Thursday, May 26, 2016
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
LessonPlans
This case is a bit tricky but I believe that it is a copyright issue because the teacher making these presentations is not seeking permission to use these images and such for these other teachers and presentations. Fair use is only good if the information being used is transformed somehow, but if the teacher just took the information/images and kept them the exact same to teach the same point that the images were intended for then that is breaking the copyright (Hobbs, 9). This means that because she is presenting copyrighted information and images, the teachers who use these presentations are also copyrighting something that they do not have permission to do. Now this could possibly be taken down to an educational use of fair use which means that it is okay, but this would only cover the original teacher who is using the presentations for an educational method. As soon as she started making and sharing because other teachers were lazy and did not want to create them on their own she broke this ability. One thing that Hobbs brings up is the fact that the administrators of schools do not know enough about copyright which in the long run effects the teachers who know nothing about them either and this is how these situations happen (Hobbs, 69). With sharing of documents and such becoming more and more common these issues are apt to happen more (Hobbs, 93).
If we look at the purpose of these presentations, we can see they were for an educational use. These images and information used were found from internet research and were not changed to create a new meaning before using them. Lastly, these presentations were not making income until someone tried to create something to sell using the presentations they were given and this specifically breaks the fair use copyright because it is taking money away from the people who rightfully created the images/information (105).
If we look at the purpose of these presentations, we can see they were for an educational use. These images and information used were found from internet research and were not changed to create a new meaning before using them. Lastly, these presentations were not making income until someone tried to create something to sell using the presentations they were given and this specifically breaks the fair use copyright because it is taking money away from the people who rightfully created the images/information (105).
AlumNet
The school that created their name technically was the first person to use this, and they had proof of it, so the other company does not have the lawsuit case that they believe they do. Thankfully for the other company the school did not have a copyright on that name otherwise their tables would have been turned and the school could have sued them for the copyright name. The warning that was sent to the school should not be worried about.
If we we look at the purpose for the fair use copyright we will see that the school technically was using this name, they created first, for educational purposes of keeping the students in touch with alumni of the school (Hobbs 105). The nature of this name was just a fun name created as a name of a website only to bee seen by school members. The school was not making any money from this name of their website and they used this name. If we look at the other company's use of the name, technically they have not broken any laws either because the name was not copyrighted before they used it even though it was created. They got income on this name because it was a company name and it was most likely not an educational use of the name even though I am not sure from the information that I was given.
If we we look at the purpose for the fair use copyright we will see that the school technically was using this name, they created first, for educational purposes of keeping the students in touch with alumni of the school (Hobbs 105). The nature of this name was just a fun name created as a name of a website only to bee seen by school members. The school was not making any money from this name of their website and they used this name. If we look at the other company's use of the name, technically they have not broken any laws either because the name was not copyrighted before they used it even though it was created. They got income on this name because it was a company name and it was most likely not an educational use of the name even though I am not sure from the information that I was given.
Pooh's News
When it comes to this case I personally believe that this is not a form of copyright. This company does not know if this radio station is the actual name of a person or if it is after their character. The school is not showing any images or anything that identifies directly to their book character. This radio is also introducing students to other books to read so it is an educational use. It changes the idea of pooh and makes it their own thing which does not fall under copyright for educators.
The four factors of fair use the purpose of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the market impact (Hobbs, 19). When it comes to the purpose of this name use, it is for an educational school radio to help introduce children to new books to read. The nature of the material is a children's book and the books that are being read are bought (probably) either by a teacher or the school so those are allowed to be shared in the school. The amount of this book used is just the character's name. It does not even include any other characters or details from the Winnie the Pooh books or show. The school is not gaining any money from this radio, if anything they are losing it by paying for all of the technologies needed for the radio.
The four factors of fair use the purpose of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the market impact (Hobbs, 19). When it comes to the purpose of this name use, it is for an educational school radio to help introduce children to new books to read. The nature of the material is a children's book and the books that are being read are bought (probably) either by a teacher or the school so those are allowed to be shared in the school. The amount of this book used is just the character's name. It does not even include any other characters or details from the Winnie the Pooh books or show. The school is not gaining any money from this radio, if anything they are losing it by paying for all of the technologies needed for the radio.
Controversial Billboard
When it comes to this case I believe that the mother has no grounds to call a copyright issue with her daughter's picture to be used because she signed a release form for the photo. This release form was allowing the photo to be placed as a stock image online, which means it is free game to anyone on the internet. I can see how she would be upset that this specific company used it but once it was placed online she does not have much control over the photo's location. All she can do is ask the company to remover her daughters picture from it but that is it.
If this picture/ad was used in schools to help teach a part of black history month and what is causing the lower population numbers in certain areas then they would have access to do because it was just used for educational purposes and was not made into a big public announcement. The only way the mother would know about this then would be if it was shown in this student's class. The mother's only case would be if the photo had some sort of time limit on the copyright/release form she used (Hobbs, 67).
If this picture/ad was used in schools to help teach a part of black history month and what is causing the lower population numbers in certain areas then they would have access to do because it was just used for educational purposes and was not made into a big public announcement. The only way the mother would know about this then would be if it was shown in this student's class. The mother's only case would be if the photo had some sort of time limit on the copyright/release form she used (Hobbs, 67).
Movies All Day
This study is interesting because during my senior year at Johnson University Florida I was planning a movie night for my residents and at first I placed the movie name on the front of the flyer that would be distributed and I was told that I could not put the actual movie title, but I could say a movie because it would be violating the movie's copyright law. When reading this case I noticed that never did the school say that these movies were for any educational purpose, instead it is just something to entertain the people attending their festival.
When it comes to the factors of fair use they are taking into account the purpose of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the market impact (Hobbs, 19). Now looking at these different factors in this situation with a school, the purpose of the movies was not to teach a lesson to the students, it was to entertain the public at their event, so this does not fall under the educational fair use. The nature of the work was that they were DVDs and even if the educators owned a personal copy of the movie they were sharing with the public and not just their classrooms. The amount of the movies being used was 100%, they were not just using a small amount of the movie to show. When it comes to the market impact, the school was not charging for viewing the movies which is good because that would definitely break the copyright law because the owners would then be missing out on the funds meant to be given to them for the movie creation. If the school was using these movie for an different, educational purpose and did not state the movie's name publicly then they probably would not have been given this letter.
When it comes to the factors of fair use they are taking into account the purpose of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the market impact (Hobbs, 19). Now looking at these different factors in this situation with a school, the purpose of the movies was not to teach a lesson to the students, it was to entertain the public at their event, so this does not fall under the educational fair use. The nature of the work was that they were DVDs and even if the educators owned a personal copy of the movie they were sharing with the public and not just their classrooms. The amount of the movies being used was 100%, they were not just using a small amount of the movie to show. When it comes to the market impact, the school was not charging for viewing the movies which is good because that would definitely break the copyright law because the owners would then be missing out on the funds meant to be given to them for the movie creation. If the school was using these movie for an different, educational purpose and did not state the movie's name publicly then they probably would not have been given this letter.
Gap Steal
This article is interesting because it makes me wonder as to how many companies do this with their t shirt deigns and such. In my opinion Gap owes this man money for taking his photo and using it for a profit. They changed the color but they did not take the most identifying feature out of the picture, nor did they look to see if the photo was copyrighted. I believe that this man who took the picture has a valid copyright lawsuit on his hands and Gap is in trouble.
According to the book by Hobbs, the term that fits Gap's best interests would be the use of Transformativeness. This term means to re-purpose a copyrighted material as part of the creative process (Hobbs, 8). One thing about this term though is that, according to Hobbs, the use of this copyrighted material for the same use as what the owner did is a form on copyright if there is not permission given ( Hobbs, 86). If one uses such material then they need to change a big majority of it to make it their own creation.
According to the book by Hobbs, the term that fits Gap's best interests would be the use of Transformativeness. This term means to re-purpose a copyrighted material as part of the creative process (Hobbs, 8). One thing about this term though is that, according to Hobbs, the use of this copyrighted material for the same use as what the owner did is a form on copyright if there is not permission given ( Hobbs, 86). If one uses such material then they need to change a big majority of it to make it their own creation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)