Case 3: Orange Group
September 29th, 2009 at 3:44Francesca’s actions, while performed by an individual, fall under the guidelines set out for institutional copying. As described in Hofman’s Introducing Copyright, there are such things as individual licences, general licences and blanket licences.
While Francesca’s school is under-funded in comparison to the more prosperous institutions a blanket licence for her school would be its best option, because a flat fee can be paid by the school for its staffs’ reproduction charges. Unfortunately this is not feasible; therefore Francesca’s is forced to reproduce, by-hand, her lesson material for her students’ use.
The guidelines of the Copyright Board of Canada state that the agreed upon tariffs according to the notice statement amounts to about ‘$1.73 per calendar year per pre-school, elementary and secondary FTE (full-time equivalent) student’ (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs-tarifs/certified-homologues/2007/20070217-e-b.pdf). Hardly a workable solution for an under-funded school, because they tend to have the higher student populations.
In conclusion, provided that Francesca’s copying fell within the 10% fair-dealing provision she would be allowed to make hard-copies for school purposes. The limitations can be extended by the conditions stated in Section 3, subsection 3 of the Canada Gazette, for instance (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/tariffs-tarifs/certified-homologues/2009/20090626-b.pdf). Many countries would follow these same provisions, so we don’t believe Francesca has violated copyright by reproducing them in overhead form.
(Editor’s Note: We’ve gone for something of a combined answer this week for the scenario’s two questions. Hope that is acceptable, thank you.)
October 2nd, 2009 at 12:42 am
Assessment of Orange Group’s Case 3 by Pink Group
Overall score 8/10
Comments: The orange group gave a combined answer for case study 3, citing Canadian copyright law. The structure of the response was a bit confusing because the first few paragraphs explored the blanket license option for Francesca’s situation, but the conclusion seemed to suggest that she should claim the 10% fair-dealing provision as long as she had not copied more than that amount. While the limited description of the content Francesca had copied onto her overhead transparency certainly left many unanswered questions, the orange group’s response seemed to take more than one position on the question of appropriate licensing without really explaining why that might have been necessary. Overall it was still a reasonable, clearly articulated response.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Yellow Group assessment of Orange Group Case Study 3:
Overall assessment: 7/10
Comments: In this response the Orange Group clearly demonstrated that they are familiar with the relevant legal provisions and licensing options. They also included very useful information such as the recommended tariff rates for blanket licences in Canada. However, their response could still leave Francesca uncertain about her exact legal position and what to practically do about it. They could have been clearer on what their specific conclusions were. Otherwise good.
January 7th, 2010 at 5:41 am
It would have been useful to compare what latitude is afforded by applying the fair dealing/educational exceptions standard to that which is granted under statutory and blanket licences.
It is unclear from this answer whether the application of institutional guidelines or licences makes the usual statutory exceptions non applicable. Does it? Can it?
January 7th, 2010 at 7:29 am
Assessment 8/10