Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Lawrence Daressa]

y that goes beyond what some of the most ideological books
about
> copyright tend to say.??Pamela Samuelson, University of California,
Berkeley
> School of Law
>
> "If you only read one book about copyright this year, read Reclaiming
Fair
> Use.? It is the definitive history of the cataclysmic change in the
custom
> and practice surrounding the? fair use of materials? by filmmakers and
other
> groups."? --Michael Donaldson, Esq. Senior Partner, Donaldson &
Callif, Los
> Angeles.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of
issues
> relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic
control,
> preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in
libraries and
> related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an
effective
> working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of
communication
> between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and
> distributors.
>



-- 
Jessica Rosner
Media Consultant
224-545-3897 (cell)
212-627-1785 (land line)
jessicapros...@gmail.com



--

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:57:35 -0500
From: "Jonathan Miller" 
Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
To: 
Message-ID: <024501ccecdc$db573eb0$9205bc10$@icarusfilms.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"

We do have the resources NOT to sell to UCLA until and unless they
modify
their position in this regard, and this our policy, and we urge all
other
distributors to adopt the same position as Icarus Films and Fanlight
Productions. 

And if we learn/know that any other library/university does or intends
to
assert the same thing, we won't sell to them, either. 

JM


Jonathan Miller
President
Icarus Films
32 Court Street, 21st Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201

www.IcarusFilms.com
http://HomeVideo.IcarusFilms.com

Tel 1.718.488.8900
Fax 1.718.488.8642
jmil...@icarusfilms.com



-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:53 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

Actually it is supported by the law. The Kinko's case is literally the
only
case directly on point and it has not been overturned. The problem is
that
the people concerned about this simply do not have the legal resources
to
fight it in court.

I could claim that there is no precedent that says I can not make copies
of
every Seinfield episode and hand them out for free on the street because
there has been no EXACT case saying that I could not.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Brown, Roger 
wrote:
> Hi, Jessica,
>
> I think Michael is pointing out that there is no explicit ruling 
> against use of an entire work, depending upon the way Fair Use or 
> Teach or 108 is interpreted and the circumstances. ?Kim Stanton also 
> points out that the distinction between core resources and ancillary
ones
is blurring.
>
> Your apparent insistence that the streaming and performance of a full 
> feature is illegal under any and all circumstances including fair use 
> isn't supported by case law at this point.
>
>
> - -
> Roger Brown
> Manager
> UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
> 46 Powell Library
> Los Angeles, CA ?90095-1517
> office: 310-206-1248
> fax: 310-206-5392
> rbr...@oid.ucla.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/16/12 7:53 AM, "Jessica Rosner"  
> fashioned the following lines:
>
>>This is NOT about TEACH Michael which has it's own rules and this 
>>discussion has been about wholesale digitizing and streaming of 
>>feature works as "fair use"
>>
>>On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Brewer, Michael 
>> wrote:
>>> There is a big difference between a performance and making a copy 
>>>for download. A streamed "performance" (of a recorded reading) of a 
>>>book actually might very well fall under TEACH, even if the book were

>>>read in its entirety. ?It depends on whether or not it would meet all

>>>the criteria in the law, most specifically what kind of work it is 
>>>and how one defines "nondramatic literary work."
>>>
>>> See the Exceptions for Instructors eTool for more information, 
>>>specifically this page and the notes:
>>>http://librarycopyright.net/etool/reasonableandlimited.php?ca=1
>>>
>>> Entire works - books, video, etc. - may also be used in their 
>>>entirety (streamed, made available for download, etc.) for research 
>>>and teaching if they are in their last 10 years of copyright 
>>>protection and are not being commercially exploited.
>

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

I would strongly advise every distributor on this list to only sell
titles with a signed
contract that clearly lays out the terms of use ( as in no streaming
without a license)
It is a contract. However I would not try this with UCLA I know for a
fact that there were titles that came with such a contract and UCLA
ignored it.

However this only protects new releases and "educational" media from abuse.

The bottom line is that there does in fact have to be a legal case. If
the Georgia State case gets past "Sovereign Immunity" it would likely
be sufficient.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Jonathan Miller
 wrote:
> We do have the resources NOT to sell to UCLA until and unless they modify
> their position in this regard, and this our policy, and we urge all other
> distributors to adopt the same position as Icarus Films and Fanlight
> Productions.
>
> And if we learn/know that any other library/university does or intends to
> assert the same thing, we won't sell to them, either.
>
> JM
>
>
> Jonathan Miller
> President
> Icarus Films
> 32 Court Street, 21st Floor
> Brooklyn, NY 11201
>
> www.IcarusFilms.com
> http://HomeVideo.IcarusFilms.com
>
> Tel 1.718.488.8900
> Fax 1.718.488.8642
> jmil...@icarusfilms.com
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:53 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>
> Actually it is supported by the law. The Kinko's case is literally the only
> case directly on point and it has not been overturned. The problem is that
> the people concerned about this simply do not have the legal resources to
> fight it in court.
>
> I could claim that there is no precedent that says I can not make copies of
> every Seinfield episode and hand them out for free on the street because
> there has been no EXACT case saying that I could not.
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Brown, Roger  wrote:
>> Hi, Jessica,
>>
>> I think Michael is pointing out that there is no explicit ruling
>> against use of an entire work, depending upon the way Fair Use or
>> Teach or 108 is interpreted and the circumstances.  Kim Stanton also
>> points out that the distinction between core resources and ancillary ones
> is blurring.
>>
>> Your apparent insistence that the streaming and performance of a full
>> feature is illegal under any and all circumstances including fair use
>> isn't supported by case law at this point.
>>
>>
>> - -
>> Roger Brown
>> Manager
>> UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
>> 46 Powell Library
>> Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
>> office: 310-206-1248
>> fax: 310-206-5392
>> rbr...@oid.ucla.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/16/12 7:53 AM, "Jessica Rosner" 
>> fashioned the following lines:
>>
>>>This is NOT about TEACH Michael which has it's own rules and this
>>>discussion has been about wholesale digitizing and streaming of
>>>feature works as "fair use"
>>>
>>>On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Brewer, Michael
>>> wrote:
>>>> There is a big difference between a performance and making a copy
>>>>for download. A streamed "performance" (of a recorded reading) of a
>>>>book actually might very well fall under TEACH, even if the book were
>>>>read in its entirety.  It depends on whether or not it would meet all
>>>>the criteria in the law, most specifically what kind of work it is
>>>>and how one defines "nondramatic literary work."
>>>>
>>>> See the Exceptions for Instructors eTool for more information,
>>>>specifically this page and the notes:
>>>>http://librarycopyright.net/etool/reasonableandlimited.php?ca=1
>>>>
>>>> Entire works - books, video, etc. - may also be used in their
>>>>entirety (streamed, made available for download, etc.) for research
>>>>and teaching if they are in their last 10 years of copyright
>>>>protection and are not being commercially exploited.
>>>>
>>>> I know that these are specific exceptions, but it is important for
>>>>people to understand that there is no prohibition on using entire
>>>>works without the permission of the copyright holder.  There are
>>>>exceptions in 110, 108 and 107 (Sony, Bill Graham Archives, etc.), among
> others.
>>>>
>>>> mb
>>>>
>>

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jonathan Miller]

We do have the resources NOT to sell to UCLA until and unless they modify
their position in this regard, and this our policy, and we urge all other
distributors to adopt the same position as Icarus Films and Fanlight
Productions. 

And if we learn/know that any other library/university does or intends to
assert the same thing, we won't sell to them, either. 

JM


Jonathan Miller
President
Icarus Films
32 Court Street, 21st Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201

www.IcarusFilms.com
http://HomeVideo.IcarusFilms.com

Tel 1.718.488.8900
Fax 1.718.488.8642
jmil...@icarusfilms.com



-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:53 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

Actually it is supported by the law. The Kinko's case is literally the only
case directly on point and it has not been overturned. The problem is that
the people concerned about this simply do not have the legal resources to
fight it in court.

I could claim that there is no precedent that says I can not make copies of
every Seinfield episode and hand them out for free on the street because
there has been no EXACT case saying that I could not.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Brown, Roger  wrote:
> Hi, Jessica,
>
> I think Michael is pointing out that there is no explicit ruling 
> against use of an entire work, depending upon the way Fair Use or 
> Teach or 108 is interpreted and the circumstances.  Kim Stanton also 
> points out that the distinction between core resources and ancillary ones
is blurring.
>
> Your apparent insistence that the streaming and performance of a full 
> feature is illegal under any and all circumstances including fair use 
> isn't supported by case law at this point.
>
>
> - -
> Roger Brown
> Manager
> UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
> 46 Powell Library
> Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
> office: 310-206-1248
> fax: 310-206-5392
> rbr...@oid.ucla.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/16/12 7:53 AM, "Jessica Rosner"  
> fashioned the following lines:
>
>>This is NOT about TEACH Michael which has it's own rules and this 
>>discussion has been about wholesale digitizing and streaming of 
>>feature works as "fair use"
>>
>>On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Brewer, Michael 
>> wrote:
>>> There is a big difference between a performance and making a copy 
>>>for download. A streamed "performance" (of a recorded reading) of a 
>>>book actually might very well fall under TEACH, even if the book were 
>>>read in its entirety.  It depends on whether or not it would meet all 
>>>the criteria in the law, most specifically what kind of work it is 
>>>and how one defines "nondramatic literary work."
>>>
>>> See the Exceptions for Instructors eTool for more information, 
>>>specifically this page and the notes:
>>>http://librarycopyright.net/etool/reasonableandlimited.php?ca=1
>>>
>>> Entire works - books, video, etc. - may also be used in their 
>>>entirety (streamed, made available for download, etc.) for research 
>>>and teaching if they are in their last 10 years of copyright 
>>>protection and are not being commercially exploited.
>>>
>>> I know that these are specific exceptions, but it is important for 
>>>people to understand that there is no prohibition on using entire 
>>>works without the permission of the copyright holder.  There are 
>>>exceptions in 110, 108 and 107 (Sony, Bill Graham Archives, etc.), among
others.
>>>
>>> mb
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>>>
>>>> My "paranoia". You mean about saying "fair use" means an entire 
>>>> film can be streamed if a professor says he needs it which is 
>>>> directly contrary to the entire history of "fair use" and would be 
>>>> another likely fatal blow for independent film distribution. I 
>>>> would still like to know why you "sell" your books as opposed to 
>>>> making them available for free as downloads since that appears to 
>>>> be what you want filmmakers to do.
>>>>
>>>> I wish I could figure a way to make this my sig for videolib posts
>>>>
>>>> " The mere fact that the portions copied by Kinko¹s were those that 
>>>> the college professor singled out as being critical parts of the 
>>>> books demonstrates that even if not ³the heart of² the works in 
>>>

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

of best practices be
>>>>>> welcome at National Media Market, or would such a session it just
>>>>>>turn into
>>>>>> a rant session?  I'm thinking of a general discussion then breakout
>>>>>>into
>>>>>> smaller groups with "real life" examples to discuss, is a particular
>>>>>>use
>>>>>> covered by fair use, 110-b, etc.  But I don't want to bad feelings!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sarah E. McCleskey
>>>>>> Head of Access Services
>>>>>> Acting Director, Film and Media Library
>>>>>> 112 Axinn Library
>>>>>> Hofstra University
>>>>>> Hempstead, NY 11549-1230
>>>>>> sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu
>>>>>> 516-463-5076 (o)
>>>>>> 516-463-4309 (f)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
>>>>>> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Stanton,
>>>>>>Kim
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:16 PM
>>>>>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Representative from CSM and ALA have often stressed that the use of
>>>>>>items
>>>>>> in instruction is not always Fair Use or 110, but could be both. I
>>>>>>was
>>>>>> hoping this code would provide more guidance in defining when Fair
>>>>>>Use is in
>>>>>> play in pedagogy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I feel that the Fair Use of feature films in instruction is FARILY
>>>>>>clear
>>>>>> cut. In my experience, outside of Film Studies, most faculty use
>>>>>>fairly
>>>>>> short portions of features films in a way that seems clearly
>>>>>>transformative
>>>>>> or illustrative.   We've all seen examples of this at our
>>>>>>universities.  A
>>>>>> Sociology of the Family course uses a scene from Big Love to
>>>>>>illustrate
>>>>>> nontraditional family structures. A clip from Triumph of the Will is
>>>>>> compared with a clip from Star Wars of Darth Vader commanding
>>>>>>imperial
>>>>>> forces.  Etc, etc , etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not as straightforward when you start talking about the use
>>>>>>of
>>>>>> documentaries in online education, especially those with intrinsic
>>>>>> instructional value. When a faculty member contacts me and  wants to
>>>>>>put an
>>>>>> educational documentary online, 90% of the time they want the entire
>>>>>>film
>>>>>> up.  In my gut, I feel that this is almost always something better
>>>>>>covered
>>>>>> by 110(2) and/or licensed for use, but this Fair Use code is so
>>>>>>vague in
>>>>>> this regard that I don't feel like I can "provide instructors with
>>>>>>useful
>>>>>> information about the nature and the scope of fair use" based on the
>>>>>> information outlined here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Additionally,  Michael Brewer just brought up the idea that 110(b) is
>>>>>> essentially a way to take a physical classroom space and translate
>>>>>>it into
>>>>>> the online environment (within those limitations set by 110b). When
>>>>>>I first
>>>>>> began working with faculty who were moving their courses online it
>>>>>>was
>>>>>> fairly simple to distinguish between a core resource and an
>>>>>>ancillary one
>>>>>> (usually items previously assigned to Reserves or considered
>>>>>>optional).
>>>>>>  However,  faculty are now regularly creating online courses from
>>>>>>scratch
>>>>>> and are no longer tied to the concept that the core instructional
>>>>>>materials
>>>>>> is what can be cover in a 50 minute time span. This is not a bad
>&

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Brown, Roger]

Hi, Jessica,

I think Michael is pointing out that there is no explicit ruling against
use of an entire work, depending upon the way Fair Use or Teach or 108 is
interpreted and the circumstances.  Kim Stanton also points out that the
distinction between core resources and ancillary ones is blurring.

Your apparent insistence that the streaming and performance of a full
feature is illegal under any and all circumstances including fair use
isn't supported by case law at this point.


- - 
Roger Brown
Manager
UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services
46 Powell Library
Los Angeles, CA  90095-1517
office: 310-206-1248
fax: 310-206-5392
rbr...@oid.ucla.edu





On 2/16/12 7:53 AM, "Jessica Rosner"  fashioned
the following lines:

>This is NOT about TEACH Michael which has it's own rules and this
>discussion has been about wholesale digitizing and streaming of
>feature works as "fair use"
>
>On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Brewer, Michael
> wrote:
>> There is a big difference between a performance and making a copy for
>>download. A streamed "performance" (of a recorded reading) of a book
>>actually might very well fall under TEACH, even if the book were read in
>>its entirety.  It depends on whether or not it would meet all the
>>criteria in the law, most specifically what kind of work it is and how
>>one defines "nondramatic literary work."
>>
>> See the Exceptions for Instructors eTool for more information,
>>specifically this page and the notes:
>>http://librarycopyright.net/etool/reasonableandlimited.php?ca=1
>>
>> Entire works - books, video, etc. - may also be used in their entirety
>>(streamed, made available for download, etc.) for research and teaching
>>if they are in their last 10 years of copyright protection and are not
>>being commercially exploited.
>>
>> I know that these are specific exceptions, but it is important for
>>people to understand that there is no prohibition on using entire works
>>without the permission of the copyright holder.  There are exceptions in
>>110, 108 and 107 (Sony, Bill Graham Archives, etc.), among others.
>>
>> mb
>>
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>>
>>> My "paranoia". You mean about saying "fair use" means an entire film
>>> can be streamed if a professor says he needs it which is directly
>>> contrary to the entire history of "fair use" and would be another
>>> likely fatal blow for independent film distribution. I would still
>>> like to know why you "sell" your books as opposed to making them
>>> available for free as downloads since that appears to be what you want
>>> filmmakers to do.
>>>
>>> I wish I could figure a way to make this my sig for videolib posts
>>>
>>> " The mere fact that the portions copied by Kinko¹s were those that
>>> the college professor singled out as being critical parts of the books
>>> demonstrates that even if not ³the heart of² the works in question,
>>> the parts copied were substantial in quality"
>>>
>>> ( Yes I know Kinko's was "for profit" but I can't see how that changes
>>> the long established concept per above that "fair use"  is  PORTIONS
>>> of works used to create NEW WORKS)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Patricia Aufderheide
>>>  wrote:
>>>> It would be great to do more education, and ARL is eager to do so!
>>>>Thank
>>>> you! Enough with the paranoia!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Sarah E. McCleskey
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Would a proposal for a program on the new code of best practices be
>>>>> welcome at National Media Market, or would such a session it just
>>>>>turn into
>>>>> a rant session?  I'm thinking of a general discussion then breakout
>>>>>into
>>>>> smaller groups with "real life" examples to discuss, is a particular
>>>>>use
>>>>> covered by fair use, 110-b, etc.  But I don't want to bad feelings!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Sarah
>>>>>
>>>>> Sarah E. McCleskey
>>>>> Head of Access Services
>>>>> Acting Director, Film and Media Library
>>>>> 112 Axinn Library
>>>>> Hofstra University
>>>>> Hempstead, NY 11549-1230
>>>>> sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu
>>>>> 516-

