>> as part of the law and it's been part of common law since 1841 and part of the copyright act since 1976. >> host: but as an example of fair use today? >> guest: . system are students everywhere, when they quote a scholar or encyclopedia of wikipedia or any other source in their paper. they get to use those words as a result of. journalists do every day when
they see the report said this, quote, they're able to the materials. >> host: because the source? >> guest: now, although it is always a polite thing to do to give credit to people, but many examples where you would -- you never need to give credit to be within the copyright law. you would make people upset if he did it frequently. but any kind of collage artist makes, for instance, uses materials from different places and doesn't necessarily cite it. documentarians use copyrighted material inevitably all the way through their work because the world we live in is largely copyrighted due to the fact that in 1986.
jamaican anesthetists interview? they are copyrighted for 70 years after your test. >> host: why? >> guest: copyright terms had been extended dramatically. fair use is so important these days, precisely because the world is actually copyrighted. there are very few exceptions. something has to be produced before 1923 or has to be produced by an employee of the federal government on government time and exclusively without any additions from other people, which often happens. only the federal government, not state or local governments, many states and localities copyright their documents. so understanding when you can use materials copyrighted to quote from it, too referred to it, to produce something new to
access for a different purpose, that would all be suddenly more port to this generation than every before. not only because of our wonderful digital tools, but also because of that stuff belongs to somebody else now. >> host: youtube, how is youtube affected fairness? >> guest: fair use exactly the same as it has been in terms of people's practice. what you see with youtube, photoshop, any of the garage band, any tools we now have is that it's easier technically than ever before to copy. stay couple of consequences of that. number one, it's more anxiety producing for copyright holders
that people could copy their work than ever before. it's a huge fundamental difference between somebody copying your work so they don't have to pay you and they can just use it for free. that would be stealing. i'm common understanding and under the law, somebody accessing your work so they can make something new or repurpose it for a different purpose than your market purpose, to give you an example. i would want to pay for it, so i'll just download it. that is illegal and it's stealing. but i want to explore the latest video. a french choreographers that actually you use my choreography news in your video and you didn't credit. the choreographer was making a copyright charge.
she was like many people, more concerned about credit. the choreographer said you used name is i didn't credit them. is that true? do you believe that? you might want to take a section of the video that demonstrates another then compare that to recorded choreography and sam my website and examining this in putting that both of these examples. beyonce may be singing, but you don't have to pay beyonce. you are repurpose any section of her work, using the appropriate amount and you are doing something different with it than just playing her music because you want everybody to hear it and you really love it. >> host: interview, professor aufderheide, is that french choreographers current in calling out beyoncé? >> guest: from a legal give,
he may or may not have time to ground. i'm very proud to have written this book with my colleagues who also teaches at her school and who is between the two of us a person who can speak authoritatively on the law. what i can speak about is custom and what the law, millet permits in the application of fair use and have defined fair use. so is the choreographer rate? it doesn't matter for my example because my example is you have a right to you beyonce sawyer. the french choreographer making an argument about french thought we don't have to worry about the legal issues. she raised this point, creates a moment when i want to say something about beyonce and
don't figure out who her agent is to do this. but i have a right to make that comment. in fact, the law is designed to encourage me anyway it can to make new culture. the law says in part, we're going to provide you a perk. if you make the culture come you cannot cannot fully rates for a while. and those who made on this interview, you can have them for a while. you can hunt them for 70 years after your dad. but if those notes are available to me elsewhere, i wanted to say, look at the questions i've been asked by a television interviewer. this is the kind of question i was asked in an e-mail by a print reporter. i want to compare that to you. i would have the right to take your copyrighted work in order to make that comparison because i would be making a comment had nothing to do with the purpose of your original work.
>> host: firm did she write that book? >> guest: i wrote that book for you, for you and other people who just want in an ordinary day to make new culture and whatever they're doing. you might be an amateur musician. you might be wondering to have your children to output a youtube video you might say is that going to get them in trouble? there are people committing pta flyers who want to pull an image of the internet are not defend going to make this. is that going to get a school in trouble and anyway? as well as scholars, teachers, librarians, the book chronicles work we've done the 10 communities of this, including journalists, documentarians,
filmmakers, k-12 teachers, mostly middle-school teachers. college professors and people who make open courseware for higher education. we work with them and other groups to help them clarify how they can make fair use in order to get their work done. as i say, this is a relatively new problem in the world since before 1976 was a no-brainer to access other people's culture because a lot of it wasn't copyrighted. >> host: what happened in 1976 quakes >> guest: the law was changed as a result of great enthusiasm by large copy holders to extend their rights over their existing archives. the government responded by extending copyrights and extending the length of the copyright term by extending the amount of rates associated with it and making it default. another risk on a copyright
world. >> host: is in this book, professor come you admit about a key mouse and how he is strong and couldn't imagine here, would that have been use? >> guest: what i would've asked myself is to questions. thank you because this is what we discussed in a book. why am i referring to mickey mouse? i can stand it when i want without getting fair use. but why would i post them in mickey mouse and one of the cities? three years later he sounded like that i might not only want to put a picture of him in. i might want to put video clips into the e-book version of this book, and the multimedia version. then i'd have to say, what do i want to do that's different than just enjoying the movie? that's right, i make in a
comment about historical significance or the treatment or whatever i'm going to say about them or the role that disney has played in copyright -- as a copyright stakeholder or the way disney is historically taken work in the public domain such as folklore and turned it into a corporate product and is copyrighted. i can say all of that and make references quoting specific work or disney. i might show snow white they would cut from the grimm brothers. and i would have the right to make those references and so far doing something different than just ensuring the folktale or just enjoying the movie. i am not taking away anybody's enjoyment of the movie. nobody's going to read my book
and say i'll never need to watch snow white in the seventh worst because i got it because i am making a reference appropriate to the needs i have and i've included just that nice. those are the two questions i've asked. as it transformative? transformative meet the needs of some other purpose than the market perp isn't on the market for an the second question is amusing enough of it for my needs better. they are pretty easy questions to ask. they should be something that kindergarten teachers can do. kindergarten teachers are in a situation every day where the children are creating work and may sometimes want to ask these children parents are copyright
permission. if they're going to put that work on the website for the school, they have an argument there recontextualizing in order to demonstrate the capacity of five euros. >> host: is fair use stealing intellectual property? >> guest: the whole book is explaining why it's not stealing, but fair use is right everyone has is enthusiastically encouraged not only by the law, but by judges in conservative looters everywhere in the united states. the last 15 years of jurisprudence around fair use law has shown the judges very actively support their users.
the reason why they do this because judges do not want to be in the position of endorsing partisan ship. if it is not long and strong and is copyrighted, today's copyright holders get to have a death grip on their property so nobody can make you work out of it unless they say so, then they become private sense theories. and who enabled them to become private sensors? that would be the federal government. the federal government is prohibited from doing that. so if you're not going to use your fair use rights, if the judges did not agree to fair use is a vital and are part of the law, then judges should be saying copyright is unconstitutional. so now, you are not stealing.
you are using the you have to make new work. you'd be stealing if you downloaded illegally so you can enjoy it when there is a market for it. if you do something new with it and you are creating culture with that, a lot is telling you, please go ahead. when you start substituting for the original market, that is stealing. >> host: are we to the point of international fair use? >> guest: that's a great question. every copyright policy around the world has some exemptions into it that makes your private censorship does not have it. this those exemptions are all different. the u.s. fair use law is the one that is most flexible and most adaptable to new circumstances and in the way most abstract. it basically says the descent
into an different and you're only taking as much as is appropriate, go ahead and make new cultures. practice what happens in many commercial businesses, including publishing an international film coproduction and distribution is if it is in the u.s. outcome is usually just about everywhere. one of the reasons that's true with other nations do not have statutory damages for which her great big fines and casey made a mistake it goes far beyond the cost. so in other places, there just isn't much of a financial motivation to really go after people unless they're actually stealing. go at us as interesting as places that have not had fair use are increasingly looking at fair use system and they want to adopt. the united kingdom is probably
the latest and most vivid example because they believe they are stopping innovation unless they loosen not their ability to access existing culture. david cameron, the british prime minister has been on record saying exactly this, that addition the nation may be at stake and people may be going to the u.s. to innovate because they don't have fair use and recommend he would really like to have that protection. the canadians just rewrote their copyright by with some encode fair dealing, a long, long list of exemptions for state specific as you can do, rather than saying make up your own mind. but it should be transformative and you should be appropriate. they just rewrote so it was less of a long list of more of an invitation to make there by yourself. again for the same reason because they believe it is associated with innovation and
creativity. >> host: what do you teach at american university? >> guest: unprivileged eth and our communication program. i teach courses to filmmakers on documentary films, which by the extensively use is fair use. a teacher at massé and phd students about the structure of higher education and i supervise research on communications effects. >> host: we have been talking with faster trant worry about her co-author eric, "reclaiming fair use" published by the university of chicago press. that tv is on location at american university. >> and now, kenneth anderson sat down with her tv to discuss his book, living with the u.n., in which he argues some organizations that were supporting while others are not.
it's about 40 minute. >> host: "living with the un: american responsibilities and international order." kenneth anderson is the author. professor andersen, what parts of the u.n. work? >> guest: this is going to sound a little heretical. probably the best part of the u.n. in terms of its quirkiness the security council and that's got to seem a little bit strange. >> host: why do you say that? >> guest: is to seem strange for two distinct reasons. all of us watch the news and see things like syria unfolding and obstruction in the security council. we see the inability to come together in order to resolve these major humanitarian disasters th