he would be in copyright violation because he did not have permission from the photographer who owns the photo.
This would be good for the Smiths, so that their family was not publicly on display across the world. The cons to this would be that the store owner could face penalties because he was making a profit off of someone else's work. Section 113 of the copyright law would prevent anyone from using and making a profit off of an image that they did not create. In the business perspective this would be illegal.
In an educational perspective, it would be legal if students were to use the Smiths' photo in a report or school project. Hobbs shows this in Resource B. Hobbs describes that the Copyright Act of 1976, Section 107, also known as the fair use doctrine, would allow for things to be used as long as they won't make a big effect on the market for the original use and the purpose of the use would be different. This is different from the business perspective because the students would not be using an image to make a profit. The students would be using the image in an educational way.
From my perspective, it was good that the business owner took the image off of his business. I think he was in violation of copyright laws that the photographer would be protected by. The photographer could have taken action and sued the business, but I think that because the business owner took down the image, and that was what the family wanted, they were able to settle the dispute outside of the courtroom.
The Copyright law would essentially protect the person who took the photo. Assuming that the photographer gave the rights to the Smiths to do with their photo as they please, then it would be lawful for the Smiths to put the image on the internet. When the store owner used the photo on the internet he would be in copyright violation because he did not have permission from the photographer who owns the photo.
This would be good for the Smiths, so that their family was not publicly on display across the world. The cons to this would be that the store owner could face penalties because he was making a profit off of someone else's work. Section 113 of the copyright law would prevent anyone from using and making a profit off of an image that they did not create. In the business perspective this would be illegal.
In an educational perspective, it would be legal if students were to use the Smiths' photo in a report or school project. Hobbs shows this in Resource B. Hobbs describes that the Copyright Act of 1976, Section 107, also known as the fair use doctrine, would allow for things to be used as long as they won't make a big effect on the market for the original use and the purpose of the use would be different. This is different from the business perspective because the students would not be using an image to make a profit. The students would be using the image in an educational way.
From my perspective, it was good that the business owner took the image off of his business. I think he was in violation of copyright laws that the photographer would be protected by. The photographer could have taken action and sued the business, but I think that because the business owner took down the image, and that was what the family wanted, they were able to settle the dispute outside of the courtroom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)