This document discusses copyright in Canada and the United States from a presentation given by Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson. It notes that Canadian academic institutions face tough decisions regarding copyright law that may alter access to information, but these decisions will be little affected by the current Canadian bill C-32. It also notes that American colleges do not seem to face similar decisions. The document then explores some key differences between Canadian and US copyright law and policymakers that lead the countries to different situations regarding these issues.
Professor Myra J. Tawfik, CIGI Senior Fellow, Professor of Law and Academic Director of the Law, Technology and Entrepreneurship Clinic at the University of Windsor to discuss basic principles of copyright law
This document outlines some of the key legal issues related to student activities. It discusses how the Constitution and legislation like the Copyright Act and Family Entertainment Act impact areas such as showing films. Important court cases that define due process rights of students and the rights of student organizations to assemble and have membership policies are also examined, such as Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Ed. and Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The presentation concludes by discussing practical applications of this legal framework for public and private institutions to consider in relation to their own student activity policies and programming.
The document provides an overview of copyright including: what copyright protects (creative works), how long copyright lasts (life of author plus 70 years), when copyright begins (upon creation), rights of copyright holders (to reproduce, distribute, etc. the work), and exceptions like fair use. It also discusses how copyright applies in libraries, including replacement copies, public displays, and software/performances. The goal is to educate about US copyright law and intellectual property.
The document discusses the basics of copyright law in the United States, including its origins in the Constitution, what works are protected, how long copyright lasts, exceptions like fair use, and questions about copyright. It notes that copyright automatically applies as soon as an original work is fixed in a tangible form and usually lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. Exceptions to copyright include ideas and works in the public domain. The document also provides resources for further information on copyright and copyright-free works.
web 2.0 (Social Media) Policy in Higher EducationAnne Arendt
This presentation summarizes the social media and Web 2.0 field in regard to policies from the perspective of a Web resource director. The presentation was created specifically for the Best Practices in Policy Management Conference sponsored by the UVU Policy Office on November 6, 2009.
Important note: Go to http://works.bepress.com/anne_arendt/7/ to get the document (50 pages) that has all the proper citations and credits where credits are due.
The document provides an overview of fair use and copyright law. It discusses what copyright is and how it gives creators exclusive rights over their work for a limited time. It defines fair use as limited use of copyrighted work for commentary, criticism, or parody without permission. It provides examples of fair use and the four factors courts consider. It also gives a history of fair use law and how it has evolved, particularly regarding use on the internet.
Copyright law provides creators of original works with exclusive rights including the right to copy, distribute, and perform their works. Educators must be aware of copyright laws and their responsibilities regarding use of copyrighted materials. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted works for purposes such as teaching without permission, but factors like the purpose of the use, amount used, and effect on the market must be considered. Educators should use public domain works whenever possible and get permission when in doubt to avoid legal issues around copyright.
Professor Myra J. Tawfik, CIGI Senior Fellow, Professor of Law and Academic Director of the Law, Technology and Entrepreneurship Clinic at the University of Windsor to discuss basic principles of copyright law
This document outlines some of the key legal issues related to student activities. It discusses how the Constitution and legislation like the Copyright Act and Family Entertainment Act impact areas such as showing films. Important court cases that define due process rights of students and the rights of student organizations to assemble and have membership policies are also examined, such as Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Ed. and Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. The presentation concludes by discussing practical applications of this legal framework for public and private institutions to consider in relation to their own student activity policies and programming.
The document provides an overview of copyright including: what copyright protects (creative works), how long copyright lasts (life of author plus 70 years), when copyright begins (upon creation), rights of copyright holders (to reproduce, distribute, etc. the work), and exceptions like fair use. It also discusses how copyright applies in libraries, including replacement copies, public displays, and software/performances. The goal is to educate about US copyright law and intellectual property.
The document discusses the basics of copyright law in the United States, including its origins in the Constitution, what works are protected, how long copyright lasts, exceptions like fair use, and questions about copyright. It notes that copyright automatically applies as soon as an original work is fixed in a tangible form and usually lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. Exceptions to copyright include ideas and works in the public domain. The document also provides resources for further information on copyright and copyright-free works.
web 2.0 (Social Media) Policy in Higher EducationAnne Arendt
This presentation summarizes the social media and Web 2.0 field in regard to policies from the perspective of a Web resource director. The presentation was created specifically for the Best Practices in Policy Management Conference sponsored by the UVU Policy Office on November 6, 2009.
Important note: Go to http://works.bepress.com/anne_arendt/7/ to get the document (50 pages) that has all the proper citations and credits where credits are due.
The document provides an overview of fair use and copyright law. It discusses what copyright is and how it gives creators exclusive rights over their work for a limited time. It defines fair use as limited use of copyrighted work for commentary, criticism, or parody without permission. It provides examples of fair use and the four factors courts consider. It also gives a history of fair use law and how it has evolved, particularly regarding use on the internet.
Copyright law provides creators of original works with exclusive rights including the right to copy, distribute, and perform their works. Educators must be aware of copyright laws and their responsibilities regarding use of copyrighted materials. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted works for purposes such as teaching without permission, but factors like the purpose of the use, amount used, and effect on the market must be considered. Educators should use public domain works whenever possible and get permission when in doubt to avoid legal issues around copyright.
Learn how copyright supports the rights of both owners and users and strengthen your understanding of how the doctrine of fair use applies to the practice of teaching and learning with digital media, technology, mass media and popular culture.
Copyright allows creators to control use of their work and profit from it. Copyright automatically applies when a work is fixed in a tangible form and typically lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years. Works are in the public domain if the copyright has expired or the creator releases the work without copyright. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted works for purposes like criticism or education without permission.
1) The document discusses copyright and fair use, providing definitions and addressing common myths. It explains that fair use is determined on a case-by-case basis by analyzing four factors rather than by strict rules or formulas.
2) Educators are encouraged to understand and exercise their fair use rights according to the rule of reason rather than being limited by restrictive guidelines or school policies.
3) The document provides best practices for educators to follow to help ensure their use of copyrighted materials qualifies as fair use.
This document provides an overview of copyright law and issues related to its application in educational settings. It discusses key topics like fair use, the TEACH Act, challenges with digitization projects, and open access initiatives at universities. Examples are provided of copyright disputes between publishers and universities as well as legal cases related to issues like the Google Books project. The document aims to help educators, librarians, and others better understand copyright law and navigate complex situations around teaching, research, and digital content.
HUM 140: Social Media: Copyright, plagiarism, remixRay Brannon
The document discusses copyright law and fair use principles. It provides an overview of copyright duration, fair use guidelines, and how fair use allows for transformative uses of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism, commentary, and education. It also discusses challenges to copyright law from digital technologies and advocates for strengthening public understanding of users' fair use rights.
This document provides an overview and instructions for a copyright education workshop for teachers. It begins with an introduction and learning objectives. It then covers key topics like the history and purpose of copyright law, what works are protected, how long copyright lasts, and exceptions like fair use. The workshop includes activities for teachers to practice searching copyright records and analyzing fair use cases. Guidelines are also provided for using copyrighted works in teaching, including off-air recording, scanning, and multimedia projects.
This document discusses copyright and fair use guidelines for teachers. It begins with an overview of copyright law, including its origins, basics, duration, categories covered, and infringement. It then covers fair use and its guidelines, as well as alternatives to using copyrighted material like public domain works and Creative Commons licensing. The document provides examples and resources for teachers on copyright compliance and educating students about intellectual property.
- Copyright law automatically protects original creative works including writing, art, music, and videos. It allows the creator to control and profit from their work.
- Works in the public domain are no longer protected by copyright and can be used without permission. Rules for when a work enters the public domain vary.
- Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted works for educational purposes based on factors like the amount used and its purpose. It provides guidelines for using portions of text, images, video and audio in educational multimedia projects.
- Creative Commons licenses provide tools for creators to selectively waive some of their copyrights and allow others to legally share, use, and build upon their works under certain conditions.
YouTube is the world's largest video sharing website, created by college students to allow sharing of videos online. It is currently owned by Google. While YouTube has faced lawsuits over copyrighted content, it has been able to use laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Video Privacy Protection Act to protect users' privacy and remain active. YouTube functions as a social network where people can share videos, comment on them, and interact with other users through personalized pages.
This document provides information from a presentation on instructional media and technology. It discusses copyright and plagiarism, defining the differences between the two. Copyright refers to the legal rights of copyright holders, while plagiarism is an ethical issue concerning taking credit for ideas that are not one's own. The document outlines various aspects of copyright law, including what can be copyrighted, who holds copyrights, how long copyrights last, fair use provisions, and creative commons licensing options. It also includes sample questions and answers to test understanding of these concepts.
The document discusses common misconceptions about copyright and provides guidance for educators on copyright compliance. It notes that copyright protection exists automatically once a work is fixed in a tangible form and does not require a copyright notice. While fair use provides some limitations, educators should obtain permission to use copyrighted works rather than relying on fair use. The document outlines potential liability for individuals and educational institutions regarding copyright infringement and stresses following institutional policies.
Creative Commons in Education (incl. OER and MOOCs) and ResearchccAustralia
"Creative Commons in Education (including Open Educational Resources and MOOCs", presented by Professor Anne Fitzgerald, seminar 3 of 4 in the Creative Commons and the Digital Economy series, 2012. For full details see event page at http://creativecommons.org.au/events/digitaleconomy
The document discusses copyright guidelines for educators in the 21st century. It addresses common misconceptions about copyright, such as works requiring a copyright notice, all internet works being public domain, and fair use allowing unrestricted use of copyrighted materials. The document explains that copyright protection is automatic once a work is fixed in a tangible form, and advises obtaining permission rather than relying on fair use. It notes individuals and institutions can be held liable for copyright infringement and penalties can be up to $150,000 per violation.
Creative Commons and Government in AustraliaccAustralia
This document summarizes a lecture about Creative Commons and the digital economy given by Professor Anne Fitzgerald at Queensland University of Technology Law Faculty. It discusses the application of Creative Commons licensing to public sector information and government copyright materials. It provides background on how Creative Commons has come to be applied to public sector information in Australia over time, through various government reviews and reports recommending more open access and reuse of public data and content.
Copyright and Open Content Licensing: the role of the Creative Commons licencesccAustralia
"Copyright and Open Content Licensing: the role of the Creative Commons licences", presented by Professor Anne Fitzgerald as seminar 1 of 4 in the Creative Commons and the Digital Economy series, 2012. For full details see event page at http://creativecommons.org.au/events/digitaleconomy
Copyright Clarity: Using Copyrighted Materials for Digital LearningRenee Hobbs
This document discusses copyright law and fair use guidelines for educators using copyrighted materials in teaching. It explains that fair use allows some educational uses of copyrighted works without permission, including for purposes of criticism, comment, teaching, and scholarship. It provides examples of how fair use has been applied and outlines best practices for educators to confidently exercise fair use. The document promotes understanding that copyright law adapts to changes in technology and society.
The document discusses copyright and open resources. It provides an overview of copyright law, including definitions, protected works, exclusive rights, and exceptions like fair use. It notes issues like orphan works and challenges of applying old copyright laws to digital works. The document then discusses open licenses like Creative Commons, which allow works to be shared and reused while still providing attribution. It provides details on the different Creative Commons license options and how they can be used to make copyrighted works more accessible than traditional "all rights reserved" approaches.
This infogram could be used as a starting point for people who would like to learn more about how and why Creative Commons came to be, as well as providing information about its activities and support of the open movement.
The document discusses the basics of copyright law in the United States, including its origins in the Constitution, what works are protected, how long copyright lasts, exceptions like fair use, and current issues around enforcement. It notes that copyright automatically applies once an original work is fixed in a tangible form and typically lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. Exceptions to copyright include ideas and works in the public domain. The document also provides resources for further information on copyright and creative commons licensing.
This document provides an overview of intellectual property and copyright law in the United States, focusing on how these laws have adapted over time in response to technological changes. It discusses how copyright law was originally established in the US Constitution and the Copyright Act of 1790. It then examines major revisions and court cases, including the Copyright Acts of 1909 and 1976, which extended protections and addressed new issues around technologies like photocopying and home recording. The document aims to show how US copyright law has progressively adapted to keep up with societal and technological changes in order to continue protecting creators while allowing for fair use.
The document discusses the history and current state of copyright law. It explains that copyright gives creators exclusive rights over reproduction, adaptation, distribution, public performance, and public display of their work. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted works for educational purposes without permission. The document outlines major events in copyright law's development and discusses how copyright applies to teachers, new technologies, and open content.
Learn how copyright supports the rights of both owners and users and strengthen your understanding of how the doctrine of fair use applies to the practice of teaching and learning with digital media, technology, mass media and popular culture.
Copyright allows creators to control use of their work and profit from it. Copyright automatically applies when a work is fixed in a tangible form and typically lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years. Works are in the public domain if the copyright has expired or the creator releases the work without copyright. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted works for purposes like criticism or education without permission.
1) The document discusses copyright and fair use, providing definitions and addressing common myths. It explains that fair use is determined on a case-by-case basis by analyzing four factors rather than by strict rules or formulas.
2) Educators are encouraged to understand and exercise their fair use rights according to the rule of reason rather than being limited by restrictive guidelines or school policies.
3) The document provides best practices for educators to follow to help ensure their use of copyrighted materials qualifies as fair use.
This document provides an overview of copyright law and issues related to its application in educational settings. It discusses key topics like fair use, the TEACH Act, challenges with digitization projects, and open access initiatives at universities. Examples are provided of copyright disputes between publishers and universities as well as legal cases related to issues like the Google Books project. The document aims to help educators, librarians, and others better understand copyright law and navigate complex situations around teaching, research, and digital content.
HUM 140: Social Media: Copyright, plagiarism, remixRay Brannon
The document discusses copyright law and fair use principles. It provides an overview of copyright duration, fair use guidelines, and how fair use allows for transformative uses of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism, commentary, and education. It also discusses challenges to copyright law from digital technologies and advocates for strengthening public understanding of users' fair use rights.
This document provides an overview and instructions for a copyright education workshop for teachers. It begins with an introduction and learning objectives. It then covers key topics like the history and purpose of copyright law, what works are protected, how long copyright lasts, and exceptions like fair use. The workshop includes activities for teachers to practice searching copyright records and analyzing fair use cases. Guidelines are also provided for using copyrighted works in teaching, including off-air recording, scanning, and multimedia projects.
This document discusses copyright and fair use guidelines for teachers. It begins with an overview of copyright law, including its origins, basics, duration, categories covered, and infringement. It then covers fair use and its guidelines, as well as alternatives to using copyrighted material like public domain works and Creative Commons licensing. The document provides examples and resources for teachers on copyright compliance and educating students about intellectual property.
- Copyright law automatically protects original creative works including writing, art, music, and videos. It allows the creator to control and profit from their work.
- Works in the public domain are no longer protected by copyright and can be used without permission. Rules for when a work enters the public domain vary.
- Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted works for educational purposes based on factors like the amount used and its purpose. It provides guidelines for using portions of text, images, video and audio in educational multimedia projects.
- Creative Commons licenses provide tools for creators to selectively waive some of their copyrights and allow others to legally share, use, and build upon their works under certain conditions.
YouTube is the world's largest video sharing website, created by college students to allow sharing of videos online. It is currently owned by Google. While YouTube has faced lawsuits over copyrighted content, it has been able to use laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Video Privacy Protection Act to protect users' privacy and remain active. YouTube functions as a social network where people can share videos, comment on them, and interact with other users through personalized pages.
This document provides information from a presentation on instructional media and technology. It discusses copyright and plagiarism, defining the differences between the two. Copyright refers to the legal rights of copyright holders, while plagiarism is an ethical issue concerning taking credit for ideas that are not one's own. The document outlines various aspects of copyright law, including what can be copyrighted, who holds copyrights, how long copyrights last, fair use provisions, and creative commons licensing options. It also includes sample questions and answers to test understanding of these concepts.
The document discusses common misconceptions about copyright and provides guidance for educators on copyright compliance. It notes that copyright protection exists automatically once a work is fixed in a tangible form and does not require a copyright notice. While fair use provides some limitations, educators should obtain permission to use copyrighted works rather than relying on fair use. The document outlines potential liability for individuals and educational institutions regarding copyright infringement and stresses following institutional policies.
Creative Commons in Education (incl. OER and MOOCs) and ResearchccAustralia
"Creative Commons in Education (including Open Educational Resources and MOOCs", presented by Professor Anne Fitzgerald, seminar 3 of 4 in the Creative Commons and the Digital Economy series, 2012. For full details see event page at http://creativecommons.org.au/events/digitaleconomy
The document discusses copyright guidelines for educators in the 21st century. It addresses common misconceptions about copyright, such as works requiring a copyright notice, all internet works being public domain, and fair use allowing unrestricted use of copyrighted materials. The document explains that copyright protection is automatic once a work is fixed in a tangible form, and advises obtaining permission rather than relying on fair use. It notes individuals and institutions can be held liable for copyright infringement and penalties can be up to $150,000 per violation.
Creative Commons and Government in AustraliaccAustralia
This document summarizes a lecture about Creative Commons and the digital economy given by Professor Anne Fitzgerald at Queensland University of Technology Law Faculty. It discusses the application of Creative Commons licensing to public sector information and government copyright materials. It provides background on how Creative Commons has come to be applied to public sector information in Australia over time, through various government reviews and reports recommending more open access and reuse of public data and content.
Copyright and Open Content Licensing: the role of the Creative Commons licencesccAustralia
"Copyright and Open Content Licensing: the role of the Creative Commons licences", presented by Professor Anne Fitzgerald as seminar 1 of 4 in the Creative Commons and the Digital Economy series, 2012. For full details see event page at http://creativecommons.org.au/events/digitaleconomy
Copyright Clarity: Using Copyrighted Materials for Digital LearningRenee Hobbs
This document discusses copyright law and fair use guidelines for educators using copyrighted materials in teaching. It explains that fair use allows some educational uses of copyrighted works without permission, including for purposes of criticism, comment, teaching, and scholarship. It provides examples of how fair use has been applied and outlines best practices for educators to confidently exercise fair use. The document promotes understanding that copyright law adapts to changes in technology and society.
The document discusses copyright and open resources. It provides an overview of copyright law, including definitions, protected works, exclusive rights, and exceptions like fair use. It notes issues like orphan works and challenges of applying old copyright laws to digital works. The document then discusses open licenses like Creative Commons, which allow works to be shared and reused while still providing attribution. It provides details on the different Creative Commons license options and how they can be used to make copyrighted works more accessible than traditional "all rights reserved" approaches.
This infogram could be used as a starting point for people who would like to learn more about how and why Creative Commons came to be, as well as providing information about its activities and support of the open movement.
The document discusses the basics of copyright law in the United States, including its origins in the Constitution, what works are protected, how long copyright lasts, exceptions like fair use, and current issues around enforcement. It notes that copyright automatically applies once an original work is fixed in a tangible form and typically lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. Exceptions to copyright include ideas and works in the public domain. The document also provides resources for further information on copyright and creative commons licensing.
This document provides an overview of intellectual property and copyright law in the United States, focusing on how these laws have adapted over time in response to technological changes. It discusses how copyright law was originally established in the US Constitution and the Copyright Act of 1790. It then examines major revisions and court cases, including the Copyright Acts of 1909 and 1976, which extended protections and addressed new issues around technologies like photocopying and home recording. The document aims to show how US copyright law has progressively adapted to keep up with societal and technological changes in order to continue protecting creators while allowing for fair use.
The document discusses the history and current state of copyright law. It explains that copyright gives creators exclusive rights over reproduction, adaptation, distribution, public performance, and public display of their work. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted works for educational purposes without permission. The document outlines major events in copyright law's development and discusses how copyright applies to teachers, new technologies, and open content.
The document provides an overview of copyright law, including what copyright protects, its history and origins, fair use provisions, and how copyright is changing with new technologies. It notes that copyright law grants owners exclusive rights to reproduce, adapt, distribute and publicly perform or display a work. Fair use allows use of copyrighted works for educational purposes under certain criteria. The future of copyright is uncertain as laws continually evolve with new digital media.
This document provides an overview of intellectual property law, focusing on copyright and trademark. It discusses:
- The constitutional basis and history of copyright in the US.
- How copyright automatically applies and is enforced through civil lawsuits.
- The types of intellectual property (copyright, trademark, patents) and their typical durations.
- Exceptions and limitations to copyright like fair use, public domain works, and Creative Commons licensing.
- Key copyright cases around music/file sharing (Sony, Napster, Grokster) and how laws like the DMCA responded.
- Trademark basics and issues like the Redskins name controversy and domain name disputes.
The document serves to outline the
Ownership And Infringement Of CopyrightsLisa Fields
Copyright law in the US gives creators exclusive rights over their original works. This includes the rights to reproduce, distribute, and publicly perform or display copyrighted works. The US Constitution grants Congress the power to enact copyright laws. The current Copyright Act of 1976 protects original works of authorship like literary works, music, art, films and software. It provides copyright protection automatically upon the work's creation and fixation in a tangible form. Infringement occurs when someone violates one of the copyright holder's exclusive rights without permission. Penalties for infringement include injunctions, damages and criminal prosecution in some cases.
Copyright law protects original creative works and gives the creator exclusive rights over the reproduction and distribution of their work. It aims to provide financial incentive for creating new works by allowing creators to profit from what they make. While copyright protects against direct copying, the fair use doctrine allows limited use without permission for purposes like commentary, criticism and education. Educational fair use guidelines provide standards for permissible copying of copyrighted materials for classroom use. Violating copyright by distributing a work without permission could result in civil penalties or criminal prosecution.
Lecture 1 introduction and sources of lawJosh Goodwill
This document provides an overview of the module 4Law1006 – Law for Accounts and Finance at an unnamed university. It introduces the teaching team and module leader Miles Hurley. It provides rules and advice for students taking the module, including to stay calm, be logical, attend classes, get involved in discussions, do the readings, and to take breaks from studying. It outlines the assessment criteria and resources available to students. The document then provides explanations and examples of key legal concepts like different sources of law, precedents, court hierarchy, and answering legal questions.
This document contains notes and answers from a law student regarding copyright law. It discusses topics like copyrightable subject matter, originality, ownership, work made for hire, copyright duration including the Mickey Mouse amendment, infringement, and licensing. It provides examples to illustrate these concepts, such as how copyright ownership is distinct from physical ownership, and how sampling music can infringe both the composition and sound recording copyrights unless licensed. The student correctly answered multiple choice questions testing their understanding of copyright fundamentals.
Copyright law began in 1710 with Britain's first statute, and was continued in the US with its first law in 1790. Copyright gives the creator exclusive rights over reproduction and distribution of their work. There are different types of copyright like implied and express licenses. Fair use allows limited use of copyrighted works for purposes like education or commentary. Educators have some additional fair use allowances for classroom teaching, but digital teaching requires following the Teach Act. Copyright infringement can result in fines up to $150,000 per violation.
Copyright is a form of protection granted to authors of original creative works under the U.S. Constitution and copyright law. It gives copyright holders exclusive rights over reproducing, distributing, publicly displaying, and making derivatives of the work. Copyright protection applies automatically when a work is created and fixed in a tangible form, and covers both published and unpublished works. Certain uses of copyrighted works, such as fair use, are permitted without permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright is a form of protection granted by law to authors of original creative works. It gives the author exclusive rights over reproduction, distribution, public performance, public display, and creation of derivative works. Copyright protection applies automatically when a work is created and fixed in a tangible form. It covers both published and unpublished works including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works. Not all creative works are subject to copyright protection which does not extend to facts, ideas, or systems. Copyright's purpose is to promote innovation and creativity by providing incentives for creators while allowing limited use of copyrighted works under exceptions like fair use.
Copyright is a form of protection granted by law to authors of original creative works. It gives the author exclusive rights over reproduction, distribution, public performance, public display, and creation of derivative works. Copyright protection applies automatically when a work is created and fixed in a tangible form. It covers both published and unpublished works including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works. Not all creative works are subject to copyright protection which does not extend to facts, ideas, or systems. Copyright's purpose is to promote innovation and creativity by providing incentives for creators while allowing limited use of copyrighted works under exceptions like fair use.
A Dozen and One Things to Know About CopyrightRogan Hamby
This is the original version of the presentation I did at SCLA in 2012. I still need to add citations and I'm already updating it for my next scheduled presentation of it since there were changes in the DMCA just last week!
Copyright law protects original works of authorship such as literary works, dramatic works, musical works, artistic works, and certain other intellectual property. It provides owners several exclusive rights including reproduction, distribution, public performance, public display, and creation of derivative works. Copyright protection applies automatically when a work is created and fixed in a tangible form. Fair use and public domain works are exceptions where permission is not required.
Copyright, creative commons and artistic integrityyagankiely
The document discusses copyright and Creative Commons licensing. It provides background on the origins of copyright from the Statute of Anne in 1710, which established copyright for a term of 14 years. Present day copyright is discussed, along with incentives it provides for creators. Creative Commons is then introduced as an alternative that provides more flexible licensing options while still protecting artistic integrity. Some limitations of Creative Commons are also outlined. The document focuses on comparing copyright and Creative Commons, and how they relate to music composition and distribution.
Mindy Thuna, University of Toronto Mississauga
Have you ever run a focus group? Let me tell you, it is not easy to a) get enough people to come (although food helps.. a lot.. but that, of course, requires money) b) find dates and times when people who MIGHT be coerced into coming will actually show up and c) facilitate a conversation, i.e. no talking or expressing an opinion or raising an eyebrow. All that aside, between December 6, 2010 and January 6, 2011, I ran 5 focus groups for graduate students at the UTM campus of the University of Toronto. In each 2 hour session I facilitated a conversation between from 4 to 10 students in both professional and doctoral stream programs to assess their information needs and wants as part of a larger graduate student needs assessment on library services and spaces that I am currently completing. I heard ranting, compliments, tales of woe and disappointment and forced them to draw pictures. I encouraged them to eat more and to talk more about where and how they find information to fulfill their scholarly needs. This pecha kucha will focus on the preliminary analysis of the results of these focus groups.
