The University Libraries, Mason Publishing,
and the University Bookstore present
Bryan Caplan
Discussing his new book: The Case Against Education: Why the Education System is a Waste of Time and Money
Thursday, May 3
3:00-4:30 pm
Main Reading Room
Fenwick Library, Fairfax Campus
Despite being immensely popular—and immensely lucrative—education is grossly overrated. In The Case Against Education, Bryan Caplan argues that the primary function of education is not to enhance students’ skill but to certify their intelligence, work ethic, and conformity—in other words, to signal the qualities of a good employee. Learn why students hunt for easy As and casually forget most of what they learn after the final exam, why decades of growing access to education have not resulted in better jobs for the average worker but instead in runaway credential inflation, how employers reward workers for costly schooling they rarely if ever use, and why cutting education spending is the best remedy.
Caplan draws on the latest social science to show how the labor market values grades over knowledge, and why the more education your rivals have, the more you need to impress employers. He explains why graduation is our society’s top conformity signal, and why even the most useless degrees can certify employability. He advocates two major policy responses. The first is educational austerity. Government needs to sharply cut education funding to curb this wasteful rat race. The second is more vocational education, because practical skills are more socially valuable than teaching students how to outshine their peers.
Bryan Caplan is professor of economics at George Mason University and a blogger at EconLog. He is the author of Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent Is Less Work and More Fun than You Think and The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies (Princeton). He lives in Oakton, Virginia.
“Would-be students and their parents are rethinking the assumption that a good life is impossible without an expensive degree–not to mention the chase for college admission that begins at kindergarten if not before. [This new book] may help to let out a little more air.”–Naomi Schaefer Riley, Wall Street Journal
Refreshments will be provided.
The Mason Author Series is co-sponsored by the University Bookstore.
The University Libraries, George Mason University Press,
and the University Bookstore present
Virginia Wine: Four Centuries of Change
Featuring author Andrew Painter
Tuesday, April 10
4:30-6:00 pm
Main Reading Room
Fenwick Library, Fairfax Campus
“[An] impressive work celebrating the collective and individual achievements of the commonwealth’s wine industry “
— Gerald L. Baliles, Governor of Virginia 1986-1990
No state can claim a longer history of experimenting with and promoting viticulture than Virginia—nor does any state’s history demonstrate a more astounding record of initial failure and ultimate success. Virginia Wine: Four Centuries of Change presents a comprehensive record of the Virginia wine industry, from the earliest Spanish accounts describing Native American vineyards in 1570 through its astonishing rebirth in the modern era. The author chronicles the dynamic personalities, diverse places, and engrossing personal and political struggles that have established the Old Dominion as one of the nation’s preeminent wine regions, an industry that now accounts for nearly $1 billion in annual sales, with more than 275 wineries growing more than 30 varieties of grapes.
Andrew A. Painter is an attorney specializing in land use and zoning. A Virginia native, Andrew has spent more than eight years researching the growth of its wine industry. He is a graduate of the University of Mary Washington, the University of Virginia, and the University of Richmond.
“A detailed, yet readable history that addresses an unmet need for a written record similar to those already available for the world’s more established wine regions. Virginia viticulture and winemaking have come of age, and deserve no less.”
— Felicia Warburg Rogan, Founder, Oakencroft Vineyard & Winery
Refreshments will be provided.
The Mason Author Series is co-sponsored by the University Bookstore.
With the rise of networked communication, many authors and creators have sought to clarify which uses of their intellectual property they are happy to allow without being asked for permission. Creative Commons licenses allow them to specify which uses they permit and under what conditions. Additionally, these licenses are machine-readable, which means aggregation sites (like Google and others) can sort content by license type, which makes it much easier to find content that may be used for free.
Creative Commons does not replace or annul copyright. CC-licensed content still belongs to its creator, but specific uses are permitted to the public under each CC license type. Some are very permissive and some are more restrictive.
All CC licenses are “within the boundaries of copyright law.” The least restrictive license (CC-BY) only requires attribution to the content-creator (referred to as licensor), whereas other combinations address derivative, noncommercial, and share alike (requires derivatives to have the same license as the original) provisions, in addition to attribution. Based on your responses, the CC website will suggest license types and, if needed, provide HTML code that can be added to a webpage.
Benefits of using Creative Commons content in instruction
You can also use CC-licensed content for instructional purposes, such as inclusion in course packs or course management software, like BlackBoard. When you use CC content, time spent searching for a copyright owner to ask permission to reuse, remix, or share “All Rights Reserved” content is channeled to research, create new works, or teaching.
Here’s an infographic to help explain what is permitted and required by each license (in context with public domain and standard “all rights reserved”). Licenses are organized top to bottom from most open to least.
CC BY Aaron McCollough (adapted from a table by Anita Walz)
The copyright statute (17 U.S.C.) provides a number of limitations on the exclusive rights granted a copyright holder. The “Fair Use doctrine” is a relatively brief but extremely important limitation that empowers users to copy a portion or, in some cases, all of a work without asking for permission from the content owner. The decision-making process involves your objective consideration of each of the four factors stipulated in § 107 to assess the impact of your use on the rights of the copyright holder. To that end, forms and tools included on this website will assist you in weighing these factors and making a decision about whether your use is a fair use. A definition of “fair use”, as defined in the statute, is a good starting point.
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
“Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.”
Fair Use Evaluator
To help you assess whether your proposed use of copyrighted material is a fair use, complete the online form provided by the Fair Use Evaluator tool. Print out and keep a copy of this time-stamped record, in the event you are asked by a copyright owner or a court of law how you arrived at your decision. Conducting this evaluation after you’ve used the content is not recommended.
Fair Use Exceptions for Instructors (for performance and display of copyrighted material in traditional, distance, or blended educational models)
Best Practice Guides to Fair Use
Many organizations have written guidelines or best practices to help define fair use for specific audiences or types of content. These best practices provide an important framework for educators, in particular, in the event your decision supporting fair use is questioned by a court of law. American University’s Center for Media & Social Impact has compiled these documents (see CMSI’s Best Practices), or you may link to the document in the list below that is most applicable to your current needs). Topics are bolded for easier identification.
Familiarize yourself with the fundamentals of copyright, such as what makes a work copyrightable, the elements of copyright ownership, and the duration of copyright for an item. If you are interested in conducting copyright research or how to register your work with the U.S. Copyright Office, take a look at the resources on the Registration & Research section below. Find out about using a Creative Commons license as an intermediate copyright option between “All Rights Reserved” and public domain works.
A copyrighted work is defined as an expression of creativity that shows originality, although it doesn’t have to be unique, and is fixed in some medium so others may experience it. That is, if one can listen to, watch or read it, then the work meets the fixation element. Consult the Copyright Genie to determine if a work you are questioning is copyrightable.
What works are copyrightable? Just about everything.
Literary works
Musical scores & accompanying lyrics
Plays & accompanying music
Pantomimes & choreography
Pictorial, graphic & sculptural works
Motion pictures & other audiovisual works
Sound recordings
Architectural works
What isn’t protected by copyright?
Ideas, principles, or methods of operation
Basic facts
Titles, names, short phrases, or slogans (although the latter may be registered as a trademark)
Works that are in the public domain
Copyright protection starts the moment a work is fixed, but how long does it last?
Copyright duration can be quite complex and depends on when a work was created and the country in which it was registered. For a graphic overview of term limits for works registered in the United States, see Peter Suber’s excellent Copyright Term and the Public Domain table. The Public Domain Slider will also give you an idea as to whether a work you want to use may be in the public domain.
Here are a few choice online resources describing copyright basics:
Use the Section 108 Spinner for initial guidance regarding reproductions made by libraries and archives for their users, as replacement or preservation copies. Section 108 continues to be a hotly contested part of Copyright Law between producers and consumers of copyrighted material because educational use could not be agreed upon in the areas of distance learning, interlibrary loan, and electronic reserves. See US Copyright Office Circular 21 Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.
The Association of Research Libraries (ARL) provides information on several copyright and intellectual property issues and cases as they pertain to academic libraries, as well as additional resources. ARL also maintains Know Your Copy Rights, a site dedicated to using copyrighted works in academic settings.
The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) includes representatives from the American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries and the Association of College and Research Libraries. Content specifically addresses those groups’ needs and interests.
Registration & Research
Copyright protection is often misunderstood. A creator does not need to file or register his/her work with the US Copyright Office in order to secure rights for that work. A work is copyrighted automatically when it is “fixed” for the first time by the creator. (Remember, copyright protection can only be granted to works that have been fixed in some medium.) The duration of that protection for all works created on or after January 1, 1978, is the life of the author plus 70 years. For works with multiple authors, the term is 70 years after the death of the last surviving author.
Although registration is not a condition of copyright protection, there are several benefits; it is a legal formality that produces a public record of the copyright claim. Additionally, registration is required to seek statutory damages in a copyright infringement lawsuit that is filed in court for works originating in the United States. Registration may be made at any time within the original term of the copyright (the life of the author plus 70 years.)
To register a copyright, a creator must file a claim with the US Copyright Office. The application consists of three parts: a completed application form, a filing fee, and a nonreturnable “deposit.” The deposit is a copy of the work submitted to the Copyright Office.
For specific information about the copyright status of an older work, there are currently two online databases available, as well as the Copyright Card Catalog in the Library of Congress, in which research may be necessary. Where you begin your research depends on the date of your item. See U.S. Copyright Office Circular 22 How To Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work for copyright research guidance.
Briefly, the card catalog contains copyright records spanning registration of works dating from 1790 through 1977. The online catalog is available for works registered or renewed from January 1, 1978, to present. See U.S. Copyright Office Circular 23 The Copyright Card Catalog and the Online Files of the Copyright Office for specific information regarding content in each. Copyright renewal records received by the US Copyright Office between 1950 and 1992 for Class A books published in the US between 1923 and 1963 may be accessed using Stanford University’s Copyright Renewal Database.
The U.S. Copyright Office has begun scanning pre-1978 registration records to make them electronically accessible to researchers. The Office has proposed to create a virtual card catalog that would serve as an interim step to the long-term effort of capturing index terms from the scanned card images using OCR and keyboarding, with the ultimate goal of building indexes for online searching. The Copyright Matters blog provides weekly updates about this enormous project.
Policies & Laws
Mason’s copyright policies address ownership of content created by faculty, staff, and students affiliated with the University. These policies provide basic guidance to the University community about use of third party content in materials created for instruction, directed works and student assignments, as well as materials provided via library services (e.g., ILL and e-reserves).
Although plagiarism is not a copyright issue, per se, academic integrity is an integral part of copyright. For this reason, the University’s statement on academic integrity is included here, as is the Student Honor Code. Ethics in work practice, instructional assignments, and use of state-owned (i.e., Mason) equipment are fundamental to the policies and laws associated with copyright.
Links to applicable federal and Virginia state copyright laws are provided as well, for your perusal.
University Policy Number 1104 — Use and Reproduction of Copyrighted Materials
This policy provides guidelines and procedures for the use and reproduction by university employees and students of copyrighted works in electronic courseware, websites, print coursepacks, and electronic, print, and media reserves. That is, materials in which the university does not hold copyright
University Policy Number 1301 — Responsible Use of Computing
This policy explicitly stipulates acceptable and forbidden use of the George Mason University network and computer hardware. The DMCA infringement notification (aka Stop It) process is described in detail, as well.
Academic integrity is at the core of George Mason University culture. As members of the Mason community, students, faculty, and staff pledge not to “cheat, steal, plagiarize, or lie in matters related to . . . academic work.” We should be and are held to a high standard of honesty and accountability in our research, assignments, and publications.
The fundamental principle of integrity resonates throughout all aspects of university life. Because the university functions as our Internet Service Provider (ISP), we are bound to comply with state and federal laws governing this resource, as well as with the rules defined in the student Honor Code, Responsible Use of Computing, and other policies. Plagiarism is a serious Honor Code offense, and individuals who engage in this behavior may be subject to investigation and review by the university’s Honor Committee. On the other hand, copyright violations, such as unauthorized sharing of music and other proprietary material, that stem from improper use of the Mason network and equipment flout state and federal laws governing the use, replication, and distribution of copyrighted content.
U.S. Copyright Act
Content owners and consumers benefit from a balance in copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code). From an owner’s perspective, the law theoretically protects the rights of an individual who has spent time and, possibly, money creating a work. That is, the creator has a right to receive compensation and attribution for that work, as well as a level of control over its use. From a consumer’s perspective, the law may permit a work to be copied and enjoyed or expanded on, without the permission of the content, or copyright, owner. The decision to use a work without asking for permission is based on a subjective interpretation of the four factors comprising “fair use”, the doctrine on which users may rely as a defense against a content owner’s claim of copyright infringement.
As U.S. copyright law has evolved, several trends have emerged. In short, copyright duration for works owned by individuals has extended from 14 years, back in 1909, to the current time frame of the author’s lifetime plus 70 years. This extension has inhibited the rollover of works into the public domain. Disagreements over the legal status of “orphan” or unclaimed works also precludes free use of these works by the public. Easier access to and distribution of content via the Internet has revolutionized learning, teaching, buying, and selling. Consequently, commodification of information made available electronically has resulted in greater pressure by copyright owners to control and be compensated for their content. These broad and dynamic changes undoubtedly affect how the law is interpreted by both the public and the courts. Without the balance offered by the fair use doctrine, the financial and logistical impact of copyright on society would be overwhelmingly burdensome.
