WIPO Copyright Curriculum

Location: wipo.int/freepublications/en/copyright/935/wipo_pub_935.pdf

Target Audience: 8 to 13 year olds

Normative Values: The World Intellectual Property Organization is an agency of the United Nations dedicated to developing a balanced international IP system.  The group promotes the use of IP as a catalyst for economic development, and encourages law makers to recognize IP concerns when developing national programs.   WIPO endeavors to increase public understanding of IP, and regularly hosts gatherings to facilitate discussion among industry professionals and policy makers.

Information Presented:

                  WIPO has created a workbook, Learn for the Future, Create from the Past: The Arts and Copyright, for elementary and middle school-aged children.  The materials are arranged into four general topics under which frequently asked questions are addressed.  Student activities, profiles of real-life young artists, and “Beware!” boxes detailing often-overlooked regulations punctuate the workbook.

The Arts

The workbook begins by defining the types of "works" that society considers as art.  Creative expression can be conveyed through various forms of media, and benefits society in diverse ways. The ease with which young people can harness creativity is emphasized throughout the materials, and students are encouraged to put their imaginations to work in art-creating activities.  Portraits of young artists from around the world also punctuate the pages, providing real life glimpses into the creative process. The materials note that, while technology has made the works of skilled artists available to more people and enabled artists to make a living from selling reproductions, it has also created the need for creators to maintain control over copying.  Copyright serves to protect artists' ability to profit from their works and retain control over their creations.

Copyright

         Copyright is defined within the larger scope of Intellectual Property as protecting original works of various forms, from written compositions to computer programs.  The materials note, in all capital letters, however, that copyright does NOT protect ideas or facts, but rather the way in which those ideas are expressed.  The materials demonstrate, and ask students to consider further, the many ways in which a single idea can be embodied. Ownership of copyright, and the rights that ownership conveys, are discussed.  "Beware!" boxes alert students to important misconceptions and limitations on copyright, such as the "First sale doctrine," and the fact that owning a copy of a work does not make one the owner of its content for copyright purposes.  Copyright terms and variations between countries are addressed, as are the organizations and collecting societies that aid copyright owners in enforcing their rights.  The activities prompt students to create their own copyrightable works and test them on their understanding of whose permission must be obtained to clear certain rights.

Public Domain and Copyright Limitations

         Discussing the public domain as well as exceptions for free and personal uses, the materials recognize the necessity of balancing mechanisms in copyright law.  The workbook defines the public domain, and explains both how works enter and how to locate public domain works.  “Beware!” boxes note that copyright attaches to derivative works, even if based on public domain materials, and that the availability of a work on the Internet does not automatically mean it is free to use.  A list of websites where students can locate free or public domain works is also included.

Copyright Infringement

         The final section of materials deals with copyright infringement.  Forms of infringement, including plagarism and peer-to-peer sharing of copyrighted files, are defined.  Focusing on music piracy, the materials list several reasons why students should not engage in illegal uploading and downloading.  Activities ask students to identify if and how infringement has occurred.  The concept of Digital Rights Management is also introduced.

Strongest Part: The materials strive to connect the topics being discussed with young creators and consumers.  By describing the contributions of numerous young artists, the workbook helps instill students with an appreciation for creative content.

Weakest Part: Children change dramatically between the ages of 8 and 13.  Some of the concepts may be too complex for 8 year olds to grasp, while the appearance of the materials and activities provided may be too elementary for middle school students.  Even if the content is not changed dramatically, multiple versions targeting more distinct age groups would be advisable.

Suggested Improvements:

Fair use needs to be addressed.  While the materials, on the whole, are fairly balanced in their approach, the fair use doctrine is completely overlooked.

More specific materials addressing new forms of online creation that students may be taking part in, such as online video content, should be included.

Aspects to Consider Using:

Considering the availability of the Internet – and the high-profile of Internet-related copyright concerns – the materials should both better inform students of the risks and opportunities posed by digital media, and incorporate activities that introduce them to copyright concerns online.  While providing lists of websites is helpful, an online tutorial or game implementing the ideas taught may prove more engaging. 

At various points, the workbook prompts students to create their own artistic work.  Perhaps a website could be established where students could upload and/or register their creations, and view the creations of other students who have completed the program.  Seeing the unique ways in which other students express similar ideas may aid them in better understanding and appreciating the premium placed on creative expression.

Materials could be tailored to more distinct age ranges (i.e. one workbook for elementary school and one for middle school), employing age-appropriate graphics and examples.

