Again I think it is more than a stretch to claim showing a film/program to what can be a large number of people is "personal" use or that students are "invitees" but like I said someone might bring this up to the speakers at NMM
Jessica On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Horbal <ahor...@umd.edu> wrote: > Hi Bob, > > I think this might bring us back to 110(1)! If it's not clear whether a > classroom screening is "personal" or "public," perhaps it could be either > depending on the circumstances? I strongly suspect that your professor who > invites the entire campus to a screening isn't complying with the > requirement in 110(1) that the screening must be "in the course of > face-to-face teaching activities," which would mean that even if this > license is written vaguely enough that such activity is allowable under the > terms of the contract, it would still constitute a copyright violation. > > In summary: as numerous people have pointed out, if you sign a contract, > you must comply with the terms of that contract. In this case, the question > is whether or not the license we've been discussing excludes a behavior > (screening the film to a class) that otherwise would be allowed under > 110(1). There's enough ambiguity here that I personally would feel > comfortable concluding that it doesn't. You have concluded otherwise, which > is fine: I don't see any reason why we can't agree to disagree! > > License writers take heed: perhaps you should consider wording more exact > than "personal uses only" when telling people what they are and are not > permitted to do! > > Andy > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Bob Norris <b...@filmideas.com> wrote: > >> Andy, >> I agree the location does not matter. It could be in a classroom, office >> or a box with green eggs and ham. To me the issue is personal vs. public. >> Giving my age away, way back when it was simple. The personal or consumer >> home video license was for viewing in your dwelling by yourself and your >> invitees. That is the only place you could technically play back video. Now >> you can watch video anywhere so the personal use description has to be >> expanded to say for example an airport lounge. But that doesn't mean >> everyone in the lounge can watch it, only those personal to you. >> >> Clearly a personal rights license intends to restrict usage as you say. >> But the simple act of limiting usage does not make it personal. With your >> logic a professor could invite the whole campus to view a program. The >> general public would be excluded. But how is that personal? I believe Swank >> lawyers would come knocking if you tried that with their movies. You still >> have to look at the nature of the viewers and I maintain students are not >> personal as noted before. >> >> Regards, >> Bob >> >> On Oct 17, 2016, at 8:56 AM, videolib-requ...@lists.berkeley.edu wrote: >> >> >> >> *From: *Andrew Horbal <ahor...@umd.edu> >> *Date: *October 17, 2016 8:56:33 AM CDT >> *To: *videolib@lists.berkeley.edu >> *Subject: **Re: [Videolib] Amazon Prime* >> *Reply-To: *videolib@lists.berkeley.edu >> >> >> I think it's relevant that the license states that it's okay to screen >> the film in a location such as a "hotel room, dorm room, office, or >> airport waiting lounge" provided that the screening "is limited to a >> private viewing for you and your invitees" (note that the license says >> "invitees," not "friends'). It seems probable to me that the intent is >> simply to restrict the number of people who are able to see the film to the >> licensee and people chosen to see it by the licensee (as opposed to the >> general "public"), and that if this condition is met, the location of the >> screening isn't important. >> >> I don't think there's any question that according to this license, the >> professor could invite a group of students to their office to watch the >> film. Continuing along this path, I submit the following: >> >> 1. There's no functional difference between the professor inviting the >> students to their office to watch the film and inviting them to their >> regular classroom, provided only the invited students are able to see the >> film (i.e. the door is closed, and people who aren't in the class aren't >> admitted). >> 2. There's no logical reason why the screening described in (1) couldn't >> take place during the class's regularly-schedule meeting time. >> 3. Assuming the screenings described above in (1) and (2) are allowable, >> it would be silly to require the professor to jump through the hoop of >> actually issuing "invitations" to their students, provided, again, that >> just the students in the class are able to see the film. >> >> In all of these cases, the same number of people see the film is >> identical. This is why it seems to me that a classroom screening is more >> similar to a "private viewing for you and your invitees" than a "public >> presentation." >> >> Andy >> >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Bob Norris <b...@filmideas.com> wrote: >> >>> Well, using the I'm not a lawyer just thinking logically approach, a >>> professor and the students seems more similar to a public performance than >>> a private viewing. Profs may have an affinity for their students but the >>> students are not the prof's friends. It is rare that a prof would invite >>> students into their home or hotel room, hopefully. However, when you have a >>> public performance it is often people with something in common that have an >>> affinity for one another but are not friends. It is not "Personal," which >>> is the only right Amazon is granting. >>> >>> My 2 cents, >>> Bob >>> >>> >> >> 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. >> >> > > > -- > Andrew Horbal > > Head of Learning Commons > > 1101 McKeldin Library > > 7649 Library Ln. > > University of Maryland > > College Park, MD 20742 > > (301) 405-9227 > > ahor...@umd.edu > > 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.
