Dear Members, I’m looking for some copyright tips. I’d be grateful for feedback. I’m trying to figure out if I need copyright holder permission to reproduce in an academic publication images from the following items that appeared in print between 1923 and 1963, i.e. a period when things normally require explicit copyright renewal to stay out of the public domain. I can’t figure out if some of these materials count as government documents. Unless noted, none of these materials come from an archive or otherwise privileged source. Figures from IBM manuals for SAGE from 1958. There’s no evidence the manual was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed, but there is a statement in the manuals that reads “This document contains information of a proprietary nature. Any use or reproduction of this document for other than government purposes is subject to the prior consent of International Business Machines Corporation.” A figure from a 1950s RAND memo prepared for the US Air Force—no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed. There is a statement on the cover that permission must be sought from RAND to quote or reproduce its contents. Figures from a 1947 report produced by a university-based laboratory for the US Air Force, no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that copyright was renewed. I don’t think it was publicly circulated. I got my copy from a US government archive. Pre-1964 magazine advertisements, I have no information about their copyright status. Thanks for your advice, colleagues. Best, Bernard -- Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan Senior Lecturer in the History and Theory of Digital Media www.bernardg.com Department of Digital Humanities King's College London The Strand Building Room S3.08 WC2R 2LS Office: +44 (0)20 7848 4750 Cell: +44 (0)75 7713 9098
Bernard, as I understand it, a work is copyrighted when it's created and fixed in a tangible medium. No need to register the copyright (though that's a good idea). At least nowadays -- not sure about the 1950s and 1960s. Government works are in the public domain if created by a government employee (and not secret, I guess). This doesn't apply to works created for the government by a contractor such as IBM or Rand. Proprietary information, if it can be considered a trade secret, is protected forever without registration. But if it's readily available, it would be hard to assert that it gives away a trade secret. For advertisements, I would seek permission from the company or its descendant (if there is one). Even if out of copyright, you're presenting the company's face to the public, and it would be a courtesy to let them give you their blessing. Also, they would want to know about it... might even like it! I think you're safest to get permission for anything for which you aren't sure that the copyright has expired due to the passage of time. ... but I'm not an attorney, and I don't even play one on TV! Have just taught some of the basics of IP to computer science students. - Bill ________________________________ From: Members [members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] on behalf of Bernard Geoghegan [bernardgeoghegan2010@u.northwestern.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:20 PM To: members@SIGCIS.org Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Copyright advice sought Dear Members, I’m looking for some copyright tips. I’d be grateful for feedback. I’m trying to figure out if I need copyright holder permission to reproduce in an academic publication images from the following items that appeared in print between 1923 and 1963, i.e. a period when things normally require explicit copyright renewal to stay out of the public domain. I can’t figure out if some of these materials count as government documents. Unless noted, none of these materials come from an archive or otherwise privileged source. 1. Figures from IBM manuals for SAGE from 1958. There’s no evidence the manual was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed, but there is a statement in the manuals that reads “This document contains information of a proprietary nature. Any use or reproduction of this document for other than government purposes is subject to the prior consent of International Business Machines Corporation.” 2. A figure from a 1950s RAND memo prepared for the US Air Force—no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed. There is a statement on the cover that permission must be sought from RAND to quote or reproduce its contents. 3. Figures from a 1947 report produced by a university-based laboratory for the US Air Force, no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that copyright was renewed. I don’t think it was publicly circulated. I got my copy from a US government archive. 4. Pre-1964 magazine advertisements, I have no information about their copyright status. Thanks for your advice, colleagues. Best, Bernard -- Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan Senior Lecturer in the History and Theory of Digital Media www.bernardg.com Department of Digital Humanities King's College London The Strand Building Room S3.08 WC2R 2LS Office: +44 (0)20 7848 4750 Cell: +44 (0)75 7713 9098
Hi Bernard, I believe Bill is correct. In principle, works before the 1976 Copyright Act *had* to be registered for copyright or otherwise the creator/publisher would lose any rights -- meaning that much ephemera like advertising is probably not technically under copyright. However, most libraries and publishers basically regard anything post-1923 as being under copyright, for reasons of legal liability. In my experience, publishers have been willing to use an item, such as an image, if a good-faith effort to locate the copyright holder (which is frequently nearly impossible) and seek permission is made. As for the RAND stuff and all that, I would agree that only works created directly by a government employee or agency are in the public domain. Works contracted from outside consultants would likely be their IP. I doubt this is terribly helpful, but the main takeaway is that this stuff is generally much fuzzier and vaguer than many people try to say. It's mostly about avoiding liability, most of the time. Best, Alex On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:18 PM McMillan, William W < william.mcmillan@cuaa.edu> wrote:
Bernard, as I understand it, a work is copyrighted when it's created and fixed in a tangible medium. No need to register the copyright (though that's a good idea). At least nowadays -- not sure about the 1950s and 1960s.
Government works are in the public domain if created by a government employee (and not secret, I guess). This doesn't apply to works created for the government by a contractor such as IBM or Rand.
Proprietary information, if it can be considered a trade secret, is protected forever without registration. But if it's readily available, it would be hard to assert that it gives away a trade secret.
For advertisements, I would seek permission from the company or its descendant (if there is one). Even if out of copyright, you're presenting the company's face to the public, and it would be a courtesy to let them give you their blessing. Also, they would want to know about it... might even like it!
I think you're safest to get permission for anything for which you aren't sure that the copyright has expired due to the passage of time.
... but I'm not an attorney, and I don't even play one on TV! Have just taught some of the basics of IP to computer science students.
- Bill
________________________________ From: Members [members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org] on behalf of Bernard Geoghegan [bernardgeoghegan2010@u.northwestern.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:20 PM To: members@SIGCIS.org Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Copyright advice sought
Dear Members,
I’m looking for some copyright tips. I’d be grateful for feedback. I’m trying to figure out if I need copyright holder permission to reproduce in an academic publication images from the following items that appeared in print between 1923 and 1963, i.e. a period when things normally require explicit copyright renewal to stay out of the public domain. I can’t figure out if some of these materials count as government documents. Unless noted, none of these materials come from an archive or otherwise privileged source.
1. Figures from IBM manuals for SAGE from 1958. There’s no evidence the manual was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed, but there is a statement in the manuals that reads “This document contains information of a proprietary nature. Any use or reproduction of this document for other than government purposes is subject to the prior consent of International Business Machines Corporation.” 2. A figure from a 1950s RAND memo prepared for the US Air Force—no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed. There is a statement on the cover that permission must be sought from RAND to quote or reproduce its contents. 3. Figures from a 1947 report produced by a university-based laboratory for the US Air Force, no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that copyright was renewed. I don’t think it was publicly circulated. I got my copy from a US government archive. 4. Pre-1964 magazine advertisements, I have no information about their copyright status.
Thanks for your advice, colleagues.
Best,
Bernard
-- Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan Senior Lecturer in the History and Theory of Digital Media
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.bernardg.com&data...
Department of Digital Humanities King's College London The Strand Building Room S3.08 WC2R 2LS
Office: +44 (0)20 7848 4750 Cell: +44 (0)75 7713 9098 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.sigcis... and you can change your subscription options at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.sigcis...
-- Dr. Alex Sayf Cummings Associate Professor Georgia State University Department of History 25 Park Place, Suite 2008 Atlanta, GA 30303 *Democracy of Sound: Music Piracy and the Remaking of American Copyright in the Twentieth Century* (Oxford, 2013): https://goo.gl/D3jfPk Tropics of Meta: http://www.tropicsofmeta.com "One thing which has not changed is that none of us, no matter what continent or island or ice cap, asked to be born in the first place, and that even somebody as old as I am, which is 80, only just got here. There were already all these games going on when I got here. An apt motto for any polity anywhere, to put on its state seal or currency or whatever, might be this quotation from the late baseball manager Casey Stengel, who was addressing a team of losing professional athletes: 'Can’t anybody here play this game?'" -- Kurt Vonnegut, 2003
I just asked a copyright/fair use expert who said he thought you could just go ahead and use this in a journal article under fair use. I’ve asked him if I could post his full reply. +++++++++++++++ David C. Brock dcb@dcbrock.net 40 Russell Street, Greenfield, MA 01301 Mobile: 413-522-3578 Skype: dcbrock Twitter: @dcbrock
On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:27 PM, Alexander Sayf Cummings <alexcummings@gsu.edu> wrote:
Hi Bernard,
I believe Bill is correct. In principle, works before the 1976 Copyright Act had to be registered for copyright or otherwise the creator/publisher would lose any rights -- meaning that much ephemera like advertising is probably not technically under copyright. However, most libraries and publishers basically regard anything post-1923 as being under copyright, for reasons of legal liability. In my experience, publishers have been willing to use an item, such as an image, if a good-faith effort to locate the copyright holder (which is frequently nearly impossible) and seek permission is made.
As for the RAND stuff and all that, I would agree that only works created directly by a government employee or agency are in the public domain. Works contracted from outside consultants would likely be their IP. I doubt this is terribly helpful, but the main takeaway is that this stuff is generally much fuzzier and vaguer than many people try to say. It's mostly about avoiding liability, most of the time.
Best,
Alex
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:18 PM McMillan, William W <william.mcmillan@cuaa.edu <mailto:william.mcmillan@cuaa.edu>> wrote: Bernard, as I understand it, a work is copyrighted when it's created and fixed in a tangible medium. No need to register the copyright (though that's a good idea). At least nowadays -- not sure about the 1950s and 1960s.
Government works are in the public domain if created by a government employee (and not secret, I guess). This doesn't apply to works created for the government by a contractor such as IBM or Rand.
Proprietary information, if it can be considered a trade secret, is protected forever without registration. But if it's readily available, it would be hard to assert that it gives away a trade secret.
For advertisements, I would seek permission from the company or its descendant (if there is one). Even if out of copyright, you're presenting the company's face to the public, and it would be a courtesy to let them give you their blessing. Also, they would want to know about it... might even like it!
I think you're safest to get permission for anything for which you aren't sure that the copyright has expired due to the passage of time.
... but I'm not an attorney, and I don't even play one on TV! Have just taught some of the basics of IP to computer science students.
- Bill
________________________________ From: Members [members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org <mailto:members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org>] on behalf of Bernard Geoghegan [bernardgeoghegan2010@u.northwestern.edu <mailto:bernardgeoghegan2010@u.northwestern.edu>] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:20 PM To: members@SIGCIS.org Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Copyright advice sought
Dear Members,
I’m looking for some copyright tips. I’d be grateful for feedback. I’m trying to figure out if I need copyright holder permission to reproduce in an academic publication images from the following items that appeared in print between 1923 and 1963, i.e. a period when things normally require explicit copyright renewal to stay out of the public domain. I can’t figure out if some of these materials count as government documents. Unless noted, none of these materials come from an archive or otherwise privileged source.
1. Figures from IBM manuals for SAGE from 1958. There’s no evidence the manual was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed, but there is a statement in the manuals that reads “This document contains information of a proprietary nature. Any use or reproduction of this document for other than government purposes is subject to the prior consent of International Business Machines Corporation.” 2. A figure from a 1950s RAND memo prepared for the US Air Force—no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed. There is a statement on the cover that permission must be sought from RAND to quote or reproduce its contents. 3. Figures from a 1947 report produced by a university-based laboratory for the US Air Force, no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that copyright was renewed. I don’t think it was publicly circulated. I got my copy from a US government archive. 4. Pre-1964 magazine advertisements, I have no information about their copyright status.
Thanks for your advice, colleagues.
Best,
Bernard
-- Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan Senior Lecturer in the History and Theory of Digital Media https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.bernardg.com&data... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.bernardg.com&data=02%7C01%7Calexcummings%40gsu.edu%7C517a36125e0b478cfb6908d5e82c3b87%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636670199040839203&sdata=eLl6rHjbpUy5ooO3SJMA%2FC5Qv%2FZguSOvEjgu6kbwisY%3D&reserved=0>
Department of Digital Humanities King's College London The Strand Building Room S3.08 WC2R 2LS
Office: +44 (0)20 7848 4750 Cell: +44 (0)75 7713 9098 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://sigcis.org/>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.sigcis... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.sigcis.org%2Fpipermail%2Fmembers-sigcis.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Calexcummings%40gsu.edu%7C517a36125e0b478cfb6908d5e82c3b87%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636670199040839203&sdata=%2Fm9TCZeq2w4kyHpAwhvcNS3SmpweqL612Rz5sRo1dBw%3D&reserved=0> and you can change your subscription options at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.sigcis... <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.sigcis.org%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fmembers-sigcis.org&data=02%7C01%7Calexcummings%40gsu.edu%7C517a36125e0b478cfb6908d5e82c3b87%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C636670199040839203&sdata=Xi%2F5DaEY6KGfvRovEhIIBsnT3RmvvkyxDKqOZ%2B0Elag%3D&reserved=0>
--
Dr. Alex Sayf Cummings
Associate Professor Georgia State University Department of History 25 Park Place, Suite 2008 Atlanta, GA 30303
Democracy of Sound: Music Piracy and the Remaking of American Copyright in the Twentieth Century (Oxford, 2013): https://goo.gl/D3jfPk <https://goo.gl/D3jfPk>
Tropics of Meta: http://www.tropicsofmeta.com <http://www.tropicsofmeta.com/>
"One thing which has not changed is that none of us, no matter what continent or island or ice cap, asked to be born in the first place, and that even somebody as old as I am, which is 80, only just got here. There were already all these games going on when I got here. An apt motto for any polity anywhere, to put on its state seal or currency or whatever, might be this quotation from the late baseball manager Casey Stengel, who was addressing a team of losing professional athletes: 'Can’t anybody here play this game?'"
-- Kurt Vonnegut, 2003 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
It may be worth noting that the RAND Corporation was/is a so-called “FFRDC” – federally-funded research and development center. After World War II a number of them were set up, mainly (as I understand it) to allow its employees to receive higher salaries than allowed by the civil service system. But they were paid with government funds (i.e. taxes). The same holds true for the university lab with an air force contract. The line between an FFRDC and a traditional government research lab (e.g. the National Bureau of Standards/NIST) can be very fuzzy. As one colleague of mine remarked, “How do you know if the person works for an FFRDC or a government lab? Visit their house, and if they have Picasso paintings on the wall, they work for an FFRDC.” So to answer your question, go ahead & use the images. As for the advertisements, you do need to show that you made a good-faith effort. I have done this, and in some cases it turned out to be fun, believe it or not, to track down the evolution of technical trade journals like Electronics or Datamation. Paul Ceruzzi ceruzzip@si.edu<mailto:ceruzzip@si.edu> 202-633-2414 From: Members <members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org> On Behalf Of Bernard Geoghegan Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:21 PM To: members@SIGCIS.org Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Copyright advice sought Dear Members, I’m looking for some copyright tips. I’d be grateful for feedback. I’m trying to figure out if I need copyright holder permission to reproduce in an academic publication images from the following items that appeared in print between 1923 and 1963, i.e. a period when things normally require explicit copyright renewal to stay out of the public domain. I can’t figure out if some of these materials count as government documents. Unless noted, none of these materials come from an archive or otherwise privileged source. 1. Figures from IBM manuals for SAGE from 1958. There’s no evidence the manual was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed, but there is a statement in the manuals that reads “This document contains information of a proprietary nature. Any use or reproduction of this document for other than government purposes is subject to the prior consent of International Business Machines Corporation.” 2. A figure from a 1950s RAND memo prepared for the US Air Force—no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed. There is a statement on the cover that permission must be sought from RAND to quote or reproduce its contents. 3. Figures from a 1947 report produced by a university-based laboratory for the US Air Force, no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that copyright was renewed. I don’t think it was publicly circulated. I got my copy from a US government archive. 4. Pre-1964 magazine advertisements, I have no information about their copyright status. Thanks for your advice, colleagues. Best, Bernard -- Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan Senior Lecturer in the History and Theory of Digital Media www.bernardg.com<http://www.bernardg.com> Department of Digital Humanities King's College London The Strand Building Room S3.08 WC2R 2LS Office: +44 (0)20 7848 4750 Cell: +44 (0)75 7713 9098
Hi Bernard, Publishing these images in an academic context would certainly fall under fair use (it may or may not be copyrighted, but you may (and in this case certainly do) still have the right of fair use). Which means: there's almost no chance you'd get into legal trouble (and if it went to court, you'd win), but you still may need to convince your editor. In which case, you may be able to point them to advice like this: http://www.collegeart.org/pdf/fair-use/best-practices-fair-use-visual-arts.p... . I've had some luck convincing editors in the art history realm that most of the culture of "permissions" is complete waste of time. (The right of fair use means you don't have to ask for permission!) Best, Matthew On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:59 PM Ceruzzi, Paul <CeruzziP@si.edu> wrote:
It may be worth noting that the RAND Corporation was/is a so-called “FFRDC” – federally-funded research and development center. After World War II a number of them were set up, mainly (as I understand it) to allow its employees to receive higher salaries than allowed by the civil service system. But they were paid with government funds (i.e. taxes). The same holds true for the university lab with an air force contract. The line between an FFRDC and a traditional government research lab (e.g. the National Bureau of Standards/NIST) can be very fuzzy. As one colleague of mine remarked, “How do you know if the person works for an FFRDC or a government lab? Visit their house, and if they have Picasso paintings on the wall, they work for an FFRDC.”
So to answer your question, go ahead & use the images. As for the advertisements, you do need to show that you made a good-faith effort. I have done this, and in some cases it turned out to be fun, believe it or not, to track down the evolution of technical trade journals like Electronics or Datamation.
Paul Ceruzzi
ceruzzip@si.edu
202-633-2414
*From:* Members <members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org> *On Behalf Of *Bernard Geoghegan *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:21 PM *To:* members@SIGCIS.org *Subject:* [SIGCIS-Members] Copyright advice sought
Dear Members,
I’m looking for some copyright tips. I’d be grateful for feedback. I’m trying to figure out if I need copyright holder permission to reproduce in an academic publication images from the following items that appeared in print between 1923 and 1963, i.e. a period when things normally require explicit copyright renewal to stay out of the public domain. I can’t figure out if some of these materials count as government documents. Unless noted, none of these materials come from an archive or otherwise privileged source.
1. Figures from IBM manuals for SAGE from 1958. There’s no evidence the manual was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed, but there is a statement in the manuals that reads “This document contains information of a proprietary nature. Any use or reproduction of this document for other than government purposes is subject to the prior consent of International Business Machines Corporation.”
2. A figure from a 1950s RAND memo prepared for the US Air Force—no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed. There is a statement on the cover that permission must be sought from RAND to quote or reproduce its contents.
3. Figures from a 1947 report produced by a university-based laboratory for the US Air Force, no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that copyright was renewed. I don’t think it was publicly circulated. I got my copy from a US government archive.
4. Pre-1964 magazine advertisements, I have no information about their copyright status.
Thanks for your advice, colleagues.
Best,
Bernard
--
Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan
Senior Lecturer in the History and Theory of Digital Media
www.bernardg.com
Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
The Strand Building
Room S3.08
WC2R 2LS
Office: +44 (0)20 7848 4750
Cell: +44 (0)75 7713 9098 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
This is a great take on this and the CAA framework is a good one that was the end result of five years of study by IP lawyers so is bona fide. Just a point of clarification, fair use is not a right like copyright is as it is not explicitly stated as such in law. Rather it is an exception to copyright that has been provided by judicial precedent and has been roughly outlined in copyright law but is purposefully not clearly bound. This difference is just important to know as you move forward with concerns such as this and are dealing with legal situations and specific terminology. It’s kind of like driving. No one has the right to drive. The government provides the opportunity to get a driver’s license and it can be taken away. Fair use tenets can be violated as such if they are determined to be overstepped by a judge and one can then be in violation of copyright. Copyright however is automatically given to the creator upon recording of an expression in a material form and is a right that cannot be taken away. Cheers Kimon Kimon Keramidas, Ph.D. Clinical Associate Professor The Center for Experimental Humanities New York University 14 University Place New York, NY 10003 P 212-998-3691 T @kimonizer W http://kimonkeramidas.com The Interface Experience: Forty Years of Personal Computing Exhibition The Interface Experience: A User’s Guide Winner of the 2016 Innovation in Print Design Award from the American Alliance of Museums Buy Book
On Jul 13, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Matthew Allen <matthewallen@g.harvard.edu> wrote:
Hi Bernard,
Publishing these images in an academic context would certainly fall under fair use (it may or may not be copyrighted, but you may (and in this case certainly do) still have the right of fair use). Which means: there's almost no chance you'd get into legal trouble (and if it went to court, you'd win), but you still may need to convince your editor. In which case, you may be able to point them to advice like this: http://www.collegeart.org/pdf/fair-use/best-practices-fair-use-visual-arts.p... . I've had some luck convincing editors in the art history realm that most of the culture of "permissions" is complete waste of time. (The right of fair use means you don't have to ask for permission!)
Best, Matthew
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:59 PM Ceruzzi, Paul <CeruzziP@si.edu> wrote: It may be worth noting that the RAND Corporation was/is a so-called “FFRDC” – federally-funded research and development center. After World War II a number of them were set up, mainly (as I understand it) to allow its employees to receive higher salaries than allowed by the civil service system. But they were paid with government funds (i.e. taxes). The same holds true for the university lab with an air force contract. The line between an FFRDC and a traditional government research lab (e.g. the National Bureau of Standards/NIST) can be very fuzzy. As one colleague of mine remarked, “How do you know if the person works for an FFRDC or a government lab? Visit their house, and if they have Picasso paintings on the wall, they work for an FFRDC.”
So to answer your question, go ahead & use the images. As for the advertisements, you do need to show that you made a good-faith effort. I have done this, and in some cases it turned out to be fun, believe it or not, to track down the evolution of technical trade journals like Electronics or Datamation.
Paul Ceruzzi
ceruzzip@si.edu
202-633-2414
From: Members <members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org> On Behalf Of Bernard Geoghegan Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:21 PM To: members@SIGCIS.org Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Copyright advice sought
Dear Members,
I’m looking for some copyright tips. I’d be grateful for feedback. I’m trying to figure out if I need copyright holder permission to reproduce in an academic publication images from the following items that appeared in print between 1923 and 1963, i.e. a period when things normally require explicit copyright renewal to stay out of the public domain. I can’t figure out if some of these materials count as government documents. Unless noted, none of these materials come from an archive or otherwise privileged source.
1. Figures from IBM manuals for SAGE from 1958. There’s no evidence the manual was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed, but there is a statement in the manuals that reads “This document contains information of a proprietary nature. Any use or reproduction of this document for other than government purposes is subject to the prior consent of International Business Machines Corporation.”
2. A figure from a 1950s RAND memo prepared for the US Air Force—no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed. There is a statement on the cover that permission must be sought from RAND to quote or reproduce its contents.
3. Figures from a 1947 report produced by a university-based laboratory for the US Air Force, no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that copyright was renewed. I don’t think it was publicly circulated. I got my copy from a US government archive.
4. Pre-1964 magazine advertisements, I have no information about their copyright status.
Thanks for your advice, colleagues.
Best,
Bernard
--
Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan
Senior Lecturer in the History and Theory of Digital Media
www.bernardg.com
Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
The Strand Building
Room S3.08
WC2R 2LS
Office: +44 (0)20 7848 4750
Cell: +44 (0)75 7713 9098
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
Thanks for the clarification - I guess I just really wish it were a right :) M On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 9:50 AM Kimon Keramidas <kimon.keramidas@nyu.edu> wrote:
This is a great take on this and the CAA framework is a good one that was the end result of five years of study by IP lawyers so is bona fide.
Just a point of clarification, fair use is not a right like copyright is as it is not explicitly stated as such in law. Rather it is an exception to copyright that has been provided by judicial precedent and has been roughly outlined in copyright law but is purposefully not clearly bound. This difference is just important to know as you move forward with concerns such as this and are dealing with legal situations and specific terminology.
It’s kind of like driving. No one has the right to drive. The government provides the opportunity to get a driver’s license and it can be taken away. Fair use tenets can be violated as such if they are determined to be overstepped by a judge and one can then be in violation of copyright. Copyright however is automatically given to the creator upon recording of an expression in a material form and is a right that cannot be taken away.
Cheers Kimon
*Kimon Keramidas, Ph.D.* Clinical Associate Professor The Center for Experimental Humanities <http://as.nyu.edu/ceh.html>
*New York University*14 University Place New York, NY 10003
*P* 212-998-3691 *T* @kimonizer *W* http://kimonkeramidas.com
*The Interface Experience: Forty Years of Personal Computing*Exhibition <https://www.bgc.bard.edu/gallery/exhibitions/10/the-interface-experience>
*The Interface Experience: A User’s Guide*Winner of the* 2016 Innovation in Print Design Award* from the *American Alliance of Museums* Buy Book <http://store.bgc.bard.edu/the-interface-experience-a-users-guide-by-kimon-keramidas/>
On Jul 13, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Matthew Allen <matthewallen@g.harvard.edu> wrote:
Hi Bernard,
Publishing these images in an academic context would certainly fall under fair use (it may or may not be copyrighted, but you may (and in this case certainly do) still have the right of fair use). Which means: there's almost no chance you'd get into legal trouble (and if it went to court, you'd win), but you still may need to convince your editor. In which case, you may be able to point them to advice like this: http://www.collegeart.org/pdf/fair-use/best-practices-fair-use-visual-arts.p... . I've had some luck convincing editors in the art history realm that most of the culture of "permissions" is complete waste of time. (The right of fair use means you don't have to ask for permission!)
Best, Matthew
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 3:59 PM Ceruzzi, Paul <CeruzziP@si.edu> wrote:
It may be worth noting that the RAND Corporation was/is a so-called “FFRDC” – federally-funded research and development center. After World War II a number of them were set up, mainly (as I understand it) to allow its employees to receive higher salaries than allowed by the civil service system. But they were paid with government funds (i.e. taxes). The same holds true for the university lab with an air force contract. The line between an FFRDC and a traditional government research lab (e.g. the National Bureau of Standards/NIST) can be very fuzzy. As one colleague of mine remarked, “How do you know if the person works for an FFRDC or a government lab? Visit their house, and if they have Picasso paintings on the wall, they work for an FFRDC.”
So to answer your question, go ahead & use the images. As for the advertisements, you do need to show that you made a good-faith effort. I have done this, and in some cases it turned out to be fun, believe it or not, to track down the evolution of technical trade journals like Electronics or Datamation.
Paul Ceruzzi
ceruzzip@si.edu
202-633-2414
*From:* Members <members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org> *On Behalf Of *Bernard Geoghegan *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2018 2:21 PM *To:* members@SIGCIS.org *Subject:* [SIGCIS-Members] Copyright advice sought
Dear Members,
I’m looking for some copyright tips. I’d be grateful for feedback. I’m trying to figure out if I need copyright holder permission to reproduce in an academic publication images from the following items that appeared in print between 1923 and 1963, i.e. a period when things normally require explicit copyright renewal to stay out of the public domain. I can’t figure out if some of these materials count as government documents. Unless noted, none of these materials come from an archive or otherwise privileged source.
1. Figures from IBM manuals for SAGE from 1958. There’s no evidence the manual was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed, but there is a statement in the manuals that reads “This document contains information of a proprietary nature. Any use or reproduction of this document for other than government purposes is subject to the prior consent of International Business Machines Corporation.”
2. A figure from a 1950s RAND memo prepared for the US Air Force—no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that the copyright was renewed. There is a statement on the cover that permission must be sought from RAND to quote or reproduce its contents.
3. Figures from a 1947 report produced by a university-based laboratory for the US Air Force, no evidence that it was copyrighted, nor that copyright was renewed. I don’t think it was publicly circulated. I got my copy from a US government archive.
4. Pre-1964 magazine advertisements, I have no information about their copyright status.
Thanks for your advice, colleagues.
Best,
Bernard
--
Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan
Senior Lecturer in the History and Theory of Digital Media
www.bernardg.com
Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
The Strand Building
Room S3.08
WC2R 2LS
Office: +44 (0)20 7848 4750
Cell: +44 (0)75 7713 9098 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that fair use *is* explicitly stated as such in law, at least in US law, which is what we seem to be discussing. Let's see … Section 107 of Title 17 (the section of US Law that specifies copyright) says --- START OF QUOTED MATERIAL --- 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. ---- END OF QUOTED MATERIAL ---- https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 However, as you say, whether or not something counts as fair use is not specified clearly. So, while the government cannot take away an individual's fair-use rights without changing the law, a court case can determine that a particular use is not fair use. I would suggest that what counts as a 'creative work' and therefore eligible for copyright is also not stated clearly. Certainly, there have been questions of whether compilations of information, like phone books, or mostly factual things, like maps, are subject to copyright protection. And, in the end, no one has the "right" to copyright, except as stated in the law. If Congress changes copyright law, those rights change. Regards, -- SamR Samuel A. Rebelsky, Professor of Computer Science Grinnell College, 1116 8th Avenue, Grinnell, Iowa 50112 Office: 641-269-4410 ; Fax: 641-269-4285 ; Cell: 641-990-2947 rebelsky@grinnell.edu ; https://www.cs.grinnell.edu/~rebelsky/ The opinions expressed herein are my own, and should not be attributed to Grinnell College, Grinnell's Department of CS, SIGCSE, SIGCAS, any other organizations with which I am affiliated, my family, or even most sentient beings.
On Jul 13, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Kimon Keramidas <kimon.keramidas@nyu.edu> wrote:
Just a point of clarification, fair use is not a right like copyright is as it is not explicitly stated as such in law. Rather it is an exception to copyright that has been provided by judicial precedent and has been roughly outlined in copyright law but is purposefully not clearly bound. This difference is just important to know as you move forward with concerns such as this and are dealing with legal situations and specific terminology.
It’s kind of like driving. No one has the right to drive. The government provides the opportunity to get a driver’s license and it can be taken away. Fair use tenets can be violated as such if they are determined to be overstepped by a judge and one can then be in violation of copyright. Copyright however is automatically given to the creator upon recording of an expression in a material form and is a right that cannot be taken away.
Cheers Kimon
Hi all, Thought I could contribute some useful info, with some help from my colleague and fair use expert Patricia Aufderheide. Given the amount of misinformation large media corporations and software associations have purveyed over the years, it's no wonder there's a lot of confusion about fair use. Some things to keep in mind: 1) Fair use is a right, as the Supreme Court has recognized affirmatively, and its technical designation as a defense doesn't make it any less of a right. Your right to self-defense is a right, although it is a defense. 2) Fair use isn't complicated to interpret, in most common cases. In fact, you probably used fair use today without thinking about. Every time we quote another scholar in our work, that's fair use. Every time search engines temporarily copy documents to scan them for relevance, that's fair use. 3) The Codes of Best Practices in Fair Use, which are available at csmsimpact.org/fair-use, are extremely valuable for providing user-friendly logic for fair use in specific disciplines. They exist for communications research (might be the most pertinent for the original question), documentary film, media literacy, visual arts (as noted in this thread), journalism, film studies teaching, open courseware, nonfiction writing, museums and archives facing orphan works problems, and film studies research. Forthcoming is a best practices code on software. 4) To echo SamR's comments, of course judges can find that a use is not fair, just as they can find that a use is obscene, or defamatory, or treasonous. That doesn't make the First Amendment any less real as a result. This is why Codes of best Practices are so helpful--they show what is generally accepted in a field already, and therefore unlikely to be found outside the acceptable in court, and therefore unlikely to draw any legal action from a copyright holder. Risk is a known feature of expression and of life in general. So the question is not whether you are risk-free (unless you don't want to express yourself at all), but what the risk is. Having consensus codes of practice is a way of vastly lowering risk. Documentary filmmakers found that it lowered risk so dramatically that insurers changed policy 180 degrees from "no" to "yes" on insuring against fair use claims, once they knew the expectations of the field, through the filmmakers' code. All of this and more is covered in a very handy book by Aufderheide & Jaszi, *Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright*, 2d ed. (University of Chicago, 2018), which I highly recommend for anyone with questions about the details of how this works in practice. On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 3:51 PM Rebelsky, Samuel <REBELSKY@grinnell.edu> wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that fair use *is* explicitly stated as such in law, at least in US law, which is what we seem to be discussing. Let's see … Section 107 of Title 17 (the section of US Law that specifies copyright) says
--- START OF QUOTED MATERIAL --- 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. ---- END OF QUOTED MATERIAL ----
However, as you say, whether or not something counts as fair use is not specified clearly. So, while the government cannot take away an individual's fair-use rights without changing the law, a court case can determine that a particular use is not fair use.
I would suggest that what counts as a 'creative work' and therefore eligible for copyright is also not stated clearly. Certainly, there have been questions of whether compilations of information, like phone books, or mostly factual things, like maps, are subject to copyright protection. And, in the end, no one has the "right" to copyright, except as stated in the law. If Congress changes copyright law, those rights change.
Regards,
-- SamR
Samuel A. Rebelsky, Professor of Computer Science Grinnell College, 1116 8th Avenue, Grinnell, Iowa 50112 Office: 641-269-4410 ; Fax: 641-269-4285 ; Cell: 641-990-2947 rebelsky@grinnell.edu ; https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cs.grinnell.edu_-7Erebelsky_&d=DwIGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=EkYeLh1UEDKgmiWNbN5Nrg&m=FZjkziSAqmxuqrE6iRV_v62YWJ1KacVHjB7dTDOfCnQ&s=MAME_6D4O2rG6y2jczqLumU20qLLXVyUrlxb5Bi_z_A&e=
The opinions expressed herein are my own, and should not be attributed to Grinnell College, Grinnell's Department of CS, SIGCSE, SIGCAS, any other organizations with which I am affiliated, my family, or even most sentient beings.
On Jul 13, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Kimon Keramidas <kimon.keramidas@nyu.edu> wrote:
Just a point of clarification, fair use is not a right like copyright is as it is not explicitly stated as such in law. Rather it is an exception to copyright that has been provided by judicial precedent and has been roughly outlined in copyright law but is purposefully not clearly bound. This difference is just important to know as you move forward with concerns such as this and are dealing with legal situations and specific terminology.
It’s kind of like driving. No one has the right to drive. The government provides the opportunity to get a driver’s license and it can be taken away. Fair use tenets can be violated as such if they are determined to be overstepped by a judge and one can then be in violation of copyright. Copyright however is automatically given to the creator upon recording of an expression in a material form and is a right that cannot be taken away.
Cheers Kimon
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.sigcis.org_pipermail_members-2Dsigcis.org_&d=DwIGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=EkYeLh1UEDKgmiWNbN5Nrg&m=FZjkziSAqmxuqrE6iRV_v62YWJ1KacVHjB7dTDOfCnQ&s=Mcnag-QfX7mBTudmABab0OU24T2Qol6UP2PC4GoILAU&e= and you can change your subscription options at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.sigcis.org_listinfo.cgi_members-2Dsigcis.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=EkYeLh1UEDKgmiWNbN5Nrg&m=FZjkziSAqmxuqrE6iRV_v62YWJ1KacVHjB7dTDOfCnQ&s=BmtfruEGPlZi0UKerHKVWkDRoJeQREsvApKudSeXfoc&e=
-- Doctoral candidate USC Annenberg School of Communication @mcforelle on the tweet machine (407) 864-2225
I’m sorry, I was probably a little hasty to say it is not a right. The way the law reads is that it is fair use "is not an infringement of copyright,” so it is kind of just say that you aren’t violating a right, but I guess that is a kind of right. However it is not as clearly defined and determined as copyright. That is why this line is in the copyright law: "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include" Those factors are subjective to an extent and are up to a judge and the patterns of judicial precedent. In a lot of fields (some forms of theatrical copyright for direction instance) there has never been a judicial precedent because most cases have gone to settlement so what fair use or derivative use is often can remain without recorded precedent for some time. The fact that we need codes of best practice are in a way a reaffirmation that fair use is more subjective and less categorical than copyright. To show how categorical copyright is, Circular 17 provides this as the legal boundaries of copyright (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. That is pretty specific (even in listing the types of work which has real effects on cases) and has to do with fixing a work in a tangible medium, which means you can’t just think it you have to write it down (hard drives count as tangible media). All of the information we’ve shared about fair use is spot on, and for the most part academics are very safely situated in the space of fair use, with the codes of best practice from a variety of places being very helpful. I don't want to sound like a negative ninny or anything with all of this, it is just helpful to know how copyright and fair use work because when you do know it more intimately it also shows how safe we are as academics in declaring fair use. FYI, I know and think about this topic a lot because my dissertation was on the role of intellectual property rights in the shifting of the political economy of American theatrical production. I read Circular 17 a lot and wrote about copyright and derivative works in relation to a lot of different types of theatrical production. Loving the conversation by the way! Cheers Kimon Kimon Keramidas, Ph.D. Clinical Associate Professor The Center for Experimental Humanities <http://as.nyu.edu/ceh.html> New York University 14 University Place New York, NY 10003 Co-Director OutHistory.org <http://outhistory.org/> P 212-998-3691 T @kimonizer W http://kimonkeramidas.com <http://kimonkeramidas.com/> The Interface Experience: Forty Years of Personal Computing Exhibition <https://www.bgc.bard.edu/gallery/exhibitions/10/the-interface-experience> The Interface Experience: A User’s Guide Winner of the 2016 Innovation in Print Design Award from the American Alliance of Museums Buy Book <http://store.bgc.bard.edu/the-interface-experience-a-users-guide-by-kimon-keramidas/>
On Jul 14, 2018, at 10:24 PM, Michelle C Forelle <mcforelle@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Thought I could contribute some useful info, with some help from my colleague and fair use expert Patricia Aufderheide. Given the amount of misinformation large media corporations and software associations have purveyed over the years, it's no wonder there's a lot of confusion about fair use. Some things to keep in mind:
1) Fair use is a right, as the Supreme Court has recognized affirmatively, and its technical designation as a defense doesn't make it any less of a right. Your right to self-defense is a right, although it is a defense.
2) Fair use isn't complicated to interpret, in most common cases. In fact, you probably used fair use today without thinking about. Every time we quote another scholar in our work, that's fair use. Every time search engines temporarily copy documents to scan them for relevance, that's fair use.
3) The Codes of Best Practices in Fair Use, which are available at csmsimpact.org/fair-use <http://csmsimpact.org/fair-use>, are extremely valuable for providing user-friendly logic for fair use in specific disciplines. They exist for communications research (might be the most pertinent for the original question), documentary film, media literacy, visual arts (as noted in this thread), journalism, film studies teaching, open courseware, nonfiction writing, museums and archives facing orphan works problems, and film studies research. Forthcoming is a best practices code on software.
4) To echo SamR's comments, of course judges can find that a use is not fair, just as they can find that a use is obscene, or defamatory, or treasonous. That doesn't make the First Amendment any less real as a result. This is why Codes of best Practices are so helpful--they show what is generally accepted in a field already, and therefore unlikely to be found outside the acceptable in court, and therefore unlikely to draw any legal action from a copyright holder. Risk is a known feature of expression and of life in general. So the question is not whether you are risk-free (unless you don't want to express yourself at all), but what the risk is. Having consensus codes of practice is a way of vastly lowering risk. Documentary filmmakers found that it lowered risk so dramatically that insurers changed policy 180 degrees from "no" to "yes" on insuring against fair use claims, once they knew the expectations of the field, through the filmmakers' code.
All of this and more is covered in a very handy book by Aufderheide & Jaszi, Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright, 2d ed. (University of Chicago, 2018), which I highly recommend for anyone with questions about the details of how this works in practice.
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 3:51 PM Rebelsky, Samuel <REBELSKY@grinnell.edu <mailto:REBELSKY@grinnell.edu>> wrote: I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that fair use *is* explicitly stated as such in law, at least in US law, which is what we seem to be discussing. Let's see … Section 107 of Title 17 (the section of US Law that specifies copyright) says
--- START OF QUOTED MATERIAL --- 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. ---- END OF QUOTED MATERIAL ---- https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.copyright.gov_title17_92chap1.html-23107&d=DwIGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=EkYeLh1UEDKgmiWNbN5Nrg&m=FZjkziSAqmxuqrE6iRV_v62YWJ1KacVHjB7dTDOfCnQ&s=gLmFIE41kMWux-imJ1ctjhAEbTmwP42UpKc7op3eBu4&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.copyright.gov_title17_92chap1.html-23107&d=DwIGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=EkYeLh1UEDKgmiWNbN5Nrg&m=FZjkziSAqmxuqrE6iRV_v62YWJ1KacVHjB7dTDOfCnQ&s=gLmFIE41kMWux-imJ1ctjhAEbTmwP42UpKc7op3eBu4&e=>
However, as you say, whether or not something counts as fair use is not specified clearly. So, while the government cannot take away an individual's fair-use rights without changing the law, a court case can determine that a particular use is not fair use.
I would suggest that what counts as a 'creative work' and therefore eligible for copyright is also not stated clearly. Certainly, there have been questions of whether compilations of information, like phone books, or mostly factual things, like maps, are subject to copyright protection. And, in the end, no one has the "right" to copyright, except as stated in the law. If Congress changes copyright law, those rights change.
Regards,
-- SamR
Samuel A. Rebelsky, Professor of Computer Science Grinnell College, 1116 8th Avenue, Grinnell, Iowa 50112 Office: 641-269-4410 ; Fax: 641-269-4285 ; Cell: 641-990-2947 rebelsky@grinnell.edu <mailto:rebelsky@grinnell.edu> ; https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cs.grinnell.edu_-7Erebelsky_&d=DwIGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=EkYeLh1UEDKgmiWNbN5Nrg&m=FZjkziSAqmxuqrE6iRV_v62YWJ1KacVHjB7dTDOfCnQ&s=MAME_6D4O2rG6y2jczqLumU20qLLXVyUrlxb5Bi_z_A&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cs.grinnell.edu_-7Erebelsky_&d=DwIGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=EkYeLh1UEDKgmiWNbN5Nrg&m=FZjkziSAqmxuqrE6iRV_v62YWJ1KacVHjB7dTDOfCnQ&s=MAME_6D4O2rG6y2jczqLumU20qLLXVyUrlxb5Bi_z_A&e=>
The opinions expressed herein are my own, and should not be attributed to Grinnell College, Grinnell's Department of CS, SIGCSE, SIGCAS, any other organizations with which I am affiliated, my family, or even most sentient beings.
On Jul 13, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Kimon Keramidas <kimon.keramidas@nyu.edu <mailto:kimon.keramidas@nyu.edu>> wrote:
Just a point of clarification, fair use is not a right like copyright is as it is not explicitly stated as such in law. Rather it is an exception to copyright that has been provided by judicial precedent and has been roughly outlined in copyright law but is purposefully not clearly bound. This difference is just important to know as you move forward with concerns such as this and are dealing with legal situations and specific terminology.
It’s kind of like driving. No one has the right to drive. The government provides the opportunity to get a driver’s license and it can be taken away. Fair use tenets can be violated as such if they are determined to be overstepped by a judge and one can then be in violation of copyright. Copyright however is automatically given to the creator upon recording of an expression in a material form and is a right that cannot be taken away.
Cheers Kimon
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org <http://sigcis.org/>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.sigcis.org_pipermail_members-2Dsigcis.org_&d=DwIGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=EkYeLh1UEDKgmiWNbN5Nrg&m=FZjkziSAqmxuqrE6iRV_v62YWJ1KacVHjB7dTDOfCnQ&s=Mcnag-QfX7mBTudmABab0OU24T2Qol6UP2PC4GoILAU&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.sigcis.org_pipermail_members-2Dsigcis.org_&d=DwIGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=EkYeLh1UEDKgmiWNbN5Nrg&m=FZjkziSAqmxuqrE6iRV_v62YWJ1KacVHjB7dTDOfCnQ&s=Mcnag-QfX7mBTudmABab0OU24T2Qol6UP2PC4GoILAU&e=> and you can change your subscription options at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.sigcis.org_listinfo.cgi_members-2Dsigcis.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=EkYeLh1UEDKgmiWNbN5Nrg&m=FZjkziSAqmxuqrE6iRV_v62YWJ1KacVHjB7dTDOfCnQ&s=BmtfruEGPlZi0UKerHKVWkDRoJeQREsvApKudSeXfoc&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.sigcis.org_listinfo.cgi_members-2Dsigcis.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=EkYeLh1UEDKgmiWNbN5Nrg&m=FZjkziSAqmxuqrE6iRV_v62YWJ1KacVHjB7dTDOfCnQ&s=BmtfruEGPlZi0UKerHKVWkDRoJeQREsvApKudSeXfoc&e=>
-- Doctoral candidate USC Annenberg School of Communication @mcforelle on the tweet machine (407) 864-2225
Dear SIGCIS, Thanks to everyone for the feedback on copyright. After chasing down folk’s links, and conferring with a few of you one on one, the closest thing to a consensus seems to be that in the USA fair use is a far-sweeping well established legal right that covers the vast majority of uses we’d be making of images (esp. when the image goes beyond mere “illustration” and instead becomes part of an original analysis), yet individual presses often have policies on permissions that are stricter than required for fair use. Actually getting chased down for using an image of the sort “we” are likely to use seems fleetingly rare (if anyone has a personal experience to the contrary, I’d be interested to hear about it!). But going to the publisher with a strong case for why images are fair use may go a long way towards getting some leeway, and the guides/references folk sent around are helpful. The College Art Association guide linked by Matthew was very helpful, and this claim about fair use jumped out at me: “the Code refers users to generally applicable professional standards, which, in turn, may evolve over time.” I think part of the point of the guide is to provide that academic community with those standards, implying to me that the conversations on SIGCIS are not only informal advice about fair use but also have the potential to become part of the standards that are the fabric of legally-binding fair use decisions! I also found the Society for Cinema and Media Studies guide on fair use helpful: https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/cmstudies.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/docs/scmsbes... A key point mentioned there, that I don’t think came up in our conversations is that “Media scholars should only employ as much of the copyrighted work as necessary to illustrate the point or argument. It should be clear in the body of the text or the caption why this work has been chosen.” That kind of approach has helped liberate still frames or brief series of frames of movies for media scholars’ analysis, for example. Thanks again for the feedback, everyone. Best, b From: Members <members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org> on behalf of Michelle C Forelle <mcforelle@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, 15 July 2018 at 14:56 To: <REBELSKY@grinnell.edu> Cc: <members@sigcis.org> Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Copyright advice sought Hi all, Thought I could contribute some useful info, with some help from my colleague and fair use expert Patricia Aufderheide. Given the amount of misinformation large media corporations and software associations have purveyed over the years, it's no wonder there's a lot of confusion about fair use. Some things to keep in mind: 1) Fair use is a right, as the Supreme Court has recognized affirmatively, and its technical designation as a defense doesn't make it any less of a right. Your right to self-defense is a right, although it is a defense. 2) Fair use isn't complicated to interpret, in most common cases. In fact, you probably used fair use today without thinking about. Every time we quote another scholar in our work, that's fair use. Every time search engines temporarily copy documents to scan them for relevance, that's fair use. 3) The Codes of Best Practices in Fair Use, which are available at csmsimpact.org/fair-use, are extremely valuable for providing user-friendly logic for fair use in specific disciplines. They exist for communications research (might be the most pertinent for the original question), documentary film, media literacy, visual arts (as noted in this thread), journalism, film studies teaching, open courseware, nonfiction writing, museums and archives facing orphan works problems, and film studies research. Forthcoming is a best practices code on software. 4) To echo SamR's comments, of course judges can find that a use is not fair, just as they can find that a use is obscene, or defamatory, or treasonous. That doesn't make the First Amendment any less real as a result. This is why Codes of best Practices are so helpful--they show what is generally accepted in a field already, and therefore unlikely to be found outside the acceptable in court, and therefore unlikely to draw any legal action from a copyright holder. Risk is a known feature of expression and of life in general. So the question is not whether you are risk-free (unless you don't want to express yourself at all), but what the risk is. Having consensus codes of practice is a way of vastly lowering risk. Documentary filmmakers found that it lowered risk so dramatically that insurers changed policy 180 degrees from "no" to "yes" on insuring against fair use claims, once they knew the expectations of the field, through the filmmakers' code. All of this and more is covered in a very handy book by Aufderheide & Jaszi, Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright, 2d ed. (University of Chicago, 2018), which I highly recommend for anyone with questions about the details of how this works in practice. On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 3:51 PM Rebelsky, Samuel <REBELSKY@grinnell.edu> wrote: I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that fair use *is* explicitly stated as such in law, at least in US law, which is what we seem to be discussing. Let's see … Section 107 of Title 17 (the section of US Law that specifies copyright) says --- START OF QUOTED MATERIAL --- 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. ---- END OF QUOTED MATERIAL ---- https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.copyright.gov_title17_92chap1.html-23107&d=DwIGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=EkYeLh1UEDKgmiWNbN5Nrg&m=FZjkziSAqmxuqrE6iRV_v62YWJ1KacVHjB7dTDOfCnQ&s=gLmFIE41kMWux-imJ1ctjhAEbTmwP42UpKc7op3eBu4&e= However, as you say, whether or not something counts as fair use is not specified clearly. So, while the government cannot take away an individual's fair-use rights without changing the law, a court case can determine that a particular use is not fair use. I would suggest that what counts as a 'creative work' and therefore eligible for copyright is also not stated clearly. Certainly, there have been questions of whether compilations of information, like phone books, or mostly factual things, like maps, are subject to copyright protection. And, in the end, no one has the "right" to copyright, except as stated in the law. If Congress changes copyright law, those rights change. Regards, -- SamR Samuel A. Rebelsky, Professor of Computer Science Grinnell College, 1116 8th Avenue, Grinnell, Iowa 50112 Office: 641-269-4410 ; Fax: 641-269-4285 ; Cell: 641-990-2947 rebelsky@grinnell.edu ; https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.cs.grinnell.edu_-7Erebelsky_&d=DwIGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=EkYeLh1UEDKgmiWNbN5Nrg&m=FZjkziSAqmxuqrE6iRV_v62YWJ1KacVHjB7dTDOfCnQ&s=MAME_6D4O2rG6y2jczqLumU20qLLXVyUrlxb5Bi_z_A&e= The opinions expressed herein are my own, and should not be attributed to Grinnell College, Grinnell's Department of CS, SIGCSE, SIGCAS, any other organizations with which I am affiliated, my family, or even most sentient beings.
On Jul 13, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Kimon Keramidas <kimon.keramidas@nyu.edu> wrote:
Just a point of clarification, fair use is not a right like copyright is as it is not explicitly stated as such in law. Rather it is an exception to copyright that has been provided by judicial precedent and has been roughly outlined in copyright law but is purposefully not clearly bound. This difference is just important to know as you move forward with concerns such as this and are dealing with legal situations and specific terminology.
It’s kind of like driving. No one has the right to drive. The government provides the opportunity to get a driver’s license and it can be taken away. Fair use tenets can be violated as such if they are determined to be overstepped by a judge and one can then be in violation of copyright. Copyright however is automatically given to the creator upon recording of an expression in a material form and is a right that cannot be taken away.
Cheers Kimon
_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.sigcis.org_pipermail_members-2Dsigcis.org_&d=DwIGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=EkYeLh1UEDKgmiWNbN5Nrg&m=FZjkziSAqmxuqrE6iRV_v62YWJ1KacVHjB7dTDOfCnQ&s=Mcnag-QfX7mBTudmABab0OU24T2Qol6UP2PC4GoILAU&e= and you can change your subscription options at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.sigcis.org_listinfo.cgi_members-2Dsigcis.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=clK7kQUTWtAVEOVIgvi0NU5BOUHhpN0H8p7CSfnc_gI&r=EkYeLh1UEDKgmiWNbN5Nrg&m=FZjkziSAqmxuqrE6iRV_v62YWJ1KacVHjB7dTDOfCnQ&s=BmtfruEGPlZi0UKerHKVWkDRoJeQREsvApKudSeXfoc&e= -- Doctoral candidate USC Annenberg School of Communication @mcforelle on the tweet machine (407) 864-2225 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org
participants (9)
-
Alexander Sayf Cummings -
Bernard Geoghegan -
Ceruzzi, Paul -
David C. Brock -
Kimon Keramidas -
Matthew Allen -
McMillan, William W -
Michelle C Forelle -
Rebelsky, Samuel