Close Up Foundation Curriculum

Copyright Curriculum – Close Up Foundation – Face the Music Program

· Location: http://www.closeup.org/ftm_homehtm.php (Free registration required)

· Target audience: High School

· Normative Values: The Close Up Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit provider of “civic education.” Their mission is to “educate, inspire, and empower individuals to become active citizens in our democracy.” They do this through a civics-oriented student field trip program to Washington D.C., as well as through supplemental social studies texts and videos for the classroom. They are backed by a long list of sponsors including large corporations (Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Exxon) and smaller foundations. They are one of the educational sources linked to by the RIAA, though they don’t appear to be in partnership in any way.

· Information Presented: The Close Up Foundation’s Face the Music program includes an eight minute video on illegal downloading, a “viewing guide” worksheet for kids to fill out as they watch, five suggested teaching activities, and eight “issue briefings” on specific subjects which can be incorporated into the activities.

o Video: I could not gain access to the video, but the website gives the following description: “Hear what Erin, Matt, Avni, Nishant, and Maggie have to say about illegal downloading and watch as they wrestle with the legal and ethical questions inherent in the issue…Also find out what American University student Brenda thinks of illegal downloading and what music store owner Fred Wilbur says is happening to his business as a result of illegal downloading. And listen in as an up-and-coming rock musician, one who is using the Internet to attract attention to his band, weighs in with his thoughts about following the law and making music and money.”

o Viewing guide: A set of questions about the movie. Some are aimed at just making sure students are paying attention (“List three reasons people in the video give for illegally downloading music”) while others encourage reflection (“Several people in the video compare the act of illegal downloading with that of shoplifting. What is your take on this comparison?”)

o Issue briefings: Each of the eight briefings goes into some detail on a specific issue related to music downloading. They range from general concepts like fair use and public domain, to legislation like the Sonny Bonno Copyright Term Extension Act, to landmark legal decisions like Sony v. Universal and Grokster. Each briefing is followed by discussion questions.

o Teaching Activities: Methods for facilitating discussion on music downloading. Includes anticipatory activities intended to get students brainstorming about

what they already know about music, as well as activities based on the issue briefings, where students come together to teach other what they’ve learned. Helpful discussion questions are included.

· Strongest Part: Many of the issue briefings and discussion questions are very well constructed, giving students the opportunity to delve into some of the details and controversies behind ©. One of the accompanying teaching activities also seems useful: The curriculum suggests that teachers divide the class into groups, with each group in charge of reading, discussing, and mastering one issue briefing. The teacher should then mix the students up into new groups, with each group containing at least one “expert” on each issue. These experts then teach their new group members the issue they have mastered.

· Weakest Part: Though I haven’t seen the video, it seems clear based on the description and viewing questions that it adds little to the discussion. While the issue briefings nicely summarize important arguments, and raise controversial issues, the video’s only aim seems to be to convince kids that illegal downloading is bad. This may be a valid point, but it doesn’t do much to enhance student’s understanding of the issue, which at the high school level should really be the goal.

· Aspects to Consider Using:

o The curriculum does an excellent job of highlighting the inherent tensions in copyright law between creators and consumers of content. This is drawn out in discussion questions like “When do you think a copyrighted work should move into the public domain? Keep in mind the interests of those who work to create and author original works, and the interests of the public in having unrestricted access to those works.” This tension is central to any meaningful discussion of ©, and is glaringly absent from many other curricula.

o Many of the discussion questions ask students to consider what kind of rules they would impose to best meet the goals of copyright. This is an excellent way to encourage reflection on the current copyright regime. For example, one question asks, “If you could write copyright law, how would you protect the rights of authors and creators as well as the interests of businesses and consumers?” Another asks, “how do you think the nation should respond to constantly changing technological capabilities? Are there any ethical or legal guidelines that you believe must be followed as new policies are made, implemented, and evaluated? If so, what are they?”

o The curriculum contains a discussion of copyright law in the context of the U.S. Constitution, something lacking in many of the other curricula currently available. Following this discussion, it asks the question, “Why was promoting ‘the Progress of Science and useful Arts’ important to the framers of the nation’s government?” It also asks, “Should Congress be allowed to extend copyright terms? Do you think it is good public policy? Do you think it is constitutional? Why or why not?”

Center for Social Media Fair Use Materials

Location: http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/fair_use/

Target Audience: Documentary filmmakers and creators of online video content

Normative Values: The Center for Social Media promotes creative use of media, specifically documentaries, as a means of disseminating knowledge and encouraging public action.  Concerned with the media environment in which innovators operate, the Center embraces fair use rights, and it strives to provide a fair use framework within which filmmakers can operate.  Fair use and other limitations on copyright are touted as being just as necessary to preserving cultural integrity as the protections placed on creative works.

Information Presented: Focusing on documentary film making, the Center for Social Media provides a wealth of materials discussing fair use in film and online video contexts.

A. Publications

• Recut, Reframe Recycle:  The report focuses on nine types of re-appropriation commonly used in the creation of online video content.  Research reveals that in many situations, such appropriation constitutes fair use.  Thus, concerns arise that efforts to crack down on piracy will inevitably stifle the creation of legal content as well.  The genres of videos considered were parody and satire, works quoting material to generate discussion, incidental use, illustrations or examples, personal reporting, archiving of vulnerable materials, as well as both critical and positive commentary.  After noting general trends in online video creation, the report addresses each of the use types in relation to the fair use doctrine.  While many of the uses can be assessed – and pass muster – using traditional fair use analysis, the report notes that “mashups” and other types of genre-bending videos raise new questions at the boundaries of fair use doctrine.  The report clearly views fair use as a right that deserves utmost protection, while recognizing the interest of creators to safeguard their works from piracy.
  
• Fair Use Frequently Asked Questions:  The FAQ page addresses concerns regarding industry adoption of the Best Practices statement, the need to attribute copyrighted material, the portion of a work that may be borrowed, the relevance to fair use of an organization's commercial status, whether fair use is distinct from “stealing,” and the scope of the doctrine. 
• Unauthorized: The Copyright Conundrum in Participatory Video:  Summarizing the findings of an April 2007 conference on the management of copyright in emerging Internet environments, the report asserts that overly rigid measures restricting use of copyrighted materials on open video spaces are detrimental to both commerce and society.  Research evidences that most new online creators appropriate material in good faith, though they admit confusion as to the application of copyright in the open video context.  Most online video providers fail to inform users of either copyright restrictions or fair use exceptions.  The report recommends that educational institutions, including universities and libraries, bear the burden of supporting responsible online behavior and educating Internet users about copyright.  Having an understanding of balancing mechanisms such as fair use and Section 512 of the DMCA, the report concludes, is essential for any online video creator.
• The Good, the Bad, and the Confusing: User-Generated Video Creators on Copyright:  Documenting the results of a survey of college-age online video creators, the report reflects the significance of informing first-time content creators of what they can -- and cannot -- legally appropriate in their works, before use habits are established.  Fifty-one survey participants and 15 interviewees, discussed (though not without hesitation) their practices of incorporating content during online video creation.  Their responses revealed a general misunderstanding of both copyright and fair use principles.  Although over 3/4 of those questioned expressed familiarity with the fair use doctrine, none could accurately define what it covers.  The respondents expressed concern over "grey areas" of copyright law, which they attempted to ameliorate by personally defining "good" and "bad" practices (e.g. noncommercial and commercial, personal and public).  The report concludes that among the selected group of college educated, cutting edge creators, all of whom hoped to have a career in media and remain legally in the right, copyright is a misunderstood doctrine.  The researchers assert that better informed creators will more effectively facilitate the development of new practice models as copyright and fair use are translated to innovative forms of media.
• Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use:  In 2005, the CSM devised a best practices statement to counsel documentary filmmakers on the inclusion of copyrighted material in their films.  The statement outlines four use scenarios, and explains both the permissions and limitations on use attending the copyrighted works in each.  The document promotes fair use as “a key part of the social bargain at the heart of copyright law,” essential to spurring new creation.  The authors note the acceptance of quoting and borrowing from sources in other fields, such as among scholars and historians, and outlines the questions asked by courts in evaluating whether a particular appropriation of copyrighted content constitutes fair use.  The statement addresses situations where (1) a filmmaker employs protected material as the object of critique, (2) quotes a popular copyrighted work to illustrate an argument or point, (3) captures copyrighted content in the process of filming something else, and (4) uses copyrighted material in a historical sequence.  Each scenario receives comprehensive analysis, yet the guide recognizes that the outlined issues are not exhaustive.  The scenarios, instead, are employed to offer an industry framework for how fair use questions should be approached in any situation that may arise.  The document closes by correcting some common misunderstandings concerning fair use.
• Success of the Statement of Best Practices:  The Center presents its Best Practices statement as a model for creators struggling with fair use questions in the digital age.  This list describes the widespread acceptance and implementation of the Best Practices guide, along with providing specific examples of projects that were seen to fruition only after creators were able to consult the guide and gain and understanding of what they could rightfully appropriate.
• Expanding User Rights for Documentary Filmmakers:  At a 2005 conference, film industry professionals explored the tension between their own interests in copyright protection, and the ability to make use of previously protected materials.  Pervasive issues, including lack of copyright knowledge and the difficulty of tracking down copyright holders, were identified.  Participants examined several approaches, and the on-going projects exemplifying each: investigation, documentation and articulation of both good and bad practices; directly providing legal services; and legal and market policy intervention both directly and indirectly relevant to filmmakers.  Going forward, conference participants proposed education, the formation of institutions, legal reforms, and errors and omissions insurance as key areas to pursue.  Key themes including problem-specific solutions, the value of studying the approaches of other creator, exploring complementary strategies, and stressing cooperation and communication amongst industry professionals were considered integral to navigating "grey areas" of fair use and copyright in the documentary context.

B. Classroom Materials

• Copyright Backgrounder:  Los Angeles attorney Michael Donaldson outlines the protections and limitations of copyright law, focusing on terms relevant to documentary filmmakers.  He stresses that copyright “protect[s] the rights of those who wish to use the author’s material without permission,” as well as the rights of the author.  Donaldson notes the Constitutional origin of copyright, discusses the types of media and activities governed, explains how copyright ownership is assigned, and discusses the contexts in which copyrighted works can be used without obtaining prior permission.  The overview is peppered with criticism of existing policy and a belief in broad fair use allowances.
• Fair Use Course Syllabus:  The syllabus recognizes that while permission generally must be obtained to use copyrighted material in a documentary, situations arise where the fair use doctrine makes obtaining such permission unnecessary.  Filmmakers are encouraged  to consult the Center’s Best Practices guide as a rubric for deciding whether a proposed use would fall within the excepted category.  Assessing whether the proposed use will be “transformative” remains the key question.  A list of additional documents addressing varied copyright and fair use questions is also provided.
• Fair Use Scenarios:  The worksheet details four hypothetical situations a filmmaker could face, and poses questions concerning whether specific material can be incorporated under fair use principles.  The scenarios cover incorporating scenes from popular films into documentary essays, dealing with the appearance of copyrighted material in the background of one’s film, and using a previously unpublished crime scene photograph in a film documenting a 40-year old murder.

C. More Information

• Fair Use and Best Practices: Surprising Success:  This article reiterates the Center's position that fair use remains the "most important feature" in ensuring copyright's constitutionality.  The Best Practices statement concerning fair use has garnered wide support within the film making and independent television communities, as well as being held up as a model within the legal community.  Release of the statement has encouraged production studios and industry attorneys to insure fair use claims in compliance with the Statement.  The article concludes with the observation that other creative communities have begun to look to the Statement as they attempt to craft similar policies.
• Copyright, Fair Use and Motion Pictures:  An essay describing the history of copyright controversies within the film industry as a whole, as well as in relation to documentary film making.  The essay explains the fair use doctrine, and details cases that show fair use principles in action.  The courts' recognition of industry practices regarding fair use paved the way for issuance of the Statement of Best Practices.  The essay reemphasizes the immediate impact of the Statement on then-pending projects, and discusses its wider recognition and adoption.  In closing, an excerpt from the Best Practices guide is included.
• How Documentary Filmmakers Overcame Their Fear of Quoting and Learned to Employ Fair Use:  Detailing the results of a Center research project, Untold Stories, this report asserts that fair use principles prove most effective when professionals have knowledge of and expressed expectations concerning fair use.  While the idea of fair use has been somewhat maligned in the past, courts have been recognizing applications of the doctrine more frequently.  Nevertheless, film making professionals, Center surveys revealed, remain ignorant of core aspects of the doctrine.  Misunderstanding has had a chilling effect on expression, the report argues.  While balancing mechanisms such as fair use exist and operate to preserve freedom of expression, filmmakers cannot assert rights that they do not fully understand.
• How To Find Out What Is in the Public Domain:  A detailed chart linking the type of work and its date of creation to the copyright term it is under and the date upon which it will enter the public domain.
• Fair Use: An Essential Feature of Copyright:  A transcript of Peter Jazi's 2005 testimony before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.  Jazi asserts that the success of the U.S. copyright regime stems not only from the comprehensive protection it grants, but that balancing mechanisms, such as fair use, that operate in favor of creators, educators, students and consumers.  While courts have continued to support and apply the fair use doctrine, Jazi notes that it remains under threat as long as creative communities hesitate to proactively define fair use practices. Jazi both defines and dispels misconceptions concerning the fair use doctrine.  He argues that the doctrine both spurs creativity and enables consumers to make full personal use of purchased products.  Yet, fair use is under attack, he asserts, by DRM and anti-circumvention measures, areas in which traditional fair use exceptions do not apply.
• "Yes, you can!" - Where you don't even need 'fair use':  Common instances where the incorporation of copyrighted material falls within the scope of "free use" are discussed. Filmmakers generally need not concern themselves with clearance right when filming public buildings, government works, works in the public domain, people in public places, the incidental appearance of logos, or potential "rights of publicity."  
• The "Statement of Best Practices" FAQ:  Providing a list of questions and answers concerning the purpose, motivation, contents and scope of the Center's Best Practices statement, the FAQ reiterates the need for and success of the Statement.  Common misunderstandings about copyright and prevalent concerns over relying on fair use are also addressed.
• Untold Stories: Creative Consequences of the Rights Clearance Culture for Documentary Filmmakers:  The full report detailing the results of the Center's 2004 study on the habits of video content creators.  Interviewing 45 documentary filmmakers, researchers confirmed that rights clearance requirements and the threats posed by noncompliance pose creative and financial challenges to documentary filmmakers.  Describing the rights clearance process as costly and arduous, filmmakers struggle with the stiff rights clearance expectations gatekeepers tend to impose.  Furthermore, rights holders may flat out refuse to afford clearance to the filmmaker.  The changes and concessions filmmakers are forced to make, notes the report, adversely affect the quality and public availability of documentary films.  At the same time, filmmakers tend to support and impose the same rights clearance demands on others.  Rights clearance could be better managed, the researchers contend, through the increased utilization of fair use principles, the effective facilitation of the clearance process, and a more widespread understanding of the rights of filmmakers themselves.  The report further recommends that the industry focus on adopting a statement of "Best practices" and form legal resource centers to assist filmmakers struggling with clearance questions.

