![]() Surprisingly, the lower court judge did not follow the rules established for assembling paper coursepacks (above) and ruled against the publishers holding that the digital excerpts were a fair use. In 2008, academic publishers sued Georgia State University for maintaining such a system. These excerpts were then made available to professors for their students. In the past two decades, many educational institutions began maintaining digital eReserves of book excerpts. Michigan Document Servs., 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. This ruling was based on the amount and substantiality of the portions taken and because academic publishers were financially harmed-they lost licensing revenues-while the copy shop was making money on the coursepacks. ![]() A federal Court of Appeals decided against the copy shop owner, ruling that the copying did not qualify as fair use. As a result, he was sued by several book publishers. The owner of a copy shop in Ann Arbor, Michigan, began a personal crusade to prove that the Kinko’s case was wrongly decided by advertising that he would copy course materials for students and professors. 1991).) The court said that reprinting copyrighted materials in academic coursepacks was not fair use and that permission was required. However, in 1991, a federal court ruled that a publisher’s copyright was infringed when a Kinko’s copy shop reprinted portions of a book in an academic coursepack. This was based on the assumption that educational copying qualified as “fair use” under copyright law, which, legally speaking, is a use that is exempt from permissions requirements that normally apply to copyrighted materials. Until 1991, many instructors and photocopy shops assembled and sold coursepacks without permission and without compensating the authors or publishers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |