No doubt thousands will reply, but I'll get firsties. I think 'fair
use' allows copying of a chapter or 10% of a work, whichever is the
smaller. The RNIB negotiated what in effect was a waiver for blind and
visually impaired people; everyone else is infringing the rights if
they copy more. It is likely that eleswhere in your institution,
people are paying a fee for copying if a great deal of material is used
by lecturers for handouts and the like.
Regards, Bernard
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:51:49 -0000 Haeussler Elvira
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I was always under the impression that you can copy (and therefor scan) a
> book as long as you do not copy all of it. Your problem might be solved by
> just scanning the chapters needed by the student. However, I'm not certain
> if this is just common practice or if there are any laws or policies to back
> this up. It certainly is the practice we follow at Dewsbury College for our
> disabled students.
>
> Elvira Haeussler
> Dewsbury College
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernard Doherty [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 24 October 2003 12:08
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Scanners and copyright law
>
>
> Ian's outline of the paradoxical nature of the situation is so
> obviously true that any fair-minded reader must ask how such a
> situation was ever created and how can it be allowed to stand. How are
> the apparently competing demands of rights laws and disability
> legislation to be ordered? Unfortunately, this has already been
> decided: the wording of SENDA established that its terms do not replace
> existing legislation.
>
> The clear intention is that the DDA should not be used as a lever by
> judges or tribunals to make extra-parliamentary alterations to
> legislation in other areas where practice has been clearly established.
> It is an awkward situation, but it seems there will be no incentive for
> publishers and those they represent to change their position until they
> are returned to a sea of 17th-century-style pirac. They will be
> obliged to think of new ways to make money and ask for new legislation
> to protect whatever practices are eventually established in an era of
> electronic literacy (oh, I'm such a phrase-maker). At the moment, it
> seems there are very few levers or incentives currently available to
> persuade one side in the debate that it needs to change as a matter of
> urgency for the good of others.
>
> Regards, Bernard
>
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:29:13 +0100 Ian Litterick <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Physical impairments are pretty much on a par with VI according to the
> > PLS Guidelines - http://www.cla.co.uk/copyrightvillage/vpguidelines.pdf
> > "For the purposes of these Guidelines visually impaired people are taken
> > to include . . . those who are unable through physical disability to
> > hold or manipulate books or to focus or move their eyes or who are
> > otherwise physically unable to use available published formats."
> >
> > and according to the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002
> > http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/20020033.htm#6 - "(c) who is
> > unable, through physical disability, to hold or manipulate a book; or
> > (d) who is unable, through physical disability, to focus or move his
> > eyes to the extent that would normally be acceptable for reading. "
> >
> > But with dyslexia you are caught between the rock of omission from these
> > documents and the hard place of DDA/SENDA, which obliges you to make
> > reasonable adjustments for a dyslexic person the same as any other
> > disability.
> >
> > Personally I think that the law is such an ass making this distinction
> > in copyright where there is none in the disability legislation that you
> > have little option but to use your common sense and be prepared to join
> > most of us in this forum on the barricades. The USA is more sensible and
> > brackets both groups under Reading Impairment, and is increasingly
> > compelling publishers of educational texts to make electronic versions
> > available. Why should scanning be seen as such a privilege? It is a real
> > pain compared with having the text available in the electronic format
> > that you need in the first place.
> >
> > Moreover, the latest research suggests that Meares/Irlen syndrome, which
> > accounts for a lot of people with "dyslexic" reading difficulties, is
> > actually related to, even caused by a physical inability to move and
> > focus the eyes accurately and in synchrony. So perhaps even dyslexia is
> > covered, even though it wasn't intended to be.
> >
> > Either way, I wouldn't like to be the publisher or CPS who risked such a
> > prosecution of people with learning difficulties or a responsible
> > organisation that was helping them.
> >
> > But it would be nice if the law was clear and fair.
> >
> > Regards
> > Ian Litterick
> > www.dyslexic.com
> > www.iansyst.co.uk
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jane Tomlinson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > > Sent: 23 October 2003 13:03
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: [DIS-FORUM] Scanners and copyright law
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > Could anyone offer me some advice on the use of scanners in
> > > the library
> > > for disabled users. I know the recent copyright legislation allows
> > > visually impaired students to use a scanner in the library but what
> > > about other students such as dyslexic students and students with
> > > physical impairments that need to use a scanner with text read & write
> > > software. How are other Higher Education Libraries getting around the
> > > copyright restrictions? Can it be argued that the DDA part 4 states we
> > > need to make reasonable adjustments and therefore all
> > > disabled students
> > > should have access to a scanner.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your help
> > > Jane
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jane Tomlinson
> > > Media Librarian / LLR Disability Rep
> > > London College of Fashion
> > > 20 John Princes Street
> > > London
> > > W1M 0BJ
> > > 02075147545
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------Disclaimer---------------------------
> >
> > Unless obviously public, this email is confidential to the intended
> recipient(s). If you received it in error please tell the sender and then
> delete it. We check emails from dyslexic.com and iansyst.co.uk, but you
> should virus check incoming emails. Emails do not always represent our
> official policy or a contract. Errors and omissions are excepted.
> >
> > iANSYST Ltd, Fen House, Fen Road, CAMBRIDGE, CB4 1UN. T +44(0)1223 420101;
> Fax +44(0) 1223 42 66 44; [log in to unmask]
>
> ----------------------
> Bernard Doherty
> Student Adviser
> ACCESS Centre
> Anglia Polytechnic University
>
> Tel: 01223 363271 x2534
> Fax: 01223 417730
> Minicom: 01223 576155
> [log in to unmask]
----------------------
Bernard Doherty
Student Adviser
ACCESS Centre
Anglia Polytechnic University
Tel: 01223 363271 x2534
Fax: 01223 417730
Minicom: 01223 576155
[log in to unmask]
|