Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Ethics in IT

Presentation on fair use for my ethics class
by

David Pearson

on 9 August 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Ethics in IT

Ethics in IT :

Fair Use in the Media

Fair(y) Use Tale
1978
Keep Thompson Governor Comm. v. Citizens for Gallen Comm., 457 F. Supp. 957
Yes
No
Fair Use Timeline
Question:

What is fair use?
Definition:
n
roductions
James Brigden:

2nd year Information Security and Forensics major

Criminal Justice minor
Bao Peng Chen:

2nd year Information Security and Forensics major
David Pearson:

2nd year Information Security and Forensics major

Double minor in Arabic and Entrepreneurship
Jose Yustiz:

Graduate student in Computer Security and Information Assurance
Source: Media Education Foundation
Allows individuals to use a copyrighted work for their own individual purposes.
(U.S. Code Collection, Title 17, Chapter 1, 102)

Users may reproduce, display, perform, and distribute copyrighted works for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, which benefit society.
(U.S. Code Collection, Title 17, Chapter 1, 107 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html)
1980
Copyrights discourage duplication and encourage innovation.

The United States Constitution Article 1, Section 8 states, "The Congress shall have the power to ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;..."
When will you be sued?
If the author does not believe your use is fair use.
o Court fees usually outweigh gain from your use.
If you use portions of a work for a competing work, you harm the marketability of the original work. Therefore, you may be sued.
o Your satire may harm original author (harassment).
Source: Stanford Copyright and Fair Use - Disagreements over Fair Use: When are you likely to get sued?
Copyright

The original author has the right to sell the expression of an idea (not the idea itself) and be protected from attacks.

Exclusive rights given to the original author:
Author’s works are protected from others selling, reproducing, and/or renting copies of them (Copyright Act 1976).
Author’s works are protected from other’s performing them, and/or displaying them (Copyright Act 1976).

Original works are literary works, novel, screenplays, manuals, dramatic works, photographs, graphic works, sculptures, music, advertisement songs, choreographic works, videos, audiovisual works, sound recordings, and architectural works.

Duration - lifetime of the author + 70 years
An item is copyrighted as soon as it is written (Copyright Act 1976, Section 408)

