Teacher shows young children "The Passion" in school

[netscape_6]

Miller IANACL but I think reproduction of part of a copyrighted work for educational uses can fall under fairuse even if the copier never bought a copy. To be honest since fairuse exists mostly in legal precedent, if it went to court it would all be up to the courts with some weight shifted through precedent toward fairuse. Assuming it was for education of course, which I said before I doubt. Just some FYI on fairuse.

The issue of showing an R rated movie to 11 to 13 year olds is way more troubling. I know when I have kids I don’t want them watching an R rated movie unless I’m either there or have seen the movie and decided it’s accaptable for them to watch. It’s called being a responsable parant. This guy short ciurcuted those kid’s parant’s right to govern what is these people’s kids see. Not only that he seems to forcing religion on these kids. Some of my religous beliefs might border on fundie, however I see little good from forcing religion on people.

I think the faulty headlight analogy stills applies.

[netscape_6]

You people made me both use legalese and talk about being responsable. I feel so dirty.

I HOPE YOUR HAPPY!!! :mad:

[Club_33]

@netscape 6

Miller IANACL but I think reproduction of part of a copyrighted work for educational uses can fall under fairuse even if the copier never bought a copy.

I’m sorry but this makes no sense. If you legally obtain a copyrighted work, there are things you can do with it that are considered fair use (make a copy of it fora backup, for example) and things you cannot (showing it at your house and charging admission).

The problem is, he is not in posession of a legally obtained copy. In fact, there is no way that he could own a legally obtained copy. It has only been distributed to theaters. Therefore, no matter how he chooses to use said copy, it is illegal for him to posses it in the first place. I cannot see any way that “fair use” would apply.

[Silver_Serpentine]

1: When I was in HIGH SCHOOL, my teachers weren’t allowed to show anything over PG-13. Which means we got to watch a lot of History Channel and A&E. I graduated in 2001.

2: To me, rated R means that Those Who Decide Ratings have decided that no one under 17 can see it without a parent in a theater. So, when I think of R-rated movies, I think of Scary Movie, House of 1,000 Corpses, Resident Evil, 28 Days Later, etc. The Ring was PG-13. Most things rated R even I wouldn’t want anyone under, say, 15 or 16 to see (I say 15 because that’s how old my sister is, and she can handle R movies).

So, if this movie isn’t sutable for a 16 y/o by him/herself in a theater, what made this teacher think it was okay to show a classroom of 12 year olds?

These sixth grade kids were shown a movie in school that a) I couldn’t watch until I was a HS SENIOR, and b) never would’ve been allowed to be shown in my HIGH SCHOOL. Middle school, high school. Big dif’ernce.

3: I can handle some pretty fucked up movies (this being the pit, the naughty F-Word needed to be used), and I’m still hesitant to see Passion. From what I hear, it’s a pretty brutal movie. I own House of 1,000 Corpses, and I’m hesitant to see Passion. Sooo . . . yeah.

Appropriate for a 12 year old? Let the parents decide. It’s not a decision for a teacher.

4: I hear it’s damn inaccurate, historically, so it’s a kind of lame excuse to say that it was used for history. Why couldn’t he use any of the 80 billion other historical dramas out there that don’t involve some guy being nailed to a cross?

[netscape_6]

@Club 33

I’m sorry but this makes no sense. If you legally obtain a copyrighted work, there are things you can do with it that are considered fair use (make a copy of it fora backup, for example) and things you cannot (showing it at your house and charging admission).

The problem is, he is not in posession of a legally obtained copy. In fact, there is no way that he could own a legally obtained copy. It has only been distributed to theaters. Therefore, no matter how he chooses to use said copy, it is illegal for him to posses it in the first place. I cannot see any way that “fair use” would apply.

I don’t think the means by which he obtained the copy come into play in this case.

@University of Texas

http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/fair_use.htm#fn10

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. [/]b

Bolding mine. Given that he did not show the whole movie I would say If anything he only increased the market value. Students who would have seen the movie will likely still see to see the whole thing. He might have even gotten some students interested in seeing it who were not planning on seeing it. I think he only increased the amount that will be made on the movie.

