Category: copyright

It might not be yours

Both the Chronicle of Higher Ed and Inside Higher Ed are running stories about an AAUP warning that faculty who give MOOC-type courses may not end up owning the content.  According to the Chronicle, the AAUP will be starting a campaign to clarify ownership of faculty intellectual property.

The Chronicle story is at http://chronicle.com/article/AAUP-Sees-MOOCs-as-Spawning/139743

The Inside Higher Ed version is at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/06/13/aaup-session-centers-intellectual-property-and-academic-freedom-online-education-age

You may think it’s yours but…

HathiTrust

Inside Higher Ed today carries a story* indicating that the American Library Assn. is supporting various universities (including UC) and their position in the HathiTrust case.  “HathiTrust is a partnership of academic & research institutions, offering a collection of millions of titles digitized from libraries around the world.”  [See http://www.hathitrust.org/ ] This is a case involving charges of copyright infringement by an organization called the Authors Guild.  We have posted entries about this case before.  The purpose of the HathiTrust is said to be “preserving and providing access to digitized book and journal content from the partner library collections. This includes both in copyright and public domain materials digitized by Google, the Internet Archive, and Microsoft, as well as through in-house initiatives. The partners aim to build a comprehensive archive of published literature from around the world and develop shared strategies for managing and developing their digital and print holdings in a collaborative way. The primary community that HathiTrust serves are the members (faculty, students, and users) of its partners libraries, but the materials in HathiTrust are available to all to the extent permitted by law and contracts, providing the published record as a public good to users around the world.” Generally, faculty who use modern technology in teaching and research have an interest in this case and in more open, rather than restricted, access to materials in digital format.
*http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2013/06/05/librarians-and-colleges-file-briefs-backing-hathitrust

Regents Meeting Coming Next Week

The Regents are meeting March 13-14 – Wednesday-Thursday of next week.  The agenda is only partly online.  At this point it just lists topics without the supporting materials.  One March 13 item is the UCLA Health Sciences Teaching and Learning Center which we are assured won’t cost the campus a penny.  Of course, we know the Regents will carefully undertake a review of the business plan using outside independent expertise and will be monitoring the project after it is built to ensure it is a total success, just as they did, and surely will do, with the Grand Hotel:
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/gb.pdf
They will also be Working Smarter – or at least reviewing plans of the administration to do so:
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/fin.pdf
There will be a review of something called systemwide “social fundraising.”  Yours truly is not exactly sure what that is but Googling suggests it has to do with raising money on the web:
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/edpol.pdf
In the afternoon of March 13, there is a lot of closed activity – including the search for a new UC president and collective bargaining issues.*  Behind the closed doors, there will some discussion of legal actions:  (selection below of cases that have been mentioned in earlier postings on this blog)

  • AIME, et al. v. REGENTS – Case Settled and Judgment in Favor of Regents Entered – Challenge to Streaming of Copyrighted Videos for Classes – Los Angeles
  • AUTHORS GUILD, et al. v. HATHITRUST, et al. – Appeal and Motion for Fees Denied – Copyright Infringement – Systemwide 
  • BAKER, et al. v. KATEHI, et al. – Settlement Approved by Court – Constitutional and State Law Claims Arising from Pepper Spraying Incident – Davis
  • CALDWELL, et al. v. REGENTS – Motion to Stay Trial Court Proceedings Granted – Challenge to Sale of Japanese Garden – Los Angeles
  • FELARCA, et al. v. BIRGENEAU, et al. – Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part – First and Fourth Amendment and Conspiracy Claims Arising from Police Response to Campus Protests – Berkeley
  • PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. PATRICK HARRAN – Preliminary Hearing Concluded – Felony Criminal Charges for Willful Violation of Cal-OSHA Regulations – Los Angeles [This is the lab fire case.]
  • REUTERS AMERICA LLC v. REGENTS – Petition Granted in Part – Petition under California Public Records Act to Compel Release of Performance Records for Private Equity Funds – Office of the President

The full list of cases can be found at:
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/finx.pdf
In an open session, there will be a review of UCPath– the new payroll system that is being implemented.
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/audit.pdf
Moving on to March 14…  There is an item entitled “Change to Appointment Terms for Employees Subject to Mandatory Retirement Age Requirements.”  Mandatory retirement is not allowed under law except for certain top manager types.  This item: http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/comp.pdf  appears to be a holdover from the January meeting at which an end to mandatory retirement was proposed: http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/jan13/g2.pdf
 
There will be a recommendation on “Continuation of Tuition Surcharge” which I assume involves no change in tuition since it is listed as a consent item:**
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/fin1.pdf
The full agenda is at:

http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13.html

*UPDATE: The search process for the new UC president is described in a UC press release:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/29127

**UPDATE: The continuation of the surcharge refers to a surcharge imposed when the Regents lost some litigation relating to professional school fees.
http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar13/f6.pdf

Concerns about Justice Dept. intervention in university library electronic reserves

Inside Higher Ed today has an article concerning a matter on which we have posted in the past.  Increasingly, faculty put material on reserve for students.  Typically, such material is not available to the general public; some kind of password or course registration is required.  Publishers have sued regarding copyright violation in a case involving Georgia State U.  So far, the library there has prevailed.

