Skip to main content

Home/ Diigo In Education/ Group items matching "copyright" in title, tags, annotations or url

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Jac Londe

U.S. Code: Title 17 - COPYRIGHTS | LII / Legal Information Institute - 48 views

  • U.S. Code › Title 17 U.S. Code: Title 17 - COPYRIGHTS
  • CHAPTER 1—SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT (§§ 101–122) CHAPTER 2—COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER (§§ 201–205) CHAPTER 3—DURATION OF COPYRIGHT (§§ 301–305) CHAPTER 4—COPYRIGHT NOTICE, DEPOSIT, AND REGISTRATION (§§ 401–412) CHAPTER 5—COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES (§§ 501–513) CHAPTER 6—IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION (§§ 601–603) CHAPTER 7—COPYRIGHT OFFICE (§§ 701–710) CHAPTER 8—PROCEEDINGS BY COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES (§§ 801–805) CHAPTER 9—PROTECTION OF SEMICONDUCTOR CHIP PRODUCTS (§§ 901–914) CHAPTER 10—DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA (§§ 1001–1010) CHAPTER 11—SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS (§ 1101) CHAPTER 12—COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (§§ 1201–1205) CHAPTER 13—PROTECTION OF ORIGINAL DESIGNS (§§ 1301–1332)
  •  
    Everything to you must know about copyrights for your work and the work of your students.
Scott Garrigan

USA, Canada and the EU attempt to kill treaty to protect blind people's access to written material - Boing Boing - 0 views

  • Right now, in Geneva, at the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization, history is being made. For the first time in WIPO history, the body that creates the world's copyright treaties is attempting to write a copyright treaty dedicated to protecting the interests of copyright users, not just copyright owners. At issue is a treaty to protect the rights of blind people and people with other disabilities that affect reading (people with dyslexia, people who are paralyzed or lack arms or hands for turning pages), introduced by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay. This should be a slam dunk: who wouldn't want a harmonized system of copyright exceptions that ensure that it's possible for disabled people to get access to the written word? The USA, that's who. The Obama administration's negotiators have joined with a rogue's gallery of rich country trade representatives to oppose protection for blind people. Other nations and regions opposing the rights of blind people include Canada and the EU. Update: Also opposing rights for disabled people: Australia, New Zealand, the Vatican and Norway.
  •  
    Copyright "rights for the user" champion and author, Cory Doctorow, reports on efforts to guarantee rights for the blind and others with reading disabilities to gain access to the printed word. It's happening at the UN's World Organization for Intellectual Property, and it's the first time they are working on rights for Copyright USERS in addition to Copyright HOLDERS. Read about how U.S. negotiators have opposed this protection for disabled. It's an important issue for educators worldwide, but especially for those in the U.S., whose Copyright law has been written to strongly favor corporate interests.
Rob Jacklin

Overview | Teaching Copyright - 0 views

  •  
    This curriculum is designed to give teachers a comprehensive set of tools to educate students about copyright while incorporating activities that exercise a variety of learning skills. Lesson topics include: the history of copyright law; the relationship between copyright and innovation; fair use and its relationship to remix culture; peer-to-peer file sharing; and the interests of the stakeholders that ultimately affect how copyright is interpreted by copyright owners, consumers, courts, lawmakers, and technology innovators.
Kim Drain

Stanford Copyright & Fair Use - Welcome to the Public Domain - 106 views

  • The public owns these works, not an individual author or artist. Anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission, but no one can ever own it.
  • Copyright has expired for all works published in the United States before 1923.
  • For works published after 1977, if the work was written by a single author, the copyright will not expire until 70 years after the author’s death. If a work was written by several authors and published after 1977, it will not expire until 70 years after the last surviving author dies.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • Thousands of works published in the United States before 1964 fell into the public domain because the copyright was not renewed in time under the law in effect then.
  • Copyright law does not protect ideas; it only protects the particular way an idea is expressed.
  • Sometimes an author deliberately chooses not to protect a work and dedicates the work to the public. This type of dedication is rare, and unless there is express authorization placing the work in the public domain, do not assume that the work is free to use.
  • Copyright law does not protect the titles of books or movies, nor does it protect short phrases such as, “Make my day.” Copyright protection also doesn’t cover facts, ideas, or theories.
  • Creative Commons, a nonprofit organization designed to foster the public domain, helps copyright owners dedicate their works to the public domain.
  • Works published in the U.S. before 1923 In the
  • In the U.S., any work created by a federal government employee or officer is in the public domain, provided that the work was created in that person’s official capacity.
  •  
    This chapter of Stanford's Copyright and Fair Use Overview defines public domain and explains the main ways in which works become public domain. "Dear Rich" letters provide scenarios to illustrate many of these.
LaToya Morris

