by Kevin Smith, M.L.S., J.D., Lisa A. Macklin, J.D.,M.L.S., Anne Gilliland, JD, MLS
thread Wk 1 – T2: Copyright: Shortened or Lengthened? – PART 1
Follow the money” was mentioned as a way to understand the concept of copyright and copyright law
Copyright lengths should be shortened. Term lengths like these rarely benefit actual people. They benefit corporations, be it publishers or things like Disney.
Karen Lightner: I can see the usefulness of bringing the US into line with the Berne Convention, so that we are in line with other nations’ laws. But the additional 20 years we have added for individuals and the incredibly long period for corporations goes against, I believe, what the founding fathers intended when they specified for a limited time.
Edwin A Quist: There are collections of so-called production music issued with licenses to be used for educational videos. We have at least two sets of these in our music library (in various styles: rock ,classical, world, electronic, etc.) — but don’t expect great art! Also WikiMedia Commons has some CC licensed music.
Brad Whitehead: I have no quarrel with protecting corporate trademarks — Disney characters or Nike swooshes, etc. — but maintaining monopolies on creative works for such extended periods primarily enriches publishers with no benefit to the creators.
Nicholas Theo: There are definitely works created where it can be next to impossible to find the owner, or their descendant 20 years after the creation of the work. I have also witnessed when you do track these people down that they want an exorbitant sum of money for permission to use their creation even when there has been absolutely no interest in it. In the end no deal is made. On the other hand I work with two small non profit organizations whose body of work is of value. The material is actively used, and the body of work is a core asset for the organization. What happens to each organization once the copyrights expire? One organization faces this reality in 2015. The Internet permits an environment where decades of work may be used, and in some instances in ways the original material was never intended to be used. For instance, written passages can be misquoted and there will no longer be a legal mechanism to halt this practice.
Karen Case: I would be curious to know if the Youtube video with Mozart would have been removed if the link was made private.
Susan Martel: I think about The Hobbit which was published in 1937. The author, Tolkien, died in 1973, and I remember his books being popular in the seventies and the eighties. It was fairly recently that movies were made based on his books. It seems fair (and I hope that it is the case) that he left a great legacy behind to his family so that they could continue to receive income from his work. If Tolkien’s works were in the public domain by the time the movies were made, it is just an easy way for those working in the movie industry to become even wealthier without having to pay anything to the author or his beneficiaries. Not all works have the kind of potential that Tolkien’s did, but without a crystal ball to predict the future it may be difficult to predict accurately what works will have continued success for generations and which will just be a flash in the pan.
Charles N. Norton: There is something called “Good Faith” effort that many archives hold to that tends to be the “standard” when trying to use copyrighted material for educational use, but it really only applies when you know who the copyright holder is and for whatever reason they simply do not respond to your requests. It does not remove the authors rights and, in fact, many times one does end up having to remove shared material after the fact because the copyright holders finally does get around to denying permission.
Lesli Moore: I’m glad to see some discussion about Open Access to works. Perhaps instead of shortening the term, creators can circumvent the terms by offering open access using Creative Commons.
Jef Gielen: There are pros and cons. Do we find it reasonable that heirs take benefit from a work they did not contribute to at all ? To me, this is not evident. On the other hand, the copyright can be in hand of foundations trying to continue the work of an author – e.g. by means of scholarships. That’s another story ..
Here is a complete list of all the suggested readings for the Copyright for Educations and Librarians Course. Click here for a downloadable PDF version of the Suggested Readings that contains the full URL links.
- The Copyright Law of the United States, Title 17 of the U.S. Code. Please scan the section headings to gain a general idea of the structure of the law.
- United States Copyright Office website, at http://copyright.gov/. Please read circular #1, “ Copyright Basics.”
- James Boyle, The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. PDF book version. Please read Chapter One, “Why Intellectual Property?”
- Peter Hirtle, Emily Hudson & Andrew Kenyon, Copyright & Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization (Cornell University Library, 2009). Please read chapters 1 & 2.
- Kevin Smith & Lisa Macklin, Handout on “A Framework for Analyzing any Copyright Problem.”
- The Copyright Law of the United States, Title 17 of the U.S. Code. Please read sections 101 through 106 and section 109.
- United States Copyright Office website, at http://copyright.gov/. Please read circulars 9 (“Work Made for Hire under the 1976 Copyright Act“) and 21 (“Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarian”).
- Peter Hirtle, “Copyright and the Public Domain in the United States,” online chart.
- Peter Hirtle, Emily Hudson & Andrew Kenyon, Copyright & Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization (Cornell University Library, 2009). Please read chapters 3 & 4.
- “Copyright Law & Public Domain,” a series of short essays from NOLO, Law for All, at.
- The Copyright Law of the United States, Title 17 of the U.S. Code. Available at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/. Please read sections 108 and 110.
- Peter Hirtle, Emily Hudson & Andrew Kenyon, Copyright & Cultural Institutions: Guidelines for Digitization (Cornell University Library, 2009). Please read chapter 6.
- Peggy Hoon, “The Original TEACH Act Toolkit.”
- Creative Commons website at . Please read the “Choose a license” page and “About the Licenses“.
- Copyright and Fair Use, Stanford University Libraries, “The Basics of Getting Permission” athttp://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/introduction/getting-permission/.
- “Permissions,” Copyright Advisory Office, Columbia University Libraries.
- David R. Hansen, Copyright Reform Principles for Libraries, Archives, and Other Memory Institutions, 29 Berkeley Tech. L.J. (forthcoming 2014).
OPTIONAL – Resources on music copyright:
Sources for examples:
For the history behind the controversy over “The Lion Sleeps Tonight,” listen to these three YouTube videos:
Free Course – Copyright for Educators & Librarians
Copyright can be one heck of a confusing topic. There seems to be an endless number of nuances and exceptions to copyright rules. To help educators gain a better understanding of copyright as it relates to schools, instructors from Duke, Emory, and UNC Chapel Hill have created a Coursera course titled Copyright for Educators & Librarians.
Copyright for Educators & Librarians is a four week course beginning on July 21st. It is free to register and participate in this online professional development course. Attendees who desire a “verified certificate” can register for that option for a $49 fee.
The course will feature four units of study:
- A framework for thinking about copyright.
- Authorship and rights.
- Specific exceptions for teachers and librarians.
- Understanding and using fair use.
When writing your dissertation…
Please have an FAQ-kind of list of the Google Group postings regarding resources and information on research and writing of Chapter 2
digital resource sets available through MnPALS Plus
[how to] write chapter 2
You were reminded to look at dissertations of your peers from previous cohorts and use their dissertations as a “template”: http://repository.stcloudstate.edu/do/discipline_browser/articles?discipline_key=1230
You also were reminded to use the documents in Google Drive: e.g. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7IvS0UYhpxFVTNyRUFtNl93blE
Please have also materials, which might help you organize our thoughts and expedite your Chapter 2 writing….
Do you agree with (did you use) the following observations:
The purpose of the review of the literature is to prove that no one has studied the gap in the knowledge outlined in Chapter 1. The subjects in the Review of Literature should have been introduced in the Background of the Problem in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 is not a textbook of subject matter loosely related to the subject of the study. Every research study that is mentioned should in some way bear upon the gap in the knowledge, and each study that is mentioned should end with the comment that the study did not collect data about the specific gap in the knowledge of the study as outlined in Chapter 1.
The review should be laid out in major sections introduced by organizational generalizations. An organizational generalization can be a subheading so long as the last sentence of the previous section introduces the reader to what the next section will contain. The purpose of this chapter is to cite major conclusions, findings, and methodological issues related to the gap in the knowledge from Chapter 1. It is written for knowledgeable peers from easily retrievable sources of the most recent issue possible.
Empirical literature published within the previous 5 years or less is reviewed to prove no mention of the specific gap in the knowledge that is the subject of the dissertation is in the body of knowledge. Common sense should prevail. Often, to provide a history of the research, it is necessary to cite studies older than 5 years. The object is to acquaint the reader with existing studies relative to the gap in the knowledge and describe who has done the work, when and where the research was completed, and what approaches were used for the methodology, instrumentation, statistical analyses, or all of these subjects.
If very little literature exists, the wise student will write, in effect, a several-paragraph book report by citing the purpose of the study, the methodology, the findings, and the conclusions. If there is an abundance of studies, cite only the most recent studies. Firmly establish the need for the study. Defend the methods and procedures by pointing out other relevant studies that implemented similar methodologies. It should be frequently pointed out to the reader why a particular study did not match the exact purpose of the dissertation.
The Review of Literature ends with a Conclusion that clearly states that, based on the review of the literature, the gap in the knowledge that is the subject of the study has not been studied. Remember that a “summary” is different from a “conclusion.” A Summary, the final main section, introduces the next chapter.
Here is the template from a different school (then SCSU)
When conducting qualitative data, how many people should be interviewed? Is there a minimum or a max
Here is my take on it:
Simple question, not so simple answer.
Generally, the number of respondents depends on the type of qualitative inquiry: case study methodology, phenomenological study, ethnographic study, or ethnomethodology. However, a rule of thumb is for scholars to achieve saturation point–that is the point in which no fresh information is uncovered in response to an issue that is of interest to the researcher.
