Mural for School Library

[justalayman]

Quincy

Rights of public display

Am I understanding this right?

I cannot purchase (as an example) a Mickey Mouse sticky appliqué and stick it on the window of my car, with the possible exception it was marketed as a car window appliqué and as such presumably it was licensed by Disney for the use?

I can't purchase a Star Wars poster and hang it on an outside wall of my house because it is a public display which is a protected right?

 

[quincy]

Quincy

Rights of public display

Am I understanding this right?

I cannot purchase (as an example) a Mickey Mouse sticky appliqu� and stick it on the window of my car, with the possible exception it was marketed as a car window appliqu� and as such presumably it was licensed by Disney for the use?

I can't purchase a Star Wars poster and hang it on an outside wall of my house because it is a public display which is a protected right?

You can purchase a Disney-created Mickey Mouse sticky applique and use it as it was designed by Disney to be used, which is to stick it somewhere.

You can purchase a Disney-created Mickey Mouse poster and use it as if was designed by Disney to be used, which is to hang the poster somewhere.

You cannot use the sticky or the poster to create a derivative work, and this includes using the stickers or cutting up a poster and making a mural using these elements (although copyright laws can allow for the creation of works that are transformative).

Public display is covered under 17 USC section 109 (c) and it allows for the public display of legally purchased copyrighted works under some conditions. It generally does not allow for the transmission of a copyrighted work to others.

Here is a link to the American Library Association's Video and Copyright Fact Sheet with information on video use in a classroom setting: http://www.ala.org/tools/libfactsheets/alalibraryfactsheet07

 

[LdiJ]

Please support all that you have written with cites to the law, LdiJ. I would also be interested in the catalog that shows "Frozen" as an acceptable purchase for classroom use.

Why wouldn't you call a school library a "public display?" What is not public about the display?

The general public does not have access to a school library...particularly in an elementary school.

A derivative work is one based on preexisting material. As defined in 17 USC section 101, it encompasses any form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted. The EXCLUSIVE right to create a derivative work is held by the copyright owner. If permission has not been granted by the copyright holder, no one can create a derivative work except for personal use.

I would not call that a derivative work, but I know you will never back down on that.

Read again the Copyright Act's section 101 (definitions) and the Copyright Act's section 103.

Thanks in advance for providing the source of your information.

You do understand that its possible to buy or rent versions of movies that are specifically for organizations and versions for commercial use? They cost quite a bit more than a standard DVD, but that is so they specifically can be sold or rented to groups...like a school. The movie does not have to be for an educational purpose. Do you really need someone to prove that to you? A Disney movie would tend to be one of the more expensive ones to buy or rent, and therefore a school might not opt for that, but its possible.

 

[quincy]

The general public does not have access to a school library...particularly in an elementary school.

What is not public about a school library? Do NO members of the public have access to the school library?

I would not call that a derivative work, but I know you will never back down on that.

Why on earth would I back down on repeating what the Copyright Act (supported by case law) says is a derivative work?

You do understand that its possible to buy or rent versions of movies that are specifically for organizations and versions for commercial use? They cost quite a bit more than a standard DVD, but that is so they specifically can be sold or rented to groups...like a school. The movie does not have to be for an educational purpose. Do you really need someone to prove that to you? A Disney movie would tend to be one of the more expensive ones to buy or rent, and therefore a school might not opt for that, but its possible.

The movie DOES have to have an educational purpose to be shown in a classroom so, yes, I need YOU to prove to me that what you are saying is correct. It is not correct according to the law.

Here are more links for you to read (and hopefully understand):

From Stanford University Libraries, "Grading Teachers on Copyright Law:"
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/videotaping

From Washington and Lee University, "Copyright Guidelines for Showing Movies and Other Audiovisual Works:"
https://www.wlu.edu/general-counsel/answer-center/copyright-and-intellectual-property/copyright-guidelines-for-showing-movies-and-other-audio-visual-works

If you could please cite sources for your information, instead of just stating that what you say is a fact, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

 

[justalayman]

In support of Ldij (omg is the world coming to an end?) the dvd thing she is taking about;

Many producers of movies, music, and anything else typically used in a school often produce versions of the work and sell it with a limited license to use it within the school for a specified use. Music scored used by the school bands are another example of such works sold along with a license to use the work for some specified use.


Now, also arguing ldij's point and using your response to me;

If an appliqué or other sort of reproduction of a Disney character is purchased by the library, would not the use of the work be to mount it somewhere such as a wall of the library? How would ldij's suggestion be any different than my question about a movie poster or sticky image?

in fact, wouldn't the first sale doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 109) allow for any suggestion Ldij has presented?


Btw Ldij, although access to a school library is restricted to some extent, it would still fulfill the definition of a "public place" as used in the discussion. It being an elementary school does not make it any less public (more private?)

 

[LdiJ]

In support of Ldij (omg is the world coming to an end?) the dvd thing she is taking about;

Many producers of movies, music, and anything else typically used in a school often produce versions of the work and sell it with a limited license to use it within the school for a specified use. Music scored used by the school bands are another example of such works sold along with a license to use the work for some specified use.


Now, also arguing ldij's point and using your response to me;

If an appliqué or other sort of reproduction of a Disney character is purchased by the library, would not the use of the work be to mount it somewhere such as a wall of the library? How would ldij's suggestion be any different than my question about a movie poster or sticky image?

Heck, appliques would probably work even better than cutting characters out of posters...and would defeat Quincy's argument as they would be stuck to a wall (which is a normal use of an applique), would not have to be altered, and wouldn't need a clear coat.

in fact, wouldn't the first sale doctrine (17 U.S.C. § 109) allow for any suggestion Ldij has presented?


Btw Ldij, although access to a school library is restricted to some extent, it would still fulfill the definition of a "public place" as used in the discussion. It being an elementary school does not make it any less public (more private?)

I was thinking about it as access being limited to students, staff, and limited access to the families of students/staff. For example, my daughter's school's library was locked any night there was an event at the school, unless it was the annual book sale. Whereas anybody can walk into a public library.

 

[quincy]

In support of Ldij (omg is the world coming to an end?) ...

Haha. It appears so.

... the dvd thing she is taking about;

Many producers of movies, music, and anything else typically used in a school often produce versions of the work and sell it with a limited license to use it within the school for a specified use. Music scored used by the school bands are another example of such works sold along with a license to use the work for some specified use.

Yes. A license would be necessary under most circumstances. See the information provided in the links from Stanford and from the American Library Association and from Washington and Lee University.

A teacher cannot legally show a copyrighted film to his/her classroom students unless a license has been granted to show the film for some purpose other than an educational purpose, or unless the film has an educational purpose.

Now, also arguing ldij's point and using your response to me;

If an appliqu� or other sort of reproduction of a Disney character is purchased by the library, would not the use of the work be to mount it somewhere such as a wall of the library? How would ldij's suggestion be any different than my question about a movie poster or sticky image?

in fact, wouldn't the first sale doctrine (17 U.S.C. � 109) allow for any suggestion Ldij has presented?

You can display a legally purchased copyrighted work under many circumstances. That generally falls under the first sale doctrine. So the school library could purchase movie posters or stickers and display them on the walls.

The school cannot copy copyrighted material for use in a mural, or cut apart a legally purchased copyrighted poster or make a derivative of a copyrighted work using stickers without permission granted from the copyright holder.

LdiJ's suggestion would more than likely be considered a derivative of a copyrighted work - and I provided a definition from the Copyright Act of what exactly a derivative work is and the exclusive rights of a copyright holder to create derivatives (or to grant a license to another to create a derivative work).

Btw Ldij, although access to a school library is restricted to some extent, it would still fulfill the definition of a "public place" as used in the discussion. It being an elementary school does not make it any less public (more private?)

Thank you for providing the definition of "public place" for LdiJ, justalayman. I was hoping LdiJ would discover the definition on her own. The school library is considered public and students and staff and the families of students are part of the public.

Your reference to Section 109 (c) that I mentioned earlier is what would be considered by an attorney if Clb0311 consults an attorney prior to painting a mural using book characters. As I also said earlier, what book characters are being used need to be known to determine if the characters are rights-protected and if any infringement claim would be possible based on the use.

 

[quincy]

Heck, appliques would probably work even better than cutting characters out of posters...and would defeat Quincy's argument as they would be stuck to a wall (which is a normal use of an applique), would not have to be altered, and wouldn't need a clear coat. ...

But sticking stickers on a wall is not painting a mural - and the legality of painting a mural on the library wall using book characters is the subject of the thread, not how to decorate library walls.

 

[LdiJ]

The movie DOES have to have an educational purpose to be shown in a classroom so, yes, I need YOU to prove to me that what you are saying is correct. It is not correct according to the law.

Not when they are freaking paying for the right to show the movie. Did none of your children's schools ever have family movie nights as fundraising events or show Holiday movies or anything that wasn't educational? Come on Quincy how can there be an infringement when an organization is paying for the right to show the movie? I truly cannot understand why you are being so dense about this. There is no law that says that only movies with an educational purpose can be shown in a school.

You are trying to use copyright laws to indicate that schools cannot pay for the right to show a movie...when ANY organization/company can pay for the right to show a movie.

 

[quincy]

Not when they are freaking paying for the right to show the movie. Did none of your children's schools ever have family movie nights as fundraising events or show Holiday movies or anything that wasn't educational? Come on Quincy how can there be an infringement when an organization is paying for the right to show the movie? I truly cannot understand why you are being so dense about this. There is no law that says that only movies with an educational purpose can be shown in a school.

You are trying to use copyright laws to indicate that schools cannot pay for the right to show a movie...when ANY organization/company can pay for the right to show a movie.

You are talking about licensed rights, LdiJ. These rights are granted by the copyright holder. The showing of a movie to raise funds for a school is allowed WHEN THERE HAS BEEN A LICENSE GRANTED and the copyright holder is getting paid royalties for the showing of the movie.

Geez almighty, LdiJ. There ARE laws that prevent a school from using copyrighted material without authorization from the copyright holder for anything other than an educational purpose, which can be determined a fair use (but, once again, fair use is a defense to copyright infringement and not permission to use a copyrighted work).

Please read the information from the links provided and try to understand what is being said. You are confusing what you think is legal with what is actually legal. Please don't do that.

 

[LdiJ]

You are talking about licensed rights, LdiJ. These rights are granted by the copyright holder. The showing of a movie to raise funds for a school is allowed WHEN THERE HAS BEEN A LICENSE GRANTED and the copyright holder is getting paid royalties for the showing of the movie.

Geez almighty, LdiJ. There ARE laws that prevent a school from using copyrighted material without authorization from the copyright holder for anything other than an educational purpose, which can be determined a fair use (but, once again, fair use is a defense to copyright infringement and not permission to use a copyrighted work).

Please read the information from the links provided and try to understand what is being said. You are confusing what you think is legal with what is actually legal. Please don't do that.

I am beginning to wonder if you were deliberately refusing to understand what I was talking about. The kinds of catalogs that schools get their movies from include the licensing rights. That is WHY the movies cost more than ordinary DVDs.

In addition, I was clearly trying to come up with a way that the school could legally do their mural. Appliques place on the wall with the mural being the background would be a way to accomplish that.

 

[ajkroy]

As a teacher, I'd like to jump in on this. "Educational purpose" is broadly-defined, and, in my experience, never enforced. I teach a unit on mental illness every year to my juniors and follow up with the movie "A Beautiful Mind". No one has ever asked me to correlate it with my curriculum in over ten years of teaching. Similarly, my neighboring teacher plays "Frozen" frequently...and is also never questioned.

I suppose all it would take is a disgruntled parent to call someone, but I have not heard of it happening.

 

[justalayman]

As a teacher, I'd like to jump in on this. "Educational purpose" is broadly-defined, and, in my experience, never enforced. I teach a unit on mental illness every year to my juniors and follow up with the movie "A Beautiful Mind". No one has ever asked me to correlate it with my curriculum in over ten years of teaching. Similarly, my neighboring teacher plays "Frozen" frequently...and is also never questioned.

I suppose all it would take is a disgruntled parent to call someone, but I have not heard of it happening.

Between a serious lack of understanding copyright law by the teacher as well as parents of students or anybody involved and the "turning a blind eye" because of the venue, there probably aren't a lot of prosecutions of copyright infringement for such situations. There are surely situations that would allow such prosecution though. It has nothing to do with "educational purposes" though as simply showing a movie to entertain the students is just not within the scope of "educational purpose".