Rea Devakos, University of Toronto
This session reports on a focus group methodology built on Dervin’s Sense Making communication methodology. Unlike many focus group and other qualitative research methods, this approach delivers in depth, reliable data quickly. Originally piloted by Dr. Dervin at Ohio State, it has been used at the University of Toronto to study information seeking amongst leaders of student journals. Informal campus leaders, including students, are seldom studied by libraries. Yet they are often deeply engaged in the institution and influence the actions and perceptions of others. The session will outline the methodology and highlight a few key results.
1) The document describes a model of embedded library instruction for a Latin American Civilization course where the librarian worked closely with the professor to design research assignments and multiple library instruction sessions tailored to the course content and goals.
2) Student feedback showed that the embedded approach helped them learn research skills better than one-shot sessions, and their skills and comfort with the library increased.
3) The document advocates collaborating closely with faculty, starting with one course, and providing evidence of student learning to gain support for expanding embedded instruction across departments.
This document summarizes the evolution of scholarly communications at Binghamton University. It discusses the formation of a scholarly communications committee and hiring of a scholarly communications officer to lead programs on issues like open access. It outlines services provided, such as helping deposit works in repositories and educating faculty. It also examines challenges like keeping up with changing technologies and policies, and looks ahead to potential future developments in areas like open access publishing and expanded funding agency mandates.
1) The University of Guelph Library had to reduce its budget by $1 million, which led to 14 positions being eliminated.
2) The head of the library's Research Enterprise and Scholarly Communication team outlines the team's work, which includes research consultation, data management, an institutional repository, open access publishing support and tracking scholarly outputs.
3) The document provides an example of an open research group at the University that uses the library's resources and services to openly publish and discuss their work online.
This document discusses open access publishing and citation metrics. It argues that open access articles have more readers and citations than articles behind paywalls, citing research showing an open access citation advantage of 25-250%. It provides an overview of citation indexes and metrics like the h-index and g-index. The document recommends that scholars publish in open access journals or repositories when possible to enlarge their audience and impact. Overall it promotes the benefits of open access for both readers and scholars.
More from Western New York/Ontario Chapter Association of College and Research Libraries (8)
How to Make a Field Mandatory in Odoo 17Celine George
In Odoo, making a field required can be done through both Python code and XML views. When you set the required attribute to True in Python code, it makes the field required across all views where it's used. Conversely, when you set the required attribute in XML views, it makes the field required only in the context of that particular view.
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...PECB
Denis is a dynamic and results-driven Chief Information Officer (CIO) with a distinguished career spanning information systems analysis and technical project management. With a proven track record of spearheading the design and delivery of cutting-edge Information Management solutions, he has consistently elevated business operations, streamlined reporting functions, and maximized process efficiency.
Certified as an ISO/IEC 27001: Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) Lead Implementer, Data Protection Officer, and Cyber Risks Analyst, Denis brings a heightened focus on data security, privacy, and cyber resilience to every endeavor.
His expertise extends across a diverse spectrum of reporting, database, and web development applications, underpinned by an exceptional grasp of data storage and virtualization technologies. His proficiency in application testing, database administration, and data cleansing ensures seamless execution of complex projects.
What sets Denis apart is his comprehensive understanding of Business and Systems Analysis technologies, honed through involvement in all phases of the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC). From meticulous requirements gathering to precise analysis, innovative design, rigorous development, thorough testing, and successful implementation, he has consistently delivered exceptional results.
Throughout his career, he has taken on multifaceted roles, from leading technical project management teams to owning solutions that drive operational excellence. His conscientious and proactive approach is unwavering, whether he is working independently or collaboratively within a team. His ability to connect with colleagues on a personal level underscores his commitment to fostering a harmonious and productive workplace environment.
Date: May 29, 2024
Tags: Information Security, ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, Artificial Intelligence, GDPR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out more about ISO training and certification services
Training: ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management System - EN | PECB
ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System - EN | PECB
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - Training Courses - EN | PECB
Webinars: https://pecb.com/webinars
Article: https://pecb.com/article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about PECB:
Website: https://pecb.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pecb/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PECBInternational/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/PECBCERTIFICATION
How to Add Chatter in the odoo 17 ERP ModuleCeline George
In Odoo, the chatter is like a chat tool that helps you work together on records. You can leave notes and track things, making it easier to talk with your team and partners. Inside chatter, all communication history, activity, and changes will be displayed.
Walmart Business+ and Spark Good for Nonprofits.pdfTechSoup
"Learn about all the ways Walmart supports nonprofit organizations.
You will hear from Liz Willett, the Head of Nonprofits, and hear about what Walmart is doing to help nonprofits, including Walmart Business and Spark Good. Walmart Business+ is a new offer for nonprofits that offers discounts and also streamlines nonprofits order and expense tracking, saving time and money.
The webinar may also give some examples on how nonprofits can best leverage Walmart Business+.
The event will cover the following::
Walmart Business + (https://business.walmart.com/plus) is a new shopping experience for nonprofits, schools, and local business customers that connects an exclusive online shopping experience to stores. Benefits include free delivery and shipping, a 'Spend Analytics” feature, special discounts, deals and tax-exempt shopping.
Special TechSoup offer for a free 180 days membership, and up to $150 in discounts on eligible orders.
Spark Good (walmart.com/sparkgood) is a charitable platform that enables nonprofits to receive donations directly from customers and associates.
Answers about how you can do more with Walmart!"
it describes the bony anatomy including the femoral head , acetabulum, labrum . also discusses the capsule , ligaments . muscle that act on the hip joint and the range of motion are outlined. factors affecting hip joint stability and weight transmission through the joint are summarized.
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold MethodCeline George
Odoo provides an option for creating a module by using a single line command. By using this command the user can make a whole structure of a module. It is very easy for a beginner to make a module. There is no need to make each file manually. This slide will show how to create a module using the scaffold method.
This presentation includes basic of PCOS their pathology and treatment and also Ayurveda correlation of PCOS and Ayurvedic line of treatment mentioned in classics.
How to Setup Warehouse & Location in Odoo 17 InventoryCeline George
In this slide, we'll explore how to set up warehouses and locations in Odoo 17 Inventory. This will help us manage our stock effectively, track inventory levels, and streamline warehouse operations.
How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17Celine George
An import error occurs when a program fails to import a module or library, disrupting its execution. In languages like Python, this issue arises when the specified module cannot be found or accessed, hindering the program's functionality. Resolving import errors is crucial for maintaining smooth software operation and uninterrupted development processes.
Liberal Approach to the Study of Indian Politics.pdf
Copyright in Canada and the U.S.
1. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Copyright in Canada and the U.S.
Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson
Professor
Faculty of Law
(with doctoral supervisory status in Library & Information Science)
The University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario, Canada
(with thanks for conversations with Dr. John Tooth
and research assistance by law students Justin Vessair,
Dan Hynes and Dave Morrison)
Western New York & Ontario -
Association of College & Research Libraries
East Aurora, New York, November 5, 2010
2. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Canada’s academic institutions
face tough decisions this year…
• These decisions must be taken by each academic
institution in Canada individually…
• Once taken, these decisions may alter the shape of
access to information in the Canadian academy…
• These decisions stem from copyright law but will,
paradoxically, be little affected by the current Bill C-
32 before the Canadian House of Commons,
whether or not it passes in its current form or in a
modified form…
• These decisions do not seem to be decisions that will
face American colleges and universities…
3. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
How do Canadian and American academic
institutions come to this fork in the road?
First, let us look at some features of the
Canadian copyright environment that distinguish
it from the American …
And how these impact the current Canadian situation…
Then, let’s look at the effect of the differences on:
- the probable impact of Canada’s Bill C-32; and
- the importance of the open source movement on
academic libraries in the two countries…
4. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
As in the United States, in Canada there is one statute for all
materials dealt with in Canada:
Copyright Act,
Revised Statutes of Canada 1985, c.C-42, as amended
Since the inception of the Berne Convention, Canada
has been compliant with it (first through its status as
a British colony – and then in its own right)…
The United States is a very recent adherent to Berne
and, even now, has not implemented the provisions of
Berne which relate to the protection of moral rights…
Because of the international principle of “national treatment” in
international copyright agreements, all materials in Canada, for all
practical purposes, are governed by Canadian law and vice versa in the
United States…
5. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
The policy makers creating Canada’s copyright
environment:
Government
Legislature
In Canada, the federal government -- recent Bills C-60 and C-61 (both now dead) –
legislation again promised to be introduced this spring…
NO provincial interest –
Judiciary- since 2002 steadily confirming a large “public domain”
In Canada, Parliament has tried to limit the role of the courts: s. 89 Copyright Act
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has never yet been applied directly to an
intellectual property law situation (but the Supreme Court in the Harvard Mouse case
in patent, for example, has indicated a willingness to apply it)
How will “users’ rights” be expressed and preserved in the future?