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

This is NOT about TEACH Michael which has it's own rules and this
discussion has been about wholesale digitizing and streaming of
feature works as "fair use"

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Brewer, Michael
 wrote:
> There is a big difference between a performance and making a copy for 
> download. A streamed "performance" (of a recorded reading) of a book actually 
> might very well fall under TEACH, even if the book were read in its entirety. 
>  It depends on whether or not it would meet all the criteria in the law, most 
> specifically what kind of work it is and how one defines "nondramatic 
> literary work."
>
> See the Exceptions for Instructors eTool for more information, specifically 
> this page and the notes: 
> http://librarycopyright.net/etool/reasonableandlimited.php?ca=1
>
> Entire works - books, video, etc. - may also be used in their entirety 
> (streamed, made available for download, etc.) for research and teaching if 
> they are in their last 10 years of copyright protection and are not being 
> commercially exploited.
>
> I know that these are specific exceptions, but it is important for people to 
> understand that there is no prohibition on using entire works without the 
> permission of the copyright holder.  There are exceptions in 110, 108 and 107 
> (Sony, Bill Graham Archives, etc.), among others.
>
> mb
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>
>> My "paranoia". You mean about saying "fair use" means an entire film
>> can be streamed if a professor says he needs it which is directly
>> contrary to the entire history of "fair use" and would be another
>> likely fatal blow for independent film distribution. I would still
>> like to know why you "sell" your books as opposed to making them
>> available for free as downloads since that appears to be what you want
>> filmmakers to do.
>>
>> I wish I could figure a way to make this my sig for videolib posts
>>
>> " The mere fact that the portions copied by Kinko’s were those that
>> the college professor singled out as being critical parts of the books
>> demonstrates that even if not “the heart of” the works in question,
>> the parts copied were substantial in quality"
>>
>> ( Yes I know Kinko's was "for profit" but I can't see how that changes
>> the long established concept per above that "fair use"  is  PORTIONS
>> of works used to create NEW WORKS)
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Patricia Aufderheide
>>  wrote:
>>> It would be great to do more education, and ARL is eager to do so! Thank
>>> you! Enough with the paranoia!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Sarah E. McCleskey
>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Would a proposal for a program on the new code of best practices be
>>>> welcome at National Media Market, or would such a session it just turn into
>>>> a rant session?  I'm thinking of a general discussion then breakout into
>>>> smaller groups with "real life" examples to discuss, is a particular use
>>>> covered by fair use, 110-b, etc.  But I don't want to bad feelings!!
>>>>
>>>> Sarah
>>>>
>>>> Sarah E. McCleskey
>>>> Head of Access Services
>>>> Acting Director, Film and Media Library
>>>> 112 Axinn Library
>>>> Hofstra University
>>>> Hempstead, NY 11549-1230
>>>> sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu
>>>> 516-463-5076 (o)
>>>> 516-463-4309 (f)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
>>>> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Stanton, Kim
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:16 PM
>>>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Representative from CSM and ALA have often stressed that the use of items
>>>> in instruction is not always Fair Use or 110, but could be both. I was
>>>> hoping this code would provide more guidance in defining when Fair Use is 
>>>> in
>>>> play in pedagogy.
>>>>
>>>> I feel that the Fair Use of feature films in instruction is FARILY clear
>>>> cut. In my experience, outside of Film Studies, most faculty use fairly
>>>> short portions of features films in a way that seems clearly transformative
>>

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Brewer, Michael]

There is a big difference between a performance and making a copy for download. 
A streamed "performance" (of a recorded reading) of a book actually might very 
well fall under TEACH, even if the book were read in its entirety.  It depends 
on whether or not it would meet all the criteria in the law, most specifically 
what kind of work it is and how one defines "nondramatic literary work." 

See the Exceptions for Instructors eTool for more information, specifically 
this page and the notes: 
http://librarycopyright.net/etool/reasonableandlimited.php?ca=1 

Entire works - books, video, etc. - may also be used in their entirety 
(streamed, made available for download, etc.) for research and teaching if they 
are in their last 10 years of copyright protection and are not being 
commercially exploited. 

I know that these are specific exceptions, but it is important for people to 
understand that there is no prohibition on using entire works without the 
permission of the copyright holder.  There are exceptions in 110, 108 and 107 
(Sony, Bill Graham Archives, etc.), among others.

mb


On Feb 16, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Jessica Rosner wrote:

> My "paranoia". You mean about saying "fair use" means an entire film
> can be streamed if a professor says he needs it which is directly
> contrary to the entire history of "fair use" and would be another
> likely fatal blow for independent film distribution. I would still
> like to know why you "sell" your books as opposed to making them
> available for free as downloads since that appears to be what you want
> filmmakers to do.
> 
> I wish I could figure a way to make this my sig for videolib posts
> 
> " The mere fact that the portions copied by Kinko’s were those that
> the college professor singled out as being critical parts of the books
> demonstrates that even if not “the heart of” the works in question,
> the parts copied were substantial in quality"
> 
> ( Yes I know Kinko's was "for profit" but I can't see how that changes
> the long established concept per above that "fair use"  is  PORTIONS
> of works used to create NEW WORKS)
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Patricia Aufderheide
>  wrote:
>> It would be great to do more education, and ARL is eager to do so! Thank
>> you! Enough with the paranoia!
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Sarah E. McCleskey
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Would a proposal for a program on the new code of best practices be
>>> welcome at National Media Market, or would such a session it just turn into
>>> a rant session?  I'm thinking of a general discussion then breakout into
>>> smaller groups with "real life" examples to discuss, is a particular use
>>> covered by fair use, 110-b, etc.  But I don't want to bad feelings!!
>>> 
>>> Sarah
>>> 
>>> Sarah E. McCleskey
>>> Head of Access Services
>>> Acting Director, Film and Media Library
>>> 112 Axinn Library
>>> Hofstra University
>>> Hempstead, NY 11549-1230
>>> sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu
>>> 516-463-5076 (o)
>>> 516-463-4309 (f)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
>>> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Stanton, Kim
>>> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:16 PM
>>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Representative from CSM and ALA have often stressed that the use of items
>>> in instruction is not always Fair Use or 110, but could be both. I was
>>> hoping this code would provide more guidance in defining when Fair Use is in
>>> play in pedagogy.
>>> 
>>> I feel that the Fair Use of feature films in instruction is FARILY clear
>>> cut. In my experience, outside of Film Studies, most faculty use fairly
>>> short portions of features films in a way that seems clearly transformative
>>> or illustrative.   We've all seen examples of this at our universities.  A
>>> Sociology of the Family course uses a scene from Big Love to illustrate
>>> nontraditional family structures. A clip from Triumph of the Will is
>>> compared with a clip from Star Wars of Darth Vader commanding imperial
>>> forces.  Etc, etc , etc.
>>> 
>>> This is not as straightforward when you start talking about the use of
>>> documentaries in online education, especially those with intrinsic
>>> instructional value. When a faculty member contac

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

My "paranoia". You mean about saying "fair use" means an entire film
can be streamed if a professor says he needs it which is directly
contrary to the entire history of "fair use" and would be another
likely fatal blow for independent film distribution. I would still
like to know why you "sell" your books as opposed to making them
available for free as downloads since that appears to be what you want
filmmakers to do.

I wish I could figure a way to make this my sig for videolib posts

" The mere fact that the portions copied by Kinko’s were those that
the college professor singled out as being critical parts of the books
demonstrates that even if not “the heart of” the works in question,
the parts copied were substantial in quality"

( Yes I know Kinko's was "for profit" but I can't see how that changes
the long established concept per above that "fair use"  is  PORTIONS
of works used to create NEW WORKS)


On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Patricia Aufderheide
 wrote:
> It would be great to do more education, and ARL is eager to do so! Thank
> you! Enough with the paranoia!
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Sarah E. McCleskey
>  wrote:
>>
>> Would a proposal for a program on the new code of best practices be
>> welcome at National Media Market, or would such a session it just turn into
>> a rant session?  I'm thinking of a general discussion then breakout into
>> smaller groups with "real life" examples to discuss, is a particular use
>> covered by fair use, 110-b, etc.  But I don't want to bad feelings!!
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> Sarah E. McCleskey
>> Head of Access Services
>> Acting Director, Film and Media Library
>> 112 Axinn Library
>> Hofstra University
>> Hempstead, NY 11549-1230
>> sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu
>> 516-463-5076 (o)
>> 516-463-4309 (f)
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
>> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Stanton, Kim
>> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:16 PM
>> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>>
>>
>> Representative from CSM and ALA have often stressed that the use of items
>> in instruction is not always Fair Use or 110, but could be both. I was
>> hoping this code would provide more guidance in defining when Fair Use is in
>> play in pedagogy.
>>
>> I feel that the Fair Use of feature films in instruction is FARILY clear
>> cut. In my experience, outside of Film Studies, most faculty use fairly
>> short portions of features films in a way that seems clearly transformative
>> or illustrative.   We've all seen examples of this at our universities.  A
>> Sociology of the Family course uses a scene from Big Love to illustrate
>> nontraditional family structures. A clip from Triumph of the Will is
>> compared with a clip from Star Wars of Darth Vader commanding imperial
>> forces.  Etc, etc , etc.
>>
>> This is not as straightforward when you start talking about the use of
>> documentaries in online education, especially those with intrinsic
>> instructional value. When a faculty member contacts me and  wants to put an
>> educational documentary online, 90% of the time they want the entire film
>> up.  In my gut, I feel that this is almost always something better covered
>> by 110(2) and/or licensed for use, but this Fair Use code is so vague in
>> this regard that I don't feel like I can "provide instructors with useful
>> information about the nature and the scope of fair use" based on the
>> information outlined here.
>>
>> Additionally,  Michael Brewer just brought up the idea that 110(b) is
>> essentially a way to take a physical classroom space and translate it into
>> the online environment (within those limitations set by 110b). When I first
>> began working with faculty who were moving their courses online it was
>> fairly simple to distinguish between a core resource and an ancillary one
>> (usually items previously assigned to Reserves or considered optional).
>>  However,  faculty are now regularly creating online courses from scratch
>> and are no longer tied to the concept that the core instructional materials
>> is what can be cover in a 50 minute time span. This is not a bad thing but
>> it makes applying 110(b) more and more difficult.
>>
>>
>> Kim Stanton
>> Head, Media Library
>> University of North Texas
>> kim.stan...@unt.edu
>> P: (940) 565-4832
>> F: (940) 369-7396
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

;>>>> enculturated to pay for expensive text books, which is why it 
>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be fair to scan an entire book and post it online under 
>>>>>>>>>>> factor 4.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that's my two cents anyway
>>>>>>>>>>> Janice Woo
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be
>>>>>>>>>>>> honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the people pushing the "best practices" and other similar 
>>>>>>>>>>>> views
>>>>>>>>>>>> on "fair use" (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) 
>>>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>>>> want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to
>>>>>>>>>>>> rights and use. The term "educational " film really does not have 
>>>>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>>>> legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I 
>>>>>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for
>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. 
>>>>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a
>>>>>>>>>>>> more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> standard
>>>>>>>>>>>> feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> claim
>>>>>>>>>>>> that in essence "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it 
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> and that any use they accept is "tranformative" .
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> theatrical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is assumed that a program from an educational 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributor would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>>>>> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> segments
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the program?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agreements shall
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> law.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> how much
>>>>>>>>>>>>> weight that statement carries.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bob Norris
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Managing Director
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Film Ideas, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Phone: (847) 419-0255
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>>>>>>>>>>&g

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Troy Davis]

t;>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Chris Lewis  wrote:
>>>>>>> I also think it makes a difference vis a vis fair use if a video is
>>>>>>> streaming and copy-protected and can only be viewed during a short
>>>>>>> period whereas a book could be easily copied and kept indefinitely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:31 PM, jwoo  wrote:
>>>>>>>> No, that logic doesn't follow: literature classes read Catcher in the 
>>>>>>>> Rye etc. as the literary work it was intended to be when published.  
>>>>>>>> However, if one were doing linguistic analysis of Catcher in the Rye, 
>>>>>>>> then it would be fair use to digitize and use that text for 
>>>>>>>> computational purposes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wow just Wow that is one the craziest things I have heard but not
>>>>>>>>> surprised. So I assume by the same "logic' most written works from
>>>>>>>>> Catcher in the Rye to  Conspiracy of Dunces can be scanned and posted
>>>>>>>>> on line for classes since after all they were written for
>>>>>>>>> entertainment.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you people wonder why I don't trust the "lawyers" working on this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:07 PM, jwoo  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Feature films seem to be a particularly controversial area, because 
>>>>>>>>>> if I understood Peter Jaszi correctly when he responded to questions 
>>>>>>>>>> about the Best Practices today: to use a film that was originally 
>>>>>>>>>> marketed for entertaininment purposes for educational purposes would 
>>>>>>>>>> be a transformative use. Page 8-9 talk about legal precedents for 
>>>>>>>>>> this, but it's not very detailed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To me this seems to fly in the face of Fair Use factor 4 because 
>>>>>>>>>> feature films tend to be readily accessible for loan, rent, or 
>>>>>>>>>> purchase at reasonable prices.  But I can see how it would apply to 
>>>>>>>>>> videos priced at institutional tiered rates because what student or 
>>>>>>>>>> instructor is going to shell out $250 to watch a film as part of a 
>>>>>>>>>> class assignment? If streamed, it's not going to affect sales 
>>>>>>>>>> anyway. But if a video were only marketed as educational, then Peter 
>>>>>>>>>> Jaszi's transformative use wouldn't come into play, though a high 
>>>>>>>>>> price could make it fair under factor 4.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This doesn't apply to most books because students have been 
>>>>>>>>>> enculturated to pay for expensive text books, which is why it 
>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be fair to scan an entire book and post it online under 
>>>>>>>>>> factor 4.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> that's my two cents anyway
>>>>>>>>>> Janice Woo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be
>>>>>>>>>>> honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer
>>>>>>>>>>> that the people pushing the "best practices" and other similar views
>>>>>>>>>>> on "fair use" (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) 
>>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>>> want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to
>>>>>>>>>>> rights and use. The term "educational " film really does not have 
&

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

ritten works from
>>>>>>>> Catcher in the Rye to  Conspiracy of Dunces can be scanned and posted
>>>>>>>> on line for classes since after all they were written for
>>>>>>>> entertainment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you people wonder why I don't trust the "lawyers" working on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:07 PM, jwoo  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Feature films seem to be a particularly controversial area, because 
>>>>>>>>> if I understood Peter Jaszi correctly when he responded to questions 
>>>>>>>>> about the Best Practices today: to use a film that was originally 
>>>>>>>>> marketed for entertaininment purposes for educational purposes would 
>>>>>>>>> be a transformative use. Page 8-9 talk about legal precedents for 
>>>>>>>>> this, but it's not very detailed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To me this seems to fly in the face of Fair Use factor 4 because 
>>>>>>>>> feature films tend to be readily accessible for loan, rent, or 
>>>>>>>>> purchase at reasonable prices.  But I can see how it would apply to 
>>>>>>>>> videos priced at institutional tiered rates because what student or 
>>>>>>>>> instructor is going to shell out $250 to watch a film as part of a 
>>>>>>>>> class assignment? If streamed, it's not going to affect sales anyway. 
>>>>>>>>> But if a video were only marketed as educational, then Peter Jaszi's 
>>>>>>>>> transformative use wouldn't come into play, though a high price could 
>>>>>>>>> make it fair under factor 4.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This doesn't apply to most books because students have been 
>>>>>>>>> enculturated to pay for expensive text books, which is why it 
>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be fair to scan an entire book and post it online under 
>>>>>>>>> factor 4.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that's my two cents anyway
>>>>>>>>> Janice Woo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be
>>>>>>>>>> honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer
>>>>>>>>>> that the people pushing the "best practices" and other similar views
>>>>>>>>>> on "fair use" (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) 
>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>> want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to
>>>>>>>>>> rights and use. The term "educational " film really does not have any
>>>>>>>>>> legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe
>>>>>>>>>> is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for
>>>>>>>>>> instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In
>>>>>>>>>> terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a
>>>>>>>>>> more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a standard
>>>>>>>>>> feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim
>>>>>>>>>> that in essence "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it is
>>>>>>>>>> and that any use they accept is "tranformative" .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on 
>>>>>>>>>>> theatrical
>>>>>>>>>>> because it is assumed that a program from an educational 
>>>>>>>>>>> distributor would
>>>>>>>>>>> not qualify under fair use because of the adv

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Troy Davis]

;>>>>>> be a transformative use. Page 8-9 talk about legal precedents for 
>>>>>>>> this, but it's not very detailed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To me this seems to fly in the face of Fair Use factor 4 because 
>>>>>>>> feature films tend to be readily accessible for loan, rent, or 
>>>>>>>> purchase at reasonable prices.  But I can see how it would apply to 
>>>>>>>> videos priced at institutional tiered rates because what student or 
>>>>>>>> instructor is going to shell out $250 to watch a film as part of a 
>>>>>>>> class assignment? If streamed, it's not going to affect sales anyway. 
>>>>>>>> But if a video were only marketed as educational, then Peter Jaszi's 
>>>>>>>> transformative use wouldn't come into play, though a high price could 
>>>>>>>> make it fair under factor 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This doesn't apply to most books because students have been 
>>>>>>>> enculturated to pay for expensive text books, which is why it wouldn't 
>>>>>>>> be fair to scan an entire book and post it online under factor 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that's my two cents anyway
>>>>>>>> Janice Woo
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be
>>>>>>>>> honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer
>>>>>>>>> that the people pushing the "best practices" and other similar views
>>>>>>>>> on "fair use" (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often
>>>>>>>>> want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to
>>>>>>>>> rights and use. The term "educational " film really does not have any
>>>>>>>>> legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe
>>>>>>>>> is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for
>>>>>>>>> instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In
>>>>>>>>> terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a
>>>>>>>>> more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a standard
>>>>>>>>> feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim
>>>>>>>>> that in essence "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it is
>>>>>>>>> and that any use they accept is "tranformative" .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on 
>>>>>>>>>> theatrical
>>>>>>>>>> because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor 
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the 
>>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>>> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, 
>>>>>>>>>> would that
>>>>>>>>>> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital 
>>>>>>>>>> segments
>>>>>>>>>> of the program?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements 
>>>>>>>>>> shall
>>>>>>>>>> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright 
>>>>>>>>>> law.
>>>>>>>>>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure 
>>>>>>>>>> how much
>>>>>>>>>> weight that statement carries.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bob Norris
>>>>>>>>>> Managing Director
>>>>>>>>>> Film Ideas, Inc.

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

 if 
>>>>>>> a video were only marketed as educational, then Peter Jaszi's 
>>>>>>> transformative use wouldn't come into play, though a high price could 
>>>>>>> make it fair under factor 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This doesn't apply to most books because students have been 
>>>>>>> enculturated to pay for expensive text books, which is why it wouldn't 
>>>>>>> be fair to scan an entire book and post it online under factor 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that's my two cents anyway
>>>>>>> Janice Woo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be
>>>>>>>> honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer
>>>>>>>> that the people pushing the "best practices" and other similar views
>>>>>>>> on "fair use" (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often
>>>>>>>> want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to
>>>>>>>> rights and use. The term "educational " film really does not have any
>>>>>>>> legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe
>>>>>>>> is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for
>>>>>>>> instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In
>>>>>>>> terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a
>>>>>>>> more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a standard
>>>>>>>> feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim
>>>>>>>> that in essence "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it is
>>>>>>>> and that any use they accept is "tranformative" .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on 
>>>>>>>>> theatrical
>>>>>>>>> because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor 
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the 
>>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>>> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, 
>>>>>>>>> would that
>>>>>>>>> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital 
>>>>>>>>> segments
>>>>>>>>> of the program?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements 
>>>>>>>>> shall
>>>>>>>>> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
>>>>>>>>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how 
>>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>> weight that statement carries.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bob Norris
>>>>>>>>> Managing Director
>>>>>>>>> Film Ideas, Inc.
>>>>>>>>> Phone: (847) 419-0255
>>>>>>>>> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: "Simpkins, Terry W." 
>>>>>>>>> Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST
>>>>>>>>> To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>>>>>>>>> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>>> Jessica Rosner asks "If you ... are sincere that you are not the 
>>>>>>>>> enemy of
>>>>>>>>> co

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Troy Davis]

>>>>>> Janice Woo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be
>>>>>>> honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer
>>>>>>> that the people pushing the "best practices" and other similar views
>>>>>>> on "fair use" (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often
>>>>>>> want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to
>>>>>>> rights and use. The term "educational " film really does not have any
>>>>>>> legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe
>>>>>>> is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for
>>>>>>> instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In
>>>>>>> terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a
>>>>>>> more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a standard
>>>>>>> feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim
>>>>>>> that in essence "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it is
>>>>>>> and that any use they accept is "tranformative" .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
>>>>>>>> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical
>>>>>>>> because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor 
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the 
>>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>>> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, 
>>>>>>>> would that
>>>>>>>> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital 
>>>>>>>> segments
>>>>>>>> of the program?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements 
>>>>>>>> shall
>>>>>>>> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
>>>>>>>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how 
>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>> weight that statement carries.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bob Norris
>>>>>>>> Managing Director
>>>>>>>> Film Ideas, Inc.
>>>>>>>> Phone: (847) 419-0255
>>>>>>>> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: "Simpkins, Terry W." 
>>>>>>>> Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST
>>>>>>>> To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>>>>>>>> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>>> Jessica Rosner asks "If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy 
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that "fair use' 
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that 
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, 
>>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>> it has no basis in the law.  We all know the drill by heart, don't we? 
>>>>>>>>  Each
>>>>>>>> fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use 
>>>>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>>>> "assigned to class," in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work
>

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

lms made exclusively for
>>>>>> instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In
>>>>>> terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a
>>>>>> more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a standard
>>>>>> feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim
>>>>>> that in essence "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it is
>>>>>> and that any use they accept is "tranformative" .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
>>>>>>> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical
>>>>>>> because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor 
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the 
>>>>>>> potential
>>>>>>> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would 
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital 
>>>>>>> segments
>>>>>>> of the program?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements 
>>>>>>> shall
>>>>>>> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
>>>>>>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how 
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> weight that statement carries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Norris
>>>>>>> Managing Director
>>>>>>> Film Ideas, Inc.
>>>>>>> Phone: (847) 419-0255
>>>>>>> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Simpkins, Terry W." 
>>>>>>> Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST
>>>>>>> To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>>>>>>> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>> Jessica Rosner asks "If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy 
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that "fair use' 
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>> NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that 
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, 
>>>>>>> well,
>>>>>>> it has no basis in the law.  We all know the drill by heart, don't we?  
>>>>>>> Each
>>>>>>> fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use 
>>>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>>> "assigned to class," in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work
>>>>>>> (perhaps "feature material"), the amount being used (perhaps the whole 
>>>>>>> film,
>>>>>>> perhaps not), and the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative 
>>>>>>> effect,
>>>>>>> perhaps it will stimulate interest and sales).  The law deliberately
>>>>>>> requires us to reflect on each of these aspects.  It is not a mere
>>>>>>> check-list that makes simplistic assertions about whether using one
>>>>>>> highly-generalized type of material ("feature films") in another highly
>>>>>>> generalized setting ("classes") is, or is not, fair use.  Why on earth 
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> librarians and educators (or any sane individual, for that matter)
>>>>>>> voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law?  If the law was intended 
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> exempt "feature materials" from the fair use provisions in this manner, 
>>>>

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

>>>>>> not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the 
>>>>>> potential
>>>>>> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital 
>>>>>> segments
>>>>>> of the program?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall
>>>>>> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
>>>>>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how 
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> weight that statement carries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Norris
>>>>>> Managing Director
>>>>>> Film Ideas, Inc.
>>>>>> Phone: (847) 419-0255
>>>>>> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Simpkins, Terry W." 
>>>>>> Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST
>>>>>> To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>>>>>> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>> Jessica Rosner asks "If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of
>>>>>> content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that "fair use' 
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one
>>>>>> reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, 
>>>>>> well,
>>>>>> it has no basis in the law.  We all know the drill by heart, don't we?  
>>>>>> Each
>>>>>> fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use 
>>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>> "assigned to class," in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work
>>>>>> (perhaps "feature material"), the amount being used (perhaps the whole 
>>>>>> film,
>>>>>> perhaps not), and the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative 
>>>>>> effect,
>>>>>> perhaps it will stimulate interest and sales).  The law deliberately
>>>>>> requires us to reflect on each of these aspects.  It is not a mere
>>>>>> check-list that makes simplistic assertions about whether using one
>>>>>> highly-generalized type of material ("feature films") in another highly
>>>>>> generalized setting ("classes") is, or is not, fair use.  Why on earth 
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> librarians and educators (or any sane individual, for that matter)
>>>>>> voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law?  If the law was intended 
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> exempt "feature materials" from the fair use provisions in this manner, 
>>>>>> I am
>>>>>> confident it would have been written to say that. Perhaps content owners
>>>>>> might make a similarly "simple and clear statement" saying that license
>>>>>> agreements shall not under any circumstances supersede the rights already
>>>>>> granted to users under the fair use, or any other, provision of the
>>>>>> copyright law, just to "prove" they are not the "enemy" of education.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The law as written does not protect those librarians, students, faculty, 
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> administrators who seek to use fair use as a shield to avoid buying
>>>>>> sufficient licensed or legally acquired copies.  I'm sure there are folks
>>>>>> out there, possibly even on this list, who do that.  There are unethical
>>>>>> practitioners in every field - yes, including librarians, educators, and
>>>>>> even media distributors - but the law already prohibits, for example,
>>>>>> showing a film in a public setting without permission just bec

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Troy Davis]

ution decides it is
>>>>> and that any use they accept is "tranformative" .
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
>>>>>> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical
>>>>>> because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor 
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the 
>>>>>> potential
>>>>>> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital 
>>>>>> segments
>>>>>> of the program?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall
>>>>>> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
>>>>>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how 
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> weight that statement carries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Norris
>>>>>> Managing Director
>>>>>> Film Ideas, Inc.
>>>>>> Phone: (847) 419-0255
>>>>>> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Simpkins, Terry W." 
>>>>>> Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST
>>>>>> To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>>>>>> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>> Jessica Rosner asks "If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of
>>>>>> content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that "fair use' 
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one
>>>>>> reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, 
>>>>>> well,
>>>>>> it has no basis in the law.  We all know the drill by heart, don't we?  
>>>>>> Each
>>>>>> fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use 
>>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>> "assigned to class," in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work
>>>>>> (perhaps "feature material"), the amount being used (perhaps the whole 
>>>>>> film,
>>>>>> perhaps not), and the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative 
>>>>>> effect,
>>>>>> perhaps it will stimulate interest and sales).  The law deliberately
>>>>>> requires us to reflect on each of these aspects.  It is not a mere
>>>>>> check-list that makes simplistic assertions about whether using one
>>>>>> highly-generalized type of material ("feature films") in another highly
>>>>>> generalized setting ("classes") is, or is not, fair use.  Why on earth 
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> librarians and educators (or any sane individual, for that matter)
>>>>>> voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law?  If the law was intended 
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> exempt "feature materials" from the fair use provisions in this manner, 
>>>>>> I am
>>>>>> confident it would have been written to say that. Perhaps content owners
>>>>>> might make a similarly "simple and clear statement" saying that license
>>>>>> agreements shall not under any circumstances supersede the rights already
>>>>>> granted to users under the fair use, or any other, provision of the
>>>>>> copyright law, just to "prove" they are not the "enemy" of education.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The law as written does not protect those librarians, students, faculty, 
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> administrators who seek to use fair use as a shield to avoid buying
>>>>>> sufficient licensed or legally acquired copie

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

;> potential
>>>>> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would 
>>>>> that
>>>>> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments
>>>>> of the program?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall
>>>>> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
>>>>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much
>>>>> weight that statement carries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Norris
>>>>> Managing Director
>>>>> Film Ideas, Inc.
>>>>> Phone: (847) 419-0255
>>>>> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Simpkins, Terry W." 
>>>>> Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST
>>>>> To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>>>>> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>> Jessica Rosner asks "If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of
>>>>> content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that "fair use' does
>>>>> NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes."
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one
>>>>> reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, well,
>>>>> it has no basis in the law.  We all know the drill by heart, don't we?  
>>>>> Each
>>>>> fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use (perhaps
>>>>> "assigned to class," in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work
>>>>> (perhaps "feature material"), the amount being used (perhaps the whole 
>>>>> film,
>>>>> perhaps not), and the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative 
>>>>> effect,
>>>>> perhaps it will stimulate interest and sales).  The law deliberately
>>>>> requires us to reflect on each of these aspects.  It is not a mere
>>>>> check-list that makes simplistic assertions about whether using one
>>>>> highly-generalized type of material ("feature films") in another highly
>>>>> generalized setting ("classes") is, or is not, fair use.  Why on earth 
>>>>> would
>>>>> librarians and educators (or any sane individual, for that matter)
>>>>> voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law?  If the law was intended to
>>>>> exempt "feature materials" from the fair use provisions in this manner, I 
>>>>> am
>>>>> confident it would have been written to say that. Perhaps content owners
>>>>> might make a similarly "simple and clear statement" saying that license
>>>>> agreements shall not under any circumstances supersede the rights already
>>>>> granted to users under the fair use, or any other, provision of the
>>>>> copyright law, just to "prove" they are not the "enemy" of education.
>>>>>
>>>>> The law as written does not protect those librarians, students, faculty, 
>>>>> or
>>>>> administrators who seek to use fair use as a shield to avoid buying
>>>>> sufficient licensed or legally acquired copies.  I'm sure there are folks
>>>>> out there, possibly even on this list, who do that.  There are unethical
>>>>> practitioners in every field - yes, including librarians, educators, and
>>>>> even media distributors - but the law already prohibits, for example,
>>>>> showing a film in a public setting without permission just because someone
>>>>> wants to save on licensing fees.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and my understanding about books is that, when it comes to fair use, 
>>>>> the
>>>>> same factors apply.  As far as I know, there is no blanket legal 
>>>>> prohibition
>>>>> on libraries scanning an entire book and posting it online.  Using the
>>>>> entire work, whether in the case of a film or a book, certainly and
>>>>> ap

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Chris Lewis]

I also think it makes a difference vis a vis fair use if a video is
streaming and copy-protected and can only be viewed during a short
period whereas a book could be easily copied and kept indefinitely.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:31 PM, jwoo  wrote:
> No, that logic doesn't follow: literature classes read Catcher in the Rye 
> etc. as the literary work it was intended to be when published.  However, if 
> one were doing linguistic analysis of Catcher in the Rye, then it would be 
> fair use to digitize and use that text for computational purposes.
>
> On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>
>> Wow just Wow that is one the craziest things I have heard but not
>> surprised. So I assume by the same "logic' most written works from
>> Catcher in the Rye to  Conspiracy of Dunces can be scanned and posted
>> on line for classes since after all they were written for
>> entertainment.
>>
>> And you people wonder why I don't trust the "lawyers" working on this.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:07 PM, jwoo  wrote:
>>> Feature films seem to be a particularly controversial area, because if I 
>>> understood Peter Jaszi correctly when he responded to questions about the 
>>> Best Practices today: to use a film that was originally marketed for 
>>> entertaininment purposes for educational purposes would be a transformative 
>>> use. Page 8-9 talk about legal precedents for this, but it's not very 
>>> detailed.
>>>
>>> To me this seems to fly in the face of Fair Use factor 4 because feature 
>>> films tend to be readily accessible for loan, rent, or purchase at 
>>> reasonable prices.  But I can see how it would apply to videos priced at 
>>> institutional tiered rates because what student or instructor is going to 
>>> shell out $250 to watch a film as part of a class assignment? If streamed, 
>>> it's not going to affect sales anyway. But if a video were only marketed as 
>>> educational, then Peter Jaszi's transformative use wouldn't come into play, 
>>> though a high price could make it fair under factor 4.
>>>
>>> This doesn't apply to most books because students have been enculturated to 
>>> pay for expensive text books, which is why it wouldn't be fair to scan an 
>>> entire book and post it online under factor 4.
>>>
>>> that's my two cents anyway
>>> Janice Woo
>>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be
>>>> honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer
>>>> that the people pushing the "best practices" and other similar views
>>>> on "fair use" (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often
>>>> want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to
>>>> rights and use. The term "educational " film really does not have any
>>>> legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe
>>>> is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for
>>>> instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In
>>>> terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a
>>>> more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a standard
>>>> feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim
>>>> that in essence "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it is
>>>> and that any use they accept is "tranformative" .
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
>>>>> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical
>>>>> because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would
>>>>> not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the 
>>>>> potential
>>>>> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would 
>>>>> that
>>>>> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments
>>>>> of the program?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall
>>>>> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
>>>>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much
>>>>> weight that statement carries.
>>>>>

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[jwoo]

No, that logic doesn't follow: literature classes read Catcher in the Rye etc. 
as the literary work it was intended to be when published.  However, if one 
were doing linguistic analysis of Catcher in the Rye, then it would be fair use 
to digitize and use that text for computational purposes.

