From: Stephanie Sapienza (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Nov 18 2008 - 18:37:42 PST
Meaning-affecting typo alert!
"But as a general rule, no one who is expanding knowledge about an artist by screening their work in an educational setting SHOULDN'T be made to feel like they are disrespecting anyone, as long as some level of due diligence is pursued."
--- On Tue, 11/18/08, email suppressed> wrote:
> From: email suppressed>
> Subject: Re: Bruce Conner's Report
> To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" <email suppressed>
> Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 6:31 PM
> Misinterpreting the language in the TEACH Act is not
> difficult to do. And Brook is right that there are other
> precedents for the use of copyrighted material in a
> classroom setting. The Society for Cinema and Media Studies
> Statement of Best Practices, although not a legal document,
> provides a fairly clear overview of all of the issues
> involved in this tricky area:
> "The Copyright Act specifically recognizes that uses
> of copyright works for the purposes of teaching and
> criticism are the kinds of uses that the fair use doctrine
> is intended to protect. Under the first factor, if the
> “purpose and character of the use” is non-profit
> educational activity, it would tend to weigh heavily in
> favor of the use being fair and non-infringing. However, not
> every educational and noncommercial use is non-infringing;
> fair use analysis requires examining all of the factors
> relative to the others and in view of the overall aims of
> U.S. copyright law. Further, different courts have
> emphasized different factors at different times."
> Of course everything should be considered on a case-by-case
> basis and artists who have explicited stated restrictions on
> their material in ANY public context should be respected.
> But as a general rule, no one who is expanding knowledge
> about an artist by screening their work in an educational
> setting should be made to feel like they are disrespecting
> anyone, as long as some level of due diligence is pursued.
> And based on legal precedent and expanding knowledge of fair
> use, a court will probably side with the educator if they
> behave responsibly.
> Stephanie Sapienza
> Assistant Director
> email suppressed
> --- On Tue, 11/18/08, Brook Hinton
> <email suppressed> wrote:
> > From: Brook Hinton <email suppressed>
> > Subject: Re: Bruce Conner's Report
> > To: email suppressed
> > Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 1:53 PM
> > David may be confusing the TEACH act with the origins
> > this, but the
> > conditions he outlines have been established as a
> > precedent for the
> > use of copyrighted material in a face-to-face
> > setting. The
> > "legally obtained" provision does not refer
> > the licensing of the copy
> > itself (home use/public performance rights/etc.) but
> > to the manner it
> > which the copy itself was obtained: e.g., a "home
> > use" dvd can be used
> > subject to the conditions, but not a copy of the DVD.
> > is - or at least
> > was, maybe it's since been modified - one other
> > provision, which is that the
> > instructor has to be present for the entire screening
> > (meaning you can't
> > have your TA babysit things during the film while you
> > off and make phone
> > calls).
> > Even New Yorker Films begrudgingly acknowledges this,
> > helpfully includes
> > a discussion on the issue in their rental catalogue.
> > Brook
> > >
> > >
> > Brook Hinton
> > film/video/audio art
> > www.brookhinton.com
> > studio vlog/blog: www.brookhinton.com/temporalab
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
> > <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.