Wk1 -Reading - Comment Post #2 - Sue Parler

Sue,

Bing Public Domain

You touched many valid points regarding the copyright issues and Fair Use regulations and I agree the questions are still mounting.  Most importantly I love your sense of humor!  But in particular it saddens me to think the historical MLK film "Eyes On the Prize" will be held perpetually in the Library of Congress -- and cannot ever be shown on television, DVD including all other legitimate copies being held hostage.  The dollar value that Joe Bustillos mentioned in Wimba is virtually like a kidnapper asking a parent to pay a ransom to get their precious child back! When it come to historically relevant events, this is unfair!  This is an important piece of history and it should not be silenced and placed on the shelf.  Besides, Dr. King left a "footprint" in a neighboring place of worship located in Montclair, NJ, specifically, Union Baptist Church -- many pictures of Dr. King’s visit grace their walls; as well as many other venues in this country.  My heart was saddened when I heard this news.  I too am baffled and not being a student of law I have not had the privilege to study these laws in-depth.  I do know this, however, I went on line today and saw that PBS is still selling “Eyes on the Prize” for $39.95, with tax $44.00.  Tell me, has PBS now violated the copyright laws of the federal government and secondly, who gets the $44.00?   Yes, there are gray areas, but there seems to be some “green” in this as well.

Sue Parler worte:

I understood copyright laws and fair use - or so I thought prior to this week's videos. And now my head is spinning with more questions than answers. My understanding was when the framers added the copyright clause to the Constitution, the thought was that by protecting the original works, those works would be further developed by their original "author". Yet in the intro video, the definition included the term "fixed works" and the verbal explanation included "...meaning the author is no longer updating". I understand that the Constitution has evolved in the past 220+ years, but rarely do we see those changes in direct opposition to the intention of the framers.

Prior to watching the video, I thought remixing was cheap - certainly not creative. Apparently I had not been exposed to a good creative remix - OK, so I'm now enlightened. But here's a question one of my students asked just the other day - "If I copy a song, change the tempo, delete perhaps the bass line and add another instrument, is that OK?" I said no. Now - I don't know - what's the remix formula? (He, by the way, was trying to add a soundtrack to a video game he had created. That game was purely for educational purposes and there is no intention to market the game)

It's painful to think that a piece of history may be sacrificed for the sake of copyright law, such as the one in the Dr. MLK video. It is equally painful to think that an artist's work was "stolen". Where is the balance? Again, I don't know.

The whole Fair Use piece has me baffled as well. I can get a copy of "To Kill a Mockingbird" on DVD from Library Video (http://www.libraryvideo.com/). But am I permitted to show it to my class? It's not like it's essential - it's just such a great supplemental piece. According to the Fair Use video series, I'm beginning to think not. If that's the case -- well, I've been doing that for years - pre-DVD, pre-VHS - gosh, it goes back to 16mm film on my old Eiki!

And finally, is there a line in the sand between plagiarism and copyright? If so, where's that beach - because I'm ready to head out. Oh yes... and I'd love to post an image here, but I'm a little gun-shy at this point to do so.