Students often create multimedia projects for classes that blend in clips from YouTube videos or hit songs, and many want to post their creations online for a wider audience. But does that violate copyright law?
It might, and many students fail to understand the legal risks. A new study, titled “Copying Right and Copying Wrong With Web 2.0 Tools in the Teacher Education and Communications Classrooms,” attempts to educate students about both the appropriate and inappropriate ways to use copyrighted materials that are available to mass audiences on the Internet.
“There’s definitely a low-level crisis in copyright education now,” said J. Patrick McGrail, an assistant professor of communication at Jacksonville State University and one of the co-authors of the study. “We’re living in a world where most students regularly appropriate material they see in the music and movies into their own work, but they’re not completely aware of the possible ramifications.”
Mr. McGrail said he was inspired to look further into copyright law after a student revealed his personal troubles with copyright in a lecture. In that case, the student told the class he received a cease-and-desist letter after uploading an audio file to a public file-sharing system. He paid a $3,000 fine to avoid further legal action, Mr. McGrail said.
Since then, the professor has worked with his wife, Ewa, an associate professor of English education at Georgia State University, evaluating scholarly articles on copyright law, especially those concerning students who incorporate pieces of copyrighted materials into class assignments.
Their article, published in the September edition of Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, presents a set of guidelines to determine whether a certain type of use of online materials may violate copyright law.
Borrowing copyrighted clips and presenting them in a closed classroom is always a protected fair use of the material, the scholars said. The challenge comes when students decide to release and publish their works to the wider Internet, Mr. McGrail said. The Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization Act of 2002, a recent copyright law dealing with online technologies, only gives students permission to release these works on a password-protected program in which only the instructor and enrolled students have access—such as Blackboard or other course-management systems.
Publishing a project that contains copyrighted material without permission, even if it is created in an educational context, may not win protection in court, the professor said. The best defense for students remains creating completely original work.
The paper also recommends finding copyright holders and getting permission, though that can be difficult to do in time for a class deadline, even when the work was simply created by another student. A more realistic bet might be turning to online libraries of photos, videos, and songs covered by Creative Commons licenses, which means their owners have granted limited permission to reuse under certain conditions. Those sites include the Freesound Project, Open Source Movies, and parts of Flickr, the popular photo-sharing Web site. Students should review the license on each item, though, because sanctioned uses can vary from item to item, he said.




9 Responses to Professors Publish Guide to Copyright Issues of Multimedia Projects
erc38 - November 17, 2010 at 7:01 pm
I am a bit confused by this article. From my understanding of Fair Use, material can be cited as long as it relevant to the research or thesis propounded in a publication. Perhaps, the distinction here between use and misuse of material depends on whether the borrowed material is actually part of the argument or report being constructed. For instance, citing a paragraph from a text in order to substantiate a thesis is always protected, even if a student happens to use it, but using material extraneous to the argument, such as background music to a multimedia project is not protected under Fair Use. In any event, I wish that this article had provided a more detailed description of exactly what kind of content usage resulted in the student having to settle to pay $3,000.
d_fevens - November 18, 2010 at 5:40 am
Why do you expect students to respect the copyrights of others when the institutions they attend do not? The University of Wisconsin in a commercial partnership with Google digitized a work of mine and Google made it available for searches on the internet. A copy was also given to the HathiTrust. Siva Vaidhyanathan in The Googlization of Everything and the Future of Copyright states:
“I have asked many scholars and activists who support Google’s position on this project: what possible justification under fair use or any other provision or exemption under copyright is there for the creation and distribution of an entire copyrighted work as payment for a commercial transaction? I know of no such principle, no such precedent, and no such exemption. I have yet to receive an answer.”— Pages 1229-1230
Douglas Fevens,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
The University of Wisconsin, Google, & Me
warmaiden - November 18, 2010 at 8:58 am
Read the article – the student uploaded an audio file to a *public* file sharing system not password protected to only the students in that class. Copying and distribution rights are reserved to the copyright holder. You need to weigh the practice against the four factors before you can say it’s fair use. The content usage described – flat out copying and then distributing the music file – is not considered fair use.
Even professors are poorly trained in copyright, and think everything they do falls under “Fair Use” as long as they’re using it in the context of classwork. Not true. See the Georgia State case, the threat of litigation against USCD, etc.
Go see your friendly librarians; they’re usually well versed in copyright issues.
flowney - November 18, 2010 at 9:36 am
I will agree that faculty are often confused about copyright but consulting with librarians is often unhelpful because all of these folks are under a steady barrage of FUD from rights holders and, mostly, those who represent them. FUD = fear, uncertainty and doubt. There is a lot of misinformation in circulation.
There is also more to fair use than academic fair use. Here’s a link to a delightful and humorous but informative video by Eric Faden that makes this point by example:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/documentary-film-program/film/a-fair-y-use-tale
Another antidote to the FUD, for Americans at least, is to go to the source, the US Constitution and consider well reasoned arguments such as this one by Lydia Pallas Loren on “The Purpose of Copyright.”
http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php
Relying on the media industry and those whose livelihoods depend upon that industry is risky business. They find the concept of fair use distasteful because they think it threatens their revenue models. They probably can’t change the constitution but they can achieve the desired effect which is to neuter the concept of fair use by intimidation and distortion. Beware.
Frank Lowney
Georgia College & State University
22181326 - November 18, 2010 at 10:00 am
I agree with erc38 that this article could have been better by delving into the principles of fair use. I looked for McGrails’ article in the journal, but it isn’t online yet.
Fair use depends on (1) the purpose of the use, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount excerpted from the work, and (4) the effect of the use on the market of the copyrighted work. The article begins by referring to use of clips from videos or songs, and on the face of it using part of a video or song in an educational project should not damage the market for that video or song; so it should be fair use. The report of the student paying $3,000 damages for posting an audio file isn’t clear: did the student post an entire song file?
Even so, I see and hear song files posted on YouTube all the time, and it’s not clear to me that those aren’t infringement, though they may not damage the market for those songs.
In any case, this article could have done a better job fleshing out the issues. I hope the journal will get the McGrails’ article online soon.
paufder - November 18, 2010 at 12:26 pm
I hope that people will use the Code of Best PRactices in Fair Use for Online Video. It is serving many people, including Eric Faden, very well, and has received no pushback from copyright holders. It’s here: http://centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use/related-materials/codes/code-best-practices-fair-use-online-video
latino - November 18, 2010 at 1:24 pm
People do not share information to profit it but to communicate ideas (whatever the form is); but legislation on online goes against this natural stream or common sense, with the purpose of creating a super-vigilant chaos, criminalizing good will of people.
erc38 - November 18, 2010 at 3:41 pm
In response to warmaiden, I did read the article. You should try reading my comment. The enjoyment of Fair Use extends beyond the professorship. If a student’s use of content falls within the parameters of Fair Use, there should be no need for the student to password protect his or her work. How do you know that the student flat out copied the entire song? The article say, “blend in clips of hit songs.” What if the student is in an ethnomusicology class and he or she incorporates passages of the song in the process of conducting analysis on the music. This certainly would fall under Fair Use.
jmittell - November 18, 2010 at 3:47 pm
If the use of the material is transformative for purposes of criticism & commentary, then it is most likely fair use regardless of the dissemination medium. In addition to the Center for Social Media link provided above, see also the Society for Cinema & Media Studies resources for fair use & copyright: http://www.cmstudies.org/?page=positions_policies