Lisette,

Do you believe that broader educational fair use exemptions, to the extent they preclude competition from in-copyright materials, need to be balanced with public transfers to be equitable?

I agree we should benefit teachers, and I am sure that is what such exemptions do. But I do not see how it could be equitable to benefit them at the expense of the authors they recommend.

On Friday, June 24, 2016, Lisette Kalshoven lk@kl.nl wrote:

Hi James,

Not sure I understand your question. If you are asking whether if we have a broad exception across the EU would there still be financial incentive to create high quality educational materials, I think the answer is yes. I think there will remain a demand for not only seperate pieces of in-copyright materials, but for complete teaching materials, including method and didactics that publishers (or other parties) can provide. I believe such an exception would most likely benefit teachers (who likely fall within the ‘open education’ spectrum) to supplement teaching methods with contemporary creative works such as newspaper articles, clips of films etc.

But maybe I misunderstand your meaning.

With kind regards,

Lisette

-- Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31613943237 | @lnkalshoven | skype: lisette.kalshoven

On 24 Jun 2016, at 14:47, James Salsman <jsalsman@gmail.com javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jsalsman@gmail.com');> wrote:

Lisette,

If there was a general copyright exemption for any educational materials, would a public transfer be in equity to support the continued demand for improvements in quality of those materials?

On Friday, June 24, 2016, Lisette Kalshoven <lk@kl.nl javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lk@kl.nl');> wrote:

...

Dear all,

Keeping copyright out of the classroom is one of COMMUNIA's most important recommendations. Today, within the Best Case Scenarios for Copyright series we present education exception as it works in Estonia to benefit education, research, teaching. This exception is crucial to make ICT and connectivity really useful in education.

Please share the basic facts blogpost: http://www.communia-association.org/2016/06/24/education-exception-bcs-copyr..., where a detailed legal study can be found, via your social media and mailing lists.

Also please keep an eye on our TT (@communia_eu) to share the message if you want.

I hope you find it interesting and worth spreading! If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact us.

With warm regards,

Lisette Kalshoven

-- Kennisland | www.kennisland.nl | t +31205756720 | m +31613943237 | @lnkalshoven | skype: lisette.kalshoven

---

Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org'); https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy

Alek,

This is very surprising to me:

you can say that authors produced value, not the users

Is there any situation you can think of where the value is produced by users but not the authors?

The issue of public transfers is a separate one, in my opinion.

Do you consider compulsory licensing to be a form of public transfer?

there is space for remuneration for educational use.

To what extent to do think that authors recommended by educators should be compensated for their efforts?

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Alek Tarkowski atarkowski@centrumcyfrowe.pl wrote:

Dear James,

the Estonian exception that we are highlighting today proves that it is equitable, according to Estonians. Similarly, in Poland we have an exception that is not as broad as the Estonian one, but much broader than many of the similar regulations across Europe - at least within educational institutions, and for educational purposes, educators are free to use any content, without any remuneration. This is not seen as not equitable.

In general, I don’t think it’s fair to see exceptions as something done “at the expense” of someone else - for instance right holders. Mainly because there is no clear proof of losses / substitutions caused by the use of content within an exception. So we cannot say it’s done at somebody’s expense. And if we used this rhetoric we’d have to say that copyright itself is non-equitable as well, done at the expense of users. Of course, to this you can say that authors produced value, not the users. But then there is the whole public domain space, where we agree as societies that it’s equitable to not remunerate authors for use of their works.

The issue of public transfers is a separate one, in my opinion. If you have in mind extended rights licensing, which is the most popular model for such transfers for educational uses, I think that it’s an imbalanced model that puts great strain on public education system. It’s enough to look at the ongoing debate about educational use of in-copyright works in Australia (they do not have ECL, but a statutory license that has a similar effect) - and the public education system is fighting right now to move to a fair use mechanism.

Finally, I think that there is space for remuneration for educational use. But it needs to be based on strong evidence, which we lack. And as a principle, i believe that non-commercial uses (much of educational use falls into this category) do not require remuneration.

Best,

Alek

On 24 Jun 2016, at 16:04, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:

Lisette,

Do you believe that broader educational fair use exemptions, to the extent they preclude competition from in-copyright materials, need to be balanced with public transfers to be equitable?

I agree we should benefit teachers, and I am sure that is what such exemptions do. But I do not see how it could be equitable to benefit them at the expense of the authors they recommend.

-- dyrektor, Centrum Cyfrowe Twitter: @atarkowski WWW: centrumcyfrowe.pl / creativecommons.pl

polecam: uwolnij.podrecznik.org / otwartawiedza.pl / otwartengo.pl / otwartezabytki.pl

---

Publicpolicy mailing list Publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy