Revolution Lullabye

May 29, 2009

American University Center for Social Media, The Cost of Copyright Confusion

American University Center for Social Media. “The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy.” September 2007.

This code is designed to educate teachers and administrators about their right to appropriate fair use of copyrighted materials. Because fair use is misunderstood and there is a rampant fear of copyright litigation, educators don’t utilize all the possible resources they could when teaching and creating media literacy curriculum and limit their students’ own educational and creative, critical and productive projects. The authors of the code argue for teachers to educate themselves about their fair use rights and to create codes of best practices that can be used as guidelines for media literacy educators (hence the NCTE one.)

Quotable Quotes

different explanations of copyright protection and restrictions = “copyright folklore” – you need to know the law yourself and make your own judgments

Notable Notes

co-principal investigators are the same as those on the NCTE Code of Best Practices: Renee Hobbs, Peter Jaszi, Pat Aufderheide

Principles of media literacy education:

  • “All messages are constructions, created by authors for specific purposes.”
  • “People use their knowledge, skills, beliefs, and experiences to construct meaning from messages.”
  • “Different forms and genres of communication use specific codes, conventions, and symbolic forms.”
  • “Values and ideologies are conveyed in media messages in ways that represent certain world vies, sharing perceptions of world reality.”
  • “Media messages, media industries, and technologies of communication exist within a larger aesthetic, cultural, historical, political, economic, and regulatory framework”

fair use is an extension of 1st amendement rights; is critically important to educators

2 ways teachers cope with copyright and fair use: deliberate ignorance; hiding & trangression; hyper-compliance

methodology: interviewing teachers, producers, administrators, organizational leaders. All their names are in the back of the document.

Advertisements

NCTE, Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education

NCTE. “Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education.” November 2008. http://wwwdev.ncte.org/positions/statements/fairusemedialiteracy.

This guideline asserts educators’ and students’ rights to use all types of media for critical, transformative purposes. It defines fair use as a right, a right that is currently underused and understood because of fear of litigation at the administrative and individual teacher level. The code outlines five principles and allowances for fair use by teachers and students: 1. using copyrighted material in media literacy lessons; 2. using copyrighted material in preparing curriculum materials; 3. sharing those curriculum materials; 4. student use fo copyrighted material in their own academic and creative work; and 4. expanding who the audience can be for student media literacy work. The code argues that since fair use has not been strictly interpreted by the courts, teachers themselves can use their judgment for appropriate fair use.

Quotable Quotes

“Fair use is flexible; it is not unreliable.”

Notable Notes

fair use is that space between copyright and the commons

Peter Jaszi on the committee that wrote hte document

May 28, 2009

CCCC Caucus on Intellectual Property, Use Your Fair Use

CCCC Caucus on Intellectual Property. “Use Your Fair Use: Strategies toward Action.” CCC 51.3 (Feb 2000): 485-488.

Teachers often don’t use the entire scope of their fair use privileges because they are afraid of legal action against them and because their universities and printshops, also fearful of legal action, develop policies that are far more strict than copyright’s fair use allowances. The CCCC Caucus on IP argues that compositionists need to learn about copyright and fair use, lead discussions on their campuses and with their print shops about the purposes and scope of fair use, and encurage teachers to use fair use to enrich their pedagogy.

Lederman, Pushing the Envelope on Copyright Exemptions

Lederman, Doug. “Pushing the Envelope on Copyright Exemptions.” Inside Higher Ed. 30 Dec 2008.

Congress granted film studies professors permission to copy and assemble scenes from DVDs for use in their classrooms so they did not need to waste time skipping from scene to scene. Now, there is a move to expand this right (which is not allowed under current media copyright restrictions) to all teachers, regardless of field or level, for pedagogical purposes. Teachers are arguing that as literacy education becomes increasingly multimodal, it is essential for them to have the right to prepare the best materials for teaching their students.

May 26, 2009

Woodmansee and Jaszi, The Law of Texts

Woodmansee, Martha and Peter Jaszi. “The Law of Texts: Copyright in the Academy.” College English 57.7 (Nov 1995): 767-787.

Woodmansee and Jaszi show how the history of modern copyright is aligned with 19th century literary theory that privileges the solitary autonomous author, a theory that is currently outdated. Even though this theoretical foundation has shifted, copyright has not shifted with it, instead becoming even more restrictive. They argue that compositionists need to take the lead on framing and arguing for balance in copyright protection through 1. taking public stances on educational fair use and the extension of copyright protections and 2. changing their pedagogy from one that depends on the solitary author to one that teaches students about the collaborative, social nature of composing.

Quotable Quotes

“What is needed, in short, is an ethos of collaboration which would encourage students to acknowledge their debts, and a corresponding rhetoric of attribution to help them identify and name these debts – in place of the punitive rhetoric that is typically found in the chapter devoted to the research paper in our current composition textbooks and handbooks” (784).

“The intellectual commons on which we may draw freely as writers and readers, scholars and teachers, is shrinking fast” (772).

“The enclosure of the public domain” (772).

fear of “worldwide uncontrolled piracy” (from “Controlling Electronic Rights” Rights 6.2 (1992): 3-4.)