Remember, each piece of information added to this collaboration sheet are copyright of their original owner(s)/author(s).
Agenda
Fair(y) Use Video
What is Copyright?
What is Fair use?
Court Cases and Discussion
When Will I Be Sued?
*GirlTalk*
1984
1986
1991
1994
1996
1996
1997
2001
2002
2005
2006
2007
2008
Elsmere Music, Inc v. National
Broadcasting Co., 482 F. Supp. 741, 747
Sony Corporation v. Universal City
Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417
Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v.
Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 642 F. Supp. 1031
Wright v. Warner Books,
Inc., 953 F .2d 731
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose
Music, 510 U.S. 569
Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department, 447 F.3d 769
Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381
Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin
Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394
A&M Records, Inc. v.
Napster, Inc. 239
Kelly v. Arriba Soft
Corporation 280 F.3d 934
Video-Cinema Films, Inc. v. Lloyd E. Rigler-Lawrence E. Deutsch Found., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2630
Field v. Google Inc.,
412 F. Supp. 2d 1106
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com,
Inc., No. 06-55405
Senator McCain v.
Fox News
Synopsis:
A person running for political office used 15 seconds of his opponent's campaign song in a political ad.
Court Decision:
It was ruled to be fair use on the grounds that only a small amount
of the song was used.
Four Factors:
An SNL skit about cleaning up the town of Sodom ended with a remake of "I Love New York".
Synopsis:
Court Decision:
Four Factors:
Synopsis:
Four Factors:
Court Decision:
The BetaMax was used to record television shows for
people to watch at their convenience.
It was fair use to for people to record television shows and watch them
later.
Four Factors:
Court Decision:
Synopsis:
Gum maker Topps created Garbage Pail Kids, a parody on Cabbage Patch Kids.
Garbage Pail Kids was a parody that infringed on copyrights and trademarks.
Four Factors:
Court Decision:
Synopsis:
A woman used a variety of Richard Wright's documents (including a 55-word passage) in his biography that she wrote.
The work is fair use, based on the four factors below.
Four Factors:
Court Decision:
Synopsis:
2 Live Crew created a parody titled "Pretty Woman" based on Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman". They asked Acuff-Rose Music if they could use the tune, but Acuff-Rose Music refused. 2 Live Crew created the song anyways.
The song was a parody and was, therefore, fair use.
Court Decision:
Four Factors:
Synopsis:
Fair use was not at play because copyright infringement had occurred.
The LA County Sheriff's Department bought 3,663 licenses of a software program and installed it on 6,007 computers, with only 3,663 instances able to run at one time.
Four Factors:
Court Decision:
Synopsis:
Michigan Document Services, Inc. reproduced substantial segments of copyrighted works of scholarship, bound the copies into "coursepacks," and sold the coursepacks to students for use in fulfilling reading assignments given by professors at the University of Michigan.
The coursepacks were not a fair use of the publishers' works.
Four Factors:
The publisher did not act in a way that was worth of a fair use verdict.
Court Decision:
Synopsis:
Penguin Books USA, Inc. created a work that described the O.J. Simpson murder trial. In this book, named The Cat NOT in the Hat, they mimicked the characters and settings of The Cat in the Hat, a work written decades earlier by Dr. Seuss.
Four Factors:
Court Decision:
Synopsis:
Record companies believed that Napster's music filesharing capabilities would hurt their sales and thus infringe on their copyrights.
Napster could be held liable for the copyright infringement of its users because the service infringed on the ability of the original owners (record companies) to reproduce and distribute original work.
Four Factors:
Court Decision:
Synopsis:
Arriba ran a search engine that allowed users to search for pictures and obtain thumbnail versions of them. Users could then enlarge the thumbnail and connect to the website containing the picture file (Kelly's site).
The thumbnails were fair use and that search engines could use them in searches as long as the website URL was linked from the thumbnail. The links, however, that allowed users to view full size images were not fair use.
Synopsis:
A nonprofit foundation presented a program called "Classic Arts Showcase," for broadcast to public TV and cable channels. The foundation used an 85 second portionby an opera singer from a two-hour movie, "Carnegie Hall."
Synopsis:
Synopsis:
Synopsis:
Blake Field sued Google for breaching fair use by caching 51 of his copyrighted works in an online repository. He felt that Google's claim of fair use was incorrect, and that he should be recompensed for statutory damages totaling $2,550,000.
Perfect 10 sued Google for its displaying of thumbnails of nude models (from their paid site) in the image search feature.
Court Decision:
The court ruled against the Foundation because those factors were outweighed by the potential loss of licensing revenue.
Four Factors:
Court Decision:
Court Decision:
Court Decision:
Four Factors:
Four Factors:
Four Factors:
N/A: This situation never went to court. However, it does clearly show the four factors of fair use.
Google practiced fair use through its image search feature.
Google was practicing fair use through its works caching system.
The parody did not make more extensive use of the original song than was necessary to "conjure up" the original.
1. Purpose and Character of Use
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
3. Amount and Substantiality of
the Portion Used
4. Effect on the Market
1. Purpose and Character of Use
1. Purpose and Character of Use
1. Purpose and Character of Use
1. Purpose and Character of Use
1. Purpose and Character of Use
1. Purpose and Character of Use
1. Purpose and Character of Use
1. Purpose and Character of Use
1. Purpose and Character of Use
1. Purpose and Character of Use
1. Purpose and Character of Use
1. Purpose and Character of Use
1. Purpose and Character of Use
1. Purpose and Character of Use
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
3. Amount and Substantiality of
the Portion Used
3. Amount and Substantiality of
the Portion Used
3. Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used
3. Amount and Substantiality of
the Portion Used
3. Amount and Substantiality of
the Portion Used
3. Amount and Substantiality of
the Portion Used
3. Amount and Substantiality of
the Portion Used
3. Amount and Substantiality of
the Portion Used
3. Amount and Substantiality of
the Portion Used
3. Amount and Substantiality of
the Portion Used
3. Amount and Substantiality of
the Portion Used
3. Amount and Substantiality of
the Portion Used
3. Amount and Substantiality of
the Portion Used
3. Amount and Substantiality of
the Portion Used
4. Effect on the Market
4. Effect on the Market
4. Effect on the Market
4. Effect on the Market
4. Effect on the Market
4. Effect on the Market
4. Effect on the Market
4. Effect on the Market
4. Effect on the Market
4. Effect on the Market
4. Effect on the Market
4. Effect on the Market
4. Effect on the Market
4. Effect on the Market
Non-profit political campaign
Song was copyrighted, thus a snippet could be
taken without permission
15 seconds of song was taken
No market value
Parody
Author entitled to more extensive use when
creating a parody than in other fictional works
Four musical notes and "I love you"
were all that was taken

Repeated four times
No effect on copyrighted work

No detraction
Senator McCain's campaign team created a political video containing a 30 second news clip.
Political purpose
A clip of news footage from
Fox News
30 second clip out of an entire broadcast
None

Non-profit, made for
the benefit of the people
Scholarly work, covered under the topic of
scholarship, research, and criticism
Paraphrased the letters and works, instead of
copying exactly
Used as facts necessary for her biography
Used, at most, 1% of the entire span of all works
Biography in no way affects the marketability
of Richard Wright's letters and other works,
since they are lightly featured


The Four Factors:
1. The purpose and character of your use
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the use
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market
Fair use was developed before issues regarding technology were.
o Napster allowed central file sharing between multiple users.
+ Infringement - aiding illegal act, making money, and turning head.
+ Transaction does not involve company so only the users were liable.


Parody
A doll brand
A parody of the dolls with "some comical abnormality and/or suffering, some terrible fate, and a humorous, word-play rich character name"
Was a commerical success for a time, but in different markets.

Cabbage Patch Kids attracted "wholesome crowd"

Garbage Pail Kids attracted "gruesome crowd"
Group did copy excessive material, but the amount copied was sufficient for the purpose of the new work
Ruled irrelevant because parodies usually copy all of the work for a certain purpose
Parody and money making
Ruled to be very small because the parody will rarely replace the original work, and the two works are different genres
Did not change software to stand for something else
Department just copied the software and put in on their computers

Work considered commercial because it advanced the department without them having to purchase more licenses

Use of the software also did not promote science and advancement
Original work protected by the 1980 amendment to the Copyright Act, which extended protection to computer programs
Department completely copied the software programs so that every computer would have possible access to the program if necessary
Computer software is much easier and quicker to copy completely

Needs different protection than print material

Overuse of the licenses constituted a negative effect on the market
Commercial use
Not disputed

Company acknowledged the coursepacks contained creative material, or "expressions"
One excerpt was 8,000 words

Defendants were using as much as 30 percent of one copyrighted work

In no case did they use less than 5 percent of the copyrighted work as a whole
Works were various materials provided by university professors

Professors did not write for profit, but rather "to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good"
New work did not poke fun at Dr. Seuss's style itself

Followed many things in the book in a parallel way

Sold for commercial benefit
The Cat in the Hat was such a new, creative thing and The Cat NOT in the Hat merely copied the style
Penguin Books USA, Inc. used the Cat on many pages (a very significant symbol in the original work)

Gave unconvincing reasoning as to why they chose this work to be the vehicle for their "parody"
Because of the non-transformative nature of Penguin Books' version of the story, it was decided that there could be damage to the original's market area

Also, Penguin Books could not produce favorable evidence about market share not being affected
Music was not transformed even though it was in a digital copy

Purpose was commercial because the users did not buy CD formats of the music but rather shared them and made digital copies
Original works were creative and then used in the same way

No new use was created/demonstrated
Transferring constitutes using the entire file

Time-shifting (established from Sony Corporation v. Universal City Studios) is not possible with transferring/sharing digital copies of music
Napster hurt the market in two different ways:

-Sale of CDs would decrease
-Would be a barrier to entry for
other companies offering the same
service
Purpose of a thumbnail is identification, so the entire image had to be used
Published creative work online
Commercial

In favor of Arriba because it benefited society and did not hurt Kelly to identify pictures
Would probably help the marketability because the thumbnails would guide users to the pictures
A small portion of the original - 85 seconds of a five minute performance
Published fictional work (performance)
Educational

Noncommerical
Non-profit's use of the footage damaged licensing options of the opera film

Non-profit organization violated fair use principles
Google used "no more than what was necessary" to allow proper access to the works in the cached links
States that creativity of the work, though free for the world to access on Field's website, slightly leans the verdict to Field.
Cached links to the works add to the works and do not supersede them

Links allow users to access the works when the website is down

Helps users to track changes in content of websites over time
Field never licensed or attempted to license the works for monetary gain
Use of the thumbnails was transformative

-Added something to the original
function, instead of simply hosting the
original version

Transformative usage was more important than the limited cell phone download market that Perfect 10 had established
Cell phone download market was only hypothetical and had low weight

Dismissed as a reason for changing the balance of the case

Google was granted fair use of the thumbnails.
Neutral

In order to perform the task of the Google image search, each entire picture was needed
Thumbnails were artistic (like the case Kelly v. ArribaSoft, where a precedent was set with artistic pictures of the American West)

Since the pictures were already published by Perfect 10, they were not protected more heavily by an unpublished image ruling
Use is the exact same as the original copy
Copying the work is similar to renting
a book from the library

Allows individuals to watch the media
later (companies don't always have
control over the access of the media,
so not relevant for defense)
No work added or removed

Time is shifted
-Benefits the consumer rather than
harming the company
Many effects

Court ruled that they wouldn't be able
to tell the effect of the use for a while
because the technology is new

Could decrease the revenue from
commercials and decrease the
attendance at live/theater
performances

*Note: You don't have to sell something for it to be commercial. The digital copy
just has to be transferred/shared.
Final Thought
















Full transcript