[LMB] Fair use > From: Howard Brazee <howard at brazee.net>

Paula Lieberman paal at filker.org
Wed Mar 16 15:27:01 GMT 2016


Three words:
Copyright Clearance Center.
There are I believe schedules for licensing for articles and such.

It's rare that educators comply with the 2500 word stipulation when doing 
wholesale copying of material they distribute to classes and other 
educators.

It reminds me of DIsney, which is draconian when it comes to Disney 
properties and protection and enforcement of its copyrights and trademarks, 
but has been cited and convicted on at least two different occasions years 
apart, for hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars' of software 
license violations--paying for a fraction of the number of "seats" Disney 
was using the software at.

The US Constitution quite clearly specifies that copyright and patent exist 
in the USA for the benefit of the -public- and that payments to 
artists/authors/copyright holders/patent holders/distributors, are 
to -encourage- innovation and reward those who make art and science and 
technology available to the public.

Forcing the artist/inventor/writer to stop painting/inventing/writing 
because people are making copies/employing the invention without paying the 
creators and licensed distributors, is very much NOT in the public 
interest--the public interest is -promoting- innovation and invention and 
distribution of work, and -rewarding- and encouraging 
inventors/artists/writing -licensed- distributors, to make the works 
available at -reasonable- prices (there was a case in the 1980s where a 
company put a 99 year no-compete clause on its licensing, another company 
infringed on the patent, the patent holder sued, and the judge nullified the 
patent on the basis purely of the unreasonable illegal licensing provision. 
I think that that decision needs to be appled in the pharmaceutical 
industry, that abuse of the patent system, DOES extend to nullification and 
voiding out of patents...)

But getting back to copyright, there ARE avenues for licensing, and if the 
particular work is too pricey, find something else.  It happened all the 
time with textbooks, one of my professors described how how it was to get 
textbooks for a particular class because the publishers kept putting the one 
he wanted to use, out of print and out of availability.... and that had 
NOTHING to do with licensing, it was purely a matter of publisher decisions 
about what to stock/publish/republish in what quantity.

Epublishing makes things somewhat different today... there are authors who 
are in quandries about getting erights back, because there is no such thing 
as running out of printed copies or remaindering, where there are no 
physical copies.... and sale of a few copies a year, means that unless there 
is some specific sales level or a perdio of time for licensing to a 
publisher, the work might never have the rights revert to the author unless 
the publisher decides to do so.

Authors going to self-publishing, to prevent the exploitation above, is one 
of the many contributing factors to the explosion of self-publishing.  It 
also frees up authors from length considerations--Lois self-pubbing Penric, 
I presume had factors including the length as prompting the self-pubbing.

On the other hand, epublishing has contributed even more majorly to 
copyright abuse, particularly in the eastern hemisphere, where thieves have 
the temerity not only to distribute work without paying authors and licensed 
distributors otherwise, but to pretend to be legitimate sellers and charge 
for the stolen property they distribute, too, and do so with often badly 
formatted error-riddled content (or even outright fraudulent material--I 
know of a case where a series was continued with identity fraud, the 
additional books (which were print books) claimed to be by the original 
authors, but the original authors, who own the series copyrights, did NOT 
write them, did not authorize other people to write or distribute sequels, 
and of course no money ever went to them, either... and the sequels were 
noted as being crap by malcontented reviewers, too, which was marks against 
the original authors, who were being (falsely) accused of purveying crappy 
books to the public...

But again, there is a LOT of content out there, and lots of it is public 
domain.   If the course is using the material, it beyond a few passages, it 
should pay for it, classrooms pay for other stuff...  Or, do without 
it--there was a CD produced about Kerouac. It was missing material the 
creator of the CD wanted to use, because the material was by one of 
Kerouac's associates, and the estate of the associate, has particularly high 
licensing fees... so the CD notes the material is pertinent, but was not 
included because it was too pricey to include....


-----Original Message----- 
From: M. Haller Yamada
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 9:16 PM
To: Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold.
Subject: Re: [LMB] OT: Fair use > From: Howard Brazee



> On Mar 15, 2016, at 6:15 PM, M. Haller Yamada
> Micki: In a perfect world, the administration would pay for reprints of 
> articles.
> In the real world, sometimes they don't. There are economies of scale --  
> it would
> be foolish to copy even quite expensive textbooks because it'd be more 
> expensive
> to copy than to buy a book. But for a one-page short story that 
> illustrates a
> teaching point brilliantly? Or a ten-page story that's out of print, but 
> not out
> of public domain?

Howard: It’s inconvenient not to steal the work we want instead of picking a 
different work.
--

Micki: Let me clarify. I'm not defending stealing. I'm defending the fair 
use for educational purposes clause.


When used for educational purposes, the most important thing is not the work
itself, but rather the analysis of the work and how it applies to other 
works
(including student works). That's not only educational, it's transformative.


The purpose of reading in classes is not really, "whoopee! Free stories!" In
fact, remembering my own high school reading, that's only the case about 30
percent of the time, and I'm an avid, eclectic reader. The purpose of 
reading in
language arts classes is learning to analyze, parse and understand 
underlying
ideas, and the tools used to convey those ideas.


Ideally, a writer would get paid for providing that sort of input (I'm less
concerned about the estate getting paid -- I think our copyright laws have 
gone
overboard to protect corporations). But even if they don't, if the teacher 
is
using the material properly, it falls under fair use. And it can be a huge
benefit for the kids in various ways, so it's bigger than profits.


I hope the "IF THE TEACHER IS USING THE MATERIAL PROPERLY" didn't get buried 
in
the middle of the sentence. Teachers do need to educate themselves on 
copyright
and fair use. But Fair Use is definitely a thing, and it's a good thing.


Links that helped me clarify my thoughts:
http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr280b.shtml


Educational Uses of Non-coursepack Materials 
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/academic-and-educational-permissions/non-coursepack/(note 
the 2500 word guideline for complete essays or articles


http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/search/node/educational%20fair%20use 
Useful search results for visual art or recorded/digital arts.

Micki 



More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list