Copyright is more than a concept

Reading from the Travelin' Librarian's Blog, came across a post reiterating our trite disclaimer about using copyrighted material but with an added twist. He quoted, as I also do below, from an Associated Press article posted on the KTVN Channel 2 Website:

Associated Press - February 15, 2011 7:05 PM ET

DENVER (AP) - A law firm that targets the unauthorized use of news content on the Internet has filed 32 lawsuits in federal court in Colorado seeking to stop the use of a Denver Post photograph showing an airport pat-down. . . .

Righthaven has been criticized by some for suing first, rather than asking bloggers or operators of websites to remove copyrighted content. . . . CEO Steve Gibson defended the strategy Tuesday, saying many people wrongfully assume that if something is posted on the Internet, it's in the public domain and can be used for free. . . .

In a notice to readers published Nov. 14, the Post said it would use all legal remedies to address copyright infringement. . . .

1 [sic] of those sued by Righthaven is Brian Hill, 20, of Mayodan, N.C. Hill said he found the Post picture on Google Images and posted it on his news and politics website, not knowing it was copyrighted.

Hill said an attorney from Righthaven called him Feb. 10 and said he could be liable for up to $150,000 in damages . . . . [apparently a settlement offer for $6000 is a possibility]

This, my friends, is why I try to teach our students about copyright law when we create multimedia content. Perhaps, as students they will not become the target of a lawsuit like the one described above but how many of our students might build their own businesses or work in small companies where they find themselves as Webmasters, public relations or news providers, marketing agents or social media liasons.

In education, with liberal interpretations of fair use, we feel protected but as we send our students out into a digital world, unless or until our national copyright laws are re-written, they will be held accountable by firms like Righthaven. Could you afford to pay $6000 (settlement offer) for every copyrighted image you ever used without permission? (I am sure I could not but do my best to use Creative Commons images and give credit whenever possible.)

Travelin' Librarian also identified an image search engine I had not seen before. Compfight searches Flickr and with one click on the primary search page, can limit search to Creative Commons images. In a couple quick tests, I did find images through Compfight that Google did not provide and so will definitely add it to my toolbox, but using Google's "advanced image search" and choosing "labeled for re-use" still seems to provide a broader selection of images.

NOTE: Remind students that searching creative commons does NOT assure that images are available without limitation. A copyrighted photo saved by another user to a Creative Commons license is still copyrighted. Multiple wrongs do not make a right.

YouTube - the new copyright cop!

The copyright ©law cometh! The blogosphere is abuzz with news about the new YouTube policy of "muting" videos that contain copyrighted music. Very few videos have been affected by this policy so far but the potential is mindboggling!! Our students and other teachers may begin to see us as the copyright information specialists we are and no longer as the "copyright cops" they have perceived us to be. "There's a new Sheriff in town."

According to a Rolling Stone article, "YouTube Hits the Mute Button as Royalty Fight with Warner Bros. Continues" the policy currently only affects Warner Music Group releases. Videos being muted are tagged with the comment, “This video contains an audio track that has not been authorized by all copyright holders. The audio has been disabled.” They further report, "YouTube said in a statement issued after the muting began, 'Now we’ve added an additional choice. Instead of automatically removing the video from YouTube, we give users the option to modify the video by removing the music subject to the copyright claim and post the new version, and many of them are taking that option.'"

Both those who post to and who watch and listen to YouTube will feel the pain. As a consumer of music and video, I empathize with these users and will miss the popular, high-quality audio, but as an educator I am in full support of this policy and hope that it extends to all protect all studio releases. I have agreed before that our copyright law is in need of massive revision but I have also advocated strongly that creators should be allowed to earn a profit from their creations! Adding popular music, purchased or "borrowed," to videos and publishing them for mass consumption without compensation to the creator of that music is, by any reasonable revision of the law, infringement.

As teachers and librarians teaching in "project based" environments, we allow some level of legal (within the confines of the classroom) copyright infringement. Our students do not understand, though, that using an audio clip on their class video project is legal but posting the same clip to YouTube is not. It has been our responsibility to try to explain this concept, but lacking any form of evidence of the illegality by peers or providers on the Web, the explanations have fallen on deaf ears. We have been the nagging, copyright cops. A solid and sincere effort by You Tube, and other video hosting sites, to mute illegal posting of copyrighted music will not only protect creators, but will lend credence to librarians, and others who have assumed a responsibility for informing the public about the laws and attempting to protect creators.

Will this be the end of YouTube and publicly shared videos as we know them? I think not. It will be an obstacle to be hurdled. Many current users will, initially look for other hosting sites or ways to get around the filters. Beware the abusive and pornographic comments being added to every unmoderated blog and discussion group covering this story! Eventually though, this, like many obstacles we face, could make the system stronger and better. I will not attempt to predict specifics of the future, but feel confident that amateur created streaming video will mature and grow as a medium of entertainment and education for years to come.

Share the message

In my first free moments I have pursued my newfound interest in shared creativity allowed through Creative Commons licensing of copyrighted works. According to current US law, as soon as we create it in a tangible form, it is © copyrighted. I don't "own" my ideas, but I do "own" the text on this page. As of today, however, I am sharing this text with you, any of you who read it and may find use for it (sorry it is not more useful ☺ )

Through Creative Commons, by answering four or five multiple choice questions and copying and pasting a small bit of HTML code, created specifically for me, what's mine is yours. You may use it as long as -- you give me credit for it, -- you do not use it to make a profit, and -- you share alike with others. Check out my new CC License:

This work by Greg Lloyd is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

"Why can't we all just get along," (Rodney King) comes to mind. I fully support Ralph Clevenger's right to earn a living from his beautiful portrayal of the underwater portion of an iceberg. I support musicians and writers and perhaps even someday myself in pursuit of profit from publication. But for those of us who are not making a living from our work, why not allow others to enjoy the use of your efforts in exchange for the right to enjoy theirs when you need to?


It is simple and painless! You can go directly to the licensing page or check out the whole Website at CreativeCommons.org. Licensing is free and easy. Embedding license code into your website is as easy as embedding a video. Join the movement!!!!

This clip, also from Creative Commons, called "A Shared Culture," is very well produced and worth watching!

(And finally, where did I get copyright symbol and smiley face from? Two ways to get there! (1) Start Menu, (2) All Programs, (3) Accessories, (4) System Tools, (5) Character Map -- a chart of over 1200 characters that can be copied and pasted into any document pops up! Letters with accents, foreign language characters, fractions, arrows, hearts, and unimaginable creations - a very useful tool!! -- Much easier than searching throught all the different Webdings fonts). An alternate path for the geekier set is (1) Start menu, (2) Run, (3) type 'charmap'. Enjoy!)

Linking is legal !

Researching and writing about e-books, haunted by the Clevenger iceberg (another story for another day), my mind is still on the topic of embedded video in blogs. While it appears from my research that this is still an easy debate to argue from both sides, legal precedent seems to allow for this “linking” of video to private blogs and other Websites including MySpace and Facebook pages. Given the research I have done, which I will share below, I feel comfortable, at least for now, “linking” (read: embedding) videos, slideshows, and podcasts into this blog. I admit, my sources are primarily other blogs, but they appear knowledgeable and certainly involved in the debate. I welcome any comments or thoughts in agreement or disagreement regarding the legal or ethical considerations of embedded content in our blogs.

The Citizen Law Media Project explains that “linking to another website does not infringe the copyrights of that site, nor does it give rise to a likelihood of confusion necessary for a federal trademark infringement claim” ("Linking to Copyrighted," 2008). The article continues to describe that “deep linking,” linking to “a particular page within another site (i.e., other than its homepage)” has never been identified by a court as either copyright or trademark infringement. (“Linking”) While off topic, this is comforting information as I create my own directories of favorite links.

Though admitting “there is some uncertainty on this point” the article describes that inline linking or embedding, “placing a line of HTML on your site that so that your webpage displays content directly from another site,” when tried in a recent case in “the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that inline linking does not directly infringe copyright because no copy is made on the site providing the link; the link is just HTML code pointing to the image or other material. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc. , 508 F.3d 1146 (2007). Other courts may or may not follow this reasoning. However, the Ninth Circuit's decision is consistent with the majority of copyright linking cases which have found that linking, whether simple, deep, or inline, does not give rise to liability for copyright infringement. For discussion of these cases, see The Internet Law Treatise” (“Linking”).

“The situation changes when you knowingly link to works that clearly infringe somebody's copyright, like pirated music files or video clips of commercially distributed movies and music videos. In this situation, you might be liable for what is known as "contributory copyright infringement." Contributory copyright infringement occurs by "intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement" of a copyrighted work” (“Linking”). Fred vonLohman from the Electronic Frontier Foundation agrees that common sense to avoid commercially distributed media and to respect any rights published or indicated should protect bloggers from potential copyright violation when embedding content (“Linking,” 2008; vonLohman, 2007). On his Website, Christopher Heng points out that YouTube and most media hosting services offer users posting content the choice whether to “enable or disable the EMBED code for their videos. . . In theory, if the owner enables the EMBED code for others to use, it means that they” are willing and even pleased to have others embed their video (2008).

References

Bailey, J. (2007, December 20). Why I embed my images. In Plagiarism Today [PT blog]. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/‌2007/‌12/‌20/‌why-i-embed-my-images/

Heng, C. (2008). Is it okay to post YouTube videos on my website? (copyright question). In The site wizard. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://www.thesitewizard.com/‌general/‌embed-youtube-video-copyright-matters.shtml

Howell, D. (2007, July 9). Embedding a headache. In Lawgarithms [blog]. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://blogs.zdnet.com/‌Howell/‌?p=146

Linking to copyrighted materials. (2008, June 3). Citizen Law Media Project. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://www.citmedialaw.org/‌legal-guide/‌linking-copyrighted-materials

Ross, P. (2008, November 12). Copyright in a free market. In Copyright Alliance [blog]. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/‌2008/‌11/‌copyright-in-a-free-market/

VonLohman, F. (2007, July 9). YouTube embedding and copyright. In Electronic Frontier Foundation [EFF DeepLinks Blog]. Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://www.eff.org/‌deeplinks/‌2007/‌07/‌youtube-embedding-and-copyright

Where the rubber meets the road

In addition to, or partially in correlation with, my courseload, I am attempting to keep up with current library literature, including blogs of librarians in the trenches. In her blog, Wanderings, Jacquie Henry recently discussed difficulties with Website evaluation in cases when decisions are not clear-cut. She commented, "I am not working in a theoretical world. I am living right here in high school - where the rubber meets the road."

Her quote has stuck with me as I have dealt with issues in our library and as I discuss theoretical issues with other students and professors in my coursework. Our theories and ideals are great and worthy but is it fair to judge them without the temperance of real world application? More importantly, and with stronger motivation, how can we adapt our real world situations to meet the goals described by our theories and ideals?

This week we have discussed "Creativity - Copyright & Web 2.0" in class. Two particular issues come to mind from our discussions. In both, the theory makes complete and total sense and seems as though no other possible alternative could exist and yet, the reality is that students and teachers are not always receptive to our suggestions and teaching. It is this challenge that we must work to overcome.

Discussing creative uses and applications available on the Web including podcasting with Audacity, ability to create historic narrative videos through Primary Access, create photo or video, audio logs on VoiceThread, and more, the educational theories are easy to grasp. The reality, though, is the need to sell these technologies to our teachers in order for our students to realize the benefits. Much like a sporting event or theater ticket, the enjoyment is not accessed until the ticket is spent, or in this case, until the technology is used! To be successful we have to learn to market these technologies to teachers who may be receptive.

Coupled with our discussion about creativity was a discussion about copyright law and digital images. The legal alternative when creating content to be published is to use images in the public domain and to give credit to the creative individual or organization. We discussed the many ways to acquire images from government websites and through Creative Commons. In theory, this is a wonderful solution. In reality, the frustration is the difficulty of using multiple search databases to find government and Creative Commons images compared to the relative ease of image availability on the Web as a whole. To be successful, we have to teach students about the hazards of copyright law violation, how to use the tools available to find copyright free images, and how to avoid plagiarism through proper image citation.

It is important that we do our best, "where the rubber meets the road," to stay true to our ideals. It is just as important that we stay flexible and stay real regarding situations and the world around us. But, within that "real" framework, we must constantly strive to find ways to bridge the gap back to the theories and principles that guide us. These theories and principles tend to be not only legal and ethical, but also a solid foundation for the argument in favor of librarians in our schools - a critical issue as our governor threatens to cut school and library budgets yet again - a topic for another post . . .