OOPS typo on my part. I meant to say 50% of the claims were tossed not ANOTHER 50%. The judge only considered 48 of the 99 claims to see if they qualified for "fair use" the other 51 were disregarded either because it was not clear the plaintiffs represented the owners or that there was no evidence they were viewed. This means 10% of the material she actually examined she did find violated "fair use". Does not seem that high but hardly nothing for such a sweeping decision. The real issue in this thread for me though is the nutty claim by the presenter in the webinar that somehow this case could be used as backing the streaming of an entire work particularly when GSU which HAD posted entire books quickly took them down when sued and makes no claim that they could ever do this in their case.
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Jessica Rosner <maddux2...@gmail.com>wrote: > Judith, > I think the 10% statement was pretty clear in that the judge basically > said using 2 chapters in a 10 chapter book would be infringing and almost > forgotten here is she did find 5 of the 99 claims to be infringing ( > another 50% were tossed for reasons of standing and use not "fair use") and > at least one of these five involved material that was less than 10% but > which the judge determined was "the heart of the work" The clear point > being this case in no way shape or form can be used to claim courts support > digitizing and streaming entire films. Could one maybe argue that there is > some work where 12% might make the cut? sure but she is drawing a pretty > clear line and this of course is the part of the case that upset the > educational community which itself referred to it is a "bright line". > > As for the 2nd part about using much larger if not entire works if they > are not available to be licensed, this is where among others I think the > judge went off the deep end and is likely to be struck down on appeal. I > don't see under any law that the courts can say to a rights holder if you > don't make your material in a format that schools want to use then they can > do it themselves. In film terms many independent directors are highly > protective of their work and just because they don't offer their work for > streaming is hardly a reason the courts can allow someone to do it anyway. > > It will also be be very interesting to see how the judges decision to not > consider transformative use will play out. > > > On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Shoaf,Judith P <jsh...@ufl.edu> wrote: > >> Yikes, I’m a mess. Evans said the distinctly large amount was NOT >> infringing, because the lack of available licensing for that work weighed >> in favor of GSU. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Judy**** >> >> ** ** >> >> 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 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.
