[Videolib] RE: Insight Media's policy on digitization and streaming -

Elana Joffe (elana@insight-media.com)
Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:37:43 -0500

Just to be clear: in addition to acting as a distributor, Insight Media
has also produced and acquired a number of titles for which we hold all
rights, including digital streaming rights.

Elana Joffe
Vice President, Acquisitions & Development
Insight Media, Inc.
212-721-6316 x103

At 04:31 PM 2/13/2006, you wrote:
>I want to thank Elana Joffe of Insight Media for posting Insight Media's
>(IM's) revised policy (#1), which clearly states IM "cannot and does not
>grant anyone rights to digitize or to
>digitally distribute any work under the TEACH Act." When I first read
>Karen's post (#2) which incorrectly stated, "All titles purchased (via IM)
>may be streamed," I immediately contacted Elana, asking her to clarify to
>Karen (and Monique (#3) and the Listserv) that although IM does re-sell
>DVDs/VHS from companies such as Chip Taylor Communications, which include
>Public Performance Rights, those DVDs/Video copies do not include a
>Digitization/Streaming license, which must be acquired separately. I also
>noticed two other producer/distributor companies, Annenberg Media and
>BioMedia, posted that exact information on the Listserv regarding IM not
>being able to extend digitization and/or streaming rights to their programs.
>Elana acted quickly and correctly and I applaud her for wanting to set the
>record straight.
>I then read Mark Kopp's post (#4), stating he did not fully understand
>Elana's explanation.
>Then he added, "does Insight Media intend to trump US Law?"
>As attorney Arnold Lutzker makes very clear many times in the "Copyright
>Compliance Series,"
>(Website Link: http://www.chiptaylor.com/ttlmnp4526-.cfm) - Licensing and
>Contract law does trump Copyright Law.
>I did not see Mark's email in the post, but the last time I met him he
>worked at IU #8; so I will use IU #8 as an example. IU #8 owns 16 programs
>on VHS it acquired with Public Performance Rights from CTC. If IU #8 wants
>to digitize and/or stream any of those VHS programs, it has to obtain a
>digitization and/or streaming license from CTC or else it would be violating
>the license it now has with CTC. If IU #8 purchased DVDs or VHS from IM, it
>would receive only a Public Performance License; again, if it wanted a
>digitization and/or streaming license, that would have to be obtained from
>When Mark further states to Elana in his post, "IF said institution meets
>all said requirements of the TEACH Act, they are allowed BY LAW, to provide
>said video materials." This is a most troubling statement. IU #8 has never
>ordered a digitization and/or streaming license for any VHS it acquired from
>CTC. If IU #8 has digitized and/or streamed any of the above-mentioned CTC
>programs, IU #8 would be in violation of the terms of its licensed agreement
>with CTC.
>This example is one reason why I produced the "Copyright Compliance Series"
>with an attorney who is an expert in copyright and contract law. I hope this
>example shows to educators and librarians on this Listserv how important it
>is to know what licensing you acquire when you order your programs, even if
>you order from a re-seller. IM is a re-seller of programs with certain
>licensed rights. Digitization and/or streaming rights of CTC programs are
>available from CTC; thus if a customer wants to digitize and/or stream a CTC
>program the customer may have acquired from IM, that customer still must
>obtain those rights from CTC. Perhaps Mark's post could have suggested to
>Elana that IM should consider informing customers, if they want other
>licensing they should contact the producer/distributor directly (and since
>this is being cc'd to her, she'll read that suggestion.)
>I have seen several comments about digitization and licensing concerning
>pricing. I encourage those customers who may be troubled by certain pricing
>to contact companies such as CTC, as well as Annenberg Media, Landmark
>Media, Bullfrog Films, and Pyramid Media, who, like me, have negotiated very
>fair pricing and terms with producers regarding these important licenses.
>One last point, vendors are willing to work with customers regarding
>licensing and as attorney Lutzker advises in the "Copyright Compliance
>Series," it is much less expensive to secure the proper licensing than to
>face potential litigation. He explains very clearly that producers whose
>licensing has been violated do seek damages and because today's' technology
>leaves a "digital trail," it is wise not to take unnecessary chances.
>I apologize if this post may seem like a plug for a series that I've
>released; however, that really is not the case at all. After being part of a
>legal case which ended upsetting a large number of vendors, educators and
>librarians, not to mention the students and parents who lost out while an
>expensive legal settlement was reached, I volunteered for over 12 months to
>work closely with attorney Lutzker in order to produce this much-needed and
>comprehensive series, which is now finally available and should help every
>educator and librarian better understand copyright and protect his/her
>institution from any potential violations.
>Chip Taylor, President
>Four references:
>In the light of the recent discussions on the list, I just wanted to
>clarify any confusion that may exist on Insight Media's policy on granting
>rights to stream and digitize products purchased from us.
>Our policy as drafted by our legal counsel:
>Insight Media cannot and does not grant anyone rights to digitize or to
>digitally distribute any work under the TEACH Act. A school's right, if
