Why copyright concerns everyone: the new handout on copyright in teaching and science

Why copy­right con­cerns every­one:

…because uni­ver­si­ties are not a copy­right-free space.
Copy­right law offers oppor­tu­ni­ties to legally use third-party works in one’s own teach­ing, some­times even with­out the con­sent of the copy­right holder. How­ever, it is also accom­pa­nied by oblig­a­tions and require­ments of which stu­dents should be aware: to safe­guard their liveli­hood, to pro­tect their own inter­ests, to pre­vent legal con­se­quences…

In addi­tion, copy­right is gen­er­ally applic­a­ble, every­day law. There­fore, the rel­e­vance of copy­right law is not lim­ited to the role of teach­ers, not to the role of stu­dents.

…because stu­dents encounter copy­right not only in the con­text of a uni­ver­sity, but also in their future pro­fes­sions and in their cur­rent every­day lives.

‘Banal’ copy­right law can be rel­e­vant, for exam­ple, in the con­text of (crit­i­cal, artis­tic) memes shared via social media — this is about excep­tions to copy­right law (pas­tiche). Pre­sen­ta­tions in later stages of life, for exam­ple in front of cus­tomers / in pub­lic, may require the use of any third-party image mate­r­ial in com­pli­ance with copy­right law.

…because copy­right law also affects teach­ers-also out­side of a uni­ver­sity in their pro­fes­sional and every­day lives.

The use of third-party mate­ri­als in your own teach­ing has copy­right impli­ca­tions. For exam­ple, warn­ings may be issued if third-party mate­ri­als pro­vided are dis­trib­uted beyond a restricted-access Moo­dle course. This is because such dis­tri­b­u­tion goes beyond the per­mis­sions of the edu­ca­tional and sci­en­tific lim­i­ta­tion (§ 63 UrhG).

Copy­right issues also play a role out­side of the uni­ver­sity, in every­day pro­fes­sional life — with regard to the com­mer­cial exploita­tion of one’s own works and, if nec­es­sary, guar­an­tee­ing one’s own liveli­hood.

As pri­vate indi­vid­u­als, in the sense of demo­c­ra­tic par­tic­i­pa­tion, teach­ers also encounter copy­right law and its excep­tions — e.g. when cre­at­ing memes.

…because uni­ver­si­ties have a role model func­tion — for stu­dents, for good sci­ence.

Uni­ver­si­ties are respon­si­ble for / it is their self-image to pre­pare stu­dents for their future careers and to pro­vide gen­eral impe­tus dur­ing their stud­ies. There­fore, a uni­ver­sity should also pro­vide (at least implicit) sup­port with regard to copy­right law / set an exam­ple of appro­pri­ate or legally com­pli­ant behav­ior. In this respect, basic knowl­edge of copy­right law can also improve the qual­ity of teach­ing. For exam­ple, it is part of aca­d­e­mic prac­tice to use third-party mate­ri­als in com­pli­ance with the law.

…because you and third par­ties — as far as pos­si­ble — want to decide on the respec­tive work cre­ated; you may be depen­dent on the attri­bu­tion of author­ship (com­mer­cial or non-mate­r­ial).

For exam­ple, your work should not be stolen and/or taken out of con­text; you want and should be able to decide on the types of use of your work, for exam­ple by grant­ing licenses. This requires an aware­ness of the poten­tial of copy­right and its excep­tions. In the inter­ests of social inter­ac­tion, sci­en­tific trans­parency and even eco­nomic fac­tors, oth­ers should not adorn them­selves with ‘other peo­ple’s feath­ers’; the exis­tence of third par­ties should not be jeop­ar­dized by using their works with­out remu­ner­a­tion.

…because with an aware­ness of copy­right law, warn­ings and rep­u­ta­tional dam­age can be avoided.

Stu­dents, lec­tur­ers and, in par­tic­u­lar, their insti­tu­tions, grad­u­ates enter­ing the pro­fes­sional world and teach­ing staff con­tin­u­ing to work in the pri­vate sec­tor may expe­ri­ence con­se­quences in the event of copy­right infringe­ments — through claims for dam­ages, crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tion or loss of rep­u­ta­tion.

…because an aware­ness of copy­right can pro­mote good coop­er­a­tion, at least within the uni­ver­sity.

A ‘cul­ture of equals’ can be pro­moted by con­sid­er­ing the copy­right-com­pli­ant han­dling of works by aca­d­e­mic staff and/or stu­dents. Think­ing fur­ther: The liveli­hood of third par­ties could (as seen) be taken into account and social coop­er­a­tion could be encour­aged, as third-party works are not used ‘just like that’ (and pos­si­bly with­out remu­ner­a­tion for the copy­right holder).

…because copy­right can be bro­ken all too quickly in the course of dig­i­ti­za­tion, among other things; must be sen­si­tized with regard to dig­i­ti­za­tion and related temp­ta­tions must be sen­si­tized.

Dig­i­tally in par­tic­u­lar, many things can be copied as quickly as copy­rights can be infringed. How­ever, tech­ni­cal copy­a­bil­ity, a down­load but­ton is not syn­ony­mous with per­mis­sion for unre­stricted use.

…because copy­right law rec­og­nizes excep­tions, as a result of which use with­out the con­sent of the copy­right holder may be pos­si­ble.

The right to quote and the edu­ca­tional and sci­en­tific restric­tion allow the use of third-party mate­ri­als to a lim­ited extent within the frame­work of spe­cific spec­i­fi­ca­tions. In the case of the edu­ca­tional and sci­en­tific restric­tion, use is also pos­si­ble in pub­lic, but ‘only’ by a lim­ited group of peo­ple.

…because copy­right does not apply to cer­tain mate­ri­als and in cer­tain sit­u­a­tions.

For exam­ple, pub­lic domain mate­ri­als and mate­ri­als with a low level of cre­ativ­ity are exempt from copy­right. How­ever, even the non-pub­lic use of third-party mate­ri­als — in the sense of repro­duc­ing or mak­ing avail­able third-party works — does not con­sti­tute an act rel­e­vant to copy­right law (Förster 2018: 7).

…because copy­right law knows lim­its, but exceed­ing them is frowned upon in a sci­en­tific con­text / is con­sid­ered pla­gia­rism.

For exam­ple, sci­en­tific con­tent that is not in a spe­cific form (≈ lit­eral quo­ta­tion) is not pro­tected by copy­right. The unmarked use of any anal­o­gous con­tent may not be prob­lem­atic under copy­right law, but it is cer­tainly con­sid­ered a vio­la­tion of stan­dards of good sci­en­tific prac­tice (≈ doc­u­men­ta­tion and inde­pen­dence). In addi­tion, such a pro­ce­dure could vio­late exam­i­na­tion reg­u­la­tions, uni­ver­sity law and employ­ment con­tracts; pos­si­bly also trade­mark and patent law. Rep­u­ta­tional dam­age is there­fore also con­ceiv­able at this level as a min­i­mum.

Excerpt from the hand­out “Urhe­ber­recht in der Hochschullehre” by Sönke Hahn, Hochschule Emden-Leer for twillo, CC BY 4.0, text slightly short­ened, for­mat­ted.