If your qualitative method is designed to meet rigor and trustworthiness, thick, rich data is important. To achieve these principles you would need at least 12 interviews, ensuring your participants are the holders of knowledge in the area you intend to investigate. In grounded theory you could start with 12 and interview more if your data is not rich enough.
In IPA the norm tends to be 6 interviews.
You may check the sample size in peer reviewed qualitative publications in your field to find out about popular practice. In all depends on the research problem, choice of specific qualitative approach and theoretical framework, so the answer to your question will vary from few to few dozens.
How many interviews are needed in a qualitative research?
There are different views in literature and no one agreed to the exact number. Here I reviewed some mostly cited references. Based Creswell (2014), it is estimated that 16 participants will provide rich and detailed data. There are a couple of researchers agreed on 10–15 in-depth interviews are sufficient (Guest, Bunce & Johnson 2006; Baker & Edwards 2012).
your methodological choices need to reflect your ontological position and understanding of knowledge production, and that’s also where you can argue a strong case for smaller qualitative studies, as you say. This is not only a problem for certain subjects, I think it’s a problem in certain departments or journals across the board of social science research, as it’s a question of academic culture.
here more serious literature and research (in case you need to cite in Chapter 3)
Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews
Gaskell, George (2000). Individual and Group Interviewing. In Martin W. Bauer & George Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative Researching With Text, Image and Sound. A Practical Handbook (pp. 38-56). London: SAGE Publications.
Lieberson, Stanley 1991: “Small N’s and Big Conclusions.” Social Forces 70:307-20. (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2580241)
Savolainen, Jukka 1994: “The Rationality of Drawing Big Conclusions Based on Small Samples.” Social Forces 72:1217-24. (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2580299).
Small, M.(2009) ‘How many cases do I need ? On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research’ Ethnography 10(1) 5-38
Williams,M. (2000) ‘Interpretivism and generalisation ‘ Sociology 34(2) 209-224
how to start your writing process
If you are a Pinterest user, you are welcome to just sbuscribe to the board:
otherwise, I am mirroring the information also in the IMS blog:
APA citing of “unusual” resources
statistical modeling: your guide to Chapter 3
working on your dissertation, namely Chapter 3, you probably are consulting with the materials in this shared folder:
In it, there is a subfolder, called “stats related materials”
where you have several documents from the Graduate school and myself to start building your understanding and vocabulary regarding your quantitative, qualitative or mixed method research.
It has been agreed that before you go to the Statistical Center (Randy Kolb), it is wise to be prepared and understand the terminology as well as the basics of the research methods.
Please have an additional list of materials available through the SCSU library and the Internet. They can help you further with building a robust foundation to lead your research:
In this blog entry, I shared with you:
- Books on intro to stat modeling available at the library. I understand the major pain borrowing books from the SCSU library can constitute, but you can use the titles and the authors and see if you can borrow them from your local public library
- I also sought and shared with you “visual” explanations of the basics terms and concepts. Once you start looking at those, you should be able to further research (e.g. YouTube) and find suitable sources for your learning style.
I (and the future cohorts) will deeply appreciate if you remember to share those “suitable sources for your learning style” either by sharing in this Google Group thread and/or sharing in the comments section of the blog entry: http://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims/2017/07/10/intro-to-stat-modeling. Your Facebook group page is also a good place to discuss among ourselves best practices to learn and use research methods for your chapter 3.
search for sources
Google just posted on their Facebook profile a nifty short video on Google Search
Watching the video, you may remember the same #BooleanSearch techniques from our BI (bibliography instruction) session of last semester.
Considering the fact of preponderance of information in 2017: your Chapter 2 is NOT ONLY about finding information regrading your topic.
Your Chapter 2 is about proving your extensive research of the existing literature.
The techniques presented in the short video will arm you with methods to dig deeper and look further.
If you would like to do a decent job exploring all corners of the vast area called Internet, please consider other search engines similar to Google Scholar:
Microsoft Semantic Scholar (Semantic Scholar); Microsoft Academic Search; Academicindex.net; Proquest Dialog; Quetzal; arXiv;
https://www.google.com/; https://scholar.google.com/ (3 min); http://academic.research.microsoft.com/; http://www.dialog.com/; http://www.quetzal-search.info; http://www.arXiv.org; http://www.journalogy.com/
More about such search engines in the following blog entries:
Let me know, if more info needed and/or you need help embarking on the “deep” search
tips for writing and proofreading
please have several infographics to help you with your writing habits (organization) and proofreading, posted in the IMS blog:
letter – request copyright permission
Here are several samples on mastering such letter: