are helpful in understanding the Congressional intent behind the bill. Copies of the reports are available, free of charge, from the Senate Documents Room, U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C. 20510. Please include a self-addressed label with your request. Your Senator can also assist you in obtaining copies of the report. The text of the Senate bill is included in the report. Educators will be especially interested in the bill's definition of "fair use" copying. The bill defines it to include: 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. The accompanying Judiciary Committee report states: "The fair use doctrine in the case of classroom copying would apply primarily to the situation of a teacher who, acting individually and at his own volition, makes one or more copies for temporary use by himself and his pupils in the classroom. A different result is indicated where the copying was done by the educational institution, school system or larger unit or where copying was required or suggested by the school administration, either in special instances or as part of a general plan." AECT has opposed this interpretation and proposes that "fair use" should apply equally to the classroom teacher and media professional. AECT has also urged that the "fair use" principle should apply both to the selection and preparation of daily instructional materials as well as with long-range curriculum development. Even if S. 1361 is approved by the Senate in the near future, there is little chance that the House will begin consideration of copyright revision until next year. However, any bill approved by one House of Congress this year could carry considerable weight in future consideration of the subject. QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Question. Two teachers in this district are preparing audio tutorial packages for a fifth grade botany unit. They found five pictures they need in a color film owned by the district. They want to make slide copies of the five frames, two copies of each slide are required. Would this be a violation of the copyright law? Answer 1: If the "color film owned by the district" is a commercial copyrighted product, this could be interpreted as a violation unless permission were sought in advance from the copyright holder. Ownership of the prints by the district does not automatically include duplication rights. The danger points in this case which could be interpreted as a violation of fair use are: 1) the creation of more than one copy, and 2) by someone other than the classroom teacher. EUGENE H. WHITE, Director of Audio-Visual Services, Los Angeles City Schools. Answer 2: In this situation there is illustrated a fairly good example of a practice falling within the doctrine of fair use. Taking into consideration the particular use to be made of the individual film frames, and the number of frames actually being copied. EMPC feels that this ought to be defined as fair use. The danger in this practice, however, could result if multiple copies of the frames are then reproduced for use in the classroom which will utilize the materials. IVAN R. BENDER, Chairman, Copyright Committee, Educational Media Producers Council. Question. One of our teachers recently asked the district IMC staff to make 30 copies of a chapter of a book in the school library. The chapter describes the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson and was needed for a current events class. We were assured that the materials would only be used once. Is this a violation of the copyright law, and would it be a violation under the proposed law? Answer 1: In this situation fair use would not apply because of the fact that 30 copies are being made of the chapter from this book. Multiple copying, even if it involves only excerpts from a work, is generally regarded as falling outside the scope of fair use. The question of the number of times that these copies would be used would relate only to the question of the amount of damages which might be granted to the copyright holder. IVAN R. BENDER, Chairman, Copyright Committee, Educational Media Producers Council. Answer 2: This should not be considered fair use, and thus would be a violation of the present law. In effect, this sort of multiple copying tends to deprive the copyright holder of potential commercial benefit. The Williams and Wilkins case (487 F. 2nd 1345) decided by the U.S. Court of Claims last November, should not be considered a precedent in this case, since the decision there favored governmental libraries making large numbers of copies of copyrighted material. Under Sec. 108 of the proposed legislation, it is legal for a library (which would be interpreted as to include IMCS) "to produce no more than one copy. . . of a work..."; therefore, such reproduction would be illegal under the proposed law as well. HAROLD E. HILL, Professor of Communication, Head, Radio-TV-Film, University of Colorado. Answer 3: The length of the copied chapter in relation to the entire book is an important criterion in determining fair use. But basically, the making of multiple copies of any length without permission of the copyright owner exceeds fair use and is thus a violation. If the teacher had computed the real cost of making photocopies, including the administrative time involved and the cost of paper, he (or she) probably would have concluded that it was cheaper to order reprints from the publishers. SUSAN ENGELHART, Staff Director, Copyright & International Trade, [Reprinted from Audiovisual Instruction, published by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, December 1974] COPYRIGHT TODAY-COPYRIGHT AS IT AFFECTS INSTRUCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT (Jeanne Masson Douglas*) (Ms. Douglas' article appears here this month because of its appropriateness to the December theme, "Instructional Development." The regular "Copyright Today" column will resume with the January issue.) One of the major responsibilities of the instructional developer is that of making instructional materials available in an appropriate medium. Materials are often not useful in their existing forms; they may have to be altered to fit specific course objectives, to accommodate a preferred instructional mode such as independent study or inter-active instruction, or simply to provide multiple copies. Whatever the reasons for wanting to modify commercial instructional media, the copyright issue is unavoidable, and obtaining copyright clearances often becomes the responsibility of the instructional developer. Having been involved for the last five years in instructional development activities, either in a management role or as a consultant. I have accumulated considerable data related to acquiring copyright clearances. During this time, I have communicated with several publishers, producers, chairmen of national associations and organizations, and even with presidents of private corporations in attempts to obtain permissions to reproduce their materials. The results have been interesting, and at times, surprising. In my early attempts as a copyright agent, I made use of a form letter. I soon learned that this technique was getting only delayed responses or no response at all. An original letter for each transaction was found to be much more successful. Every letter had two things in common, however: the specification that the media we produced would be used only within our own institution, and that the materials would be used by our students only. (Sometimes phone calls have been necessary to prompt a response but, since I never make a duplication permission agreement except in writing, a written document is ultimately needed.) To demonstrate good faith in complying with the "fair use" principle, I always explain the purpose and effect of the use of the reproduced material, the quantity needed, and the nature of the reproduction. My respondents have been of an amazing variety. At times, I have been fortunate to deal with someone known as the Rights and Permissions Officer or the Contract and Copyright Officer, or even the Product Development Director. On other occasions, I have been directed to the Public Relations Officer or the *Jeanne Masson Douglas is director, Educational Resources Center, Reading Area Community College, Reading, Pennsylvania. Editor-in-Chief. Often, it has been necessary to negotiate with the Vice-President, Executive Vice-President, or the President of a firm. On one occasion, the producer concerned would not communicate except through his lawyer. Another variation which keeps things interesting is what I have decided to call "passing-the-buck". For example, a New Jersey distributor referred me to a California producer who referred me to a New York photographer. And a midwestern publisher referred me to the copyright holder, who happened to be based in Japan. (Actually, this latter transaction took less time, in terms of number of mail days, than many more localized arrangements.) As varied as the respondents are the responses themselves. These have ranged from the law firm's "no... and furthermore . . ." to the following: "I am happy to grant you permission... I will also be pleased to supply lists of other materials that you may wish to consider for your programs ." and "I appreciate your courtesy in requesting permission. Thank you for asking. I hope we have helped in designing and developing improvements in your curriculum." One producer scolded, via telephone, "Why did you ask? Why didn't you just go down behind the barn and do it?" In extreme contrast to this attitude, however, is that of the publisher who sends along a printed copy of the company's policy statement related to copyright. One New York film producer responded to my letter with a telephone call, explaining that he was willing to grant permission verbally but would not "put it in writing because of possible complications." Again in contrast, a New Jersey publisher responded with a Permission to Reprint form which I had to complete in triplicate. An Illinois media producer responded. "Enclosed is our duplication policy statement to accommodate those making legitimate requests and to inform those duplicating illegally that a policy does exist. Dealers are asked to make positive identification of known illegal duplicators." A review of some specific examples of clearance policies is helpful. For the sake of clarity, I will categorize by media type. A New York publisher granted permission to make 500 copies of a short story for a $12 fee and use of a credit line on each copy. A New Jersey publisher granted permission to reproduce a series of tests. A Colorado publisher would not grant permission to duplicate an article because reprints were available at 50¢ each. An Ohio publisher granted permission to copy pages from a dictionary and a thesaurus as slides. A New York publisher granted permission to convert all the illustrations of a book to slides and the text to tape. An Illinois manufacturer granted permission to copy as slides all the illustrations in a textbook. A New Jersey manufacturer granted permission to copy all the illustrations of three of their books. A California manufacturer provided permission, or sources of permission, by chapter and page of every illustration in their book, a listing consisting of five pages of single-spaced typing. A national organization granted permission to convert all the illustrations in their book to slides. Disc ---- -> Cassette NON-PRINT MATERIALS-AUDIO A New York producer's vice-president would not grant permission. In response to a later inquiry, the company's vice-president for copyright granted permission. A California producer permitted six copies each of 10 recordings. A New York producer would not grant permission for reasons of "deprivation of royalty." An Illinois producer allowed two copies only for independent study use. A Colorado producer allowed one copy only, and that only to protect the original. Reel ___ -> Cassette A New York producer granted permission for a first copy, and charged 40 percent of the initial cost for each additional copy. A Massachusetts producer of language tapes granted permission to convert an entire course from reel to cassette. Cassette -----> Cassette A New York science materials producer and a New York language materials producer allowed the making of one copy to protect the master tape. An Illinois producer refused permission to duplicate, but agreed to replace damaged tapes for $1.00 A university's audiovisual production facility allowed one copy of each cassette purchased. Filmstrip ------> Slides NON-PRINT MATERIALS-VISUAL A New York producer granted permission to cut filmstrip and mount the frames as slides, but would not grant permission to duplicate photographically. A New York producer would not grant permission to duplicate, but offered to produce slides from their filmstrips for $20 per set above the cost of the filmstrips. A California producer replied that they could not grant permission because the material (regretfully) was in the public domain. A California college audiovisual production facility would not grant permission. A Massachusetts producer granted permission to make two slides only from each frame in a filmstrip. Slides ------> Slides Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and California producers would not grant permission. One producer did offer to provide multiple copies of sets at reduced cost. A New York producer agreed to grant permission at 40 percent of the list price of the sets. NON-PRINT MATERIALS-PROGRAMS Filmstrip/Record ------> Slide/Cassette A New York producer replied, "Since it is not for commercial use, do what is best for your purpose." Slide/Cassette ------>Slide/Cassette A California producer said "yes," no conditions. CBS Affiliate Station NON-PRINT MATERIALS-TELEVISION Program Director replied, "Go ahead (videotaping off-the-tube, prime-time) since it is for one-time use and erase the tape after that use." PBS Affiliate Station Program Director replied, "Yes. We can't give you permission, but neither can we deny you the right to do it (!) O.K., for one-time use." In many cases, I have found that permission depends on the type of media being converted. A New York producer, for example, would not allow the duplication of slides, but agreed to converting disc recordings and text to cassette recordings. In other cases, permission would be granted if you were willing to pay the price. In one case, the fee was equal to the cost of the material itself; in another, fees were set at $100 per tape, $100 per filmstrip, and $50 per booklet. Sometimes, on the other hand, agreements seemed to be more reasonable, such as granting permission to convert transparencies to slides and text to cassette for an entire program, the only condition being that you adopt their text and cite publication information in your reproduction. It is not easy to draw simple conclusions from these many experiences. Every situation has its unique set of circumstances, and constraints, and will differ as the educational institutions and the commercial suppliers differ. Every transaction must be worked out formally and diplomatically. It often becomes the responsibility of the instructional developer to assure that this is done. Faculty who do not fully understand the complexities of the problem should be provided with inservice programs or other means of becoming aware: the instructional develoner will need all the sympathy he can get from his colleagues. Meantime, more publishers and producers are making their media available in a variety of formats. This fact, and new copyright legislation, should result in a less complicated and more satisfying task for the instructional developer charged with acquiring copyright clearances. [Reprinted from Audiovisual Instruction, published by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, February 1975] COPYRIGHT TODAY (Jerome K. Miller) Authors have become increasingly concerned about the large-scale copying of their works, prompting them to place conspicuous copyright warnings in their books. Author-illustrator Jan Adkins recently added the following warning to one of his books: We have gone to considerable difficulty and expense to assemble a staff of necromancers, sorcerers, shamans, conjurers, and lawyers to visit nettlesome and mystifying discomforts on any ninny who endeavors to reproduce or transmit this book in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including information storage and retrieval systems without permission from the publisher. Watch yourself! Toolchest. (Walker, 1973). QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Question: Our school has some old sound filmstrips with the soundtrack on phonograph records. We would like to copy the sound onto cassettes and destroy the records. Is it necessary to seek permission from each producer to do this? If so, how can we get permission from producers who have gone out of business? Answer 1: This situation frequently arises in discussions relative to copyright. The fact that filmstrips are "old" does not mean that the copyrights on those old filmstrips have expired. The present term of copyright is for an initial period of 28 years, and if renewed in the 28th year, copyright can be extended for an additional 28 years. The fact that a producer allows the filmstrips to go out of print does not detract from the copyright protection afforded them. It must be kept in mind that even if a producer allows materials to go out of print it does not mean that the producer has no need for those materials. For instance, pictures from an old filmstrip which are no longer being distributed might be utilized in a revision of that work. It would be advisable to contact the producer and seek permission to transfer the sound recordings from discs to tapes. Of course, if the producer has gone out of business, such an attempt would be quite difficult unless the copyrights have been assigned to another organization. Even then, that particular information might not be readily available. If an honest attempt is made to contact the producer and nothing results from it, it would seem as though the school has done all which could reasonably be expected of it. IVAN R. BENDER, Chairman, Copyright Committee, Educational Media Producers Council. Answer 2: Many of the producers of sound filmstrips have been very cooperative in permitting their customers to convert filmstrip soundtracks from phonograph records to cassettes. If the producer has an established policy on this matter, his or her sales representative should be able to answer your question. If there is any doubt about this matter, though, be sure to write for permission before copying. JKM. Question: A few years ago the faculty of this vocational-technical school developed an unusual course for our advanced students. We delayed introducing it until we found a suitable textbook. Last winter a new text was published which we considered appropriate to the course. We ordered 60 copies in March for August delivery; the publisher confirmed the order. Two weeks before school started, the publisher advised that the text was out of stock and would be ready in several months. Since a textbook is essential for this course and no other was available, we either had to drop the course after 55 students had enrolled, or reproduce the book in the school print shop. We chose to honor our commitment to our students. We made offset plates from a sample copy of the book and several teachers worked over the Labor Day weekend to print and bind 60 copies. They were sold through the school bookstore for the cost of the materials. |