********************Forwarded Message Follows********************************
 
>Topics covered in this issue include:
>
>  1) Recent copyright law decision
>        by [log in to unmask] (Tammy Hiller)
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 1
>
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 12:01:38 -0500
>From: [log in to unmask] (Tammy Hiller)
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Recent copyright law decision
>Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>Thought you might be interested in the Appeals Court decision below.
>
>Tammy Hiller
>Bucknell University
>
>
>
>/* Written 10:52 pm  Feb 15, 1996 by [log in to unmask] in jambo:cul */
>/* ---------- "NCC Washington Update, Feb 15, 1996" ---------- */
>
>     NCC Washington Update, vol. 2, #5, Feb 15, 1996
>     by Page Putnam Miller, Director of the National Coordinating
>     Committee for the Promotion of History <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>  Appeals Court Upholds Copying of "Course Packs" -- On February 12
>  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the
>  Michigan Document Center and against the plaintiffs -- Princeton
>  University Press, Macmillan and St Martin's Press -- in Case No. 94-
>  1778. The three presses had brought a copyright infringement case
>  against the Michigan Document Service, which has 5 small copy shops
>  that serve the University of Michigan and other institutions in the
>  Ann Arbor area and which reproduces course packs without securing
>  copyright permissions from the authors or publishers.  James Smith,
>  the owner of Michigan Documents Service, decided that the current
>  process for obtaining permissions to reproduce copyrighted materials
>  was prohibitively time-consuming and expensive.  He thus prepared
>  course packs for teachers and students without securing permissions
>  operating on the basis that he was engaged in copying for educational
>  purposes which comes under the fair-use provisions of the copyright
>  law. The Appeals Court ruling reversed the decision of the District
>  Court.
>
>  Many professors rely on the flexibility and individuality that
>  photocopied course readings or course packs can provide.  Professors
>  assigned books, which students purchase.  The course packs supplement
>  the assigned books and may include journal articles, material that is
>  difficult to find, newspaper articles, excerpts from books, course
>  notes, and syllabi.
>
>  Some of the points of special interest in Circuit Judge J. Ryan's
>  opinion include:  while the copy shop is a commercial enterprise, the
>  copying of course packs is for educational purposes;  since
>  coursepacks are priced per-page based on copying costs -- regardless
>  of the contents -- the copy shop is not making a commercial gain off
>  of copyrighted materials;  since Congress specifically anticipated the
>  use of "multiple copies" for classroom teaching, the copy center is
>  making use of professional copying technologies to assist the
>  professors and students in an activity which faculty and students are
>  permitted to undertake but which they can not do as economically and
>  efficiently as the copy center;  significant weight is placed on the
>  fact that the professors signed statements that they would not have
>  assigned the original works, even if copied excerpts were not
>  available; and students who used the course packs were not a market
>  for the purchase of the original works.
>
>  Judge Ryan also pointed out:  that the plaintiffs' reliance on the
>  Classroom Guidelines established in 1976 by CONTU, the Commission on
>  New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works, "is misplaced;"  that
>  classroom use of the course packs promotes learning without undue harm
>  to the incentives to create original works;  that course packs are
>  particularly helpful in interdisciplinary courses that draw small
>  portions from a number of disciplines;  and that the record contains
>  no evidence that the market for the original work was affected by the
>  use of excerpts in course packs.
>
>  After a lengthy discussion of the four factors affecting fair use that
>  are in Section 107 of the copyright law, Judge Ryan's ruling concluded
>  with an additional consideration.  The ruling states:  "More than one
>  hundred authors declared on record that they write for professional
>  and personal reasons such as making a contribution to the discipline,
>  providing an opportunity for colleagues to evaluate and critique the
>  authors' ideas and theories, enhancing the authors' professional
>  reputation, and improving career opportunities.  These declarants
>  stated that their primary purpose in writing is not for monetary
>  compensation and that they advocate wide dissemination of excerpts
>  from their work via course packs without imposition of permission
>  fees.  The fact that incentives for producing higher education
>  materials may not revolve around monetary compensation is highly
>  relevant. Copyright law seeks to encourage the use of works to the
>  greatest extent possible without creating undue disincentives to the
>  creation of new works."
>
 
 
Prof. Keith A. Maxwell                |  Voice:    206 756 3703
Legal and Ethical Studies in Business |  Fax:      206 756 3500
1500 N. Warner                        |  Internet: [log in to unmask]
University of Puget Sound             |---------------------------------------
Tacoma, WA 98416                      |  "Brevity is the soul of wit."
                                      |
                                      |