Teacher Material

In this case a teacher created lessons and graphics and presented them in many different conferences. Many teachers were interested in what she was doing so they would request for the to present certain material. One day she received a cease and desist letter for the graphics she was using. She realized that the copyright holder’s name was someone who had attended one of her last conferences where she presented that material.

This teacher was not violating copyright laws, but the teacher who obtained the copyright was violating the laws. The teacher who created the graphics and presented them at the conference had copyright on the material even if she never got any kind of official paten or copyright make. After something has been created it automatically has a copyright. The original creator has ownership over that material. For the other teacher to then get copyright on the image that the first teacher gave her was in violation of the copyright laws.

The teacher who created this material could give out the material she was creating. Other teachers could then use the material that she presented on, and that would not be breaking copyright laws. Other teachers could not sell or make copies to give out to even more teachers. The original creator should be given credit and merit, so teachers should not just create copies for all of their friends to use.

Other teachers could use the images that the original teacher created as long as they give credit and merit to the original creator. They cannot take the material and then claim it as their own. That would be in violation of the copyright laws. Teachers cannot just steal other teacher’s lessons.

Aliment Case Study

In this case a school created a website for formal students to keep in contact with the school. The school called their site Alumnet. One day the school received a cease and desist letter stating that the copyright holder’s rights were being compromised for using the Alumnet name. The question to look at is if this was an actual copyright issue or not.

First, the school believes that they actually had the name before any copyright holder had it. If the school can prove this then the copyright holder has no case. The copyright holder would have to prove that he or she came up with the name before the school began using the name for their site. If the school has evidence of when they created their site, then this would be an easy case to prove.

Secondly, the school was using this name as something specifically related to their school. They came up with a creative name for their website, and it is not bringing harm to the copyright holder’s marketability. The school is using this site to keep people connected to it. This does not effect the copyright holder.

Another issue is that the school can use the name Alumnet through the fair use act. This is an educational purpose. The school created the idea behind the site. The school did not just take this name from the copyright holder to use for the original purpose of the name. The site was used as a specific tool for this specific school.

The school is not making any kind of profit from using the name Alumnet. They are not violating copyright laws by naming their site Alumnet. The school should not be afraid of the cease and desist letter. Oftentimes those are used as a scare tactic, but they are not actually breaking copyright law.

Pooh Case study

Case Study 5 Pooh

In this case a class developed a radio program about children’s books. They called it Pooh’s News. This was after Winnie-the Pooh, but they did not use any characters or voices from the book. There were no graphics that represented Pooh and there were no other connections to Winnie- the –Pooh. They received a cease and desist letter for using the name Pooh on the school’s radio station.

One pro for claiming this case as something that falls within the fair use act is the creativity aspect. This class did not take the name Pooh to represent a bear in a story they were writing. They used it in a creative way to name a radio show about children’s books. The name represents what the radio show is about, so the class that came up with this name did so by being creative.

The fair use act also looks at the intentions of the user. The classroom that used the name Pooh did not use it with malice. They did not think they were using any copyright material when coming up for a name for their radio show. They did not just steal the name of the character for one of their own character’s. They did not even create a Pooh character. Pooh’s News was the title for a program on their local school radio station.

When deciding if something falls into the fair use act one also has to look at the original purpose of the copyrighted material compared to what is being claimed as a copyright violation. In this case the purposes of the name are not the same. Pooh’s name was given to a specific character in a classic children’s book. In this case the name Pooh did not represent a character in a book. It was used to connect to children’s books, but the school did not write Pooh into their own book.

The school’s use of the name Pooh did not harm the original’s author’s marketability. The classroom wanted to think of a name that would connect to children’s books. This does not bring any kind of negative press towards the author. It also does not keep the author for any types of sales or profit on anything.

I do not think that this was a copyright issue. I think the school classroom would be covered under the fair use act. They were being creative and they did change the purpose of the name. They were in no way harming the original copyright holder’s marketability or profit.

Movie Day

Case Study 4 Movies All Day

In this case study a school was planning a special event day which included playing movies. The people planning the event advertised the movies that would be playing, but never advertised specific times. The movies were going to be played as they needed to be switched out. This was a free event people to come and watch the movies whenever they wanted to. The school received a cease and desist letter claiming that the copyright holders’ rights were being compromised. When looking at this case the fair use act must be considered.

One point for the fair use act is that the school is not making profit from this event. This event is a free showing, so they are not trying to make a profit from showing these movies. The showing of these movies was to create an event for the community to all gather together. It was not to make any type of profit, so it does not hurt the copyright holder’s profit for business.

Another point for fair use is that the planners of the event purchased the movies. They did not obtain these movies from an illegal sight, they purchased the movies. After they purchase the movie they have the right to show the movie. They are not making copies of the movie for everyone to take home with them, but legally they are allowed to show a movie that they have purchased as long as they are not charging for the event.

A point against saying that is fair use act is that any showing of the movie in a large public place should bring a profit for the copyright holder. The copyright holder can claim creative commons and state that anyone who shows their movie must make contributions to the holder. That could mean that the school must charge for the movie showing in order to pay the copyright holder for the rights to show the movies.

Schools who show movies are not changing the purpose of the original purpose of the movie. The movie was created for entertainment purposes, so when the school puts on events like this and wants to show a movie they are doing so for entertainment purposes. Schools must have a license in order to show movies to the public.

Gap VS Photographer

Case Study 3: Photographer vs Gap vs Jaguar

In this case study Gap printed a shirt from a photograph that they got off Flicker or a picture of an old Jaguar car. Someone pointed out to the photographer, Chris Devers, that is was no doubt his picture, because of the reflection in the front mirror. Devers was very upset that Gap used his photograph to create a shirt design. He was never contacted about usage of his picture and he was never paid for usage of his image. The other side of this is what about the creator of the car. Do they have the first copyright, because they are the ones who created the car, which allowed Chris to take the photograph.

Gap could claim that they have the right to use the photo, because they used the photo and created something new. They created a shirt design, they were not trying to just create another copy of the image Devers took. In the business world, however, companies have to get permission to use materials that others created. Devers took the picture that inspired the design and they used it without him knowing it. Within Devers Creative Commons rights he could have restricted Gap from using his image for profit. Once a photo is taken the photographer does not have to obtain a copyright for it to be protected by the copyright law. Anything created is under copyright, as long as it can be proven that it was created first.

I think that Gap and other companies that are taking images they find online are in violation of the copyright laws. I think that photographers have the right to know who is using their photography as a design tool. Companies need to give photographers credit when credit is due. Pictures are a form of intellectual property, so companies should not just go online and use exact copies of anyone’s photograph without mention or capitol given to the one who took the picture.

In education students can use photographs to create their own designed material. Students could not print an exact copy of a photo and call it their design, but they could use the photo as inspiration in creating their own design. Students can use images they get online as part of their projects. They have to use the images for a purpose other than the original intent of the photographer. Students would not be selling their projects as Gap is selling the shirt that has the image on it.

Billboard Case Study

Case Study 2: Billboard

In this case study a mother was upset when a billboard featured her daughter’s picture endorsing a message that the mother did not want her daughter to represent. The mother did admit that she took her children to a modeling agency a couple years previously and she did sign a release for the photos. She knew that there would be a possibility for the photos to be sold in stock, but she was never informed who bought the images. The copyrighting issue lies in asking if the mother had to agree with the messages that groups were sending using images of her daughter.

The argument for this being an infringement of copyright is that the mother did not give the organization permission to use her daughter’s image. She was never told where her daughter’s image was being used. The cons of this being a copyright infringement is that she did sign an agreement saying that she acknowledged that her daughter’s picture could be sold.

I do not think that this is a copyright issue. I think that the billboard was extremely controversial and I think it was very extreme, but the mother did sign a form acknowledging that she understood that her daughter’s images could be sold. I think that in these cases that the parents should be told where their children’s images are going, but I think that is between the modeling company and the parents. I think that the activist group that used this image did not use it illegally.

Within education this case would be extremely different. Schools do require students to have release forms in order to use their personal photos in advertisement. Parents have to give the schools permission to use photos of their children in any yearbook or school newsletter. Just like this parent, other parents give schools permission to do this , and then the school can use the photos in any way they feel is best.

Flicker Case Study

Case Study 1: Flicker Picture

The issue with this case is who does this photo belong to. If the family decided to post this picture on Flicker does that give another company the right to use it for advertising. The company did not ask anyone's permission to use the photo for advertising purposes. The advertising company could try to prove that they were using the image for a different purpose than the purpose of the original posting. They could say there was no copymark symbol on the photo itself, and they were protected under the Fair Use section in the Copyright Law. The problem with the company trying to use the fair use section of the copyright law is that it could be argued that the purpose of this reprinting was not used for any kind of new purpose. Also, it was used against the family’s knowledge, which affects their privacy. Plus, whoever took that picture still own the rights to the picture.

The pro for the company in this case is that the company did not know that they were taking a real photograph to use for their advertisement. The company believed that it was just a computer-generated image that was available to be used. My biggest question is how they got the image, if they believed it came from somewhere that was computer-generated. The cons are that this picture was taken and there was no credit given to the photographer and there was no permission from the family or photographer to use the image.

I think that in the business world this is a copyright issue. This company needed copyright permission in order to use someone’s photograph for their advertisement. Companies cannot use photographs without the photographers permission for advertising purposes. Many photographers want their pictures to be used and are willing to let companies use their photos to advertise, but the company must pay the photographer for these images. Another issue with this case is the privacy of the family. Children’s faces should not be printed without permission from the parents.

If the picture was used in education it would not be a copyright issue. If students used this picture and created something new with it then they would be covered under the fair use section of the copyright law. Students would not be sharing this picture for a purpose that would harm the photographer or the family. They would be using it for an educational purpose.

This case can be used to remind users that images that you upload online can end up anywhere. This family had no clue that after uploading their Christmas pictures that one would end up being used as an advertisement in Prague. This case serves to show why copyright on pictures is important. This family and this photographer never wanted their pictures to be used, and no one has the right to use their picture without their permission.