| Previous by Date |
Index by Date
Threaded Index |
Next by Date |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Thread | Next by Thread |
Multimedia Fair Use Guidelines
This is an effort to respond to Stan Diamond's question concerning library opposition to the Multimedia Fair Use Guidelines. Although I am not a librarian, nor am I a member of the ALA or ARL, I can speculate as to what may be some of the objections to the Guidelines. While generally the attempt to inject some precision into vague legal standards is a laudable goal, in some cases some ambiguity is better than too much precision. The four factor fair use test employs the chief isses that should be weighed when attempting to evaluate whether a particular use should be permitted. To paraphrase former Supreme Court Justice Powell, I think we all know a fair use when we see it. I don't see anything about electronic and digital information that justifies a more precise definition of the amount of copyrighted material that may be fairly used. The issue of how much and how often material can be copied fairly, whether it be digital or more traditional media, can best be determined by the traditional four factor test. Mechanical and rigid limitations on the amount of material that may be fairly used (section 4.2 et. seq.) may be adequate for some purposes, but very often will not be appropriate for others. Forcing scholars to count words and run stop-watches to do their work of educating does not seem like a reasonable requirement. The requirement that copyrighted materials may not be used for remote learning unless they can not be copied (Section 3.2.3) presents a tremendous limitation on the use of the internet for distance learning. As a practical matter, I am not aware of any way of preventing users from copying materials displayed on a computer screen. The limited use of such materials permitted in the event that copying cannot be prevented entirely (e.g., availability of the materials for short time limits, etc.) does not remedy the problem, since a course usually lasts several months and students will need to refer to course materials throughout the term. And permitting copies of the materials at the school defeats entirely the promise of distance learning. The two year time limitation on use of the materials is also a problem, as instructors will have to keep tabs on just when they used a copyrighted piece of information. Since many instructors continually revise and update their work, without completely discarding the basic course materials, it will be difficult to determine when the two year limitations period expires. The time limitation issue leads to a larger point: The Guidelines seem to extend control over the original work of educators and students. Under traditional notions of the fair use doctrine, if a use is considered "fair", then the user may pretty much do what it wants with the material. These guidelines, however, seem to give the copyright holders perpetual control over the mulimedia project as a whole. Very truly yours, Rodney L. Stenlake 655 Orange Street, Unit 5 New Haven, Connecticut 06511 rodney.stenlake@yale.edu
|
http://www.library.yale.edu/liblicense © 1996, 1997 Yale University Library |
Please read our Disclaimer E-mail us with feedback |
|