the Court did not completely close the door on FirstAmendment restriction to copyright.
This places a focus on the person, or corporation dealing with the copyright. A simple example of this could be YouTube and its copyright law that you may not have a song more than ten seconds on your channel because it violates the creators work. Another way of looking at it can be censoring, and how certain agencies choose what to sensor, v. others.
certiorari
An order by which a higher court reviews a lower courts decision, this does not infer that the Supreme court disagrees with the decision made, but instead that at least four justices have determined that the circumstances are warrant to review.
inhibition of content-based speech is scrutinized with much stricterstandards
Courts are faced with balancing freedom of speech and freedom of the press against other personal rights of society. This is one of the two used mainly in media cases. The court in this case has to ask if the content furthers a compelling gov interest, and if the means used narrowly tailored, meaning it only fulfills its intended goals.
CTEA
This Extension Act was signed into law by POTUS Clinton in 1998 which extended all copyrights by 20 years in order to be on par with Europe.
intellectual property provision and its goals,then deconstructs the Supreme Court’s decision inEldred v. Ashcroftas a means tounravel the pieces in the complex relationship among the constitutional provision,the First Amendment, and copyright.
Given Ashcroft favorable outcome, some may expect the Eldred decision to deconstitutionalize the intellectual property law and reduce it to a discourse about limits.
favoring greater public access in the future
Eldred v. Ashcroft and the debate to regulate should, and will continue to this day, and that the advocates could enjoy some successes in the future, even if they did not do so in this case. Because some state that the CTEA is unconstitutional and will have the boldness to be outright that they believe that the Supreme Court was wrong.
interpreted by the Supreme Court’s decision inEldredv. Ashcroft
I took this decision as a means to unravel the pieces and complex relationships the first amendment, constitutional provisions, and copyright have.
intellectual property
This includes technical communication, know-how, copyrights, models, drawings, prototypes, inventions and more.
intellectual property clause
Also referred to as the patent and copywriter clause, it is simply defined as any form of knowledge created with ones intellect with various forms of statutory protection.
“The Congress shallhave the power...toPromote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by secur-ing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respec-tive writings and Discoveries
This can be an issue for technical communicators and their ability to access information that could better the documents they are writing.
Fair use was created as astatutory guideline for effectuating the balance required to enable constitutionalgoals in the intellectual property clause, including support of education, a publicdomain, and free speech
Again "Fair use" doesn't sound so fair because it's under government regulation.
This distinctive feature of the U.S. approach to copyright pro-tection correlates directly with the need for access to information as a basis for sup-porting democratic dialogue
Anything dealing with the US government will always have an ulterior motive.
In the workplace, they often develop documents that lead or guidethrough instruction and documentation; they produce structures such as reportforms for medical, insurance, and governmental treatment of the public that im-pact the way we interpret information that could affect our quality of life; and, asresearchers, they develop work that analyzes and critiques the impact of any num-ber of forms of communication,
The workplace terms and conditions are so damn long, I don't think anyone ever reads all of it before starting.
We analyzesocietally affected communications and critique their sources, effects, and potentialmeanings for our students, for workplace technical communicators, or for society atlarge.
Sounds like technical writers just became top critics
So, as an enabler of speech, the First Amendment supports access to informa-tion; a general, content-neutral restriction on access could be less stringently inhib-ited. But where content-based speech is concerned, the First Amendment is strictlyenforced; attempts to restrict content-based speech are strictly scrutinized
So basically what I got from this is you can say whatever you want when it comes to producing content. Donald Trumpt does a good job of doing this.
Thus, on the one hand, the copyright’s structurefunctions as a general restriction on publishing and disseminating another’sworks⎯a content-neutral restriction. On the other hand, quoting another’s work asa basis for criticism, or outright copying of another’s work as a means for parody(by its nature, a content-based commentary), is allowable as a means to supportspeech as a basis of democratic interaction
According to this if I quote another's work I can bypass copyright regulations.
Constitution’s intellectual property provision clearly statesthat a copyright term must be limited
I learned about limited copyright terms in my business administrartion class. These limits can last as long as the life of the author if i'm correct.
Users and producers has a resemblance to consumers and suppliers. As a technical writer you are in charged of balancing both sides which makes copyright infringement that much risky.
CONCLUSION
I am beyond glad that I had the opportunity to read this article. There are many things from here that I did not understand or was not aware of that was involved in the copyright clause. I kept wondering why I hadn't yet been taught this as a writer? Why isn't this information taught in a classroom at each college and university? Why is this not required? There were several terms throughout this article that I didn't understand and included definitions for so that I could get across that now I have a better understanding. I am not a law major, or minor and now I wish in some way that I was. So that I could be more informed of the rights that I have when it comes to protecting my work. There has been so much development that I wasn't even aware of. Herrington really used the correct cases to help example everything each step of the way. As a writer and a reader this article really opened my eyes about the way things work in the copyright world.
Connecting this article along with Reymen's work, there are so many similarities. But for his article he is discussing the plagiarism that occurs and how these laws are reinforced. They both complemented one another as I read through both.
When technical communicators extend their work be-yond moving information from one space to another and developing products un-der the direction of employers and instead go beyond to authorship of knowledgesuch as that described above, the likelihood that they will have created protectablespeech increases, and it follows that the likelihood that their creative actions willcomprise a democratic effort increases as well
I feel as though technical writing has helped in a way to develop the copy right clause even further than it already had been. With this type of laws, and free use and protection it helps to show the boundaries and freedom that technical communicators have going for them in their work field.
AUTHORSHIPTheEldred
This is a part of moral rights which ares of creators of copyrighted works generally recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions. They include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work. Which had been first recognized in France and Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
At the core of the conflict between copyright restrictions and fair use access in theintellectual property provision are the changing pressures on how to maintain bal-ance that provides space for creation and protection of new works and simulta-neously preserves a structure that supports democratic interaction by way of ensur-ing a public domain and supporting speech.
To be able to come up with such a balance could not have been easy, just reading this it shows the amount of complexity it has taken to come up with the laws that we have today for copyright and fair use. Free use and protection of ones rights of course needs restrictions and small things to guarantee that nothing goes out of line, and no one takes advantage of such a privilege that we have. It isn't just with authors, but with musicians, and film makers, photographers and more.
Fair use
"Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances" It's amazing to think all that we couldn't do if this doctrine hadn't been created for us to be unlicensed use of the copyright of works. We wouldn't be able to do has much as we do on social media that is a fact.
laintiff
Probably a very known word, but I actually have never heard it so here is the definition that I found: Plaintiff-a person who brings a legal action I am not really familiar with law terms.I definitely have taken away a lot of this information though. I never realized how extension the first amendment went. It's something that every writer should know about. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plaintiff
So if technical communicators author work that is contentbased, even if it is commercial (and subject to greater scrutiny), speech protectionscould follow.
But what makes something content based? Isn't most of the content we create content based, as in it contains content?
Thus, for example, if restrictions are not shown to have a focused effect on a partic-ular expression or source of expression, the government can
This information was very insightful. Now I knew that there of course were limitations to what happened involving written work and speeches, but I hadn't realized that they actually had limitations to where you spoke those speeches based on noise production. In which that case it would make sense for that to be limited from hospitals.The restrictions are mostly made by the city. and what occurrences that they have had. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf
Sonny Bono Copyright ExtensionAct
The reason that the act was put in motion also was to match the rights that were also put in place in England.I think this was a interesting decision made by President Clinton made in 1998, it really does help to benefit not only the estates and heirs of individuals but benefit corporations producing entertainment and other intellectual property will also gain from the fact that the term for “work for hire” has been extended from 75 to 95 years. https://www.ibpa-online.org/article/the-sonny-bono-copyright-term-extension-act/
Copyright
A summary:
I started this article with three questions:
I was able to find all of the answers within the article, after a finished reading.
I did not realize that the legal aspects of copyright were so extensive. I found a website that has a descriptive timeline of courtcases, rulings, laws, and acts that have effected copyright in the United States since before 1787. Georgia State University is even included on the timeline--due to a fair use issue in 2014.
intellectual property clause
Intellectual property is a property right that can be protected under federal and state law, including copyrightable works, ideas, discoveries, and inventions. The term intellectual property relates to intangible property such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade tradesecrets. http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/intellectual-property
That, coupledwith the constitutionalization of fair use leaves the public with free-speech supportfrom both sources, now both on the basis of constitutional empowerment, the mostpowerful source of law in the U.S. legal system.
This is an encouragement to all types of writers -- not just technical communicators.
depend on free speech to support authorship andinnovation that enable interaction in the democratic process.
I do feel there is a correlation between freedom of speech and innovation -- which, like Herrington says, keeps the "Framer's" idea of advancing knowledge and democratic participation. Freedom to speak in agreement or disagreement of what our government does (or does not do) can lead to political action and change.
Herrington, T. (2011). Copyright, free speech, and democracy: Eldred v. ashcroft and its implications for technical communicators.Technical Communication Quarterly, 20(1), 47-72
The significance for technical communicators is the need to be aware that author-ship not only enables protection of original work but also may lead to FirstAmendment speech support
However, it seems like it is difficult for technical communicators to claim sole authorship of the content they create.
time limit on authors’
The time limit for authors to have the rights is usually after seventy years after their death. This is the copyright to perform or display their work.These are very exclusive rights to have for artists and authors. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf
It is possiblethat their authorship of these materials may allow them to influence society and, bydoing so, further participate in the process of democratic interaction
And hopefully influence society positively. To participate in democratic interaction, technical communicators must think critically and consider multiple points of view (and potential audiences/users) during their creation process.
the actual author or authors who provided allintellectual input in developing the product are not treated as authors under thelaw.
This relates to the complex definition of authorship mentioned in Reyman's "Rethinking Plaigarism for Technical Communication." I made an annotation that references authorship in the way we covered it in class during lecture.
there is widespread feeling among many copyrightscholars that Congress has unabashedly ceded to the lobbying pressures of thecopyright industries and steadily cut into the heart of the public domain
Without an estimable public domain, those looking to advance upon established ideas will have to turn to the private sector where there is a profit motive.
When the sharing and development comes coupled with a profit motive, large portions of the population, particularly those lacking in resources, are unable to contribute to the process of intellectual development. The less people are allowed to contribute, the slower the development.
(however faulty, in my view, as the constitutional provision actually emphasizesknowledge creation rather than product creation as the goal of the progress clause)
It should be noted that the author of this essay makes no secret of their disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision. She may be offering information, consciously or unconsciously, that favor her biases.
technical communicators may have littleautonomy or voice in deciding how to develop work they create
This depends on the circumstance. Sometimes the company or client will ask the technical communicator to develop something that is completely new in the context of content or design. I agree with what Herrington continues to say in the following quotation, that the actions the technical communicator takes is more complex. Our service learning project in class is helping us experience this complex process (of developing content) that involves a lot of communication between us and the client, revising, collaborating, and even conforming to specific outlines like a style sheet or template.
Today it is more likely that technical communicators, who have special accessto communication development that can affect vast numbers of users, readers, andviewers, are able to influence society through critical analysis and rhetorical ex-pression in choices for how they create products rather than choices in which prod-ucts they create. Technical communicators who influence product development orrhetorical treatment of communication and do so on the basis of knowledge work,even without producing legally protectable speech, may influence the democraticprocess nevertheless
The ability to access and reference earlier work is essential for technical writers. That is why decisions like Eldred v. Ashcroft have an enormous affect on the field of technical writing and, by proxy, courses like this one.
The creative choices made in enabling ease of access andpalatability to users, authored per copyright law and arguably protectable underFirst Amendment law, have allowed innovation to support democratic participa-tion by providing a means of interaction to thousands of users.
This interpretation of the intellectual property clause is very charitable towards those looking to expand on older ideas with particular older works as a jumping off point.
Instead, technical communication “represents a shaping forcein the unfolding story” (p. 11). And it is this shaping potential that may be most im-portant, post–Eldred v. Ashcroft.
I like how this is phrased, it reminds me of Wickman's "Wicked Problems in Technical Communication." The technical communication profession is a necessary one. Technical communicators are versed in rhetoric, and finely tuned rhetorical techniques are essential to make social and political changes. As technical communicators, we deliver important information to our users in the most accessible way. Even though it may not be our intended goal, we can create changes through our work.
Wickman, C. (2014). Wicked Problems in Technical Communication. Journal Of Technical Writing & Communication, 44(1), 23-42.
The most powerful of these changes is the Court’s constitutionalization of the fairuse portion of the 1976 Copyright Act, the statutory law that supports access andfree speech in copyright.
While the decision moves in favor of the very narrow-minded definition of plagiarism and intellectual property ownership, it does at least offer a greater amount of protection for those utilizing copyrighted works for the sake of education and scholarship.
There is no doubt from the perspective of access advocates that the SupremeCourt’s response inEldred v. Ashcroftnot to disavow the 20-year copyright termextension was harmful to the public domain.
While the sharing and/or criticism of copyrighted works are still reasonably protected under fair use, the creation of derivative works and the expansion of the general pool of public knowledge has been damaged severely by the decision.
It is a complex and pro-found piece of thinking and an expression of the American national ideal. The in-tellectual property clause embodies hope in our nation as a strong, intelligent forcefor expanding understanding and knowledge, and it reflects the desire to enableegalitarian access to information to make possible the dialogic enterprise neces-sary for democracy.
I think that this is a really unique interpretation of the "American national ideal." First, Herrington notes that the copyright clause allows the United States to become stronger intellectually, which leads to overall strength of a nation. Second, he notes that is also is an example of the strive for egalitarianism and democracy, which is a unique, but accurate, take on the copyright clause. Intellectual property laws and the copyright clause allow individuals to take credit for their work and prohibit them from taking credit for the work of others. While the laws are broken occasionally and copyright infringements do happen, the laws themselves symbolize the American ideals of equality and a democracy in which everyone has a voice.
This complex interrelationship of elements that drive intellectual property law ap-plication has been recently interpreted by the Supreme Court’s decision inEldredv. Ashcroft(2003).
In short, Eldred v. Ashcroft ruled that the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act does not violate the copyright clause or the first amendment right to free speech. The 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act extended copyright term to seventy years after a creator's death. For the full text of the ruling, see the opinion of the court, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg:
The First Amendment exists to ensure that the government is inhibited from cre-ating restrictions that limit public debate. It provides two levels of scrutiny (protec-tion) for speech, the most well protected being content-based speech, and least strin-gently protected, content-neutral speech. Content-neutral regulations are those thatdo not target specific speech, parties who speak, or topics of speech but restrictspeech generally, regardless of its content.
I think it is important to understand the strict scrutiny imposed on legislature that limits "content-based" speech and the mid-level scrutiny imposed on legislature limiting "content-neutral" speech in a more general sense, outside of the Eldred v. Ashcroft case. A copyright extension would limit access to a variety of media, making it a content-neutral limitation. That being said, constitutionality of that type of restriction should be subject to the O'Brien Test. According to that test, a restriction is only constitutional if
Although these criteria seem reasonable, I question what the "significant government interest" would be in extending copyrights. I also wonder if the interest would be worth the negative implications of the statute for technical communicators and other media curators. For more information on the O'Brien test, here is a brief summary: http://mspillman.iweb.bsu.edu/news409/FirstAmendTests.pdf
At times, they create original, even expressive, works such asimages, graphic presentations, advertising copy, and other forms of communica-tion that are clearly representative of viewpoints and are creative efforts of thosewho develop them. At other times, technical communicators may do rote-levelwork, compiling reports of others or filling in the blanks of forms and thus pro-viding no original content.
Technical communicators have a unique position in terms of the post-Eldred interpretations of copyright and fair use. Sometimes, authorship is clear, and technical communicators are guaranteed speech protection and can maintain copyright claims. However, sometimes original, expressive pieces that would typically fall under the "clear authorship" umbrella of work may be composed in a work for hire setting. In that case, the author is deemed to be the corporation or employer, which means the technical communicator is not granted authorship rights, even if the piece was created individually. The same rule applies for routine and administrative texts written by technical communicators in a workplace setting.
In addition, the Court indicatedobliquely that it would support creation of original work over the use of the work ofothers (Eldred v. Ashcroft, 2003, headnote 9a–9b). The Court has emphasized origi-nality as a basis for First Amendment protection, consistent with the concept that in-dividual speech garners greater protection than does commercial speech. In addition,if the speech is not original, it is more difficult to make a claim of representation ofthe speaker (exercising a free-speech right) rather than mere repetition of another’srepresentative words.
Here, it appears that the Court sees original work and the use of others' work as in opposition to one another. However, as noted in "Rethinking Plagiarism in Technical Communication," technical communicators blur the lines of original content, as effective products and documents build upon the work of other technical communicators in order to present new information. However, because of the "re-use" of other content, the newly-generated content cannot be determined to be completely original, even though it would likely be more effective than completely original technical content. Similarly, a decent study in a peer-reviewed journal typically contains a "literature review" section at the beginning of the article. In doing so, background is provided for the new information or findings presented. In citing previous documents in a literature review, new information is more credible, even though the full body of text is not entirely original.
Reyman, Jessica. "Rethinking Plagiarism for Technical Communication." Technical Communication 55.1 (2008): 61-67. Web.
This interplay between the First Amendment and fair use makes it possible fortechnical communicators to create new products in response to those of others as ameans to represent themselves and their employers in the workplace.
In Reyman's "Rethinking Plagiarism for Technical Communication," the author discusses the ways that college students have been programmed to fear plagiarism, despite the non-conventional definitions of plagiarism within technical communication. Such definitions allow technical communicators to build upon the work of other authors, which enables them to work within a particular discourse to present new information or interpretations and expansions of other information. The fair use doctrine noted here is the appropriate avenue for technical communicators to re-use copyrighted work in order to produce better texts and products.
Reyman, Jessica. "Rethinking Plagiarism for Technical Communication." Technical Communication 55.1 (2008): 61-67. Web.
The Court found that the traditional contours of the intellectual property provisionprovided a proper mechanism for allowing copyright holders to benefit from theirwork while limiting holders’ control by way of fair use.
In the beginning of the article, the implications of Eldred v. Ashcroft appeared to be relatively severe for technical communicators, as the 20-year extension to copyrights would significantly limit the sources available to them. However the fact that the fair use doctrine still applies after the ruling provides technical communicators with a "loophole" in the sense that they can still re-use and re-purpose texts within the parameters of the fair use doctrine. In Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects, the first prong of the fair use doctrine states that the purpose of a text must be used for "educational, nonprofit, criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research." One could argue that the vast majority of technical communication falls under at least one of these uses. However, there is still a chance that one could argue that technical communication is about capitalism and product sales, which brings into question whether the "loophole" will remain as future Supreme Courts interpret copyright law.
Arola, C. (2014). Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects.
The Nationpublished 400 words of verba-tim quotes from the book, eliciting a copyright infringement suit from Harper &Row. The Court decided that, althoughThe Nationused 400 words of a 500-pagebook written by a public figure who was speaking about particularly politicallycharged issues of critical importance to the public, the use was still a copyright in-fringement, noting that the author’s expression maintains protection, even whenhe is a public figure, and pointed to the extensive investment of effort, time, andfunds from both the author and publisher, who were on the eve of publishing thework for public consumption.
It is peculiar that this was declared unconstitutional for several reasons when the fair use doctrine is applied. First, The Nation, which is an informative political news magazine, published the text in order to inform the public, and likely to critique it. Both of these uses are allowed under the first prong of the fair use doctrine as described in Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects. Second, the magazine only published a small portion of the 500-page book, which is also allowed under the doctrine. However, it is unclear whether the book had been officially published, and it is likely that The Nation's use of the quotes would reach a large audience, so it fails the fair use doctrine in that regard. Because it only meets two of the four criteria, it is a tricky case, but I still believe it fell close enough within the fair use doctrine to be considered constitutional.
Arola, C. (2014). Writer/Designer: A Guide to Making Multimodal Projects.
The discourses created by technical communicators have not been considered au-thored discourses; the technical communicator may be a transmitter of messages or atranslator of meanings, but he or she is not⎯or at least not until now⎯considered tobe an author.
Here, Slack, Miller, & Doak describe the role of technical communicators as the transmitters of messages, not authors. However, as this was stated in 1993, I believe that the role of technical communicators has evolved over time. In "Wicked Problems in Technical Communication," Wickman discusses the role of technical communication in solving "wicked problems." In Sullivan's "Beyond a Narrow Conception of Usability Testing," she argues that technical communicators have a distinct role in promoting increased product usability. In both articles, a major theme is that the technical communicator is an individual curator with a unique set of ideals and goals, which proves that technical communicators are seen as authors more than ever before. To get a better understanding of the role of technical communicators as authors, refer to this infographic: http://stuffwriterslike.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/future-of-technical-writing.png
Sullivan, Patricia (1989). Beyond a Narrow Conception of Usability Testing. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 32(4).
Wickman, C. (2014). Wicked Problems in Technical Communication. Journal Of Technical Writing & Communication, 44(1), 23-42.
The purpose of freedom of speech...istopromote a democratic culture. . . [which]is more than representative of institutions of democracy
As acampbell30 also noted regarding this quote, we often think of cultural production and distribution at the aggregate level, but individual rights such as free speech allow individuals to participate in democracy. In terms of technical communicators, they have the opportunity to produce social change, whether intentionally or not. While activism and protest come to mind when one thinks of the term "social change," social change often flies under the radar. Social change that could be produced by technical communicators could be the ways that we gather information digitally or a slow cultural shift in the American writing process.
time limit
I originally thought the release of "The Happy Birthday Song" to public domain was a result of the time of ownership expiring, but when I looked for news articles, it turns out the song's release to public domain is a lot more complicated.
I also was able to find a useful chart as I did further research about time limits. It breaks down copyright terms for many different types of works: unpublished written works, published written works, musical compositions, and architectural works to list a few. It also separates each category by publish date, and gives dates for when the copyright term moves into public domain!
Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA)
One can read the CTEA for free online with the following link: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/s505.pdf
An interesting section I saw (and have never though about before) is enclosed in section 505--4, starting on page 4. This section details the exceptions to copyright law extended to food service and drinking establishments (restaurants, bars, coffee shops, etc.). Most restaurants and coffee shops (and even grocery stores) I have been to always have music playing in the background (an exception being the jukeboxes you kind sparsely find in Waffle Houses), but I have never questioned the copyright logistics of this -- or considered how the playing of the music relates back to the artist's ownership. After reading this act, I have an understanding of why these places can play music without charge (if it is not a live performance of the original artist).
tisabout each individual’s ability to participate in theproduction and distribution of culture
I have not thought about the purpose of freedom of speech in this way before. I've never considered individuals having the ability to "produce" and "distribute" culture. When I think of the term "culture," I think of a collective whole rather than an individual, but individuals do make up the whole. It makes sense -- if enough individuals say the same thing, it eventually adds up to make a difference, and that is what democracy is all about.
technical communicators often play a unique part in creating work that affectsother people.
This is dual-edged: as technical communicators, we create and consume materials that serve to further knowledge and learning (or impact business interests). This naturally leads us to be participants in social and political interactions, or rather democratic interactions, like Herrington mentions in this article. I feel that the need to create content or develop solutions (to problems) is often driven by economic, social, or political problems.
Another point to be made here is that as technical communicators, our emphasis lies on creating content for our audience to use. We want our content to be for the users' benefit, the authors' benefit is of lesser importance.
As I discuss in more detail later, it is significant that the CTEA was also sup-ported as a means to “harmonize” with European law.
From technical writing stand point, it is certainly good for international communication to have copyright legislation that can be translated and enforced across borders, however, one could argue that harmonizing with a system that limits the reach of public domain will damage communication and development in the long run, as those without the money to purchase access will have much less to work with.
And a demo-cratic government is possible only if its people have a voice and are able to expressthemselves. The classic works of Alexander Meiklejohn (1948) support the princi-ple that free speech exists in the U.S. because it was necessary to make self-gov-ernment possible (Werhan, 2009, p. 310). Thus, speech is central to the democraticeffort.
I'd always thought that the idea of free speech was in reference to opinions exclusively, but I suppose even opinions require some level of intellectual foundation. I wonder at what point an opinion ceases to be a critique begins to impede on a copyright.
The Framers of theConstitution created a structure in the intellectual property provision that prioritizesthe advancement of learning and knowledge creation over its secondary, supportivepurpose: to benefit the author. To provide a benefit to the author merely creates anincentive for authors to expend energy to create new work. Note that U.S. copyrightdiffers greatly from that of moral rights, which is the adopted structure in Europeanlaw, based on the concept that creators have an absolute right to benefit from theirwork and that their right comes from a special moral requirement.
I didn't know that the main reason for copyright laws was to promote advance learning and knowledge creation. In agreement with the statement above, there would be no reason to create something if everyone else could just take credit for it unless it's copyright protected.
ideas should freely spread from one to an-other over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man
The spreading of these ideas is the job of the Technical Writer, so it is important for them to remember why and when they are given free access to to use copyrighted ideas in a derivative fashion.
Technical communicators will also have an interest in understandingthe capacity for legal use of others’ materials in their processes of developingworkplace communications
I really like this statement because it gives insight on limitations of technical writer.
This complex interrelationship of elements that drive intellectual property law ap-plication has been recently interpreted by the Supreme Court’s decision inEldredv. Ashcroft(2003).
In Miranda's succinct summary of this section, it allows to build on current benefits because of this ruling. Materials can no longer be hoarded or manipulated by families of the deceased with the creation of a material statute of limitations. With the allowance of time, it does create a middle ground with accepting the legacy of the author and their work. This ruling also created the wealth of "open source" material. Meaning that classics that are ingrained into our society's lore can now be republished, translated, or re-used without legal risk. For Technical Communicators, this is an important resource to be aware of.
When technical communicators develop products of knowledge to which they canclaim authorship, they also have potential to claim fair use in others’ works andFirst Amendment protection for their own work as speech.
They have the potential of these legal options, given that they fit the criteria described in the above article. However, understanding the difference between personal ownership and business ownership is vital information when navigating the business realm with plagiarism in mind.
Essentially, Technical Writers have options to protect their manipulation of materials, given that they fit within the legal criteria.
Actual, ratherthan corporate, authorship is tied to speech when the work represents the individ-ual who created it, but individual authorship does not guarantee that the speech isprotectable
Continuing with the previous dialectic, writers should consider the type of product they are making. Whether it's creating or repackaging, communicators should keep legal terms of protection in mind.
Simply asked, do technical communicatorscreate commodities or representative works of authorship?
I suppose the question of what kind of material a Technical Communicator makes depends on the situation. However, it is important for the communicators to keep this question in their mind as they create prototypes of potential projects. Understanding this question helps the creators understand their limitations with outside sources.
In this case, the Court decidedthat the defendant did not infringe copyright when he copied Grateful Dead posterimages in their entirety and reproduced them in smaller format in his book,Grate-ful Dead: The Illustrated Trip
I wonder if the main difference between this and the Harper & Row V. Nation Enterprises is that the potential act of plagiarism in the book was not the entirety of the product sold, just an accessory to the created content.
The new copyright regime isno longer a law of the public and for the public, but rather, a law of business, for busi-nessmen and investors.
Reyman mentions while describing the identity of the author of any given material. It is common to have material that belongs to a business rather than its human creator.
Commonly supportedtransformative works include speech-based efforts, such as parodies, critical com-mentaries, and other forms of judgment of original works
Many works utilizes material that could be otherwise labeled as plagiarism for the sake of protecting the author, but these court rulings are more about the material than the author. It makes sense that satire, critical commentary, and judgments could be undesirable to the author. However, when considering the audience and the use of material, it is clear that is not plagiarism.
And, of course, it is this protection that al-lows educators in technical communication to conduct critical research, examin-ing the impact of communicative actions and their function in society, and it formsthe basis for arguments in favor of tenure and academic freedom across the fullrange of disciplinary inquiry, regardless of potential repugnance to others
Reyman calls for more dialogue following this model. If research can be done on material success and failure, then research between professionals and academia must be on the same page, as well. If this information was readily available and discussed with students, then they would be more prepared for the potential plagiarism choices they will make as professionals.
explanatory set of guidelines for interpreting authors’ rights limitations set out inthe Constitution’s intellectual property provision
The struggle, as mentioned in Reyman's article, to create clear, uniform terms for what grants plagiarism seems to be ever present. Unfortunately, it seems to be a frustrating case-by-case decision, rather than the systematic "copying is stealing" ideal in schools from Reyman's examples.
Even in exercising options for how they shape and form the creative workthey generate, product developers express something about their employers, them-selves, and sometimes even about the society of which they are a part. And a demo-cratic government is possible only if its people have a voice and are able to expressthemselves.
This section is a fascinating appeal to the Right of Free Speech. It seems to allude to the American ideal that your work identity is crucial to your societal identity. It would be completely natural, then, to assert that your business voice is your voice and representation.
“Copyright is not primarilyfor the benefit of the author, but is primarily for the benefit of the public”
Consideration of the public is what fuels information use in Technical Communications. This is precisely why there are instances of re-use and copying formats. There is a benefit to the audience to remain familiar, at times, and there could be a disadvantage to always push material to be unique and individual.
Note that U.S. copyrightdiffers greatly from that of moral rights, which is the adopted structure in Europeanlaw, based on the concept that creators have an absolute right to benefit from theirwork and that their right comes from a special moral requirement
This is the overall theme of Reyman's work. There is a difference between morality and ownership in the US, and those differences are what make scenarios seem grey.
The U.S. Constitution’s intellectual property clause states, “The Congress shallhave the power...toPromote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by secur-ing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respec-tive writings and Discoveries” (U.S. Const., art. 1, §8, cl. 8).
Reference further about effects, other names, and more summary.
U.S. Constitution’s intellectual property clause, which applies to all formsof intellectual products even though it is often called thecopyright clause, is muchmore than a structure for treating intellectual product
In Reyman's article, "Rethinking Plagiarism For Technical Communications", it is stated that these definitions are important for technical communication educators to bring into the classroom.
The U.S. Constitution’s intellectual property clause states, “The Congress shallhave the power...toPromote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by secur-ing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respec-tive writings and Discoveries” (U.S. Const., art. 1, §8, cl. 8). The Framers of theConstitution created a structure in the intellectual property provision that prioritizesthe advancement of learning and knowledge creation over its secondary, supportivepurpose: to benefit the author. To provide a benefit to the author merely creates anincentive for authors to expend energy to create new work. Note that U.S. copyrightdiffers greatly from that of moral rights, which is the adopted structure in Europeanlaw, based on the concept that creators have an absolute right to benefit from theirwork and that their right comes from a special moral requirement.
This paragraph seems to suggest that, in America, one does not hold exclusives rights to their new ideas because one has a right to ownership of one's own work. Instead, intellectual property rights are a short term reward for contributing to a much larger pool of publicly owned information.
This clause seems to be written as a way of benefiting society as a whole, rather than the individual contributors.
certiorari
Certiorari. (n.d.) In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/29997?redirectedFrom=certiorari#eid.
A writ, issuing from a superior court, upon the complaint of a party that he has not received justice in an inferior court, or cannot have an impartial trial, by which the records of the cause are called up for trial in the superior court.
I would argue that technical communicators participate in shaping society anytime they offer original viewpoints, methods, technologies, or materials that affectthe way we work.
Technical communicators shape society through their field by shaping the way information is interpreted by society. I support this opinion because they provide points of view in their work that others might not have thought of and help jumpstart the intellectual process or problem-solving process for those who use their work.
An example of this would be someone using a help-guide for a computer they bought. They don't know how to solve the issue themselves, they read the guide, they process that information and they apply it to their problem.
Technical communicators who engage in corporate authorship and who createworks for hire develop commodities of trade. Because copyright law provides thelegal fiction of corporate authorship, the actual author or authors who provided allintellectual input in developing the product are not treated as authors under thelaw. As such, under work-for-hire, not only do authors not retain rights of controlover their intellectual products, significantly, works for hire do not represent themas individuals. Therefore, these products are treated as commodities rather than asspeech for purposes of their creators’ First Amendment protection, and as theEldred v. AshcroftCourt made clear, the First Amendment does not automaticallyprotect neutral speech in copyright law.
I spoke about this in an earlier annotation.
Works created within the scope of employment or works-for-hire are not protected under copyright law for the author, but rather for who it was created for.
For instance, technical communicators who areresponsible for creating instructions for government tax forms affect almost all cit-izens at least once a year during tax filing time.
I find this interesting because it seems that their job as technical communicators, working for the government, can ultimately affect the way people feel about the government.
For example, automated phone answering systems for government entities ask questions to help direct phone traffic to the appropriate department. I assume that technical communicators help to determine the questions ask, how they should be worded and what information should be requested before being dispatched to wherever the callers end up going.
Authorship can allow technical communicators toparticipate in producing speech that leads to democratic interaction supportingself-actualization.
Technical communicators author works that are used by the masses because they are effective at explaining and delivering information in a way that most people will understand. Having an avenue to share their opinions (democratic interaction) on how to solve issues, supports the talent they developed to effectively communicate (self-actualization).
But supporting speech in copyright is problematic when copyrighted works arecorporate commodities rather than representations of individual authors.
I also think its important to consider if work created within someone's scope of employment, rather than for individual creative purposes, could even be seen as copyrightable. The text refers to it, rather, as a "corporate commodity."
but a standard set of instruc-tions might also involve a mere repetition of what has been previously written.
In the Unit 1 readings, we attacked usability and suggested creating one standard set of instructions to measure it. This conflicts with this reading which suggests using one set of standard instructions across the field of technical communication could be considered a copyright issue.
The Court stated that “by establishing a marketableright to the use of one’s expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive tocreate and disseminate ideas” (Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 1985, p. 25)
Nation Enterprises' use of the of the 400 words was not fair use because of the effect it could have potentially had on the free market.
If this book would have become a NYT best seller, they would have ultimately been stealing money from a potential project of the original creator, because although they hadn't thought to use the original work in that medium, how do you know that they never would have? It infringed on Harper's right to potentially create a derivative work.
And technical communicators, as well as other creative product devel-opers, may extend their means of interacting in a democratic society to workplacevenues.
The field of technical communication replicates that of a democracy because the most effective technical communication initiatives are done attacked as a team. Each communicator within the team uses their voice to offer suggestions and opinions, which is similar to how a democracy is run.
the intellectual property provision has a dra-matic impact on the work that technical communicators undertake, both as partici-pants in organizations that further business interests and as individuals who partic-ipate in democratic interaction
The most evident way that the intellectual property clause could impact technical communicators would probably be the impact it would have on interdisciplinary collaborations. Technical communicators have the privilege of being in a field that embraces the use of others ideas, solutions, deliveries, etc. because multiple scenarios could warrant similar, if not the same, resolution.
By developing the intellectual property clause in this manner, the Framers ofthe Constitution acknowledged the more abstract nature of creative thought andensured that abstract intellectual efforts are not treated as property that can bestrictly controlled or owned by one to the detriment of another.
The intellectual property clause prohibits intellectual property from being treated as physical property that can be "controlled or owned by one to the detriment of another."
This is interesting to me because this is how patents are controlled. Patents can be held for 20 years and are controlled by the owner during that time, granting the freedom to do whatever they like at that time. A good example of this would be the pharmaceutical industry. Companies who create pharmaceuticals can hold patents for specific types of drugs allowing them to be the sole producer and seller of that drug. As a result, the company can sell the drug at whatever price they would like because they know consumers will have to buy it from them.
The time limit and lim-ited monopoly create a public domain of information, and, as a result, a basis ofknowledge that is accessible to all citizens and enables democratic dialogue andexchange of ideas.
Most copyrighted material, unless under special circumstance, is protected for the time span of the author's life plus 70 years. After this, the material can be used by anyone.
I think it's beneficial to society to have a time limit on copyrighted materials because it provides the opportunity for the work to be improved or a derivative work to be produced.
the affordances of copy-right law for some types of copying and re-use. While legalauthors are given some exclusive rights to their works, othersmay still make use of (that is, copy) these works for certaincircumstances under the fair use clause.
This connects to Herrington's "Copyright, Free Speech, and Democracy: Eldred v Ashcroft and Its Implications for Technical Communicators." If the copying and re-use is appropriate (and proper ownership is attributed) then it is okay under copyright.
Herrington, T. (2011). Copyright, free speech, and democracy: Eldred v. ashcroft and its implications for technical communicators.Technical Communication Quarterly, 20(1), 47-72