UW System's copyright policy: What it means for professors; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 2, 2024

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel; UW System's copyright policy: What it means for professors

"The University of Wisconsin System's proposed copyright policy aims to transfer ownership of faculty teaching materials to the university."

It's Copyright Week 2024: Join Us in the Fight for Better Copyright Law and Policy; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 22, 2024

KATHARINE TRENDACOSTA , Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); It's Copyright Week 2024: Join Us in the Fight for Better Copyright Law and Policy

"We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, addressing what's at stake and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation."

Our Summer of Artificial Intelligence: Copyright Office Hosts Two Webinars on Copyright and AI; U.S. Copyright Office, August 23, 2023

Nora Scheland, U.S. Copyright Office; Our Summer of Artificial Intelligence: Copyright Office Hosts Two Webinars on Copyright and AI

"Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a significant new focal point for the Copyright Office in 2023. The Office launched an AI initiativein mid-March, which was followed by four comprehensive listening sessions in April and May and then, most recently, by two very popular webinars in June and July.

The webinars, which continued to break attendance records for the Copyright Office, provided an opportunity for the Office to dive deeper into the copyright registration guidance for AI-generated works and perspectives on how AI impacts copyright systems both domestically and across the globe. The webinars were open to the public, and everyone from copyright experts to those curious about copyright could take something away.

The Office’s first webinar in June, Registration Guidance for Works Containing AI-generated Content, was hosted by Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Registration Policy and Practice Rob Kasunic and deputy director of registration policy and practice Erik Bertin. Kasunic and Bertin walked attendees through the Office’s registration guidance and discussed a variety of hypothetical examples of copyright registration claims featuring some amount of AI-generated content and how the Office would evaluate them. Through the detailed examples, Kasunic and Bertin offered key insights and recommendations for how applicants can navigate registration applications as they register their own creative works.

The webinar wrapped up with a moderated Q&A session. Attendees were encouraged to submit questions during the presentation, and we received nearly 250 questions by the end of the webinar. The attendance climbed to nearly 2,000 people over the 75-minute webinar, a new record for the Office.

If you missed the webinar on registration guidance in June, you can check out a full recording and transcript on our website.

The Office’s second webinar, International Copyright Issues and Artificial Intelligence, was hosted by Office of Policy and International Affairs attorneys and featured two hour-long panels with international copyright experts. Attendance at the second webinar also reached nearly 2,000 people, demonstrating the sustained excitement and curiosity concerning the global conversation around AI and copyright.

Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter provided opening remarks and explained why she thought this international conversation was integral to the Office’s AI initiative:

“We know that AI’s use and its impact are not bound by any national borders. . . . [G]overnments around the world are confronting similar legal and policy questions. . . . Looking at the global copyright landscape, several questions have begun to emerge. First, how do international copyright treaties apply to determining authorship and scope of subject matter protection and exceptions and limitations? Second, what actions are other countries or regions starting to take on AI and copyright issues? In what respects are these approaches similar to or different from ours in the United States? Can consensus approaches be found, and if so, through what mechanisms? And finally, to the extent there is divergence, what are the international implications?”

The first panel kicked off with four exciting presentations on developments in AI and copyright legislation and litigation outside the United States.

• Peter Yu, from Texas A&M University School of Law, presented on copyright and artificial intelligence across Asia, particularly in China, Singapore, Japan, and Korea.
• Marcus von Welser, from Vossius in Germany, walked attendees through the European Union’s proposed AI Act and existing text and data mining exceptions from the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive.
• Luca Schirru, from KU Leuven in Belgium, presented perspectives on text and data mining developments, including from the global south.
• Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, from Ono Academic College in Israel, spoke about the effects of language and bias in generative AI technologies on non-English speaking countries and communities.

The second panel featured a lively moderated discussion on authorship, training, exceptions, and limitations of generative AI. The panel was moderated by two Copyright Office attorneys and comprised Jane Ginsburg from Columbia Law School, Andres Guadamuz from the University of Sussex, Bernt Hugenholtz from the University of Amsterdam, and Matthew Sag from Emory University School of Law. The panelists answered questions from the moderators and engaged directly with each other’s perspectives.

If you missed the webinar on international perspectives on copyright and AI in July, you can check out a full recording and transcript on our website.

The Office’s two webinars wrapped up a busy spring and summer season of listening, information gathering, and direct outreach on AI and copyright. Between April and July, nearly 8,000 people participated in or attended the Office’s AI listening sessions and webinars. This fall, the Office will receive public comments on a notice of inquiry as the work continues on our AI initiative. Follow copyright.gov/ai for updates and events, and sign up for email notifications on our website."

International Copyright Issues and Artificial Intelligence; U.S. Copyright Office, Webinar: Wednesday, July 26, 2023, 11:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. eastern time

 U.S. Copyright Office; International Copyright Issues and Artificial Intelligence Webinar

"The United States is not alone in facing challenging questions about artificial intelligence and its implications for copyright law and policy. On July 26, 2023, join the Copyright Office for a discussion on global perspectives on copyright and AI. Leading international experts will discuss how other countries are approaching copyright questions such as authorship, training, exceptions and limitations, and infringement. They will provide an overview of legislative developments in other regions and highlight possible areas of convergence and divergence involving generative AI.

This webinar is a part of the Copyright Office’s initiative to examine copyright law and policy issues raised by AI technology, including the scope of copyright in works generated using AI tools and the use of copyrighted materials in AI training. For more on copyright and AI, visit copyright.gov/ai.

Time: July 26, 2023, 11:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. eastern time

Speakers:

• Jane Ginsburg, Columbia Law School
• Andres Guadamuz, University of Sussex
• Bernt Hugenholtz, University of Amsterdam
• Matthew Sag, Emory University School of Law
• Luca Schirru, KU Leuven
• Marcus von Welser, Vossius
• Raquel Xalabarder Plantada, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya
• Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, Ono Academic College
• Peter Yu, Texas A&M University School of Law"

Copyright Week 2018: Join Us in Fighting for Better Copyright Law and Policy; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), January 15, 2018

Katharine Trendacosta, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); 

Copyright Week 2018: Join Us in Fighting for Better Copyright Law and Policy

"We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright law and policy, and addressing what's at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation."

We Want a Copyright Office that Serves the Public; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 2/2/17

Kerry Sheehan and Mitch Stoltz, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); 

We Want a Copyright Office that Serves the Public

"The Copyright Office, and those who lead it, should serve the public as a whole, not just major media and entertainment companies. That’s what we told the leadership of the House Judiciary Committee this week. If Congress restructures the Copyright Office, it has to put in safeguards against the agency becoming nothing more than a cheerleader for large corporate copyright holders...

We’re pleased to see both the Librarian of Congress and the House Judiciary Committee reaching out beyond the traditional players in copyright policymaking, to seek public input on decisions that impact everyone. But that’s just the first step – we need to make sure they’re giving the public’s feedback adequate consideration and that their final decisions represent the interests of everyone. We’ll be watching what they do, and speaking up to make sure that the interests of the public – including Internet and technology users, consumers, and independent creators – are protected."

It's Copyright Week: Join Us in the Fight for a Better Copyright Law; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 1/16/17

Kerry Sheehan, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); 

It's Copyright Week: Join Us in the Fight for a Better Copyright Law

"We're taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of the law, and addressing what's at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation...

Here are this year’s Copyright Week principles:

• Monday: Building and Defending the Public Domain. The public domain is our cultural commons and a crucial resource for innovation and access to knowledge. Copyright policy should strive to promote, and not diminish, a robust, accessible public domain.

• Tuesday: You Bought It, You Own It, You Fix It. Copyright law shouldn't interfere with your freedom to truly own your stuff: to repair it, tinker with it, recycle it, use it on any device, lend it, and then give it away (or re-sell it) when you're done.

• Wednesday: Transparency and Representation. Copyright policy must be set through a participatory, democratic, and transparent process. It should not be decided through back room deals, secret international agreements, or unilateral attempts to apply national laws extraterritorially.

• Thursday: 21st Century Creators. Copyright law should account for the interests of all creators, not just those backed by traditional copyright industries. YouTube creators, remixers, fan artists and independent musicians (among others) are all part of the community of creators that encourage cultural progress and innovation.

• Friday: Copyright and Free Speech. Freedom of expression is fundamental to our democratic system. Copyright law should promote, not restrict or suppress free speech.

Every day this week, we’ll be sharing links to blog posts and actions on these topics at https://www.eff.org/copyrightweek and at #CopyrightWeek.

If you’ve followed Copyright Week in past years, you may note that this year, we didn’t designate a specific day to focus on fair use. Fair use—the legal doctrine that permits many important uses of copyrighted works without permission or payment—is critical to the law’s ability to promote creativity, innovation, and freedom of expression. Fair use is a part of each of this year’s principles."

Google Case Ends, but Copyright Fight Goes On; Publishers Weekly, 4/22/16

Andrew Albanese, Publishers Weekly; Google Case Ends, but Copyright Fight Goes On:

"In a statement, Authors Guild officials called the Supreme Court’s denial a “colossal loss” for authors and bemoaned the “expansion of fair use” in the digital age. Executive director Mary Rasenberger suggested that the courts in the Google case were “blinded” by the “public-benefit arguments.” And Authors Guild president Roxana Robinson added that the Supreme Court’s denial was “further proof that we’re witnessing a vast redistribution of wealth from the creative sector to the tech sector.”

Others, however, including public advocacy group Public KnowIedge hailed the end of the litigation. “The Supreme Court’s decision to let the Second Circuit’s ruling stand reflects what we have long said, that fair use is a powerful and flexible doctrine that enables not only new works, but also innovative uses of existing works," said Raza Panjwani, Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge. "This denial will hopefully lead to new efforts to expand our access to culture and knowledge through digital formats.”

Jonathan Band, an attorney for the library community agrees. "I don't know if anyone else will create another search database for books," he told PW, "but others will create search databases for other sorts of materials, to the benefit of public and the copyright owners."

But that theme—that the courts are enabling the tech sector to unfairly build its value off the backs of creators—has become an animating principle in a copyright policy fight that is slowly beginning to take shape. And while the Google case may have ended in the courts, the copyright fight in the policy arena is likely just getting started...

“I think it hurts them,” [Grimmelmann] said. “The way they lost this case, by litigating this through to four resounding fair-use decisions, the last of which was written by Pierre Leval [considered the nation’s foremost jurist on fair use], it’s hard to imagine any way to lay down stronger bricks for fair use than that.”"

Why we are breaking the Pirate Bay ban; Guardian, 7/11/12

Loz Kaye, Guardian; Why we are breaking the Pirate Bay ban:

"If the government is unwilling to act, it falls to the rest of us. Since April the Pirate party has provided a proxy – pirateparty.org.uk – allowing people to connect to Pirate Bay. Initially this was in support of our sister party in the Netherlands where there is a similar crackdown. However, it has become a political protest to highlight the futility of the UK injunction and impotency of the coalition.

This proxy continues to be a legitimate route for those affected by the court orders. Not surprisingly to anyone who knows how the internet (or human nature) works, we have also experienced a huge Streisand effect. The Pirate party's website is now in the top 500 websites in the UK – above any other political party. If the aim was to change people's behaviour, the most noticeable change we have seen is an upsurge in interest in our kind of politics. I doubt this was the BPI's intention.

We must not hand courts and governments censorship powers without public debate. The Lib Dems and Conservatives need to decide where policy is headed, not just make noises about digital rights. Until that point it is left to the Pirate party to defend them."

In Court, a University and Publishers Spar Over 'Fair Use' of Course Materials; Chronicle of Higher Education, 3/14/10

Jennifer Howard, Chronicle of Higher Education; In Court, a University and Publishers Spar Over 'Fair Use' of Course Materials:

"Maybe you're a professor who wants to use a chunk of copyrighted material in your course this spring. Or perhaps you're a librarian or an academic publisher. If so, the much-followed Google Book Search settlement is not the only legal case you need to be watching. A federal case involving publishers and a state-university system, Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al., should produce a ruling soon, and its stakes are high.

First, a little history. In the spring of 2008, three academic publishers, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and SAGE Publications, brought a lawsuit against several top administrators at Georgia State University. The plaintiffs claimed that the university was encouraging the unauthorized digital copying and distribution of too much copyrighted material, particularly through its ERes and uLearn systems. ERes allows students to access digital copies of course material via a password-protected Web page; uLearn is a program professors can use to distribute syllabi and reading material.

The three publishers alleged that the unauthorized copying was "pervasive, flagrant, and ongoing." In February 2009, Georgia State put in place a revised copyright policy, including a checklist for faculty members to help them decide whether the amount of material they wanted to copy exceeded fair use.

Almost two years and many depositions later, both sides have filed briefs asking for a summary judgment in the case.

Legal briefs are a dry genre, but these tussle over some of the central questions of fair use in an academic context: How much is too much when it comes to copying rights-protected content without permission? To what extent is it the institution's job to shepherd its professors and students through the thorny complexities of copyright?

Unfair Use

The publishers' filing attacks what it calls the university's "blanket presumption of 'fair use'" in a higher-education context. The filing goes after the university's new fair-use checklist and copyright policy, saying that it "delegates the responsibility for ensuring copyright compliance entirely to faculty unschooled in copyright law."

The plaintiffs quote from the depositions of several Georgia State professors who acknowledge that they are not always clear on the copyright issues at stake. ("This is outside of my area of expertise," one is quoted as saying.) The publishers want the university to use the Copyright Clearance Center's licensing system or something like it for course materials.

The defendants take a strict we-didn't-do-it view. Their brief argues that "any alleged unlawful reproduction, distribution, or improper use was actually done by instructors, professors, students, or library employees."

Georgia State's filing also argues that the new copyright policy has drastically reduced the use of the plaintiffs' copyrighted material. It agrees with the plaintiffs that the defendants have no budget for permissions fees and that "faculty members would decline to use works like those at issue if there was an obligation to pay permissions fees."

So on one side you have a set of major academic publishers understandably eager to protect revenue, and on the other side you have a university that says it doesn't promote copyright infringement and doesn't have the money to pay a lot of permissions fees. One implication (threat?) one could draw is that if professors can't use what they need at no charge, they will probably use something else.

Complexities of Copyrights

I asked Kevin L. Smith, the scholarly-communications officer at Duke University, for his reaction. Mr. Smith helps scholars sort out copyright complexities—a function that is becoming ever more essential in university life, as this case makes very clear—and he has written about the GSU case on his blog, Scholarly Communications

For the moment, publishers appear unwilling to go after individual professors. "These faculty members are the same people who provide the content that university presses publish, so it would be really self-defeating," Duke's copyright maven, Mr. Smith, explained. "It would also be an endless game of 'whack-a-mole.' They would prefer a broad judgment against a university."
In any case, the Duke expert said, a fair-use case like this deserves more than a summary judgment. This case cuts to the heart of how many professors choose course material now and how students use it. Summary judgment or not, Duke's Mr. Smith said, "I think faculty and administrators should be very concerned.""

http://chronicle.com/article/In-Court-a-University-and/64616/?key=Tz12clBqMCdEbCY2KCRCfndROXx9chlxPXoWMS4aYlBS

Tech-Policy Positions of McCain & Obama - Washington Post, 9/26/08

Re-Computing Your Presidential Choices, Washington Post's Rob Pegoraro:
"Both Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John McCain (R-Az.) provide lengthy position papers on their Web sites. Let's dig through McCain's first, then Obama's. But let's also set aside verbiage covering broader economic topics, such as upgrading the educational system or reforming research-and-development tax credits, to focus on each candidate's stances on five key consumer-tech topics: broadband availability, "net neutrality," copyright policy, the patent system and electronic privacy...

McCain's roughly 2,700-word statement doesn't get to any of those issues until about halfway down the page. There, we have a statement that might not exactly thrill the folks at the RIAA and the MPAA:

Protecting intellectual property creates the incentives for invention and investment in commercial innovations. Yet too much protection can stifle the proliferation of important ideas and impair legitimate commerce in new products to the detriment of our entire economy.

But there's little substance following it, aside from the goals of hiring more patent examiners and setting up a faster mediation process to resolve patent disputes...

On intellectual-property policies, Obama "believes we need to update and reform our copyright and patent systems to promote civic discourse, innovation and investment while ensuring that intellectual property owners are fairly treated." But how? I was looking for more info on that this spring and I still am now. (For what it's worth, the Copyright Alliance, a group advocating stronger copyright enforcement, seems slightly nervous about Obama's views in this blog post.)
Obama, like McCain, wants to hire more patent examiners but, in addition, endorses "opening up the patent process to citizen review."
People who read Obama's tech-policy statement this spring may notice that the current version is shorter and less detailed, but it links to a roughly 5,200-word PDF that fills in some of those blanks. "
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2008/09/re-computing_your_presidential.html