The resources that I chose for this online toolkit focus on the specified content from the course. The resources that I chose will help educators and students alike understand copyright, fair use, intellectual property, and personal rights. The resources will give insight to the different concepts. I have included a synopsis of each resource in order to allow users of this toolkit to quickly know what each resource is about.
___________________
Asp, E. M. (2018). Section 512 of the digital millennium copyright act: User experience and user frustration. Iowa Law Review, 103, 751–783.
- Article from the Iowa Law Review discussing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, known as DMCA. It discusses, in part, how when the Internet was new, the DMCA was drafted as a means to limit the liability of Internet Service Providers when their subscribers post content that violates copyright claims.
Dourado, E., & Tabarrok, A. (2015). Public choice perspectives on intellectual property. Public Choice, 163, 129–151.
- Article that discusses how Intellectual property has moved from a national to a global perspective. This is a result of many intellectual resources being global in nature. On the national level in the United States, two schools with differing perspectives are analyzed. One, the Virginia School, explains why intellectual property law has expanded in recent decades. The other, Bloomington School, looks at the consequences of that expansion. In the past few decades it has become apparent that nonmarket decisions that are both political and institutional interact with intellectual property and affect the response to intellectual property ownership.
Federal Trade Commission. (2018). Complying with COPPA: Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions
- Congress enacted the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) in 1998. The primary goal of COPPA is to place parents in control over what information is collected from their young children online. The Rule was designed to protect children under age 13 while accounting for the dynamic nature of the Internet. The Rule applies to operators of commercial websites and online services (including mobile apps) directed to children under 13 that collect, use, or disclose personal information from children, and operators of general audience websites or online services with actual knowledge that they are collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children under 13. The Rule also applies to websites or online services that have actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information directly from users of another website or online service directed to children.
Goodlatte statement on world intellectual property day. (2015). Washington: Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. Retrieved from ProQuest Central Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1675958417?accountid=28180
- In a statement released April 26, 2018, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va) acknowledging the 18th anniversary of world intellectual property day. The purpose of World Intellectual Day is to recognize the significant economic and social impact that intellectual property has on the United States. Goodlatte cited the acknowledgement of the Founding Fathers to the importance of intellectual property and gave the example of a bipartisan Music Modernization Act which works to modernize music laws. This proclamation is important in educational settings as it succinctly demonstrates the value government officials put on intellectual property.
Hobbs, R. (2010). Copyright clarity how fair use supports digital learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
- This book serves as a guide that clarifies principles for applying copyright law to 21st-century education, discusses what is permissible in the classroom, and explores the fair use of digital materials.
LegalZoom. (2012, July 23). What is a derivative work and how does it affect copyright? --> -->. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtTUqEG32aY
- In this YouTube video, attorney Joe Escalante explains the definition of "derivative work" and what permissions you must get in order to distribute your derivative work.
Leonhard, G. (2014, April 27). The future show with Gerd Leonhard. Episode 1, season 1: Privacy failure --> -->. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixnkqn_FJj4
- In his YouTube video blog, Gerd Leonhard, stresses the need that each person needs to strike a personal balance between openness and transparency and a collective standard of privacy.
Lieberstein, M. A., & Bryner, W. M. (2014). Before you use others' intellectual property without permission, consider this. Franchise Law Journal, 34(2), 131-154. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1671048905?accountid=28180
- The article focuses on intellectual property in regards to franchise owners. First point is that the US Constitution promotes and preserves progress and innovation over copying. US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes has noted that the US Constitution promotes progress and innovation over copying. The article suggests that it behooves the franchisee or franchise owner to consider all legal issues and any financial or otherwise that may be associated with the copying of the intellectual property of others without permission.
Long, S. A. (2006). US copyright law: The challenge of protection in the digital age. New Library World, 107(9), 450-452. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1108/03074800610702633
- In the United States copyright law dates to the writing of the US Constitution. In the function of libraries, copyright is based on the notion that creativity should be rewarded in that creators of books, music, and other works should be compensated for their efforts and, for a limited time, can control how their works are copied and sold. Copyright law has been revised over time to include fair-use provisions. Another way that copyright law has changed with the times is to include CDs, DVDs and other artistic works that are electronically distributed. Two concepts—“orphan works” and “broadcast flag” have been introduced in the early 2000s. Orphan works refer to works that the copyright holder cannot be tracked down any longer. Broadcast flag refers to broadcast providers wanting to protect their works so they cannot be copied and rebroadcast; doing so would give them the same protections as cable and satellite providers. Librarians are opposed to such flags by claiming such flags would render the material inaccessible to their patrons and students.
Nelson, C. R., Barnett, G., Gorman, R. A., Reichman, H., & Zurbriggen, E. (2014). Defending the Freedom to Innovate: Faculty Intellectual Property Rights after Stanford v. Roche. Academe, 100, 38–56.
- There have long been differences of opinion over ownership of patentable inventions, but recently a number of universities have categorically asserted that they own the products of faculty research. And there is increasing institutional interest in declaring ownership of faculty intellectual property subject to copyright—most notably evident in demands that faculty members cede ownership of online courses and other instructional materials to their universities, a trend that began escalating in the 2012–13 academic year.
Piculell, A. (2013, April 25). TEACH Act-DmF --> -->. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/flvmGgyJvEI
- Youtube video that explains the primary purpose of the Technology, Equality, and Accessibility in College and Higher Education, or TEACH Act, is to “balance the needs of distance learners with the rights of copyright holders.
Russell, C. (2002). New copyright exemptions for distance educators: The technology, education and copyright harmonization (TEACH) act. ERIC digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology, 2–7. Retrieved from http://proxy1.ncu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED470984&site=eds-live
- Article that explains that through the exemptions listed in the TEACH Act and DMCA, students can access class materials. This means a journal article or a video clip that is posted by the instructor for the specific course is available for the student to access during the class. Frequently the online access is limited by length of access or by printing limitations or by number of available downloads.
Seadle, M. (2004). Copyright in a networked world: Ethics and infringement. Library Hi Tech, 22(1), 106-110. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1108/07378830410524620
- Ethical judgements can influence judicial rulings about intellectual property rights infringement as much as the legal statutes can. Three issues of intellectual property ethics are looked at in this article: the nature of the property, written guidelines for behavior, and enforcement mechanisms. The most common form of intellectual property violation is plagiarism. Colleges and universities have developed specific Honor Codes to deal with plagiarism. The enforcement of laws in association of intellectual property violations is challenging as there are no state-by-state expressly written rules as there are for other law violations.
Soukup, P. (2014). Looking at, with, and through YouTube(TM). Communication Research Trends, 33, 3–34.
- YouTube began in 2004 and rapidly grew, achieving 98.8 million users and 3.5 billion videos by early 2009. The success of YouTube is accredited to its primary elements: video sharing, social media, and advertising or marketing. People across many spectrums utilize YouTube, from inexpensive marketing of businesses or products to scholars using online videos as sources. The newness of YouTube results in multiple unknowns that need further study as it is redefining the socially construed communication theory. This article is very applicable to educators as YouTube is a buzzword in educational circles and educators need to understand what sets YouTube apart and how it attributes its success.
Stanford University Libraries. (2015). What is fair use? Retrieved from https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/
- Article from Stanford University Libraries that defines fair use as any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work.
Stanford University Libraries. (2018). Welcome to the Public Domain. Retrieved from https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/
- Article from Stanford University Libraries that defines public domain. The term “public domain” refers to creative materials that are not protected by intellectual property laws such as copyright, trademark, or patent laws. The public owns these works, not an individual author or artist. Anyone can use a public domain work without obtaining permission, but no one can ever own it.
Storella, A. (2014). It’s selfie-evident: Spectrums of alienability and copyrighted content on social media. Boston University Law Review, 94, 2045–2088.
- Daily social media users post or share vast amounts of content that is most likely protected under copyright law. Most social media users do not realize that the terms of service require users to grant a non-exclusive, transferable, and royalty-free license of all intellectual property posted through the service to the service provider. Licenses such as this give the social media services the ability to license this content to their affiliates, frequently for advertisements, without obtaining additional consent from the copyright holder. Recent court proceedings have brought some attention to the terms of service the users agree to, without fully comprehending what they have agreed to. Plaintiffs who attempt to challenge social media providers in court face many challenges that require the plaintiff to overcome many hurdles and most likely resort to an out-of-court settlement. This article is very apropos as educators strive to use social media in personal and professional usage. Educators do not understand the service agreement, and so they may be in violation of intellectual property of their students if they choose to post a picture of student work online.
SunWolf, P. (2015). Intellectual property and property rights: Critical concepts in intellectual property law. Communication Research Trends, 34(1), 35-36. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.ncu.edu/docview/1667626253?accountid=28180
- The book Intellectual Property and Property Rights: Critical Concepts in Intellectual Property Law by Adam Mossoff is reviewed. This book is a collection of law journal articles involving intellectual property rights. Part one of the book, which is “Property Theory and Intellectual Property Rights” looks at intellectual property as property, copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. Part two of the book, which is “The Property-Based Critique of Intellectual Property” looks at the moral aspects of intellectual property and the role of that privilege. The reviewer describes the book as a valuable resource for communication professors and lecturers to help students understand what can be fairly used and which of their own intellectual works might be protected. This analysis of the categorization of the different articles will not benefit educators unless they are looking for specific information on the topic.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Balancing Student Privacy and School Safety: A Guide to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act for Elementary and Secondary Schools. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/brochures/elsec.html
- A resource from the U.S. Department of Education, this article discusses the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and its ramifications on educational settings.