On Feb 6, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:

> Wow just Wow that is one the craziest things I have heard but not
> surprised. So I assume by the same "logic' most written works from
> Catcher in the Rye to  Conspiracy of Dunces can be scanned and posted
> on line for classes since after all they were written for
> entertainment.
> 
> And you people wonder why I don't trust the "lawyers" working on this.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:07 PM, jwoo  wrote:
>> Feature films seem to be a particularly controversial area, because if I 
>> understood Peter Jaszi correctly when he responded to questions about the 
>> Best Practices today: to use a film that was originally marketed for 
>> entertaininment purposes for educational purposes would be a transformative 
>> use. Page 8-9 talk about legal precedents for this, but it's not very 
>> detailed.
>> 
>> To me this seems to fly in the face of Fair Use factor 4 because feature 
>> films tend to be readily accessible for loan, rent, or purchase at 
>> reasonable prices.  But I can see how it would apply to videos priced at 
>> institutional tiered rates because what student or instructor is going to 
>> shell out $250 to watch a film as part of a class assignment? If streamed, 
>> it's not going to affect sales anyway. But if a video were only marketed as 
>> educational, then Peter Jaszi's transformative use wouldn't come into play, 
>> though a high price could make it fair under factor 4.
>> 
>> This doesn't apply to most books because students have been enculturated to 
>> pay for expensive text books, which is why it wouldn't be fair to scan an 
>> entire book and post it online under factor 4.
>> 
>> that's my two cents anyway
>> Janice Woo
>> 
>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>> 
>>> I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be
>>> honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer
>>> that the people pushing the "best practices" and other similar views
>>> on "fair use" (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often
>>> want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to
>>> rights and use. The term "educational " film really does not have any
>>> legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe
>>> is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for
>>> instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In
>>> terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a
>>> more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a standard
>>> feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim
>>> that in essence "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it is
>>> and that any use they accept is "tranformative" .
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
>>>> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical
>>>> because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would
>>>> not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the potential
>>>> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would 
>>>> that
>>>> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments
>>>> of the program?
>>>> 
>>>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall
>>>> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
>>>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much
>>>> weight that statement carries.
>>>> 
>>>> Bob Norris
>>>> Managing Director
>>>> Film Ideas, Inc.
>>>> Phone: (847) 419-0255
>>>> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: "Simpkins, Terry W." 
>>>> Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST
>>>> To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
>>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Be

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

Wow just Wow that is one the craziest things I have heard but not
surprised. So I assume by the same "logic' most written works from
Catcher in the Rye to  Conspiracy of Dunces can be scanned and posted
on line for classes since after all they were written for
entertainment.

And you people wonder why I don't trust the "lawyers" working on this.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:07 PM, jwoo  wrote:
> Feature films seem to be a particularly controversial area, because if I 
> understood Peter Jaszi correctly when he responded to questions about the 
> Best Practices today: to use a film that was originally marketed for 
> entertaininment purposes for educational purposes would be a transformative 
> use. Page 8-9 talk about legal precedents for this, but it's not very 
> detailed.
>
> To me this seems to fly in the face of Fair Use factor 4 because feature 
> films tend to be readily accessible for loan, rent, or purchase at reasonable 
> prices.  But I can see how it would apply to videos priced at institutional 
> tiered rates because what student or instructor is going to shell out $250 to 
> watch a film as part of a class assignment? If streamed, it's not going to 
> affect sales anyway. But if a video were only marketed as educational, then 
> Peter Jaszi's transformative use wouldn't come into play, though a high price 
> could make it fair under factor 4.
>
> This doesn't apply to most books because students have been enculturated to 
> pay for expensive text books, which is why it wouldn't be fair to scan an 
> entire book and post it online under factor 4.
>
> that's my two cents anyway
> Janice Woo
>
> On Feb 6, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:
>
>> I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be
>> honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer
>> that the people pushing the "best practices" and other similar views
>> on "fair use" (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often
>> want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to
>> rights and use. The term "educational " film really does not have any
>> legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe
>> is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for
>> instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In
>> terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a
>> more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a standard
>> feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim
>> that in essence "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it is
>> and that any use they accept is "tranformative" .
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
>>> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical
>>> because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would
>>> not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the potential
>>> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would that
>>> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments
>>> of the program?
>>>
>>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall
>>> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
>>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much
>>> weight that statement carries.
>>>
>>> Bob Norris
>>> Managing Director
>>> Film Ideas, Inc.
>>> Phone: (847) 419-0255
>>> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>>>
>>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: "Simpkins, Terry W." 
>>> Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST
>>> To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
>>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>>> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> Jessica Rosner asks "If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of
>>> content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that "fair use' does
>>> NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes."
>>>
>>> I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one
>>> reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, well,
>>> it has no basis in the law.  We all know the drill by heart, don't we?  Each
>>> fai

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[jwoo]

Feature films seem to be a particularly controversial area, because if I 
understood Peter Jaszi correctly when he responded to questions about the Best 
Practices today: to use a film that was originally marketed for entertaininment 
purposes for educational purposes would be a transformative use. Page 8-9 talk 
about legal precedents for this, but it's not very detailed.

To me this seems to fly in the face of Fair Use factor 4 because feature films 
tend to be readily accessible for loan, rent, or purchase at reasonable prices. 
 But I can see how it would apply to videos priced at institutional tiered 
rates because what student or instructor is going to shell out $250 to watch a 
film as part of a class assignment? If streamed, it's not going to affect sales 
anyway. But if a video were only marketed as educational, then Peter Jaszi's 
transformative use wouldn't come into play, though a high price could make it 
fair under factor 4.

This doesn't apply to most books because students have been enculturated to pay 
for expensive text books, which is why it wouldn't be fair to scan an entire 
book and post it online under factor 4.

that's my two cents anyway
Janice Woo

On Feb 6, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Jessica Rosner wrote:

> I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be
> honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer
> that the people pushing the "best practices" and other similar views
> on "fair use" (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often
> want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to
> rights and use. The term "educational " film really does not have any
> legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe
> is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for
> instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In
> terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a
> more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a standard
> feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim
> that in essence "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it is
> and that any use they accept is "tranformative" .
> 
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
>> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical
>> because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would
>> not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the potential
>> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would that
>> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments
>> of the program?
>> 
>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall
>> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much
>> weight that statement carries.
>> 
>> Bob Norris
>> Managing Director
>> Film Ideas, Inc.
>> Phone: (847) 419-0255
>> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>> 
>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Simpkins, Terry W." 
>> Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST
>> To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> 
>> 
>> Hello everyone,
>> Jessica Rosner asks "If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of
>> content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that "fair use' does
>> NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes."
>> 
>> I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one
>> reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, well,
>> it has no basis in the law.  We all know the drill by heart, don't we?  Each
>> fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use (perhaps
>> "assigned to class," in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work
>> (perhaps "feature material"), the amount being used (perhaps the whole film,
>> perhaps not), and the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative effect,
>> perhaps it will stimulate interest and sales).  The law deliberately
>> requires us to reflect on each of these aspects.  It is not a mere
>> check-list that makes simplistic assertions about whether using one
>> highly-generalized type of material ("feature films") in another highly
>> generalized setting ("classes") is, or is not, fair use.  Why on

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[ghandman]

I think you're right on all counts, Terry

Gary Handman



> I find this very interesting: "The core issue remains the claim that in
> essence 'fair use' is whatever the institution decides it is and that any
> use they accept is 'transformative'."  Who has ever claimed this?  The new
> guidelines certainly don't.  These guidelines are not legislation; they
> are advice from one or two professional group to members of that
> profession charged with making intelligent risk/reward decisions, and who
> are trying to manage risks related to using copyrighted materials in an
> academic context.
>
> Ms. Rosner frequently laments about the issue of "how much" of a film may
> be legally used under fair use, and implies that the law prohibits using
> the entire work under any conceivable fair use scenario.  This is simply
> not true, and, as Michael Brewer points out, list readers should not be
> misled by one member repeating an erroneous assertion over and over,
> hoping that the repetition will make it true.  The fair use exemption
> clearly states that the amount used is one factor out of four.  Not the
> most important factor, not the only factor, not a factor that trumps all
> other factors, not a factor that needs to be determined in advance of
> proceeding farther with the other factors.  One equal factor out of four.
> And the ARL guidelines merely state that using the entire work is not an
> automatic disqualification from fair use consideration.  See the FAQ here:
> http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/libraries/faq-librarians#wholething.
> It's really a rather non-controversial assertion if you read the text of
> the law.
>
> Terry
>
> Terry Simpkins
> Director, Research and Collection Services
> Library & Information Services
> Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753
> (802) 443-5045
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 3:51 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>
> I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be
> honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer
> that the people pushing the "best practices" and other similar views
> on "fair use" (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often
> want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to
> rights and use. The term "educational " film really does not have any
> legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe
> is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for
> instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In
> terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a
> more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a standard
> feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim
> that in essence "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it is
> and that any use they accept is "tranformative" .
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
>> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical
>> because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor
>> would
>> not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the
>> potential
>> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would
>> that
>> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital
>> segments
>> of the program?
>>
>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements
>> shall
>> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how
>> much
>> weight that statement carries.
>>
>> Bob Norris
>> Managing Director
>> Film Ideas, Inc.
>> Phone: (847) 419-0255
>> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>
> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of
> issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic
> control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in
> libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve
> as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of
> communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video
> producers and distributors.
>


Gary Handman
Director
Media Resources Center
Moffitt Library
UC Berkeley

510-643-8566
ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

, not a factor 
> that needs to be determined in advance of proceeding farther with the other 
> factors.  One equal factor out of four.  And the ARL guidelines merely state 
> that using the entire work is not an automatic disqualification from fair use 
> consideration.  See the FAQ here: 
> http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/libraries/faq-librarians#wholething.  
> It's really a rather non-controversial assertion if you read the text of the 
> law.
>
> Terry
>
> Terry Simpkins
> Director, Research and Collection Services
> Library & Information Services
> Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753
> (802) 443-5045
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 3:51 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>
> I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be
> honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer
> that the people pushing the "best practices" and other similar views
> on "fair use" (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often
> want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to
> rights and use. The term "educational " film really does not have any
> legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe
> is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for
> instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In
> terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a
> more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a standard
> feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim
> that in essence "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it is
> and that any use they accept is "tranformative" .
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
>> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical
>> because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would
>> not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the potential
>> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would that
>> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments
>> of the program?
>>
>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall
>> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much
>> weight that statement carries.
>>
>> Bob Norris
>> Managing Director
>> Film Ideas, Inc.
>> Phone: (847) 419-0255
>> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>
> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues 
> relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, 
> preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and 
> related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective 
> working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication 
> between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and 
> distributors.



-- 
Jessica Rosner
Media Consultant
224-545-3897 (cell)
212-627-1785 (land line)
jessicapros...@gmail.com

VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues 
relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, 
preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and 
related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective 
working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication 
between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and 
distributors.

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Dennis Doros]

>
> < out of four.  Not the most important factor, not the only factor, not a
> factor that trumps all other factors, not a factor that needs to be
> determined in advance of proceeding farther with the other factors.  One
> equal factor out of four.>>


Terry and Michael,

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I would have to say that the
four fair use guidelines are ambiguous over equality. These guidelines are
not only guidelines for filmmakers and audio-visual users but are also used
by judges (more often than you would think) to decide on copyright
infringement cases. Each judge uses the guidelines but there's nothing in
them that says they should be considered equal, nor that one should be
considered above the others. It's really for each individual judge to
decide and I would bet it's gone both ways equally over the years.

In Jessica's favor, I would say that if an entire work is used -- a judge
most likely would consider that as a factor as well as in regard to any
commercial damage done. And if you go
here to
the the LoC's interpretation of 107, you'll see that the examples given:

<>

are all careful to quantify the amount used. So that would be my
interpretation of Fair Use in regard to entire works. AND to be fair to you
and Michael, there are other laws (Teach -- in your favor -- as well as
DMCA -- in rights holder's favor) to consider that are NOT Fair Use when
we're discussing education and I'm not as well-versed in those as I should.
(But ask me ANYTHING about Shirley Clarke, Lionel Rogosin and Mary Pickford
at the moment.)

And no, I'm not a lawyer, nor have I ever sued or been sued for copyright
infringement. But my archival work has led me to many instances of having
to discuss (hours on end) the ramifications of court decisions and
adjustments to the laws with copyright lawyers.

-- 
Best regards,
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video/Milliarium Zero
PO Box 128
Harrington Park, NJ 07640
Phone: 201-767-3117
Fax: 201-767-3035
email: milefi...@gmail.com
www.milestonefilms.com
www.comebackafrica.com
www.yougottomove.com
www.ontheboweryfilm.com
www.arayafilm.com
www.exilesfilm.com
www.wordisoutmovie.com
www.killerofsheep.com

Join "Milestone Film" on Facebook and Twitter!
and the
Association of Moving Image Archivists !


Follow Milestone on Twitter! 
VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues 
relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, 
preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and 
related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective 
working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication 
between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and 
distributors.

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Simpkins, Terry W.]

I find this very interesting: "The core issue remains the claim that in essence 
'fair use' is whatever the institution decides it is and that any use they 
accept is 'transformative'."  Who has ever claimed this?  The new guidelines 
certainly don't.  These guidelines are not legislation; they are advice from 
one or two professional group to members of that profession charged with making 
intelligent risk/reward decisions, and who are trying to manage risks related 
to using copyrighted materials in an academic context. 

Ms. Rosner frequently laments about the issue of "how much" of a film may be 
legally used under fair use, and implies that the law prohibits using the 
entire work under any conceivable fair use scenario.  This is simply not true, 
and, as Michael Brewer points out, list readers should not be misled by one 
member repeating an erroneous assertion over and over, hoping that the 
repetition will make it true.  The fair use exemption clearly states that the 
amount used is one factor out of four.  Not the most important factor, not the 
only factor, not a factor that trumps all other factors, not a factor that 
needs to be determined in advance of proceeding farther with the other factors. 
 One equal factor out of four.  And the ARL guidelines merely state that using 
the entire work is not an automatic disqualification from fair use 
consideration.  See the FAQ here: 
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/libraries/faq-librarians#wholething.  It's 
really a rather non-controversial assertion if you read the text of the law.

Terry

Terry Simpkins
Director, Research and Collection Services
Library & Information Services
Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753
(802) 443-5045


-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 3:51 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be
honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer
that the people pushing the "best practices" and other similar views
on "fair use" (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often
want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to
rights and use. The term "educational " film really does not have any
legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe
is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for
instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In
terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a
more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a standard
feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim
that in essence "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it is
and that any use they accept is "tranformative" .

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical
> because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would
> not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the potential
> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would that
> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments
> of the program?
>
> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall
> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much
> weight that statement carries.
>
> Bob Norris
> Managing Director
> Film Ideas, Inc.
> Phone: (847) 419-0255
> Email: b...@filmideas.com

VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues 
relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, 
preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and 
related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective 
working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication 
between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and 
distributors.

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Brewer, Michael]

The only thing I am arguing over here is what the law says.  You routinely 
state things as legal fact that are not in the text of the law and I feel 
obliged to correct them so that people don't begin to think they are true.  I 
don't at all mind you stating your opinion, but I do mind when you 
misrepresenting the law.  

mb

Michael Brewer
Team Leader for Instructional Services
University of Arizona Libraries
brew...@u.library.arizona.edu


-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:23 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

Michael,
I have no problem and never did with "reasonable and limited portions", but 
let's not pretend that is what we are arguing over.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Brewer, Michael  
wrote:
> Just some clarification.  TEACH exempts films "produced specifically for use 
> in mediated online instructional activities," not just anything made 
> exclusively for instruction. Also, fiction films do fall under TEACH act 
> parameters, but only in "reasonable and limited" portions.
>
> mb
>
> Michael Brewer
> Team Leader for Instructional Services University of Arizona Libraries 
> brew...@u.library.arizona.edu
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica 
> Rosner
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 1:51 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>
> I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be honest, I 
> focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer that the people 
> pushing the "best practices" and other similar views on "fair use" (and that 
> there is no limit to amount you can use) often want to justify streaming of 
> entire films without any regard to rights and use. The term "educational " 
> film really does not have any legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH 
> ACT ( which I believe is the only area where this applies) films made 
> exclusively for instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction 
> films. In terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a 
> more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a standard feature 
> film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim that in essence 
> "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it is and that any use they 
> accept is "tranformative" .
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
>> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on 
>> theatrical because it is assumed that a program from an educational 
>> distributor would not qualify under fair use because of the adverse 
>> affect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work?
>> And if this is true, would that extend to segments of a program if 
>> the distributors sells digital segments of the program?
>>
>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements 
>> shall not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how 
>> much weight that statement carries.
>>
>> Bob Norris
>> Managing Director
>> Film Ideas, Inc.
>> Phone: (847) 419-0255
>> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: "Simpkins, Terry W." 
>> Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST
>> To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>> Jessica Rosner asks "If you ... are sincere that you are not the 
>> enemy of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that 
>> "fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to 
>> classes."
>>
>> I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that 
>> one reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is 
>> because, well, it has no basis in the law.  We all know the drill by 
>> heart, don't we?  Each fair use decision includes a judgment about 
>> the nature of the use (perhaps "assigned to class," in a non-profit 
>> setting), the nature of the work (perhaps "feature material"), the 
>> amount being used (perhaps the whole film, perhaps not), and the 
>

