HIT: Copyright violation cases

[Kathy Webster <kwebster@TENET.EDU>]

Here are the responses I received:

From: "Va. Martin, Ketron Middle School" <MARTINV@TEN-NASH.TEN.K12.TN.US>

Case 1.  University of California - Fullerton.  August 1987.

SITUATION:  A report of a possible copyright violation was received by
AIME.  After many phone calls and personal contacts a letter was sent by
AIME to the VP for Student Services asking for his assistance in putting a
stop to future violations, asking that the University formulate and
disseminate a copyright policy to all members of the University and asking
that the university take some disciplinary action.

RESULTS:  AIME received a reply from the university stating that the
individual involved and all other staff members have been provided a copy
of the Guidelines for Off-Air Recording of Broadcast Programming for
Educational Purposes and that the individual involved has agreed to comply
with the guidelines.


Case 2.  Santa Cruz County School District, California.  October 1987.

SITUATION:  A high shcool teacher allowed a former classroom aide to check
out a film under his name.  The former aide in turn loaned the film to a
personal friend who took the film to a video duplication lab and had copies
of the film made.

RESULTS:  The master and copies of the film were returned to the producer.
A memo was sent from the school administration to all AV/textbook clerks
and principals in the district reviewing checkout rules and copyright laws.
A letter of reprimand was put in the teacher's personnel file.  All
schools in the district provided inservice/awareness sessions for their
teachers and staff.  The district adopted an effective copyright policy.
The lab involved was investigated by MPAA for its part in this situation.

Case 3.  El Dorado Union School District, California.  August 1988.

SITUATION:  Programs were taped of air illegally and promoted to other
buildings in the district via catalog.

RESULTS:  The superintendent met with all librarians and principals to
ensure that district policy and lawful procedures regarding the copyright
of programs from TV were being followed, to institute corrective procedures
to review all video material, and to eliminate any which were not clearly
reproduced according to lawful procedures.
        The superintendent personally conferred with each librarian about
the violation and sent letters of reprimand to those employees who were not
in compliance with district polocies, procedures, and the law related to
this area.
        Only those video tapes which were clearly reproduced and used in a
legal way were retained by the district.  All catalogs listing illegally
reproduced materials were removed from circulation and destroyed.
        Librarians sent memos to all staff to help them understand the law
regarding the use of videotapes.  The superintendent personally visited and
inspected each library in the district to be sure that they were only in
possession of those tapes which conformed to copyright laws.
        The superintendent purchased the copyright law videotape from AIME,
"Copyright Law: What Every School, College and Public Library Should Know",
to assist the district's efforts to keep staff informed about the existing
copyright laws, their importance and the legitimacy of the private sector's
concerns.
        An annual inservice is presented for key district people, including
reprographics personnel and librarians.  Those who violate the policy will
be subject to sanctions by the District.


Case 4.  Glenbard North High School, Illinois.  April 1989.

SITUATION:  Video programs were illegally recorded off air by teachers for
use in their classes.

RESULTS:  Glenbard North High School was forced to spend $4265 to purchase
the illegally taped 83 video programs.  The school administration has since
developed a policy and rules about the acquisition and use of videotapes.


Case 5.  Dallas County Sheriff's Office, Texas.  December 1989

SITUATION:  The Dallas County Sheriff's Office illegally duplicated
videotapes for its own office as well as other county departments,
including the Department of Health.

RESULTS:  Dallas County agreed to provide a complete accounting of
illegally duplicated videotapes, cease from further duplication unless
written permission is first obtained, terminated services regarding
copyright advice from a specific Dallas attorney, and substituted former
guidelines with new ones prepared by AIME's counsel.  They implemented the
new guidelines beginning with a copyright workshop for county employees
conducted by AIME.  As part of these guidelines, employees who violate them
in the future will face disciplinary action.


Case 6.  Norco School District, California.  April 1990.

SITUATION:  One or more teachers at the Corona-Corco Unified School
District violated copyright laws that require teachers to tape only
broadcast TV, to show the program only once within 10 school days and to
erase the tape within 45 calendar days.  Teachers also illegally copied
educational videos for their classes.

RESULTS:  After about eight months of closed-door negotiations with AIME,
the Corona-Norco school board authorized their attorneys to try to settle
the case out of court.  The settlement required the school district board
to approve a policy on copyright law and prepare a press release about the
settlement.


Case 7.  Traverse City Public Schools, Michigan.  June 1990

SITUATION:  Teachers at the Junior High School regularly and systematically
reproduced film and video products for use in their classes.

RESULTS:  Upon demand of AIME, the district investigated the matter
further, a full accounting of all illegally made tapes was made.  Employees
who participated in the illegal duplication of videos were reprimanded and
other employees were made aware of this disciplinary action.  A copyright
policy was developed and implemented.


Case 8.  Parker Unified School District #27, Arizona.  October 1990

SITUATION:  Administrative personnel in this small school district in
northern Arizona authorized and condoned the systematic illegal copying of
video tapes.

RESULTS:  All illegal copies were set aside and inventoried.  Those
employees who participated in the illegal copying were reprimanded and the
disciplinary action was made public.  The district prepared a copyright
policy and an inservice training session was held for teachers and
administrators to explain the copyright law.  On behalf of its members,
AIME received a $10,000 damage settlement from the school district.


As you can see, my files only go up through 1990.  I'm sure AIME has
listings of more recent cases. Hope this helps whoever was looking for this
information.

From: Linda C Joseph <ljoseph@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

  Yep, one of our elementary schools received a letter from the Disney company
demanding that they cease showing Disney movies or pay for a license. I believe
the fee was something like $300 for the year.
  Showing movies as a reward is widespread, but I can assure you *that* school
isn't showing any Disney movies.

  All of our preaching didn't do a bit of good, but that letter sure made an
impact!

 Also you might be interested in the copyright workshop I developed for a
presentation to our district teachers. Feel free to use any of the materials.
http://www.cyberbee.com   Copyright for Educators in the Information Age


From Dgillila@AOL.COMTue Sep 24 08:20:38 1996


I know of several schools in South Dakota (some in _very_ remote areas of the
state that have received cease-and-desist orders related to copyright.  In
each case, they stopped what they were accused of doing, and that was the end
of it.  But, if the copyright police can find problems in Timbucto (sp?), SD,
they can probably find you too!


From kaysakj@mqg-smtp3.usmc.milTue Sep 24 08:20:49 1996
It depends upon the material type as to the punishment.  If the person is
caught violating the off-air taping, the tapes will be destroyed, a fine is
issued (normally a certain percentage of the cost of the video), and a
teachers could loose their job.  If it is a computer software program:  the
illegal copies will be destroyed, a fine of $10,000 per illegal copy is
assessed, and possible jail time for the individual responsible for the
illegal copying.  I have seen the penalties for the computer software
enforced, except the jail time.  You need to remember that the librarian is
responsible for what the equipment in the school is used for.  IF you know
that a person is using something illegally and they get caught, more than
likely you will be punished to.  I know I have more information on this topic
but it is not at my finger tips.  If you have Internet access look at the
Library of Congress Copyright Homepage.  Lots of information.


From ba_hoelle@PO.SWOCA.OHIO.GOVTue Sep 24 08:21:05 1996

I remember hearing that a music teacher got turned in to the copyright
police by an angry student. It happened at Centerville High School,
Centerville, Ohio 45459, in the 1970s, right around the time that the
issue was coming to the forefront of educational attention. The teacher
was making copies of SATB arrangements for chorus classes. They might be
willing to share more details with you if you want to try contacting them.

From: Bonnie Fulmer <GBF1@MUSICB.MARIST.EDU>
     I do know that a local public library was served
with a cease and desist order from a NYC law firm for
borrowing videos from the county library and showing
them to a pre-school Saturday morning story hour group.
Seems even that constituted public performance!
Needless to say, they ceased and desisted immediately!

From: Gail Smith <gsmith@isbe.state.il.us>

The archdiose of Chicago was reputedly involved in a suit for copying
sheet music for choirs which they lost and ended up paying many
thousands of dollars in fines (my memory says something over $100,000)
I can't cite any spot to verify this info, but I have been told that the
fine can be up to $25,000 PER INFRACTION. (that sure makes a $59.00
computer program seem cheap)
--

Kathy Webster
Trinity School
kwebster@tenet.edu