Policy Brief: Copyright and Plagiarism

Policy Brief: Copyright and Plagiarism
Kathleen Nugent
As schools continue to incorporate technology into the classroom, the risk for copyright infringement increases dramatically. Copyright infringement becomes especially troublesome as more teachers and students use resources from and post material to the internet. Past practices that have gone unchecked are now visible to millions and accountable far beyond the school community. The more school material posted on internet, the greater the chance of copyright infringement being noticed, and prosecution becomes more substantial.

School districts need to create a cohesive and thorough policy which addresses all topics of copyright infringement in a clear manner that can be feasibly implemented by teachers and students alike. Before any policy can be implemented, students, teachers, and administration need to have a clear understanding of the legal definitions of copyright, plagiarism, and fair use. Without a communal knowledge of these items, implementing a systemic on their appropriate use would be difficult at best. While many schools focus on plagiarism, due to its taboo nature in education, copyright is either confused with plagiarism or overlooked. This is a major problem as copyright law is monetarily punishable through the court system. Any pecuniary action would be compounded by court costs, lawyers, and poor publicity.

Copyright, plagiarism and fair use are often used interchangeably in the educational system. However, each has a specific definition and carries different penalties. Copyright allows creators of original works to exclude others from using their work.1 Plagiarism forbids receiving credit for another’s work. Repeated accounts of plagiarism may constitute copyright infringement.1 While plagiarism can and should lead to disciplinary action by the school, copyright infringement is punishable by the federal court of law.1 Though many schools believe they are covered under fair use, as the courts look favorably to any action promoting education, more specific meanings apply. Educators are only covered under fair use when use of the material does not interfere with the original creators monetary benefits. Ignorance does not constitute coverage under fair use.1

Regardless of which option is chosen, an initial school-wide survey should be conducted to determine the current knowledge of the faculty regarding copyright, plagiarism and fair use. Approaching the issue from this standpoint allows more focused training to take place. Additionally, resources are not wasted covering items that are already established and understood by faculty. Before pursuing any faculty training, the school must also create a concise, yet encompassing statement of school expectations and policy regarding copyright law. The statement should include definitions of copyright, plagiarism, and fair use, an example for each, and clear repercussions for failure to ensure any of the issues are not violated. The statement should also make clear if the school owns the copyright to any faculty-generated work that has the potential generate income.2 As this issue may cause some concern among teachers, it is best if the survey includes questions regarding current copyright policy practices and assumptions of ownership.2

Option 1: Hiring a consultant, or amending the technology or legal advisors job to include specified group briefings regarding copyright policy. In this option, groups can be clustered based on prior knowledge, grade level, or subject. Due to the intimate nature of the groups, individual questions, concerns, or circumstances can be addressed quickly and accurately. Additionally, the school can be sure that all copyright issues and school policy have been addressed and clearly understood. This ensures that any infringement rests on the individual, rather than the institution. Drawbacks to this option include either expending additional funds to hire a consultant and/or a revision of a technology or legal coordinators contractual job description. Also, time will need to be provided for groups to meet.

Option 2: Creating a tiered, systemic review and revision of all information posted on the school website. Staff development time would be needed to both inform faculty of the rules and policies being implemented, and also instructions on how to correct any item currently infringing on the law. This option requires less time management as the entire faculty can be addressed at once, or in parts of several successive staff development days. It should be noted that completely overhauling the current policy system regarding copyright in one day is not advised. Teachers may feel overwhelmed by the amount of information presented, or the amount of work needed to correct any violations. By focusing on information posted on the school website, the school can ensure the greatest chance for copyright suits against the school is minimized. Additionally, because the same rules would apply to all work, regardless of where it is posted, the school can assume any further copyright violation is made by the individual rather than the institution. This approach would need to be tiered. For example, the first session would involve ensuring all notes posted to the school website do not break copy-right law. Addressed in this session would be teachers who repeatedly use a section from a book or online text. Though the text or excerpt is covered under fair use, if the text is used repeatedly without accessing a link to the original and the original site has both free and for-sale material posted, this could interfere with the original creator’s income, and be considered copy-right infringement. The next session could cover worksheets, reproducibles, animations, pictures, videos, etc…. Also to be covered is whether posting original faculty material to the school website transfers legal copy-right ownership to the school. While this option provides the school with a reasonable belief that all faculty has been provided with solid, clear, professional information and consequences regarding copy-right policy, there is no assurance of teacher follow-through and continuance.

____________________________________________________________________________________
1 http://www.piercelaw.edu/thomasfield/ipbasics/copyright-on-the-internet.php
2 http://technologysource.org/article/drafting_a_faculty_copyright_ownership_policy/