D. Videos

• Remix Culture:  A short video providing examples of the different ways in which copyright material is reappropriated in the creation of online video content. The film illustrates the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a soundtrack, remix, mashup, commentary, parody, bloopers, character appropriation and fan tribute montage.
• Fair Use and Free Speech:  Chronicles the hype around the release of the Best Practices statement in 2005.  The video stresses the importance of being able to access copyrighted material to cultural development.  Fair use acts as a safeguard against misuse of copyright. Both professors and filmmakers comment on prevalent attitudes within the filmmaking industry toward fair use, and how the Statement provides needed guidance in the area.  The film then walks through the four scenarios set out in the Statement.
• Stories Untold: Summarizes the results of the Center's 2004 study on filmmakers' relationship with copyright and fair use.  The film features creators discussing challenges they have encountered in relation rights clearance, and reflects their concerns over the future of the fair use doctrine.
• Refrigerator Mothers: Using Kartemquin Films' Refrigerator Mothers as its example, these two sets of clips demonstrate where the filmmaker elected to claim fair use rights in the reappropriation of material, and instances in which the filmmaker chose to purchase the rights.
• Fair Use and Documentaries in Court:  Nine different videos detail  the nine court cases since 1996 that have dealt with the concept of fair use in film making.  Filmmakers that have embraced principles similar to those defined in the 2005 Statement have won when challenged by rights holders in court.  The unfounded fear of prosecution prevalent among filmmakers is further diminished by the revelation that only five plaintiffs were involved, as two of the plaintiffs brought two suits each.  
• UFVA and Center for Social Media Fair Use Contest Winners:  Recognizes those films that best exemplified good faith efforts to employ fair use principles and extend the concept beyond the situations described in the Statement of Best Practices.  
• Examples of Successful Fair Use in Documentary Film: Four different clips demonstrating successful reappropriation of material under the fair use context provide viewers with concrete examples of the doctrine in operation.  Each video represents a different type of appropriation, from critical commentary to the use of archival material in a historical sequence.
• Footage from the Fair Use and Free Speech Launch:  Scenes from the event commemorating the release of the Statement of Best Practices on Nov. 18, 2005.

Strongest Part:  The materials do a good job of tying the discussion of fair use principles into real world examples of fair use practices being successfully implemented.  Using online video to underscore the topics discussed concerning video creation further connects the ideas being outlined to concrete works.  The incorporation of clips featuring recognizable material encourages viewer engagement in the topics being addressed.

Weakest Part:  The materials spend alot of time promoting the protection of fair use rights, but provide minimal information on copyright protection.  Other than the copyright backgrounder, the documents seem to take for granted that readers have a basically knowledge of what rights a copyright holder does have in restricting use of his works.  

Suggested Improvements:  The Center needs to more fully address the basic protections provided by copyright law, alongside the discussion of fair use exceptions.  Since teens actively participate in online video creation, it would be helpful to provide documents targeted toward younger readers, in an effort to engage them in responsible practices before they develop a disregard for copyright.  While the Center's own studies recognize the contributions of young, first-time creators, the materials largely focus on practices espoused by industry veterans.  One presumes that they are more likely to be adapting an existing understanding of copyright to new media, rather than plunging into video creation with little knowledge of copyright at all.

