We language teachers have known all along that schools are exempted from copyright laws and that we are allowed to replicate and duplicate works for educational and testing purposes. However, many of us do not know the extend of the exemption. The SAR government has made it very clear through this document what is acceptable and what is not. Through a new "Fair Dealing" Ordinance (Section 41A of the Copyright Ordinance), reasonable (i.e. small) portions of reproduction of a text or film by a student or teacher is allowed if it is for an education purpose, that is, a project by a student of a presentation by a teacher. Showing a movie a film for entertainment's sake or photocopying an entire textbook, however, would be an infringement. Hats off to the Intellectual Property Department for the clear explanation and examples given.
It's good to know that besides teachers, students are now permitted to make copies under Section 41A of the Ordinance. In fact, schools that have not previously entered into license agreements with the Hong Kong Reprographic Rights Licensing Society (HKRRLS) can not be exempted under the "fair dealing" principle of Section 41A. Definitely good news for all!
The document goes on to outline the amendments to Sections 43 and 35B, respectively, with drama performances/musical of a literary work now allowed to be shown to relatives and other persons directly connected with the educational establishment for the former (i.e. students, teachers) (which I didn't know, honestly. Kinda funny, though. Imagine this exchange: Kid: "Mom, I got a musical today but don't tell your friends about it. It would be illegal if they came. Mom: "........guess they wouldn't need to wear anything if they came" Kid: "Huh" Mom: "cuz they would be served with lawsuits, get it, son, lawSUITS..hahhaa.....) and parallel imports (or "bootlegged" copies in piracy circles) allowed to be shown and kept in classrooms and school libraries for the latter.
Honestly, we should distribute a copy of this document to our students. I don't know about you guys, but my school is extremely cautious when it comes to copyright infringement. My principal constantly reminds us not to copiously copy stuff from books, newspapers or the Internet and actively encourages us to create stuff on our own. Our students, on the other hand, are not so discriminate as they constantly upload whole articles, songs, and movies onto our school Intranet. Note that these files are definitely not "fairly dealt" as they are whole copies that are not for educational purposes. True, we have a login name and password and stuff (thus, abiding by the government's requirements. It's in the document, read it!) but it gets so out of hand that the webmaster has to remove all the files and re-format the Intranet from time to time. It was like Foxy and BT! Hence, make sure you distribute a copy of the doc to your kids before the police come knocking at your door (actually, I heard it's the principal's responsibility to ensure everything's legal. No wonder mine gets so agitated. It's her butt on the line!)
When it comes to movies, though, my colleagues and I are treading a fine line. We have these Language Arts (LA) programs for Forms 1 to 3 and they are all on movies. We would show our kids a clip of the film every lesson but eventually, they get to see the whole DVD. True, we give out LA booklets with all kinds of educational questions on themes and plots and art imitating life etc. but the fact of the matter is, the whole movie is shown. Would that be an infringement? Or would it be something "fair" for educational purpose? Oh, one more thing, they are NOT movies being currently shown, as stated in the document of focus here (which, again, cracks me up. How could anyone get a copy of a DVD of a film currently being shown unless it was pirated/downloaded, which would be illegal in the first place! Sigh...these civil servants. I take my compliments back).
Well spotted Streaker Foomeister !
ReplyDeleteThis is obviously a controversial topic, especially in Hong Kong (which has a checkered history as far as copyright is concerned). It's good to see that educators now have a fair use defence in Hong Kong: for a long time this was not the case. So I'm rather puzzled by your assertion that:
ReplyDelete"We language teachers have known all along that schools are exempted from copyright laws and that we are allowed to replicate and duplicate works for educational and testing purposes."
Although there has been an exemption in the case of examinations for some time, this is not the case of teaching in general.
We need to be careful with the fair use defence because it is so open to differing interpretations. Publishers are likely to have a much narrower interpretation of fair use than educators, and may be willing to pursue their claims through their lawyers. So to some extent I can understand the position adopted by institutions in these matters.
I would advocate a cautious approach when it comes to copyright materials - there is no right to copy. One way of dealing with the problem is to explore the alternatives to copyrighted materials, which includes (but is not limited to) the range of material now available through Creative Commons licensing. Copyright law is evolving, but not fast enough to keep up with the cut-and-paste, mashup generation. If you're interested in these issues, then take a look at Lawrence Lessig's Code: Version 2.0.
Oh, let me clarify, Christoph. I've always been told (for the past 7-8 years) by my colleagues that it's okay to photocopy parts of a book if it's for educational purposes. So I guess I should substitute the "we" with "I".
ReplyDeleteYeah, not a lot of people are observing these copyright laws, which, like you said, are having a hard time keeping up with the cut-and-paste generation. I get a bit trigger happy at times. That right click button is very tempting.