I participated in this webinar and feel I must  clarify what was presented by 
Linda Enghagen who is an attorney and Professor at the University of 
Massachuesetts at Amherst. Following are actual excerpts from the materials she 
provided as related to the points Farhad made:


1.       The judge ruled that the purchase of videos that included "public 
performance rights" was sufficient to permit UCLA to lawfully digitize, 
reformat and stream those videos via a secure system to students enrolled in 
specific courses. At the same time, the judge acknowledged that no court has 
ruled on whether this same practice is lawful under fair use. In other words, 
this case does not resolve that question.

2.       Because the case included allegations of violations of both federal 
(copyright infringement) and state law (breach of contract) laws, the judge had 
to determine whether the "preemption doctrine" applied. The judge concluded 
that it did. Therefore, the only claim considered was that based on copyright 
infringement. All the state based claims such as breach of contract were 
dismissed. While there is a degree to which this is a highly technical point in 
the case, it possesses the potential of being highly significant. It suggests 
the answer to an as of yet unresolved question of law which is: may a copyright 
owner put terms and conditions on the sale of copyright protected works that 
limit the rights of a user under fair use? This ruling suggests (but does not 
rule) that copyright owners cannot restrict fair use rights of lawful users by 
imposing overly restrictive terms and conditions on the sale.

3.       One of the rulings in the case against Georgia State University was 
that the 1976 agreement on guidelines for classroom copying are not legally 
binding and are not an appropriate standard for determining what does and does 
not qualify as a fair use.

4.       Also in the GSU case, the judge ruled that repeated use of the same 
work is permitted by copyright law and does not violate fair use. This case 
involved non-fiction books only and has no bearing on video works.


I did not feel as though  I was given "permission" after this presentation to 
digitize DVD's for streaming with obtaining the rights to do so. I could apply 
fair use principles and DMCA to digitize clips for educational purposes, but 
not the full DVD. The judge in the UCLA case felt they had purchased the rights 
with having bought public performance rights. In this case, they purchased 
rights, just not what Ambrose thought was the appropriate rights. I still ask 
for the digital rights.

Shelia D. Owens
Distance Education
200 Brister Hall
(901)678-2236 Office
(901) 678-5112 Fax
www.memphis.edu/ecampus

From: Moshiri, Farhad [mailto:mosh...@uiwtx.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 9:18 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: [Videolib] Is Streaming transformative?

Dear Colleagues,

Yesterday, I attended a webinar on recent copyright court cases in which the 
presenter stated several points that confused me a lot since they were 
completely the opposite of what I've learned up to this day. I need your help 
to clarify these issues.


1.       The presenter stated that in the case of UCLA vs. Ambrose, the judge 
ruled that  changing the format of DVDs purchased legally with PPR to streaming 
video at UCLA is considered "Transformative" and so it falls into "Fair Use" ! 
As far as I know, this case was dismissed due to legal technicalities based on 
UCLA being a state run public institution and the ruling did not address the 
change of format issue. In addition, I don't understand what PPR has to do with 
change of format? Am I wrong?


2.       The presenter stated that copyright law, since it is a federal law, 
prevails over contract law which is under state law. So, digitizing books or 
transferring DVDs into streaming is fair use even if the contract with the 
publisher accepted by the consumer states otherwise!



3.       The presenter stated that the court said the 1976 Copyright Guidelines 
are not legally binding for standards of fair use!



4.       The presenter stated that using the same material (journal article, 
book chapters, etc.) for several consecutive semesters on reserves is ok and 
falls into fair use!


I've learned that one cannot change the format of videos without the copyright 
holder permission. The only exception according to DMCA would be short excerpts 
not the whole programs. Also, I have learned that if I accept or sign a 
contract with the publisher, I have to abide to its contents.

Thanks,

Farhad Moshiri
Audiovisual Librarian
University of the Incarnate Word
San Antonio, TX

________________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it may be confidential or contain 
privileged information and are intended solely for the use of the individual or 
entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, 
dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email and any 
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, 
please immediately delete the email and any attachments from your system and 
notify the sender. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. Thank you for 
your compliance.
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.

Reply via email to