Aspects to Consider Using:

The Center might consider having industry professionals maintain a blog detailing their struggles and success with copyright-related issues.  This would allow other filmmakers to see fair use principles in action, while detailing the process of obtaining rights clearance when it arises.

Another alternative would be to conduct interviews with documentary filmmakers who have adhered to the best practices guide, and have them discuss those instances in which it has helped, as well as areas where guidance is still lacking.

Material targeting young filmmakers, such as a kid-friendly video or interactive tutorial, would be helpful in preparing the next generation of media professionals to enter the industry better informed regarding copyright/fair use practices than their predecessors.

RIAA Copyright Curriculum

Copyright Curriculum – Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)

Location: http://www.riaa.com/toolsforparents.php?content_selector=tools_

pe_educators

Target Audience: Grade 3 through college (Different programs target different age groups)

Normative Values: The RIAA is the trade group representing the recording industry in the U.S.  Member record companies generate more than 90% of legitimately distributed recordings.  The RIAA aims to sustain a business and legal landscape that enhances the creative and financial viability of its members.  In pursuit of such objectives, it takes a strong stance against piracy, utilizing a “multi-faceted approach” to combat its effect on the industry.  The group has initiated numerous lawsuits against file-sharing service providers and individual users, alike, in its efforts to curb unauthorized downloading.  Through a combination of education, innovation and, as noted above, enforcement, the RIAA seeks to ensure the continued viability of the recording industry in a digital world.

Information Presented: Four separate programs comprise the RIAA’s educational initiative.  Each emphasizes informing young Internet users of existing copyright laws and equipping them to act responsibly on that knowledge. 

Music Rules! (www.music-rules.com): The Music Rules! website offers free PDF materials for both educators and parents.  Teachers may also fill out a form requesting hard copies of the resources provided.  Each of the four lessons contains is subdivided into material appropriate for students in grades 3 through 5, and activities adapted for use at the middle school level.  In general, both levels provide the same information.  The middle school materials tend to expound upon the ideas presented through more in-depth activities.

Teachers Guide:  The Teacher’s Guide introduces the program, explains how to access the online materials, introduces key terms used in the materials, and provides instructions for each of the four lessons.  A list of additional online resources is also provided.

 

Classroom Materials: Both the elementary and middle school level materials are divided into four activities: Music Rules!, Meet the Music Makers, It’s the Law, and Make Your Own Music.  A separate worksheet combining information with activities to complete accompanies each lesson.  The topics covered at the elementary and middle school levels are identical.  However, middle school students are given slightly more involved assignments, and are encouraged to use technology in the course of the program. The same graphics and examples appear on both sets of worksheets.

 

Classroom Poster: Proclaiming “True Music Fans Play by the Rules!” the full color poster, downloadable from the website, stresses key points covered in the lessons.

 

Parent Brochure: The curriculum includes a brochure for students to take home to their parents, describing the Music Rules! program.  The pamphlet provides the family with an Internet Safety Checklist as well as answers to common questions concerning copyright.  Although the materials do address general Internet safety, music piracy remains the focus of the prescribed rules.  The Questions About Copyright section of the materials gives a basic outline of what one can and cannot legally do with digital music.

 

Assemblies and Online Curriculum (Grades 3-12)

I-Safe’s Beat Street assemblies: These programs introduce third and fourth graders to basic copyright concepts and vocabulary.  Videos and interactive skits are used to engage students in how one’s responsibilities as a citizen of the physical world translate into the online community.  The assemblies contain 30-45 minutes of material.

 

Music Rules: Learn Before U Burn Experience:  The presentation targets fifth through twelfth graders.  Students are instructed how to make responsible choices regarding the use of digital media.  The program includes both recorded and interactive components, and is 60 minutes in duration. 

Students and parents are directed to www.isafe.org, which offers additional educational materials for order.

 

Face the Music: Copyright, Art and the Digital Age (High School)

Face the Music, A program developed by The Close Up Foundation, strives to initiate classroom conversation on intellectual property issues.  Students take a Constitution-based approach to understanding the copyright framework, and how existing law applies in the digital world.  Employing readings, videos and additional materials, the program is touted as an “appealing introduction” to the intersection of music, the Internet, and copyright.  Educators are directed to www.closeup.org where they can register their school in order to access online materials.

 

Video for University Students (College)

The RIAA, in connection with EDUCAUSE and the American Council on Education, has developed an 8-minture video on the potential consequences of illegal file sharing.  The short film features a University of North Carolina student who was penalized with six months home confinement after being prosecuted for music piracy.  The video may be downloaded for free at www.campusdownloading.com.

