The “answers” below do NOT constitute legal advice. They are theoretical since they do not pertain to actual, specific cases in which to determine fair use or copyright compliance. They are presented here to illustrate realistic or possible scenarios with examples of considerations that could be given to those scenarios.
A. Does this in the first place meet all four of the Fair Use criteria? Not likely. Further, the “Agreement on Guidelines for Classroom Copying in Not-For-Profit Educational Institutions with respect to books and periodicals” (1976) contains this “prohibition” regarding copyrighted content: [that it…] “shall not be used to create or to replace or substitute for anthologies, compilations or collective works.” (See https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf, p. 7.)
[An exception to this would be an anthology drawn from “Open” textbooks or “Open Educational Resources” that have been disseminated under a Creative Commons or similar license. The Open Textbook Library represents one collection of accessible textbooks.]
A. This could accord with fair use and other copyright law provisions if access is limited to authenticated users of a specific course. A better recourse is to create and post to Blackboard a permanent link to the article provided by the library.
The matter is somewhat more complicated. Netflix does make available “some original educational documentaries … for one-time educational screenings.” This entails a limited number of titles that can be identified here: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/57695
The Funderburg Library, Manchester University provides an informative overview of why using Netflix and other video streaming services for instructional purposes is unwarranted: Can I show Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc. videos in my classroom?
A. In short, “no!” There is much content on the web in violation of copyright. Of course, there is also much content that is shared under Creative Commons licensing or stated for public domain. The challenge is to ascertain the copyright holder which can be quite challenging. And, fair use criteria should be invoked in such cases. At the very least, attribution should be stated to a specific web source from which content is used.
A. “Out-of-print” does not equate to “out of copyright” or in public domain. Copyright persists for a work as long as the law prescribes. See this document to get an introduction to the complexities of copyright duration: https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain. You may be able to find a copy of the out-of-print book for purchase and one channel that aggregates books for sale from many vendors is https://www.bookfinder.com.
A. Students retain copyright to their academic work. This is prescribed in Taylor’s Intellectual Property Policy (in the Faculty Handbook,16.3). The exception would be for student work as a University employee which then constitutes “work for hire.” However, the IP Policy also designates that “the University shall have royalty-free right to use any Academic Work within the University, unless otherwise agreed in writing between the creator(s) and the University.” It would, however, present a proper protocol and respect for student intellectual property to ascertain consent from students before collecting and publicly disseminating their work. If permission is not granted, it would be prudent not to include that student work in a collection made public.
A. The Fair Use framework itself constitutes guidelines that require judgement on a case-by-case basis. You must identify and consider the facts of the case. Obviously, some judgements can be made more readily than others. To render a full consideration of fair use one should apply all four criteria since these are the criteria that could be considered in any judicial proceeding. It has been said that the first and fourth criteria carry more weight. Better be safe than sorry. Assess the case on the basis of all four criteria and document your assessment. The Fair Use Evaluator (American Library Association) is one tool that provides guidance for assessing and documenting a case.
A. Leaving aside the factors of personal integrity and alignment with the Life Together Covenant, this would appear to be a flagrant violation of copyright, beyond justification through fair use. You could incur financial liability should a copyright holder(s) seek legal recourse to your willful misuse of their copyrighted content. (Copyright law designates “Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits” -- 17 U.S. Code § 504 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504.) In short, make prudent decisions that should avoid having to be concerned about such “remedies.” Also, ask the University Librarian about eBook alternatives, including “Open Textbooks.”
A. “When in doubt, don’t.” That’s probably an overstatement. Perhaps it should read when in “strong” or “heavy” doubt don’t use copyrighted material. Consider other recourse. Consult the University Librarian who can explore licensing possibilities. Consider alternative resources. Consider the quantity to be used and the context (e.g., face-to-face instruction).
A. A good place to begin searching for images is the Creative Commons search engine: CC Search. This provides a tool for searching images on multiple search engines and sites simultaneously. Note also that Youtube has a “filter” tool for limiting a search to “CC” (Creative Commons) licensed resources. Attribution should always be expressed for an image, video, or other copyrighted content.
A. Whether you own a copy of the original, download it via purchase, or borrow it from a library, this sounds like copyright infringement. A copy of a brief excerpt of a score or recording for analysis might be justified under fair use but do consider all four factors. For recorded music, be sure to explore the Naxos Music Library available through the Zondervan Library. A composition reproduced from a published score or recording that is in public domain most likely can be reproduced.