Fair Use and Copyright in Education

– [Kate] Thanks so much Lynn, and thanks everybody for tuning in. Like Lynn said today’s topic is copyright and Fair Use
in Academic Settings. Fair Use is one of the
exceptions to copyright and it’s the thing that
allows for a lot of the uses that we make of copyrighted materials in academic settings. So we’ll get into a lot more detail about that in a little bit. Today we’re gonna start, before we get into Fair Use, I’d like to start by giving you a brief overview of copyrights. So what is copyrights? So Copyright law comes
from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Which gives Congress the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors
the exclusive rights to their respective
writings and discoveries. So we want to take note
right at the beginning here that the original intent
behind giving copyrights to authors in the first place was to promote progress and knowledge. It’s about social good not primarily about money. And in fact the Supreme Court has said that the primary
objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors but to promote the progress
of science and useful arts. A few more details about copyrights. copyright protects original
works of authorship. This can be a novel or a piece of music, but also more casual
creations like letters and emails and photographs. Even blog posts and posts on social media. So what does it mean for
a work to be original? For work to be original it
has to meet two criteria. The first is independent creation. It can’t be copied from another work. And second is that it has
exhibit at least a small amount of creativity. The creativity required
here is really very low. One of the big cases here
is that the phone book isn’t creative enough, but that might be,
that’s a pretty low bar. So originality, there are some things that originality does not require. It does not require novelty, unlike in patent law. So if you were to independently sit down and come up with the Ode on a Grecian Urn without having ever read Keats’ original there’s a possibility
you could copyright it. But in practice that lack of novelty can be used to rebut an assertion
of independent creation, but novelty is not strictly required. Originality also does
not require that the work be artistic or well executed. The courts exercise what they
call aesthetic neutrality. So the quality of the work
is not really relevant and judges aren’t experts in judging art and they don’t want to be art critics. So there’s also no requirement
that the work be lawful. So that a difference from Trademark law. So the work could be obscene, libelous, or even fraudulent and still
potentially be protected by copyright. You might run into some other legal issues but copyright might not be one of them. So facts and ideas,
they’re not copyrightable. However a particular way of expressing those facts and ideas is copyrightable. So if you were to Tweet saying that today it’s raining in Charlotte, that is a fact and you can’t copyright it. But if you were to express
that fact in a creative way like writing a song or a poem about it that would be copyrightable. And this is what we call the
idea expression dichotomy. So another thing to note
is that facts and ideas, they’re not copyrightable even if it was really
hard to uncover them. So in some countries they do offer copyrightable protection
based on what’s called the sweat of the brow. Protection based on hard work even if you’re talking
about facts and ideas. But in the U.S. and most
other common law countries, we don’t offer copyright protection just because it was hard
to discover some facts or to use the previous example just because it was hard
to gather all the numbers and put them in the phone book. So in order to be
protected with a copyright works also have to be what we call fixed in a tangible medium. So that tangible medium
can be a traditional format like paper or canvas. But it can also be the memory card on your camera or your phone or the hard drive on your computer or even in the cloud. Generally copyright lasts
for the life of the author plus 70 years. There are different rules for
works of corporate authorship and anonymous works but generally 70 years is the number you want to keep in mind. That number has really
increased over the years. At the founding of our
country it was 14 years with a possible renewal
of another 14 years and you really have
Disney and Mickey Mouse to thank for those extensions. So copyright holders have a
number of exclusive rights. That includes the right to
reproduce and distribute and publicly display their work and to create derivative work, so that would be the
right to perform a play, sell copies of a book or authorize someone to make a translation. So you can see that about Fair Use those copyright rights would be absolute. So if you wanted to use
for example an image in a presentation or an
excerpt in an article you need to ask permission
from the copyright holder and then pay whatever
fee that person requires. So it’s good for us that Fair Use allows limited uses of copyrighted
material without permission from the copyright holder. So we get into Fair Use in just a minute but first I thought it would be useful to talk a little bit about how copyright is dealt with at UNC
Charlotte in particular. So copyright at UNC Charlotte is governed by the copyright policy, which is Policy number 315. This policy addresses ownership rights of faculty and EHRA employees as well SHRA employees,
independent contractors and students. So for faculty and EHRA employees who are creating works that are within the course and scope of their employment copyright ownership is gonna turn on whether the work was
created at the direction of university supervisors or relying on exceptional
use of university resources. So a little bit more about
faculty and EHRA employees, so non-directed works are
pedagogical, scholarly, literary or aesthetic works
that are created by faculty or EHRA employees resulting
from a non-directed effort, they not directed by the university. So for these works the
employee owns the copyright and there’s a non exclusive
royalty free license, it’s what we call a NERF
license to the university. So by contrast, directed
works are specifically funded or created at the
direction of the university. In order for works to be a directed work you have to have a department chair or the head of an administrative unit inform the faculty or staff
member in writing in advance of creation of the work that
the work is a directed work. So for those works the
university owns the copyright with the option of a NERF
license to the employee. And the final category
here is where there’s been exceptional use of university resources. So anywhere the university
provides support for the creation of
the work with resources of a degree or nature that are
not routinely made available to faculty or EHRA non-faculty employees in a given department or unit. The use of the university resources is presumed not to be exceptional unless a department chair
or director of a unit informs the faculty member in writing before the resources are allocated that the use is gonna be
considered exceptional. And in those cases the
university owns the copyright with the option of a NERF
license to the employee. Okay, so things are slightly different for SHRA employees and
independent contractors. Here most work is considered what we call work-for-hire and is
owned by the university unless there’s a written
agreement otherwise. The work of independent contractors is also considered work-for-hire and the copyright is
owned by the university unless agreed otherwise. Students are also treated
a little bit differently from other categories of
potential copyright holders. Students retain ownership
of their student works, like papers, creative
works, that sort of thing with a non-exclusive royalty free license from the university. One distinction there though is that work they create during the course and scope of student employment is work-for-hire and
owned by the university. And it’s also worth noting
that student’s notes from classroom and laboratory lectures can’t be used for commercial purposes. So that’s a little detour into copyright at UNC Charlotte, specifically. And now we’re going to
switch gears and talk about fair use. Okay, so in order to determine
whether your proposed use of copyrighted material is fair you have to weigh four factors. These are very case specific and they’re not meant to be exhaustive. Also not all these factors
have to be in favor of fair use in order for your use to be fair, this is basically a risk analysis and each situation and each proposed use is gonna be a little bit different. We also wanna note that
different may people may come to different conclusions about the same set of facts and they often do. But the important thing is to conduct a reasoned analysis that
covers all four factors. So we have here an overview
of the four factors to consider. The first is the purpose
and character of the use. Second is the nature of the
original copyrighted work, third is the amount and
substantiality of the portion you’re using in relation to the whole. And fourth is the effect
of the use on the market for the original. So now we’re gonna go into
a little bit more depth on each of these factors. Okay, so factor one is the
purpose and character of the use. So this is includes whether the use is of a commercial nature or is it for non-profit
educational purposes? There is some types of uses
that are likely to be fair under this factor. Educational and non-profit
users such as teaching, research, scholarships,
criticism and commentary, parity and news reporting
are favored here. We also favor what we
call transformative uses. The Supreme Court has
said that the question on transformative use is
whether the new works, does it just supersede the
object object of the original? Or does it add something new with a further purpose
or different character altering the first with new expression, meaning or message. So the Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently looked at the Huffy Trust and Google Books repositories and they found that creating a full-text searchable database of books, some of which were in copyright was a transformative use. In part because the purpose
of those databases was new, transformative. They were preserving the
books and indexing them and in Google Books
case they were providing some small snippets of text
around the search term, but they weren’t
providing the entire text. So that’s a very different purpose than the purpose behind the
writing of the original book. Another lower court found
that a search engine use of thumbnails of
copyrighted images was okay because the purpose was transformative giving access to information versus the artistic expression and purpose of the original. In another case a book
about The Grateful Dead used thumbnails of concert posters in a timeline about the band. So here the purpose of the use was found to be transformative because it was giving
the history of the band, rather than the original
purpose of the posters which was to advertise concerts. So that’s just a few example of how courts look at this first factor. The first factor is super important in the fair use analysis and the good thing for us
is that educational uses and non-profit uses like the
ones involved in teaching and research tend to be
favored in the analysis. Okay so factor two looks at the nature of the original copyrighted work. Under the factor the
use of factual contents such as non-fiction news is more likely to be a fair use. And the use of creative works and unpublished works is
less likely to to be fair. The Supreme Court has said that the law general recommends the greater needs to disseminate factual works than works of fiction or fantasy. Okay, so factor three is the amount and substantiality of the
portion that you’re using in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole. So you might hear people
referring to a 10% or one-chapter rule, but those are not legal rules, they’re more rules-of-thumb. So the amount that you use
still needs to be appropriate for the specific use
that you’re making of it under the specific circumstances. But generally using a small amount that’s appropriate for
a favored educational non-profit use is more likely
to be considered a fair use. So you should be looking
at whether you’re using no more than necessary to achieve your pedagogical purpose. So this factor is both
quantitative and qualitative. So it looks at both the
actual amount you’re using as a fraction of the whole. And also how substantial that is. So if you take a small part
that could be considered the heart of the work you might not be engaging in a fair use even if it’s very small. So the second circuit has pointed out that the third factor does not necessarily weigh against your use even where an entire work is being copied. So there’s no categorical
rule against that if the other factors are met, though of course it’s less likely that that’s going to be fair. Okay so factor four. The final factor here is
the effect of your use upon the market or potential market for the value of the
original copyrighted work. So if there is no significant
effect on the markets this factor is likely to support fair use. On the other hand if the use replaces a sale of the original copyrighted work it’s less likely to be considered fair. So it’s probably okay here for there to be some small
amount of market harm, the court in the Google
Books case, for example, said the effect on the
market has to be meaningful or significant and the
possibility of some loss of sales is not enough to find against fair use. The question is whether the right’s holder is being deprived of significant revenues. So the important question to ask here is are you copying the
original just to avoid buying a copy? So that’s all of fair use factors. I think a good way to get a grasp of how they work in practice is to look at a few examples. So next we’re gonna turn
to a few hypothetical, real-life situations just to see how these
work out in practice. And I’m hoping you guys can participate by typing in the chat or un muting your microphone and giving me an idea of
what you think about these hypotheticals. Okay, so our first example we have a professor who has found a copy of an out-of-print book. It’s very important her field and relevant to a course she’s teaching. She want’s to make a copy and put it on reserve in the library. So do you think this is a fair use? So we’ve got the four fair use factors over here to the right. So what do you think about factor one? Does anyone have an intuition about that? So we probably would say that this is a non-profit,
educational use. So under the first factor
this would probably lean towards fair use. And that second factor, does anybody have thoughts about that? Anybody? – [Lynn] Kate, we can
also have the participants do one of the check mark for, maybe like acceptable under fair use and then a red X as well. Then you can talk about that, but of course if anyone’s
willing to unmute their mic and talk if they want to contribute. – [Kate] Yeah, okay that sounds great. So if you feel like using
a check mark instead that would work too. But okay factor two, I haven’t given you any
details about this book. But what would make a difference here, it’s important that the previous book, the book has been published previously. It makes some difference
that it’s a work of fiction. So that would make this fair use argument slightly less compelling. But we can say here that
its previously published, so that does favor fair use. Factor three, this is a little
bit more challenging here because she is copying the entire book. But sometimes you do need
to use the entire original in order to achieve your
favored educational purpose. So factor three doesn’t
necessarily weigh against fair use here. And factor four is the
effect on the market. So here it’s out of print
so we really don’t have much of a market to interfere with. so what do we think, do you wanna use the check mark to say, if you think it’s fair use and and X to say you think it’s not? What do you think Lynn? – [Lynn] They’re doing
it, if you look down at their– – [Kate] Oh, great. So I’m seeing probably
more check marks than Xs. I would tend to agree, I think
there’s a strong argument for fair use here based
on all those factors. Of course now if she were
to make this copy available on the internet that would
change things significantly because that would you know take away that educational purpose,
because anybody could see it. Okay, so let’s move on to another example. So here we have a professor, she’s wanting to save
her students some money so she scans an in-copyright
sociology textbook and posts it on the course Canvas site in its entirety. Do we think this is fair use? So we would start by
looking at factor one. Here we do have the educational,
non-profit purpose here. Factor two, we would say the original is published and it’s non-fiction so
both would favor fair use. The factor three here
is where we would get into some trouble because she is copying the entire textbook. And factor four is probably where this fair use argument would, this would be the sticking point. Because the point of
scanning and posting the text would be to keep students from
having to buy the textbook which would interfere with the market. So what do we think? You can use the check mark and the X. Yeah, I’m seeing a lot of Xs. I think that’s right, this
is probably not a fair use. But how could we make the
