rials may or should be copied. Basic to such a determination is the convert 1. the purpose and character of the use; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (These criteria are provided, on a detachable page, in Appendix B.) The discussion guide which follows contains hypothetical examples of d′;" cation of audio-visual media. It would be useful to keep three questions in mad as each of the situations in the guide is reviewed. 1. Is the theory of “copyright," as set forth in the Constitution, upheld" ("To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts by securing fer limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive right to their respet» tive Writings and Discoveries.") 2. What are the economic implications to the publisher of copying 3. How will they affect the availability of materials to the educat, mai community? Both educators and producers of educational media seek the widest and mo effective dissemination of learning resources. It is hoped that this specific eda cational tool will assist in implementing our mutual objective with benefit to zi COPYRIGHT AND AUDIO-VISUAL MEDIA 1. A school district buys one copy of a 16mm educational film and makes ten video cassette copies for individualized instruction at various school meda centers. This case illustrates a clear-cut example of copyright infringement resulting from utilization of new technology. The copyright laws forbid the reprodu of a copyright work by anyone except the copyright proprietor. The fact that the school district bought the copyrighted work does not mean it bought the rila to reproduce it. 2. A mobile media unit regularly travels from school to school in a district and converts phonograph records into audio cassettes for individual teachers. Unauthorized duplication of sound recordings may subject the school divrit to legal liability. The United States Congress enacted the Sound Recoring Amendment to the copyright laws, which protects recordings fixed sulmexjtet' to February 15, 1972 and prior to January 15, 1975. The proposed revision of the copyright laws now pending in the Congress of the United States provides for 2-1 protection of sound recordings. In addition, a decision by the US. Supreze Court (Goldstein v US) upholds the right of states to enforce their own record piracy laws in effect prior to the 1972 date. 3. A teacher makes excerpts in cassettes from various record albums owned bự the school to illustrate comparisons among various musical forms, In addition to the statements made in Case 2, another factor to be taken inte consideration is copyright in the work which was recorded. However, the re posed revision to the copyright laws will give full protection to the record i'w f. not merely to the underlying Work Another factor involved in this case is the doctrine of fair use. One should consult the statutory provisions regarding fait Use (see Appendix B) and disenss their ramifications for this case 4. A school media center coordinator salynger some useful frames from die carded filmstrips and converts them into slides for student use. Although technically copying is not involved in this situation, other factors must be taken it to consideration. For example, the filmstrip producer may bare only secured fimstrip rights för visuals which had to be procured outside of 178 own fa il m Another problemi de eon ingling of these visuals with those frita others grosso qe ta oniqte a "lerivative work” which is one of the rights reserved excloser's to the copyright proprietor. The fact that the school bas "discarded" the firstrip does not mean that copyright protection his evind 5. A student tating a report on new travel books In the school library used Around the World in E għty Days a-background music, The Issue presented here involves the appropriation of a copyright musical con position. However, this situation might be comparable to an individual tapite musical works in his own home for his own personal use and might not be regarded as an infringement. A school district occasionally makes a videotape of a preview print of a 16mm A... in order to allow teachers to preview it over a longer period of time. The issue being presented here is the unauthorized duplication of a copyright work. This is illegal, regardless of the fact that this particular use of the Videotape may seem to be less harmful to the copyright proprietor than a situa tion in which the videotapes were used for student viewing. It would be advisableto seek permission from the copyright proprietor before proceeding. 7. A high school student uses an opaque projector to enlarge a map from his. younger brother's geography book to help him draw a poster showing the location of Indati reservationis, This would seem to be a clear example of fair use as defined in the preface. WHEN IS IT LEGAL TO DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE? (By Ivan Bender and David Engler') "Making coples" has become almost a way of life for educators as it has in most bearinesses and industries. However, conscientious teachers and administrafors recogidabg the in pact that widespread unauthorized duplication will have ot the production, availability and cost of educational materials, are anxious to kow what is or is not allowed by law, The concern goes beyond a fear of "getting caught" It extends to the sense of fastuess and respect for property that schools are striving to develop in their #talents. And when the material in question is the result of artistic effort as is Pecuse with most audio and visual materials a special urgency exists to ensure Battle creative process does not become a financial dead end. More than appeals to morality and justice, educators need specific guidelines as to what can or cannot be legally duplicated. While a full explanation of the Intrances of copyright law is beyond the scope of Media & Methods, several importat provisions of that law can be examined. De 18 Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clame ×) empowers Congress "to proto te the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for lin. fed times. to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and d.mcversen** Under a 19064 copyright law now in effect, and through subsequent Inter;rtati, almost all intellectual products of a literary, artistic, or creative nature can be registered for protection with the Copyright Office of the Library of Congrees Tanch diverse products as books, lips and poetry, magazines, and newspapers, plays and choreogruplies, lectures and sermons, melodies and lyrics, lings and photographs, acuipture and architectural plans, motion picture Luna, Videotapes and sound recordings can be covered by an exclusive copyright Once of 'n bed, the copy right ren uns in effect for 28 years and can be renewed fran ad hitional 2 years. Beyond this total period of 56 years the work fa'sir to the pale domin and its use becomes unrestricted An in portart esco, a es to copot gifs wat h would have expired beathalobat in 1992 the year wisen (ngress (31 dertook its still uncompleted revision of the 1989 law. Since the new law will probably lengthen the period of copyright, Congress is exten, ling, on a year to year hands, those copyrights that would have expired since 192. What profecffon does copyright provide? Basically, it reserves for the proprietor feex suve right to print, reprint, publish, copy, and vend the copyrighted work leading any abridgements, arrangements, dramatizations adaptate v and traze ait. The right to vend in this case means the right to transfer by lesse therefore if someone copies the work without authorization and gives the ergies away free, they may be infringing on the proprietor a of portal.'y to În fefe gement on a proprietor's copyright can invoke specific statutory penalties, Tagong from $100 to $10 000 per infringement. Although penalty monies go for e state, proprietors can recover damages in a civil suit if they can show ex-là hợ Referring back to the Constitution, it is clear that incentives for producing creative works are preserved by securing certain rights for the proprietor ex clusively. Over the years, however, these exclusive rights have been tempered br a growing body of judicial decisions which have increasingly attempted to ha'ance the authors' need for compensation with the public's need for access to creative works. The courts have eased up on strict compliance with the law through a concept now known as the "Fair Use Doctrine." This doctrine is not ver delineated in statutory law, but Congress more than likely will include guidelines for the application of "fair use" in its revision bill. Because present statutory law does not spell out specifically what const.'aten copyright infringement, case law (1.e., judicial findings based on individua' cases has filled this void by recognizing certain uses as fair, even without permise of the copyright holder. Under case law, "fair use" applies only to reprodat, s for such purposes as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship at research. It encompasses four conditions, all of which must be met if dur Nest -i or changing a product is to fall within the bounds of fair use. These standards are 1. The purpose and character of the use.—The use must be for such purposes 14 teaching or scholarship, and must be non-profit. Fair use would probably a sw teachers acting on their own to copy small portions of a work for the classroom. but would not allow a school system or institution to do so. 2. The nature of the copyrighted work.-Copying portions of a news article m fall under fair use, but not copying from a workbook designed for a course để study. 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used.-Copying the whole of a work cannot be considered fair use; copying a small portion may be. At the Te time, however, extracting a short sequence from a 16mm film may be far different than a short excerpt from a textbook, because two or three minutes ont of a 25 minute film might be the very essence of that production, and thus outside fair "*. Inder normal circumstances, extracting small amounts out of an entire work would be fair use, but a quantitative test alone does not suffice. The effect of the use upon the potential merket for or value of the cre right & work. If resulting economie loss to the copyright holder can be cloat even making a single copy of certain materials is an infringement, and mas "5 mu'tiple copies presents the danger of greater penalties To re-emphasize, the fair use d'etrine applies only when all four of the shite points have been satisfed. Even so, it is often difficult to reach a conelis,chi the fair or unfair use of a product, particularly in the ens of an Ho vista mate rials. By posing a number of everyday examples which occur in school and med a centers around the country, and eva nating e.ca in terms of what cat and cannot be duplicated, perhaps additional light will be shed on the provis of the copyright regulations. Frample A school district buys one copr of a 10mm film, and makes 10 Vide sette copies for fr dividu«li» «] instirpottery Prelation Just making one cony of the fi'm is a clear cut violation of opt right making 10 eot les on'y aggravates the violat" n Framn'e A mobile media vilt which regularly travels from sol on? ti ne in a district converts plon graph records into and oenssettes for ini Frqluation In the sense the copyright grestien me, Tod in the lat simple and straightforward. Azrone who r geltely converts eat vrig) følt prąch records 1 ́ to audioenowitter without the ecryright owner's pers Alting the Inw However Pls sitryion roy be e conve 21 † frotection of soun 1 resendur 2s ma le before February 15, 1972 JA** aury to the poncd nợ itself but only to the underlyit g work such as a s L cebem If this underlying wor', And no copyright 1 rotect on and was therefore in the pub'le dot on then a d plieution mix de before 1972 le not a violst on cự eight Apart from this excentl etvering a when groot record foto ** Nation of copyright even if the per on ding the e?' '8 owns the record. A'so, since the entire work is being ecpod for two sta 1 nis People A student taping a report on new tegyet bord = ft the wel.cm ↑ `,` *g** uses the music from. Ar and the World in Fa) by Daye as b, charmed Preluation We cannot conceive of any ecpyngst owner ob ection to 15 # Upon the request of several schools, a district med a eINT PR fuateria' appearing in an enesc obedia to prepare sets of color slides ilustrating the evolution of the American flag. . Evaluation —This is probably fair use, given the nature of the material's en'ent and the relationship of this portion of the encyclopedia to the total work. į, zample -- A school videotapes various educational and commercial telecasts off the air for playback at more convenient times during school hours. Evaluation.- Videotaping copyrighted television programs off the air for any purpose is a violation of copyright. Permission of the copyright owners should be secured before such videotapes are made. Frample -- A school district occasionally makes a videotape of a 16mm preView print in order to allow teachers a longer period of time to preview it. Evaluation. Inis is illegal unless permission is granted in advance. Some edicațional producers are granting the right to make videotape copies for preview purposes only as long as the videotape is erased immediately after preViewing and does not become a regular part of the school district s film collection. brampic. The Department of Televised Instruction of a school district teleVises 16mm eqüentional tims from its library over its closed circuit system to every school with in the district. Evaluation The fundamental issue here is whether or not this practice constitutes a 'performance' as defined under the present copyright laws. In all nkebbood, it would be so considered. Since the right to perform a copyrighted work is granted exclusively to the copyrigh holder, appropriate permission must be ottained in advance of televising the material. Most educational film pro ducers have television licensing policies which are easily obtained from each individual producer. Lae producers of copyrighted materials are anxious to accommodate the needs of their customers in education. For this reason, many companies and individuals have developed heensing policies which permit limited reproduction of copy nig fed materials. Each contract is worked out on the basis of user needs and producer fee schedules to permit duplication beyond "fair use." Already, some bool districts Granite School District in the suburbs of Salt Lake City, for example, and Fairfax County School District in Virginia have entered into Ventary jackiesing arrangements. klas as a bear'iy trend. It enables the educational users to have greater flexiba, ty and access, White at the same time providing producers with compensation Atal some degree of control over their materials Additional Information on boyta, g evntracts can be obta ned by writing: Educational Media Producers Counci, 31 ́0 Spring Street, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, EDITORIAL ACADEMIC RIP-ory (By Henry C. Ruark) An unethical practice la underway in some educational circles. Educators, not "robey listgry cofalne retal tý pes, ́ure re- pot,sible for this one Ise operation in question is worked quietis, with liftie open comment by either ti me engaked directly in the operation, or by those it is supposed to bencfl'. Neither group wants to think too clearis al ut it. Time invoived know, in their