Re: cartoons/comics (U.S. Copyright)

[Tim Shearon]

Annette Taylor responded to me off list. I hope she won't mind my including her thoughts here (if so then I apologize). The reason I do so is that Annette asked several excellent questions. (Secondarily, she identified several places where I was not clear in my earlier presentation. For that I am grateful.)

Annette said:
> If I copy a single cartoon out of a book which contains
>several hundred-then it is hardly "whole".
>

Good question. However, publishing groupings of work doesn't remove the individuality (at least not to Larson or to the courts- Gary's publisher is one of those who has sued- not, to my knowledge, a teacher or an educational use!). Some would point to short story complilations. Each short story (or here, cartoon) is a work in itself. By the same token, most cartoons are drawn/sold/published as individual works (albeit on a page full of other cartoons). But, Annette goes on to say:

>Furthermore, if I don't distribute it, but just show it on an
>overhead then how is this really different than if I just bring
>in the book and pass it around with that one cartoon highlighted
>somehow?

Excellent point. To the extent that you show it on the overhead, once and spontaneously, you are absolutely correct that it does satisfy what I understand to be fair use. However, lawyers probably would not want to stop there. Did you copy the piece and then display it. If so then you _may_ be getting closer to the grey areas as you have distributed a copy (Annette, I agree that you haven't but some would not.) It would be more problematic if you saved the overhead and used it over and over. However, in my mind, if you did own a copy and did this I personally think you are ok- I think what Annette is saying is correct specifically because you are allowed to make an archival copy for personal use on media which displays a tendency to deteriorate. Annette goes on to say that such use might spur the student to go out and buy the work. Exactly my view. Though some might disagree. (And, I think, it would depend on how often one used the examples-).

Annette goes on to ask:
> Does the copyright belong to the paper? to the author? and if the latter, does >it go by day, by week by month, by contractual period.

These are excellent questions. First of all there are several types of copyright. The right to the work still belongs to the original publisher and author (that can vary depending on the contractual agreement under which the work is produced). At the same time, the right to display the work can be sold to newspapers, galleries, or broadcast agents (e.g., Nova still owns its programs but the local PBS station also owns the right to distribute them and earn money from that distribution). The key feature to me is that this (whether it is a song, a video, published text, etc) is a product. It is the authors (owners) property and they should have the last say in who _and how_ that property is used. I must admit that this comes from one who is a musician and who has created individual works. (I wasn't that good so I don't presently own any copyrighted material). But, I am sympathetic to the intellectual property issue. I'm completely comfortable that Annette, and many others, are striving to do the best job teaching they can and would not even _consider_ violating copyright law. Perhaps I should have placed more emphasis here: There are others who continue to flaunt the "right" to copy videos and use them in class. This includes keeping them for many semesters and never purchasing a legal copy. That practice can be nothing else but stealing.

Again, thank you Annette for pointing out my lack of clarity and for some very good questions. You inadvertently bring up an excellent point for discussion on this or any other teaching list. What responsibility do those of us who "know better" have to speak to our colleagues when we see them (however innocently!) doing something which is wrong. For example, I still see colleagues who post grades, put graded papers, tests, and notebooks in the hall. Clearly a violation of the Buckley amendment. What do we say to them? If we see it happening and do nothing are we complicitous? (I'm not _just_ asking that retorically.)


Tim Shearon _______________________________________________________
Timothy O. Shearon, PhD
Albertson College of Idaho
Department of Psychology
2112 Cleveland Blvd
Caldwell, Idaho

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
208-459-5840