fair use claims stronger here? Maybe by posting just one chapter, of course that would depend on the length of the entire book, but posting as little as possible to make your pedagogical point of course helps with the fair use arguments. – [Lynn] Before continuing Kate, Bobby Hobgood had a
question on our last slide. I don’t know if it’s still applicable. Bobby? – [Bobby] Can you hear me? – [Kate] Yes, we can hear you. – [Bobby] Okay great. Can we actually go back
to that last slide? I tried to refresh my memory on– – [Kate] The out-of-print books? – [Bobby] Yeah. So the thing that I wonder about here is what happens if you PDF this and put it, we didn’t talk
about the Canvas course, but if you put it in your Canvas course, because one of the concerns I have is even if it’s okay for
your students for that use, when you put something
out there electronically, even if it’s in your Canvas course, somebody can download and
then they could disseminate it outside of that, quote
unquote, closed environment? – [Kate] Yeah, that’s a great question. I think it’s possible
to make things like that not downloadable, or you know you can just read it online, that would certainly help. But I think the fact
that generally speaking, the fact that it’s only
available to students registered in the class, even if they can print
it out or disseminate it, that really does help
with the fair use argument as compared to just
putting it on the internet where anybody can access it. – [Bobby] Right, so
there’s a distinction then of the individual who
makes something available as fair use, but then I’m wondering
how does things change when someone who’s
received this second hand, then disseminates it,
you see what I’m saying? So they’re taking it out of, it’s original intent was as a
part of a course curriculum, but then the student takes it out and then disseminates it, you know what is the responsibility of that instructor? Is that clear? – [Kate] Yeah, that’s clear, I would say it’s gonna be a
case-by-case analysis obviously but generally making the students aware of the copyright limitations would help. But the student would be
doing their own I guess, technically they’d be doing
their own fair use analysis as far as for the dissemination, if that makes sense? – [Bobby] Yeah, that’s great, thank you. – [Kate] Okay, let’s see. So let’s do another example. This is a real-life example here. So here we have a collage artist who uses pieces of other artist’s work, cuts them up, adds his own imagery to create a new work. So in one work he’s taking
an entire photograph from a photographer’s published collection and adding images and shapes
on top of that photograph. So do we think this is a fair use? It’s gonna depend a lot
on the context of course. But what is your instinct here? I’m seeing a lot of Xs. I don’t know if those are leftover from the previous question or not? Oh, here we go, I’m seeing some check marks. So let’s go through the four factors here. So factor one, purpose
and character of the use. We can’t necessarily say
that this is non-profit or educational in nature because we don’t know whether he’s wanting to sell his work. So really we want to look
at whether the new work is transformative, does it
have a new meaning or message? And that’s gonna depend
a lot on the context. So in factor two, if the original is creative, we do lean a little
bit away from fair use. The fact that it was previously published does help with the fair use argument. And factor three he is
using the entire original so we want to ask whether
he needs that entire amount in order to achieve a
transformative purpose under factor one? And factor four we want to look at whether his use is interfering with
the market for the original. So is anyone gonna be buying this new work instead of the old work? What do you guys think? I’m seeing kind of a mix which is probably the right answer. We need more information, basically. But this example I’ve given you comes from an existing case, Cariou versus Prince. In that case Cariou had taken photos while he was living with
a group of Rastafarians for six years and he published his
collection of those photos and Prince who’s a famous
appropriation artist, took several of those photos and added additional layers to them. The court in that case
found that some of the works were transformative and
some were maybe not. Because they didn’t have
enough of a new purpose, meaning or message, they didn’t change the original enough. So here is actually an example of that. So on the left here you
have an example of one that did not satisfy fair use. He didn’t make that much
change to the original. So the court said, we’re not sure but we don’t think this is fair use and we’re gonna send it back
down to the lower court. On the right is one that the court said did satisfy fair use. So you see the picture at
the bottom-right of that right-hand of the original photo and then he’s really changed it a lot, he’s added a lot of drawing
and additional images. So you can see that this
really does get case specific and the courts are asked to
make kind of hard judgements about what constitutes a transformed use. I see a comment here that it would depend on whether the artist is selling the art and that’s absolutely true, whether it’s non-profit or not. And in this case he was, Prince was selling his works
for millions of dollars while Cariou had just published an extensive collection of photographs. So let’s try another example. Here we have a group of
students making a documentary about the Civil Rights Movement. The film comprises clips and speeches by Martin Luther King as
well as other activists to show how the movement
evolved over time. So do we think this is a
fair use of those speeches? So we can start with factor one. We do think probably
this is an educational, non-profit use. It’s a group of students. Also we can probably say that
the use is transformative. The purpose of the original speeches was to effect political change, whereas the purpose of the documentary is to tell the story of
the Civil Rights Movement. So this really is a new
and transformed purpose. Factor two, the nature of the original. Depending on the speech
these may be considered published or unpublished and it depends on a number of things including the audience
and the circulation. Factor three, they are just using clips to illustrate certain points, so not using the entire work just using enough to get their
educational purpose across. And factor four, do you think this interferes with the market for the original? Probably not, probably people aren’t going to this documentary as
a complete substitute for the original. But what do you guys think? Do you think this is a fair use? Do you wanna use your check and X boxes? So it looks like everybody thinks this is a fair use. I think that’s probably right. This example does illustrate though the importance of knowing
who your copyright holder is. Martin Luther King’s estate is notoriously very litigious about copyright which is why it’s hard to find a video of the entire I Have
a Dream Speech online. And documentarians have
encountered some challenges in trying to get permission
to use King’s speeches. But little clips here and there
in a documentary like this, we think that probably
would be a fair use. Okay and one more example here. So here we have a local animal shelter that’s trying to raise
money for the shelter as well as awareness
about homeless animals. So they created a promotional video in which shelter volunteers
lip sync and dance to Abba’s song, Take a Chance On Me and they post it on YouTube. Do you think this is a fair use? So going through the analysis we would start with factor one. And this is definitely non-profit. The animal shelter in
question is non-profit. Factor two, the nature of the original. It is highly creative, also published though, so that creativity would
weigh against fair use whereas being published, it
does weigh in favor of fair use. Factor three, they are
using the entire original but is this more than
they needed to achieve their protected purpose under factor one? Probably not. Factor four, is it their
use could interfere with the market for the original? Possible that someone could
turn on the YouTube video and just listen to the sound
instead of buying the song, but yeah, that can kinda go either way. So what do you guys think? Do you think this is a fair use? I’m seeing lots of, oh, we’re evenly divided
here it looks like. Well this is actually a real case, let’s see I’m gonna post
a link here in the chat, if you guys wanna watch that. It’s actually the Wake County SPCA made this video, it’s really adorable. (laughing) So they did post it online thinking it would just be
viewed by not very many people but it kind of became viral and they got a cease and
desist letter from ABBA. They tried to work something
out but ABBA’s lawyers refused so they took it down. So now the versions that
are available online are pirated. So this illustrates the
point that even if you might have a good fair use argument it’s still expensive to
defend yourself in court. So they just ultimately took it down and dropped the case. This one could kinda go either way, but it’s an interesting local-ish example. Okay, so that hopefully
gives you a better idea of how fair use works and some of the situations
where you might encounter it. And the end here I
wanted to touch with you on a couple of related points. So one is in situations
where you don’t feel like you’re safely in fair use territory with your proposed use
of copyrighted material. This doesn’t necessarily
mean you’re out of luck because you can always ask for permission. Permission doesn’t have to
take any particular form, and it can even be given orally
or over the phone, et cetera but I would encourage you
to get permission in writing so you have it for
records, your own records or your publishers. Something to include in
your permission letter would be to identify yourself
and your institution, emphasizing that you’re
non-profit and educational. Identify the portions of
the work you want to use, specifically. Describe your proposed use including changes you want to make and emphasizing again the
non-profit, educational purpose. And also probably your lack
of funding for licensing fees. Describe any restrictions
you’ll place on the audience. So is it only gonna be
available on campus, only available in your class? Request contact information
for other rights holders and offer to provide attribution and ask for their preferred
format for attribution. And another option if all else fails is to look for openly
licensed materials online. So some materials are gonna
carry a creative commons license and depending the type of license you can do different
things with the materials under different conditions. The least restrictive will be CC5, which means you just
have to give attribution to the original creator and they get more restrictive from there. But educational uses are
always easier to justify. Another option is to find
openly licensed materials through Google. For example Google has an
option in its Image Search where you can search by usage, right. You can search for images that
are free for you to share, commercially or non-commercially. You can also search
for an article you want in Google Scholar and you’ll
often find a PDF version of that article in an
institutional repository. And finally you can always provide links to licensed materials without
generally encountering issues with copyright provided that
the site you’re linking to is, you don’t have any reason to think that the material is
posted there illegally. Okay. So that is copyright and
fair use in a nutshell. So we have a little bit
