Streaming

In the spirit of the season, and the answer I must give, this answer will be a modified version of a scene from Macbeth.

[Cue sounds of wind, rain, and small children trying to line up while thinking about candy and their itchy "Frozen II Elsa" costume.]

ENTER THREE WITCHES

FIRST WITCH: Educator!  I sense thou wouldst put on a show!  And Zoom it to demesnes beyond thy institution!  But if the music is protected by copyright and the school does not have a license to use the music in that manner it will be a violation of the copyright!!!

SECOND WITCH:  And, Educator, know this, as well! The Zoom terms of use state: "Zoom may deny access to the Services to any User who is alleged to infringe another party's copyright!" So be warned, or you be twice-condemned for the foul deed of infringement, by both the copyright's master, and the Powers of Zoom!!!

[Lightning.  Thunder.]

THIRD WITCH:  Ahem.  Of course, you'd have to get caught, first....

[Pause.  The cauldron bubbles.  FIRST WITCH and SECOND WITCH give THIRD WITCH the side-eye.]

THIRD WITCH:  Ahem.  Of course, you'd have to get caught, first....

FIRST WITCH and SECOND WITCH:  Gasp!

THIRD WITCH: What? We're witches!  We have to be sneaky, why do you think we're camped out here in the woods?  And seriously, do you think in the midst of everything happening on Zoom, someone's going to notice?  The world is going so crazy, I'm expecting it to rain toads at any moment!  Give this poor Educator a break.

FIRST WITCH:  Oh, Alecto, you always were a rebel.

Okay, back in the real world...

Sadly, my three witches are right, and this is the answer I have to give.  Since the parade won't be a part of a class, there is no TEACH Act exception, so transmitting the music via Zoom is just like putting it out over a streaming service or live TV: a no-go without permission[1].

That said, I dug around in my cauldron, and I can offer this possible solution:

Round about the copyright go

In the creative solution throw

Songs that "copyleft" be

Can help thee celebrate Halloween

For works freely used and easy got

Search "Copyleft Halloween Songs," and find a lot.

Not very much toil and trouble

"Copyleft" works make music bubble!

 

Just in case my Shakespearean verse is too obtuse, what I'm saying is: Hop on your favorite search engine and type "copyleft Halloween songs."[2]

What will this do?

For those of you who don't know: "Copyleft"[3] is slang for: "I could own and control this copyright, but I am so cool, I am letting you use it, so long as you let others use it, too."  Meaning: "copyleft" work is free to use, by anyone, so long as whatever you generate using the work is also free to use.[4]

Now, as with all clever solutions, this one calls for thorough planning.  I listened to a few of the songs I found this way; not all of them are, as they say, "safe for work" (or at least safe for school) so check out the songs before you Zoom them out to parents. But since this is music the authors have proudly composed and released for free use by a wide audience, I suspect at least some of it will meet your needs.[5]

[NOTE: I don't know if it would work for your school, but this one by Frannie Comstock is hilariously clever[6] (and mentions lawyers)!  If nothing else, give it a listen just for a fun 5 minutes.  Here is that YouTube link written out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzvlAuUiM5s]

Happy Halloween!

 

 

---

[1] I am not weighing if this would be a "fair use."  That said, if the Halloween Parade and the music interacted to make a clever statement or unique medley of work, that could be a possibility.  But I've been to my kids' Halloween parades.  They are darling, they are not ground-breaking, incisive commentary on modern theatre.

[2] Don't search "Copyleft Halloween Music" because for some reason (which I am sure many of you information professionals out there know) it just wasn't as fruitful.

[3] Yes, this is similar to Creative Commons, but it is also different.  For more information, visit https://www.copyleft.org/.

[4] This means that if you make a movie out of the Zoom recording of the parade, using a Copyleft song, that recording needs to be Copyleft, too.

[5] Unless "your needs" involved specifically using the soundtrack to "The Nightmare Before Christmas."  In which case, I cannot help you, because Skellington Productions, Inc. owns all those copyrights, and I don't see them going Copyleft anytime soon.

[6] I don't know Fannie Comstock (is that even a real name?  It sounds like a person who makes candy while panning for gold), and I am not receiving any kickback for this endorsement of her ridiculously clever work.  Which makes sense, since there is no charge to use her highly amusing song.

Not only can the students play, record, and stream “Pomp & Circumstance,” but they can also create an original musical based on it, rap over it, score an original movie with it, and in short: do anything they want with it.[1]

While anyone graduating in 2020 deserves this kind of red-carpet legal treatment, not only can the students do it, but everyone else can, too.  That is the beauty of a work being in “the public domain.”[2]

Thanks, and may all your virtual ceremonies be joyous.

---

[1] That said, any publisher that has created and distributed its own version of “Pomp and Circumstance” with a specific arrangement, illustrations, instructions, etc. may own the copyright to that particular text, and it shouldn’t be duplicated via hard copy or scanning.  In a similar vein, any publisher that has issued a specific recording may own the rights to that specific recording, and that should not be streamed or used without permission, either.  But the composition of “Pomp and Circumstance” is in the public domain, so generating a student-created version of it is fine, and if the district is the one recording it, they (and the performers) own the copyright (see Copyright Office Circular 56)!

[2] “In the public domain” means “no longer protected by copyright.”  Edward Elgar, composer of “Pomp & Circumstance,” died in 1934, so even under the most rigorous scheme of ownership, the copyright to P&C has expired.

 

Can a library sponsor an online class open to the public?  YES.

There are just a few details to attend to:

1.  The financial details

Libraries do not charge for programming, but can pay others to offer library programming for free, so as the member says, this online program should be open “to anyone.”[1]

The instructor can still be paid, but the payment should come from the library, while the on-line attendees tune into this library program for free. 

The trick in this is to avoid “fiscal hybridization,” (with the library hosting and promoting the event, and the instructor getting some payment from some attendees).

 

2.  The online content details

Once your library has confirmed the financial details,[2] there should be complete understanding about the following questions:

Can the library promote the class using the instructor’s name and likeness?

Will the session be recorded?

Who owns the recording?

Will the library be able to use the recording for as long as it wants?

What platforms will the session and recording be hosted on?

Will the recording be put in the collection of the library?

What social media will the session be promoted on?

Will the session use music (that could stop it from being posted some places, like YouTube)?

That’s it, nothing fancy, just have some things to have clarity about.

 

3.  The participant details

Once you have the details of the way the class will go “out there,” confirm:

Who is our target audience?

Do they have any particular vulnerabilities?

Do we need to consider ADA access such as captioning?

How will we collect feedback on the programs?

 

4.  The contract details

With all that minutia settled, here is a template agreement to organize the details. 

Of course, as with all template contracts, if you can,[3] have this template customized for your library by your local lawyer or insurance carrier.

ONLINE INSTRUCTION AGREEMENT

 

The [LIBRARY] (“Library”)and [NAME] (“Instructor”), with an address of [ADDRESS], to provide critical health programming at a time of state-wide pandemic emergency, agree as follows:

Instructor will offer classes in ____________ (“__________ Classes”) from [PHYSICAL LOCATION] to Library’s patrons and others via:

[INSERT HOSTING METHOD AND STREAMING SITE(S)]

Classes will be live streamed at [INSERT TIMES, DATES].

The ___________ Classes will be a target audience of those who can benefit from online social gatherings to participate in ___________________. 

[in case of activity involving a professional license] Instructor’s professional license was granted by [LICENSING AUTHORITY] and is current; if the license expires or is revoked during the term of this agreement, Instructor will notify Library immediately.

[in case of instruction involving physical activity] To promote safe participation, at the start and end of every class, the screen will read, or the Instructor will say:

[INSERT Instructor’s preferred safety and wellness message; here is a sample that is customized for the times:

[ACTIVITY] is intended as a gentle but serious exercise.  Please consult your physician prior to any physical activity that could impact your health, and only participate within your know abilities.  Please stay safe during this time of social distancing and enjoy our class.]

___________ Classes will be promoted as a free program of the library and Instructor shall not charge individual attendees for these sessions.

Library will pay Instructor _____ per session. 

[OR]

Instructor has agreed to provide this programming on a volunteer basis.

Instructor agrees that no music or other copyrighted work other than content owned or properly licensed to Instructor and Library shall be used during recorded or live-streamed __________ Classes.

Instructor agrees that Library may use their name, likeness, and image when promoting ____________ Classes. Library agrees that Instructor may use its name, likeness, and image when promoting _____________ Classes.

All sessions of __________ will be recorded by [INSERT] and the recording will be jointly owned by Instructor and Library.  This means both parties shall have the right to make copies, distribute in any way, or otherwise use the copyrights to the recordings.

Instructor hereby agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Library for any claim, cause of action, or injury arising from the creation, promotion, and participation in ________ Classes.

Instructor is an independent contractor and no partnership, joint venture, or relationship other than what is in this Agreement is created or implied by this Agreement.

The Parties both understand that this is an agreement during a time of emergency and this contract may be terminated without notice.  Any changes to this contract shall be confirmed via e-mail reflecting clear mutual agreement by the parties.

This agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York.

 

Signed for Library on _________:_______________________

                                                                        [NAME]

 

Signed for Instructor on _________:_______________________

                                                                        [NAME]

                                                                                               

5.  The assessment details

As with any library program, a live-streamed event is one for the staff to watch, monitor, and assess on a continual basis.  This will allow you to assess if the promotion, the session, and the recordings comply with the Agreement, and to make enhancements based on participant feedback.  It is also another way to limit the risks inherent in the activity. 

Just as critical, though, will be feedback that the class felt accessible, gave good instruction, and had a positive impact.

I wish you many valuable and rewarding online programs.

---

[1] I also would not have a concern with it being restricted to card-holders within a system, or card-holders registering in advance to participate for free.

[2] The instructor could also do this as a volunteer, but if they do good work, it is nice for them to get paid.

[3] If you can, this template should be reviewed by the lawyer who knows your library best.  But given the current crises and the need to reach people quickly, and the strain on budgets, I appreciate that you might laugh at this footnote.

 

Can a library sponsor an online chair yoga class open to the public?  YES.

There are just a few details to attend to:

1.  The financial details

Libraries do not charge for programming but can pay those who offer library programming for free, so as the member says, this online chair yoga program should be open “to anyone.”[1]

In this instance, it sounds like perhaps the instructor has (perhaps) been paying for space in the library, while offering on-site or online classes for a fee.  In the new arrangement proposed by the member, the classes become a free library program.  This means the instructor can still be paid, but the payment should come from the library, while the on-line attendees tune in for free. 

The trick in this is to avoid any “fiscal hybridization;” in no event should the library host and promote the event, while the instructor gets some payment directly from attendees.

                                                               

2.  The online content details

Once your library has confirmed the financial details,[2] there should be complete understanding about the following questions:

Can the library promote the class using the instructor’s name and likeness?

Will the session be recorded?

Who owns the recording?

Will the library be able to use the recording for as long as it wants?

What platforms will the session and recording be hosted on?

Will the recording be put in the collection of the library?

What social media will the session be promoted on?

Will the session use music (that could stop it from being posted some places, like YouTube)?

That’s it, nothing fancy, just have some things to have clarity about.

 

3.  The participant details

Once you have the details of the way the class will go “out there,” confirm:

Who is our target audience?

Do they have any particular vulnerabilities?

Do we need to consider ADA access such as captioning?

How will we collect feedback on the programs?

 

4.  The contract details

With all that minutia settled, here is a template agreement to organize the details. 

Of course, as with all template contracts, if you can,[3] have this template customized for your library by your local lawyer or insurance carrier.

CHAIR YOGA AGREEMENT

The [LIBRARY] (“Library”) and [NAME] (“Yoga Instructor”), a yoga instructor certified by [CERTIFYING BODY], to provide critical health programming at a time of state-wide pandemic emergency, agree as follows:

Yoga Instructor will offer classes in chair yoga (“Chair Yoga Classes”) from [PHYSICAL LOCATION] to Library’s patrons and others via:

[INSERT HOSTING METHOD AND STREAMING SITE(S)]

Classes will be live streamed at [INSERT TIMES, DATES].

The Chair Yoga Classes will be a target audience of those who can benefit from online social gatherings to participate in routine chair yoga. 

To promote safe participation, at the start and end of every class, the screen will read, or the Yoga Instructor will say:

[INSERT Yoga Instructor’s preferred safety and wellness message; here is a sample that is customized for the times:

Chair Yoga is intended as a gentle but serious exercise for the mind and body.  Please consult your physician prior to any physical activity that could impact your health, and only participate within your know abilities.  Please also know that Yoga, in general, can connect you to feelings that you may wish to address with your mental health provider.  Please stay safe during this time of social distancing and enjoy our class.]

Chair Yoga Classes will be promoted as a free program of the library and Yoga Instructor shall not charge individual attendees for these sessions.

Library will pay Yoga Instructor _____ per session. 

[OR] Yoga Instructor has agreed to provide this programming on a volunteer basis.

Yoga Instructor agrees that no music or other copyrighted work other than content owned or properly licensed to Yoga Instructor and Library shall be used during recorded or live-streamed Chair Yoga Classes.

Yoga Instructor agrees that Library may use their name, likeness, and image when promoting Chair Yoga Classes. Library agrees that Yoga Instructor may use its name, likeness, and image when promoting Chair Yoga Classes.

All sessions of Chair Yoga will be recorded by [INSERT] and the recording will be jointly owned by Yoga Instructor and Library.  This means both parties shall have the right to make copies, distribute in any way, or otherwise use the copyrights to the recordings.

Yoga Instructor hereby agrees to hold harmless and indemnify Library for any claim, cause of action, or injury arising from the creation, promotion, and participation in Chair Yoga Classes.

Yoga Instructor is an independent contractor and no partnership, joint venture, or relationship other than what is in this Agreement is created or implied by this Agreement.

The Parties both understand that this is an agreement during a time of emergency and this contract may be terminated without notice.  Any changes to this contract shall be confirmed via e-mail reflecting clear mutual agreement by the parties.

This agreement is governed by the laws of the State of New York.

 

Signed for Library on _________:_______________________

                                                            [NAME]

Signed for Yoga Instructor on _________:_______________________

                                                                                [NAME]

                                                                               

5.  The assessment details

As with any library program, a live-streamed event is one for the staff to watch, monitor, and assess on a continual basis.  This will allow you to the promotion, the session, the recordings to comply with the Agreement, and top make enhancement based on participant feedback.  It is also another way to limit the risks inherent in the activity. 

While there is very little risk of liability for personal injury during livestreamed chair yoga (compared to say, in-person “Acroyoga”…you should see the case law on that![4]), “chair yoga” is targeted to a population with some physical limitations,[5] so attention to these details is a good idea. 

Just as critical, though, will be feedback that the class felt accessible, gave good instruction, and had a positive impact.

And finally, the most important detail for busy library professionals scrambling to serve their communities right now…

 

6. Remember to breathe

…it helps with stress.

Best wishes for a good program, and happy utkatasana.[6]

---

[1] I also would not have a concern with it being restricted to cardholders within a system, or cardholders registering in advance to participate for free.

[2] The yoga instructor could also do this as a volunteer, but if they do good work, it is nice for them to get paid.

[3] If you can, this template should be reviewed by the lawyer who knows your library best.  But given the current crises and the need to reach people quickly, and the strain on budgets, I appreciate that you might laugh at this footnote.

[4] Here’s a quote from a case, (Malouf v Equinox Holdings, Inc., 38 Misc 3d 1223 [Sup Ct, NY County 2012]): “The exercise during which she was allegedly injured called for her male partner to lie on his back with his legs in the air. She "was told to lean over his feet and put his feet on my pelvis and lean forward and hang limp like a rag doll balancing on his feet with his feet on my pelvic bone”…The next step "was to put our hands together and bring our hands behind our heads with our elbows up in the air" (id.). Then, "the dark-haired girl came and forcefully pushed my elbows behind my head and forcefully brought them together and I screamed Ouch'" (id.). Malouf had not asked for assistance (id. at 31).” 

Ouch, indeed.

[5] Please don’t tell my mother, who does chair yoga at New Hartford Public Library, that I have characterized her activity this way.  There is absolutely no limit to her ability to chastise me over the 180 miles between her house in New Hartford and my house in Buffalo.

[6] “Chair pose.”  One of my favorites.

 

As the member shows here, there are a lot of questions within the big issue of “contributory infringement” via use of the internet in libraries.  And because they all relate to legal liability, they are scary for library staff and leadership.

To take the edge off that fear while defining “contributory infringement,” please enjoy this bad joke:

“Knock-knock.”

“Who’s there?”

“Contributory infringer.”

“Contributory infringer who?”

“Contributory infringer who is liable if, knowing of infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to infringing conduct of another.”

Ouch.  Sorry.  I know that really wasn’t funny.  I have been teaching knock-knock jokes to my 5-year-old daughter, and they are harder to write than you’d think. 

But while the joke was bad, the definition was good.  So, what is “contributory infringement?”  All (bad) jokes aside, contributory infringement—when a person/entity aids to infringement—is a recipe for serious liability, with the contributor “jointly and severally” liable along with the main infringer.

And yes, as the quote from the MPLA says, unlicensed exhibitions of movies in a library can result in a finding of liability for the library. However…

The MPLA is representing an industry.  This “warning” statement is a good example of an industry taking advantage of the complexity of the law to issue a statement that, unless carefully unpacked, will make the reader fear assertions that are grossly overbroad. 

Deconstruct the statement.  As the member fears, at a superficial level it seems to state that every copy of motion picture content accessed through a library’s wi-fi and played on any device might be a “contributory infringement” without a license.  Ouch.  That would be a recipe for disaster, indeed. 

But this is a typical industry over-step.  Fortunately, we fight such over-steps with information, and information is the librarian’s stock-in-trade.

Entire books, law journal articles, and Supreme Court opinions have been written on this topic, but I am going to focus on three bits of practical information that address the member’s concerns.

First, there are obviously sections of the Copyright Act that allow performances of audio-visual works in a library that would otherwise be infringing: Section 107, 108, and 110,[1] depending on the circumstances (including the type of library) can all apply.  I won’t unpack these sections here—the applications are too fact-specific—but let’s just say: “There are ways.”

Second, a user accessing content on a library computer may be doing so under their own personal license (Hulu being a possible example).  There is no requirement[2] in the Hulu license that a user access their personal Hulu account on a device they personally own; in other words, there is no concern if they access it on a library computer (so long as it is only for personal use).  On the flip side, there is no permission from Hulu to use my personal account, via my personal computer, to show a movie to 20 unrelated people and charge admission. So, it’s not so much about the streaming, as what I do with it.  This will vary from platform to platform, but the conditions of use will be in the license.

The third factor is the most important for this question, and is what the rest of this response is about, since it applies to the majority of the member’s hypothetical concerns.

To combat the fear that any re-posting or access to audio-visual copyrighted material via a library user account, website, database, or wi-fi connection is a potential infringement the library could be contributing to, every library should register under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), and have a policy for responding to reports of infringement.

Why?  Because under the DMCA, service providers may avoid liability for copyright infringement that occurs "by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider." [3]

This arrangement allows services like news aggregators (think Huffington Post), content providers (think YouTube) and internet access providers (think Verizon) to function without performing a chilling gate-keeping function, giving them what’s called a “safe harbor” from contributory infringement. 

To qualify for this “safe harbor,” a library must be ready to show that it:

(A) (i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;

(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and

(C) upon notification of claimed infringement . . ., responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

So powerful is this “safe harbor,” that sites hosting infringing content are routinely found non-liable, so long as they designate a DMCA “agent” with the Copyright Office and meet the above elements[4], and can show they acted promptly when the agent was notified of alleged infringement.

Of course, any library considering this approach must do so with its eyes wide open.  The DMCA is not beloved by libraries; the ALA has some choice criticism of the advantages the “notice and takedown” process gives content owners, and the rough road the process presents to fair use.[5]  Nevertheless, the DMCA remains a legal tool that addresses all of the member’s hypothetical concerns and solutions.

To illustrate, let’s run through the member’s examples a bit. 

First, the member lists the different types of technology access and use that could be used as a basis for a claim of contributory infringement.  The member is right to be concerned, because regardless of the ownership or type of device used in the library (library computer, or patron-owned device, phone, tablet, desktop computer), if an unlicensed movie is being shown at the library (with or without the use of library wi-fi), it runs the risk of being an infringing performance.[6]  But so long as the library is not aware of someone using the library’s wi-fi or website to show, post or share infringing content (or the use is not so flagrant that the library “should have known”), and the library meets the other elements listed above, DMCA “safe harbor” can apply.

Of course, this means the library must be able to show it does not have “actual knowledge” that an infringing performance is happening.  If the library is hosting obviously infringing activity (like a person sitting on top of the reference desk ripping movies in plain view while singing “I am pirating a copy of “Lego Batman, hooray!”), “safe harbor” might not apply.  But if the library is hosting someone quietly accessing a copy of “Lego Batman” on their personal computer (perhaps with a future fair use defense due to using the content in a documentary on deconstructing traditional notions of masculinity via comic-book-based animated children’s movies), and the library has no knowledge of the action, it would be tough to show “actual” knowledge. 

NOTE: again, this tension, and the fact that what looks like infringement can often be a fair use, is one reason the ALA and others have an issue with the DMCA.

How does a library relying on the DMCA determine the line between genuine lack of awareness and what it “should know”?  A library’s bar on using library resources for obvious and intentional copyright infringement should be in both its internet use policy, and its patron code of conduct.  “Obvious and intentional” use of library resources to infringe copyright can include:

• Making multiple unauthorized copies of articles;
• Screening movies to a group without a license;
• 3-D printing patent-protected medical devices.

These examples all bring serious intellectual property concerns, and libraries must be positioned through policy to deal with them.  But through a combination of the DMCA and respecting patron privacy, libraries do not need to consider blocking access or specifically restricting specific content to avoid contributory infringement.[7]

It’s an imperfect balance, to be sure.  The ALA and others are right to hold the line on concerns with the over-use of the “notice and takedown” provisions of the DMCA.  But within that imperfect system is the secret to the member’s concerns.

The member’s final three questions are:

Does this mean that we have to block access to these sites or provide proactive messaging at each computer, and/or monitor their computer use?

Should messaging that addresses this issue be included in our wi-fi and/or computer use policy?

Is this something that if we provide computer screens or privacy walls we would reduce or eliminate our role as a contributory infringer?
The answers to these questions are:

• To limit liability under the Copyright Act, there is no requirement to block, seek out, or repeatedly warn against infringement.[8]
• That said, outright theft of intellectual property should be prohibited through library policy and internet/computer access agreements, and observable violations should be addressed through a patron code of conduct.
• Liability for contributory infringement can be reduced by following the DMCA.
• Policies and design that ensure the privacy of users and the confidentiality of patron records can contribute to the reduced liability brought by the DMCA.

Thank you for a good, complex question.  For libraries that have not yet done so, a DMCA policy and registered agent are worth (very carefully) considering.

The relationship between a person and their streaming content service is almost always[1] governed by a type of contract called a “license.”

As the members states, such a license (often accepted by clicking to accept terms left unread) can over-ride the infringement exceptions like those found in 17 U.S.C. §§107, 108, and 110.[2]

In other words, once a user voluntarily agrees to a contract restricting use of content, rights they may have once by law may become inaccessible.

Use of streaming content in the educational setting is a good example of this.  While Section 110 of the Copyright Act may allow a teacher to show a movie in class (if the movie is shown in the physical classroom and if the content is part of the curriculum), that same movie might not be accessible under the teacher’s Netflix license.

Why? Content providers change the terms of licenses all the time, but one thing is pretty constant: restricting subscription access to personal use.

Here is how Hulu puts it:

3.2 Your License. Hulu is pleased to grant you a non-exclusive limited license to use the Services, including accessing and viewing the Content on a streaming-only basis through the Video Player, for personal, non-commercial purposes as set forth in these Terms.

Netflix has a similar-sounding restriction.  Even the “Educational Screenings of Documentaries” the member references (found at https://help.netflix.com/en/node/57695) license is pretty narrow (and actually a shrewd PR move for a commercial service):

Educational screenings are permitted for any of the documentaries noted with this information, on the following terms:

The documentary may only be accessed via the Netflix service, by a Netflix account holder. We don’t sell DVDs, nor can we provide other ways for you to exhibit the film.

The screening must be non-profit and non-commercial. That means you can’t charge admission, or solicit donations, or accept advertising or commercial sponsorships in connection with the screening.

Please don’t use Netflix’s logos in any promotion for the screening, or do anything else that indicates that the screening is “official” or endorsed by Netflix.

We trust our users to respect these guidelines, which are intended to help you share and discuss our documentary content in your community.

To the extent your institution requires you to demonstrate that you have a license for your screening, please show them this page.

So there you have it: the only Netflix content that may be shown for classroom use is, as the member states, per this permission.

But (to address the other part of the member’s question) what are the consequences for not abiding by the license?  Is there a growing body of case law to show the fines, terminated accounts, and jail time[3] people are doing when they violate the terms of their streaming service license?

There is not. 

Why?  Most of these license agreements have arbitration clauses, meaning that disputes are settled without the publicly accessible process found in a court of law. 

Here is part of the arbitration clause from Netflix:

7.1. If you are a Netflix member in the United States (including its possessions and territories), you and Netflix agree that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating in any way to the Netflix service, these Terms of Use and this Arbitration Agreement, shall be determined by binding arbitration or in small claims court. … Arbitrators can award the same damages and relief that a court can award…. [4]

So there may be a number of instances where a license has been violated, and Netflix has sought “…the same damages and relief that a court can award” via arbitration.  But I don’t have access to that information.  Most of us just don’t know.[5]

I do know, however, that violating a license is wrong, and can have consequences. [6]  Further, I would hope that in the educational setting, modeling casual disregard for personal contractual obligations is not encouraged.

Teachers are usually barred by the contract from streaming Netflix services from their personal account in the classroom.  Unless there is an express license to the school from a streaming service, or for a particular film, I encourage teachers to obtain physical copies of films/DVD’s from the library, and play them in class on a good old-fashioned TV and DVD player, as Section 110 of the Copyright Act allows them to do. 

Thanks for this perceptive question.

 

The TEACH Act was adopted in 2002 to enable the “digital transmission” of otherwise copyright-protected content for educational purposes. 

Schools meeting the Act’s requirements[1] can stream readings of poetry, images of paintings, and lines of computer coding, without fear of infringement claims.  This allows regular teaching activities—like analyzing a poem, assessing a painting, or teaching HTML--to happen online, without fear that the duplication or transmission of the copyright-protected content will bring a lawsuit. 

The TEACH Act positions online learning to use content as it would be used in a traditional classroom—as well as to novel and innovative things via distance learning technology.

But there are a few aspects of the “traditional classroom” the TEACH Act cannot replicate, and a critical one is: watching entire movies.

Per Section 110(1) of the Copyright Act, entire movies can be shown during an in-person class (if they are part of the curriculum…the law doesn’t allow a trigonometry class to kick back with “Wonder Woman” after finals are shown, unless they are calculating the angles of the bullets bouncing off her bracers). 

But there is no equivalent exception in the TEACH Act for streaming an entire video as part of an online course. 

In fact, in very plain language, the Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act states that only a “portion” of a film can be shown.  As stated right here:

…the performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or reasonable and limited portions of any other work, or display of a work in an amount comparable to that which is typically displayed in the course of a live classroom session, by or in the course of a transmission…. [emphasis added].

Okay, I admit it: it’s possible the “very plain language” is only plain to lawyers (and copyright scholars—many of whom are librarians--who leave some lawyers in the dust on these issues). 

The “House Report” [2] below, explains how this language means performance of an entire movie is not allowed:

The exemption for instructional broadcasting provided by section 110(2) would apply only to “performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or display of a work.” Thus, the copyright owner’s permission would be required for the performance on educational television or radio of a dramatic work, of a dramatico-musical work such as an opera or musical comedy, or of a motion picture.   [emphasis added]

So what does this mean?  Schools that want to stream entire movies as part of an online course—even if those movies could be shown during an in-person class--should not rely on the TEACH Act as their protection from infringement.[3]

What are the other solutions?

• The institution can obtain a license to stream the movie(s);
• The institution can create a “hybrid” course (part online, part in-person) that shows the movies in a physical class, as authorized by 110(1);
• Students can be required to subscribe to a streaming service or other licensed source of the movies, just like they rent or buy textbooks;
• In some instances, fair use might apply, BUT that should be determined on a movie-by-movie basis and documented very carefully, since simple academic need is generally not a defense to infringement.

Thank you for this question!

Reading to kids is one of the best thing we can do for them.  If the law gets in the way of that, there is something wrong with the law!

That said, honoring the rights of authors and illustrators who create stories to charm and educate is one of the best ways we can make sure there is always something new to read. 

And it’s the law.  

The member’s concern is justified; copyright law rewards creativity by empowering rights holders to control how and when their work is duplicated--in this case, “performed”[1].  A reading on “Facebook Live”—no matter how many cute, be-jammied scholars it enriches—could infringe those rights[2]. 

But as the member also suggests, respecting copyright does not need to be the end of the line; there are many ways this type of real-time, remote reading can take place.

Below, please find my “Top 5 Ways for a Teacher to Remotely Read a Bedtime Story to Lots of Kids in Different Places Without Fear of Committing Copyright Infringement.”

1.  When choosing a book to read, select a work in the “public domain”…meaning, the book is no longer protected by copyright.  As of 2019, this means works published before 1924 (in the U.S.) and other select situations.[3]

For example, the “Brothers Grimm” who were writing in the 1800’s, are not suing anymore (nor are their heirs).  Just make sure the publisher hasn’t found a new way to assert the copyright of the copy you read from (a new version, new illustrations and layout, a slightly less sadistic version of the original, etc).

2.  Write your own story.

This one is my favorite.  Who knows?  You might discover you’re the next Eric Carle!

3.  Hold a writing contest amongst the students that includes parental permission to read the entries/winners online. 

This could also bolster interest in the event, since kids could hear their own work read, and see their own pictures online.

4.  Explore making the reading exempt under the TEACH Act (section 110 (2) of the Copyright Act).

The TEACH Act exempts certain digital transmissions of work from the classroom environment.  It has several highly specific requirements, so educators should connect with their institution’s attorney and IT department to see if this option can work for them.  While not the solution for every “good night” reading, with some planning, it could be a way to make online reading sessions a part of a routine curriculum.

And finally…

5.  Explore getting permission from the rights holder!  While not all authors will be in a position to agree, many will say “Yes, of course!” when asked if a teacher can livestream a reading of their book (of course, if you also want to show their book as well as read it, you will need permission from the illustrator, too). 

Reaching out to an author or publisher takes time, but many children’s authors are very accessible.  My high school friend, Grace Lin, is a well-known children’s book author (and recent winner of a Caldecott Honor for “A Big Mooncake for Little Star”).  I reached out to Grace on Facebook to get her take on this issue (and got her permission to share her thoughts). 

For Grace, whose work contains lovely and carefully rendered illustrations, such a request would be about intent and quality.  She said if the reading was more about the not-for-profit reader and audience connecting over her story, and not the video dwelling on the pages (effectively copying them), she would consider giving permission.  On the flip side, Grace felt that serious duplication (with the video dwelling on the pages) could be an unwelcome duplication. 

Like many children’s book authors, Grace is accessible via her website, www.gracelin.com, and I encourage would be night-time-story-readers to reach out to her!

Thank you for this great question.  Copyright is an important law to honor in the educational environment.  But finding ways—lots of ways—to give children an early and deep love of books is an even greater service to the world.  It’s one of the reasons librarians are so important.

 

 

Schools, libraries, prisons, museums, student clubs, companies…from time to time, these places just want to hand out snacks, and let people watch a movie.

The problem is, the simple act of gathering people to watch a movie is governed by an intricate web of copyright law, and the legal filaments of that web change from place to place.

To help institutions navigate this variability, movie studios and agencies (including Swank, the agency mentioned in the question) offer suites of “licensing” options.  Swank’s website even features helpful[1] copyright guides to help customers assess their needs and obligations, so they can select the right license—including an array of broad permissions called an “umbrella license.”

Under an “umbrella license,” movies that the agency has the rights to may be shown by the licensee (under an array of qualifying circumstances).  And as the member writes, this can include showing movies from a borrowed physical copy (like a DVD), even if the copy isn’t supplied by the service.

How does that work?  Here’s an example:

Let’s say my daughter’s kindergarten teacher wants to show the class “My Neighbor Totoro.”[2] The teacher stops at a local library to obtain a copy on DVD, which bears the warning “licensed for home viewing only.” 

Next, the teacher checks in with the school and confirms that the school is licensed to show “Totoro” under the school’s umbrella license.  My daughter’s class can now watch a masterpiece of Japanese animation, without fear of copyright infringement.

Now let’s switch the scenario up: the teacher wants to stream the movie from his iTunes.  The school still has that same umbrella license.  Can the teacher use his personal account to show the movie?

No.  Unless Apple has changed their “Terms of Use” (usually some version of “You agree that your use will be for personal, noncommercial purposes”[3]), the use would be in violation of the teacher’s license. 

That said, depending on how broad it is, the school could try and claim the “umbrella license” to get the school out from under a claim of direct infringement.[4]  But that could leave the teacher twisting in the wind!  - Not very good for union relations.

To switch the scenario one last time: let’s say the school has an “umbrella license” from an agency like Swank, and also subscribes to a streaming movie service (Amazon Prime).  Before a class views a movie via the Prime stream, the school would need to review both licenses to ensure the Prime license was consistent with, or trumped by, the “umbrella.”[5]

This issue here isn’t really about streaming v. hard copies.  It’s about licenses.  In our first scenario, the “generic” license on a hard copy is (potentially[6]) trumped by the “umbrella license” held by the school.  In the second scenario, the personal license held by the teacher could be violated when he uses his account for more than “personal” use—even though the school is licensed to show the movie.  And in the third scenario: well, it depends.

The key to this question is license alignment.  If an institution has a license to view a movie, and gets the copy it views from another source, there must be no contradictory provisions in the stack of licenses—or, the umbrella license must clearly trump the previous license.  This is true whether the institution is using a hard copy or a streaming copy, and regardless of who the physical copy belongs to. 

The member’s question alerts us to this complexity, and the member is right to approach this issue with caution. 

So.  What constitutes “a legally owned copy?”  I wish I had a simple and rock-solid answer, but these days, that can be a tough call.  Reading the fine print on licenses might not be fun,[7] but it is an essential part of answering this type of question, and it needs to be done on a case-by-case basis.  This is why careful planning during procurement, and attention to details when negotiating licenses and services, is critical.

Thanks for a question that pulls the focus to this issue.

---

[1] “Helpful” in the sense that they inform potential customers as to why they need Swank’s service!  But the “help” is based on reality.

[2] This is a fantasy example.  But they did show her “The Little Mermaid.”  Sigh.

[3] As seen on December 9, 2019 at https://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/us/terms.html.  That said, each work can have its own terms, so always read carefully.

[4] But not, perhaps, “contributory infringement” (assisting in infringement by another).

[5] This answer is esoteric enough, so we won’t dive into the further implications of streaming movies under the TEACH Act…but commentary on that can be found in earlier answers.

[6] Always check you umbrella license!

[7] Okay, I’ll admit it: I find reading the fine print fun.

Flying at 10,000 feet, the answer to the first question is: if the class in in person (not online), AND the institution is non-profit, AND the only viewers are the instructor and the students enrolled in the class, AND the viewing is in the classroom or academic facilities, AND the content is part of the curriculum, AND the copy was legally obtained…then the showing is allowed under Section 110(1) of the Copyright Act (“110”).[1]

The answer to the second question is: if use of the precise copy is controlled by a SWANK license, then despite authorization under 110, the showing must be consistent with the terms of that license.  For that matter, the use of any other content service for viewing movies (Netflix, YouTube, etc.) must also conform to the terms of the service’s license.

Swooping a bit lower to the ground (but not into the weeds): exercising rights under 110 is why it is important that: 1) class syllabi show the relationship of materials to the goals of a course, 2) institutions maintain lists of enrolled students, and 3) institutions have designated spaces for instructional activities.

This is why reading the fine print on content licenses is important, since contractual obligations can over-ride rights otherwise granted by law.

How does a school librarian help instructors stay within the bounds of the law or the license?  A good rule for educational institutions is to have clear and pro-active policies and outreach[2] for instructors who need to show movies.  In this world where education gets hit with new laws, regulations, and policies every year, while clear policies are important, a simple message to instructors: “Need to show a movie in class?  Ask us how!” is a great place to start.

---

[1] Here is the full text of sub-section (1) of 17 U.S. Code Section 110: [Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the following are not infringements of copyright:] “performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made….”

[2] What’s a sign that your institution’s policy is sufficiently “clear and pro-active?”  Instructors not using their own personal Netflix accounts is Exhibit #1.