Apparently, the U.S. Dept. of Justice wants to intervene in the case, and the suspicion is that the intervention will be on the side of the publishers who are appealing a lower court ruling.  You can read the details at:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/01/library-supporters-worry-us-may-back-publishers-copyright-case

Not surprisingly, university librarians are distressed at this possible intervention.  One librarian notes that in olden times (not so long ago), paper format reserves were kept on library shelves for students to read and no one complained. 

Bottom line: University librarians are fearful that the Obama administration – despite its general enthusiasm for technology and education – is about to do them wrong:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyUpg3OFj5A?feature=player_detailpage]

More on the Stream

The Daily Bruin today has a report that UCLA got another favorable decision regarding the use of live-streaming videos for course purposes. Live-streaming means essentially what you see on websites such as YouTube, i.e., a video (or audio) that you click on and it plays from the web.  The video is not a file that is stored on your computer.  The analogy would be that watching a TV broadcast is similar to live-streaming.  Owning a DVD and playing it on your TV is like having a stored file that you play.

Background: There was a prior case in which the university was sued over alleged copyright violation involved in live-streaming for course use.  Briefly, UCLA halted such live-streaming, causing an interruption to classes that were using it.  But the university decided to fight the case and resumed the live-streaming.  In the case that the Bruin now reports, a refiled complaint against UCLA was rejected on a legal technicality, i.e., the merits were not decided.  You can find the article at http://www.dailybruin.com/article/2012/11/court-dismisses-copyright-lawsuit-against-ucla-a-second-time.

If you are using live-streaming, you should know that there is a simple alternative.  Presumably, you have a file in some format (wmv, flv, etc.) that is being used for the streaming.  You can simply provide the video file to students through your course website.  They can then download it and play it.  You should set access to your course website such that it is private, i.e., that only enrolled students can access files in it.  There is, in fact, an advantage in simply providing access to your video file in that manner.  The students can download at their convenience.  Once they have the file, they are not dependent on internet connections or other vagaries of the web to see it.

Legal victory for university consortium that includes UC

Inside Higher Ed is reporting a legal victory concerning a Google/university partnership that involves indexing a vast number of books.  Excerpt:

Much of the work of the HathiTrust (a consortium of universities) to make books in university collections more easily searchable and accessible to people with disabilities is protected by “fair use” and is not subject to a copyright suit brought by authors’ groups, a federal judge has ruled…

I can’t give you the ins and outs of this case but UC is a member of the HathiTrust.  The full Inside Higher Ed article is at:

http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2012/10/11/fair-use-applies-book-digitizing-work-judge-rules

That article links to a legal blog which contains the following interesting passage:

…(T)his opinion together with the Georgia State e-reserve opinion and the UCLA streaming-video opinion strike me as a real trend—universities making internal technological uses of copyrighted works are doing quite well in court of late. Something significant in judicial attitudes towards copyright, computers, and education has clicked into place of late…

See http://laboratorium.net/archive/2012/10/10/hathitrust_wins

If any legal experts have insights as to the significance of this case or other related cases, please add them in the comment option to this posting.  In the UCLA case, some video owners sought to prevent classes at UCLA from using streaming videos as part of course websites.  There was a brief suspension of such videos which disrupted some courses but the university decided the claim was invalid and allowed the streaming while further litigation occurred.

Regents’ Litigation Agenda: Behind Closed Doors

Behind closed doors on July 18th, the Regents will be discussing various items of litigation.  The doors are locked but we do know the items:

AUTHORS GUILD, et al. v. HATHITRUST, et al. – The case has to do with digitalization of “orphan” works at university libraries, not just UC, a project generally supported by university libraries around the U.S.  “Orphan” works are older books that are out of print and either out of copyright or whose copyright holders cannot be determined. 
BAKER, et al. v. KATEHI, et. al. – Mediation Scheduled – Constitutional and State Law Claims Arising from Pepper Spraying Incident – UC-Davis.  There can’t be anyone in the world, or at least anyone reading this blog, who doesn’t know what this case is about.
CALDWELL, et al. v. REGENTS –Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to Prevent Sale of Property Denied – Los Angeles.  This case involves the proposed sale by UCLA of the Hannah Carter Japanese Garden.  It’s true that the TRO was denied but litigation is still pending and, as readers of this blog will know, a judge termed the actions of the Regents in this matter “duplicitous” which should make for an interesting discussion.
CHRISTIAN HEAD, M.D. v. REGENTS – Race Discrimination and Retaliation Complaint Filed – Los Angeles. Many readers will know that this case involves a charge of racial discrimination at the UCLA med school.  The plaintiff and his attorney’s released a YouTube video giving their side of the complaint which went “viral” and prompted a media release by UCLA in response.
The full agenda item is at
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/regmeet/jul12/finx.pdf
Should be an interesting session about which we will know nothing more:

Duly Noted

Dostoyevsky’s notes did get published.  But did you know that UC has rules against students publishing notes taken in class?  There are websites which make a business of publishing student classnotes.  Scroll to the bottom of this entry for an example.  UC threatens legal action when notes from its classes are distributed.


According to CaliforniaWatch:
…The policies raise questions about whether instructors or students have copyrights to the notes students take in class. While the California Education Code prohibits students and others from selling class notes – and many campuses have policies that also ban unauthorized note-selling – critics say students, not instructors, own the copyright to their own notes.   

Some university officials say faculty members have the right to protect their professional reputation – they don’t want inaccurate or low-quality notes to be attributed to them. But others say the university policies are restricting students’ free speech…

Back in the Stream

You may recall a brief episode in which classes which used streaming video at UCLA suddenly had the service cut off – and then restored after a brief interval. The practice of making such video course assignments available over a password-protected network to students was challenged in court as a copyright violation. The university restored the service when it concluded there was not a copyright violation. (You can find earlier posts about this matter on this blog.) A court victory was announced by the university yesterday. However, questions remain about how general the victory is. See below:

Court dismisses lawsuit challenging UCLA practice of streaming instructional videos

Steve Ritea, October 4, 2011, UCLA Today

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging UCLA’s practice of streaming previously purchased video content for educational purposes. In dismissing the copyright lawsuit filed by a video distributor and a trade association for educational video-makers, U.S. District Court Judge Consuelo B. Marshall in Los Angeles ruled Oct. 3 that “the type of access that students and/or faculty may have, whether overseas or at a coffee shop, does not take the viewing of the DVD out of the educational context. The Court finds that the licensing agreement allows [the university] to put the DVD content on the UCLA Internet network as part of the provision of the agreement that [UCLA] could ‘publicly perform’ the DVD content.”…

Full article (including link to actual court decision) at http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/court-supports-ucla-streaming-203459.aspx

Inside Higher Ed has a narrower take on the court ruling, indicating it was decided on narrow technical grounds:

…(L)egal experts say the decision hardly resolved the central question of whether streaming copyrighted videos in online classrooms is protected under the fair use provisions to U.S. copyright law…

Full article at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/10/05/judge_dismisses_ucla_video_streaming_copyright_lawsuit

Note: Streaming video means that the student clicks and then sees the video on his/her computer without downloading it. For example, when you click on a YouTube link and see the video, you are looking at streaming video. Yours truly can tell you that when the temporary cut off of streaming video at UCLA occurred, the university did not cut off student access to files that contained video but had to be downloaded to the student’s computer first to be viewed. (And, of course, course assignments to view videos from public sites such as YouTube were not affected.)

So not to worry. One way or another, we are back in the stream:

Digital Lawsuit Includes UC

Inside Higher Ed reports that UC is among various universities being sued for digitizing “orphan books” (books whose copyrights appear to have expired). It provides a link to the plaintiff’s press release:

Authors Guild, Australian Society of Authors, Quebec Writers Union Sue Five U.S. Universities: Suit seeks impoundment of unauthorized scans of 7 million books

September 12, 2011. This afternoon, we filed suit against HathiTrust, the University of Michigan and four other universities over their storage and use of millions of copyright-protected books. The press release follows: AUTHORS AND AUTHORS’ GROUPS FROM AUSTRALIA, QUEBEC, THE U.K., AND U.S. SUE HATHITRUST, THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, AND FOUR OTHER U.S. UNIVERSITIES FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Digital Files Provided by Google at Issue, As Plaintiffs Seek to Impound Unauthorized Scans of 7 Million Copyright-Protected Books, Pending Congressional Action

NEW YORK – The Authors Guild, the Australian Society of Authors, the Union Des Écrivaines et des Écrivains Québécois (UNEQ), and eight individual authors have filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court against HathiTrust, the University of Michigan, the University of California, the University of Wisconsin, Indiana University, and Cornell University. Plaintiff authors include children’s book author and illustrator Pat Cummings, novelists Angelo Loukakis, Roxana Robinson, Danièle Simpson, and Fay Weldon, poet André Roy, Columbia University professor and Shakespeare scholar James Shapiro, and Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award winning biographer T.J. Stiles…

Full story with link to press release above at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/09/13/qt#270222

Update: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/09/19/michigan_admits_flaws_in_hathitrust_system_for_identifying_orphan_works