The Teach Act
The TEACH Act expands the scope of educators’ rights to perform and display works and to make the copies integral to such performances and displays for digital distance education, making the rights closer to those we have in face-to-face teaching. But there is still a considerable gap between what the statute authorizes for face-to-face teaching and for distance education.
Ready to use the TEACH Act? Use this handy checklist to see
__ My institution is a nonprofit accredited educational institution or a government agency
__ It has a policy on the use of copyrighted materials
__ It provides accurate information to faculty, students and staff about copyright
__ Its systems will not interfere with technological controls within the materials I want to use
__ The materials I want to use are specifically for students in my class
__ Only those students will have access to the materials
__ The materials will be provided at my direction during the relevant lesson
__ The materials are directly related and of material assistance to my teaching content
__ My class is part of the regular offerings of my institution
__ I will include a notice that the materials are protected by copyright
__ I will use technology that reasonably limits the students’ ability to retain or further distribute the materials
__ I will make the materials available to the students only for a period of time that is relevant to the context of the class session
__ I will store the materials on a secure server and transmit them only as permitted by this law
__ I will not make copies other than the one I need to make the transmission
__ The materials are of the proper type and amount the law authorizes
Entire performances of nondramatic literary and musical works
Reasonable and limited parts of a dramatic literary, musical, or audiovisual work
Displays of other works, such as images, in amounts similar to typical displays in face-to-face teaching
__ The materials are not among those the law specifically excludes from its coverage:
Materials specifically marketed for classroom use for digital distance education
Copies I know or should know are illegal
Textbooks, coursepacks, electronic reserves and similar materials typically purchased individually by the students for independent review outside the classroom or class session
__ If I am using an analog original, I checked before digitizing it to be sure:
I copied only the amount that I am authorized to transmit
There is no digital copy of the work available except with technological protections that prevent my using it for the class in the way the statute authorizes
Read the entire law here Title 17 or read specific sections of the law, as denoted by the file tabs “Fair Use”, “TEACH Act”. “Digital Millenium Copyright Act”, etc.
Virginia State Law
Chapter 28 of Title 2.2, section 2822. Ownership and use of patents and copyrights developed by certain public employees; Creative Commons copyrights.
Sub-section D states “this section shall not apply to employees of public institutions of higher education who shall be subject to the patent and copyright policies of the institution employing them.”
The Commonwealth law governing royalty contracts between a proprietor and a performing rights society, on behalf of a copyright owner, licensing public performance of nondramatic musical or other similar works.
Public Domain Slider – This tool can assist you with in determining whether a work you want to use may be in the public domain.
Copyright Research
Card Catalog – This brochure (PDF) details how you can search copyright records at the Library of Congress. These records cover registration of works from 1790 through 1977.
Writers Artists and Their Copyright Holders (WATCH) – A database resource principally for copyright questions about literary manuscripts held in the U.S. and the U.K., maintained jointly by the University of Texas and the University of Reading
US Copyright Office Online Catalog – This online catalog allows you to search registered (or renewed) works from January 1, 1978 to the present.
Copyright Renewal Database – This database from Stanford University allows you to search copyright renewal records received by the US Copyright Office between 1950 and 1992 for Class A books published in the US between 1923 and 1963.
Copyright and Libraries
Section 108 Spinner – Use this tool to evaluate the need for reproductions made by libraries and archives for their users, for replacement or for preservation.
Despite being immensely popular—and immensely lucrative—education is grossly overrated. In The Case Against Education, Bryan Caplan argues that the primary function of education is not to enhance students’ skill but to certify their intelligence, work ethic, and conformity—in other words, to signal the qualities of a good employee. Learn why students hunt for easy As and casually forget most of what they learn after the final exam, why decades of growing access to education have not resulted in better jobs for the average worker but instead in runaway credential inflation, how employers reward workers for costly schooling they rarely if ever use, and why cutting education spending is the best remedy.
Bryan Caplan is professor of economics at George Mason University and a blogger at EconLog. He is the author of Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent Is Less Work and More Fun than You Think and The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies (Princeton). He lives in Oakton, Virginia.
