1. In this case study, a copyright violation could be perceived according to Section 106(3) of the Copyright Law of 1976. This section specifies that the owner of the copyright has the exclusive right to distribute copies of the work to the public by sale. In this case, the alleged copyright holder, who sent the cease and desist letter, does not own the copyright. Rather, the teacher who created the graphics is the legal copyright holder because according to Hobbs' book, "A work is automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation, as long as it exists in a fixed, tangible form." (16)
2. The pro for the teacher presenting her graphics was helping her colleagues as well as the students they would teach. The con was the risk of someone stealing the work she had created. The pro for the alleged copyright holder was to have legal rights to the work and to receive credit in the text for the images. The potential con is that the original creator would not allow this to happen, and could sue for legal copyright.
3. From a business perspective, the alleged copyright holder is obviously trying to make a profit, and therefore there is a copyright violation present. He or she is also after the recognition of having created the images. This can be contrasted to the teacher who created the graphics, who simply wanted to help her colleagues and students.
4. Since this case study has taken place in an educational setting, we can see that "taking the high road" is simply sharing your ideas for educational purposes and the scholarship of your students, without seeking personal gain or profit. In this instance, there has been a copyright violation on the part of the alleged copyright holder, who was impersonating the real copyright holder and stealing her work. Unfortunately, the real copyright holder may have to go to court in order to defend her work.
5. As a future teacher, I cannot wait to have colleagues! I think making friends with my co-teachers is going to be a wonderful experience. However, it would be heart-breaking to have formed those bonds and then to have one of them betray my trust in such a way. I hope to be inspired and uplifted by my colleagues--not cheated by them.
Sunday, May 29, 2016
Case Study #6: AlumNet
1. In this case study, a possible copyright violation could be perceived because there is question regarding the ownership of the name "AlumNet." If a violation, then this instance would have violated Section 106 of the Copyright Law of 1976. However, from the short description of the case study, it appears that the school came up with the name, and is therefore the legal copyright holder.
2. The pro for the school is that they get to use a cute name for their website. Another pro is that the school gets an online communication platform on which past and present students can communicate, called "AlumNet." The con for the school is that some unidentified, alleged copyright holder could claim that they invented the name first.
3. From a business perspective, it appears that the school came up with the name "AlumNet" first, and therefore is the legal copyright holder. Hobbs' book states that "A work is automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation, as long as it exists in a fixed, tangible form." (16) Therefore, unless the alleged copyright holder can prove that they created the name first, then there is no copyright violation in this case.
4. This case study has been presented in an educational perspective. The name is not a form of profit for the school, but rather is simply used as a means of communication among past and present students. Since the name appears to have been originally created by the school, there is no copyright violation.
5. From my personal perspective, it makes me nervous that as a teacher I may come up with some cute name for a class newsletter, a website, etc. and receive a cease and desist letter, even though the name was my own creation! It seems that many people are simply seeking a way to profit by intimidating others, and I hope that as a teacher I am not found in that position.
2. The pro for the school is that they get to use a cute name for their website. Another pro is that the school gets an online communication platform on which past and present students can communicate, called "AlumNet." The con for the school is that some unidentified, alleged copyright holder could claim that they invented the name first.
3. From a business perspective, it appears that the school came up with the name "AlumNet" first, and therefore is the legal copyright holder. Hobbs' book states that "A work is automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation, as long as it exists in a fixed, tangible form." (16) Therefore, unless the alleged copyright holder can prove that they created the name first, then there is no copyright violation in this case.
4. This case study has been presented in an educational perspective. The name is not a form of profit for the school, but rather is simply used as a means of communication among past and present students. Since the name appears to have been originally created by the school, there is no copyright violation.
5. From my personal perspective, it makes me nervous that as a teacher I may come up with some cute name for a class newsletter, a website, etc. and receive a cease and desist letter, even though the name was my own creation! It seems that many people are simply seeking a way to profit by intimidating others, and I hope that as a teacher I am not found in that position.
Case Study #5: Pooh's News
1. This case study could be perceived as a copyright violation because of Section 106(4) of the Copyright Law of 1976. This section specifies that the owner of the copyright has exclusive right to publicly perform the work, which in this case was a literary work. The school did not seek or receive permission from the copyright holders to use the trademarked name of "Winnie the Pooh."
2. The pro for the school was a cute name for their radio program which encouraged students to read. However, the con was the risk of using a popular Disney character's name. The pro for the copyright holders was to make a profit off their Winnie the Pooh books and other products. The con associated with said pro was someone else making a profit off their property without legal permission.
3. From a business perspective, I do not detect a copyright violation. The Fair Use Doctrine, which is Section 107 of the Copyright Law, states that the copyrighted work could be used for teaching or scholarship. In this case study the use of Winnie the Pooh's name is not being used to make a financial profit, but rather for a student literature class to interest children in reading.
4.This case study already takes place from an educational perspective. I have already concluded that the use of Pooh's name has been covered by The Fair Use Doctrine, and therefore there is no copyright violation. The cease and desist letter was simply used as a scare tactic to intimidate the school.
5. Again, this case study makes me more thankful for the Fair Use Doctrine. As a teacher I know that I will want to use cute characters, like Winnie the Pooh, to get my students engaged, excited and interested in what we are learning! Using familiar characters and names is also a fantastic way to help students feel more comfortable and safe in my classroom. I am also a huge Disney fan, so if I am using it for educational purposes then I am not in dangerous territory as far as a copyright violation!
2. The pro for the school was a cute name for their radio program which encouraged students to read. However, the con was the risk of using a popular Disney character's name. The pro for the copyright holders was to make a profit off their Winnie the Pooh books and other products. The con associated with said pro was someone else making a profit off their property without legal permission.
3. From a business perspective, I do not detect a copyright violation. The Fair Use Doctrine, which is Section 107 of the Copyright Law, states that the copyrighted work could be used for teaching or scholarship. In this case study the use of Winnie the Pooh's name is not being used to make a financial profit, but rather for a student literature class to interest children in reading.
4.This case study already takes place from an educational perspective. I have already concluded that the use of Pooh's name has been covered by The Fair Use Doctrine, and therefore there is no copyright violation. The cease and desist letter was simply used as a scare tactic to intimidate the school.
5. Again, this case study makes me more thankful for the Fair Use Doctrine. As a teacher I know that I will want to use cute characters, like Winnie the Pooh, to get my students engaged, excited and interested in what we are learning! Using familiar characters and names is also a fantastic way to help students feel more comfortable and safe in my classroom. I am also a huge Disney fan, so if I am using it for educational purposes then I am not in dangerous territory as far as a copyright violation!
Case Study #4: Movies All Day
1. This case study could represent a possible copyright violation of Section 106(4), which states that the owner of the copyright has the exclusive right to publicly display the work. This section of the Copyright Law includes motion pictures. Here, the school did not seek or receive permission to publicly show the movies. Additionally, the movies were not being shown for educational purposes, which would have been covered by Section 107 (The Fair Use Doctrine) which states that a copyrighted work can be used for "...criticism, comment, new reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research."
2. In this situation, the pro for the school was attracting people to their fall festival. However, the con was being caught in a copyright violation by using the movies without sufficient permission by the copyright owners. The pro for the movie copyright owners is to make a profit off of their movie sales. The con is the risk of people using those movies without permission, and therefore negatively affecting the profit.
3. From a business perspective there is definitely a copyright violation in this instance. The violation is the fact that the movies were not being shown for educational purposes, and also that the entirety of the movie was shown rather than just a portion. Additionally, by showing the movies in this way, the school is affecting the market value of those movies. Although cease-and-desist letters can be used as a scare tactic, in this case the copyright holder was correct; their rights had been compromised.
4. If this instance had occurred in an educational setting, and for an educational purpose, then it would have been covered by the Fair Use Doctrine. If the school had sought permission to show these movies for a purely pleasurable experience, then that would have been acceptable. However, the movies were shown just for fun, and therefore a violation occurred.
5. From my personal perspective, I am so thankful for the Fair Use Doctrine! In my field experiences I have witnessed multiple usages of movies for an educational purpose, and I saw how movies can be effective for teaching certain concepts. Also, in the ECLC where I have worked for the past four years, we often watch educational videos. We also watch non-educational videos but for an educational purpose. For example, last week we watched Nemo, but it had an educational purpose. Our weekly theme was the ocean, and so by watching Nemo, the students were able to get excited and curious about learning ocean concepts.
2. In this situation, the pro for the school was attracting people to their fall festival. However, the con was being caught in a copyright violation by using the movies without sufficient permission by the copyright owners. The pro for the movie copyright owners is to make a profit off of their movie sales. The con is the risk of people using those movies without permission, and therefore negatively affecting the profit.
3. From a business perspective there is definitely a copyright violation in this instance. The violation is the fact that the movies were not being shown for educational purposes, and also that the entirety of the movie was shown rather than just a portion. Additionally, by showing the movies in this way, the school is affecting the market value of those movies. Although cease-and-desist letters can be used as a scare tactic, in this case the copyright holder was correct; their rights had been compromised.
4. If this instance had occurred in an educational setting, and for an educational purpose, then it would have been covered by the Fair Use Doctrine. If the school had sought permission to show these movies for a purely pleasurable experience, then that would have been acceptable. However, the movies were shown just for fun, and therefore a violation occurred.
5. From my personal perspective, I am so thankful for the Fair Use Doctrine! In my field experiences I have witnessed multiple usages of movies for an educational purpose, and I saw how movies can be effective for teaching certain concepts. Also, in the ECLC where I have worked for the past four years, we often watch educational videos. We also watch non-educational videos but for an educational purpose. For example, last week we watched Nemo, but it had an educational purpose. Our weekly theme was the ocean, and so by watching Nemo, the students were able to get excited and curious about learning ocean concepts.
Case Study #3: Gap Steal?
1. In this case study, a possible violation of copyright law could be perceived because Baby Gap used an image found online and used it, without permission, to make a profit. This would be considered a violation of Copyright Law Section 106(3), which states that "To distribute copies...of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending..." is the exclusive right of the owner; in this case, the photographer. The man who took the original picture of the car and put it up on Flickr did NOT give anyone permission to use it.
2. The pro for the photographer was receiving recognition for his good picture. However, the con associated with putting that picture online was the risk of someone using it for their own profit. The pro for Baby Gap was an adorable baby onsie of which they would make a profit, but the con was that the original photographer (the owner of the image) would find out and take them to court.
3. I have concluded that from a business perspective there is a copyright violation in this case. The violation is in reference to the Copyright Law Section 106(3), which implies that the photographer of an image has fill ownership to his or her photos, and exclusive rights to make a profit from it. However in this situation, Baby Gap did not seek permission to use the image, and basically stole the photo off the internet in order to make a profit.
4. In an educational setting, this situation may look like this: an art teacher wants to use an image found online to teach his or her students how to modify an image using Photoshop. In that case, this action is completely covered by the Fair Use Doctrine. Because the image is being used to teach a concept and benefit the students (and without making a profit), then the teacher has a fair right to use the image. However, if the image was used by the school to make a profit, then that would be a different story because of Section 107 of the Copyright Act.
5. My automatic response to this case study is that Baby Gap had no right to the photo. I sympathize with the photographer, because that photo was his artwork! It was completely unfair for Baby Gap to profit off this artist's work, especially without the photographer's knowledge.
2. The pro for the photographer was receiving recognition for his good picture. However, the con associated with putting that picture online was the risk of someone using it for their own profit. The pro for Baby Gap was an adorable baby onsie of which they would make a profit, but the con was that the original photographer (the owner of the image) would find out and take them to court.
3. I have concluded that from a business perspective there is a copyright violation in this case. The violation is in reference to the Copyright Law Section 106(3), which implies that the photographer of an image has fill ownership to his or her photos, and exclusive rights to make a profit from it. However in this situation, Baby Gap did not seek permission to use the image, and basically stole the photo off the internet in order to make a profit.
4. In an educational setting, this situation may look like this: an art teacher wants to use an image found online to teach his or her students how to modify an image using Photoshop. In that case, this action is completely covered by the Fair Use Doctrine. Because the image is being used to teach a concept and benefit the students (and without making a profit), then the teacher has a fair right to use the image. However, if the image was used by the school to make a profit, then that would be a different story because of Section 107 of the Copyright Act.
5. My automatic response to this case study is that Baby Gap had no right to the photo. I sympathize with the photographer, because that photo was his artwork! It was completely unfair for Baby Gap to profit off this artist's work, especially without the photographer's knowledge.
Case Study #2: Controversial Billboard
1. In this case study, a possible copyright issue could be perceived because the image of a young girl was publicly displayed in a way that her mother did not expect. The girl's image was used on a three-story tall billboard promoting one side of a very controversial issue: abortion. Additionally, the ad (posted by the organization Life Always) was negatively targeting African Americans. Similarly to case study #1, the portion of the copyright law that could be violated is section 106(5), which states that the copyright owner has exclusive rights to publicly display an image.
2. As far as the pros and cons of this case study, there are really three parties involved: the mother, the modeling adjacency, and Life Always. The pro for the mother was that she most likely was paid for the rights for organizations to use her child's photo. However, the con was that she had no control of how those pictures of her daughter would be used. The pro for the modeling agency was profiting from the sale of the stock image. The con was the risk of the image being exploited in some way. The pro for Life Always was that they got to use the image of a beautiful young African American girl to send a strong anti-abortion message. However, the con was the risk of offending the African American community and enraging Planned Parenthood.
3. From a business perspective, there is no copyright violation here. The mother signed a release form, signing away her exclusive rights to her daughter's image. Therefore, she had not legal ownership of the image. The modeling agency legally sold the stock image to the Life Always organization, which then used the photograph as they saw fit.
4. If this situation had occurred in an educational setting, it most likely would have looked like this: at the beginning of the year, parents signed a release form allowing their children's photographs to be used to promote the school. Then, after a child's photo has been used for that purpose, a parent sees the picture publicly displayed and becomes enraged. In that situation, no copyright law has been violated. This is because the parent was aware of the risk involved with signing the release form, and chose to sign the form anyway. Therefore, she has no legal case.
5. From my personal perspective, I do not think that the mother had a case. It is definitely unfortunate that her daughter's photograph was used in the way that is was, however the mother was fully aware of such risks involved with using that modeling agency. I think that what the organization did was completely fair. They received permission, and proceeded to use the photo to promote their organization.
2. As far as the pros and cons of this case study, there are really three parties involved: the mother, the modeling adjacency, and Life Always. The pro for the mother was that she most likely was paid for the rights for organizations to use her child's photo. However, the con was that she had no control of how those pictures of her daughter would be used. The pro for the modeling agency was profiting from the sale of the stock image. The con was the risk of the image being exploited in some way. The pro for Life Always was that they got to use the image of a beautiful young African American girl to send a strong anti-abortion message. However, the con was the risk of offending the African American community and enraging Planned Parenthood.
3. From a business perspective, there is no copyright violation here. The mother signed a release form, signing away her exclusive rights to her daughter's image. Therefore, she had not legal ownership of the image. The modeling agency legally sold the stock image to the Life Always organization, which then used the photograph as they saw fit.
4. If this situation had occurred in an educational setting, it most likely would have looked like this: at the beginning of the year, parents signed a release form allowing their children's photographs to be used to promote the school. Then, after a child's photo has been used for that purpose, a parent sees the picture publicly displayed and becomes enraged. In that situation, no copyright law has been violated. This is because the parent was aware of the risk involved with signing the release form, and chose to sign the form anyway. Therefore, she has no legal case.
5. From my personal perspective, I do not think that the mother had a case. It is definitely unfortunate that her daughter's photograph was used in the way that is was, however the mother was fully aware of such risks involved with using that modeling agency. I think that what the organization did was completely fair. They received permission, and proceeded to use the photo to promote their organization.
Case Study #1: A family Christmas card
1. There is a copyright issue in this case because a family's personal photo was exploited without the family's knowledge or permission. This specific instance represents a possible violation, or could be perceived as a violation, of section 106 of the copyright law, which states that the owner has exclusive rights to the copyrighted work. Specifically, section 106(5) mentions using copyrighted pictures, and the fact that the owner of the picture has the exclusive right to display it publicly.
2. The pros of this case study from the shop owner's perspective is using the photograph as a way to advertise for his business, and therefore make a profit. The cons he is faced with as a result, are the risks of getting caught for his copyright violation. The pros for the family are allowing their extended family and friends to enjoy the family picture. However, the con of the family posting their personal picture on the internet was the risk of someone taking advantage of the picture and using it illegally, which is exactly what happened.
3. From a business perspective there is a copyright violation because the copyright owners (the family in the photograph) did not give permission for their family's photograph to be publicly displayed. According to the copyright law, the copyright owner has exclusive rights to display their intellectual property. Additionally, the shop owner was using this photograph as a way to advertise his business and make a profit. Therefore, my decision in this case is that the shop owner violated copyright law by displaying the family's personal photograph without their permission, and for financial gain.
4. If the scenario presented in this particular case study had occurred in an educational setting, it would look something like this: a teacher shows his or her class a picture of a family. The teacher has not received permission by the family to use the photograph, however the purpose for this usage is educational. Based on the concept of transformativeness, the teacher has the right to show this picture in order to serve an educational purpose, which is different from the original intent of the photo. In section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 it says, "The fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright. This includes reproduction in copies for purposes such as...teaching..."
5. I personally feel that in this case, while I feel a little bad for the shop keeper who claimed that he thought the photograph was "computer generated," he still violated the copyright law. Although his violation was accidental, it was unfair for the husband and wife whose faces (and their children's faces) were posted for the world to see. While this is a fairly minor and relatively harmless situation, it could have been worse. For example, the shop keeper could have stumbled upon a picture of the husband with a different woman, and while the photograph could have been an innocent situation, the exploitation of the photo could have misconstrued the situation and led to disastrous repercussions.
2. The pros of this case study from the shop owner's perspective is using the photograph as a way to advertise for his business, and therefore make a profit. The cons he is faced with as a result, are the risks of getting caught for his copyright violation. The pros for the family are allowing their extended family and friends to enjoy the family picture. However, the con of the family posting their personal picture on the internet was the risk of someone taking advantage of the picture and using it illegally, which is exactly what happened.
3. From a business perspective there is a copyright violation because the copyright owners (the family in the photograph) did not give permission for their family's photograph to be publicly displayed. According to the copyright law, the copyright owner has exclusive rights to display their intellectual property. Additionally, the shop owner was using this photograph as a way to advertise his business and make a profit. Therefore, my decision in this case is that the shop owner violated copyright law by displaying the family's personal photograph without their permission, and for financial gain.
4. If the scenario presented in this particular case study had occurred in an educational setting, it would look something like this: a teacher shows his or her class a picture of a family. The teacher has not received permission by the family to use the photograph, however the purpose for this usage is educational. Based on the concept of transformativeness, the teacher has the right to show this picture in order to serve an educational purpose, which is different from the original intent of the photo. In section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 it says, "The fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright. This includes reproduction in copies for purposes such as...teaching..."
5. I personally feel that in this case, while I feel a little bad for the shop keeper who claimed that he thought the photograph was "computer generated," he still violated the copyright law. Although his violation was accidental, it was unfair for the husband and wife whose faces (and their children's faces) were posted for the world to see. While this is a fairly minor and relatively harmless situation, it could have been worse. For example, the shop keeper could have stumbled upon a picture of the husband with a different woman, and while the photograph could have been an innocent situation, the exploitation of the photo could have misconstrued the situation and led to disastrous repercussions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)