> Sue or Joe Librarian reading the
> Wizard of Oz to the public in a Library is not the same as giving a public
> screening of Victor Fleming's Wizard of Oz or the Wiz.
Okay, by that logic, how about the public playing of Jim Dale's unabridged
readings of the Harry Potter books? I realize that this may be a whole side
topic, but we are talking about the public exhibition/performance of
copyrighted materials, no? Sue and Joe librarian can read a Potter book out
loud to a group, but if the IDENTICAL TEXT is played from a Dale recording,
it would clearly be a public performance violation, as I understand this
It would seem that medium and conveyance are the operative limitations,
whether it be film, datastream, video, text, or whathaveyou being
displayed/performed/exhibited on a public level.
> As I have too frequently had to remind my colleagues in the
> print world, a book is not a film. The two are different creatures with
> different and often multiple sets of rights which may be owned by
> several entities.
So what is actually being affected when an item is copyrighted? The
intellectual property? The performance of said property? Personal usage?
Public exhibition? The physical appearance? All of the above? None of the
above? When money is exchanged, is a work "purchased" or is it a licence
with clearly delineated usage stipulations?
Like you say, a book is not a film, but both are copyrighted works. Sounds
like some media forms just have more rights than others...
-- John F. Müller Sonoma State University Library Jean & Charles Schulz Information Center - Multimedia Department 1801 East Cotati Ave. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 email@example.com Phone: (707) 664-2590 FAX: (707) 664-2090
_______________________________________________ Videolib mailing list Videolib@library.berkeley.edu http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/videolib