Andy Bradford writes:
If Jo Posti uses video and photographs shot by a school district employee, say Cissy Bowman using school district equipment, in her personal Center Court blog... Is she infringing on the district's copyrights?
If not, why is it OK for private citizen Posti, but not OK for some other private citizen?
I think I get it though-- School Board President can grant Private Citizen Posti the right to use the material. Taxpayers of course need to heed the warnings!
6 comments:
I am not a lawyer – and the lawyers in Mt. Lebanon are probably thankful for that – but I’ll offer a reasoned guess anyway. Even if we assume for a moment that Mrs. Posti’s reproduction of the school district’s promotional video and photographs is infringing, which I think unlikely, then the school district would still have to choose to do something about it. Since the school district probably wants all the positive publicity it can get (why do you think they have those Key Communicator meetings?), I'd hazard a further guess that the school district’s decision-makers would probably opt not to take action against Mrs. Posti to enforce its copyrights in these instances.
I absolutely agree with you Tom, of course the district wants positive publicity and no one can fault them for that.
On the other was the district "saber rattling" with the recent release of the copyright notice, in a veiled attempt to stifle adverse commentary?
It also begs the question... Is "CenterCourt" really an unbiased blog of a private citizen or an obvious soapbox for promoting the board's agenda.
I really don't think it's a legal issue in as much as it is an "eyes wide-open" discussion.
And related to why discussions between the commissioners should be open to the public.
Andy Bradford
My thought is the commissioners and the school board don't want pushback when the Muni pays for a new baseball field for the district at McNeilly.
Neither does the commission want the public to know they are still in a structural deficit of about $1,000,000 from a pension compromise recently passed.
If I were commission president, I would not want someone asking why I was promoting new athletic fields before I provided better sidewalks, better roads better sewers, better replacement trees, adequate employee pensions.
Neither would I want to be asked why I was paying the school district's bills when I have a structural deficit.
I won't be taking anonymous comments on anything other than Andy Bradford's questions and comments.
Elaine
Andy,
Your Posti/Bowman example is LIKELY not a case of copyright infringement, because that would require it to be reproduced WITHOUT the owner's permission. I suspect that if asked, the School District would say that the use was authorized.
However, even unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted material are permissible under the "fair use" clause for limited purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Fair use may be described as the privilege to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the owner's consent. In deciding whether a copier's actions were fair, judges will consider:
1. the purpose and character of the copying (certain types of educational copying is allowed)
2. the nature of the original (originals made for commercial reasons are less protected from copying than their purely artistic counterparts)
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion copied (one may not copy the "heart" of a work without the author's permission); and
4. the effect that such copying may have on the market for the original (copying may be permitted if it is unlikely to cause economic harm the original author).
**** POSTER'S LEGAL DEFENSE ****
Much of the above was copied from the Harvard Law School Cyber Primer on Copyright Basics -- for educational purposes
**** POSTER'S LEGAL DEFENSE ****
The word "criticism" and phrase "news reporting" stand out as especially relevant in light of earlier posts on this blog. It seems that the use of any copyrighted materials Elaine uses for the purposes of reporting and/or non-libelous criticism would be defensible under Fair Use.
-- Not a lawyer, but I play one on TV
P.S. That having been said, Andy should lighten up about this. If my biggest worry in life was whether the School District's lackeys were abusing their vast powers in trying to frighten a local collection of detractors into blogging less, then I'd take that as a sign that I had way too much time on my hands.
Anon 10:53 you're right if all I have to worry about is some lackey using a photo without SD permission. But if you consider Elaine's headline under which my comment was first presented you'll find my issue goes much deeper.
When School Board Director posted info on his blog, one resident wrote this...
"Recently, School Board member James Fraasch circulated an email concerning the High School Renovation Project. His email was filled with worst-case scenarios, half-truths and distortions which served to mobilize a very vocal group of residents opposed to the project. I will not delve into the details of his email and repudiate his misinformation; you can read the facts of the matter for yourselves and obtain correct information on the School District's web site."
I think anyone that has been "paying attention" is fully aware that Mr. Fraasch's concerns were far from distortions and half-truths.
The issue then, at least for me, is by using school material on her private blog does she mislead her readers that her post are official SD facts and not misinformation such as Mr. Fraasch was accused of disseminating?
Andy Bradford
Post a Comment