 

Strongest Part: The various activities connect ideas of copyright protection to real world examples and explanations.  Younger students are introduced to the multiple players that work to release and benefit from the legitimate sales of successful albums.  This puts a concrete, human face on what would otherwise be intangible topics to elementary and middle school-aged kids.  Encouraging them to create their own creative work – and ensuring them of its protected status – also aids them in understanding why a creator might want to protect the art he produces.

 

Weakest Part: The RIAA materials dwell on the illegality and potential ramifications of unauthorized file sharing.  To the educated reader, the materials sound too propaganda-like to be taken seriously, a factor that may deter older students from giving them due consideration. At the middle and high school levels where the materials do not appear to be adequately complex, the lessons may come across as patronizing.

 

Suggested Improvements:

1. A more complete picture of the copyright regime needs to be presented.  Older students likely will recognize the materials’ one-sided view, and remain skeptical of its assertions.  Discussing concepts such as fair use that push back against the rules espoused would be a better means of encouraging respect for those protections that do exist.  Older students will be more willing to consider a view that effectively addresses alternative arguments.

 

2. While perhaps appropriate at the elementary level, the Music Rules! materials need to be more complex at the middle school level.  Eighth graders are not going to take curriculum that asks them to create an imaginary class record company for recording and distributing anti-piracy songs very seriously.  Middles school students should be provided with additional “real world” examples, as this is the age at which most kids will begin to download material on their own.

 

3. Students rarely pay attention to either videos or school assemblies, as both are viewed as “free time” away from classroom instruction.  Using more interactive rather than passive instruction methods would better command attention. 

 Aspects to Consider Using

1. Technology could be better implemented into the curriculum.  The middle school Music Rules! materials do have students make a “computer presentation” of what they have learned and encourage additional online research, but it seems that Internet resources could be more directly utilized.  After all, this is a program educating kids on digital music.  Perhaps an online interactive tutorial could be implemented to introduce students to the types of sites and file-sharing programs that violate copyright laws while alerting them to legal ways to access music through the Internet.

 

2. While including testimony from a college student who was prosecuted for file sharing may be influential, having musicians and industry professionals speak on the state of digital music would also be beneficial.  Many will view legal prosecution with a “that won’t happen to me” attitude.  Hearing the reasoning of the creators themselves would better encourage respect for copyrighted works.

 

3. Scenarios depicting use that is permitted could be added to the Music Rules! worksheets so that students have a better sense of what they can do with digital music, rather than just specific instances where copying and sharing violate the law.  

List of Curricula

Here's a list of all the efforts I've come across to teach copyright law to kids and other laypersons. In the absence of anything better, this can also function as a sign-up sheet for doing the one-page reviews. Just claim what you'd like in the comments?

Entertainment Software Association -- COMPLETE

Library of Congress -- COMPLETE

World Intellectual Property Organization -- http://www.copyrightalliance.org/files/u227/wipo_pub_935.pdf

Close Up Foundation -- Face the Music -- http://www.closeup.org/ftm_homehtm.php

Campusdownloading.com (Promoted by RIAA)

Music-Rules.com (Promoted by RIAA)

ASCAP and i-Safe present Donny the Downloader -- www.ascap.com/resource/dtd/

i-Learn in partnership with Microsoft -- ilearn.isafe.org

Creative Commons -- learn.creativecommons.org/

British Music Rights -- Sound Rights (launching Spring '08)

British IP Office THINK Kit -- http://www.ipo.gov.uk/education/education-school/education-thinkkit.htm

Citizens Media Law Project -- http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide

Podcasting Legal Guide -- http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Podcasting_Legal_Guide

Nolo.com Copyright Resource Center

wiki examples

(from other projects)

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ipg/Main_Page
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/muslimcommunities/Main_Page
http://www.is2k7.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

notes from DIY copyright workshop

led by Joi Ito and Jennifer Jenkins

Copyright

1) what can you use?

• not covered by cprt
• covered, but using with exception (fair use)
• is it available under a generous license (CC)

otherwise, must obtain permission

if you cant find owner = orphan work

2) is it covered?

Originality (their original work, not incredibly original) + fixed in tangible medium (written, video, etc) + “proper subject matter: EXPRESSION” – how you express an idea, not an idea itself

NOT COVERED: facts, ideas, titles, methods, systems, names, short phrases, slogans, list of ingredients, etc (perhaps trademark but not copyright)

3) copyrights in video

• literary works including software
• music – cpt to publisher (music written), and to label (the sound recording)
• video
• graphic, scultpture
• choreography
• architectural works : public buildings ok (but not trademark smtms)

4) what rights in copyright? (not all works get all 5 rights)

• reproduce.copy – ALL
• derivitative works – all
• distribute – all
• perform (not sound, graphic, architecture)
• display (not sound or architecture)

copyright is supposed to promote progress (in constitution) – giving incentive to creators, financial, but not lock down creativity -

5) what is derivative (20^th century)

“recasting the work in order to bring it into a new medium” – what is “transformative” is very complicated

6) how long? Constitution requires limitation so that it can go back into the public domain. Individual – life +70, institution 90-100 yrs

7) changes in law – 1989 – don’t need to register, don’t need to re-register – copyright is automatic.

