Tag Archives: copyright

copying to learn : Fair use makes it possible


Each composite work has a small copy of Jacob Lawrence’s work for comparison. The exhibition also includes background curricular information, and information about Jacob Lawrence and his works. And yes, this image is kind of blurry. My phone camera is not the best. Actually it’s probably just that I’m a terrible photographer.

My kid’s elementary school has an amazing arts program, and they routinely display kids’ artwork all over the school. I was admiring a new African-American history themed exhibition, and appreciating how fair use makes this possible — likely, without any consideration of copyright or fair use by the instructors or administrators, and certainly without any by the children (with the possible exception of my child).

The recent exhibit featured re-creations of “the art of Jacob Lawrence, who tells stories about the history of African-Americans in his paintings.” This is part of the integrated arts curriculum in Amherst public schools, where the arts instruction is integrated into reading, social studies, science, etc. So the arts component of this involved the kids “look[ing] at pictures from [Lawrence’s] ‘Great Migration series’, which tells the story of the movement of many African-Americans from the south to the north at the beginning of the 20th century.”

After studying paintings, “[e]ach class worked on creating a replica of one painting from the series. Each student got a little piece of a painting and had the challenge of enlarging the shapes and recreating the colors. Then we put each of the pieces together like a puzzle.”

There were quite a few of these scattered through the building; I posted a couple of pictures below.


These paintings are among the best-known works of Jacob Lawrence, 1917-2000, drawn from the Migration Series, completed in 1940.  The works are managed by the Jacob and Gwen Knight Foundation, which handles permission requests, and through the Artists Rights Society.

You don’t have to ask permission, because fair use.

But our arts teacher didn’t need to know about all this, and didn’t need to contact them, because the work is so obviously fair use.  These children’s recreations are done in a nonprofit educational setting, and although they are recreating the works, they are doing so in a highly transformative way — closely examining individual components and recreating the components, then re-assembling to create a new work that looks something like a photomosaic.  The original works were highly creative, but the level of transformativeness here means that second factor is less significant.  The amount taken by each student was small, although the project as conceived of by the teacher is to take the whole of each work.  But the whole of the layout and color scheme — and nothing of the actual brush strokes, the actual colors.  And lastly, one can’t imagine that this use substitutes for any real or likely marketed use of the original — licensing to elementary schools to study art.

You don’t have to know fair use to use it.

Projects like this one happen in art classes, music classes, writing classes, all the time, from preschool rooms to postgraduate and professional work.  (Preschool and elementary programs around here are fond of the colorful work of local celebrity children’s artist Eric Carle.  In fact, the Eric Carle Museum of Picture Book Art has itself run arts activities of this sort, using Carle’s work as a touchstone.)

These kinds of projects happen all the time because copying is an integral part of how we learn, maybe THE most important part of how we learn.  And they happen smoothly and beautifully, without asking for permission from copyright holders, and without some  micropayment scheme monitoring and monetizing our every use of works.  They happen so beautifully, easily, and intuitively, without transaction costs or surveillance or angst or paperwork — because of fair use.

And not because everyone had to know about fair use, and think about quantities and the four factors and so on.  But because fair use is, at its core, a doctrine based on gut instincts, on what’s fair.  So it can operate in the background, because that basic sense of fairness and unfairness is everyone’s guide:  Is my use being unfair to the creator?   The answer is so obvious most of the time that people don’t have to think further.  Because the doctrine embodying a core limitation on copyright is based simply on what’s “fair”.


I like that. People shouldn’t have to become copyright and fair use experts to just run their lives.   Even though copyright is ubiquitous (all of your cell phone photos, all of your emails, all of your doodles — all are copyrighted until 70 years after your death!), people are mostly able to operate without becoming experts, because of fair use*.

Who does need to know about fair use? Congress.

There are times and places, however, when I want the background benefits of fair use to be employed knowingly.  The public interest copyright crowd was buzzing amusedly the last few days over a House Judiciary Committee’s animated GIF press release, ranting about immigration (trigger warning: Republicans ranting about immigration policy may send sensitive or sensible souls into apoplexy).  Press pick-ups on this story included things like this article for ZDNet by David Gewirtz, which headlined the “copyright-violating animated GIFs.”  (The ZDNet story, like this one, is actually celebrating fair use, while calling attention to the irony of its use by SOPA-proponents and the House Judiciary Committee.)

I’m happy they get to rely on fair use without knowing it, because we all can and should.  But I hope someone, somewhere, was able to use this as a teaching moment to help them really GET why fair use is so important.  Think of the children.




* Fair use, and the de minimis doctrine, and other core copyright and general law doctrines that embody common sense.

Thanks to posts by Sharon Farb @ UCLA and Sherwin Siy @ Public Knowledge for alerting me to the House Judiciary immigration post originally.

share: twitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Discussion on the Monkey Selfie: Copyright and Authorship

If a hundred monkeys type out shakespeare, is it copyrighted? What about if one monkey takes a selfie?

Hi folks,

Next week, Thursday, September 4, from 3 to 5pm, we’ll hold a discussion session in Room 1320 on the “monkey selfie” — is it copyrightable? should it be? why or why not? Photographers, animal rights activists, cognitive scientists, and IP lawyers have been arguing about this issue for a while, but it’s taken on renewed interest in light of the Indonesian macaque selfies made possible by photographer David Slater, who has been claiming copyright over the works.
Snacks provided, but no nit-picking. RSVP to lquilter@library.umass.edu.

For an amusing (but factually inaccurate) “Shouts and Whispers” from the New Yorker, see http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/statement-monkey

share: twitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Copyright Updates (August 14, 2014)

Copyright Updates

August 14, 2014

Fair Use Cases

Authors Guild v. HathiTrust (2d Cir. June 10, 2014)

The Second Circuit, also known as the “copyright circuit”, handed down a significant victory for HathiTrust on June 10, 2014.  The short version is that the Second Circuit found that

a)     full-text indexing is “quintessentially transformative”, hence presenting a strong case for fair use and

b)    provision of copies to persons with disabilities, although not transformative, is a strongly protected “purpose”.


The holding that library replacement copies are fair use was overturned, but only because the Second Circuit questioned whether the Authors Guild or any plaintiffs even had standing to challenge HathiTrust on these grounds.


The Authors Guild has until September 9 to ask the Supreme Court for review. The Court is unlike to take the case because it meets none of the traditional standards for Supreme Court review (split among the Circuits, far out of line with existing law, unique question of high importance).


Detailed memo available at http://library.umass.edu/hathitrust-wins-on-appeal.


Authors Guild v. Google (pending 2d Cir.)

This case, which was a strong fair use victory at the lower court in November 2013, is on appeal in Second Circuit; briefing is set for this summer and fall.  However, the Court already signaled this use is likely fair use, when it remanded the case to the lower court to consider fair use.   


Cambridge University Press v. Becker  (pending 11th Cir.)

We are still waiting for the appellate decision in the Georgia State University ereserves case. The oral arguments (November 2013) were worrisome, because the Appeals Court

a)     appeared confused about some basic points of copyright law and fair use and

b)    used the central metaphor of the plaintiff publishers that electronic reserves is a type of coursepack.


White v. West (SDNY July 3, 2014) 

In July 2014, the Southern District Court of New York (the same court looking at the Google Books and HathiTrust cases) held that WestLaw was making a fair use when it digitized and indexed the full text of legal materials for its databases.




American Institute of Physics v. Schwegman (D.Minn. 2013) and Wiley v. Winstead (N.D. Tex. 2013) 

Wiley, the American Institute of Physics, and Blackwell Publishing filed a series of suits arguing that “prior art” demonstrations required by the Patent Office infringed their copyrights. Courts decided two of the cases last year, finding fair use; plaintiffs filed to dismiss a third after the PTO intervened on the side of the defendants, and the two other fair use decisions. A fourth law firm defendant signed a CCC license without waiting for the fair use decisions.


Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens (4th Cir. Dec. 13, 2013)

A long-running copyright infringement case in the Fourth Circuit over a Baltimore Ravens logo, created by Frederick Bouchat and used in a film production about the Ravens, was found to be fair use. 


Swatch v. Bloomberg (2d Cir. rev. op. May 30, 2014) 

Another fair use finding in the Second Circuit, this time for Bloomberg’s dissemination to subscribers of the full recording of an unauthorized recording of a conference call.

NB: The May 30, 2014 opinion was significantly revised to suggest that the use was “arguably transformative” in purpose.




