Hi Jessica,

Just out of curiosity, would the degree of your objection to streaming video 
course reserves change based on the level of access the institution in question 
provides? Most e-reserves program limit access to students with a 
course-specific username and password, and some require authentication through 
the institution’s course management system (CMS), which would similarly limit 
access to just students enrolled in the course that the video is being used in. 
I ask because this consideration (assuming it matters) doesn’t seem to have 
been brought into the discussion to this point.

Andy Horbal

Media Resources Librarian
0300 Hornbake Library
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
(301) 405-9227
ahor...@umd.edu



From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 2:26 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

Carla

We are not talking about simply digitizing a film, we are talking about 
digitizing and STREAMING an entire film. There is a HUGE difference

There is literally nothing in copyright law save the 20 year orphan provision 
that in anyway allows any type of streaming.Digitizing is allowed in certain 
circumstances ( some of which are contested) It is most definitely not allowed 
when the work is widely available such as KANE & CATCHER. The closest case law 
is GSU and it clearly limits the portion of a work allowed.. It is often 
forgotten that GSU  WAS digitizing  and streaming entire books but took them 
down as soon as they were challenged by the publishers.

Of course "fair use" is made on a case by case basis but I challenge anyone to 
provide an example where the streaming an entire feature film ( which is 
basically what I am talking about and what is frankly being done  by some 
institutions) the "argument" that films were made for "entertainment" but using 
them in classes is "transformative" which is the one advanced by some at ALA is 
plainly absurd. If it were true than basically any book, movie etc ever made 
could be streamed or posted online for academic use.

We do have the GSU case which involved exactly the same issues and even there 
the portions allowed were limited and several did not "pass".

As I am sure you know there are many limitations to the TEACH ACT the key one 
being that it does not apply to fiction films

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Carla Myers 
<cmye...@uccs.edu<mailto:cmye...@uccs.edu>> wrote:
Jessica…your argument that it is “illegal to digitize and post an entire book 
but legal to digitize and post an entire film” is not a strong one. First off, 
there most certainly are situations where digitizing an entire book could be 
considered a fair use. Secondly, when you are making this type of statement you 
are generalizing about all types of use, however fair use does not work that 
way. Fair use assessments must be made on a case-by-case basis, applying the 
facts of the situation to each individual item your wish to copy. I agree that 
it would be challenging for anyone to claim fair use in digitizing a work as 
popular as Cather in the Rye, however there are millions of titles that have 
been published that are not as readily available this particular title that 
someone could make a strong fair use argument for digitizing, especially when 
their purpose is educational and/or transformative.

In the same way, there are situations where digitizing an entire film could be 
considered a fair use. The person doing so would just have to make sure that 
they had a strong argument for digitizing the entire work, rather than just 
parts of it.

Richard…don’t overlook the TEACH Act (17 U.S.C. §110(2)! This statue has 
provisions for providing students with online access to audiovisual works for 
educational purposes.

Best,
Carla Myers

Assistant Professor
Director of Access Services and Scholarly Communications
Kraemer Family Library
The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs
719-255-3908<tel:719-255-3908>

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu> 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu>]
 On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:00 AM

To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

I hope the earth will not come of its axis since we agree

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
<brew...@email.arizona.edu<mailto:brew...@email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
108 does encompass film, but only certain portions of it.  108(i) details which 
portions of 108 apply to media, and which do not. The last 20 years (h) and the 
making of copies for preservation (b) or replacement (c) do apply to media. The 
copying and distribution of portions of, or entire works to users do not apply.

Here is the text:


(i)                  The rights of reproduction and distribution under this 
section do not apply to a musical work, a pictorial, graphic or sculptural 
work, or a motion picture or other audiovisual work other than an audiovisual 
work dealing with news, except that no such limitation shall apply with respect 
to rights granted by subsections (b), (c), and (h), or with respect to 
pictorial or graphic works published as illustrations, diagrams, or similar 
adjuncts to works of which copies are reproduced or distributed in accordance 
with subsections (d) and (e).

mb

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu> 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu>]
 On Behalf Of Cindy Wolff
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:35 AM

To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

In some cases even though someone would be within their rights to copy 
something, the rights holder tries to sue. Film companies have sued people even 
for the intent of fair use. The onus is put on the entity doing the copying. 
I’m not really think 108 encompasses film.

The late Jack Valenti, the past president of the MPAA, did not believe in the 
concept of fair use.

Cindy Wolff



From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu> 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Brewer, Michael M - 
(brewerm)
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 12:06 PM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

It doesn’t. I was just clarifying that digitizing (and streaming) entire works 
is not necessarily illegal. When those kinds of statements are made, I like to 
remind people that the law does allow for this in certain circumstances.

Also, it does not matter if the rights holder objects unless they begin 
commercializing the work or are willing to make it available for sale at a 
reasonable price.

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu> 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:33 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

OK Michael you got me. If you find a film in the last 20 years of copyright ( 
which in now 95 years but starts in 1923 in most cases) and it is not in print 
and the rights holder does not object you could stream it.

Exactly how does that cover Citizen Kane or or 99.9% of the films being used in 
classes?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
<brew...@email.arizona.edu<mailto:brew...@email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
Read the law, Jessica. 108(h) allows for reproduction, distribution, display, 
or performance for the purpose of preservation, scholarship or research.

(h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term of 
copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a nonprofit 
educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, distribute, 
display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such 
work, or portions thereof, for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or 
research, if such library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a 
reasonable investigation, that none of the conditions set forth in 
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) apply.

(2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized under 
this subsection if—

(A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation;

(B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price; or

(C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to regulations 
promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the conditions set 
forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies.

(3) The exemption provided in this subsection does not apply to any subsequent 
uses by users other than such library or archives.



Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu> 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu>]
 On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:15 AM

To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

What in 108 has to do with streaming or posting online? It is about making 
copies.
Seriously is there ANYTHING in 108 that refers to streaming or putting material 
online ? The GSU case is the only one I know of that does and it is pretty 
clear that only portions can be streamed. GSU admitted as much when it took 
down whole books as soon as it was sued.

Digitizing is one thing, streaming and posting online are TOTALLY different.

I am truly stunned that there would be any confusion on this.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Brewer, Michael M - (brewerm) 
<brew...@email.arizona.edu<mailto:brew...@email.arizona.edu>> wrote:
Jessica,

It isn’t illegal to digitize and post an entire book. It depends on the 
circumstances, whether those fall under fair use, or fall under something like 
Section 108(h) - which applies to works in their last 20 years of protection 
that are not being commercially exploited or available for sale at a reasonable 
price. I’m not going to engage in the current conversation about films (which, 
by the way, may also be digitized and streamed under Section 108(h) if the they 
meet the same criteria). I just wanted to clarify that it is not illegal to 
digitize entire works that are still under copyright under certain 
circumstances, so that others are aware.

mb

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108

Michael Brewer | Librarian | Head, Research & Learning

From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu> 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu>]
 On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:42 AM

To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

You digitize and post an entire book on campus system. This is exactly what GSU 
did  BEFORE they were sued and then they took them down and  cut back to 
"chapters" or sections of books. This would again be the exactly the same as 
digitizing and streaming a film. You are taking an ENTIRE work digitizing it 
and putting up for many to access without paying for rights. Even the current 
GSU decision ( which did not go over well with the appeals court but no ruling 
has been issued) made it clear that you could not use entire works and they did 
in fact rule that 3 of the "portions" GSU did use probably violated "fair use" 
and sent them back ( though this is on hold because of the appeal).

Can anyone explain to me how it is illegal to digitize and post an entire book 
but legal to digitize and post an entire  film? When I asked this at ALA of one 
of the chief proponents I was told " that was an interesting question"

Personally I think it is part and parcel of the contempt that media works are 
given by libraries and academic institutions. They are somehow less worthy of 
copyright protection just as they are less worthy of targeted collection 
policies, budgets etc. (obviously folks on this list are often the exception 
but I find "AV" being more denigrated than ever before)


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Richard Graham 
<rgrah...@unl.edu<mailto:rgrah...@unl.edu>> wrote:
How do you stream a book?

Richard Graham
Associate Professor - Media Services Librarian

N220 Love Library
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-4100

phone: 402.472.5410<tel:402.472.5410>
email: rgrah...@unl.edu<mailto:rgrah...@unl.edu>


________________________________________
From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu> 
[videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu>]
 on behalf of Jessica Rosner [maddux2...@gmail.com<mailto:maddux2...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:40 AM
To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

I appreciate the satire Dennis but I am still waiting for those who claim it is 
"fair use" to digitize and stream whole movies why they don't do the same with 
all books, from Catcher on the Rye to expensive textbooks. I mean if it "fair 
use" for films than who needs to pay for books ( or librarians)?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Dennis Doros 
<milefi...@gmail.com<mailto:milefi...@gmail.com><mailto:milefi...@gmail.com<mailto:milefi...@gmail.com>>>
 wrote:
Dear deg (and all),

I, on the other hand, will be found at Max's Tavern having a Grapefruit 
Margarita (after all, a grapefruit diet is very healthy) each time I read the 
word "fair use" in the report. I and Punxsutawney Phil should be coming out by 
February.

Having just spent $750+ on my son's text books for his freshman courses, I 
appreciate Jessica's suggestion of digitizing professor's text books much more. 
$300 for a text book that they'll never use after the semester versus $10 for a 
DVD of Casablanca that's "too expensive" for a professor's students to buy even 
though its ten times better quality than streaming and comes with context and 
content.

And for those in the group who don't know, deg and I are friends and I'm not 
disagreeing with him at all. He's just stating the facts. I'm just partaking of 
gallows humor -- I don't know if there's such a  thing as a Grapefruit 
Margarita and to be honest, Punxsutawney Phil and I stopped going out to bars 
together when he discovered that I had to use Google to spell his name 
correctly.




Best regards,
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
PO Box 128 / Harrington Park, NJ 07640
Phone: 201-767-3117<tel:201-767-3117><tel:201-767-3117<tel:201-767-3117>> / 
Fax: 201-767-3035<tel:201-767-3035><tel:201-767-3035<tel:201-767-3035>> / 
Email: 
milefi...@gmail.com<mailto:milefi...@gmail.com><mailto:milefi...@gmail.com<mailto:milefi...@gmail.com>>

Visit our main website!  
www.milestonefilms.com<http://www.milestonefilms.com><http://www.milestonefilms.com/>
Visit our new websites!  
www.mspresents.com<http://www.mspresents.com><http://www.mspresents.com>, 
www.portraitofjason.com<http://www.portraitofjason.com><http://www.portraitofjason.com>,
 
www.shirleyclarkefilms.com<http://www.shirleyclarkefilms.com><http://www.shirleyclarkefilms.com/>,
To see or download our 2014 Video Catalog, click 
here<http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0150/7896/files/2014MilestoneVideoCatalog.pdf?75>!

Support "Milestone Film" on 
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Milestone-Film/22348485426> and 
Twitter<https://twitter.com/#!/MilestoneFilms>!

See the website: Association of Moving Image 
Archivists<http://www.amianet.org/> and like them on 
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Association-of-Moving-Image-Archivists/86854559717>
AMIA 2014 Conference, Savannah, Georgia, October 8-11, 
2014<http://www.amianet.org/>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Moshiri, Farhad 
<mosh...@uiwtx.edu<mailto:mosh...@uiwtx.edu><mailto:mosh...@uiwtx.edu<mailto:mosh...@uiwtx.edu>>>
 wrote:
Thanks Deg. I'm looking forward to read your research results. Take care.

Farhad

-----Original Message-----
From: 
videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu><mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu>>
 
[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu><mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu>>]
 On Behalf Of Deg Farrelly
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 5:25 PM
To: 
videolib@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu><mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib@lists.berkeley.edu>>
Subject: Re: [Videolib] Libraries that stream their own titles

Farhad

No, you are correct.

The AIME v UCLA case was dismissed based on UCLA's sovereign immunity from 
being sued, and AIME's lack of standing (AIME did not hold the copyright).
 Unfortunately, the judge hearing the case did not stop there and muddied the 
waters with points about UCLA having acquired PPR for the titles in question, 
and other points.  The the case was NOT decided based on merits.

Some have (incorrectly, in my opinion) interpreted the case as being a victory 
for libraries and essentially permitting digitization.  But long story short, 
there has been no case law established on either side of the issue of libraries 
digitizing without permission.

SOME libraries are applying a fair-use argument for digitizing legally acquired 
content for course reserve, bolstered in part by the ruling in the Georgia 
State University case.

Jane Hutchison and my research on the status of streaming video in academic 
libraries (to be presented at the National Media Market in November, and 
published in Against the Grain about the same time) includes some data on the 
extent of libraries digitizing from hard copies in their collections.

-deg farrelly

deg farrelly
ShareStream Administrator/Media Librarian Arizona State University Libraries 
Tempe, AZ  85287-1006
602.332.3103<tel:602.332.3103><tel:602.332.3103<tel:602.332.3103>>



On 9/29/14 11:36 AM, 
"videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu><mailto:videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu>>"
<videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu><mailto:videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu<mailto:videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu>>>
 wrote:

>
>It is my understanding that according to the copyright law, you?re not
>allowed to change the format of audiovisual materials without permission.
>The famous case of Berkeley vs. Ambrose Video was dismissed due to
>technicalities and Berkeley being a state institution. It was not
>dismissed based on copyright law. Am I wrong on this?
>
>Farhad Moshiri, MLS



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.

Reply via email to