In a continuing series of scenarios that explore educational fair use issues.
Humanities teacher Ms DaVinci’s assignment asks students to examine how different ancient cultures portrayed the human figure. Students search subscription databases containing high quality art images, as well as the free web, to find examples of the art works they will analyze. Students share the images and collaborative analyses using a wiki only accessible from within the district. This year, Ms DaVinci wants to open the wiki up to the general public. The media specialist is concerned doing so would violate the terms of use of an art database often used.*
- What is the copyrighted material? Who owns it?
- Does the use of the work fall under fair use guidelines? Is the use transformational in nature? Can this be considered "educational" use?
- What is your level of comfort in helping create such a product? Are there any changes or limits you might like to see that would make you more comfortable with this project?
Your level of comfort with this use of copyrighted materials: High 5 4 3 2 1 Low
You comments are most welcome.
* This scenario was based on a question posed by Frances Jacobson Harris (author of I Found It on the Internet) from the University of Illinois Lab School. Here is her further discussion:
*The fourth principle of the new Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education addresses student use of copyrighted material in their own academic work. It makes specific
mention of comment and criticism, which is the purpose of this exercise. We find that though password protecting the wiki isn't crippling for students, it raises one more barrier to access and simplicity of use. The third principle addresses the rights of educators to share media literacy curriculum materials. In this case, password protection means that other teachers and librarians cannot draw on this unit in creating their own instruction. In my mind, the new Code would allow us to un-password protect this wiki, at least on those two grounds. The kicker comes in this phrase of the Terms and Conditions of Use for the art database we use the most: "You may not distribute, make available, and/or attempt to make available, any of the Content in the XXXX Digital Library (whether alone or incorporated into other materials) to persons and/or entities other than: (a) your institution and/or other Authorized Users at your institution." It goes on to make exceptions for scholarly or educational presentations, etc.
So my question is, what wins out? The TOA or the Code?
Francey adds: As an epilogue, I think I'll go ahead and open access to the wiki, but I should probably let the appropriate administrators know. Our principal often reminds us that he doesn't like surprises and I can't really blame him!
Other scenarios you'd like to see discussed here, readers?