Good artists borrow, great artists steal. This is one maxim both
Robin Thicke and Pharaell Williams tried to dispute last spring while
testifying their “Blurred Lines” hit did not draw from Marvin Gaye’s 1977 hit
“Got to Give it Up”. This is not the first and will not be the last case
involving artists and copyright. If you peruse the comments on any articles
related to Thicke and William’s case, you will find a mix of opinions. Some
believe the guilty verdict was justified and sets a precedent for other
artists. Others believe it was unwarranted, harsh and at the least, an
opportunity to stifle creativity.
How did the court come to their decision regarding the “Blurred
Lines” case? First, compelling evidence from Williams was considered. Williams
admitted he drew on Gaye’s style and that he looked up to him from a young age.
Second, the judge and jury considered the existing copyright laws and evaluated
“Blurred Lines”.
What criteria was used to decide that “Blurred Lines” did
infringe copyright? Copyright laws focus on four main areas;
·
“the purpose and character of the
use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes,
·
the nature of the copyrighted work, the
amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole and
·
the effect of the use upon the
potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."(1)
The first criteria copyright law addresses is use related to
educational purposes. Clearly, “Blurred Lines” does not provide any educational
value, so Fair Use is out of the question. However, this portion of the law
applies directly to teachers. So where does the use of YouTube, some teacher’s
main resource, fall on the copyright spectrum? What about downloading those
videos for use on a Learning Management system? How about showing purchased
media to a classroom of students?
The American Library Association (2) quotes the Copyright Act of 1976 with "Public performances of a video/DVD in the face-to face classroom is an exception to the public performance right §110 and therefore lawful. The following conditions apply:
- The teaching activities are conducted by a non-profit education
institution
- The performance is in connection with face-to-face teaching
activities.
- The performance takes place in a classroom or similar place devoted
to instruction.
- The person responsible for the performance has no reason to believe
that the videotape was unlawfully made.”
Educators are covered when showing
YouTube videos to their class, but the bullet regarding the performance taking
place in a classroom or similar place raises questions about blended learning.
Blended learning, defined by Horn & Staker (3), “is a formal education
program in which a student learns at least in part through online learning with
some element of student control over time, place, path and/or pace and at least
in part at a supervised brick-and mortar location away from home”. If it is truly
blended learning then all videos shown should be covered under the above
conditions. However, fully online education falls into more of a gray area
where the conditions are not clear.
If educators are using digital media,
mainly videos, within their curriculum, it is safe to assume these videos will
be placed on some type of learning management system. Especially if the
curriculum is being presented in a blended format. Does linking YouTube videos
from a learning management system infringe copyright? According to the library
site for the University of Missouri-Kansas City (4), the best way to handle
YouTube videos [on learning management systems] is to link the video.
But what if school filters prevent
your students from accessing YouTube? This is the case for my classroom, where
downloading YouTube videos is really the only alternative to showing the video
to the entire class at once. Most YouTube videos, including my favorites from
TedEd and Crash Course Biology (Khan Academy), have a standard license. The
standard license issues YouTube the rights to broadcast the uploaded content,
but all other copyrights remain in tack.
YouTube’s terms of service (5)
directly state “Content is provided to you AS IS. You
may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended
through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these
Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a
“download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that
Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast,
display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes
without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the
Content.”
Overall educators are granted more freedom when it comes to
copyright laws, provided we are accessing and using the material for
educational purposes. However, if we are dabbling in a side career as a
pop-star, we should keep in mind the consequences suffered by Thicke and
Williams. As an educator, I hope teachers continue to find and use digital
media resources as there is much to be gained when presenting content through
unique and engaging materials. A teacher’s battle might be more so against
their own district’s policies on student filters and access rather than YouTube
copyright infringement!
(2) "Video
and Copyright." American Library Association. N.p., n.d. Web. 20
Jan. 2016.
<http://www.ala.org/tools/libfactsheets/alalibraryfactsheet07>.
(3) Horn,
Michael B., and Heather Staker. "Chapter 1." Blended: Using
Disruptive Innovation to Improve Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2015.
N. pag. Print.
(4) "Copyright
Tags: Copyright ." Media in the Classroom.
University of Missouri-Kansas City, n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2016.
<http://libguides.library.umkc.edu/content.php?pid=31006&sid=794429>.
(5) "Creative
Commons." YouTube Help. Google, n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2016.
<https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468?hl=en&ref_topic=2778546>.
No comments:
Post a Comment