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

Michael,
I have no problem and never did with "reasonable and limited
portions", but let's not pretend that is what we are arguing over.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Brewer, Michael
 wrote:
> Just some clarification.  TEACH exempts films "produced specifically for use 
> in mediated online instructional activities," not just anything made 
> exclusively for instruction. Also, fiction films do fall under TEACH act 
> parameters, but only in "reasonable and limited" portions.
>
> mb
>
> Michael Brewer
> Team Leader for Instructional Services
> University of Arizona Libraries
> brew...@u.library.arizona.edu
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 1:51 PM
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>
> I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be honest, I 
> focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer that the people 
> pushing the "best practices" and other similar views on "fair use" (and that 
> there is no limit to amount you can use) often want to justify streaming of 
> entire films without any regard to rights and use. The term "educational " 
> film really does not have any legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH 
> ACT ( which I believe is the only area where this applies) films made 
> exclusively for instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction 
> films. In terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a 
> more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a standard feature 
> film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim that in essence 
> "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it is and that any use they 
> accept is "tranformative" .
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
>> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on
>> theatrical because it is assumed that a program from an educational
>> distributor would not qualify under fair use because of the adverse
>> affect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work?
>> And if this is true, would that extend to segments of a program if the
>> distributors sells digital segments of the program?
>>
>> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements
>> shall not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
>> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how
>> much weight that statement carries.
>>
>> Bob Norris
>> Managing Director
>> Film Ideas, Inc.
>> Phone: (847) 419-0255
>> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>>
>> On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: "Simpkins, Terry W." 
>> Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST
>> To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>> Jessica Rosner asks "If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy
>> of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that "fair
>> use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes."
>>
>> I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that
>> one reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is
>> because, well, it has no basis in the law.  We all know the drill by
>> heart, don't we?  Each fair use decision includes a judgment about the
>> nature of the use (perhaps "assigned to class," in a non-profit
>> setting), the nature of the work (perhaps "feature material"), the
>> amount being used (perhaps the whole film, perhaps not), and the
>> effect on the market (perhaps a large negative effect, perhaps it will
>> stimulate interest and sales).  The law deliberately requires us to
>> reflect on each of these aspects.  It is not a mere check-list that
>> makes simplistic assertions about whether using one highly-generalized
>> type of material ("feature films") in another highly generalized
>> setting ("classes") is, or is not, fair use.  Why on earth would
>> librarians and educators (or any sane individual, for that matter)
>> voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law?  If the law was
>> intended to exempt "feature materials" from the fair use provisions in
>> this manner, I am confid

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Brewer, Michael]

Just some clarification.  TEACH exempts films "produced specifically for use in 
mediated online instructional activities," not just anything made exclusively 
for instruction. Also, fiction films do fall under TEACH act parameters, but 
only in "reasonable and limited" portions. 

mb

Michael Brewer
Team Leader for Instructional Services
University of Arizona Libraries
brew...@u.library.arizona.edu


-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 1:51 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be honest, I 
focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer that the people 
pushing the "best practices" and other similar views on "fair use" (and that 
there is no limit to amount you can use) often want to justify streaming of 
entire films without any regard to rights and use. The term "educational " film 
really does not have any legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( 
which I believe is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for 
instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In terms of 
the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a more costly 
"educational" film might be more damaging than a standard feature film, but I 
rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim that in essence "fair use" is 
whatever the institution decides it is and that any use they accept is 
"tranformative" .

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on 
> theatrical because it is assumed that a program from an educational 
> distributor would not qualify under fair use because of the adverse 
> affect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work? 
> And if this is true, would that extend to segments of a program if the 
> distributors sells digital segments of the program?
>
> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements 
> shall not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how 
> much weight that statement carries.
>
> Bob Norris
> Managing Director
> Film Ideas, Inc.
> Phone: (847) 419-0255
> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>
> On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>
>
> From: "Simpkins, Terry W." 
> Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST
> To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>
>
> Hello everyone,
> Jessica Rosner asks "If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy 
> of content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that "fair 
> use' does NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes."
>
> I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that 
> one reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is 
> because, well, it has no basis in the law.  We all know the drill by 
> heart, don't we?  Each fair use decision includes a judgment about the 
> nature of the use (perhaps "assigned to class," in a non-profit 
> setting), the nature of the work (perhaps "feature material"), the 
> amount being used (perhaps the whole film, perhaps not), and the 
> effect on the market (perhaps a large negative effect, perhaps it will 
> stimulate interest and sales).  The law deliberately requires us to 
> reflect on each of these aspects.  It is not a mere check-list that 
> makes simplistic assertions about whether using one highly-generalized 
> type of material ("feature films") in another highly generalized 
> setting ("classes") is, or is not, fair use.  Why on earth would 
> librarians and educators (or any sane individual, for that matter) 
> voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law?  If the law was 
> intended to exempt "feature materials" from the fair use provisions in 
> this manner, I am confident it would have been written to say that. 
> Perhaps content owners might make a similarly "simple and clear 
> statement" saying that license agreements shall not under any 
> circumstances supersede the rights already granted to users under the fair 
> use, or any other, provision of the copyright law, just to "prove" they are 
> not the "enemy" of education.
>
> The law as written does not protect those librarians, students, 
> faculty, or administrators who seek to use fair use as a shiel

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

I am afraid the focus on feature films is my fault Bob. I will be
honest, I focus on features because to me it makes it even clearer
that the people pushing the "best practices" and other similar views
on "fair use" (and that there is no limit to amount you can use) often
want to justify streaming of entire films without any regard to
rights and use. The term "educational " film really does not have any
legal meaning however in the case of the TEACH ACT ( which I believe
is the only area where this applies) films made exclusively for
instruction are an exempt class but then so are all fiction films. In
terms of the financial damage one could argue that the streaming a
more costly "educational" film might be more damaging than a standard
feature film, but I rather doubt it. The core issue remains the claim
that in essence "fair use" is whatever the institution decides it is
and that any use they accept is "tranformative" .

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
> This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical
> because it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would
> not qualify under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the potential
> market for or value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would that
> extend to segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments
> of the program?
>
> I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall
> not supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law.
> Although, if we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much
> weight that statement carries.
>
> Bob Norris
> Managing Director
> Film Ideas, Inc.
> Phone: (847) 419-0255
> Email: b...@filmideas.com
>
> On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>
>
> From: "Simpkins, Terry W." 
> Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST
> To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>
>
> Hello everyone,
> Jessica Rosner asks "If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of
> content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that "fair use' does
> NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes."
>
> I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one
> reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, well,
> it has no basis in the law.  We all know the drill by heart, don't we?  Each
> fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use (perhaps
> "assigned to class," in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work
> (perhaps "feature material"), the amount being used (perhaps the whole film,
> perhaps not), and the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative effect,
> perhaps it will stimulate interest and sales).  The law deliberately
> requires us to reflect on each of these aspects.  It is not a mere
> check-list that makes simplistic assertions about whether using one
> highly-generalized type of material ("feature films") in another highly
> generalized setting ("classes") is, or is not, fair use.  Why on earth would
> librarians and educators (or any sane individual, for that matter)
> voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law?  If the law was intended to
> exempt "feature materials" from the fair use provisions in this manner, I am
> confident it would have been written to say that. Perhaps content owners
> might make a similarly "simple and clear statement" saying that license
> agreements shall not under any circumstances supersede the rights already
> granted to users under the fair use, or any other, provision of the
> copyright law, just to "prove" they are not the "enemy" of education.
>
> The law as written does not protect those librarians, students, faculty, or
> administrators who seek to use fair use as a shield to avoid buying
> sufficient licensed or legally acquired copies.  I'm sure there are folks
> out there, possibly even on this list, who do that.  There are unethical
> practitioners in every field - yes, including librarians, educators, and
> even media distributors - but the law already prohibits, for example,
> showing a film in a public setting without permission just because someone
> wants to save on licensing fees.
>
> Oh, and my understanding about books is that, when it comes to fair use, the
> same factors apply.  As far as I know, there is no blanket legal prohibition
> on libraries scanning an entire book and posting it online.  Using the
> entire work, whether in the case of

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Bob Norris]

This may seem like a naive question, but is all the focus on theatrical because 
it is assumed that a program from an educational distributor would not qualify 
under fair use because of the adverse affect upon the potential market for or 
value of the copyrighted work? And if this is true, would that extend to 
segments of a program if the distributors sells digital segments of the program?

I think Film Ideas would be willing to agree its license agreements shall not 
supersede the rights already granted to users under copyright law. Although, if 
we cannot agree on what the law states, I'm not sure how much weight that 
statement carries. 

Bob Norris
Managing Director
Film Ideas, Inc.
Phone:  (847) 419-0255
Email:  b...@filmideas.com

On Feb 6, 2012, at 1:16 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:

> 
> From: "Simpkins, Terry W." 
> Date: February 6, 2012 12:41:16 PM CST
> To: "videolib@lists.berkeley.edu" 
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> 
> 
> Hello everyone,
> Jessica Rosner asks "If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of 
> content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that "fair use' does 
> NOT cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes."   
> 
> I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one 
> reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, well, it 
> has no basis in the law.  We all know the drill by heart, don't we?  Each 
> fair use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use (perhaps 
> "assigned to class," in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work 
> (perhaps "feature material"), the amount being used (perhaps the whole film, 
> perhaps not), and the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative effect, 
> perhaps it will stimulate interest and sales).  The law deliberately requires 
> us to reflect on each of these aspects.  It is not a mere check-list that 
> makes simplistic assertions about whether using one highly-generalized type 
> of material ("feature films") in another highly generalized setting 
> ("classes") is, or is not, fair use.  Why on earth would librarians and 
> educators (or any sane individual, for that matter) voluntarily limit rights 
> granted to us by law?  If the law was intended to exempt "feature materials" 
> from the fair use provisions in this manner, I am confident it would have 
> been written to say that. Perhaps content owners might make a similarly 
> "simple and clear statement" saying that license agreements shall not under 
> any circumstances supersede the rights already granted to users under the 
> fair use, or any other, provision of the copyright law, just to "prove" they 
> are not the "enemy" of education.
> 
> The law as written does not protect those librarians, students, faculty, or 
> administrators who seek to use fair use as a shield to avoid buying 
> sufficient licensed or legally acquired copies.  I'm sure there are folks out 
> there, possibly even on this list, who do that.  There are unethical 
> practitioners in every field - yes, including librarians, educators, and even 
> media distributors - but the law already prohibits, for example, showing a 
> film in a public setting without permission just because someone wants to 
> save on licensing fees.
> 
> Oh, and my understanding about books is that, when it comes to fair use, the 
> same factors apply.  As far as I know, there is no blanket legal prohibition 
> on libraries scanning an entire book and posting it online.  Using the entire 
> work, whether in the case of a film or a book, certainly and appropriately 
> makes satisfying the fair use test that much more difficult.  But it does not 
> automatically render it impossible, however much Ms. Rosner or anyone else 
> would like it to be so.
> 
> Terry
> 
> Terry Simpkins
> Director, Research and Collection Services
> Library & Information Services
> Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753
> (802) 443-5045
VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues 
relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, 
preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and 
related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective 
working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication 
between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and 
distributors.

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jo Ann Reynolds]

The discussion on this issue has been very interesting and thought provoking 
and I appreciate all the well thought out contributions.

Perhaps we need to think about another way to go about providing film resources 
for classes. Think outside the box, especially for feature films. That's a 
discussion I'd like to see on this list or at NMM.

As we do more and more media in support of classes I begin to think I have 
better things to do than copy a link to a resource that we've purchased into a 
course page or reserve system item. And with the volume we do I just don't have 
time to help everyone through the copyright maze. Maybe institutional 
subscriptions to sites such Netflix, Blockbuster, Amazon, and HuluPlus are part 
of the answer. Then faculty and students could browse and link to what they 
needed themselves and access could be limited by IP range. Because there would 
be high volume I'd expect it to be cheaper than purchasing individually. This 
is something that would probably have the best chance for success if it's a 
group effort demonstrating just how large the market is. It certainly bears 
examining some sort of pricing model for institutions.

I can see both sides of this very interesting discussion, filmmakers can't 
continue without revenue and educational institutions don't have unlimited 
resources even though the demand for e-stuff is growing. A focus on developing 
an efficient and effective online delivery system that protects filmmakers and 
makes a wider variety and number of films available with a minimum of 
intervention is my ideal. How can we make an easily accessible online film 
library that doesn't break the bank or result in piracy?


Jo Ann Reynolds
Reserve Services Coordinator
University of Connecticut Libraries
369 Fairfield Road, Unit 2005RR
Storrs, CT  06269-2005
jo_ann.reyno...@uconn.edu
860-486-1406
860-486-5636 (fax)
http://classguides.lib.uconn.edu/mediaresources 




-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Stanton, Kim
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:16 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices


Representative from CSM and ALA have often stressed that the use of items in 
instruction is not always Fair Use or 110, but could be both. I was hoping this 
code would provide more guidance in defining when Fair Use is in play in 
pedagogy.   

I feel that the Fair Use of feature films in instruction is FARILY clear cut. 
In my experience, outside of Film Studies, most faculty use fairly short 
portions of features films in a way that seems clearly transformative or 
illustrative.   We've all seen examples of this at our universities.  A 
Sociology of the Family course uses a scene from Big Love to illustrate 
nontraditional family structures. A clip from Triumph of the Will is compared 
with a clip from Star Wars of Darth Vader commanding imperial forces.  Etc, etc 
, etc.  

This is not as straightforward when you start talking about the use of 
documentaries in online education, especially those with intrinsic 
instructional value. When a faculty member contacts me and  wants to put an 
educational documentary online, 90% of the time they want the entire film up.  
In my gut, I feel that this is almost always something better covered by 110(2) 
and/or licensed for use, but this Fair Use code is so vague in this regard that 
I don't feel like I can "provide instructors with useful information about the 
nature and the scope of fair use" based on the information outlined here.  

Additionally,  Michael Brewer just brought up the idea that 110(b) is 
essentially a way to take a physical classroom space and translate it into the 
online environment (within those limitations set by 110b). When I first began 
working with faculty who were moving their courses online it was fairly simple 
to distinguish between a core resource and an ancillary one (usually items 
previously assigned to Reserves or considered optional).  However,  faculty are 
now regularly creating online courses from scratch and are no longer tied to 
the concept that the core instructional materials is what can be cover in a 50 
minute time span. This is not a bad thing but it makes applying 110(b) more and 
more difficult.


Kim Stanton
Head, Media Library
University of North Texas
kim.stan...@unt.edu
P: (940) 565-4832
F: (940) 369-7396



-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 11:38 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

First of all 110 is blessedly specific and requires that the showing be in a 
CLASSROOM or similar place of instruction and that the instructor be PRESENT 
and I assure legally this is not even a close call and I d

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Sarah E. McCleskey]

Would a proposal for a program on the new code of best practices be welcome at 
National Media Market, or would such a session it just turn into a rant 
session?  I'm thinking of a general discussion then breakout into smaller 
groups with "real life" examples to discuss, is a particular use covered by 
fair use, 110-b, etc.  But I don't want to bad feelings!!

Sarah

Sarah E. McCleskey
Head of Access Services
Acting Director, Film and Media Library
112 Axinn Library
Hofstra University
Hempstead, NY 11549-1230
sarah.e.mccles...@hofstra.edu
516-463-5076 (o)
516-463-4309 (f)



-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Stanton, Kim
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 2:16 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices


Representative from CSM and ALA have often stressed that the use of items in 
instruction is not always Fair Use or 110, but could be both. I was hoping this 
code would provide more guidance in defining when Fair Use is in play in 
pedagogy.

I feel that the Fair Use of feature films in instruction is FARILY clear cut. 
In my experience, outside of Film Studies, most faculty use fairly short 
portions of features films in a way that seems clearly transformative or 
illustrative.   We've all seen examples of this at our universities.  A 
Sociology of the Family course uses a scene from Big Love to illustrate 
nontraditional family structures. A clip from Triumph of the Will is compared 
with a clip from Star Wars of Darth Vader commanding imperial forces.  Etc, etc 
, etc.

This is not as straightforward when you start talking about the use of 
documentaries in online education, especially those with intrinsic 
instructional value. When a faculty member contacts me and  wants to put an 
educational documentary online, 90% of the time they want the entire film up.  
In my gut, I feel that this is almost always something better covered by 110(2) 
and/or licensed for use, but this Fair Use code is so vague in this regard that 
I don't feel like I can "provide instructors with useful information about the 
nature and the scope of fair use" based on the information outlined here.

Additionally,  Michael Brewer just brought up the idea that 110(b) is 
essentially a way to take a physical classroom space and translate it into the 
online environment (within those limitations set by 110b). When I first began 
working with faculty who were moving their courses online it was fairly simple 
to distinguish between a core resource and an ancillary one (usually items 
previously assigned to Reserves or considered optional).  However,  faculty are 
now regularly creating online courses from scratch and are no longer tied to 
the concept that the core instructional materials is what can be cover in a 50 
minute time span. This is not a bad thing but it makes applying 110(b) more and 
more difficult.