Notable Notes

extending copyright and restricting fair use – Kinkos photocopying case (does not recognize authorship as arranging and selection, Romantic understanding of the author); absolute 1st publication right restricts the use of unpublished materials

academic writers don’t need the protection of copyright for financial reasons, they write books for status, tenure, not direct profit, so they can turn to copyleft protection

May 25, 2009

Reyman, Copyright, Distance Education, and the TEACH Act

Reyman, Jessica. “Copyright, Distance Education, and the TEACH Act: Implications for Teaching Writing.” CCC 58.1 (Sept 2006): 30-45.

Reyman argues that the TEACH Act (2002) limits the pedagogical possbilities of digital distance education by restricting access to copyrighted materials in a way that mimics the needs of a face-to-face, lecture-style, module-oriented, teacher-directed classroom. Writing teachers use digital spaces differently than content-driven lecture courses and need more flexibility in how they can allow their students to share and access copyrighted material for educational purposes. Also, since the TEACH Act places the responsibility for following copyright restrictions on the institution (not the individual teacher), the writing teacher loses some of her autonomy and academic freedom. Compositionists, Reyman argues, need to advocate for the rights of distance education students to a quality education, an education, due to the technological constraints, might look differently than the traditional classroom. Instead of fearing the openness of digital technology, educational copyright restrictions need to embrace the possibilities inherent in that technology for enriching education.

Notable Notes

TEACH Act is not designed to restrict fair use, but it doesn’t open it up to the realities of the digital learning environment

distance education is online courses and courses that use digital tools like Blackboard

restrictions like taking down copyrighted material so students can’t access it later, restricting access to the site to students, making sure the teacher moderates the use of the copyrighted material, material for class activities (not individuals) only

Technolgy, Education, and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002

May 18, 2009

Murray, Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement

Murray, Laura J. “Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement: The Costs of Confusion.” In Originality, Imitation, and Plagiarism. Eds. Eisner and Vicinus. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 2008. 173-182.

Students need to know that there is a difference betweeen copyright infringement and plagiarism, and Murray advocates teaching them about citation systems (academic and otherwise), which places the focus on respect and collaboration instead of punishment and fear. Murray delineates between permission (copyright, market systems) and acknowledgement (citation systems), explaining that plagiarism is not an absence of permission but rather a neglect to acknowledge (purposeful or not.) People regularly use citation in speaking and writing, as it builds networks and credibility. Murray agues that the freedom to use and copy others’ ideas is not (and should not be seen) as an exception to copyright law for that freedom forms the foundation of the academic, intellectual endeavor.

Quotable Quotes

“I would suggest that citation acts as a powerful reminder of the collaborative and collective nature of knowledge” (176).

“It is normal to cite: it is part of the social fabric and habitual modes of speech” (178).

Notable Notes

citation covers everything, no matter how old – copyright runs out

Simon Fraser University example – problem with placing financial burden of requiring copyright permission by students for their papers when citation should be sufficient.

Rife, “Fair Use,” Copyright Law, and the Composition Teacher

Rife, Martine Courant. “‘Fair Use,’ Copyright Law, and the Composition Teacher.” In Originality, Imitation, and Plagiarism. Eds. Eisner and Vicinus. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 2008. 145-156.

Rife argues that students and educators need to study fair use within copyright law, because, as she shows by explaining the five Supreme Court cases that deal with fair use, even the court rulings are vague on what exactly is protected under fair use. Fair use allowances have increasingly been restricted so that now you can be in copyright infringment for the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials, not just for making a profit off of them (like selling your term paper.) Rife advocates for composition teachers to be proactive instead of living in fear, leading campaigns to rewrite university guidelines about fair use if they don’t agree with them instead of quietly subverting them.

Notable Notes

overview of fair use US Supreme Court and lower court case (including MGM v. Grokster (2005) and Kinkos case)

court decisions are often based on market impact – public good takes a backseat

copyright protection is automatic and includes four rights: the right to reproduce, publically display, perform, and prepare derivative work. Creative Commons licenses allows authors to opt out of some of those rights.

Lessig: we overrely on fair use to authorize unauthorized use. Instead, change the law from automatic full copyright protection

Litman, Choosing Metaphors

Litman, Jessica. “Choosing Metaphors.” In Originality, Imitation, and Plagiarism. Eds. Eisner and Vicinus. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 2008. 13-26.

Litman argues that the metaphors used to understand copyright protection and fair use have changed in the past thirty years, a change that has paralleled growth in copyright protection and restrictions in fair use. Copyright, when first conceived, was a balanced bargain between the author and the public, but has now shifted to a system of incentives, one grounded in the belief that more protection and control will result in more works of authorship and financial gain for authors. Fair use is now seen as a loophole that needs to be plugged, and piracy has shifted from the large-scale acts of criminals to describe individual unauthorized acts, for profit or not. These changes in metaphors have occured at a time when there is the digital technology to enforce tighter restrictions and control over intellectual property. Litman argues that copyright should not control how someone chooses to consume a work after its initial distribution.

Quotable Quotes

The expansion of copyright has “blinded many of us to the dangers that arise from protecting too much, too expansively for too long” (14).

Copyright has now become “property that the owner is entitled to control” (17).

Notable Notes

distinction of piracy today to any individual doing any unlicensed activity (21.) It’s not enough (or shouldn’t be enough) that this unauthorized behavior could result in detremental effects. Those detremental effects should be accounted before prior to accusing someone of piracy. Everyone has always copied and shared intellectual material – that’s the name of the game.

move to limit legitimate owners of copyrighted material from doing what they please with it (19) first sale doctrine, right to reread, loan, sell, give away

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.