Inside this Issue

Printable (PDF) version

Seminar on Digital Copyright Issues & Policies

By Theresa Arndt, Taubman Medical Library.

On March 15 th, Public Health Library & Informatics and the SPH Office of Communications sponsored a lively session on copyright. James Hilton, Associate Provost for Academic, Information and Instructional Technology Affairs; and Jack Bernard, UM Assistant General Counsel, provided information and answered questions about copyright issues that arise in the university setting.

Dr. Hilton began by dispelling common misconceptions about U.S. copyright law. In spite of the current climate emphasizing author rights, copyright’s primary constitutional purpose is to promote learning by providing for a limited monopoly to encourage science and the “useful arts.” Copyright does not protect ideas, but protection is granted at the moment a tangible work is created – no copyright symbol or registration is required. The copyright holder has exclusive rights to copy, distribute, create derivative works, publicly perform and display his/her work.

Dr. Hilton went on to discuss the special issues that have arisen in the “digital age.” It is now easy and cheap to distribute many high-quality copies of a work and anyone can be a publisher. With the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the emphasis has shifted toward owner rights and limiting access. There has also been a rise in contracts for licensing information, rather than purchasing it, a situation in which “fair use” does not apply unless specific rights are given in the contract. Examples of issues that have arisen at the University include ownership of football game films, business students’ projects, class notes taken by students, and collaborative works produced by students and faculty. Regarding scholarly works by faculty, court rulings have been mixed. UM policy is that individual faculty own the work they have created at their own direction without “unusual” support from the University.

Mr. Bernard produced an original “artwork” on the spot to illustrate the importance of distinguishing between an idea, a fixed work, copies of the original work, and the underlying copyrightable work even if all copies are destroyed. He noted things that are not copyrightable: facts, ideas, procedures (though patent may apply), works in the public domain, federal government documents, unoriginal works and “freeware.” A further distinction was made between the legal standard of “copyright” and the academic standard of “plagiarism”.

Uses may violate only one of these standards or both simultaneously depending on the circumstances.

“Fair Use” was also discussed at length. Not all use in an educational setting is automatically “fair use” and the only real determination is made if a judge rules on a situation. The guidelines that exist are not law; a judgment call must be made in each instance based on four factors: the purpose of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the work.

Mr. Bernard observed that much of the copyright infringement which takes place at the University occurs via the World Wide Web. Most such situations are settled amicably by removing the offending material from the Web. However, statutory damages can potentially amount to $150,000 per incident. Thus we need to learn about the situations in which copyright applies and not assume that use is “fair” just because it occurs in an educational setting.

Where to Ask Questions About Copyright

Helpful Web Resources

 

<< previous article next article >>