Re: Bruce Conner's Report

From: owen (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Nov 18 2008 - 19:35:36 PST

Here we go again. Perhaps the list should be renamed lawworks or
intellectual property works.

On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:31 PM, Stephanie Sapienza wrote:

> 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.
> Best,
> Stephanie
> Stephanie Sapienza
> Assistant Director
> iotaCenter
> 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 of
>> this, but the
>> conditions he outlines have been established as a legal
>> precedent for the
>> use of copyrighted material in a face-to-face classroom
>> setting. The
>> "legally obtained" provision does not refer to
>> the licensing of the copy
>> itself (home use/public performance rights/etc.) but rather
>> 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. There
>> 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 go
>> off and make phone
>> calls).
>> Even New Yorker Films begrudgingly acknowledges this, and
>> helpfully includes
>> a discussion on the issue in their rental catalogue.
>> Brook
>>> _____________________________________________________
>> Brook Hinton
>> film/video/audio art
>> studio vlog/blog:
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
>> <email suppressed>.
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.