In the light of the acceptance by government of the recommendations made by the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property, what are the potential benefits to education? Emily Goodhand considers this in light of her every-day activities as Copyright and Compliance Officer at the University of Reading.
About the Author: Emily Goodhand is Copyright and Compliance Officer at the University of Reading.
E-mail: e.a.goodhand@reading.ac.uk
Twitter: @copyrightgirl
Tel: 0118 378 6766
A lot of people don’t really understand what I do. When I try to explain it, the reactions I get vary between bored indifference to mild alarm. I’m in the wrong profession for casual conversation at dinner parties, given the fairly prohibitive and often incendiary nature of copyright as a concept. Truth be told though, I really enjoy my job. And no, it doesn’t involve standing over people with a big stick as they stand cowering with a book at the photocopier (something else people often assume I do). The reasons I love my job are these: I enjoy talking to people about copyright and helping them with issues they face, and I get to deal with complex enquiries which means regularly interpreting and applying the law. My approach to copyright is not (as so often is the case) to focus exclusively on what can’t be done, but rather on what can, preferring to empower and not prohibit. In my experience, most people who breach copyright law do so in complete ignorance. This is not a defence to copyright infringement, but rather an indication that there is a lack of understanding, particularly when it comes to the online environment.
People often think that copyright law is somehow different for the digital domain – it is not.
The digital domain The difficulty that the law has with the online environment is in trying to decide where infringements occur, and how to deal with the multiple rights contained in audiovisual works. Often the best way to maintain compliance and limit liability when it comes to online content is to manage and adhere to appropriate licences and draft appropriate policies and terms and conditions. Licences and terms and conditions can act as contracts that clearly specify the acts, which may and may not be done. These will provide a legal framework within which people can operate, thereby mitigating the risks to the institution. Part of my role is devoted to the drafting of policy and similar documents.
Having been Copyright Officer for about two years now, I’ve had my fair share of complex enquiries. One of the highlights of my role is that no two queries are ever the same! But often there are similar themes and invariably audiovisual works are one of the most complicated areas – not least because licensing requirements and performance rights are often complex.
Can I record iPlayer?
copyright law is not as clear-cut as it perhaps should be.
So what types of issues relating to copyright and the use of audiovisual media do I come across on a regular basis? Some common queries I am asked are: ‘Can I upload a television programme to YouTube?’ or ‘Can I record iPlayer?’. These type of query always make me smile as it proves to me that people are at least hesitating before acting, and asking the right questions. But it also shows that copyright law is not as clear-cut as it perhaps should be. Particularly when all the resources and technology you need to do something is at your fingertips. Yet this is a trap a lot of people fall into: just because you can do something, it does not mean that you should, or that the law allows you to. On the surface, if you have found a great piece of software that could record programmes from iPlayer and keep them for longer than the iPlayer limit, why would you not think that recording them and storing them for use in your lectures in six months’ time was fine? After all, you’re not making any money out of them, and it is for academic and teaching purposes. Yet sadly academic purposes alone don’t justify copyright infringement, and recording programmes from an on-demand service is an infringement of copyright. Uploading a TV programme to YouTube is also copyright infringement, and could very quickly land you in hot water with the broadcasting and production companies.
On the other hand, I am also asked a lot of questions by the overly cautious people, such as ‘Can I show a film for educational purposes?’ and ‘Do I need a licence to show a film in my lecture?’ There are defences built into the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act which were intended to allow the use of certain works for certain purposes in certain circumstances. Showing films and broadcasts in educational establishments for the purposes of instruction is one such defence, provided you’re only showing the films and broadcasts to students or staff at that establishment. As soon as parents or other people not associated with the establishment are in the audience, it becomes a public performance and the defence no longer applies. So you would need a licence if the film were being viewed in public, or if the purpose of the showing were for entertainment purposes only.
Format shifting And what about format-shifting? Questions such as ‘I’ve got a film on VHS and I want to put it on to DVD because the lecture theatre only has a PC with a DVD drive’ commonly arise. Currently, under copyright legislation, you cannot change the format of pre-recorded videos unless you have the permission of the copyright holder. So what is the solution? Well, you could see if it is available commercially on DVD and buy it, or you could check to see if it has been aired on television since 1989. If it has, and you have an Educational Recording Agency (ERA) licence, you could see if you could hunt down a copy to use under the terms of that licence. But watch this space: following the Hargreaves Review, recent proposals to change the copyright framework include a private copying exception and a preservation copying exception. Once the Government have consulted (due in the autumn) and the scope of the exceptions has been determined, these will likely become law. If that were the case, you’d be able to format-shift at home, immediately making life much easier.
The international element
Of course, there are many more issues, such as issues around lecture capture and the production of open educational resources (OERs), which have been covered in great depth by both JISC and Web2Rights. The international element of courses adds a further level of complexity too. As the Higher Education sector increases and extends its international partnerships, universities are looking for opportunities to deliver a wider variety of course materials online. Yet audiovisual works continue to pose a big problem in terms of copyright and licensing. There is currently no licence that would allow off-air recordings to be accessed by students based overseas, for example; nor may pre-recorded feature films be uploaded to a secure server unless the copyright holder has granted permission. These barriers hold back innovation in teaching to distance learners, even more so if the desired audiovisual works are not available for purchase or hire in the country where the students are based. The European Commission is currently consulting on a Green Paper entitled, ‘Green Paper on the Online Distribution of Audiovisual Works in the European Union’, and issues such as this should be raised. The consultation period ends in November.
For me, 2011 heralds an exciting era for copyright law, with plans for reform underway in both Europe and the UK. Copyright reform is long overdue and the law still has a long way to go before it can apply more comfortably to the digital domain. Technology and new media have developed so rapidly that the law often needs to be applied in a way that the lawmakers at the time never envisaged. For me, this is the sort of challenge I thrive on.
Emily Goodhand Copyright and Compliance Officer at the University of Reading. E-mail: e.a.goodhand@reading.ac.uk Twitter: @copyrightgirl Tel: 0118 378 6766