Today, more than ever, educators and learners are using the Internet and social media tools for teaching and learning. And to tell you the truth...I'm so confused!
Educators and learners are using digital files, slides, audio clips, and YouTube as part of their classroom and learning. We are told that the "fair use" doctrine is more flexible and powerful tool. I get so much conflicting information, that I don't know what to believe.
In the book Renee Hobbs says that copying is part of the creative process. It's impossible to do anything without making reference to the work of other creative process. Really? I see and hear learners talk about how they copy and past most of their work to get it done and are never called out for it. My classroom is different, because I don't do research projects, but I do have them make PowerPoint presentations and they need to use some research and they use copyrighted materials: YouTube, audio files and images from the internet.
I understand that when I copy a recipe from a magazine, but add a few different ingredients, it's part of the creative production. I know that having my learners make a power point and sharing it with their peers, is essential to critical thinking and communication, BUT at what cost...my job? I believe that my lack of clarity reduces learning and limits my ability to use and allow digital tools. I do not want to limit my effectiveness as an educator and limit my learners experience.
In the reading: Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education, it says there have been no important court decisions of any kind, that interpret and apply the doctrine in educational context. It says that Copyright law does not specify how to apply fair use, and it's flexible that works for the user. Hobbs says that judges refer to four factors, but this still leaves room for interpretation. If that's not confusing, I don't know what is?
As an educator, I want to be a leader, not a follower, but as I stated earlier....I'm still confused! FCPS says one thing, Renee Hobbs says another, and EDIT-781 is in between! Guess I need more information.
I'm also still confused. I used to teach reading to preschool-6th grade hearing impaired kids which is a very niche sub-profession. There are few resources that are appropriate for that group. I had a copy of a workbook that was copied multiple times for my students. I have no idea where it originated or if it was cost-prohibitive to purchase multiple copies for my students. It was likely out of print. My principal had the secretary make copies for me at the beginning of every year. To her, it was acceptable because the resource was so important for the students educational needs. But really, it was a consumable meant to be purchased for each student.
ReplyDeleteThe process of making a fair use determination does feel a little "loosey-goosey." Who is to say what represents transformativeness and what does not? One of the "5 Famous Copyright Infringement Cases" confused me. In case #3, appropriation artist Richard Prince used a photograph of photographer Patrick Cariou, was at first charged with copyright infringement, but then the judge ruled in his favor: "Prince's work transformed the work in a the way that it was aesthetically different, and thus acceptable under the argument of fair use." This was an example of a fair use determination by a non-educator. Doesn't the determination of aesthetic difference depend on the audience? It just seems very subjective and dependent on who is moderating or judge on any given day.
ReplyDelete