Commonly+asked+questions

Well it is simply the reverse of the word, the "right to copy". What it means is that only the owner, often but not always the original creator, can produce or reproduce the product without written consent of the owner or creator. The owner of the copyright in the terms of books, is the only one that can publish, reproduce, permit anyone else to publish or reproduce or even decide not to publish or reproduce their works. The copyright holder pretty much has the power to do anything with the product without worry of someone else taking his/her works and copying, distributing or making money from the material.
 * What is Copyright? **

Well, copyright itself applies to all original works of art such as literary, artistic, dramatic, or musical compositions. Examples of these are covered further in our Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) page including other types of copy protection such as patents, industrial designs, trademarks, and integrated circuit topographies.
 * What is covered by copyright? **

This is a hot debate because it seems to be becoming more and more common. A mach-up or remix of music uses a collage of samples from other artists songs and is copyright infringement. Although some artists refuse to admit this, the courts are saying otherwise. Under copyright laws even taking a couple notes from other material can get you into copyright trouble. There are some small loopholes to defend this though though such rules as using it in a documentary to make a point. See Rip! A remix Manifesto This documentary of mach-ups and remixes was nominated for a Gene Award which is one of Canada's top film awards.
 * Can you remix music from other artists add to it and call it your own or is it copyright infringement? **

If you want but it is not going to get any better! The answer is yes it is possible to plagiarize your own work. Usually this is both legally and ethically accepted. Where you run into problems is when your previous work has been copyrighted with the rights belonging to someone else. More information on this topic can be found under Self Plagiarism on Wikipedia.com Wikapedia (Plagerism)
 * Can you plagiarize your own work? **

It is said that the intellectual property within online courses developed by faculty of an institution during their employment is copyrighted by the institution paying for the development. However, both tradition and case law have seen faculty as the copyright possessors of any instructional materials they develop. It is more common these days to develop an agreement between the administration and the faculty to share the rights to this intellectual property and prevent lengthy court battles in the long run. As the development of online courses constitutes a substantial cost to the institutions it would seem to be a copyright infringement if the faculty was to bring this information to a new post and re-initiate a similar online course. There is still strong differing views between educational institutions and faculty on the rights of intellectual property and it would be prudent to enter into some sort of agreement before hand. Kranch, D. A.(2009). WHO OWNS ONLINE COURSE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY?. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. Vol. 9 Issue 4, p349-356, 8p
 * Who owns the intellectual property when faculty under the employment of an educational institution develops an online course? **

In its broadest sense, open content refers to material published under a license that allows any user to edit, adapt, remix, and distribute it. It is distinct from free content, which is in the public domain and has no significant legal restrictions on its modification. Open content is a growing source of teaching resources and can be freely used without major copyright issues as long as the source is referenced. The article identified below also mentions the studies of Ahrash Bissell the former executive director of ccLearn, the educational division of the nonprofit licensing entity Creative Commons, Bissell understands the potential of open content to enhance education. But he believes that "some kind of massive awareness raising" has to happen for K-12 administrators to realize this. The article mentions that some interviews with teachers that disregard Copyright Laws and one identifies “I already take whatever I want and use it”. Others that regularly mix traditional text will supplement their teaching with videos of which they may not have the right to use. “They may choose to skirt the technicalities because the content stays inside their specific classroom and no one is the wiser.” There is a push for the creation of FlexBooks, which are digital textbooks that are continually changing and available thought the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, which grants freedom to anyone to use and reuse its core materials provided attribution is given to the author. Bell, M. A. (2010). a custom fit. MultiMedia & Internet@Schools. Vol. 17 Issue 4, p39-41, 3p
 * What is open content in regards to copyright rules and what is the benefit? **

In a study they asked teachers the question “Were teachers actively teaching and modeling respect for intellectual property, regarding both copyright and plagiarism?”
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">In general are teachers following copyright rules? **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">Surprisingly enough only 10% of teachers rated higher than average on a scale of 1 – 5. The article also mentions that Librarians work hard to ensure Teachers are aware of copyright and plagiarism rules that often are disregarded or taken lightly. "Teachers are quick to mention how students should not plagiarize, however many of the teachers are doing just that, plagiarizing. Copyright is also an issue that teachers will overlook especially when decorating the classroom. Bell M. A.(2010). "What Teachers Know (and Don't Know) About Technology--And Does Anybody Know They Don't Know?".MultiMedia & Internet@Schools. Vol. 17 Issue 4, p39-41, 3p


 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">What are some examples of copyright infringement? **
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">Reprinting an article without the owners permission.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">Playing records at a dance without the copyright owners permission.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">Downloading copyrighted music without permission.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">Giving a public performance of a play without permission.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">Photocopying articles for a class of students without permission.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">Taping a band at a concert or filming a movie at a theater without permission.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">Course Packs are one way that Teachers can access copyright materials without dealing directly into copyright issues. Course packs are a way to minimize cost and have an alternative to text books. Course packs are one solution to allow teachers to package up-to date views of a subject matter from a group of works taken from many sources. These can include portions from copyright-cleared journal articles, newspaper articles, case studies, and even private essays. By this packaging option, it can often make course material more perfectly tailored to the individual class or topic. Additional instructor information such as quizzes and other individual information can be added to the package. Course packs can often be ordered individually by faculty through specific offices or branches within Universities or alternatively with a large order directly from publishers. Student preference is usually the publisher versions due to the more professional look for a similar price. This packaging saves cost due to only purchasing the chapters or material that is required.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">What are some ways teachers can minimize Copyright issues for educational purposes? **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">In the USA prior to 1990 it was thought that these course packs were covered under the Fair Use provisions but since Basic Books Inc. v. Kinko’s Graphics Corp (1991)link and Princeton Univ. Press v. MichiganDocument Servs. (1996), it was determined that permission must be sought from the Copyright holders. In Canada course packs must follow Access Copyright Regulations that requires royalty payments of $0.10 per page and only up to 10 – 15% of text books. Initially it was thought that through a loophole in the Technology, Education, and Copyright harmonization Act proclaimed in 2002 link, developed to facilitate distance education, there would be the ability for course packs to be available online without any copyright issues. Through Fair Use link Provisions in the United States and Fair Dealing link provisions in Commonwealth Nations, it was originally thought that these provisions would allow free access for education material. Although Fair Use and Fair Dealing are similar in allowing a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work such as research, private study, criticism, review, or news reporting, they differ by Fair Use including parody which is not considered fair dealing in most commonwealth countries.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">//**For more information about copyright rules another good source for information is "A Guide to Copyrights 2010" A copy of this guide in pdf format can be found here:**// Copyright Guide