Let Me Ask A Question - 9 views

  •  
    Copyright.gov includes a list of frequently asked questions about Copyrighting along with the answers. You can also find other valuable information about the term Copyright on the other pages listed throughout this sited dedicated solely to Copyrighting.
Randolph Hollingsworth

The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education - 60 views

  • when they occur within a restricted-access network, do enjoy certain copyright advantages
  • we as a society give limited property rights to creators to encourage them to produce culture; at the same time, we give other creators the chance to use that same copyrighted material, without permission or payment
  • Did the unlicensed use "transform" the material taken from the copyrighted work by using it for a different purpose than that of the original, or did it just repeat the work for the same intent and value as the original? • Was the material taken appropriate in kind and amount, considering the nature of the copyrighted work and of the use?
  • ...21 more annotations...
  • If the answers to these two questions are "yes," a court is likely to find a use fair
  • whether the use will cause excessive economic harm to the copyright owner
  • the purpose of copyright—to promote the advancement of knowledge through balancing the rights of owners and users.
  • In some cases, this will mean using a clip or excerpt; in other cases, the whole work is needed. Whenever possible, educators should provide proper attribution and model citation practices that are appropriate to the form and context of use.
  • educators should provide reasonable protection against third-party access and downloads
  • educators using concepts and techniques of media literacy should be free to enable learners to incorporate, modify, and re-present existing media objects in their own classroom work
  • Students’ use of copyrighted material should not be a substitute for creative effort
  • Students should be able to understand and demonstrate, in a manner appropriate to their developmental level, how their use of a copyrighted work repurposes or transforms the original.
  • but cannot rely on fair use when their goal is simply to establish a mood or convey an emotional tone, or when they employ popular songs simply to exploit their appeal and popularity
  • material that is incorporated under fair use should be properly attributed wherever possible
  • attribution, in itself, does not convert an infringing use into a fair one.
  • If student work that incorporates, modifies, and re-presents existing media content meets the transformativeness standard, it can be distributed to wide audiences under the doctrine of fair use.
  • When sharing is confined to a delimited network, such uses are more likely to receive special consideration under the fair use doctrine
  • there are no cut-and-dried rules (such as 10 percent of the work being quoted, or 400 words of text, or two bars of music, or 10 seconds of video).
  • Transformativeness, a key value in fair use law, can involve modifying material or putting material in a new context, or both
  • Copyright Act itself makes it clear that educational uses will often be considered fair because they add important pedagogical value to referenced media objects.
  • If educators or learners want to share their work only with a class (or another defined, closed group) they are in a favorable position
  • if work is going to be shared widely, it is good to be able to rely on transformativeness
  • courts have found that asking permission and then being rejected has actually enhanced fair use claims.
  • We don’t know of any lawsuit actually brought by an American media company against an educator over the use of media in the educational process
  • Lack of clarity reduces learning and limits the ability to use digital tools. Some educators close their classroom doors and hide what they fear is infringement; others hyper-comply with imagined rules that are far stricter than the law requires, limiting the effectiveness of their teaching and their students’ learning.
  •  
    Good place to look for guidelines about use of media
Jac Londe

17 U.S. Code § 113 - Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works | LII / Legal Information Institute - 10 views

  • U.S. Code › Title 17 › Chapter 1 › § 113 17 U.S. Code § 113 - Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
  • (a) Subject to the provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work in copies under section 106 includes the right to reproduce the work in or on any kind of article, whether useful or otherwise.
  • (b) This title does not afford, to the owner of copyright in a work that portrays a useful article as such, any greater or lesser rights with respect to the making, distribution, or display of the useful article so portrayed than those afforded to such works under the law, whether title 17 or the common law or statutes of a State, in effect on December 31, 1977, as held applicable and construed by a court in an action brought under this title.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • (c) In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports.
  • (d) (1) In a case in which— (A) a work of visual art has been incorporated in or made part of a building in such a way that removing the work from the building will cause the destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work as described in section 106A (a)(3), and
  • (B) the author consented to the installation of the work in the building either before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, or in a written instrument executed on or after such effective date that is signed by the owner of the building and the author and that specifies that installation of the work may subject the work to destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification, by reason of its removal,
  • then the rights conferred by paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 106A (a) shall not apply.
  • (2) If the owner of a building wishes to remove a work of visual art which is a part of such building and which can be removed from the building without the destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work as described in section 106A (a)(3), the author’s rights under paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 106A (a) shall apply unless—
  • (A) the owner has made a diligent, good faith attempt without success to notify the author of the owner’s intended action affecting the work of visual art, or (B) the owner did provide such notice in writing and the person so notified failed, within 90 days after receiving such notice, either to remove the work or to pay for its removal.
  • For purposes of subparagraph (A), an owner shall be presumed to have made a diligent, good faith attempt to send notice if the owner sent such notice by registered mail to the author at the most recent address of the author that was recorded with the Register of Copyrights pursuant to paragraph (3). If the work is removed at the expense of the author, title to that copy of the work shall be deemed to be in the author.
  • (3) The Register of Copyrights shall establish a system of records whereby any author of a work of visual art that has been incorporated in or made part of a building, may record his or her identity and address with the Copyright Office. The Register shall also establish procedures under which any such author may update the information so recorded, and procedures under which owners of buildings may record with the Copyright Office evidence of their efforts to comply with this subsection.
Brad Belbas

update on Warner Music (UPDATED) (AGAIN) (Lessig Blog) - 0 views

  •  
    This is a video of a talk that Lawrence Lessig (Professor, Stanford Law School) gave for an organization. In his talk, Lessig provides a powerful and piercing analysis and critique on the impact that legal restrictions on the re/use of media resources has on creativity and cultural production. During his talk, Lessig shows some remarkably creative mash-ups videos on YouTube to exemplify the kind of creativity/cultural production that is possible through ubiquitous digital media. Ironically, the organization that hosted the talk received a notice from Warner Bros Music after posting a video of the Lessig's talk on YouTube, which, according to Lessig's blog, "objected to its being posted on copyright grounds." Warner Brother Music Group has implemented content-id algorithms (i.e., technology that detects the digital "fingerprint" of corporate-"owned" copyrighted works) through media hosting services, including YouTube, FaceBook, and others. When the video of Lessig's talk was posted, it was 'dusted' for fingerprints of WBMG copyrighted works. The detection system identified the soundtracks in the YouTube videos Lessig showed, as materials to which they held copyright. Both the video of Lessig's talk and the blog conversation regarding WBMG's objection are must-see resources.
Tony Baldasaro

The Fischbowl: Copyright: Living Life Against the Law - 42 views

  •  
    "Lawrence Lessig (now at Harvard) has another thoughtful presentation regarding copyright that he gave at EDUCAUSE 2009. He makes a compelling case about how "things have changed" but that our copyright laws have not kept up with those changes. In the past, "copyright had a tiny role."
Jac Londe

17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works | LII / Legal Information Institute - 1 views

  • 17 U.S. Code § 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
  • Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Jac Londe

17 U.S. Code § 106A - Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity | LII / Legal Information Institute - 1 views

  • (a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.— Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art— (1) shall have the right—
  • (A) to claim authorship of that work, and
  • (B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • (2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and
  • (3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113 (d), shall have the right— (A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and (B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
  • (b) Scope and Exercise of Rights.— Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work.
  • (c) Exceptions.— (1) The modification of a work of visual art which is a result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A). (2) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence. (3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of “work of visual art” in section 101, and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a).
  • (d) Duration of Rights.— (1) With respect to works of visual art created on or after the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the author.
  • (2) With respect to works of visual art created before the effective date set forth in section 610(a) of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, but title to which has not, as of such effective date, been transferred from the author, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall be coextensive with, and shall expire at the same time as, the rights conferred by section 106.
  • (3) In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, the rights conferred by subsection (a) shall endure for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author.
  • (4) All terms of the rights conferred by subsection (a) run to the end of the calendar year in which they would otherwise expire.
  • (e) Transfer and Waiver.— (1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified. In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors, a waiver of rights under this paragraph made by one such author waives such rights for all such authors.
  • (2) Ownership of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art is distinct from ownership of any copy of that work, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright in that work. Transfer of ownership of any copy of a work of visual art, or of a copyright or any exclusive right under a copyright, shall not constitute a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a). Except as may otherwise be agreed by the author in a written instrument signed by the author, a waiver of the rights conferred by subsection (a) with respect to a work of visual art shall not constitute a transfer of ownership of any copy of that work, or of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive right under a copyright in that work.
LaToya Morris

Could You Give Me an Example Please? - 12 views

  •  
    Through this site you can find a definition of the term copyright as well as a list of example and four scenarios to help you to better understand the term copyright. Although it is only one page, there is a lot of valuable information about the term copyright.
clconzen

Neat slideshare - Copyright Clarity: Using Copyrighted Materials for Digital Learning http://t.co/YH9Gug85 - 163 views

shared by clconzen on 25 Jan 12 - No Cached
  •  
    Neat slideshare - Copyright Clarity: Using Copyrighted Materials for Digital Learning http://t.co/YH9Gug85
N Butler

Copyright Clarity: Using Copyrighted Materials for Digital Learning - 68 views

  •  
    Great presentation on Copyright and Fair Use for educators.
Roland Gesthuizen

Bloggers Beware: You CAN Get Sued For Using Pics on Your Blog - My Story - Blog - Roni Loren, Romance Author - 180 views

  •  
    "You are violating copyright if you have not gotten express PERMISSION from the copyright holder OR are using pics that are public domain, creative commons, etc. I didn't know better and I had to learn the hard way. So I want to let you all know now so that you don't have to be a cautionary tale as well."
  •  
    Thank you so much for sharing this! As an educator, I always believed that if I posted a picture on the district site and just gave credit to where I got the picture I was clear with copyright. Now I know better. Perhaps you've underwent this experience to help so many others like me to better understand copyright...
Jac Londe

17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use | LII / Legal Information Institute - 2 views

  • 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.
LaToya Morris

Copyright History - 24 views

  •  
    This is a helpful source for teachers to use in the classroom to help their students understand both copyright and innovation. It includes definitions and details about copyrighting as well as a lesson plan that can be used by educators to help their students better understand these principles.
LaToya Morris

Back To The Basics - 14 views

  •  
    This source includes basic definitions and questions about copyright and it uses are introduced in this source. It is a great source to start with when trying to present the basics of copyrighting to your students.
Robert Appino

gladwell dot com - something borrowed - 86 views

  • Under copyright law, what matters is not that you copied someone else's work. What matters is what you copied, and how much you copied. Intellectual-property doctrine isn't a straightforward application of the ethical principle "Thou shalt not steal." At its core is the notion that there are certain situations where you can steal. The protections of copyright, for instance, are time-limited; once something passes into the public domain, anyone can copy it without restriction.
    • Robert Appino
       
      This is the key to copyright according to Gladwell.
  • initial monopoly on your creation because we want to provide economic incentives for people to invent things like cancer drugs. But everyone gets to steal your breast-cancer cure—after a decent interval—because it is also in society's interest to let as many people as possible copy your invention; only then can others learn from it, and build on it, and come up with better and cheaper alternatives. This balance between the protecting and the limiting of intellectual property
  • Constitution: "Congress shall have the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited"—note that specification, limited—"Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • In ordinary language, to call a copyright a "property" right is a bit misleading, for the property of copyright is an odd kind of property. . . . I understand what I am taking when I take the picnic table you put in your backyard. I am taking a thing, the picnic table, and after I take it, you don't have it. But what am I taking when I take the good idea you had to put a picnic table in the backyard—by, for example, going to Sears, buying a table, and putting it in my backyard? What is the thing that I am taking then? The point is not just about the thingness of picnic tables versus ideas, though that is an important difference. The point instead is that in the ordinary case—indeed, in practically every case except for a narrow range of exceptions—ideas released to the world are free. I don't take anything from you when I copy the way you dress—though I might seem weird if I do it every day. . . . Instead, as Thomas Jefferson said (and this is especially true when I copy the way someone dresses), "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
  • arguments that Lessig has with the hard-core proponents of intellectual property are almost all arguments about where and when the line should be drawn between the right to copy and the right to protection from copying, not whether a line should be drawn.
  • when it comes to literature, we have somehow decided that copying is never acceptable.
  • A successful music executive has to understand the distinction between borrowing that is transformative and borrowing that is merely derivative, and that distinction, I realized, was what was missing from the discussion of Bryony Lavery's borrowings.
  • problem with plagiarism. It is not merely extremist. It has also become disconnected from the broader question of what does and does not inhibit creativity.
  • But the truth is that Lavery has every right to create an affair for Agnetha, because Agnetha is not Dorothy Lewis. She is a fictional character, drawn from Lewis's life but endowed with a completely imaginary set of circumstances and actions.
  • dred and seventy-five rather ordinary words could bring the walls tumbling down.
Michele Brown

P2PU | Get CC Savvy - 39 views

  •  
    Copyright and Creative Commons are friends.  Understand the connection between CC and Copyright law.  Work through the tasks and challenges with short videos and activities.
1 - 20 of 252 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page