Kim Stanton
Head, Media Library
University of North Texas
kim.stan...@unt.edu
P: (940) 565-4832
F: (940) 369-7396



-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 11:38 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

First of all 110 is blessedly specific and requires that the showing
be in a CLASSROOM or similar place of instruction and that the
instructor be PRESENT and I assure legally this is not even a close
call and I don't even get the impression that the
"best practices" tried for that one. Under no circumstances can 110 be
used to claim the right to stream films at will to a student say in a
dorm, off campus housing or the local Starbucks. If you can not
understand how just streaming any film a professor says they need for
a course to students wherever they are effects the market for a
distributor it is hard for me to explain ( though I see as was typing
it Dennis tried)



On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Brewer, Michael
 wrote:
> Whether streaming an entire film for a class for the same purposes (and 
> amount) as 110 is legally fair or not, I don't see how the effect on the 
> copyright holder would be any different than if the title were used under 
> 110, especially if the "limitations" put forward by these best practices are 
> considered and abided by (I don't have the document in front of me, but I 
> think it addresses those situations where the content was created for the 
> educational market in streaming format, or if the content can easily be 
> purchased/licensed  in streaming form - FMG, Alexander Street Press, etc.).
>
> Can someone describe for me how the effect on the copyright holder would be 
> different for a work streamed to a course than it is for a work performed in 
> a classroom, i.e. 110 (assu

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Stanton, Kim]

Representative from CSM and ALA have often stressed that the use of items in 
instruction is not always Fair Use or 110, but could be both. I was hoping this 
code would provide more guidance in defining when Fair Use is in play in 
pedagogy.   

I feel that the Fair Use of feature films in instruction is FARILY clear cut. 
In my experience, outside of Film Studies, most faculty use fairly short 
portions of features films in a way that seems clearly transformative or 
illustrative.   We've all seen examples of this at our universities.  A 
Sociology of the Family course uses a scene from Big Love to illustrate 
nontraditional family structures. A clip from Triumph of the Will is compared 
with a clip from Star Wars of Darth Vader commanding imperial forces.  Etc, etc 
, etc.  

This is not as straightforward when you start talking about the use of 
documentaries in online education, especially those with intrinsic 
instructional value. When a faculty member contacts me and  wants to put an 
educational documentary online, 90% of the time they want the entire film up.  
In my gut, I feel that this is almost always something better covered by 110(2) 
and/or licensed for use, but this Fair Use code is so vague in this regard that 
I don't feel like I can "provide instructors with useful information about the 
nature and the scope of fair use" based on the information outlined here.  

Additionally,  Michael Brewer just brought up the idea that 110(b) is 
essentially a way to take a physical classroom space and translate it into the 
online environment (within those limitations set by 110b). When I first began 
working with faculty who were moving their courses online it was fairly simple 
to distinguish between a core resource and an ancillary one (usually items 
previously assigned to Reserves or considered optional).  However,  faculty are 
now regularly creating online courses from scratch and are no longer tied to 
the concept that the core instructional materials is what can be cover in a 50 
minute time span. This is not a bad thing but it makes applying 110(b) more and 
more difficult.


Kim Stanton
Head, Media Library
University of North Texas
kim.stan...@unt.edu
P: (940) 565-4832
F: (940) 369-7396



-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 11:38 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

First of all 110 is blessedly specific and requires that the showing
be in a CLASSROOM or similar place of instruction and that the
instructor be PRESENT and I assure legally this is not even a close
call and I don't even get the impression that the
"best practices" tried for that one. Under no circumstances can 110 be
used to claim the right to stream films at will to a student say in a
dorm, off campus housing or the local Starbucks. If you can not
understand how just streaming any film a professor says they need for
a course to students wherever they are effects the market for a
distributor it is hard for me to explain ( though I see as was typing
it Dennis tried)



On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Brewer, Michael
 wrote:
> Whether streaming an entire film for a class for the same purposes (and 
> amount) as 110 is legally fair or not, I don't see how the effect on the 
> copyright holder would be any different than if the title were used under 
> 110, especially if the "limitations" put forward by these best practices are 
> considered and abided by (I don't have the document in front of me, but I 
> think it addresses those situations where the content was created for the 
> educational market in streaming format, or if the content can easily be 
> purchased/licensed  in streaming form - FMG, Alexander Street Press, etc.).
>
> Can someone describe for me how the effect on the copyright holder would be 
> different for a work streamed to a course than it is for a work performed in 
> a classroom, i.e. 110 (assuming the limitations listed above are not in 
> effect)?  It seems the only difference is a greater opportunity for 
> instructional efficiency, expanded access, and, potentially improved student 
> learning.
>
> mb
>
> Michael Brewer
> University of Arizona Libraries
> brew...@u.library.arizona.edu
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:36 AM
> To: pauf...@american.edu; videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>
> Pat,
> If you and the people who developed these "best practices guidelines"
> are sincere that you are not the enemy  of content owners, how bout a simple 
> and CLEAR st

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Simpkins, Terry W.]

Hello everyone,
Jessica Rosner asks "If you ... are sincere that you are not the enemy of 
content owners, how bout a simple and CLEAR statement that "fair use' does NOT 
cover the use of feature material being assigned to classes."   

I am not one of the authors of the guidelines, but I can imagine that one 
reason they might be uncomfortable with such a statement is because, well, it 
has no basis in the law.  We all know the drill by heart, don't we?  Each fair 
use decision includes a judgment about the nature of the use (perhaps "assigned 
to class," in a non-profit setting), the nature of the work (perhaps "feature 
material"), the amount being used (perhaps the whole film, perhaps not), and 
the effect on the market (perhaps a large negative effect, perhaps it will 
stimulate interest and sales).  The law deliberately requires us to reflect on 
each of these aspects.  It is not a mere check-list that makes simplistic 
assertions about whether using one highly-generalized type of material 
("feature films") in another highly generalized setting ("classes") is, or is 
not, fair use.  Why on earth would librarians and educators (or any sane 
individual, for that matter) voluntarily limit rights granted to us by law?  If 
the law was intended to exempt "feature materials" from the fair use provisions 
in this manner, I am confident it would have been written to say that. Perhaps 
content owners might make a similarly "simple and clear statement" saying that 
license agreements shall not under any circumstances supersede the rights 
already granted to users under the fair use, or any other, provision of the 
copyright law, just to "prove" they are not the "enemy" of education.
 
The law as written does not protect those librarians, students, faculty, or 
administrators who seek to use fair use as a shield to avoid buying sufficient 
licensed or legally acquired copies.  I'm sure there are folks out there, 
possibly even on this list, who do that.  There are unethical practitioners in 
every field - yes, including librarians, educators, and even media distributors 
- but the law already prohibits, for example, showing a film in a public 
setting without permission just because someone wants to save on licensing fees.

Oh, and my understanding about books is that, when it comes to fair use, the 
same factors apply.  As far as I know, there is no blanket legal prohibition on 
libraries scanning an entire book and posting it online.  Using the entire 
work, whether in the case of a film or a book, certainly and appropriately 
makes satisfying the fair use test that much more difficult.  But it does not 
automatically render it impossible, however much Ms. Rosner or anyone else 
would like it to be so.

Terry

Terry Simpkins
Director, Research and Collection Services
Library & Information Services
Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753
(802) 443-5045


-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 10:36 AM
To: pauf...@american.edu; videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

Pat,
If you and the people who developed these "best practices guidelines"
are sincere that you are not the enemy  of content owners, how bout a
simple and CLEAR statement that "fair use' does NOT cover the use of
feature material being assigned to classes. I mean it is cute to come
up with a scenario about "tagging" a film, but
we all know what it is going on. More and more universities are simply
allowing entire films to be streamed for classes because professors
and students find it easier and the institutions find it cheaper. Heck
buy one copy and just stream it to the entire class. Your document is
filled with vague references to "fair use" and  educating professors
on it, but for those of us in the content business it is nothing but a
cover for stealing our stuff. Don't get me wrong I believe strongly in
real fair use and
I know many content owners big and small have often not accepted
legitimate uses, but as universities increasingly steal our work (
sorry but this IS the correct word)
I believe it has become " I think it is fair and I am going to use
it". The use of the terms "fair  use" and "transformative" are thrown
out like candy with absolutely no
restrictions beyond asking an instructor to say why they need to use it.


Again a simple statement from the ACRL group that these guidelines are
NOT meant to claim "fair use' covers entire films being assigned for
regular  viewing (not clips, mash ups, tags etc) would be a huge step
towards working with the content community, but I am not holding my
breath.

Also I will ask again for you two answer two questions I have asked
b

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

First of all 110 is blessedly specific and requires that the showing
be in a CLASSROOM or similar place of instruction and that the
instructor be PRESENT and I assure legally this is not even a close
call and I don't even get the impression that the
"best practices" tried for that one. Under no circumstances can 110 be
used to claim the right to stream films at will to a student say in a
dorm, off campus housing or the local Starbucks. If you can not
understand how just streaming any film a professor says they need for
a course to students wherever they are effects the market for a
distributor it is hard for me to explain ( though I see as was typing
it Dennis tried)



On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Brewer, Michael
 wrote:
> Whether streaming an entire film for a class for the same purposes (and 
> amount) as 110 is legally fair or not, I don't see how the effect on the 
> copyright holder would be any different than if the title were used under 
> 110, especially if the "limitations" put forward by these best practices are 
> considered and abided by (I don't have the document in front of me, but I 
> think it addresses those situations where the content was created for the 
> educational market in streaming format, or if the content can easily be 
> purchased/licensed  in streaming form - FMG, Alexander Street Press, etc.).
>
> Can someone describe for me how the effect on the copyright holder would be 
> different for a work streamed to a course than it is for a work performed in 
> a classroom, i.e. 110 (assuming the limitations listed above are not in 
> effect)?  It seems the only difference is a greater opportunity for 
> instructional efficiency, expanded access, and, potentially improved student 
> learning.
>
> mb
>
> Michael Brewer
> University of Arizona Libraries
> brew...@u.library.arizona.edu
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
> [mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:36 AM
> To: pauf...@american.edu; videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>
> Pat,
> If you and the people who developed these "best practices guidelines"
> are sincere that you are not the enemy  of content owners, how bout a simple 
> and CLEAR statement that "fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature 
> material being assigned to classes. I mean it is cute to come up with a 
> scenario about "tagging" a film, but we all know what it is going on. More 
> and more universities are simply allowing entire films to be streamed for 
> classes because professors and students find it easier and the institutions 
> find it cheaper. Heck buy one copy and just stream it to the entire class. 
> Your document is filled with vague references to "fair use" and  educating 
> professors on it, but for those of us in the content business it is nothing 
> but a cover for stealing our stuff. Don't get me wrong I believe strongly in 
> real fair use and I know many content owners big and small have often not 
> accepted legitimate uses, but as universities increasingly steal our work ( 
> sorry but this IS the correct word) I believe it has become " I think it is 
> fair and I am going to use it". The use of the terms "fair  use" and 
> "transformative" are thrown out like candy with absolutely no restrictions 
> beyond asking an instructor to say why they need to use it.
>
>
> Again a simple statement from the ACRL group that these guidelines are NOT 
> meant to claim "fair use' covers entire films being assigned for regular  
> viewing (not clips, mash ups, tags etc) would be a huge step towards working 
> with the content community, but I am not holding my breath.
>
> Also I will ask again for you two answer two questions I have asked before 
> but never received an answer to.
>
> 1. What is the difference in copyright between a book and a film? If a 
> professor can show the need for an entire film in a course, why can't an 
> instructor show the need for an entire book and have it scanned and posted 
> online.
>
> 2. The UCLA case is at present dismissed on the basis  of Sovereign Immunity, 
> standing  and oddly PPR rights sold with the title in question, but as a 
> matter of your view and others with the "best practices" was it legal for 
> UCLA to digitize, stream and use thousands of full length  feature films?
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Patricia Aufderheide  
> wrote:
>> Thank you, Gary! I think your example of Avatar is very interesting.
>> If I were the librarian, I would ask the professor to explain why the
>> prof

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Dennis Doros]

Michael,

The first obvious answer is the need for only one DVD instead of multiple
copies at the library on hold for students. And of course, a streamed
version can be used for multiple campuses or for distance learning use
where more copies would have been needed. And there's always the fact that
replacements aren't needed because you're not touching the DVD. That last
one may sound like a "corporate greed" answer, but let's face it, from the
16mm days onward, replacement copies for damaged material from multiple use
has been a fundamental backbone of the film distribution model -- and if
you think about it, a Darwinian one. Multiple and replacement copies are
needed most for films that are used the most. In this case, Jessica's
comparison is apt. Do you photocopy text books so the original books don't
get damaged?

But here's my thing. There's the artistic objection in that converting a
feature DVD to streaming is a bastardization of the original content where
only (at most) a tenth of the information is seen from the original
version. Filmmakers can spend years to make a film, we spend months to
years restoring a film, then there's months on authoring and creating DVD
editions (proofing each disc five or six times for flaws) --  and then
having a student see a version that has been converted from 4GB (DVD) to
50GB (BluRay) compressed down to 500mb --  is a rip off of the artist's
intentions and looks like crap. And just as importantly, it's a rip-off of
the students who deserve to see films in optimal conditions. I have to say
that this bothers most of all that this point never enters into our
discussions. That convenience seems to be the most essential requirement
for media today.

And of course, fair use has nothing to do with most of this. Breaking the
encryption code without permission for anything other than clips as
prescribed by the most recent agreement is still illegal. How does that
prescribe to colleges that are supposed to be teaching ethics and morals in
today's societies? Is it fair use to cheat on only a portion of your exams?
(Sorry, I'm not sure if that analogy works, but I just loved writing it!)

Dennis

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Brewer, Michael <
brew...@u.library.arizona.edu> wrote:

> Whether streaming an entire film for a class for the same purposes (and
> amount) as 110 is legally fair or not, I don't see how the effect on the
> copyright holder would be any different than if the title were used under
> 110, especially if the "limitations" put forward by these best practices
> are considered and abided by (I don't have the document in front of me, but
> I think it addresses those situations where the content was created for the
> educational market in streaming format, or if the content can easily be
> purchased/licensed  in streaming form - FMG, Alexander Street Press, etc.).
>
> Can someone describe for me how the effect on the copyright holder would
> be different for a work streamed to a course than it is for a work
> performed in a classroom, i.e. 110 (assuming the limitations listed above
> are not in effect)?  It seems the only difference is a greater opportunity
> for instructional efficiency, expanded access, and, potentially improved
> student learning.
>
> mb
>
> Michael Brewer
> University of Arizona Libraries
> brew...@u.library.arizona.edu
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
> Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:36 AM
> To: pauf...@american.edu; videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>
> Pat,
> If you and the people who developed these "best practices guidelines"
> are sincere that you are not the enemy  of content owners, how bout a
> simple and CLEAR statement that "fair use' does NOT cover the use of
> feature material being assigned to classes. I mean it is cute to come up
> with a scenario about "tagging" a film, but we all know what it is going
> on. More and more universities are simply allowing entire films to be
> streamed for classes because professors and students find it easier and the
> institutions find it cheaper. Heck buy one copy and just stream it to the
> entire class. Your document is filled with vague references to "fair use"
> and  educating professors on it, but for those of us in the content
> business it is nothing but a cover for stealing our stuff. Don't get me
> wrong I believe strongly in real fair use and I know many content owners
> big and small have often not accepted legitimate uses, but as universities
> increasingly steal our work ( sorry but this IS the correct word) I believe
> it has beco

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Brewer, Michael]

Whether streaming an entire film for a class for the same purposes (and amount) 
as 110 is legally fair or not, I don't see how the effect on the copyright 
holder would be any different than if the title were used under 110, especially 
if the "limitations" put forward by these best practices are considered and 
abided by (I don't have the document in front of me, but I think it addresses 
those situations where the content was created for the educational market in 
streaming format, or if the content can easily be purchased/licensed  in 
streaming form - FMG, Alexander Street Press, etc.).  

Can someone describe for me how the effect on the copyright holder would be 
different for a work streamed to a course than it is for a work performed in a 
classroom, i.e. 110 (assuming the limitations listed above are not in effect)?  
It seems the only difference is a greater opportunity for instructional 
efficiency, expanded access, and, potentially improved student learning.

mb

Michael Brewer
University of Arizona Libraries
brew...@u.library.arizona.edu


-Original Message-
From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 8:36 AM
To: pauf...@american.edu; videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

Pat,
If you and the people who developed these "best practices guidelines"
are sincere that you are not the enemy  of content owners, how bout a simple 
and CLEAR statement that "fair use' does NOT cover the use of feature material 
being assigned to classes. I mean it is cute to come up with a scenario about 
"tagging" a film, but we all know what it is going on. More and more 
universities are simply allowing entire films to be streamed for classes 
because professors and students find it easier and the institutions find it 
cheaper. Heck buy one copy and just stream it to the entire class. Your 
document is filled with vague references to "fair use" and  educating 
professors on it, but for those of us in the content business it is nothing but 
a cover for stealing our stuff. Don't get me wrong I believe strongly in real 
fair use and I know many content owners big and small have often not accepted 
legitimate uses, but as universities increasingly steal our work ( sorry but 
this IS the correct word) I believe it has become " I think it is fair and I am 
going to use it". The use of the terms "fair  use" and "transformative" are 
thrown out like candy with absolutely no restrictions beyond asking an 
instructor to say why they need to use it.


Again a simple statement from the ACRL group that these guidelines are NOT 
meant to claim "fair use' covers entire films being assigned for regular  
viewing (not clips, mash ups, tags etc) would be a huge step towards working 
with the content community, but I am not holding my breath.

Also I will ask again for you two answer two questions I have asked before but 
never received an answer to.

1. What is the difference in copyright between a book and a film? If a 
professor can show the need for an entire film in a course, why can't an 
instructor show the need for an entire book and have it scanned and posted 
online.

2. The UCLA case is at present dismissed on the basis  of Sovereign Immunity, 
standing  and oddly PPR rights sold with the title in question, but as a matter 
of your view and others with the "best practices" was it legal for UCLA to 
digitize, stream and use thousands of full length  feature films?

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Patricia Aufderheide  
wrote:
> Thank you, Gary! I think your example of Avatar is very interesting. 
> If I were the librarian, I would ask the professor to explain why the 
> prof needs the entire film, and how the students will interact with 
> the entire film to demonstrate the point. There are, for instance, 
> hilarious mashups of Pocahantas and Avatar (just Google both names on 
> Youtube) that accomplish that basic insight quite efficiently.
> I can also imagine, although just barely, a situation where I as an 
> instructor might assign the whole film, but analytically such that I 
> would assign any particular stretch of a film to different groups in 
> class to tag (yes, it would be a lot easier in html5 but that's 
> coming) for a variety of techniques/approaches, and ask each group 
> also to critique and comment on the tagging of the others. This might 
> mean putting up the film, but not necessarily in one whole stream.
> But I say this not as a lawyer but as a teacher.
> The point being, fair use is not a pass to use material for the same 
> purpose as the original with a figleaf excuse (hey, I'm looking for 
> imperialism!), but it is possible to imagine needing 100% of any work 
> with a le

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

Pat,
If you and the people who developed these "best practices guidelines"
are sincere that you are not the enemy  of content owners, how bout a
simple and CLEAR statement that "fair use' does NOT cover the use of
feature material being assigned to classes. I mean it is cute to come
up with a scenario about "tagging" a film, but
we all know what it is going on. More and more universities are simply
allowing entire films to be streamed for classes because professors
and students find it easier and the institutions find it cheaper. Heck
buy one copy and just stream it to the entire class. Your document is
filled with vague references to "fair use" and  educating professors
on it, but for those of us in the content business it is nothing but a
cover for stealing our stuff. Don't get me wrong I believe strongly in
real fair use and
I know many content owners big and small have often not accepted
legitimate uses, but as universities increasingly steal our work (
sorry but this IS the correct word)
I believe it has become " I think it is fair and I am going to use
it". The use of the terms "fair  use" and "transformative" are thrown
out like candy with absolutely no
restrictions beyond asking an instructor to say why they need to use it.


Again a simple statement from the ACRL group that these guidelines are
NOT meant to claim "fair use' covers entire films being assigned for
regular  viewing (not clips, mash ups, tags etc) would be a huge step
towards working with the content community, but I am not holding my
breath.

Also I will ask again for you two answer two questions I have asked
before but never received an answer to.

1. What is the difference in copyright between a book and a film? If a
professor can show the need for an entire film in a course, why can't
an instructor show the need for an entire book and have it scanned and
posted online.

2. The UCLA case is at present dismissed on the basis  of Sovereign
Immunity, standing  and oddly PPR rights sold with the title in
question, but as a matter of your
view and others with the "best practices" was it legal for UCLA to
digitize, stream and use thousands of full length  feature films?

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Patricia Aufderheide
 wrote:
> Thank you, Gary! I think your example of Avatar is very interesting. If I
> were the librarian, I would ask the professor to explain why the prof needs
> the entire film, and how the students will interact with the entire film to
> demonstrate the point. There are, for instance, hilarious mashups of
> Pocahantas and Avatar (just Google both names on Youtube) that accomplish
> that basic insight quite efficiently.
> I can also imagine, although just barely, a situation where I as an
> instructor might assign the whole film, but analytically such that I would
> assign any particular stretch of a film to different groups in class to tag
> (yes, it would be a lot easier in html5 but that's coming) for a variety of
> techniques/approaches, and ask each group also to critique and comment on
> the tagging of the others. This might mean putting up the film, but not
> necessarily in one whole stream.
> But I say this not as a lawyer but as a teacher.
> The point being, fair use is not a pass to use material for the same purpose
> as the original with a figleaf excuse (hey, I'm looking for imperialism!),
> but it is possible to imagine needing 100% of any work with a legitimate
> fair use.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM,  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these
>> guidelines)
>>
>> I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations
>> and enhancements not withstanding.
>>
>> If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted
>> video work that is central to the curriculum ("the instructor’s
>> pedagogical
>> purpose") could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in
>> face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of "transformative use"
>> (I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of
>> imperialism, bingo!  Transformative!)
>>
>> It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt
>> to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in
>> which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential
>> significant economic stake in making content available online.
>>
>> Thanks as always for your views and input.
>>
>> Gary Handman
>>
>>
>> > Thank you for reading these!
>> > 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read
>> > both
>> > the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general
>> > assertion,
>> > and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case
>> > of
>> > e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that
>> > there
>> > are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course
>> > appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses,

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Bob Norris]

You seem to be putting words in my mouth if the below reply is directed to my 
comment. I do agree that the world would be a better place if everyone had a 
clear understanding of all copyright law. I applaud ACRL taking a step in that 
direction. My concern is an overly aggressive interpretation of Fair Use does 
threaten content owners. 

On Feb 6, 2012, at 9:00 AM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
> From: Patricia Aufderheide 
> Date: February 6, 2012 8:39:10 AM CST
> To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
> Reply-To: pauf...@american.edu, videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> 
> 
> Thank you for noticing that fair use does not threaten content owners. 
> Indeed, most of us are content owners, after all. One of the benefits of 
> having clear understandings at the level of professional practice about fair 
> use is that it reduces marketplace friction, and makes it easier for content 
> holders to clearly identify when uses might reasonably exceed fair use. At 
> the same time, fair use enables content creation at every point. You couldn't 
> have documentary film or journalism without it, and those are communities 
> that are legitimately and correctly passionate about ownership rights. 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:
> Three cheers to Gary for sticking up for the content owners. 
> Bob
> Film Ideas, Inc.
> 
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:55 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>> 
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of videolib digest..."
>> Today's Topics:
>> 
>>   1. Re: ACRL Best Practices (ghand...@library.berkeley.edu)
>> 
>> From: ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
>> Date: January 30, 2012 10:50:13 AM CST
>> To: pauf...@american.edu, videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these
>> guidelines)
>> 
>> I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations
>> and enhancements not withstanding.

VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues 
relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, 
preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and 
related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective 
working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication 
between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and 
distributors.

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jonathan Miller]

Nor does this contribute to "clear understanding" in any way. 

 

And asserting that this something (ill-defined and subject of much debate -
i.e. a moving target) does not "threaten content owners" does not make it
so. "Content owners"  are a diverse lot, as are their rights and interests. 

 

I can tell you this, for example: in my experience over 30+ years, the #1
way that people (and companies) try and avoid paying for someone else's work
in the film/TV business, is to argue "fair use". 

 

And, that trend is only increasing. 

 

I write this as someone who worked w/ Marlon Riggs and on the distribution
of COLOR ADJUSTMENT, a film that could exist and be shown at all only
because of Fair Use. 

 

I can also testify to the increasing claim of "Fair use" by e.g. PBS
stations, well funded independent filmmakers, etc. to avoid paying for other
peoples footage and work. Why not? If you can get away with it, as long as
it does not gore your ox, why not? 

 

This is not a dis interested discussion or argument. (and on at least one
other level not addressed). 

 

JM

 

 

 

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Patricia
Aufderheide
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 9:39 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

 

Thank you for noticing that fair use does not threaten content owners.
Indeed, most of us are content owners, after all. One of the benefits of
having clear understandings at the level of professional practice about fair
use is that it reduces marketplace friction, and makes it easier for content
holders to clearly identify when uses might reasonably exceed fair use. At
the same time, fair use enables content creation at every point. You
couldn't have documentary film or journalism without it, and those are
communities that are legitimately and correctly passionate about ownership
rights. 

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:

Three cheers to Gary for sticking up for the content owners. 

Bob

Film Ideas, Inc.

 

On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:55 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of videolib digest..."
Today's Topics:

  1. Re: ACRL Best Practices (ghand...@library.berkeley.edu)

From: ghand...@library.berkeley.edu

Date: January 30, 2012 10:50:13 AM CST

To: pauf...@american.edu, videolib@lists.berkeley.edu

Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu



Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these
guidelines)

I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations
and enhancements not withstanding.

If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted

video work that is central to the curriculum ("the instructor's
pedagogical


purpose") could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in
face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of "transformative use"
(I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of
imperialism, bingo!  Transformative!)

It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt
to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in
which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential
significant economic stake in making content available online.

Thanks as always for your views and input.

Gary Handman



Thank you for reading these!

1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both

the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general assertion,

and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case

of

e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that there

are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course

appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is

always

an issue.

 

*LIMITATIONS *

 

Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed

primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook,

workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief

excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be

transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use.

 

The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of

the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which

they have been made available at an instructor's direction.

 

Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors'

graduate assistants) should have access to materials.

 

Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent that,

there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor's pedagogical

purpose and the kind and amount of co

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jonathan Miller]

As you said - you are not a lawyer. 

 JM

 

 

From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Patricia
Aufderheide
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 9:36 AM
To: ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
Cc: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

 

Thank you, Gary! I think your example of Avatar is very interesting. If I
were the librarian, I would ask the professor to explain why the prof needs
the entire film, and how the students will interact with the entire film to
demonstrate the point. There are, for instance, hilarious mashups of
Pocahantas and Avatar (just Google both names on Youtube) that accomplish
that basic insight quite efficiently. 

I can also imagine, although just barely, a situation where I as an
instructor might assign the whole film, but analytically such that I would
assign any particular stretch of a film to different groups in class to tag
(yes, it would be a lot easier in html5 but that's coming) for a variety of
techniques/approaches, and ask each group also to critique and comment on
the tagging of the others. This might mean putting up the film, but not
necessarily in one whole stream. 

But I say this not as a lawyer but as a teacher. 

The point being, fair use is not a pass to use material for the same purpose
as the original with a figleaf excuse (hey, I'm looking for imperialism!),
but it is possible to imagine needing 100% of any work with a legitimate
fair use. 

 

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM,  wrote:

Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these
guidelines)

I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations
and enhancements not withstanding.

If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted
video work that is central to the curriculum ("the instructor's
pedagogical
purpose") could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in
face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of "transformative use"
(I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of
imperialism, bingo!  Transformative!)

It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt
to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in
which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential
significant economic stake in making content available online.

Thanks as always for your views and input.

Gary Handman


> Thank you for reading these!
> 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both
> the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general assertion,
> and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case
> of
> e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that there
> are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course
> appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is
> always
> an issue.
>
> *LIMITATIONS *
>
> Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed
> primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook,
> workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief
> excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be
> transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use.
>
> The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of
> the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which
> they have been made available at an instructor's direction.
>
> Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors'
> graduate assistants) should have access to materials.
>
> Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent that,
> there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor's pedagogical
> purpose and the kind and amount of content involved.
>
> Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the
> nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed
> requests.
>
> When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to
> online
> materials may be limited.
>
> Students should also be given information about their rights and
> responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials.
>
> Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should
> be provided for each work included or excerpted.
>
> *ENHANCEMENTS:*
>
> The case for fair use is enhanced when libraries prompt instructors, who
> are most likely to understand the educational purpose and transformative
> nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular material
> is requested, and why the amount requested is appropriate to that
> pedagogical purpose. An instructor

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Patricia Aufderheide]

Thank you for noticing that fair use does not threaten content owners.
Indeed, most of us are content owners, after all. One of the benefits of
having clear understandings at the level of professional practice about
fair use is that it reduces marketplace friction, and makes it easier for
content holders to clearly identify when uses might reasonably exceed fair
use. At the same time, fair use enables content creation at every point.
You couldn't have documentary film or journalism without it, and those are
communities that are legitimately and correctly passionate about ownership
rights.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Bob Norris  wrote:

> Three cheers to Gary for sticking up for the content owners.
> Bob
> Film Ideas, Inc.
>
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:55 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of videolib digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: ACRL Best Practices (ghand...@library.berkeley.edu)
>
> *From: *ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
> *Date: *January 30, 2012 10:50:13 AM CST
> *To: *pauf...@american.edu, videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject: **Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices*
> *Reply-To: *videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>
>
> Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these
> guidelines)
>
> I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations
> and enhancements not withstanding.
>
> If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted
> video work that is central to the curriculum ("the instructor’s
> pedagogical
>
> purpose") could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in
> face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of "transformative use"
> (I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of
> imperialism, bingo!  Transformative!)
>
> It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt
> to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in
> which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential
> significant economic stake in making content available online.
>
> Thanks as always for your views and input.
>
> Gary Handman
>
>
> Thank you for reading these!
>
> 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both
>
> the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general assertion,
>
> and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case
>
> of
>
> e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that there
>
> are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course
>
> appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is
>
> always
>
> an issue.
>
>
> *LIMITATIONS *
>
>
> Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed
>
> primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook,
>
> workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief
>
> excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be
>
> transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use.
>
>
> The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of
>
> the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which
>
> they have been made available at an instructor’s direction.
>
>
> Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors’
>
> graduate assistants) should have access to materials.
>
>
> Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent that,
>
> there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s pedagogical
>
> purpose and the kind and amount of content involved.
>
>
> Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the
>
> nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed
>
> requests.
>
>
> When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to
>
> online
>
> materials may be limited.
>
>
> Students should also be given information about their rights and
>
> responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials.
>
>
> Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should
>
> be provided for each work included or excerpted.
>
>
> *ENHANCEMENTS:*
>
>
> The case for fair use is enhanced when libraries prompt instructors, who
>
> are most likely to understand the educational purpose and transformative
>
> nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular material
>
> is requested, and why the amount requested is ap

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Patricia Aufderheide]

Thank you, Gary! I think your example of Avatar is very interesting. If I
were the librarian, I would ask the professor to explain why the prof needs
the entire film, and how the students will interact with the entire film to
demonstrate the point. There are, for instance, hilarious mashups of
Pocahantas and Avatar (just Google both names on Youtube) that accomplish
that basic insight quite efficiently.
I can also imagine, although just barely, a situation where I as an
instructor might assign the whole film, but analytically such that I would
assign any particular stretch of a film to different groups in class to tag
(yes, it would be a lot easier in html5 but that's coming) for a variety of
techniques/approaches, and ask each group also to critique and comment on
the tagging of the others. This might mean putting up the film, but not
necessarily in one whole stream.
But I say this not as a lawyer but as a teacher.
The point being, fair use is not a pass to use material for the same
purpose as the original with a figleaf excuse (hey, I'm looking for
imperialism!), but it is possible to imagine needing 100% of any work with
a legitimate fair use.


On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM,  wrote:

> Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these
> guidelines)
>
> I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations
> and enhancements not withstanding.
>
> If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted
> video work that is central to the curriculum ("the instructor’s
> pedagogical
> purpose") could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in
> face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of "transformative use"
> (I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of
> imperialism, bingo!  Transformative!)
>
> It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt
> to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in
> which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential
> significant economic stake in making content available online.
>
> Thanks as always for your views and input.
>
> Gary Handman
>
>
> > Thank you for reading these!
> > 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both
> > the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general
> assertion,
> > and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case
> > of
> > e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that
> there
> > are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course
> > appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is
> > always
> > an issue.
> >
> > *LIMITATIONS *
> >
> > Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed
> > primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook,
> > workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief
> > excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be
> > transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use.
> >
> > The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of
> > the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which
> > they have been made available at an instructor’s direction.
> >
> > Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors’
> > graduate assistants) should have access to materials.
> >
> > Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent
> that,
> > there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s pedagogical
> > purpose and the kind and amount of content involved.
> >
> > Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the
> > nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed
> > requests.
> >
> > When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to
> > online
> > materials may be limited.
> >
> > Students should also be given information about their rights and
> > responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials.
> >
> > Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should
> > be provided for each work included or excerpted.
> >
> > *ENHANCEMENTS:*
> >
> > The case for fair use is enhanced when libraries prompt instructors, who
> > are most likely to understand the educational purpose and transformative
> > nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular material
> > is requested, and why the amount requested is appropriate to that
> > pedagogical purpose. An instructor’s justification can be expressed via
> > standardized forms that provide a balanced menu of common or recurring
> > fair
> > use rationales.
> >
> > In order to assure the continuing relevance of those materials to course
> > content, libraries should require instructors of recurrently offered
> > courses to review posted materials and make updates as appropriate.
> >
> >
> > 2) In terms of copying to

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

Thanks Gary but I think it is more than that. "Face to Face " really can
not be  used at all as it is VERY specific that this applies ONLY to films
shown in physical location with an instructor present. Luckily it is one of
the few copyright exemptions that is very very clear.

It strikes me that Pat & company put in a lot of vague phrases claiming
that digitizing and streaming an entire work could be "transformative"
without anything more than  the professor says he needs it and again some
vague claim that professors should be made aware of copyright laws. Since
you have basically given a free card to stream anything in any amount they
want to use in a class or in many cases outside of a class since rarely are
they streaming a film they actual showed in full in a class, there is
basically no requirement at all to limit the portion or have the work be
used to create a new work as
fair use requires.

A question for Pat. If an intro to film course used City Lights, Citizen
Kane, Fantasia, The Bicycle Thief, Rosie the Riveter, Hoop Dreams and Star
Wars in their course you believe it would be OK to digitize and stream the
entire films because the instructor says he needs them to watch the entire
films? What if any limitations are there and how would this not take a very
direct hit and both the rights and revenues of the owners?

Also I never seem to get an answer to this question. If it is OK to stream
entire films, why is it not OK to make full length books ( both fiction and
non fiction) available on line for a class so there is no need for the
students to buy them? Please tell me under copyright law
what the difference is?

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:50 AM,  wrote:

> Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these
> guidelines)
>
> I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations
> and enhancements not withstanding.
>
> If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted
> video work that is central to the curriculum ("the instructor’s
> pedagogical
> purpose") could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in
> face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of "transformative use"
> (I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of
> imperialism, bingo!  Transformative!)
>
> It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt
> to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in
> which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential
> significant economic stake in making content available online.
>
> Thanks as always for your views and input.
>
> Gary Handman
>
>
> > Thank you for reading these!
> > 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both
> > the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general
> assertion,
> > and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case
> > of
> > e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that
> there
> > are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course
> > appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is
> > always
> > an issue.
> >
> > *LIMITATIONS *
> >
> > Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed
> > primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook,
> > workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief
> > excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be
> > transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use.
> >
> > The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of
> > the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which
> > they have been made available at an instructor’s direction.
> >
> > Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors’
> > graduate assistants) should have access to materials.
> >
> > Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent
> that,
> > there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s pedagogical
> > purpose and the kind and amount of content involved.
> >
> > Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the
> > nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed
> > requests.
> >
> > When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to
> > online
> > materials may be limited.
> >
> > Students should also be given information about their rights and
> > responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials.
> >
> > Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should
> > be provided for each work included or excerpted.
> >
> > *ENHANCEMENTS:*
> >
> > The case for fair use is enhanced when libraries prompt instructors, who
> > are most likely to understand the educational purpose and transformative
> > nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular material
> > is requested, and why the

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[ghandman]

I dunno about that, Bob...I'm just trying to get some clarity in these
concepts and guidelines.

gary



> Three cheers to Gary for sticking up for the content owners.
> Bob
> Film Ideas, Inc.
>
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:55 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of videolib digest..."
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>   1. Re: ACRL Best Practices (ghand...@library.berkeley.edu)
>>
>> From: ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
>> Date: January 30, 2012 10:50:13 AM CST
>> To: pauf...@american.edu, videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
>> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these
>> guidelines)
>>
>> I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the
>> limitations
>> and enhancements not withstanding.
>>
>> If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length
>> copyrighted
>> video work that is central to the curriculum ("the instructor’s
>> pedagogical
>> purpose") could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in
>> face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of "transformative use"
>> (I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of
>> imperialism, bingo!  Transformative!)
>>
>> It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt
>> to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in
>> which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential
>> significant economic stake in making content available online.
>>
>> Thanks as always for your views and input.
>>
>> Gary Handman
>>
>>
>>> Thank you for reading these!
>>> 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read
>>> both
>>> the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general
>>> assertion,
>>> and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the
>>> case
>>> of
>>> e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that
>>> there
>>> are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course
>>> appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is
>>> always
>>> an issue.
>>>
>>> *LIMITATIONS *
>>>
>>> Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and
>>> marketed
>>> primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a
>>> textbook,
>>> workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a
>>> brief
>>> excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be
>>> transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use.
>>>
>>> The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration
>>> of
>>> the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for
>>> which
>>> they have been made available at an instructor’s direction.
>>>
>>> Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors’
>>> graduate assistants) should have access to materials.
>>>
>>> Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent
>>> that,
>>> there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s pedagogical
>>> purpose and the kind and amount of content involved.
>>>
>>> Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the
>>> nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed
>>> requests.
>>>
>>> When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to
>>> online
>>> materials may be limited.
>>>
>>> Students should also be given information about their rights and
>>> responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials.
>>>
>>> Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field,
>>> should
>>> be provided for each work included or excerpted.
>>>
>>> *ENHANCEMENTS:*
>>>
>>> The case for fair use is enhanced when libraries prompt instructors,
>>> who
>>> are most likely to understand the educational purpose and
>>> transformative
>>> nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular
>>> material
>>> is requested, and why the amount requested is appropr

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Bob Norris]

Three cheers to Gary for sticking up for the content owners. 
Bob
Film Ideas, Inc.

On Jan 30, 2012, at 2:55 PM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote:
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of videolib digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: ACRL Best Practices (ghand...@library.berkeley.edu)
> 
> From: ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
> Date: January 30, 2012 10:50:13 AM CST
> To: pauf...@american.edu, videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices
> Reply-To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> 
> 
> Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these
> guidelines)
> 
> I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations
> and enhancements not withstanding.
> 
> If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted
> video work that is central to the curriculum ("the instructor’s
> pedagogical
> purpose") could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in
> face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of "transformative use"
> (I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of
> imperialism, bingo!  Transformative!)
> 
> It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt
> to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in
> which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential
> significant economic stake in making content available online.
> 
> Thanks as always for your views and input.
> 
> Gary Handman
> 
> 
>> Thank you for reading these!
>> 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both
>> the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general assertion,
>> and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case
>> of
>> e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that there
>> are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course
>> appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is
>> always
>> an issue.
>> 
>> *LIMITATIONS *
>> 
>> Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed
>> primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook,
>> workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief
>> excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be
>> transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use.
>> 
>> The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of
>> the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which
>> they have been made available at an instructor’s direction.
>> 
>> Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors’
>> graduate assistants) should have access to materials.
>> 
>> Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent that,
>> there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s pedagogical
>> purpose and the kind and amount of content involved.
>> 
>> Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the
>> nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed
>> requests.
>> 
>> When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to
>> online
>> materials may be limited.
>> 
>> Students should also be given information about their rights and
>> responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials.
>> 
>> Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should
>> be provided for each work included or excerpted.
>> 
>> *ENHANCEMENTS:*
>> 
>> The case for fair use is enhanced when libraries prompt instructors, who
>> are most likely to understand the educational purpose and transformative
>> nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular material
>> is requested, and why the amount requested is appropriate to that
>> pedagogical purpose. An instructor’s justification can be expressed via
>> standardized forms that provide a balanced menu of common or recurring
>> fair
>> use rationales.
>> 
>> In order to assure the continuing relevance of those materials to course
>> content, libraries should require instructors of recurrently offered
>> courses to review posted materials and make updates as appropriate.
>> 
>> 
>> 2) In terms of copying to preserve (e.g. VHS to DVD), again it's important
>> to look at the limitations; in this area, the existence of commercial
>> ava

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[ghandman]

Thanks, Pat (and thanks again for spearheading the development of these
guidelines)

I am a still a bit concerned about the e-reserves section--the limitations
and enhancements not withstanding.

If I am reading this section correctly, almost any full-length copyrighted
video work that is central to the curriculum ("the instructor’s
pedagogical
purpose") could conceivable be digitized and streamed for use in
face-to-face classroom teaching under the banner of "transformative use"
(I screen Avatar in an ethnic studies class to discuss metaphors of
imperialism, bingo!  Transformative!)

It seems to me that this particular section ignores (or at least attempt
to trump) the established tests of fair use, as, for example, cases in
which a content owner/provider that has an existing or potential
significant economic stake in making content available online.

Thanks as always for your views and input.

Gary Handman


> Thank you for reading these!
> 1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both
> the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general assertion,
> and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case
> of
> e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that there
> are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course
> appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is
> always
> an issue.
>
> *LIMITATIONS *
>
> Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed
> primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook,
> workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief
> excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be
> transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use.
>
> The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of
> the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which
> they have been made available at an instructor’s direction.
>
> Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors’
> graduate assistants) should have access to materials.
>
> Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent that,
> there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s pedagogical
> purpose and the kind and amount of content involved.
>
> Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the
> nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed
> requests.
>
> When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to
> online
> materials may be limited.
>
> Students should also be given information about their rights and
> responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials.
>
> Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should
> be provided for each work included or excerpted.
>
> *ENHANCEMENTS:*
>
> The case for fair use is enhanced when libraries prompt instructors, who
> are most likely to understand the educational purpose and transformative
> nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular material
> is requested, and why the amount requested is appropriate to that
> pedagogical purpose. An instructor’s justification can be expressed via
> standardized forms that provide a balanced menu of common or recurring
> fair
> use rationales.
>
> In order to assure the continuing relevance of those materials to course
> content, libraries should require instructors of recurrently offered
> courses to review posted materials and make updates as appropriate.
>
>
> 2) In terms of copying to preserve (e.g. VHS to DVD), again it's important
> to look at the limitations; in this area, the existence of commercial
> availability is the very first reference. This is a transformative
> purpose,
> in the sense that this material, which had been unuseable for teaching
> purposes (usually what drives such a decision is a teacher's need for
> materials that are either fragile or that no longer have players in the
> classroom) is made useful again. This clause in no way undercuts a
> distributor's ability to offer a commercial service, and in no way does it
> give librarians a blank check to copy over their collections wholesale
> from
> format to format. You know, most librarians don't want to spend their time
> transferring material from obsolete formats, and at the end of the day
> getting poor-resolution copies with limited functionality. Really.
>
> *LIMITATIONS*:
>
> Preservation copies should not be made when a fully equivalent digital
> copy
> is commercially available at a reasonable cost.
>
> Libraries should not provide access to or circulate original and
> preservation copies simultaneously.
>
> Off-premises access to preservation copies circulated as substitutes for
> original copies should be limited to authenticated members of a library’s
> patron community, e.g., students, faculty, staff, affiliated scholars, and
> other accredited users.

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Patricia Aufderheide]

Thank you for reading these!
1) In terms of e-reserves (section 1), it's really important to read both
the limitations and the enhancements. They qualify that general assertion,
and make clear that you need a transformative purpose, which in the case of
e-reserves would be appropriate to the course. You can also see that there
are limitations regarding the type of material as well. And of course
appropriate amount, as the general material in the code stresses, is always
an issue.

*LIMITATIONS *

Closer scrutiny should be applied to uses of content created and marketed
primarily for use in courses such as the one at issue (e.g., a textbook,
workbook, or anthology designed for the course). Use of more than a brief
excerpt from such works on digital networks is unlikely to be
transformative and therefore unlikely to be a fair use.

The availability of materials should be coextensive with the duration of
the course or other time-limited use (e.g., a research project) for which
they have been made available at an instructor’s direction.

Only eligible students and other qualified persons (e.g., professors’
graduate assistants) should have access to materials.

Materials should be made available only when, and only to the extent that,
there is a clear articulable nexus between the instructor’s pedagogical
purpose and the kind and amount of content involved.

Libraries should provide instructors with useful information about the
nature and the scope of fair use, in order to help them make informed
requests.

When appropriate, the number of students with simultaneous access to online
materials may be limited.

Students should also be given information about their rights and
responsibilities regarding their own use of course materials.

Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should
be provided for each work included or excerpted.

*ENHANCEMENTS:*

The case for fair use is enhanced when libraries prompt instructors, who
are most likely to understand the educational purpose and transformative
nature of the use, to indicate briefly in writing why particular material
is requested, and why the amount requested is appropriate to that
pedagogical purpose. An instructor’s justification can be expressed via
standardized forms that provide a balanced menu of common or recurring fair
use rationales.

In order to assure the continuing relevance of those materials to course
content, libraries should require instructors of recurrently offered
courses to review posted materials and make updates as appropriate.


2) In terms of copying to preserve (e.g. VHS to DVD), again it's important
to look at the limitations; in this area, the existence of commercial
availability is the very first reference. This is a transformative purpose,
in the sense that this material, which had been unuseable for teaching
purposes (usually what drives such a decision is a teacher's need for
materials that are either fragile or that no longer have players in the
classroom) is made useful again. This clause in no way undercuts a
distributor's ability to offer a commercial service, and in no way does it
give librarians a blank check to copy over their collections wholesale from
format to format. You know, most librarians don't want to spend their time
transferring material from obsolete formats, and at the end of the day
getting poor-resolution copies with limited functionality. Really.

*LIMITATIONS*:

Preservation copies should not be made when a fully equivalent digital copy
is commercially available at a reasonable cost.

Libraries should not provide access to or circulate original and
preservation copies simultaneously.

Off-premises access to preservation copies circulated as substitutes for
original copies should be limited to authenticated members of a library’s
patron community, e.g., students, faculty, staff, affiliated scholars, and
other accredited users.

Full attribution, in a form satisfactory to scholars in the field, should
be provided for all items made available online, to the extent it can be
determined with reasonable effort.



*ENHANCEMENTS:*

Fair use claims will be enhanced when libraries take technological steps to
limit further redistribution of digital surrogates, e.g., by streaming
audiovisual media, using appropriately lower-resolution versions, or using
watermarks on textual materials and images.

Fair use claims will be further enhanced when libraries provide copyright
owners a simple tool for registering objections to use of digital
surrogates, such as an e-mail address associated with a full-time employee.


On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:37 PM,  wrote:

> So?  Has anyone had an opportunity to read em?
>
> I've had several quick reads and it seems to me that the two most
> significant principles being supported relevant to video are:
>
> 1. A fair use justification for digitizing and delivering of library video
> collections to classes...pretty heavy!  The notion of transformative use
> comes into p

Re: [Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[Jessica Rosner]

I only had a quick look and the scary thing is that those are exactly the
two issues that  upset me and I think are totally unsupportable by
copyright law.

I will comment in detail tomorrow but how can one remotely claim that
copying a VHS to DVD is any way shape or form "transormative"?

really scary that for the moment we seem to be on the same page Gary.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 6:37 PM,  wrote:

> So?  Has anyone had an opportunity to read em?
>
> I've had several quick reads and it seems to me that the two most
> significant principles being supported relevant to video are:
>
> 1. A fair use justification for digitizing and delivering of library video
> collections to classes...pretty heavy!  The notion of transformative use
> comes into play--shades of UCLA!
>
> On quick reading I find this principle more than a bit problematic:  it
> says
> "It is fair use to make appropriately tailed course-related content
> available to enrolled students via digital networks"
>
> What does that mean, exactly, though?  A fair use claim for digitizing
> DVDs and/or vhs tapes to support specific classes, regardless of content
> type, regardless of license availability?  Regardless...  I feel like I'm
> missing something.  (If Pat Aufderheide is lurking...I'd really like to
> hear her thoughts).
>
> 2. Going beyond current 108 allowances by claiming fair use for a)
> "preemptive" preservation (not simply 108's requirement that the item
> being considered for preservation must demonstrate deterioration); and b)
> off-premises use of preservation copies to library patrons.  (I didn't get
> the sense that the document supports network delivery of materials made
> under 108 provisions...)
>
> I'm interested in hearing what the rest of you think...
>
>
> gary
>
> Gary Handman
> Director
> Media Resources Center
> Moffitt Library
> UC Berkeley
>
> 510-643-8566
> ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
> http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC
>
> "I have always preferred the reflection of life to life itself."
> --Francois Truffaut
>
>
> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of
> issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic
> control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in
> libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as
> an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of
> communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video
> producers and distributors.
>



-- 
Jessica Rosner
Media Consultant
224-545-3897 (cell)
212-627-1785 (land line)
jessicapros...@gmail.com
VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues 
relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, 
preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and 
related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective 
working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication 
between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and 
distributors.

[Videolib] ACRL Best Practices

[ghandman]

So?  Has anyone had an opportunity to read em?

I've had several quick reads and it seems to me that the two most
significant principles being supported relevant to video are:

1. A fair use justification for digitizing and delivering of library video
collections to classes...pretty heavy!  The notion of transformative use
comes into play--shades of UCLA!

On quick reading I find this principle more than a bit problematic:  it says
"It is fair use to make appropriately tailed course-related content
available to enrolled students via digital networks"

What does that mean, exactly, though?  A fair use claim for digitizing
DVDs and/or vhs tapes to support specific classes, regardless of content
type, regardless of license availability?  Regardless...  I feel like I'm
missing something.  (If Pat Aufderheide is lurking...I'd really like to
hear her thoughts).

2. Going beyond current 108 allowances by claiming fair use for a)
"preemptive" preservation (not simply 108's requirement that the item
being considered for preservation must demonstrate deterioration); and b)
off-premises use of preservation copies to library patrons.  (I didn't get
the sense that the document supports network delivery of materials made
under 108 provisions...)

I'm interested in hearing what the rest of you think...


gary

Gary Handman
Director
Media Resources Center
Moffitt Library
UC Berkeley

510-643-8566
ghand...@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC

"I have always preferred the reflection of life to life itself."
--Francois Truffaut


VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues 
relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, 
preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and 
related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective 
working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication 
between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and 
distributors.