Robert Cadigan, an associate professor of criminology in Boston University’s Metropolitan College, uses copyrighted movie clips in his online classes.
‘I believe in using multimedia to elaborate or use examples that work with the texts,’ he said.
Cadigan uses excerpts from the film ‘Unforgiven’ to explain deterrence theory in his course on Criminal Justice.
‘Little Bill disarms English Bob using deterrence theory better than I could show students with any text,’ Cadigan said.
Until recently, online instructors like Cadigan have been required to pay royalties to the copyright holder for all movie clips longer than three minutes.
But last November, Congress passed the Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act. The TEACH Act, passed in November, allows online classrooms to enjoy the same immunity from copyright laws as traditional classrooms.
‘I’m intrigued by the TEACH Act,’ Cadigan said. ‘We have used some copyrighted material before and paid the fee.’
High royalty fees in the past forced many instructors to refrain from using the materials they think help students the most. Cadigan said copyright laws have hurt his classes in the past.
‘We wanted to use two lines from a Robert Frost poem,’ Cadigan said. ‘Frankly, the price was prohibitive.’
Susan Kryczka, director of the Boston University Distance Education Program, said she asks teachers if everything they use is either original work or they received permission to use it. As of now, if the costs for permission are not minimal or free, they cannot use the material, she said.
However, BU’s policy for copyrighted material online will most likely not be affected by the new law, said Karen Jacobs, a Clinical Professor in Sargent College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences.
‘Will [the law] change the way I teach my class? Probably not,’ she said. ‘The wording seems very ambiguous there is no clear definition of what Congress means.’
This act also does not affect websites developed for traditional classrooms because previous laws already protect many aspects of these sites, according to BU’s associate general council Dennis Hart, who oversees the university’s use of copyrighted material. However, because no single law gives a comprehensive and clear definition of intellectual rights, it is very difficult to tell exactly what is legal and what violates copyright laws, he said.
‘When you look at a copyright infringement problem, it’s like a game of three-dimensional chess,’ he said. ‘There is a huge number of things you have to keep in mind.’
According to a recent study in the Chronicle of Higher Education, many professors are confused about the law and few professors benefit from it because it is ‘too complex and too vague.’
And other schools, such as North Carolina State University, have their own regulations about copyrighted materials.
NSCU has an ‘internal policy’ that describes their use of such materials, which they distribute to all professors, according to the college’s website. The website says materials must be ‘an integral part of the class’ and ‘reasonable’ measures must be taken to stop the dissemination of the materials. Finally, the college must ‘inform students that material may be protected by copyright law,’ according to the website.
Regardless of the law, Kryczka said BU will continue to ask questions about all copyrighted materials.
‘We are really careful with everything we do,’ Kryczka said. ‘Will this law change our policy? Probably not. We will probably still ask for permission.’
But Hart said he foresees a problem with one facet of the TEACH Act.
‘The issue of stopping dissemination is one aspect of the law which will bring people to a pause,’ he said. The act calls for ‘reasonable precautions’ to prevent students from sharing the materials outside of the context of the class. The phrase has been interpreted in a number of ways across the nation, Hart said.
‘Some faculty members think this only forces universities to adopt usernames and passwords,’ Hart said. ‘Others wonder if there is a need for new technologies to ensure this protection.’
Cadigan believes there is little that can be done to stop students from distributing course materials if they wanted to.
‘When it comes to stopping dissemination of the material, I don’t think you can stop that,’ Cadigan said. ‘The best prevention would be using materials that aren’t worth keeping.’
Hart believes that the educational nature of these online courses is the reason Congress protects their ability to use copyrighted materials.
‘This is not Napster,’ Hart said. ‘Students are not likely to swap and share texts like they do music files. That’s why Congress passed it.’
Although BU’s Distance Education Program is expanding, the cost of teaching the classes, even with royalties, remains low, Kryczka said. Because BU’s program is still relatively small, costs are minimal, she said.
‘We are a rather small program compared to UMass Online and the University of Maryland,’ said Kryczka.
The Chronicle reported the University of Maryland’s total royalty fee at $200,000 last year. Although this fee will drop now that the TEACH Act is in effect, Kryczka does not feel a cost such as Maryland’s is outrageous.
‘$200,000 is not too much to ask for peace of mind,’ she said. ‘It’s worth the price to walk the straight and narrow when it comes to copyright laws.’
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