a time at the end here for questions. If you have any follow-up
questions for this, also just to reiterate, I’m available if you have any specific questions
with regard to your work, I’m always available and I actually think I have my, yes, this is my contact information. So if this has raised any questions or if questions come up in the future I would love to hear from you. That’s what I’m here for
so please do get in touch. But we have a few minutes here if anyone has any questions
related to this presentation? Okay, I did get one question, what are the parameters of a NERF license? Great question. So NERF is non-exclusive, royalty free. So if you’re giving someone a NERF license it’s just allowing them to use that work without paying any royalties, but it’s also not exclusive. So you’re not giving that
person the exclusive right to use that work, just
the right to use that work in addition to other people,
in addition to yourself without them paying royalties. Okay, we have a question, I’m referring to the ABBA,
animal shelter hypothetical, what if they had sung the song themselves? Yeah, I think that would
help the fair use argument because it is making it, it’s just helping with that
transformational argument, a bit. Copyright of songs, they’re treated a little bit differently, the law treats them a
little bit differently so there would be other
considerations there, but yeah, as far as. No, they were lip-syncing. (laughing) So yeah, that would,
singing it themselves, would change it a little bit for sure and it certainly would have changed whether the YouTube algorithm had picked it up in the first
place as a copyrighted work. It might not have become such a big deal. (laughing) But that would change it a bit. – [Lynn] It looks like
Bobby has a question. – [Kate] Okay. – [Bobby] Once again, Kate this was great. – [Kate] Thank you. – [Bobby] I think that increasingly as we have access to productivity tools and content via the internet I think we need more workshops like this for faculty and students to understand the ins-and-outs of copyright. First a comment and then a question. My first comment was with
respect to the music example that you used, we actually
had an issue in addition in our department where a faculty person helped create a promotional video and this person wanted to use a copyrighted piece of music, not the whole thing, but
just maybe a minute or so of that four-minute piece of music. And unfortunately because you know the university we have to post everything on YouTube, anythings that’s gonna be available and promoting the university. We could not do that
because as you mentioned, you know the YouTube algorithm
would take that down. So I just wanted to reinforce that that’s a really slippery slope and if anyone’s thinking of
any kind of publicity material using a popular song
or any media, you know, that you might want to think about some creative commons licensed music or royalty free music. So that’s the comment, then my question is again going back to online courses, we are challenge very often when we link to research articles that are pertinent to the class. You know there’s a danger
in linking to something that’s on the web, it might go away. So I think that’s made a lot of folks get in that habit of putting
a PDF of a research article in a Canvas course. Whether it’s an face-to-face course or whether it’s an online course. So my question is what if, I think there are two things going on, number one, if the
journal has already made that article freely available, in other words, there
are no barriers to access that’s one thing, you know being able to link to it. But what if you have to
subscribe to that journal, let’s say, you know all of
the journals that we access, via the library database, you know, what happens when you take an article from one of those journals and make it available in the course? Is that still fair use? – [Kate] So that’s tough. So a lot of our licenses
with these databases deal with that question specifically. Whether it’s okay to download
it and put it in Canvas and whether it’s not. So it could be that for
the particular thing you’re talking about you
might need to talk to your subject librarian to
be sure one way or another. The best, the safest
thing is always to link and then have the student authenticate, login and access it that way, that’s the safest thing,
safer than providing that PDF. It’s also possible, I think I mentioned, to find a lot of these
articles will be available in institutional
repositories of the authors. So that’s often another good place to link to and to download from, often. Of course it depends on the circumstances, but unfortunately providing a link is safer, generally speaking. Links through the library
so that that student can sign in and authenticate. – [Bobby] Great, thank you. – [Lynn] Okay I think your answer may have covered some of the questions about like what is the copyright rules
for publishing resources on websites, within like
application portals, that are hidden behind sign on. So that was one question that someone had so I think that’s, it’s always safer to link is kind of what you’re saying there. – [Kate] Yes. – [Lynn] And then another
question that came at the very beginning of the webinar was, and this is an interesting
one because it’s a new thing I think that people are dealing with is what can people print in 3D printers? – [Kate] Oh, that’s a
really interesting question. Well I know that a lot
of 3D printing files are available out there,
totally open access. As far as stuff that isn’t it would really depend on the particular terms of the license or however
that file was distributed. But I know there is a
lot of stuff out there that is totally free to print in that way. That’s a great question
and it really just depends on the file that you’re looking at.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *