Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] copyright

In response to Richard Hake's multiple postings last night on "several discussion lists" regarding his views on what is allowed under copyright..., i.e. that passing on pdfs (technically transmitting copies of the file) of a copyright article to a group of people is okay.

Richard

I cannot see how you can draw the conclusion (below) that this is fair use based on the quote you give (which surely should not be a quote if it is in your own 'translated' words): it is clearly NOT covered because a whole article is being reproduced electronically and distributed to several people. If copyright is reserved for the article, then this will almost certainly be an infringement of the conditions of use. (Please see my posting to PHYSLRNR-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU on 15th instant.) I think it is a little dangerous to post suggestions that such copyright infringements are covered by fair use.

An individual can obtain a paper copy of an article for private study from a library (and in the UK will have to sign at that point to agree to the conditions of not passing it on, copying it again, etc - I have had copies of many things from the British Library over the years and my Library makes me sign before they hand the copy over).

Individuals can also quote small sections of most works for criticism and scholarship purposes.

That does NOT mean people are entitled to distribute copies of copyright material to others, and I think it is misleading to suggest otherwise. Of course some people ignore this, just as some people share copyright music using illegal download sites. In principle there is no difference between a teenager uploading the latest CD to a download site because they think it should be shared, and a lecturer posting multiple copies of a pdf to friends or list members despite not owning the copyright.

Earlier in this thread (Tuesday, July 17, 2012 ) you posted:

"...To which D.J. Wagner (DJW) responded: "One copy means one physical copy.
I VERY MUCH DOUBT THAT IT DOES.
How could one physical paper copy be distributed to a group..."

Well I think you are just wrong here. DJW is quite right.

You support your assumption by suggesting this would make it impossible for multiple copies to be legally distributed to a group of people. But this is indeed the case - that would not be legal if the material is protected by copyright. (Teaching is an exception in most cases where there is a license agreement that covers distribution of class sets of some, not all, texts - and in the UK it all has to be recorded *). But you could not send multiple copies to your friends - I'm afraid they each have to go to a library and request their own copy.)

I am not a librarian, but I am worried that you are so strongly telling people they can do things that I understand are clearly copyright infringements, and which in my institution all teaching staff are encouraged to be aware of. Obviously none of this applied if a licence has been granted for reproduction such as the open commons licence or where an organisation wishes to waive copyright. (I wrote materials for RSC which the RSC CHOOSES to allow free reproduction of within schools and colleges.)

Generally, though, you can get one copy hard of a paper from a library for personal use, or you can download a pdf from the journal site if there is subscription subject to agreeing NOT to pass it on to others. I do not think you should encourage other professionals to believe passing on pdfs of copyright articles is okay, just because a lot of people do it and it would make life difficult if we all had to obey the conditions of use. We both know a lot of people exceed speed limits; a lot of people do not declare all their income for tax purposes; etc, etc. Common behaviour is not always legal behaviour, or indeed morally justifiable behaviour.

* This is not a victimless crime either, as authors we will all be judged (and in some cases, even paid royalties) by how many copies of our writings are accessed. In the UK the Authors' Licensing & Collecting Society collects dues for authors form photocopying in libraries, etc. I understand that in my University there were 10985 electronic downloads relating to my book introducing classroom research (**) in 2011. Such figures become meaningless if multiple copies are being spread around that are not counted.

Best

Keith


(* i.e.,* Taber, K. S. (2007). Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: a guide for teachers. London: Sage.)


At 22:04 -0700 18/7/12, Richard Hake wrote:
AERA-K: Teaching and Teacher Education Forum

Some subscribers to AERA-J and AERA-K might be interested in a recent discussion-list post "Re: copyright" [Hake (2012)]. The abstract reads:

****************************************
ABSTRACT: PhysLrnR's William Baraway [sic, he has pointed out to you this should be Barowy]: "I've pulled down a pdf of "Learning Trajectory Based Instruction: Toward a Theory of Teaching," Educational Researcher 41(5): 147-156 and I think it is legal to share in this context. If there is interest, just let me know."

To which PhysLrnR's D.J. Wagner (DJW) responded (paraphrasing): "I can download pdfs from several journals, as may my students. However, according to our librarians, I cannot download a pdf to a network folder that I share with students."

I think that DJW's making pdf's available to her students would be in accord with "Fair Use" of copyrighted material as provided for in Sections 107 and 108 of the US Copyright Law; see e.g., Cornell University Law School information for Sect. 107 at <http://bit.ly/eNseEp> and Sect. 108 at <http://bit.ly/qyWm2Y>.

In the latter it's stated that (translating from legalise to English): "it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives to reproduce no more than one copy of a work, and to distribute such copy, provided the distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and includes a notice that the work is or may be protected by copyright."

It should be noted that standardista-basher Susan Ohanian <http://bit.ly/LPTI2p>, Net-Gold's
David Dillard <http://yhoo.it/Ob44aC>, and Math-Teach's indefatigable Jerry Becker <http://bit.ly/OOwkNZ> have all been distributing copyrighted material for years without substantive problems. Doubtless the verb "becker," meaning "to distribute copyrighted material free of charge, consistent with 'Fair Use', " will doubtless make it into Webster's by 2020.
****************************************

To access the complete 9 kB post please click on <http://bit.ly/LWmBtO>.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0>
Links to SDI Labs: <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M>
Academia: <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm>
Blog: <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh>
Twitter <http://bit.ly/juvd52>
GooglePlus: <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE>

REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and accessed on 17 July 2012.
Hake, R.R. 2012. "Re: copyright" online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/LWmBtO>. Post of 17 Jul 2012 09:34:35 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/LwI2jv> with a provision for comments.

--

Dr. Keith S. Taber

Editor: Chemistry Education Research and Practice
(Published by the Royal Society of Chemistry)
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/rp/about.asp


Book Reviews Editor: Studies in Science Education
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/03057267.asp


Senior Lecturer in Science Education
Science Education Centre
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education
184 Hills Road
Cambridge CB2 8PQ
United Kingdom
http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.html
https://camtools.cam.ac.uk/access/wiki/site/~kst24/index.html