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.
Cornell Digital Literacy Program
Contains online tools for students on technology, copyright, plagiarism, privacy, and finding topics. Great resource for everyone.
A.V. et al. v. IParadigms, LLC. (4th Cir. April 16, 2009)
Decision by U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in copyright infringement suit brought by high school students against the operator of Turnitin.com, a plagiarism detection service used by high schools and institutions of higher education. The court held that the defendant's use of plaintiffs' papers was transformative and a fair use.
Google Book Settlement Opt Out Deadline extended until Sept. 4, 2009. See Google website for more information. See also the April 28, 2009 Order by Judge Chin extending the deadline for opt-outs and objections.
NACUANOTES: April 17, 2009 The Google Settlement and Higher Education: Imminent Deadlines
Excellent Memo by Jonathan Band on the implications for Higher Education Institutions.
Copyright Slider: An interactive version of the public domain/copyright status chart. If you move the arrow on the page to the date and conditions on publication, the boxes on the left will give you information on whether or not permission is needed for use of the work. This document can be modified for use at your institution by adding contact information, or it can simply be posted as is. Click on the Creative Commons license at the bottom left for more information.
Section 108 Spinner: An interative web page that specifies when libraries and archives can make reproductions of copyrighted materials without the permission of the copyright holder under Section 108.
Google Book Search Settlement Agreement
This is Google's web site with many of the documents relating to the proposed settlement agreement between Google and the Authors Guild and publishers regarding the Google Book Search program. The settlement agreement is 141 pages. See Georgia Harper's commentary on the agreement: Google Book Search ---and Buy.
The Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education: Published by American University's Center for Social Media: A new guide to fair use, issued in November 2008. The guide offers free advice to professors who wish to incorporate moving image media; sound media, images, web sites and all other types of media into their lecutures. This guide identifies five principles that represent the media literacy education community’s current consensus about acceptable practices for the fair use of copyrighted materials. The guide was created with the assistance of more than 150 educators, and reviewed by a panel of lawyers who are experts in fair use.
Draft IP Ownership Policy for CUA: This page contains a link to a draft Intellectual Property Ownership Policy, and background documents on the need for and development of an IP ownership policy.
BAYU: Be Aware You're Uploading: Using Peer to Peer File Sharing Safely and Appropriately: Designed by the University of Michigan with Jack Bernard of the UM OGC. This program is available to other schools as open source software. BAYU (Be Aware You're Uploading) is a service designed by the University of Michigan to notify users of University networks that they might be uploading. BAYU is an automated system that notices when computers on selected University networks appear to be uploading files using peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing technology. BAYU then notifies the person whose computer was used to upload.
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.
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
Last Revised 29-Jun-09 02:08 PM.