Other Copyright Issues

ABC v. Aereo (Supreme Court 2014)

US Supreme Court held that online recordings of broadcast TV were copyright infringements of the sort that Congress treated as cable retransmissions. Subsequently the Copyright Office refused to register Aereo as a cable company.


Coyle v. University of Kentucky (6th Cir. 2014)

Sovereign immunity protects state agencies from copyright liability. Every court to have looked at this question has found that state agencies have sovereign immunity in copyright cases, notwithstanding the CRCA (Copyright Remedy Clarification Act).





Pending Cases to Watch

Diversey v. Schmidly

In a case involving an odd dissertation problem, the 10th Circuit made a statute of limitations holding that treats library circulation as distribution for the purposes of statute of limitation claims.


Capitol Records v. Vimeo

Pre-1972 sound recordings are subject to various state copyright laws but not federal copyright law. Are they then subject to US Copyright Act notice and takedown provisions? Two prior cases, MP3tunes.com and Grooveshark have conflicting holdings on this question. 

Briefing for the appeal is happening this summer and fall.


share: twitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Copyright Update – January 2014

Hope everyone is having a great winter break.  Nothing enlivens a dull vacation or SNOW DAY more than COPYRIGHT NEWS (am I right?), so here’s a few news bites for you:

January 1 was Public Domain Day : Contrary to popular opinion, some things do enter the public domain here in the US — it’s just published works that are frozen until 2019.  Unpublished works have a life + 70 term, which means that works by authors who died in 1933 or earlier are now in the public domain.   Those authors whose works were published in the US in 1923 or after are still in copyright.  Yes, these rules work the same for posthumous publication.   More reading, with lots of links to interesting and delightful 20th century works that you may not have access to: 

Sherlock Holmes character is public domain! – I think I talked about the various “fun” public domain cases.  Well, one of them came out, and it’s good news for the public domain — the character of Sherlock Holmes, as exemplified in his numerous public domain works, is itself public domain.  No more licensing to the Arthur Conan Doyle estate for US productions.  

10th Circuit dissertation in library found infringing.

It sounds worse than it is, although, admittedly, it’s not good.  A Tenth Circuit case (southwest) found University of New Mexico liable for copyright infringement for distributing a dissertation without permission of the author.  The Diversey v. Schmidly (10th Cir. 2013) case involved a grad student who got into a fight with his advisor, and wanted to transfer; without the student knowing it, however, the advisor kept the (draft) dissertation and filed it with the Grad School and the library.  The central question was whether the statute of limitations had tolled.  

In theory, this could be bad for things like our ETD digitization project, or other kinds of special collection digitizations — but in practice I think it won’t be a big deal, because this particular case was so weird.  The Diversey v. Schmidly case picked up the logic of a rather weird — and again, bad, but very particular — case from the 4th Circuit, the Hotaling case.

Pre-1972 Sound Recordings – The Second Circuit will hear a case about Pre-1972 Sound Recordings on Vimeo, in Capitol v. Vimeo. http://www.scribd.com/doc/195339213/Capitol-v-Vimeo-Reconsideration-and-Interlocutory-Cert-Opinion-and-Order

GoldieBlox v. the Beastie Boys – It’s on, because the Beastie Boys have now counter-sued.  We’ll be watching this case for its “fair use” implications.  

Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens (4th Cir. 2013) – Big win for fair use in this long-running case on fair uses in documentary films.  Note, the MPAA and the ALA were on the same sides!

Copyright and Non-US Universities – 

CANADA : Our neighbors to the north have been dealing with their equivalent of the CCC (“Access Copyright”), which, like CCC, has been aggressively trying to get universities to license content for course use.  The Canadian Supreme Court and the Canadian legislature, however, have been supportive of educational uses, and a number of Canadian universities are dropping their Big Deal licenses with Access Copyright.  Access Copyright is suing one major university (York University), and that will be a big case this next year.  

ISRAELI universities have settled with publishers, agreeing to a “best practices in fair use” approach, very similar to the one in the ARL Code.  Israel adopted a “fair use” law a few years ago very similar to the US approach.  

Lawsuits against universities by publishers or licensing groups continue in India (Delhi University) and New Zealand.  

Other US cases to watch

As for the US cases, we’re still waiting for appeals for Google Books, HathiTrust, and Georgia State — we’ll see!  I’m highly optimistic for the first two and anxious about the last.  Also coming up will be the Boundless textbook case.  

There are a bunch of online DVR cases (AereoDishAereoKiller, etc.) — I’m betting the Supreme Court will take one soon.  The Supreme Court has also agreed to take a case on software patents (Alice v. CLS Bank) which may follow up on the big patent case last year in Myriad Genetics, and help deal with some of the crazy software patent problems.   And of course the many opinions in the NSA surveillance are continuing to come out; watch for this one to go to the Supreme Court, too. 

Cheers, and if copyright isn’t enough to keep you entertained, well, you can always shovel snow.  


share: twitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Copyright News from 2012 – Nov. 28, 2012

Copyright News from 2012

Laura Quilter, UMass Amherst Libraries

Version 1.1.  November 28, 2012


I. Teaching & Libraries

Cambridge University Press v. Patton (Georgia State Univ. ereserves)

Georgia State University was sued for its ereserves by university presses, bankrolled by CCC.  They changed their policy mid-stream, and because the publishers were only seeking an injunction, not damages (all they could get from a public university), the court looked only at the new policy.  The court found only 5 infringements out of the original claims:  The publishers dropped 25-ish claims themselves; the court kicked out 18 claims that the publishers couldn’t prove ownership on; the court said 9 claims were “de minimis” because students had never accessed them; the court found that 42 claims were non-infringing fair uses; leaving only 5 to be found infringements.  The court then ordered the publishers to pay GSU’s attorneys fees, which was a bit of a slap. 

Several key holdings were considered “wins” by the library community, including (a) dismissal of the relevance of the so-called “Classroom Guidelines”; and (b) fair use analysis that public universities would basically always get a plus on the first use of the fair use factor for e-reserves.  The library community was a bit less happy with the court’s reliance on a quantitative rule-of-thumb (10% of 1 chapter), and the suggestion that if CCC had established a relevant permissions market, then the fourth fair use factor would have gone the other way.   

So, a highly favorable win for Georgia State University, but publishers are appealing (bankrolled by CCC).  

  • On appeal, the publishers hope that some of the legal conclusions will be reversed.  In particular, they are probably going to try to get the 11th Circuit to apply the “Classroom Guidelines” to the “fair use” analyses of 47 claimed infringements, and to state that the “copy shop” cases apply here.  (74 claims of infringement were initially reviewed, but 18 were not clearly owned by the publishers, and 9 were never viewed by students so were “de minimis” infringements.)  5 of the 47 were found to be infringing; 42 were found to be fair uses.  
  • On appeal, the libraries hope that the court would soften or eliminate the District Court’s language that (a) encourages libraries to apply a “10% or 1 chapter” rule on the third factor, and (b) encourages CCC to develop lots of very specific permissions markets.

The publishers are appealing the decision; look for decision in 2013.

Assn for Information Media & Equipment v. University of California (UCLA video streaming)

            The Assn for Information Media & Equipment (AIME) with Ambrose Video Publishing jointly sued UCLA for digitizing DVDs and streaming entire movies in their course management system.   The Court dismissed the case in 2011, ruling that AIME lacked associational standing (it doesn’t hold copyrights for its members); UCLA had sovereign immunity; and, principally, the agreements covered “public performance”, which is what the streaming looked like.   A Second Amended Complaint followed, which was also dismissed (September 28, 2012).

            The final written order was released in late November 2012.  It basically affirmed all of the previous holdings, and added a bit more detail to the fair use analysis.  Specifically, the court found that on the fourth factor, the DVD streaming did not substitute for a purchase and caused no market harm.  On the second factor, the nature of the original copyrighted work, the court found that factor to be neutral, because although highly creative works were streamed, they were in the context of teaching. Although it was clear from the factor-by-factor analysis that the court felt the uses were fair, the court did not ultimately make a decision about fair use—concluding only that since there was a plausible case for fair use, the officials could not be held liable for copyright infringement. 

            No word on appeals. 

