Subject: Google Alert - Mt Lebanon School District
1 new result for Mt Lebanon School District
copyright - Mt. Lebanon School District
2012 Mt. Lebanon School District. You are welcome and encouraged to access and print material from the Mt. Lebanon School District website (“Website”) at ...
www.mtlsd.org/district/copyright.asp
Does this mean I cannot reprint traffic plans, agendas, or even spelling errors anymore here or on my website? Remembering that Mike Madison is a Pitt professor of intellectual property law, I decided to shoot him an email about this. Here is his reply.
Elaine,
This is clearly overbroad and unenforceable. You'd think that the School District would have consulted an actual copyright or trademark lawyer before putting out something so obviously and legally obtuse. Nothing that the School District puts on its website or in its so-called "Terms of Use" can change your rights -- or the rights of any other citizen -- under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing that the School District puts on its website or in its so-called "Terms of Use" can change the way that copyright law actually works (remember things like the public domain and fair use) or the way that trademark law actually works (things like non-commercial use, nominative use, and fair use -- and I'm sorry to lay some legal jargon on you here!).
I hate getting worked up and drawn back into this stuff; I have really enjoyed not being part of the Lebo psycho-drama for the last couple of years. But this latest move by the School District is beyond bad judgment. It is bullying, in all the ways that copyright and trademark lawyers have come to know and loathe bullying in the realm of intellectual property law. Worst of all, it's ignorant. And in Mt. Lebanon, that has to be just about the worst insult that I can think of.
You have my permission to share this email with anyone you care to.
Mike
***********
A couple of comments from friends:
These people would copyright the Constitution if they ever read it.
I really hope someone is reaching out to a reporter, the Commonwealth Foundation, the Attorney General's office, the Commissioners and anyone else who might decide to wake up to the school board's fascism. They've gone way, way, way overboard. At the very least, they need a new solicitor, someone who actually knows law....
23 comments:
Seriously? You mean they have nothing better to focus on? I just found a misspelling on the web site, and I wasn't even looking for it! Anyone ever hear of a Pediatricion? It's a doctor who specializes in the care of children. I guess my journalism degree has served me well in life. I know how it's really spelled.
Liz Huston
Companies and governments routinely pretend to be able to take away your rights, even when they cannot, just by saying so in bold proclamations. Those proclamations, of course, are powerless.
Unless you believe them.
Which you might.
Which is why they make those proclamations.
Well said, Tom. Fortunately, many of us recognized a long time ago the emperor has no clothes.
The Mt. Lebanon School District never fails to amaze and entertain. For quite a while now I thought the District had confused itself with the Treasury Department; now it appears it thinks of itself as a private, for-profit commercial entity. I am surprised that there is not a "Choice of Law and Forum" disclaimer on its "Terms of Use" page.
It is rather obvious that the District is trying to limit criticism and suppress the free flow of information. Perhaps a brave lawyer will explain to the powers-that-be that the Mt. Lebanon School District is a public institution, owned by the taxpayers, and not the property of a nine-member vanguard.
I sincerely hope that Ms. Gillen continues to "..reprint traffic plans, agendas, or even spelling errors.." on this Blog. If the District is so foolish as to try and "punish" her in a court of law it may find a rather uncomfortable spotlight shining on it, coming from outside Allegheny County.
The irony of it all, considering Josephine Posti can blog on her Center Court blog and not cite her sources. She can also be aware of malicious emails circulating which resulted in four dedicated women resigning from PTA Council. She is obviously threatened by this blog since she took the opportunity to trash blogs when she was "thanking" Dan Rothschild in her "Thanks Dan" post.
When I was at the tipping point last week about accepting anonymous comments, I had deleted an anonymous comment that was submitted about her brother's personal life.
Josephine Posti stopped Joint Steering Committee meetings.
Folks, what is your tipping point?
Elaine
Patent and trademark information is available online. Here is the link:
http://www.uspto.gov/products/library/search/
Maddie Miller
Trusting Mike’s opinion, since the school district issued such a statement in an apparent attempt to mislead and manipulate others who may disagree with them my guess is that anyone who is dealing with these bullies should beware. The question is, who is responsible for issuing the statement? Does anyone know?
-Charlotte Stephenson
Elaine, I'm sure that you were not surprised that someone (Bill Zellers??) would try to change the suject by "commenting" on one's personal life. This is yet another example of the "build it now" mob attempting to divert attention from the real problems and the continued mismanagement by the school board.
Joe Wertheim
Elaine should start copyrighting the podcasts.
David Huston
Mike is far more well versed in the area of IP than I am, and I will defer to his expertise. That said, I don't think the Terms of Service are "bullying" and I certainly don't think they were intended solely for Elaine or other bloggers. I agree that they could have been more artfully drafted, but would it surprise you to learn that the websites for UPMC, the Steelers, the Penguins, Giant Eagle and even Upper St. Clair School District have nearly identical terms posted on their websites?
Heck, according to the Pens website I'm not even allowed to view their website in "areas open to the public or in commercial establishments where multiple people can view it at the same time."
Oh well, I'm still a big fan, I'm still going to UPMC if I need a good doctor and I'll probably still shop at Giant Eagle. On the bright side, I guess this gives me one more reason to hate USC.
Dave Franklin
Dave, you didn't have to work that hard. A similar statement is at the bottom of the municipal website, mtlebanon.org
Elaine
I received this comment and decided that I would publish it.
"Wait, Dave is a lawyer and he thinks Giant Eagle's terms of use are similar to the District's? C'mon. http://www.gianteagle.com/terms-of-use They are nothing alike. Giant Eagle just says to not use any likenesses from their site to make money and don't rip off stuff from their site and alter it in any way. Oh and I got a Google alert today on James Fraasch's blog. He poked at this topic too!"
Here is James Fraasch's blog. http://jamesfraasch.blogspot.com/
One more comment that I got, and was asked to publish in this manner:
"The cry to keep information on the municipal and school district websites "copyrighted" comes from the Municipality's PIO. The Mt. Lebanon magazine is more than a little scared that the free competition -- In Community Magazine -- taking their jobs. Even though they did consult an intellectual property lawyer, who basically said there was nothing much you can do -- its competition -- they insist on trying to do it anyway because Morgans doesn't want to lose her job, and she and that whole magazine should be the first thing to go in a budget cutting measure."
Elaine
Well actually, here's the language from GE: "You may not reproduce, redistribute or otherwise use any materials without the express written consent of Giant Eagle. . . You agree you will not distribute, publish, transmit, modify, display or create derivative works from or exploit the contents of this Site in any way. You agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Giant Eagle for any and all unauthorized uses you may make of any material on the Sites."
Here's the language from the School's website: "Any other copying, posting to another website, distribution, modification, transmission, or dissemination of any of the Website content is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission from the School District."
I'm struggling to identify a difference.
Dave Franklin
To avoid another situation at the next commission meeting, I should say that if you have any questions or concerns about Mtl Magazine, please email Susan Morgans at smorgans@mtleanon.org Thanks.
Elaine
Sorry. That is smorgans@mtlebanon.org
Elaine
Again, though, who is responsible for approving such a statement being posted on the website? I would venture to say Susan Morgans doesn't have much sway with what happens on the school district site. Just my opinion.
My guess is that the only way to find out would be by filing a Right To Know. For anyone who needs help with that, go to lebocitizens.com and click on the "Right To Know" tab for instructions and the form. If you request the answers by email, you won't have to pay for copies.
Elaine
A few quick notes on the point about differences or lack thereof.
First, quote the District's "policy" in full. "You are welcome and encouraged to access and print material from the Mt. Lebanon School District website (“Website”) at http://www.mtlsd.org for personal use only. Any other copying, posting to another website, distribution, modification, transmission, or dissemination of any of the Website content is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission from the School District." (That's from the copyright portion; the trademark portion is similar but not identical.)
The purported limitation to "personal use" (whatever, precisely, that might mean) is the first thing that distinguishes this from the GE policy and is the thing that really set me off. One might argue that quoting material from the District on the blog is a form of "personal use" because the blogger is using the material "personally" to critique the District. If that's a fair interpretation and if the District would agree, then I have fewer qualms about the policy (and the law would have fewer qualms, too). But of course I can't tell whether or not that's the right interpretation of the policy, and right there, you walk into a First Amendment "vague, ambiguous, and overbroad" problem because...
Second, the District is a public entity, and public entities are in different positions than private entities relative to telling people what people they can or cannot say, even with (or especially with) material produced by the public entity.
Third, and also because the District is a public entity, there is a substantial question regarding whether material that the District produces as part of its governance function is protected by copyright law in the first place. Federal copyright law specifically provides that material prepared by the federal government cannot be copyrighted (that's Section 105 of the Copyright Act, for those of you keeping score at home). State law is not so explicitly generous, but the public policy behind the federal rule -- that the citizens need to have broad access to the mechanics of their government -- has been widely accepted by courts and has a foundation in judicial precedent that goes back to the early 1800s. The legal authority there is the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (for federal law claims) and the Fourteenth Amendment (for state law claims).
The District's policy and the GE policy are very similar in one important respect. Setting aside the Constitutional problems above, neither the copyright policy nor the trademark policy recognize such such well-known limitations on IP ownership as rights of parody and criticism, under legal doctrines of fair use and other things. In other words, the GE policy is deeply flawed, too. Never assume that a well-financed corporation with access to great lawyers will publish a consumer protection policy that is actually fair and reasonable from the standpoint of consumers. And yes, I represented plenty of corporate clients in my day.
(long comment continued in next comment!)
Mike Madison
(continued from previous comment)
Finally, someone might look at the District's policy on "personal use" and, even granting my objections above, point not to something like GE but to NFL broadcasts ("licensed for the private exclusive use of our audience") or DVDs ("licensed for private home use only"). I don't agree that these fairly state the applicable law, but they at least get at something that has some relationship to the law -- the fact that copyright law gives copyright owners the exclusive right of *public* *performance* of their works. So, the District *might* under a *very narrow set of circumstances* have a right to object to your standing on a street corner and publicly reciting their meeting agendas.
And recording and podcasting the meetings has zero to do, by the way, with copyright law. The meetings themselves, and what Board members and others say aloud, are not and cannot be copyrighted.
Mike Madison
"Never assume that a well-financed corporation with access to great lawyers will publish a consumer protection policy that is actually fair and reasonable from the standpoint of consumers"
That was kind of my point in all of this. The SB posted an ill conceived, poorly worded Terms of Service for it's website and the immediate conclusion was that they were evil bullies. My comment was merely to demonstrate that many companies that we like and respect have similar statements on their websites, but we don't rush to challenge or question their motives. In other words, let's pick our battles.
Dave Franklin
Dave, Giant Eagle is a privately held company. You know that. It isn't about Giant Eagle. It is about our local government. That makes them bullies.
Elaine
In the IP world, I (and my colleagues) frequently and justifiably challenge the motives of private companies that assert overbroad and unclear claims of IP rights. Corporate bullying using specious copyright and trademark claims is common, and it's a problem. I have no reason to suspect that GE is engaged in it, but I've seen enough IP bullying that I'm not disposed to assume an innocent explanation (which might be disproved, later) simply because I know how the proverbial sausage was made.
Even if one assumes that corporations will and do behave badly because that's what corporations do, one shouldn't extend that assumption too quickly to governments. At least, I'm not willing to do that. I think that we have the right to expect better from our elected representatives -- even knowing, as we all do, how that sausage, too, gets made.
I agree that we all must pick our battles. You haven't seen me much on this forum (or any Lebo forum) over the last couple of years. Because of what I do professionally, and because I have a lot of years invested in writing and speaking publicly about Pittsburgh's public space, I care a lot about intimations that what I'm doing might be shut down by people or institutions I'm commenting on. My view has always been that there's a good reason why the First Amendment was *first.*
People who disagree with me on the merits of various issues -- and there are plenty of those, I am sure -- might care as well. Not that I might be shut down, though caring about me would be appreciated; I am thinking that others might worry that they might be shut down. In a very different context, a friend of mine in Republican politics in Oklahoma once stood up in a crowded room and, objecting to a proposal to prohibit public debate on a controversial proposition, noted that debate is what democracy is all about. It sounds very philosophical and romantic to get worked up about first principles when all we see is a couple of lines of text on a School District website, but I really do make the connection, and I make sure, in a quiet way, that my children make it, too.
YMMV.
Mike Madison
Dave Franklin wrote: "In other words, let's pick our battles."
Mr. Franklin, you choose your battles, and I'll choose mine. Perhaps I missed the declaration that states you speak on my behalf or have somehow established a right to make decisions for me. But I assure, I never authorized it. so please save the patronizing and condescending statements for another forum.
As a taxpayer, I have every right to question how things are done by a public entity to which a portion of my income flows. And as a US citizen, I have an obligation to ensure government entities are not suppressing my rights nor circumventing those inalienable rights established by our nation's founders.
So yes, Mr. Fanklin, I will continue to pick my battles starting with holding people accountable under the rule of law. The school board has been solely focused on the high school project for the better part of a year. I think it's only fair to ask questions regarding whether or not they have followed the prescribed process and met the regulatory requirements.
The copyright issue is yet another example of a local government board demonstrating their pettiness and complete lack of understanding their purpose. This is the same board that complained not long ago about the abundance of right to know requests yet they now insist on residents submitting those requests to obtain information that should be readily available. Enough is enough.
Post a Comment