But when Ubois tried to get access to Quayle's speech in storage at the Hoover Institute, librarians told him that copyright and contractual obligations to the Commonwealth Club prevented them from making a digital copy of the speech for educational use.
but, but, but that's wrong; actually legally wrong. so wrong that second year law students who sat in one roundtable discussion on intellectual property can formulate the whole legal argument why it's wrong. the one thing no-one has managed to get changed is that educational use, rather broadly defined, is an absolute defense to unlicensed copying and distribution.
now, of course, that doesn't mean that people won't refuse to make copies because they think they can't. it also doesn't mean that people won't think they can contract away third-party defenses, but it's wrong!
anyway. not what i was expecting when i clicked the link. i wasn't thinking "can't" as "unable"; i was thinking "can't" as some sort of mental block. like how you can't taste your own tongue.
There's a great deal of contractual crud attached to the transfer of archival collections that I suspect wouldn't hold up to a strong legal challenge. And, of course, film is rotting in vaults while people fail to make it accessible...
Yeh. I haven't had to work with copyright clearances in a long time, but both times I was at universities with liberal law schools, so we went so far as to make the copies ourselves (well, we had student minions to do it) with requests for educational purposes. I mean, we required that paper trail, but we used to get some authors (usually the non-Americans for some reason) who would retain rights and try to get us to "contract away the educational rights" and we'd just laugh.
I'd bet my tongue tastes like coffee right now. Ummm coffee.
the one thing no-one has managed to get changed is that educational use, rather broadly defined, is an absolute defense to unlicensed copying and distribution.
Except... it's not. There's a whole lot of sort of sociological (for lack of a better term) reasons why stuff like that doesn't end up in the court system, for the most part, but there are limits to educational fair use, and any publisher will tell you that. The legislative history of the copyright acts will tell you that, too.
This is an area I'm doing some work in - I'd be very curious to know what you're basing your statement on.
I'm basing it on my reading of the cases and Title 17, specifically sec. 107, and what I recall from the six years I handled copyright issues in educational publishing and my work as a research assistant for a professor of copyright law. Certainly, I stated my position rather too broadly, because educational use is a defense not an exception or a compulsory license, but it's essentially correct.
I can't run The Matrix in its entirity on public access television under the guise that I'm educating the public on intro to western philosophy, but I can run a clip of it in class to facilitate a discussion on class readings without paying a license. I can also have the copy center at my university dupe a chapter from Friendly's The Constitution: That Delicate Balance as part of course materials. The institution seeks clearances because it's easier than raising a defense, but it's not legally obligated to. I can run those copies myself, even throw them up on my website for my class, and it qualifies as a protected fair use which is a limitation on the exclusive rights granted by copyright.
I wish the article had mentioned the name of that case. I can't find anything in NY in 1982 that deals with archiving news clips.
To increase your journal popularity and pagerank, we have added it to our new catalog. And it is available here: http://blog.ubscribe.com/show.php?flet=e&page=1#eac To confirm the listing please either place a link to our catalog in your journal or add this user to your friends. If not interested, ignore this message and we will remove the listing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eac's journal
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-09 03:29 pm (UTC)but, but, but that's wrong; actually legally wrong. so wrong that second year law students who sat in one roundtable discussion on intellectual property can formulate the whole legal argument why it's wrong. the one thing no-one has managed to get changed is that educational use, rather broadly defined, is an absolute defense to unlicensed copying and distribution.
now, of course, that doesn't mean that people won't refuse to make copies because they think they can't. it also doesn't mean that people won't think they can contract away third-party defenses, but it's wrong!
anyway. not what i was expecting when i clicked the link. i wasn't thinking "can't" as "unable"; i was thinking "can't" as some sort of mental block. like how you can't taste your own tongue.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-09 03:33 pm (UTC)Also, I'm glad I can't taste my tongue.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-09 03:43 pm (UTC)I'd bet my tongue tastes like coffee right now. Ummm coffee.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-09 07:29 pm (UTC)Except... it's not. There's a whole lot of sort of sociological (for lack of a better term) reasons why stuff like that doesn't end up in the court system, for the most part, but there are limits to educational fair use, and any publisher will tell you that. The legislative history of the copyright acts will tell you that, too.
This is an area I'm doing some work in - I'd be very curious to know what you're basing your statement on.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-09 08:10 pm (UTC)I can't run The Matrix in its entirity on public access television under the guise that I'm educating the public on intro to western philosophy, but I can run a clip of it in class to facilitate a discussion on class readings without paying a license. I can also have the copy center at my university dupe a chapter from Friendly's The Constitution: That Delicate Balance as part of course materials. The institution seeks clearances because it's easier than raising a defense, but it's not legally obligated to. I can run those copies myself, even throw them up on my website for my class, and it qualifies as a protected fair use which is a limitation on the exclusive rights granted by copyright.
I wish the article had mentioned the name of that case. I can't find anything in NY in 1982 that deals with archiving news clips.
Your increased journal popularity
Date: 2007-10-06 07:21 pm (UTC)To increase your journal popularity and pagerank, we have added it to our new catalog.
And it is available here: http://blog.ubscribe.com/show.php?flet=
To confirm the listing please either place a link to our catalog in your journal or add
this user to your friends. If not interested, ignore this message and we will remove the
listing.