Even your use of A Besutiful Mind would not be covered even though there is some relationship of the basis of the movie and the curriculum. In addition to many other reasons, a drama, especially given the inaccuracies in the movie A Besutiful Mind, is not truly educational. It was made for entertainment and in doing so, literary license taken resulted in a factually questionable movie. In other words, using that movie to teach your students about mental illness would be tantamount to using porn movies to teach sex Ed. Porn involves sex but it simply does little to aid in teaching a person about sex.

 

[quincy]

As a teacher, I'd like to jump in on this. "Educational purpose" is broadly-defined, and, in my experience, never enforced. I teach a unit on mental illness every year to my juniors and follow up with the movie "A Beautiful Mind". No one has ever asked me to correlate it with my curriculum in over ten years of teaching. Similarly, my neighboring teacher plays "Frozen" frequently...and is also never questioned.

I suppose all it would take is a disgruntled parent to call someone, but I have not heard of it happening.

In one of the links I provided, it was noted accurately that there have been only a handful of cases in 200 years where a school/teacher has been sued for infringement over the unauthorized showing of a film in the classroom - although there have been cases where the school has had to pay after-the-fact for a discovered unauthorized use (generally requiring the school/teacher to pay the licensing fee that was required prior to showing the film).

But, as also noted in one of the links I provided, an educator needs to be careful to obey the law. Some of the laws that need to be followed by the educator are copyright laws. Teachers should note well the "warning" about copyright infringement that is shown at the start of a film. If the film has been licensed for use in an educational setting, no problem. If the film has not been licensed for use in an educational setting, the teacher should know what is considered fair use and what is not a fair use of copyrighted material.

In other words, just because everyone is doing it and not getting caught does not make what is being done any less illegal. Since this is a legal forum, I think the law needs to be cited and respected as the law.

To LdiJ: If alternatives to painting a mural had been requested by the poster (or even if alternatives hadn't been requested), I could have more easily accepted what you wrote. But what you wrote went beyond simple alternatives to painting. You suggested the poster create on the library walls what could be considered a derivative work. Creating a derivative work would not be legal without permission granted from the copyright holder, just as using a copyrighted film without authorization from the copyright holder would not be legal without permission granted from the copyright holder. Permission generally comes in the form of a license.

This is not even addressing your other statements that needed correcting so that the poster would not violate the law based on an incorrect understanding of copyright laws (and an incorrect understanding of what is a public place, what is a derivative work, what is an unlicensed work versus a licensed work, etc).

It also does not address your failure to provide a source for your information until you were prompted by justalayman and his post (based on research by justalayman). Even now you have not provided an actual source. You are stating these catalogs exist but, with nothing more than your statement, it is hard to determine what sort of licensing comes with the purchase of items from the catalogs. If these purchases come with licensed rights, what sort of rights are being granted and by whom? What is the scope of the rights that are granted? Having a source would help.

I am afraid the obtuseness is yours, LdiJ. Have you read ANY of the information that was provided in the links? It seems doubtful.

 

[ajkroy]

Between a serious lack of understanding copyright law by the teacher as well as parents of students or anybody involved and the "turning a blind eye" because of the venue, there probably aren't a lot of prosecutions of copyright infringement for such situations. There are surely situations that would allow such prosecution though. It has nothing to do with "educational purposes" though as simply showing a movie to entertain the students is just not within the scope of "educational purpose".


Even your use of A Besutiful Mind would not be covered even though there is some relationship of the basis of the movie and the curriculum. In addition to many other reasons, a drama, especially given the inaccuracies in the movie A Besutiful Mind, is not truly educational. It was made for entertainment and in doing so, literary license taken resulted in a factually questionable movie. In other words, using that movie to teach your students about mental illness would be tantamount to using porn movies to teach sex Ed. Porn involves sex but it simply does little to aid in teaching a person about sex.

Thank you. I will change my planning accordingly and will no longer show the movie (though, for the record, it is my opinion that it is a fairly accurate representation of schizophrenia; whether it is a true depiction of John Nash's life is not for me to say).