International Treaties
Are Perceived, once entered into, as limiting Domestic National Policy Options
19th Century Co-ordination (e.g. Berne, Paris)
1990’s World Trade Agenda Coercion (e.g. NAFTA, TRIPS)
Are irrelevant to Charter concerns, are not binding on Canadian legislatures; non-compliance
runs the risk of sanctions in the trade context
Intellectual Property Owners, Themselves
Canadian Governments -- As Crown Copyright Holders
Copyright holders working together through Canadian Collectives – AccessCopyright taking all
the universities to the Copyright Board for a Tariff instead of negotiating … begun
April 1, 2010…
Other individual copyright holders – both domestic and foreign
Not users – except indirectly as lobbyists and electors influencing the legislative process…
6. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
TRIPS:
Article 13:
[Member states] shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive
rights
to certain special cases
which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work
and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of
the right holder.
7. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Canadian Copyright Act -
Three sets of rights enshrined:
US system really only recognizes 1 set: Economic Rights…
ECONOMIC RIGHTS (from the
beginning)
MORAL RIGHTS (Canada 1st
common law country to
introduce; fully articulated in
1988)
USERS’ RIGHTS (expressed
by the SCC in 2004)
Life of the author + 50 years on works;
ALWAYS remain with the author – but can
be waived
Fully assignable (owned from the outset
by employers in an employment situation)
Life of the author + 50 years on works; 50
years generally for “other subject matter”
8. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
What is copyrighted?
Expressions and not data or facts per se
Works:
• Literary - Includes computer programs, tables
• Artistic - includes photographs, diagrams, maps, charts, etc.
• Musical
• Dramatic -Includes cinematographic works, with or without
soundtrack
Compilations of works and Collective works
- Works resulting from the selection or arrangement of data
or of other works or parts of other works and any work
incorporating the work
Other subject matter:
• Sound recordings
• Performers’ performances
• Broadcasts
9. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Converting Work to a Digital Format is a Copyright Holder’s Right –
and Transmitting it anywhere is also a Copyright Holder’s Right…
(a) Converting a Work to a Digital
Format is a Copyright Holder’s Right:
Robertson v. Thomson 2006 Supreme Court
• “Converting” a work to digital is an act of
reproduction that only a Copyright Holder
has the right to do
• A copyright holder holds the same rights in a
digital work as would be held in a work in
traditional form.
Robertson et al v. Proquest et al
• Class Action Lawsuit in Ontario spring 2009
• 3rd party claims3rd party claims being made by Proquest et
al against journals, since the journals
originally published the articles that
Proquest et al later digitized
• Similar lawsuit in Quebec: ElectronicElectronic--RightsRights
Defence Committee v.Defence Committee v. SouthamSoutham et alet al,
certified class action Que SC April 15 2009
(b) Uploading or Downloading a Digital Work
involves a Copyright Holder’s Right:
SOCAN “Tariff 22” decision 2004 Supreme
Court
• Posting a work on the net is authorizing its
communication (ONE RIGHT) – and
communication occurs when the item is
retrieved by an end user (A SECOND RIGHT)
• When a content provider intends the public to
have access, that is a communication by
telecommunication to the public (THAT
SECOND RIGHT)…
Canadian Wireless Telecommunications
Association v. SOCAN (Federal Court of
Appeal)
• Transmission of ring tones to cellphone
customers, even when each transmission is
separately triggered by the customer, is a
right of the copyright holder
(AGAIN, that SECOND RIGHT)
10. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Converting Work to a Digital Format is a Copyright Holder’s Right –
and Transmitting it anywhere is also a Copyright Holder’s Right…
Crookes v. Newton (2009 BCCA 392) Leave to Appeal granted by the Supreme
Court
on April 1, 2010… a defamation (libel) case… copyright is not mentioned…
Appeal to be heard this December…
• A website owner putting a hyperlink to another site will not automatically be
considered “publication” of the material to which the link is made (and the majority
in this particular case said there was no publication)…BUT
• Both the majority (Saunders, JA, for herself and Bauman, JA) and the dissenting
judge (Prowse, JA) held that it is possible for the inclusion of a hyperlink to
“If it is apparent from the context in which the hyperlink is used that it is being used
merely as a biographical or similarly limited reference to an original source, without in any
way activity encouraging or recommending to the readers that they access that source
then… this would not amount to publication.” [Majority at para.59]
Factors tending toward a finding of publication, however, “would include the
prominence of the hyperlink, any words of invitation or recommendation to the reader
associated with the hyperlink, the nature of the materials which it is suggested may be
found at the hyperlink…, the apparent significance of the hyperlink in relation to the
article as a whole, and a host of other factors dependant on the facts of a particular
case.” [Majority atpara.61]constitute publication by the linking party of the material to
which the link is made…
11. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
So, who owns the copyright interests …
The individual authors, who were not employees at the time of creation of the
works, if they have not assigned those rights, own the rights in works – and,
even if they were employees or assigned their economic rights, unless they
have waived them, they continue to hold moral rights.
Employers who employed authors who created works will own the copyrights,
but not the moral rights, in those works, unless they have assigned them.
Sound recording rights and rights in performances by performers will be
owned by the makers and performers, respectively (unless assigned to others),
even though the sound recordings or recorded performance may also carry
other copyright interests, for example in musical works or film, that are
owned, at least originally, by others.
Photographs are owned in Canada by the person commissioning them (if paid
for) rather than the photographer. Otherwise the photographer owns them. (If
photographs are owned by corporations now in Canada, the term of copyright
is only 50 years, whereas if they are owned by individuals (or corporations an
individual controls) the term is the life of the photographer + 50 years.)
12. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
If passed, Bill C-32 will give the same protections
to photographs as are now given to every other
work under the Copyright Act – for the same
period of life of the photographer + 50 years…
And, in general, ownership will lie with the
photographer – but for certain private uses, a
commissioning person will still have rights…
13. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Economic rights in works
Economic rights
in “other subject matter”
Recall the basic rights given copyright holders under the Copyright Act:
to communicate a performer’s
performance by
telecommunication
to “fix” a performer’s
performance
to reproduce a fixed performance
to rent out a sound recording of the
performance
to publish, reproduce or rent a
sound recording
to fix a broadcast signal
to retransmit a signal
to authorize any of the above
to produce, reproduce
to perform in public
to translate
to convert from one type of
work to another
to make sound recordings or
cinematographs
to communicate the work by
telecommunication
to present art created after
1988 in public
to rent computer programs
to authorize any of the above
AccessCopyright
focused here for
English print
works
14. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
…what are “Moral Rights”?
In Canada, the author of a work has a right :
• to the integrity of the work (i.e. to prevent the work from being
distorted, mutilated or otherwise modified to the prejudice of the
honour or reputation of the author)
• where reasonable in the circumstances, to be associated with the work
as its author by name or under a pseudonym (as well as the right to
remain anonymous) [often referred to as the right to paternity]
• to prevent the work from being used in association with a product,
service, cause or institution to the prejudice of the honour or reputation
of the author [commonly referred to as the right of association].
Not transferable… licensing not an option. Can be waived by the author.
Bill C-32 would extend moral rights to performers’ performance…
15. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
The Canadian statute provides
for fair dealing in five
categories:
Research
Private study
Criticism *
Review *
News reporting *
* if source and
attribution mentioned
The Supreme Court specifically
said:
“a library can always attempt to
prove that its dealings with a
copyrighted work are fair under
section 29 of the Copyright Act.
It is only if a library were unable
to make out the fair dealing
exception under section 29 that
it would need to turn to the
Copyright Act to prove that it
qualified for the library
exception.” (para.49)
2004 Supreme Court decision in
CCH et al v. The Law Society of Upper
Canada, the “Law Society” case:
The largest Users’ Right is FAIR DEALING. These rights override the
copyright holders’ rights if you are using the works for certain purposes.
Bill C-32 would add education, parody and satire to this list
16. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
The Supreme Court listed a non-statutory set of factors, first proposed
in the Federal Court of Appeal, that judges should consider as a
“useful analytic framework” in interpreting “fair dealing”:
• purpose of the dealing:
• must be an allowable purpose, one mentioned in the act
• character of the dealing:
• how was the infringing work dealt with?
• amount of the dealing:
• what was the amount and substantiality of portion used in
relation to the whole work?
• alternatives to the dealing:
• defense more likely allowed where no alternative available
• nature of the work:
• i.e., strong public interest in access to legal resources
• economic impact on owner:
• how is market for work impacted by fair-dealing in question?
17. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
But, given those factors, the Supreme Court decided libraries can
deal fairly with works in a number of important ways – and, therefore,
that others can use works in similar ways:
It may be possible to deal fairly with the whole work… for the purpose
of research or private study, it may be essential to copy an entire academic
article or an entire judicial decision. (from para.56)
Faxing works to patrons is not “communications to the public” – the Supreme
Court agreed with the trial judge that such communications “emanated from
a single point and were each intended to be received at a single point”
(para.77, quoting from the trial judgment) (although a series to the same
patron might be a problem)
“…patrons … cannot reasonably be expected to always conduct their research
on-site at the Great Library… it would be burdensome to expect them to
travel … each time they wanted to track down a specific source” (para.60)
Many of the “special” provisions for LAMs (only non-profits) are made
redundant by the Supreme Court’s view of the permissible actions by the
Great Library under fair dealing – eg. To the extent ILL practices can be
analogized to the Great Library’s practices, it is unnecessary to rely on the
special exceptions for LAMs.
18. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Approved by the Supreme Court:
The copyright law of Canada
governs the making of photocopies
or other reproductions of copyright
material. Certain copying may be an
infringement of the copyright law.
This library is not responsible for
infringing copies made by the users
of these machines.
Unnecessarily verbose
Under the Regulations since 1997:
WARNING!
Works protected by copyright may be photocopied only if
authorized by:
the Copyright Act for the purposes of specific exemptions
set out in that Act;
the copyright owner; or
a license agreement between this institution and a
collective society or a tariff, if any.
For details of authorized copying, please consult the
license agreement or applicable tariff, if any, and
other relevant information available from a staff
member.
The Copyright Act provides for civil and criminal
remedies for infringement of copyright.
19. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
… a map of the Canadian “Public Domain” Adapted by M.A. Wilkinson
from P.Samuelson’s American map, described in M.A. Wilkinson, “National Treatment,…” (2003-4)1 & 2 University of
Ottawa Law and Technology Journal 23-48.
Scientific &
Mathematical
Principles
Facts, Data,
Information
Rights
Expired
Laws, Regulations,
Judicial Opinions
Words, Names,
Numbers,
Symbols
Ideas, Concepts,
Theories
Open
Source
Widely
Usable
w/o
Restriction
Classified
Information
Other IPR
Plant Breeders Rights Act
Integrated Circuit Topography Act
Trade
Secret
Patent
Trademark Copyright
Fair Dealing
RIGHTS PURCHASED
And other specific user exceptions
20. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Will Canada’s Constitution mean that the Supreme Court’s “Users’
Rights” can triumph, if Parliament tries to narrow, per TRIPS?
United States Constitution
“The Congress shall have power…To
promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Rights to their respective
Writings and Discoveries”
Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003, USSC)
Canadian Constitution Act,1867, s.91
“…the exclusive Legislative Authority of the
Parliament of Canada extends to …
(23) Copyrights
In a Canadian case, constitutional
support for the Supreme Court’s concept
of “users’ rights”?
s. 2(b) Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms (1982): freedom of
expression
ALTHOUGH
s.1 “subject to such reasonable limits
prescribed by law as can be
demonstrably justified in a free and
democratic society”
TRIPS and other agreements:
Members [states] shall confine limitation
or exceptions to exclusive rights
To certain special cases
which do not conflict with a
normal exploitation of the work
And do not unreasonably
prejudice the legitimate interests
of the right holder
(the “3 step” test)
21. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) are given legal
sanction by Bill C-32
BUT NOT IF THEY INTERFERE WITH
• Interoperability
• personal data protection or privacy rights
• Access needs because of perceptual disability
AND
• Libraries which are LAMs have special defence provisions with
respect to the TPM sections
Note: the definition of “Libraries, Archives and Museums” (LAMs)
is not changed by Bill C-32 and therefore, to the extent that Bill C-32
provides privileges to LAMs it further divides libraries amongst
themselves -- those who are owned by for profit entities (most
special libraries and some educational institution’s libraries, for
example) will not have access to the increased exemptions of their
LAMs colleagues…
22. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Intellectual Property Owners as Key Intellectual Property
Policy Makers
Decisions-
Assert intellectual property rights?
Assign to traditional publishers ?
Control with publishers, whether foreign or domestic.
Assign to alternative publishers (those who do not insist on full
transfer of rights) ?
Some control with publishers, whether foreign or domestic,
some rights remaining with copyright holder.
Grant certain permissions
Exercise rights collectively ?
Individually little power of enforcement and therefore of control
– but possible remuneration according to collective’s policies
and possible control through governance of collective
Renounce intellectual property rights?
No control and no further potential for economic value to that
copyright holder
Works and “other subject matter” available to be exploited by others
23. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LICENSE
SI/97-5, 8 January, 1997, Canada Gazette Part II, Vol 131, No. 1
Anyone may, without charge or request for permission, reproduce
Enactments
Consolidations of enactments
Decisions
Reasons for decisions
Provided
Reasonable diligence used in ensuring accuracy
No representation as official
NOTE: PERMISSION IS TO REPRODUCE
Does not go so far as the American statutory prohibition on federal government copyright – where the federal
government cannot claim copyright
These Canadian provisions are not statutory , not permanent…
Many governments in Canada provide permissions – but each is individually tailored and they are located in different
government instruments, depending upon each government’s predelictions
Crowns, as copyright holders, exercising their control to provide access
to their copyrighted material:
24. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Traditional Academic Publishing Cycle –
Typical Economic Allocation of Literary Output
Publication,
Distribution,
& Dissemination
Writing ,
Peer Review,
& Publication
Learning,
Research,
& Writing
$
time
Ownership within the
university community
Ownership by private
sector publishers
25. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Universities pay
AccessCopyright
(formerlyCANCOPY)
(3)
Traditionally,
professors write
and submit articles
to prestigious peer
reviewed journals
Journals
assume the
copyright in
return for
publication
When Academic Publishers, assigned rights by authors, join Collectives to
Assert their assigned rights: Universities, e.g, (both producers and users) Pay
3 Times for Written Product !?!?
Publication
Revenue
Cycle
$
$
$
Universities (and
others) support and
encourage
professors to write
(1)
Journals are
purchased by
university
libraries for use
by students and
professors
(2)
26. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Philanthropy vs. Entitlement
The philanthropy of copyright holders giving permissions or giving up the exercise of
their copyrights (“open access, creative commons”) is more palatable from the point
of view of the trade regimes…but it is contributing to the public interest, as is the
exercise by government of Crown Copyright, rather than enlarging the public
domain…
Fair Dealing
And other specific user
exceptions-
including those for
“Educational Institutions”
Open
Source
Widely
Usable
w/o
Restriction
RIGHTS PURCHASED
Users’ Rights:
In the public domain, inter alia,
27. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Users, in a copyright world, potentially have access to
materials in a number of different ways:
Users can use materials that are not works covered by copyright;
Users can make use of materials in ways not forming part of the
copyright holders’ rights bundle;
Users can use materials in ways that do form part of the copyright
holders’ rights bundle but are excepted by governments from
the purview of the copyright holders’ exercise of their rights;
Users can use materials in ways that do form part of the copyright
holders’ rights bundle but for which they have been given
permission by the copyright holders –
Through the copyright holders’ collectives or
Through permissions of the copyright holders given in advance
(“open content licensing” or “creative commons”)
Through permissions negotiated directly, from time to time, with
copyright holders.
28. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Can philanthropy be rendered unnecessary?
COPYRIGHT HOLDERS’ PHILANTHROPY
Only necessary where “users’ rights” or the limitations of copyright itself
(limited term, limited rights to copyright holders, the doctrine of
merger, etc.) do not give educational institutions and researchers
the access they desire
If Canada is operating under an extended repertoire or extended license
regime, the existence of the collective license with an appropriate
collective will protect the educational institution from liability for
infringement even from a non-member and will thus render
redundant the efforts of copyright holders to individually license
uses administered by the recognized collectives.
If Canada is not operating under an extended repertoire regime, then
educational institutions with collective licenses can breathe more
easily about those rightsholders not represented by the collective if
those rightsholder have publicly “donated” their rights.
In either case, if enough rightsholders decide to be philanthropic, it could
affect the Canadian collective licensing environment in either or
both of two ways:
(1) there could be a new collective formed of like-minded rightsholders
which could be recognized under the Act (since more than one
organization can, and is now, able to be recognized in a particular
market – although the Copyright Board actively discourages this);
and/or
(2) the existence of rights available at no cost to educational institution
users should have an effect upon the Copyright Board’s
determinations of the “fair price” for a tariff in a particular sector.
