Notes from John Palfrey click here for his blog click here for his picture

Topic #1: Wireless Access from a neighbor or at a coffee shop

Thanks so much for your message. I haven't written about it, but I agree with the thrust of what Jennifer Granick, my Stanford colleague, says. If someone has secured the network and you have to hack your way in, then it's definitely unlawful to do so. If someone leaves the network unsecured, though, then it's an open question. Under the law, it's a gray area. I'd say it's unethical to rely on a neighbor's open connection to avoid buying your own. But I don't think it's unethical to pop on a network on an ad hoc basis if it's clearly left open, especially if you also pay for connectivity somewhere else, like at home or school. But there's definitely room for debate. I hope all is well at your two schools!

Topic #2: Student Use of Copyright Pictures in Projects

1. a girl posts this graphic of Darfur from wikipedia and uses attribution ... click
2. a girl posts a picture of Spitzer from masslive with attribution ... click
3. a girl posts a Powerpoint on line about Fahrenheit 451 and Ray Bradbury and uses graphics and attribution ... ... click
4. a girl posts a Powerpoint on line about The Joy Luck Club and Amy Tan and uses graphics and attribution ... ... click

Thanks so much for the chance to review these examples. I look forward to catching up about these topics in person and on the phone, but a few quick reactions:

• Much of what you've shown below is almost certainly expression that would be copyright violation on its face, but in context, *may* be protected by the fair use doctrine. Many of the works are copyrighted by someone, not always clear by whom. But the way that the students use them are unlikely to have much of a negative effect on the market for the copyrighted works (the most important, and 4th, factor in the analysis), are for non-commercial purposes, involve commentary, are transformative in some cases, and so forth. (Attribution, as you know, is important academically, but does not provide much if any cover in legal terms.) We might go through each one carefully when we talk, as they each have different contours to them (the Wikipedia material, for instance, is offered under a favorable license generally).
• It's plausible that Amy Tan could make a claim against your school for PowerPoint 4, say. My strong guess is that she would not, for all manner of reasons, but one big question for you and for the school is whether or not you're willing to run any copyright risk at all. One of the big problems in copyright is the lack of clarity around the fair use defense. Even when you have a strong such defense, someone can get into court against you, and you'd have to defend.
• We might reasonably pull apart two issues: 1) the school's policy on copyright, from the perspective of what you tell the girls and require of them and 2) how the school works with the girls as a matter of copyright education and how you handle complaints. I think it may be a very sensible policy approach to encourage student self-policing on copyright, give them tools to make good decisions, and respond to take-down notices when examples of wrong-doing come your way (the Section 512 notice and take-down provision).
• The notion of giving "best practices" information, of the sort you reference about "copyright friendly sites", makes a lot of sense.

Another example with video