A textbook that my Canadian law students use includes a cartoon by the cartoonist 'Summers'. The cartoons are published in the Orlando Sentinel. In the back of the Dimensions of Law textbook, the image is credited to Tribune Media Services beside the standard legal jargon “All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission”. That’s enough to scare off an otherwise ‘do-gooder’ type like me.
I would like to share it with you in image form but since I don’t want to “get in trouble” for violating copyright, I’m not going to post the actual cartoon here on my blog. Please imagine the following image, which is a slight variation of this cartoon: You see a typical teenage male clutching his skateboard. He’s wearing hip clothing with baseball cap turned backwards and to the side as per fashion code. The cartoonist has labelled his attire and accessories that are visible as follows: Hat $60, designer sunglasses, $120, Ralph Lauren Polo shirt $80, iPhone $800, Designer Jeans $80, Air Jordans $250, and skate board $150. As he peers out at you from underneath his shades, the cartoonist has the boy saying, “Bro, I couldn’t afford music if I didn’t steal it from the internet.”
Now, I’m capable of being like the Pharisee in Jesus of Nazareth’s parable who looked at the publican and prayed saying, “Thank God, I am not a sinner like everyone else, especially like that tax collector over there! For I never cheat, I don’t commit adultery, I go without food twice a week, and I give to God a tenth of everything I earn.” I wouldn’t put it past myself to think, “Thank God I’m not like that vacuous teenager who wears fashionable clothing to impress people AND also downloads pirated stuff off the internet AND, to make matters worse, tries to justify it with flimsy excuses.
The truth is that if someone ever asked me if, in the process of teaching, I’d ever violated copyright, I’d have to raise my hand and say, “Probably. Guilty as charged.” And, in the cold light of day, all my excuses would probably sound pretty hollow. “I didn’t have enough time; I was busy doing ________.” “I didn’t know.” “I’m busy making wonderful lesson plans for the government.”
The fact is that I don’t know if I have but there’s a pretty good chance that, in twenty years of teaching, I’ve done something wrong with respect to copyright. There’s a concept in law called “wilful blindness” but we won’t get into that here.
As an educator, I want to set a good example for my students. At the same time, I don’t make enough money to hire expensive lawyers or to buy insurance, if any even exists, similar to malpractice insurance that would protect me from copyright lawsuits related to my teaching activities. I don’t want to pay a hefty fine because I did not take the time to do my due diligence with respect to copyright. On the other hand, I’d rather spend my time creating dynamic 21st century learning spaces than spending hours wading through and deciphering ‘copyright & education’ reading material that is filled with legal jargon, caveats, and vague generalities. That’s especially true since I don’t have the benefit of a legal education. I’d rather be adding value to my students than having to wade through country-specific material that, in the end, doesn’t even apply to Canada.
Since I’m currently taking a class on ‘Technology in the Classroom’, I’m going to limit my thoughts and comments to 21st century digital copyright.
I’ve consulted a number of online sources on this issue. They include: Copyright Matters 3rd Edition, Creative Commons, 2learn’s ‘Copyright & Teaching’, CMEC’s Copyright page, CMEC’s FAQs on Copyright Law, and Edublogger’s Educator’s ‘Guide to Copyright, Fair Use, and Creative Commons’.
I’d love to attend a workshop or breakout session hosted by a copyright lawyer with expertise in Canadian law so I could ask about specifics. In general, I’d ask “What can I do as a teacher and what should I not do?”
Here are some more specific questions I’d ask based on CMEC’s ‘Copyright Matters’ document:
Section 3 Subsection 4: How long is a short excerpt of a website? How much is 10% considering web pages are not numbered?
Section 13 Subsection 3: How can a teacher or student know if the web content has been acquired legally? Can a person assume that if the music or other content can be obtained from the internet (e.g. via YouTube, for example), that it has been legally obtained? Should a person assume that music that is not paid for has been acquired illegally? What about images? How can a teacher know if he/she can use an image?
Section 14 & 15: The document states (paraphrased) that a teacher can make a copy of a radio or TV program so long as the “the copy [was] made … at the time the program is … communicated over the Internet.” Does this mean that so long as the program is available on the internet when the copy is made, then the teacher can make the copy? In an way this makes no sense because, if the teacher is copying from the internet, then of course the copy is available and can be made. Am I missing something here?
Section 16: What is an “infringing” copy? One that has not be paid for, ‘‘pirated’, or ‘bootlegged’?
Section 16: So teachers can show anything that is on YouTube without worrying about copyright infringement? The website states, “Teachers can show audiovisual works purchased or rented from a retail store, a copy borrowed from the library, a copy borrowed from a friend, and a YouTube video.”
Section 20: The website states, “Educational institutions, teachers, and students may save, download, and share publicly available Internet materials, as well as use that material in the classroom and communicate it to students or others within their education circle. “Publicly available” materials are those posted on-line by content creators and copyright owners without any technological protection measures, such as a password, encryption system, or similar technology intended to limit access or distribution, and without a clearly visible notice prohibiting educational use.”
How do teachers or students know which images, written or audivisual content is “publicly available”? There are lots of images that a person can access that are not protected via lock, password, or encryption. Most Google images, for example, can be saved and reproduced in web products such as ‘Digital Stories’, for example. However, should a teacher or student just assume that if they can access the image on Google images, that they can use the image for educational purposes in an educational context (e.g. classroom)?
Let’s take the example of Corrie Ten Boom. Ten Boom was confined in a Nazi concentration camp during World War II because she and her family members had hidden Jews in her home. A quick search on Google Images reveals scores of photos of Corrie Ten Boom alone or with family members. However, if a person does an advanced Google search for photos that are not restricted by license, not one single image appears.
[To conduct an advanced Google search, simply click on ‘images’, then ‘search tools’, then ‘usage rights’]
To produce one digital story, a teacher or student can easily use 25 photos or images. Are they really expected, for each image, to:
a) find out who holds the copyright (this is often not obvious as websites are not necessarily the rights holders but may or may not have obtained permission from the rights holders), and
b) find the address or contact information for the copyright holder, and
c) write the copyright holder for ‘written’ permission to copy, and
d) wait for the copyright holder to reply with written permission, and
e) not use the image if written permission is not obtained, and
f) organize and store all 25-50 letters of permission for that one digital product?
If so, these requirements are so onerous as to preclude the assigning of such projects.
The website ends with this nugget: “Copyright can be, and often is, very complicated.” No kidding.