[netscape_6]

dang it. number 4 is supposed to be bold. Just imagen it bold, and maybe if were lucky a mod could turn a fantasy to reality. Pretty pretty please MS./MR. Mod:)

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;

This item seems to also be quite relevant.

He showed the kids about 75% of the movie. That is way beyond the amount of “fair use”! I have usually heard maximums of 2% - 5% being considered fair use. Never over 50%. He was way beyond that.

[Club_33]

Well, IANAL either, but from what I have gathered from a number of educational websites:

A) The movie or video used must be obtained legally

and

B) No more than 3 minutes, or 10% of the film, whichever is less, may be used.

in order for it to be considered “fair use”.

Here are some guidlines given to teachers at the community college level. Granted, they are only guidelines. Due to the fact that I have seen the same wording on at least 20 webpages that I just viewed, I would maintain that they are most likely accurate.

Here is an example of one

Make sure that you legally obtain the copy. Even it’s used for educational purposes; a bootleg copy of a video is still illegal.

[netscape_6]

Those are some legal suggestions, similer in nature to SDMB policey of not allowing discusion of file sharing clients. Even though file talking about file sharing clients is not illegal. It’s when people start talking about what they might use thier file sharing client for that it becomes a liability. By banning file sharing client discussions I’m sure the SDMB feels they’re nipping that potential for liability before it becomes more then just potential. Same goes for the 10% or 3 minutes which ever is less advice. It’s just advice. Depending on the case and the judge it could be possible to have much more then 3 minutes or 10% and be not be successfully sued, or be successfully sued for using less then eiter 10% or 3 minutes. Fair use is only written in legal precedent not in law.
However 75% does sound pretty excesive. I concede given the data in the thread the daytime stop light runner did indeed have a broken headlight.

[InkBlot]

On the subject of the copy’s legality:

Everyone seems to be working on the assumption the copy is (A) A full copy and (B) Illegally produced. The article is unhelpful, saying only “School officials also said they are looking into how Anthony obtained a copy of the film, which has not been released on video.”

I did want to relate this: when I was but a wee lad in High School, Gibson stared in his not-so-terribly-fameous-these-days version of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. At that time, a video was produced and sent to educators of various stripes with large excerpts from the film, commentary from Mel, historical notes on Shakespeare, etc., etc. Just shy of being the full film, the excerpts were pretty extensive, and this hit our school about a week before the movie was out in theaters.

I would not find it unthinkable a similar video might be produced for the Passion, and sent to various religious leaders who request it. It’d serve both Gibson’s evagelical nature, and be excellent promotional material for the film. “To see what happens next, visit your local theater…”

And before anyone makes a snide comment on the last line, yes, we all know Vader is Luke’s father.

Just a supposition
InkBlot
:eek:

[Miller]

InkBlot: I remember Gibson doing that: HBO had a half-hour, maybe an hour long special where Gibson went to one of the schools he had sent a tape to, and workshopped the play with the students. Pretty interesting, really, as I recall. Thing is, sending out those tapes was a very high profile publicity stunt. Considering all the controversy around The Passion, I find it hard to believe that word of Mel sending his new movie to churches before it opens in theaters, or at least goes on sale to the general public, wouldn’t have made headlines in and of itself. I can’t believe that no one would have heard about such a plan until a tape showed up in this guy’s classroom, or that the source of the tape would have still been unknown when the story went to press.

[Qburn]

‘The Making of the Passion of the Christ’ aired on PAX TV the week of February 24th. If I remember correctly(I watched a good portion of it), the running time of the show was at least an hour, but maybe more.

While it hasn’t been determined what exactly the teacher showed or it’s source, this could be one possible source. It could have been legally obtained, I buy shows from PBS occasionally. And since it aired on PAX, the teacher may have believed it was OK for ‘family viewing’.

On another point, my SO is a 5th grade teacher and will only show videos with a ‘G’ rating. Although a significant number of parents are OK watching PG-13 and R rated films with their children, there are many parents who will only let their children see G rated films at this age.