UCLA Profs Banned From Posting Course Videos 134
Posted
by
kdawson
from the film-professionals-of-tomorrow dept.
from the film-professionals-of-tomorrow dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "As of Winter Quarter 2010, UCLA professors will no longer be able to post videos on their course websites. Although they've long relied upon fair use protections for educational use, the Association for Information Media and Equipment has made claims that they're copyright infringers, even though the videos are only available on campus and the students are allowed to watch the videos in the Instructional Media Lab. Even though they believe their use of the materials to be fair, the UCLA has decided to back down rather than face litigation. Many professors have commented that this will hurt students, because they now have to watch all videos at the IML, which isn't open on weekends, forcing students to try to fit assigned videos between classes."
To clarify: (Score:5, Informative)
They are NOT talking about videos of the courses
The ban applies to videos assigned by professors for students to watch.
Previously these could be streamed and watched at student's leisure. Now they have to go to the media lab to watch them.
Re:Actually *attend* the lectures? (Score:2, Informative)
Not nearly as bad as the summary sounds (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't about a recording of a lecture that gets posted, this is about copyright protected videos that a professor shows during a lecture being posted.
So under this threat, a professor that shows "Steamboat Willy" in a class can not post "Steamboat Willy" onto the more accessible distribution system.
-Rick
Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (Score:5, Informative)
When you buy a DVD, it has an implicit license to the conditions under which you can watch it (That FBI warning at the beginning indicating you can't show it to a large audience). To comply with copyright law, an "instructional" DVD which permits showing to an audience is required. I am only aware of this because our design course shows the Nightline "Deep Dive" video [go.com]. If you look at the educational version (checkbox), it allows you to show to a group, but NOT to stream it. In order to stream the content, a difference license for the video would be required. I'm not sure how to get such a license right now, and this will be inconvenient for a few semesters worth of Bruins, but as demand for streamed instruction content grows, I'm sure viable licensing options will arise (as we have seen for music and popular video content).
Re:Excellent, two thumbs up! (Score:3, Informative)
Not when they get a taste of the almighty Dollar (or Euro). They will then be turned to the dark side...
Their mission statement.... (Score:3, Informative)
"The mission of AIME (pronounced “aim”) is to promote fair and appropriate use of the media and equipment delivering information in a rapidly changing world."
Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (Score:5, Informative)
Fair use still applies to the whole movie:
US Code Title17, Chapter1, ss107 is crystal clear:
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.
-nB
Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (Score:3, Informative)
When you buy a DVD, it has an implicit license to the conditions under which you can watch it (That FBI warning at the beginning indicating you can't show it to a large audience). To comply with copyright law, an "instructional" DVD which permits showing to an audience is required.
This is false. There is an explicit exemption for use of videos in the classroom. From 17 USC 110 (1) [copyright.gov]:
(1) performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made;
However, this does not cover posting videos online, like UCLA was doing. IIRC (can't find a link right now), there have been cases where schools tried to include videos in distance learning classes, and the judge ruled that it was not fair use.
Re:Excellent, two thumbs up! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (Score:4, Informative)
IANAL, and I am unclear on the full implications of the case law surrounding this, but clearly the interpretation cannot be so broad as you suggest. Otherwise it would be useless to copyright educational materials. Educational purpose is one aspect to be be considered, but (3) is also a significant consideration here. If you showed clips of a movie in a cinema class for the purposes of analysis and criticism, that would be fair use. To show the whole movie, you need an appropriately licensed version. Similarly, since the 90s universities (and students) have been paying royalties on papers included in course packs, even though these papers are clearly for educational purposes.
Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (Score:4, Informative)
...crystal clear:
Yes, it's pretty clear. It's your reading comprehension that's lacking. "The fair use... for such purposes as... is not an infringement..." does not mean that "any use... for such purposes... is fair use and therefore... is not an infringement..." The other requirements for fair use still apply even for such purposes.
Re:Summary Is Confusing or Erroneous (Score:3, Informative)
However, this does not cover posting videos online, like UCLA was doing.
That would be 110(2), but it has a number of limitations to it, such that UCLA might not have qualified for it, depending on precisely what it had been doing.
And of course, where no other exception applies, and where the use would otherwise be infringing, fair use may always be raised as a defense. It might not succeed, as not every use is necessarily a fair use, but it might succeed, as any use is potentially a fair use.
Re:Excellent, two thumbs up! (Score:3, Informative)
"To my utter despair I have discovered, and discover every day anew, that there is in the masses no revolutionary idea or hope or passion."
Why should there be? It'd almost be like expecting most people to have a particular mental illness (with the implication that the mental illness is a good thing). The masses have been burned every time that they entertained revolutionary ideas, hopes, and passions of the sort promoted by Mr. Bakunin and his ilk.
Imagine books instead of video (Score:4, Informative)
Teacher: "Good morning, lit class. Next we'll be reading Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. It's for sale at the bookstore. Go buy a copy and read the first 100 pages and we'll talk about it on Monday."
Student: "Buy?! I can't afford that."
Teacher: "Ok, well the library also has--"
Student: "Only one copy and Ralph here next to me already checked it out."
Teacher: "Ok, well, then, I'll just take my copy here over to the photocopy machine. Who all of you need a free copy?"
Student: "Me!"
Student: "Mee!"
Student: "Me too!"
Heller: "Brains!" [Kills teacher and eats brain.]
Student: "Why did you kill teacher?"
Heller: "Copyright infringement."
Student: "You're dead. Why do you care?"
Heller: "Need money buy brains."
That's a totally believable scenario. But change the book to a movie and suddenly people are surprised that someone's brain got eaten.