The legal side of playing movies

[jasonxctf]

Knowing that there are a few legal experts here in Soxtalk, I thought I'd post this question and see what kind of responses I get.

 

My wife is a grade school teacher. Historically they play movies for free days or for rewards for the kids. (Charlie Brown's Halloween, The Santa Claus, etc).

 

Well this year, they were told by Administration that "legally" they can't play these movies in the classroom anymore due to copyright infringement laws. That they could get sued by Disney, etc for unauthorized showings.

 

Common sense tells me that this is BS.

 

Does anyone know for sure?

[southsider2k5]

It is technically a "public showing" which is illegal without proper compensation or permission. The one exception is movies which are in the public domain.

[The Critic]

Ahhhh, more short-sighted over-reaction.

Disney, etc., SHOULD be looking at classroom movie time as an advertisement for their s***.

Unless they fear that kids are bringing in digital camcorders to bootleg movies, all this can do IMO is make some kids want to see it again, which leads to rentals or sales.

[jasonxctf]

It is technically a "public showing" which is illegal without proper compensation or permission. The one exception is movies which are in the public domain.

 

i thought that too, but they aren't charging for the view.

 

then, i also found this...

 

Rented or Purchased Movies May Be Played By Teachers Without a License

 

Section 110(1) of Title 17 of the United States Code grants a specific exemption from the copyright laws for:

performance or display of a work by instructors or pupils in the course of face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution, in a classroom or similar place devoted to instruction, unless, in the case of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the performance, or the display of individual images, is given by means of a copy that was not lawfully made under this title, and that the person responsible for the performance knew or had reason to believe was not lawfully made ....

 

This means that no license from the copyright holder is required when a teacher at a public school or non-profit educational institution uses a lawfully purchased or rented copy of a movie in classroom instruction. It doesn't matter who purchased or rented the film, so long as it was legally obtained. The exemption is granted for "face-to-face" teaching activities only. This means that the teacher (or a substitute teacher) must be present. The exemption covers a "classroom or similar place devoted to instruction". This gives teachers some flexibility. For example, it is likely that a gymnasium used for large educational presentations in which several classes are convened together would be covered so long as a teacher presented the film. Note that remotely accessing a film from a central memory storage facility is probably not permitted. See 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a).

[jasonxctf]

Ahhhh, more short-sighted over-reaction.

Disney, etc., SHOULD be looking at classroom movie time as an advertisement for their s***.

Unless they fear that kids are bringing in digital camcorders to bootleg movies, all this can do IMO is make some kids want to see it again, which leads to rentals or sales.

 

and with that theory, what if a 15 yr old girl has a sleepover with 20 of her friends. can they not play a movie there either?

[clyons]

I don't know for certain, but wouldn't a free showing of a properly purchased DVD at school ostensibly for educational purposes fall within the statutory "fair use" doctrine?

 

Notwith

s

tanding the provi

s

ion

s

of

s

ection

s

106 and 106A, the fair u

s

e of a copyrighted wor

k

, including

s

uch u

s

e by reproduction in copie

s

or phonorecord

s

or by any other mean

s

s

pecified by that

s

ection, for purpo

s

e

s

s

uch a

s

critici

s

m, comment, new

s

reporting, teaching (including multiple copie

s

for cla

s

s

room u

s

e),

s

cholar

s

hip, or re

s

earch, i

s

not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the u

s

e made of a wor

k

in any particular ca

s

e i

s

a fair u

s

e the factor

s

to be con

s

idered

s

hall include

—

 

(1) the purpo

s

e and character of the u

s

e, including whether

s

uch u

s

e i

s

of a commercial nature or i

s

for nonprofit educational purpo

s

e

s

;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted wor

k

;

(3) the amount and

s

ub

s

tantiality of the portion u

s

ed in relation to the copyrighted wor

k

a

s

a whole; and

(4) the effect of the u

s

e upon the potential mar

k

et for or value of the copyrighted wor

k

.

 

The fact that a wor

k

i

s

unpubli

s

hed

s

hall not it

s

elf bar a finding of fair u

s

e if

s

uch finding i

s

made upon con

s

ideration of all the above factor

s

.

29 U.S.C. Sec. 107

 

Edit: Ah, I see Jason nailed it more specifically above me.

Edited November 10, 2009 by PlaySumFnJurny

[southsider2k5]

As I understood it, has to be germane to something specific that the teacher is teaching. You can't just show a movie.

[southsider2k5]

and with that theory, what if a 15 yr old girl has a sleepover with 20 of her friends. can they not play a movie there either?

 

A private residence is considered a private showing.

[jasonxctf]

As I understood it, has to be germane to something specific that the teacher is teaching. You can't just show a movie.

 

So then, if the subject is "Holidays around the World" and on the last day before Winter Break they show "The Santa Claus" that would fall in line.

 

If on a random Thursday, they showed Toy Story, that wouldn't be.

[FlaSoxxJim]

As I understood it, has to be germane to something specific that the teacher is teaching. You can't just show a movie.

 

Yes you can, and jasonxtcf's posting of Code Section 110(1) of Title 17 clearly states the exemption. If the showing is not producing revenues (charging admission) and if it is a defined classroom audience, it is neither a public or a commercial showing.

 

The membership program at my institute deals with this all the time for the films we show for our institutional paid boosters. If we charge admission to the films that would be illegal because it would be an unauthorized commercial use. If we opened the viewings to the general public it would be illegal even if we didn't charge because public exhibition or rebroadcast is not authorized. But, if we screen a legally purchased or leased copy of a film without charge to a defined, closed membership group (which is what we do) then we are operating correctly. If, on the other hand, we were screening subscription series materials without paying appropriate licensing fees, we'd be in trouble.

 

We would also be on shaky ground if the only thing we offered our paying (annual donation dues) institutional boosters was free film screenings, because we would be profiting exclusively off the films and they would essentially be unauthorized commercial rebroadcasts. Since the monthly members-only film series is only one of many different monthly program elements we offer our members, that is not the case. I see the situation being similar for the in-school classroom screenings. The kids aren't attending school exclusively to see free films and the taxes or tuition paying for their education is not a direct profit resulting from playing the films.

 

None of that may change the opinion of a knee-jerk school administration, but that is the legalese we have encountered in a similar situation.

[FlaSoxxJim]

A private residence is considered a private showing.

 

so is a screening to a defined, closed group such as a school classroom. I can't walk in off the street to see the film.

[southsider2k5]

so is a screening to a defined, closed group such as a school classroom. I can't walk in off the street to see the film.

 

Our school system here could very well be wrong, but that is what they told our teachers. I guess there have been districts where parents have actually caused problems over the movie policy.

[southsider2k5]

So then, if the subject is "Holidays around the World" and on the last day before Winter Break they show "The Santa Claus" that would fall in line.

 

If on a random Thursday, they showed Toy Story, that wouldn't be.

 

That is what our school system told our teachers.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Our school system here could very well be wrong, but that is what they told our teachers. I guess there have been districts where parents have actually caused problems over the movie policy.

 

That is what our school system told our teachers.

 

Sure, and that's another matter entirely. When my kids' school goes into lazy auto-pilot around the holidays and shows way to many movies I get pi$$ed off. Not a legal issue in this case, just a $hitty substitute for actually teaching.

 

[southsider2k5]

Sure, and that's another matter entirely. When my kids' school goes into lazy auto-pilot around the holidays and shows way to many movies I get pi$$ed off. Not a legal issue in this case, just a $hitty substitute for actually teaching.

 

They specifically mentioned it based on the legal side of things, not on the educational.

[FlaSoxxJim]

They specifically mentioned it based on the legal side of things, not on the educational.

 

My feeling then is that it is either a misunderstanding of the code on their part, or a convenient stretching of the truth to make sure teachers are teaching and not slacking off with movie days.

 

[southsider2k5]

My feeling then is that it is either a misunderstanding of the code on their part, or a convenient stretching of the truth to make sure teachers are teaching and not slacking off with movie days.

 

Knowing our school system, you could very well be right. It wouldn't surprise me for a second.