>any, to digitize and/or distribute a work arises under the law. It's up to
>the school to determine in each case whether the school has any rights
>under the TEACH Act with regard to a particular work. That requires the
>school to review among other things whether it is an institution covered by
>the law, it has the proper procedures in place to comply with the law, and
>whether the work is eligible under the law, taking into account how and
>with what rights it was obtained. Insight Media does not give advice on
>whether a school has rights under the TEACH Act, which is a decision the
>school should make in consultation with legal counsel.
>Elana Joffe
>Vice President, Acquisitions & Development
>Insight Media, Inc.
>212-721-6316 x103
>Insight Media should be on your list. All titles purchased may be streamed.
>The only stipulation is to stay within the parameters of The Teach Act.
>Also, Ambassador and School Media do not (currently) provide any streaming.
>When I spoke with customer service representatives, there was no plan to
>even consider on-demand streaming. I applaud any efforts to maintain a list
>and will assist in any way I can.
>Karen L. Patterson
>Acquisitions Specialist for Books and Nonprint Media
>Pennsylvania College of Technology
>1-570-320-2400, ext.7781
> >>> mthreatt@indiana.edu 2/8/2006 6:16 PM >>>
>Has anyone put together a growing list of film distributors who provide
>on-demand streaming, or the digital right to encode films owned by the
>media center and/or library? I know you can get this information when
>you register for the National Media Market, but the specifics aren't
>included i.e., license agreement loans for 1, 3, 5 years, etc. I'm not
>interested in Broadcast rights via closed circuit.
>I'm trying to create an internal list that will include the name of the
>company, and the types of digital access available, especially for
>asynchronous streaming.
>For example: (this is only a draft, and may not be complete
>Media Digital Streaming License and/Rights Distributors:
>Annenberg Media Free access (registration required)
>Films Media Group
> 30 day free access (registration required), 1 year license
>agreement, 3 year license agreement, on-
> demand streaming via FMG Interface, digital right to encode copy
>owned by library, digital file to be
>stored on local server in MPEG1, MPEG4, Windows Media, QT formats
>Feel free to contact me off-line if you wish, or I'm willing to work
>with someone to create the list and have it published in a non-referred
>Monique Threatt
>Librarian for Media, Comm & Culture
>Herman B Wells Library
>Indiana University Bloomington
>812 855 9857
>[Our policy as drafted by our legal counsel:]
>[Insight Media cannot and does not grant anyone rights to digitize or to
>digitally distribute any work under the TEACH Act. A school's right, if
>any, to digitize and/or distribute a work arises under the law. It's up
>to the school to determine in each case whether the school has any
>rights under the TEACH Act with regard to a particular work. That
>requires the school to review among other things whether it is an
>institution covered by the law, it has the proper procedures in place to
>comply with the law, and whether the work is eligible under the law,
>taking into account how and with what rights it was obtained. Insight
>Media does not give advice on whether a school has rights under the
>TEACH Act, which is a decision the school should make in consultation
>with legal counsel.]
>Ummmmmm.... I've read and re-read the aforementioned post, trying to
>understand the implication....
>Forgive me if I am less-than-enlightened in this regard, but does
>Insight Media intend to trump US Law? How does one exempt themselves
>from the LAW? "Our policy as drafted by our legal counsel:"
>??????????...that's very interesting... You could possibly, under a
>PURCHASE CONTRACT, limit your licensing, but I don't see how you can
>exempt yourself from the TEACH Act. After having read the TEACH Act
>several times, I do not recall anywhere, where it said "....unless the
>company doesn't want ya to..."
>Are you making the materials available in a digital format? If so, then
>that's a totally different position.
>If you are making a digital version, capable of a "digital transmission,
>then said educational institution must purchase that format from
>you...if not, the TEACH Act exemption provides for it...CONTRARY to "Our
>policy as drafted by our legal counsel:"...once again, that's the whole
>point of the TEACH Act...they want you to step up to digital
>format...not steal your product.
>IF said institution meets all said requirements of the TEACH Act, they
>are allowed BY LAW, to provide said video materials. THAT'S THE POINT OF
>THE TEACH ACT... If you put something "out there", it's eligible for
>educational exemption. Besides, why would you NOT WISH to have a school
>use your material??? I don't even understand the mindset...you produce
>an educational product, but attempt to limit it's educational use!!!??
>The TEACH Act provides protections for your rights.
>What do YOU see as the difference between the rights for a VHS tape, vs
>the rights for a digitized work? If the very same piece of information
>can be viewed in perpetuity on a VHS tape, then why not, in some digital
>format? What are you seeing, that I am not??? It is merely a shift in
>the playback format of the very same materials! My video tape can sit on
>my shelf for years, and the same material on that tape is somehow
>viewable for years and years, but NOT the very same material in a
>digital format??? Is that your claim??
>Mark Kopp

Videolib mailing list