USERS’ ENTITLEMENT
“Users’ rights” through the
enacted “exceptions to
copyright holders’
rights” in the Copyright
Act…
Licensed rights – from the
appropriate rights
collectives, by
educational
institutions, for tariffs
approved by the
Copyright Board of
Canada
29. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Collectives have long existed in the Canadian music
industry --
Canadian Performing
Rights Society
1926
BMI Canada
1940
PROCAN
1978
SOCAN
1990
1988 - Copyright Act amendments
Composers Authors & Publishers
Association of Canada
CAPAC 1946
1935 – Copyright Appeal Board created for these rights
30. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
A Collective is, generally, a voluntary organization that
represents the holders of a particular economic copyright
in terms of the administration and enforcement
of selected rights associated with that copyright
Music performing collectives
SOCAN
Retransmission collecting bodies
SOCAN (also)
Other reproduction collectives
CMRRA (mechanical reproductions of music)
CANCOPY and COPIBEC (successor to UNEQ) -
reproduction rights only
31. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
The Copyright Board website lists more than 30 collectives --
1. Access Copyright
2. ACF – Audio Cine Films
3. AVLA – Audio-Video Licensing Agency
4. CARCC – Canadian Artists’ Representation Copyright Collective
5. CBRA – Canadian Broadcasters Rights Agency
6. CMRRA – Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency
7. Criterion Pictures
8. COPIBEC – Societe quebeciose de gestion collective des droits de
reproduction
9. CRC – Canadian Retransmission Collective
10. CRRA – Canadian Retransmission Right Association
11. ERCC – Education Rights Collective of Canada
12. FWS – FWS Join Sports Claimants
13. MLB – Major League Baseball Collective of Canada
14. PGC – Playwrights Guild of Canada
15. SOCAN – Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada
16. SACD – Societe des auteurs et compositeurs dramatiques
17. SODRAC – Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and
Publishers in Canada
18. SOPROQ – Societe de gestion collective des droits des producteurs de
phonogrammes et videogrammes du Quebec
19. SoQAD – Societe quebecoise des auteurs dramatiques
The following are involved in rights management associated with “works”
under s.3:
32. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
(c) Convert a non-dramatic work by
performance
(b) Convert a dramatic work
(a) Translate the Work
Publish the Work
ACF (films)
Criterion Pictures (films)
ERCC (tv and radio, education only)
SOCAN (music)
SoQAD (theatre, education only)
Perform the Work in Public
Access Copyright (writing)
AVLA (music: videos and audio)
CARCC (visual arts)
CMRAA (audio & music)
COPIBEC (writing)
SODRAC (music)
Produce or Reproduce the Work
Associated Collective Societys.3(1) Right
33. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
(i) Rent out a Sound Recording
(h) Rent out a Computer Program
(g) Present an Artistic work at a Public
Exhibition
CBRA (tv)
CRC (tv and film)
CRRA (tv)
FWS (sports)
MLB (sports, baserball)
SACD (theatre, film, radio, audio)
SOCAN (music)
SOPROQ (audio and video)
(f) Communicate the work by
Telecommunication
(e) Adapt a work as a cinematographic work
(d) sound/cinematography film to
mechanically reproduce a literary, dramatic
or music work
Associated Collective Societys.3(1) Right
34. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
STATUTORY COPYRIGHT
OWNERS
(authors & their employers)
COPYRIGHT
COLLECTIVES
(e.g. AccessCopyright)
COPYRIGHT
USERS
(Librarians & Patrons)
COPYRIGHT
BOARD
OF
CANADA
$
$
LICENSE
LICENSE
ASSIGNEES OF
ORIGINAL
COPYRIGHT HOLDERS
(e.g. Publishers)
$LICENSE
ASSIGNMENT
$
$LICENSE
$
LICENSE
COPYRIGHT
OFFICE
optional
registration
of copyrights and assignments
Tariff
35. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Parliament, the Copyright Board and the Courts:
Parliament –
Bill C-32 The Copyright Modernization Act
Introduced Tuesday, June 2, 2010… 2nd Reading Tuesday November 2 –
expected to go to committee shortly…
The Copyright Board –
4 tariff proceedings are in play, at various stages, that affect various
Canadian library communities…
The Federal Court of Appeal –
1 of the 4 tariff proceedings was decided by the Copyright Board and has
been judicially reviewed by this court…and on appeal to SCC
These three copyright policy - developing areas are interrelated…
36. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
The risk in CANADA -
Section 27 (1) It is an infringement of copyright for any
person to do, without the consent of the owner of the
copyright, anything that by this Act only the owner of the
copyright has the right to do.
Section 28.1 Any act or omission that is contrary to any of
the moral rights of the author of a work is, in the absence
of consent by the author, an infringement of the moral
rights.
BUT there are also USERS (and intermediaries’)
RIGHTS in the Copyright Act…
37. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Identify a
Copyright issue
Perform a RiskPerform a Risk
AssessmentAssessment
Produce Policy
Document(s)
to Govern Your
Institution’s
Activities
Best PracticesBest Practices
informationinformation
ProfessionalProfessional
ArticlesArticles
ScholarlyScholarly
WritingWriting
CopyrightCopyright
WorkshopsWorkshops
Inputs:
38. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
“Best Practices” as a Defence
Negligence is a branch of tort law,
developed at common law by the
courts…
In a lawsuit based on allegations that
you have been negligent, showing that
you are practicing to a level equal to or
greater than your professional peers
can establish that you have NOT been
negligent…
Even in this branch of law, where a
statute states a rule, evidence of
customary practice will NOT
exonerate someone who breaks that
rule…
(Drewry v. Towns (1951), 2 WWR
(NS) 217)
Copyright law is completely statute-
based.
Although recent courts have relied on
evidence of custom to establish who
owns a particular copyright interest…
(Robertson v. Thomson)… AND good
management practices can provide
evidence to satisfy elements of the
FAIR DEALING test (the Law Society
case, as above)
… courts have NOT permitted
evidence of custom to establish a
defence to allegations of copyright
infringement…
(Gribble v. Manitoba Free Press Ltd.
[1932] 1 DLR 169)
39. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Potential Strategies…. …the Use of Best Practices
1. Rely on the library’s
connection with its users’
FAIR DEALING rights, or
on the philanthropy of
rightsholders (Open Access)
to provide COST FREE
services.
2. Buy often COSTLY,
TEMPORARY permissions
for uses of works.
1. Best Practices can help establish
FAIR DEALING and should, at a
minimum, comply with the Great
Library’s practices described and
approved in the Law Society decision.
Being offered a license by a
vendor should not stop the Library
from using FAIR DEALING in
appropriate cases (para.70 of the
Law Society case)
2. Best Practices can help the Library
to develop negotiating strategies to
bargain with vendors about (a) the
rights being purchased; (b) the term
(length) of the rights; and (c) price.
EACH library has four choices with respect to material that is in copyright:
40. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Potential Strategies…. …the Use of Best Practices
3. Where user rights are not
extensive enough and where
permissions are not available (at
all, or, affordably), CURTAIL USE
of copyright material and provide
LESS SERVICE; OR
4. USE MATERIAL WITHOUT
PERMISSION AND RISK
ENFORCEMENT action
enforcement by rightsholder(s).
4. The risk here CANNOT be
minimized by adopting “Best
Practices” in or across
libraries.
EACH library has four choices with respect to material that is in copyright:
41. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
How do we get permissions from copyright holders?
Through permissions of the copyright holders given in
advance (“open content licensing” or “creative commons”)
(FREE) or
Through permissions negotiated with copyright collectives
in blanket licenses (where the right(s) you seek and the
copyright holder of the work you are interested in are
represented) ($$) or
Through permissions negotiated directly, from time to time,
with copyright holders ($$ or FREE –choice of copyright
holder).
Depending upon whether and how the copyright holder make the
permissions available… MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE…
42. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
What are the processes before the Copyright
Board in which libraries have become engaged?
1. In the educational sector, there is increasing “action” related to the
Copyright Board that affects libraries in the K-12 and post-secondary
environment right across the country:
School boards everywhere except in Quebec have been affected by the decision of
AccessCopyright to take the Ministers of Education to the Board for a Tariff for 2005-
2009…
School boards everywhere except in Quebec are now being affected by the decision
of AccessCopyright to take the Ministers of Education to the Board for a Tariff for 2010-
2012
Universities are affected by the recent decision by AccessCopyright to abandon
individual negotiations with universities (or with an organization representing them) and
to apply instead for a Tariff before the Board.