***US vs. EU copyright. JI: before US was pirating from Europe, grudgingly accepted, now us commercial interest is pushing beyond European (archaic) copyright laws. Lawrence Lessig: “we were born a copyright nation” – rationale: young country, need room to grow, etc (similar to dev. Countries now)

Chart by peter hurdle in cornell www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain to learn if something is copyrighted – very messy and complex

8) sources of work you can use

*trademark *right of publicity *privacy torts

--

CC

Questions you need to answer to determine which licenses you want to use.

6 core licences.

Complicated: what is commercial use? What if blogger has ads? Depending on community norms may be different

CC is not technical, it’s emotional

Non-commercial : if purpose is to get it out there will limit possibilities: less likely to be exploited rather than big company erring on side of caution and not use it. but then, Virgin billboard case, CC gets sued, used CC photo of a girl

Statistics: people become more permissive year after year (because they want to share, and realize that sharing is a point and retaining too many licenses is limiting)

CC going to court – adam curry – mainstream media uses photos w/o attributions

Cc is not giving it away – have a lot of requirements

When does commercial makes sense? Eg – musicisan – fans can listen but movie must pay – giving away non-commerical use is a good way to promote music, but allows u to retain much of income

share alike – mostly for community work, to build body of commons. Not good if you want to get picked up by mainstream media

Even video producers can’t give to CC<>

Is recontextualizing fair use? (eg, putting photo into wikipedia)

JI: CC is about getting public work into the publid domain – so that everyone can use it. Purists are good for framing the conversation, but too us v. them, all about making everything free

What are the practices? What are ethical guidelines to re-use and re-distribution? Also depends on the community. What about moral rights? Privacy rights?

Eg. Moral consensus for what is appropriate cameraphone use.

Center for social media: for documentaries, working on for remixing, for dance

Eg. Phone use in public transport – ppl thought it was bc Japanese are polite, but not really this, institutionally you were not allowed on bus talking on your phone – came from the culture but enforces institutionally

What about ethics? What is morally correct? Forget the law for a second. What is your moral obligation to the people you film, knowing of remix culture?

Ways to think about derivative: if you’ve added something that in itself would be copyrightable.

What about photograph of photograph? What about me making share-alike license to my photographs of other’s videos, that use fair use work, etc etc,

Law is very complicated – work it out morally.

FAIR USE:

4 factors

1. why were you doing what you were doing? Commercial vs. noncommercial.

2. nature of work - Did you transform?

3. amount and substantially used in relation to the whole – how much you use. Did you use more than you needed for your purpose?

4. are you having a negative effect on the market or on reasonably foreseeable markets?

Gotcha – what if I criticize you work so much that no one will buy it. It is both 1 and 4. court decided that supports free expression – hurting the market does not shut down criticism – if its used for the purpose of what you want to do, than its OK

** difficult in application

2 live crew – big hairy woman instead of pretty woman – supreme court said it was a parody and fair use.

Slides will be up on diy site

Best practices in fair use ASOC

Beyond transformative use, also about moving media in different contexts to incite discussion. What are the parameters of this for creators? At what point are you crossing ethical lines?

Did you take more than you needed? Was the use towards your purpose of the work? Were you harming the market?

Not all fair uses are tried – because if everyone agrees that fair use, nobody sues

How hip hop tripped up music fair use: labels started asking permission and licensing even 3 notes of a song, this became the norm, so now you are infringing on a market

Chicago Manual of Style says “don’t ask permission” – 1) it makes you visible 2) once everyone starts asking for permission, this becomes social norm, and inhibits true fair use

How do we separate copyright from property rights, trademark, etc for kids?

How to start: define fair use with kids agreeing with out the law. think about different stakeholders at play, think about morals, think about different contexts & situations, different desired outcomes

SOURCES: organization for transformative works

Dmca – illegal to break drm, and tools that let people do this, and distributing these tools

- analogue hold: if you just capture analogue output and don’t break drm are OK (snaps, fraps and taxi to break drm)

do we teach about chillingeffects?

how do we deal with trademark? on one hand, complicated, you don't want to get into it. on the other hand, if you tell a teen to make a remix, trademark WILL come into play. can't just ignore this also...