Page tree

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 31 Next »

Based on feedback from the ITLC, OGC, UCEP, and UCOLASC, the Educational Technology Leadership Group makes the following revisions to its recommendations on copyright:

The committee recognizes that the Georgia State copyright case (Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al.) has concluded, and the impending ruling in the case may have implications for state universities such as the UC. For more information on that case visit:

http://www.educause.edu/policy/campus/resources/gastate

Pursuant to that ruling, we assume the OCG will swiftly issue guidance to all campuses regarding any impact upon campus policies in regards to Fair Use.

While cognizant this impending ruling is likely to have some impact upon our recommendations, in the meantime, we recommend the following:

  1. Develop a single UC Copyright and Fair Use website, that provides all UC Faculty and Staff:
    1. A unified UC interpretation/definition of “Fair Use”;
    2. Unified policies, procedures and processes for ensuring faculty and staff have what they need to protect the university from misuse and litigation.
    3. Comprehensive information and educational materials on copyright law and all UC policies which address copyright
    4. Links to campus-specific pages which clarify how campus systems conform to these policies, and identify:
      1. A designated single point of contact for faculty and staff who require consultation related to fair use and copyright issues.
      2. A designated single point of contact within each Campus Counsel's office to provide legal analysis and representation when appropriate.

Revision to Item #1

Based on further consideration of the feedback received, including specific feedback from UCOLASC and OGC, the ETLG no longer recommends a rigid framework such as the one described in item #1a ("unified interpretation") and #1b. We agree with UCOLASC that over-specification could have a negative effect, especially when one considers the individual campus legal liability that exists, as echoed in feedback from the OGC. ETLG continues to support the recommendation that a single point of contact on each campus (item 1c) be established. Clearly, this point of contact would most likely exist within the Library or within an Academic Support office and not within an IT Division or educational technology department.

  1. Draft a UC-wide statement of support for the "Codes of Best Practices" approach for employing the Fair Use exception to copyright law.  Establish standard UC guidelines on ‘fair use’ as it pertains to instruction, which:
    1. Define the level of risk the university is willing to tolerate in the area of potential interpretation by copyright owners and lawyers as copyright infringement;
    2. More clearly stipulate system wide, campus, and individual responsibilities within a unified copyright and fair use service provision that relies on a codified set of standards while allowing for differentiation at the local level.

      Revision to Item #2

      ETLG would like to change our recommendation for the establishment of "guidelines." Instead we lend our support to the Codes of Best Practices spearheaded by the Center for Social Media at American University, such as the recently published "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research Libraries" released in January 2012 by the Association of Research Libraries. This and other Codes of Best Practices for distinct communities of practice can provide the most up-to-date guidance on the proper application of Fair Use, and guide both individual decision making and policy formation at the campus level.  For a detailed description of how these codes are formed and utilized, please watch this recent lecture by Peter Jaczi at UCLA.

  2. Adopt a standard (online) training curriculum across the UCs to enable students, faculty and staff to lawfully use and store information within our IT systems (both at the campus and system wide level).
    1. Consider for possible inclusion in the “Mandatory Education” initiative defined in the Working Smarter Progress Report: Administrative Efficiency at the University of California (dated January 1, 2011, p. 43).
    2. Periodically revisit the learning objectives of this training curriculum to align with legal developments and new requirements.
    3. Periodically assess the efficacy of this training curriculum.
    4. Make sure the training curriculum and training activities are accessible (ADA).

      Revision to Item #3

      ETLG continues to support this recommendation and the need for training. Feedback from UCEP indicates that faculty would appreciate additional support in this area. After consultation with OGC, ETLG feels that this training would best be administered via a central entity such as a systemwide committe or UCOP in consultation with OGC and within the context of a risk assessment program (see item 4). Ideally, this training would be mandatory, perhaps as part of the Working Smarter initiative.

  3. OGC to work with campuses to establish a risk assessment program regarding copyright use for teaching and learning for each campus.
    1. Include IT parameters in this risk assessment
    2. Aggregate reports annually for review by appropriate university entity
    3. Provide a definitive position whether it is legally possible to pass through any liability to the end user via a disclaimer.

      No Revision to Item #4

      ETLG continues to support this recommendation.

  4. Establish system wide IT procedures and practices to address conforming use of digital content.

    No Revision to Item #5

    ETLG would like to offer direct support in the fulfillment of this recommendation.

  5. Develop shared best practices across the UCs.
  6. Review existing copyright support for instruction across the UCs so that we can leverage the good work that is already occurring on some campuses.
  7. Generate instructional use case scenarios that can be shared across the UCs (ETLG can help this)

    No Revision to Items #6, 7, and 8

    ETLG continues to support these recommendations and recognizes that they would likely fit within the training curriculum described in recommendations 3 & 4.

  • No labels