Canadian Copyright Pentalogy (July 12, 2012):

  • ESA/C v. SOCAN, 2012 SCC 34.  Downloading videogame with a song.  Technological neutrality for online delivery mechanisms:  Tariffs for reproduction, but not for communication to the public.
  • Rogers v. SOCAN, 2012 SCC 35.  Streaming of a song to a user is a “communication to the public”; SOCAN can collect licensing fees .
  • SOCAN v. Bell, 2012 SCC 36. Fair dealing!  Online “previews” of songs is “research”, and covered by “fair dealing”.
  • Alberta v. Access Copyright, 2012 SCC 37. Fair dealing!  In higher education.  Copying materials for classroom use is “fair dealing” for “research or private study”. 
  • Re:Sound v. MPTAC, 2012 SCC 38.  Performers & sound recording owners do not get royalties for use in soundtracks.  Re:Sound had wanted a new right, but didn’t get it.

Section 1201 Rulemaking

The Copyright Office just released its triennial rulemaking on exceptions to the “anticircumvention” provisions – i.e., the legal restrictions on ripping DVDs, jailbreaking iPhones, and hacking ebooks. 


There are two pieces of good news for libraries in the most recent round:

(1)  An expansion of the “teaching” exemption for DVDs, allowing K-12 teaching, and more generally a “fair use” approach.  The previous exemption

(2)  An expansion of the print-disabled ebook exemption, allowing disabled owners of ebooks to hack their ebooks on whatever format they own to get at read-aloud technologies.  The previous rulemaking had limited accessibility hacking to only those works that were not accessible in any format – which effectively required print-disabled people to own one of every kind of ebook reader. 


Section 108 Hearings

Two days of hearings on Section 108 reforms have been scheduled for early 2013 in New York (they were originally scheduled for November 2012, but postponed due to Hurricane Sandy).   The Copyright Office would like to get Section 108 updated.  Libraries fear that publishers will load down legislation with provisions unfriendly to library and educational use, and in particular Copyright Office support for licensing.   Possibility of consensus on archival and preservation copying, but consensus on “ILL” will be more difficult.


II. Mass Digitization, Orphan Works, Public Domain

Authors Guild v. HathiTrust (mass digitization)

  • Big win!  (1) The Authors Guild lacks standing to represent individual members; (2) HathiTrust purposes are definitive fair uses!  Including preservation; searching; text mining; and provision of copies to print-disabled users.
  • The Authors Guild has filed their intent to appeal.  Many commentators feel they are not in a good position, because their strongest argument was HathiTrust’s orphan works program, which was suspended, and is not at issue.

Authors Guild v. Google (mass digitization)

  • Pre-2012:  Authors Guild & publishers sued Google for its BookSearch program.  They attempted to settle by establishing a large “Book Rights Registry” and licensing program, but the Dept of Justice, ALA, and others weighed in on antitrust and other public interest problems; Judge Chin rejected the proposed settlement.  This year:  
  • Judge Chin granted class certification to the Authors Guild, despite the complaints of academic authors and others who claimed their interests were not adequately represented by the Authors Guild.  Google has now appealed to the Second Circuit the class certification, and reasserted more strongly its fair use claim for digitizing for search.
  • The Publishers settled (in a secret settlement, although some authors groups are suing to make the settlement terms open). 
  • The Authors Guild persists in its claim.  Its argument is looking increasingly sketchy.

Golan v. Holder (copyright restoration for foreign works)

  • “Uruguay Round” (URAA 1994) treaty which re-established copyright protection for foreign works that were in the public domain.  J. Ginsburg wrote the 6-2 opinion (Breyer & Alito dissented; Kagan recused).
  • Numerous works in the public domain in the US were taken out of the public domain, including Prokofiev’s “Peter and the Wolf”, Stravinsky, H.G. Wells, “Metropolis”, etc.
  • The Supreme Court basically said that any grant of copyright removes things from the public domain, so this was no different.


Copyright Office “Orphan Works” Notice of Inquiry (late January, 2013)

  • The Copyright Office is inquiring about what has changed since the last iteration of the orphan works act.  They are interested in thoughts about whether orphan works problems are still as intractable as they were viewed prior to HathiTrustGoogle, etc.  The library perspective on latest iterations of the orphan works legislation was not favorable, viewing that the legislation had become too complex and was not likely to help libraries and users.

European “Orphan Works” Legislation

  • Europe passed Orphan Works legislation, but exempted photographs, and national legislation that dealt with the issues (especially France’s).  The legislation does not allow “commercial” uses but does allow museums, archives, and libraries, to engage in digitization.

Jennifer Urban, “How Fair Use Can Help Solve the Orphan Works Problem”

  • (2012) paper.  Urban argues that using the second factor (“nature of the work”) and the fourth factor (no current commercial exploitation) would justify use of orphan works.
  • http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2089526


III. First Sale / Licensing

Kirtsaeng v. Wiley 

  • Enterprising student Kirtsaeng bought textbooks in Thailand (where they were cheap) and sold them on eBay to students in the US (where they were expensive). The publishers sued, saying this violated their rights to control the import of works into the US.  Kirtsaeng says this was protected by the first sale doctrine (Section 109)—which says that after the copyright holder has sold a copy of a work, they can’t control the downstream re-sales of that copy.  The US government weighed in, arguing that if the publisher’s import rights trump Section 109, consumers’ rights to resale are still protected by an older legal principle (“exhaustion”) that is only partly embodied by Section 109. 
  • Why do we care?  (a) Lots of works made overseas—all children’s books, art books, foreign films, imported CDs; and (b) lots of copyrighted works included in other things made overseas, such as cars and toaster ovens (with copyrighted electronics) and practically anything with a printed label or design element (watches, shampoo bottles).  Say goodbye to garage sales and library booksales, if the publishers win!
  • Oral argument was held October 29, Monday.  The good news is that members of the Court expressed that there was sufficient ambiguity in the statute to support Kirtsaeng’s position; there were real policy problems with the publisher’s position; and an idea the government’s position was not the most straightforward way to go here.  I felt more optimistic after reading the transcript of the hearing than I did before the hearing.  Two favorite moments:  “Oh, fair use,” J. Breyer said, in response to the publisher’s argument that fair use would cover libraries that needed to loan materials; and “Piratical is a mischievous word”.  Decision expected probably next year, with everybody gearing up for a legislative fight afterwards.


Capitol Records v. ReDigi (digital first sale)

  • ReDigi is a Massachusetts-based “MP3 reseller”, which lets you resell iTunes MP3s. They have a technology to strip the MP3s from your computer, and Apple iTunes’ license agreement does not clearly prohibit the resale of their MP3s.  They launched in October 2011.
  • Capitol Records sued in January 2012, arguing that selling the MP3s involves making unauthorized copies, which is a violation of the reproduction right. ReDigi argues that the First Sale doctrine applies, and the copies are not new, persistent copies, but incidental copying to a lawful use.
  • Preliminary injunction denied, which was a victory right there.  Likely headed to trial.
  • http://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2012cv00095/390216/
  • Should this case find for first sale, it will be the first strong digital first sale case.  A case out of the 9th Circuit, Vernor v. AutoDesk, has been confusingly applied.  Probably one more circuit (imagine 4th or 7th) to weigh in and then it would go to the Supreme Court.

IV. Disability / Accessibility

  • Authors Guild v. HathiTrust (mass digitization).  The Court was extremely positive about the “Chafee Amendment’ (17 USC 121, 1996) which allows “authorized entities” to reproduce or distribute copies in special formats for readers with print disabilities.  This was one of the strong arguments that the judge cited in HathiTrust as making the activities so clearly fair use.
  • Section 1201 Rulemaking – Print disabled readers are permitted to disable technical protection measures to access ebooks on their readers.  Complaints from the prior Section 1201 rulemaking were that disabled users would effectively have to own all the possible proprietary ebook readers.
  • WIPO Meeting – Several days of meetings; no resolution!

V. Fair Use

  • Prince v. Cariou (appropriation art fair use) – SDNY judge held that Richard Prince’s works, some worth millions, could be seized and ultimately destroyed as copyright infringements of Patrick Cariou’s photographs.  On appeal to 2d Circuit; decision any time!
  • “Best Practices in Fair Use”:  from “Documentary Filmmakers” to “Academic and Research Libraries”, with stops along the way for Poetry, Dance-Related Materials, Music, Online Video, Open CourseWare, Scholarly Research in Communication, Media Studies Publishing, Teaching for Film and Media Educators, Media Literacy Education, and Journalism.  What’s next?

VI. Other Items of Note

  • Harvard, Good Practices for University Open-Access Policies
  • YouTube ContentID reforms : Appeals process + manual review of edge cases
  • Twitter DMCA 512 takedown notices going to Chilling Effects
  • A “6-strikes” rule on the verge of being implemented by ISPs.
  • WNET v. Aereo – TV broadcasters suing Aereo, which allows Internet playback of over-the-air broadcasts of TV.  
share: twitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather