Re: [Videolib] Comments from this august group re: College/University film societies

From: Jessica Rosner <maddux2014@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Nov 03 2009 - 08:28:11 PST

Judy
The Illinois thing was in fact a full fledged REGULAR film series that had
run for YEARS. They suddenly decided they did not have to pay for films
DESPITE the fact that they actually received FUNDING for the group ( sorry
but that one really needs to be made clear as these were not innocent little
lambs).

You are right about "not getting caught" but I guess I am confused as to how
you have a club that shows films without getting the word out. Let's face it
advertising is kind of cliche but putting stuff on the web to get the word
out is pretty common. As I mentioned to Deg it sounded to me like the group
was not only trying to justify what they were doing but also to convince the
university they should be allowed to use their equipment to do it with and
that is something no university should want to touch. If the students take
over a lounge and show a film on their own then they are the ones who will
face the music if they get caught,if they borrow projection/screening
equipment from the University 3 guesses who the rights holder is going to go
after for damages ?

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Shoaf,Judith P <jshoaf@ufl.edu> wrote:

> If the students had
>
> 1). limited the screenings only to group members;
> 2). held the screenings in a smaller, controlled access space;
> 3). not advertised the screenings;
> 4). used the films for the purpose of "...criticism, comment, news
> reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." (US CODE: Title 17 section
> 107)
> 5). published their criticism, comment, reporting, or research, to prove
> that was indeed their true purpose;
>
> --they might not have gotten caught. In my opinion, that’s the bottom
> line and it relates to #3: if they had not advertised the showings, what
> they did would have been illegal but they would not have gotten caught.
>
>
>
> The justification in 1-2 reminds me of some kind of regulation they used to
> have for Janus films when we had a film club in 1971 (you could only show it
> to club members).
>
>
>
> #4 refers to fair use, i.e. the use or quotation of a small portion of a
> work in criticism, comment, etc. #5 seems to have been pulled out of thin
> air. The only situation in which fair use allows the viewing of an entire
> film is in face-to-face teaching of a class for credit, in a situation where
> viewing is restricted to enrolled students. A club, even with an instructor
> present, does not qualify.
>
>
>
> And I am sympathetic to one of the uses at Illinois (which was basically a
> class viewing of a film in a dorm situation where other students could
> wander in—and which was advertised on the language lab web site, I think).
>
>
>
> Judy Shoaf
>
>
>
> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues
> relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control,
> preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and
> related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective
> working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication
> between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and
> distributors.
>
>

VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.
Received on Tue Nov 3 08:28:30 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 07 2010 - 15:16:25 PDT