[G&T]

My feeling then is that it is either a misunderstanding of the code on their part, or a convenient stretching of the truth to make sure teachers are teaching and not slacking off with movie days.

 

This was my first reaction. There is no way anyone could believe that Disney is about to sue a school over showing Disney movies to Disney's target audience, no matter the legality of it.

[G&T]

This is from the commentaries accompanying the copyright statute:

 

There appears to be no need for a statutory definition of “face-to-face” teaching activities to clarify the scope of the provision. “Face-to-face teaching activities” under clause (1) embrace instructional performances and displays that are not “transmitted.” The concept does not require that the teacher and students be able to see each other, although it does require their simultaneous presence in the same general place. Use of the phrase “in the course of face-to-face teaching activities” is intended to exclude broadcasting or other transmissions from an outside location into classrooms, whether radio or television and whether open or closed circuit. However, as long as the instructor and pupils are in the same building or general area, the exemption would extend to the use of devices for amplifying or reproducing sound and for projecting visual images. The “teaching activities” exempted by the clause encompass systematic instruction of a very wide variety of subjects, but they do not include performances or displays, whatever their cultural value or intellectual appeal, that are given for the recreation or entertainment of any part of their audience.

 

So technically, it probably is illegal to show movies in a class room to waste time. But really, who is going to stop it?

[Texsox]

It is technically a "public showing" which is illegal without proper compensation or permission. The one exception is movies which are in the public domain.

 

 

Our school system here could very well be wrong, but that is what they told our teachers. I guess there have been districts where parents have actually caused problems over the movie policy.

 

 

They specifically mentioned it based on the legal side of things, not on the educational.

 

Exactly the same thing I was just told regarding a local school district, if it says for "private home use" it is not allowed.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Yeah, I'm backing off on my unequivocal stance that school classrooms are not public per se and therefore it's not a public performance.

 

http://www.movlic.com/copyrightcompliance.html

 

I do still think that many administrations crack down more to keep teachers from getting lazy than because they fear a knock on the door from the MPAA.

[Texsox]

Yeah, I'm backing off on my unequivocal stance that school classrooms are not public per se and therefore it's not a public performance.

 

http://www.movlic.com/copyrightcompliance.html

 

I do still think that many administrations crack down more to keep teachers from getting lazy than because they fear a knock on the door from the MPAA.

 

This first came to light for me when a local teacher wanted to show Flags of our Fathers which has a strong local connection. Harlon Block, one of the soldiers, who was not correctly identified initially, is from Weslaco, about 20 miles from me.

[Balta1701]

This was my first reaction. There is no way anyone could believe that Disney is about to sue a school over showing Disney movies to Disney's target audience, no matter the legality of it.

It's possible that a few of them actually are lawyers for Disney.

[SoxFan562004]

law firms have made insane amounts of cash arguing over terms such as "educational purposes"

[iamshack]

My guess is that Disney, or some other large movie studios, might worry that a school would present one of their new movies in the gymnasium to a large audience (100 kids or more), and then suddenly, you've just lost how many dollars in royalties from rentals?

 

I think this is one of those issues of the law where the odds of it being enforced are slim to none, but my guess is that is their beef here.

 

When I was a kid, they only showed us things in the public domain, like Born Free. Then again, they probably didn't have access to the copyrighted materials they do now.

 

However, it does appear as though many school districts were contacted by organizations representing film distribution companies, offering to sell them licenses, so this issue does indeed appear to be real.

 

Here is a good link:

 

http://www.millercanfield.com/publications-alerts-279.html

Recently, school districts across the state have been contacted by organizations representing movie distributors offering a license to show movies and videos in school. According to these organizations, the showing of copyrighted motion pictures (videos and DVD's) outside of a classroom educational setting (including such uses as after school programs, student rewards, rainy days, lunch hour movies, summer camps, clubs, assemblies, staffing emergencies and idle periods between state testing) constitutes copyright infringement. The contact served as a warning that the districts may be violating the copyright holders' exclusive public performance rights absent obtaining an appropriate license.

Edited November 10, 2009 by iamshack