Welcome to the Copyright section of our webpage. 

This front page will reflect our most current information on copyright law and related intellectual property law issues affecting educational institutions.

 

EDUCAUSE Memorandum to Chief Information Officers regarding HEOA Requirements and Next Steps Related to Peer-to-Peer (P2P) File Sharing on College and University Networks (August 11, 2008) The memorandum describes the new disclosure, reporting and other obligations placed on institutions by the Higher Education Opportunity Act with respect to the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material via institutional computer networks.

 

Greenberg v. National Geographic Society, No. 05-16964 (C.A. 11th Cir.) Decided June 20, 2008.

This case is an interpretation of 17 USC § 201(c) of the Copyright law, which provides as follows:

 

(c) Contributions to collective works. Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series.

The plaintiff photographer sued National Geographic for digitizing print editions of past issues of the National Geographic. The Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that National Geographic had the right to fully reproduce the past issues, including photos and other works provided by freelancers.

The Court noted that the purpose of adding Section 201(c) to the Act was to protect both the copyrights of freelance authors in their individual contributions, but also to protect the copyright of the publisher in the collective work.  See the Library Journal for an analysis of this case and its importance to library digitization projects.

 

Online Registration of Copyright Claims

Beginning July 1, 2008  the Copyright Office is offering online registration of claims to copyright. Online registration through the electronic Copyright Office (eCO) is the preferred way to register basic claims for literary works; visual arts works; performing arts works, including motion pictures; sound recordings; and single serials.

 

Cornell University Resources for Controlling Peer to Peer File Sharing Applications:

Web page by Cornell that gives advice on how Peer to Peer File sharing applications work, and points out the hidden problems with using such applications. 

 

Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton
Text of complaint filed against Georgia State officials on April 15, 2008 alleging massive copyright infringement in connection with the use of electronic reserves. See scholarly commentary on the case. See also the answer filed by Georgia State.

NC State Office of the Provost Copyright Administration Site: A resource created by NACUA member Peggy Hoon, this is a comprehensive copyright web site. The page includes reference to new and pending legislation,  sample permission forms, FAQs, TEACH Act info, and tutorials.

March 2008 Section 108 Study Group Report: An Independent Report sponsored by the United States Copyright Office and the National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program of the Library of Congress. Findings include suggestion that Section 108 of copyright law be revised to allow libraries and archives to capture and duplicate online material (if not password protected) for scholars and researchers, and extending the 108 exceptions to museums.

A.V. et al. v. iParadigms, LLC. Civil Action # 07-0293 (U.S. Dist. Ct. For the E.D. Virginia) March 11, 2008

Plaintiff students sued the company, iParadigms, that owns and operates Turnitin, a plagiarism detection service that uses technology to evaluate the originality of written works. Plaintiffs were required by their teachers to submit an electronic copy of their papers to Turnitin for an originality evaluation or accept a zero for credit. To use the service, plaintiffs had to click *I Agree* to the terms of the user agreement. Plaintiffs read and understood that Turnitin would archive their written work, but included a disclaimer on the face of the works that they did not consent to the Turnitin archive feature. The archive feature is what (in part) allows Turnitin to conduct an originality evaluation. Plaintiffs alleged copyright infringement by Turnitin,based on the digital archiving of their papers. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim, finding that the clickwrap agreement precluded liability. In dicta, the court went on to note that even if the agreement by plaintiffs to terms of use of the site did not preclude liablity, the use by Turnitin was transformative and a fair use. See Georgia Harper's analyis of the case. Note that although this was not reported in the case, typically when Turnitin indicates an overlap with another source, the professor is given a source name (school and date). Upon selection of the source name, the following message appears:

Because submitted papers remain the intellectual property of their authors, instructors, and respective institutions, we are unable to show you the content of this paper at this time.
If you would still like to view this paper, please use the button below to submit a permission request to the author's instructor. We will send the instructor an email detailing your request and include any information the instructor will need to respond if your request is accepted.

 

Complying with the NIH Public Access Policy-Copyright Considerations and Options: SPARC/Science Commons/ARL white Paper by Michael W. Carroll; Feb. 2008: The paper notes as follows on two new mandates effective April 7, 2008 for schools:  

First, the grantee must ensure proper manuscript submission. ***Second, the grantee also has a distinct obligation to grant NIH copyright permission to make the manuscript publicly accessible through PMC not later than 12 months after the date of publication. This obligation is connected to manuscript submission because the author, or the person submitting the manuscript on the author’s behalf, must have the necessary rights under copyright at the time of submission to give NIH the copyright permission it requires.

The white paper analyzes the second  requirement and suggests options for compliance.




links updated 6/5/08 rab