2. In the government sector, AccessCopyright has applied to impose a Tariff
for 2005-2009 and another for 2010-2012 to the Provincial and Territorial
governments… and the Board has set a hearing for Sept. 13, 2011
3. AccessCopyright has the option under the Act to apply to the Board for
Tariffs in respect of other sectors of libraries, including public
libraries…
43. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
The Copyright Board’s formula for setting tariffs:
• Take all copying done within the institution
(determined by actual surveying, using statistically robust sampling)
• Subtract all copies for which the rightsholders should not be compensated
(a) because the materials in question were not “works” or works in which the
rightsholders in the collective have rights (eg materials created by schools for
themselves, in which they hold copyright)
AND
(b) because although the materials in question are prima facie materials in
which the collectives’ members have rights, there are users’ rights
(exceptions) which mean the rightsholders are not exercise their rights for
these uses (fair dealing, rights for educational institutions or LAMs)
SUB- TOTAL: NUMBER OF COMPENSABLE COPIES
x the value of each copy as determined on economic evidence by the
Copyright Board
EQUALS THE AMOUNT OF THE TARIFF EACH INSTITUTION IS TO PAY TO THE
COLLECTIVE
44. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
The situation of the K-12 Tariff for 2005-2009
The Copyright Board rendered its decision in the tariff proceeding
between
The Ministers of Education (the users)
and
Access Copyright (the copyright holders)
June 26, 2009
Setting the amount schools needed to pay the owners of copyright in
print materials for photocopying during the years 2005-2009
everywhere in Canada except in Quebec
This replaced the Pan Canadian Schools/Cancopy License Agreement
agreed between the Ministers of Education and Cancopy (without
going to the Board) that lasted from 1999 until 2009…
See: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/decisions/2009/Access-Copyright-2005-2009-Schools.pdf
45. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
COPIES NOT
INVOLVING
RIGHTSHOLDER
RIGHTS
K-12 2005-2009 findings of
the Copyright Board -
ALL COPIES MADE –10.3 billion
COPIES INVOLVING
RIGHTSHOLDERS’ RIGHTS BUT
WHERE USERS’ RIGHTS
EXEMPT THESE USES
COMPENSABLE COPIES ( 2% )—
250 million
X value per copy
= total tariff of $5.16/student
(previous agreement negotiated without
the Board – $2.56/student)
98%
46. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
At the Federal Court of Appeal – File No.A-302-09
The Province of Alberta as Represented by the Minister of Education
(and Others) – Applicants
And
The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency Operating as “ACCESS
COPYRIGHT” – Respondent
And
Canadian Publishers’ Council, The Association of Canadian Publishers, and the
Canadian Educational Resources Council – Interveners (#2)
(Leave to intervene sought January 7, 2010 and given February 18, 2010)
And
Canadian Association of University Teachers – Intervener (#1)
(Leave to intervene sought November 27, 2009 and given December 23, 2009)
The appeal was heard Tuesday June 8 and the decision released July 23,
2010 – Justice Trudel writing for Chief Justice Blais & Justice Noël
47. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
K-12 new 2010-2012 tariff before the Copyright Board
2005-9 2010-12
Digital copies of paper works added
Sheet music added
Users’ Rights exempt
for these uses
Compensable
Copies
No RightsALL COPIES MADE
48. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
What is Access Copyright proposing for the
2010-2012 tariff?
Tariff fee proposed is $15.00/FTE student– up from the
$5.16/FTE student appealed to the Federal Court of
Canada and to be adjusted slightly by remission back to
the Board on the question of whether exam copying was
actually not available in a medium that is appropriate for
the purpose and thus not compensable (which would
reduce the tariff now payable of $5.16 a bit
(but note enlarged scope of “product” AccessCopyright is
offering in the 2010-2012 tariff for schools)
Canadian Ministers of Education (CMEC) has indicated its
intention to oppose…
Access Copyright has not sought a hearing date with the
Copyright Board to pursue this new tariff
49. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Access Copyright’s proposed 2005-2009 and 2010-2014
Provincial and Territorial Government Tariffs
• Proposed fee is $24.00/FTE civil servant
• Coverage of the proposed Tariff is similar to Schools
Tariff
Presumably AccessCopyright expects less government copying to be
identified as non-compensable because of the users’ rights in the Act
(the difference between seeking $15/student and $24/civil servant)
50. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
What is AccessCopyright’s proposed Tariff for
Post-Secondary institutions for 2005-2009?
On March 30th, 2010, Access Copyright filed a proposal with the
Copyright Board of Canada for a tariff for reproductions for course packs
and day-to-day photocopying for Post-Secondary Educational Institutions
Unlike the 2005-2009 School Tariff, the proposed post-secondary tariff
would include both print and digital works in its repertoire
The proposed tariff is $45.00/FTE – presumably the difference
AccessCopyright expects between the value of print and print to digital in
the education and civil service tariffs and print and digital in this one for
universities and colleges
The proposed tariff is posted to the Copyright Board of Canada website
The Association of Colleges and Universities of Canada, on behalf of the
individual institutions, has written opposing (July 15, 2010) – and other
university-related organizations have written opposing (such as the
Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), although it does
not represent institutions on which the tariff would be levied)
51. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
How might these future Tariff proceedings before the
Board be affected by Bill C-32 if it passes?
Users’ Rights exempt
for these uses
Compensable
Copies
No RightsALL COPIES MADE
2011-2013 Post- Secondary Tariff as Proposed for $45/FTE
Copies of works available digitally
added beyond what the K-12 2005-
2009 Tariff covers
Digital copies of paper works added
beyond what the K-12 2005-2009 Tariff
covers
52. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Research
Private study
Criticism *
Review *
News reporting *
* if source and attribution mentioned
The Supreme Court has said:
“It is only if a library were unable to
make out the fair dealing exception
under section 29 that it would need
to turn to the Copyright Act to prove
that it qualified for the library
exception.” (LSUC case)
The greatest area of exemption for library
activities is FAIR DEALING
Bill C-32 would expand FAIR
DEALING to add
Education
Parody
Satire
And a category of Non-
commercial user-generated
content (s.29.21)
And reproduction for private
purposes – without
circumventing Technological
Protection Measures (s.29.22)
And time-shifting (s.29.23)
And back-up copies (s.29.24)
53. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
If Fair Dealing Users’ Rights are enlarged and if
Educational and LAMs Exceptions are expanded?
Users’ Rights exempt
for these uses
Compensable
Copies
No RightsALL COPIES MADE
Again, what AccessCopyright
is asking from Post-Secondary
Institutions…
… and how Bill C-32 might change
the equation.
54. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Bill C-32 is silent on collectives…
To give colleges and universities the protection under tariffs
that they had negotiated under the earlier licenses, the
Copyright Act would have to be changed
1. To say that contracts cannot override fair dealing rights
And
2. Where a collective exists, it represents that class of
rightsholders on a worldwide basis unless the rightsholder
specifically opts out (the extended repertoire or extended
licensing system)
Bill C-32 proposed neither of these changes to the Copyright Act…
55. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
In the Canadian environment, open source may not be so
important in the future…
Direct licensing of material by
users from database vendors (over
70% of collections budgets in
Canadian academic libraries)
bypasses both the “open source”
movement and the rights
otherwise “sold” by collectives…
If Canadian collectives represent
all those with rights in Canada
(and the Copyright Board says they
already represent both their
members and any who cash
cheques received from the
collective), they will render the
“open source” movement
irrelevant … and if Canada does
move to a European-style
extended repertoire or extended
licensing system (as many in
academe now want), it will render
“open source” totally irrelevant
for those rights represented by
collectives…
User rights confirmed by statute
are permanent, guaranteed to
users, and directly accessible and
thus will always be better for
users than “open source”… which
relies on the philanthropy of
owners…
56. Dr. Margaret Ann Wilkinson 2010
Thank You
1. Copyright Board of Canada http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/
2. OLA’s position and a summary of Bill C-32 as it affects libraries
(prepared by Western Law students Justin Vessair, Dave Morrison and
Dan Hynes) is at
http://www.accessola.com/ola/bins/content_page.asp?cid=1-99-3377
3. Margaret Ann Wilkinson,“Copyright, Collectives, and Contracts:
New Math for Educational Institutions and Libraries” in a new
collection edited by Michael Geist, From "Radical Extremism" to
"Balanced Copyright": Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda
(Irwin Law, 2010) http://www.irwinlaw.com/store/product/666/from--
radical-extremism--to--balanced-copyright-
4. Margaret Ann Wilkinson, “Open Access and Fair Dealing:
Philanthropy or Rights?” in Mark Perry and Brian Fitzgerald (eds)
Digital Copyright in a User-Generated World.— Irwin Law, forthcoming.