hearts, if not in their hends that what they are ing in wrong, both morally and begally. There have been too many profes miral educational statements too much opeti discussion and far too many articles Bodeyolarations in the educational press for anyone now to claim total ignot ake of the issue Preally many of those involved would resent being categorized as "ape. rial zed fijevim right along with counterfeiters, short chalar artists, secondlet to many persons do not hestitate to make use of the creative products of professional efforts by their own collear ies without payment or credit Ime jarig opas first appeared in the Bge Bisk Forening for Ang a 』*པོན་ཚོ-= ིི་ལ་K༅ We were castigated ments, has grown to an amazing variety of physical formats, in alarming quantities of both copy-count and titles-involved. This illegal practice-that's exactly what it is and there's no point in sugarcoating theft no matter who "pulls the job"-has become such a threat to the learning media producers that it is perhaps the hottest issue under discusN) IN in the AV field today. What is truly at stake is not simply the "profit" a producer makes from the sale of his product, but the great loss of legitimate reward for, first, creativity in developing effective and appealing new AV materials, and second, entrepre neurial effort and risk-taking to bring them, at economically feasible pricing to educators and learners. Within our free-enterprise system, despite all its drawbacks, controls, barriers, and pitfalls, there is literally no other way for effective learning media to be developed, tested, marketed, and disseminated. Thus, copyright abuse and what must be done about it is an immediate ard highly crucial problem, which must be solved before the learning media fr.d can move ahead with basic distributing-be it through cable and satellite TV, touch-tone telephone networking and centralized computers for home and office reference and learning, or more immediately through videocassette and sind at playback systems ... în extension of or as replacement for the heavy current inventory of film formats. How can any of these developments, touted for years as the rise of "educa tional technology," even begin to become a reality until and unless broad collections of learning materials can proceed towards immediate availability on a reasonable, practical, profitable return-on-investment basis? Without that kind of return, how can producers create materials to supply current needs, and at the same time look ahead and plan for the kinds of bustness risk-taking which are inevitable, unavoidable procedures in any kind of business? We believed in 1969, and we believe even more strongly now, that educators. generally are not so stupid as to deny by their own actions the basic principles of morality and the practical and very pragmatic lessons of our flourishing free entrepreneurial system. That's what happens when any educator, at any level, condones or in any way assists in the simple theft of product, a commonplace result of questionable practices widespread today. It doesn't take much effort to understand what is going on when $2.000 worth of AV materials are kept for a solid year, then returned, piecemeal and in very bad shape, most obviously used and re-used ... with the explanation “we eouldn't tell whose materials these were." There were defaced but still legise labels on every package, and company name and logo on every visual. Tha!® substitution for purchase by abusing the previewing privilege. It takes little effort to get the message when a preview print of each of a whole series of films is, first, circulated among every school in a district with no previewing reports turned in, and then, second, dubbed onto videocassettes before the preview prints are returned... with a straight-faced letter of "Larks "for the preview service" Put your own label on that one ... we have, aireadƑ. It is ble theft of product. Inc dents such as these are well-known and discussed in many places: in fact, the problem is so acute in some places that the professional associations, er, er covertly or open'y, have made their dismay and forebodings alown by སྙན ༅ ngs to members who are believed to have participated in this “academic ript activity It should be noted that the Educational Materials Producers Connel has f. ken very positive act, n on this problem of copyright nouse, by formulating Pair Poller Statement which appers on paze 16. We also carry in this inste an explanatory feature detaing the thinking which went into development PMPC welcomes discuss on, opinion, and a vital of their policy stater ent logue on the proble d. on d also be noted that FMPC has publicly announced that a cer mitten of industry leaders is working di gently towards solution of this painful 199 t་ saattu ཟླ *སྙ༞ སྶ with one way being to build what has been described Uw where in the educational press as a “violation = file ** Cyright and all P's P p cations and interpretations is a very fortnons fed in and of itself; but there can be no doubt of the effect, nor of the legal at qof ing of those practices to which we are pointing herein, and much earjet In If The Shoe Pinches . . .'- in 199 |