LEgality of published here FSI courses

Find out the latest news.
Forum rules
----------------
Before posting, please read the Forum Guidlines.

LEgality of published here FSI courses

Postby PES1 on March 22nd, 2010, 2:07 am

Hello!

As I'm always concerned about legality of any materials that I use I'd like to ask if all items at this website are legal ?
Please provide as full as information as possible i.e. why you think it is. I didn't see these materials on any US government sites and I'm not sure that they're in public domain , freely available and free of charge as you insist.

I wish it would be as you wrote.


PES1
PES1
 
Posts: 2
Joined: March 22nd, 2010, 1:45 am

Re: LEgality of published here FSI courses

Postby Oberon on March 22nd, 2010, 8:20 pm

PES1 wrote:Hello!

As I'm always concerned about legality of any materials that I use I'd like to ask if all items at this website are legal ?
Please provide as full as information as possible i.e. why you think it is. I didn't see these materials on any US government sites and I'm not sure that they're in public domain , freely available and free of charge as you insist.

I wish it would be as you wrote.


PES1


You haven't looked very hard. ;) Almost all of the documents are available here:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/

The copyright status depends on which country you live in and potentially which state of the US you live in.
Works in the US can be in the public domain for several reasons. You should definitely look at the Cornell University website: http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm

The principal reasons on this site are:

1.The work was published and did not contain a copyright notice (i.e. a © symbol, date, and name of the copyright claimant). A "work" in this case is all printed material prior March 1, 1989 and and all audio material published between Feb 15, 1972 and March 1, 1989. The term "published" means that the "work" was available to the general public for purchase or loan. See the US copyright circular #3.

2. The work was created (published or not) by a employee of the US government as part of their normal duties. See US Copyright law 17 U.S.C. § 105.

Absolutely none of the works here contain a copyright notice except:

1. Martin Sander's additional notes in the Korean Basic Course (New) section
2. Some of the DLI works have had their original photographs replaced with newer freely licensed "Creative Commons" or GFDL photographs. The photos are copyrighted, but the text is not. The photo licenses allow (actually encourage) free redistribution as long as the photographer is credited.

PRE MARCH 1, 1989

All of the pre-March 1, 1989 material (except for DLI "Headstart for Puerto Rico", see below) is documented to have been available to the general public prior to the date. For example, see the list of courses available for purchase to the public on the last page of the "Sinhala Basic Course Volume 1". Other works such as "Japanese Familiarization" were made available for loan from the Federal Depository Library system prior to the date. See the search box at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/. Go to the advanced search area, as the general search box does not always work. Several of the DLI texts are listed here. Another listing of material for sale is given 1974 GSA catalog available as a PDF in the ERIC document #101752 at the ERIC website. This includes some of the other works not listed on the Federal Depository Library site.

Chinese module 1 text and workbook is listed as copyrighted in the US Copyrighted office, but the copies available on ERIC never had a copyright notice. The copies pointed to at http://www.archive.org also lack the notice. Both registration and notice is required.

Pre Feb 15 1972 audio is not covered under federal copyright law. As far as the federal government is concerned, it is in the public domain. But it may be covered by US state statute or common law copyright.

Most state statutes only apply to non-commercial uses of the audio material (for example New York law 275.05 which only covers audio "with the intent to rent or sell, or cause to be rented or sold for profit, or used to promote the sale of any product, such article to which such recording was transferred" which does not have the permission of the owner of the master recording) Some states such as Florida and Minnesota exclude "educational" uses from their statutes. This site is non-commercial and states that the material is for educational use.

That still leaves common law copyright. The law is unclear here. The 1909 copyright law excluded all works from copyright that were published by the US government, but copyright could be transferred. Of course the pre-1972 federal law did not cover audio. In most cases of pre-1972 audio, the work contained a phrase stating "all rights reserved". None of these works have that statement. If someone knows of a common law copyright ruling from any US state related specifically to a US government publish work, let me know.

US EMPLOYEE

Some of the works were created by US government employees. In this case an "employee" follows agency law. See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1153/is_1_125/ai_85107273/. There are several criteria that may make one an employee such as:

1. Using employer provided materials
2. Being listed as an employee by the employer
3. Having the time and manner of the work specified by the employer

The preface of many of the books list the autors as titled employees of the FSI. The website http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/about/contact/personnel/1995/ lists the US State Department Employee directory for 1995. Many of the authors are listed as FSI employees.


Finally, the DLI work "Headstart for Puerto Rico" is listed as being almost complely created by the late Rick Berrios of the DLI (a US government employer). See section #8 " Remembering Rick Berrios, a colleague, a friend, a mentor." at http://www.dli-alumni.org/Newsletters/NewsletterXXIII-Jul2009.htm. Other newsletters also mention the authors of some of the other DLI works as being DLI employees.

WHICH COUNTRY

Most countries are signatories of either the Berne Convention or TRIPS (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements). Under article 18 of the Berne convention, works that are already in the public domain due to expiration of their term when the country joins the Berne Convention are also in the public domain in all other countries that are in the convention." The US joined on March 1,1989. It's unclear if works that were never covered by copyright count as works that are in the public domain "due to expiration". Any work published after 1989 that is in the public domain in the US would also be in the public domain of countries that observe the "Rule of the shorter term". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_the_shorter_term. Note that the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty article 22 covers the same situation for sound recordings.

CANADA

One exception to the above - Bi-lateral agreements take precedent over the Berne Convention.

For example, Canada Copyright Law 9(2) states:
"Nationals of other countries
Authors who are nationals of any country, other than a country that is a party to the North American Free Trade Agreement, that grants a term of protection shorter than that mentioned in subsection (1) are not entitled to claim a longer term of protection in Canada."

The FSI works are almost certainly copyrighted in Canada for 50 years after publication. Strangely enough, they were probably in the public domain up until the time section 9(2) was added to the copyright law as part of NAFTA.
Last edited by Oberon on May 30th, 2010, 6:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Oberon
 
Posts: 32
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 8:38 pm

Re: LEgality of published here FSI courses

Postby PES1 on March 23rd, 2010, 2:47 am

Thanks for such a detailed and rapid reply. Surely it'll take me some time to analyse it.
As you mentioned archive.org I'd like to ask about that book: http://www.archive.org/details/italianinthreemo00lond
Italian in three months (1976) ? Do you think that it's also in public domain? I wrote to archive.org but didn't get a reply.

PES1
PES1
 
Posts: 2
Joined: March 22nd, 2010, 1:45 am

Re: LEgality of published here FSI courses

Postby rebrafi on March 26th, 2010, 5:24 am

PES1- I read your question and FSI answer, I understand the great worry about copyrights, but iI think that if a book is posted at the web, with the possibility of being download, into an open page, and if a person needs a book for its own reading, study and/or work. Copyright pass to be not my priority. If I want to be real worry with copyright, so I must visit frequently Amazon, Barnes&Noble, or any bookshop around the world.
Today I posted a message commenting about Audio-Forum who shuts door, I would never hava financial conditions to buy any book listed there. When I met FSI site, I was so glad as a child with a new gift. My dream was being realized. I downloaded the books, and now I can study languages. I'm not using these material to open a language course, or saling pirate cd, with the downloadable copies, so I think I'm not falling in any crime.
About archive.org, I also downloaded the book you mentioned. the site is opened to everybody, using or not a login, part of the books, you can also find at google books service. Did you already try to find this book at google? If appears a message telling no visualization, or something similar to this, maybe this book isn't on public domain, but you can download to your own use at archive.org.
rebrafi
 
Posts: 6
Joined: March 25th, 2010, 5:48 am

Re: LEgality of published here FSI courses

Postby Cainntear on April 30th, 2010, 6:35 am

I would personally be a lot happier if copyright justification was given for the individual files within the PDF files, because all we have here is a list of generalities -- most of the writers are in a DLI staff directory. Which ones? The status of each is independent of all others, and right now it seems like the status of "most" is being used to justify the distribution of "all".

On a different note, the "educational use" exemption is pretty troublesome. As I understand it, it's intended to let you use snippets of real-world materials in classroom projects etc. It's not intended to mean that it's impossible to claim copyright on education books, as then no-one would write them!
Cainntear
 
Posts: 2
Joined: August 25th, 2009, 2:10 pm

Re: LEgality of published here FSI courses

Postby Oberon on August 23rd, 2010, 8:22 pm

I should have responded to Cainntear's concerns earlier; sorry about the delay. As always, I am not a lawyer; what follows should not be taken as legal advice.

Cainntear wrote:I would personally be a lot happier if copyright justification was given for the individual files within the PDF files, because all we have here is a list of generalities -- most of the writers are in a DLI staff directory. Which ones? The status of each is independent of all others, and right now it seems like the status of "most" is being used to justify the distribution of "all".


While it may seem daunting at first glance to determine if a work has any encumbrances, the task really isn't that difficult if broken into smaller steps.

1. Determine if the work was published before 1989.03.01. If so, did it contain a copyright notice? This is the easiest way to determine public domain status. Remember, unlike almost every other country, the United States had an "opt in" system for copyright once the work was published. The "want-to-be" copyright holder must have taken well defined actions in a timely manner in order to copyright a work, otherwise it was permanently in the public domain.

2. If no publication date can be found, or the date is after 1989.03.01, check if the author has any possible US government employment. The easiest way is to look at the book's preface to check for job titles. For State Department employees, go to your nearest Federal Depository Library and look in the microfiche under section 1.21. State Department employee directories from 1989 to Fall 2001 are all available. DLI works are tougher since no author is listed with the work (and as far as I know there isn't any public employment directory). Try contacting the DLI Alumni organization.

If that is not working out, let me know which work you are planning to use, which state/country for which you plan to make a copy, and whether the use is commercial. Commercial use is not recommended due to the possible existence of state privacy laws. Also, what analysis have you already done.

Cainntear wrote:On a different note, the "educational use" exemption is pretty troublesome. As I understand it, it's intended to let you use snippets of real-world materials in classroom projects etc. It's not intended to mean that it's impossible to claim copyright on education books, as then no-one would write them!


You were referring to the "Fair use" doctrine. The educational use statutes I referred to only applied to pre-1972 sound recordings and then only to particular US states. If a sound creator didn't like the laws in a given state, he or she could sell to 49 other states as well as almost 200 foreign countries. If need be, the publisher could avoid stocking bookstores in problem states.

To get a glimpse into the total pre-1972 mess, look at:
http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub146/contents.html

The state of Florida implemented a "orphan works" law (http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub146/body.htm#fl) in 1989 to cover pre-1972 work. It only applies to non-profit educational organizations. Minnesota laws (http://law.justia.com/minnesota/codes/324/325e-s19.html) were written in 1973. Note that both were written after the years for which they are applicable. California also has an orphan works law, but it only applies to organizations promoting musical education.

A couple more notes:
Section 411 of the US copyright code states 'no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title'. The lack of a copyright record, while not precluding copyright, would at least indicate that no one has ever sued for copyright infringement. Here is a link to the records:
http://books.google.com/googlebooks/copyrightsearch.html

It is always possible that some of the works were created by a government contract. But even after March 1989, the contractor had to take certain steps to control the publication of copies. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) was use after 1974 for contractors.
http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html#48

US Library of Congress opinion on the copyright status of the Florida Folklife sound recordings from the WPA Collections, 1937-1942. These were recorded by US government employee. The important thing to note here is that the library is not opposed to the educational use of pre-1972 government recordings. The assumption is that they would feel the same about State Department employee recordings.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/florida/ffres.html

Along with the references mentioned in the earlier post, here is another source for verifying publication of text and audio prior to March 1989. This is the 1989 sales catalog from the NTIS at http://catalog.hathitrust.org/. Although it is dated November, 1989, it does not contain any material that was not in earlier editions (See the Federal Depository Library notices: "Foreign language courses produced by the Federal Government" 1985 (AE 1.110:F 76) and "National AudioVisual Center Quarterly Update" April 1988 (AE 1.109:988/1).
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015029980540;page=root;view=image;size=100;seq=3

The Hathi trust has other FSI materials available.

Commercial Use
In short don't do it unless you are well acquainted with your local statutes. Besides US federal and state copyright laws, commercial users must also be aware of personality rights. The owners of the voices on the tapes have the right to control the commercial use. This applies to commercial retailers of the courses. While these are commercial rights in the US, foreign countries (Europe in particular) may also include non-commercial use restrictions due to privacy.
-Personality Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

And yes, I agree that the statement on the title web page is a bit too broad: 'These courses were developed by the United States government and are in the public domain.'
Something similar to the Project Gutenberg disclaimer may be better: 'Our books are free in the United States because their copyright has expired. They may not be free of copyright in other countries. Readers outside of the United States must check the copyright laws of their countries before downloading or redistributing our ebooks.', though even this is not quite right since as far as can be determined, the works never had any copyright to expire. Also, copyright (if any) may vary from US state to US state.
Perhaps something like the detailed Library of Congress disclaimer mentioned above may be even more accurate.
Oberon
 
Posts: 32
Joined: August 23rd, 2009, 8:38 pm

videogid

Postby Donfreergeles on March 7th, 2011, 8:16 am

agree, Although one can argue
Donfreergeles
 
Posts: 1
Joined: February 28th, 2011, 4:59 pm


Return to News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guest

cron