A major precursor to the "Code of Best Practices for Fair Use in Media Literacy Education," this investigation was used as the basis for the Center for Social Media at American University and the Media Education Lab at Temple University's understanding of the copyright confusion circulating within educational settings and there release of the "Code" to try and alleviate some of this confusion.  Unlike other sources I plan to use, which approach the issue of copyright confusion and the importance of diminishing it from a relatively theoretical standpoint, this investigation presents the issue on the basis of evidence collected in dozens of interviews conducted with both teachers and makers of media literacy curriculums. 

This investigations not only explains the types of confusion these educators have over copyright law, but also where that confusion seems to stem from.  It also explains the unnecessary ways that teachers have learned to cope with their anxieties over this confusion, which is normally to quietly defy copyright laws in the classroom and "take risks in the name of education" or to "hyper-comply" with the copyright law; in both these instances the teacher is restricted by one risk or another, and this exemplifies the importance of proper education about the issues of copyright law and the scope of fair use.  Teachers should not have to "take risks" when it comes to delivering important information within the classroom. 

For the sake of my thesis I believe it is important to understand the root-causes of copyright confusion, because it is not enough to simply explain that this confusion exists.  This investigation will help to validate my own argument for the importance of properly understanding copyright law, because the number of interviews performed and amount of information collected proves that this is a problem existing across a broad spectrum of academic settings.

This set of guidelines, put out by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, is particularly important to my argument over the importance of educators and students understanding the rights they have with regard to copyrighted works.  Though I do not intend to refute this set of guidelines in full, I do mean to use it as an example of the kinds of resources circulating that aim to simplify or explain to the general public how to rely on fair use, but ultimately perpetuate the reluctancy and confusion that copyright laws surrounding academic institutions already provokes.

"Rule of thumb" guidelines such as only being able to use up to 10% of a work, or 1000 words of a text, 250 of a poem, and 3 minutes of a film, do not always apply when the work is being used for the purposes of education.  These guidelines are, in fact, helpful, as following them will guarantee a better chance that one uses the source within the limits of fair use.  However, the "limits" of fair use vary from scenario to scenario.  These kinds of rules often scare the student or teacher out of using certain resources to the greatest extent that they could.  A significant part of my paper will be devoted to this issue and the implications of fair use or copyright instructions which often state educators/researches rights in the form of what they can not do, instead of what they can.

This Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article was written about the release of the "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education."  Ultimately it argues for the same thing that both I and the "Code" argue for, which is the importance of an understanding of how to use intellectual property within educational settings to their fullest extent without worrying that one will become liable for copyright infringement.  This article takes a different approach then some of my other resources by giving examples of educators and the media they have used to convey crucial messages about things such as health and gender relations to their students.  This article also includes some brief thoughts and opinions from these educators, including Renee Hobbs, professor of communication at Temple University who was personally involved with the development of the "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education," and one of the three principal investigators to help develop "The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy."  I believe the information in this article will add a level of agency to my own argument, not only because it will provide one with realistic examples of the ways in wich media can be used in the dissemination of important information via the academic setting, but because these examples come from the point of view of educators who understand, first hand, the importance knowing what media needs to be used to create an effective curriculum, and how many educators have reluctantly steered away from the use of effective media for fear of being sued.

In this text, Rice outlines the contractual and technological regulations that have been placed on the access of digital information.  His argument is that information is the "common fiber of science, arts, hostory, culture, and even self," and that the press to privatize control over acces to digital information "diminishes the luster of the late-twentieth-and early-twenty-first-century opening of the information society." 

Specifically Rice focuses on the implications of the privatization of control over things such cultural knowledge, including folklore, legends, and information on heritage, in cases where this information would not be legally accessible to members of the represented culture.  Rice argues that the importance of the information era is the access one has to learn about the things most intimately related to him as a person.

I find this essay useful because, though it targets the wrongfulness of privatized control from a deeply personal level, the underlying question of whether all information should be accessible to everyone is also present, because within the academic arena researchers develop relationships with information that may have no relevance to their cultural backgrounds but remains as personal to them as if it did.  This essay also asks its reader to think about the kind of information he would not want to be withheld from him.  Though the essay doesn't specifically get at the issue of confusion over copyright and fair use issues within an academic setting, it does provide an awareness of what information may be being withheld from researchers, and forces those researchers to consider the usefulness of this kind of information to there personal projects.  This kind of awareness goes hand in hand with the understanding of fair use and copyright that my thesis argues for because it emphasizes the importance of having an active and correct knowledge of fair use and copyright issues that affect university settings, in order to get the most out of ones education.

This text supports my thesis in many of the same ways that other of my texts do.  However, my main interest in this text is what Crews argues is a "Trend toward Restrictions."  This concept explains the way in which, because many universities cannot confidently interpret fair use guidelines, especially with reference to the availability of software for students, many of them have taken to revising software policies that do little more than completely restrict the making of copies and threaten liability.  University software policies condemn "illegal copying" or "unauthorized copying" often with warnings that read soemthing like "Unauthorized copying of of commercial software is a form of theft."  However, what these policies do not do is highlight the needs of the users, or explain what copying is legal or within fair use; and from this many academic community members go without crucial educational tools for fear of being sued.

Crews argues that by not developing a clearer system of outlining policies, universities ultimately ignore the preservation of their users' rights, instead forfeiting them altogether.  This notion supports my own argument as well, because it exemplifies the necessity of university educators (including librarians) to help researchers understand what they can do.  Researchers have the right to fully access their university services to their fullest extent.  It is the university's job then to make itself as accessible as possible.  Educating students about fair use and copyright is a crucial part of this accessibility.

A general explanation of the issues and history surrounding copyright law and library services, this text also summarizes pending issues of copyright and the importance of having them dealt with.  Many of the resources already circulating as guides for the legal use of copyrighted works for librarians and other educators are geared specifically toward face-to-face educational experiences, such as classroom settings.  Even instances in which rules for online or other electronic reproductions of copyrighted works are outlined, there still seems to be a great deal of confusion about where distance education fits into these guidelines.  For this reason the DMCA has suggested that the Copyright Office amend the the Copyright Act to more clearly define what constitutes a "classroom."

Other issues that are still pending include the question of whether producers of databases, which arrange lists of facts in an alphabetical or other standard form, should get added protection against laws which require "compilations" to be original both in the sense that they are not copied and that they possess some "quantum of creativity."  Warwick, here, points out the importance of researchers and educators to be aware of their rights, so that we are able to continue to ensure that facts will never become protected under copyright laws.  This notion helps further my argument about the importance of educators and researchers understanding their rights as well.  The essay also will help me to contextualize the major issues of copyright law as they refer to library services, which I believe will help elucidate where much of the current confusion about copyright law within the academic arena stems from.  The issue of database protection also brings up interesting questions about the necessity of the Copyright Office to develop laws or guidelines for all aspects of educational services or if many of these aspects should be left to interpretations of fair use.

This document was created in accordance with the "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education" released on November 11th 2008.  The "Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education" was developed for the purposes of advancing a greater knowledge of the doctrine of fair use for educators (including librarians) and students to help ensure that they get the most out of what resources are available to enhance their curriculums and the overall educational experience.  With this goal in mind, "Teaching about Copyright and Fair Use" instructs educators on how to work issues of fair use and copyright law into current curriculums to communicate to students the importance of understanding fair use.

The guide includes lesson plans geared toward high school level students, undergraduates, and graduate students.  I find it quite relevant to my own thesis, because it prioritizes the copyright issues that are most important for the public to understand.  This document takes a cultural approach to appealing to educators, arguing that every student has a right to "gather, share, create and use the intellectual property that is constantly being generated in our culture."  I plan to take a similar approach in my own essay, and I feel that understanding the lesson plans in this document and using them as a point of reference will ultimately strengthen the argument I make for the advancement of an awareness surrounding copyright issues that directly affect the quality of education one gives or is given.

Released on November 11th 2008, this publication is the latest in a series of codes to help members of the academic world to better understand fair use and how it protects them in their studies/lectures.  Many of the principles outlined in this publication also pertain to library services, either because libraries provide the sources in question or because of libraries' roles in helping educators present these sources to their students, such as over Blackboard websites.

This publication is particularly important to my paper because it not only describes principles of fair use which can be applied to the use of all media, but it also shatters many of the myths creating the anxiety that prevents many academics from utilizing all of the sources they need for instruction/research.  Also, this publication provides the most up-to-date set of guidelines available, which will act as an interesting point of comparison between it and other sets of guidelines I plan to discuss/analyze.

This document was created to help prevent further confusion over issues of fair use in the educational arena.  I plan to discuss the implications of the language used to write this document, with the goal of showing the importance of documents that explain to students/educators what they are allowed to do with copyrighted works versus ones that focus more intensely on those things you cannot.

During the revision process that lead to the Copyright Act of 1976, the photocopier had become the biggest technological threat of the time.  The addition of photocopying services to many libraries made publishers afraid that, instead of renewing many of their periodical subscriptions, libraries would begin servicing their users by interlibrary loans exclusively.  To help mediate this situation between publishers, authors, printers, educators, and librarians the Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU), was given the job of developing a set of guidelines for the minimum amount that one could copy without becoming liable for suit for copyright infringement.

This report is important because the guidelines still pertain to today.  Photocopiers still play a hugely important role in library services.  They are used to make PDF files out of texts, which are then put into online educational sites, such as blackboard. They can also be scanned and turned into Word documents, which can be edited and reorganized.  The multitude of things one can do with photocopies now is a seperate legal issue.  However, the first step in doing any of these things is knowing what you are and are not allowed to reproduce in the first place.

Libraries, museums, and archives : legal issues and ethical challenges in the new information era / edited by Tomas A. Lipinski.  0810840855 (hbk. : alk. paper) series Lanham, Md. : Scarecrow Press, 2002.

This essay provides an explanation of the problem of section 108 of the U.S. Copyright Act, which does not clearly define what technology is allowed in the reproduction of copyrighted materials.  This problem has proven to confound many librarians who continue to wonder if technology that did not exist at the time of the section's revision is included under the seemingly "technologically nuetral" language of 108's subsections.  Furthermore, 108 seems only to allow the use of digital formatting in the case of preserving copyrighted materials, but not distributing them.  This has caused greater confusion, especially with regards to services such as interlibrary loan, in which case the digital format is most easily sent via e-mail, a service which would make it possible for the material to be printed and thus owned by another library or patron.

No specific argument is layed out in this article.  However, the authors do elucidate the ways in which section 108 can be understood and utilized in regards to reproduction and without resulting negative consequences.  These explanations are important because the law will never be as quick as it needs to be to adapt to the technological advances happening all the time.  This essay supports my own thesis, because it emphasizes the importance of understanding copyright law whether you are a researcher or an educator (including librarians).  In order to take full advantage of the resources that exist for education, one must fully understand his rights to that information.