Listen to the speaker instead
It happened again last week at the New York State Family History Conference.
The rules of the conference were crystal clear: no photographing the slides without the express consent of the speaker (note: and this post intends no criticism at all of the conference or its organizers). The speaker in this particular lecture had made his own rules clear: one or two photos for social media were fine, but nothing more.
He’d even gone so far as to put up a slide saying no photographing the slides.
And yet, as The Legal Genealogist could see from a perch in the back of the room, there was that attendee, happily raising his cellphone and taking photos of the slides.
Every single slide.
Not one.
Not two.
Every. Single. Slide.
Folks, I’ve said this before1 but let me repeat it in no uncertain terms:
This is Not Okay.
It’s not okay to use your cellphone or your tablet to record every word a genealogical speaker says in a lecture.
It’s not okay to take pictures of every slide (or even any of the slides without express permission).
And it’s not okay to take the handout prepared for the lecture and reproduce it to share it with others.
What the lecturer has — with respect to the lecture itself, the slides used to illustrate the lecture on the screen, and the handout — is a copyright.
And when that conference attendee photographed or copy the lecturer’s work, what he did isn’t okay — it’s a copyright violation.
Copyright under United States law exists the minute the lecturer prepares that lecture: the text, the slides, the handout are all covered the instant they exist in some tangible form.2
It’s not necessary for the lecturer to register the copyright in the U.S. Copyright Office.3
It’s not necessary for the lecturer to make an announcement that the lecture is copyright-protected or to include a copyright statement (or that little © symbol) on the slides or on the handout.4
All that’s necessary is that the work be the original work of the person creating it and that it be in some tangible form — which includes even a digital file that exists nowhere except on the lecturer’s computer hard drive.5
And once it exists in that format, the lecturer owns the copyright for the lecturer’s lifetime — and the lecturer’s estate or heirs own it for another 70 years after the lecturer’s death.6
That original work of the lecturer is the lecturer’s intellectual property. It’s no different from any other type of copyrighted material. It’s hard work to produce a good lecture — it takes many hours of research and many more hours of fighting with the programs we use to produce the presentation — and it gets the same protection as a book or a movie or any other creative endeavor.
If that conference goer sat in a movie theater and taped the movie, and then shared it with his friends, the studio that produced the movie could — and would — sue him for at least the statutory damages provided for in the law: up to $150,000 for a single violation if a court were to find that the violation was willful and up to $30,000 otherwise.7
He faces exactly the same penalty if he sits in a lecture and tapes it or photographs it or copies the handout and share that with his friends. And keep in mind that the societies that put together conferences and publish the syllabus materials in book or booklet form or as a downloadable PDF file have a compilation copyright in the entire book/booklet or file.8
The same goes for a webinar or other presentation that’s videotaped or audiotaped: it’s all under copyright. And just as buying the book doesn’t give us the right to copy it and give copies to our friends, buying a lecture tape (audio or video) doesn’t give us the right to copy that and share it with our friends either.
It’s not just that it’s legally wrong; it’s ethically wrong too. The ethical standards of our field are clear about this point as well.9
So no, folks, actually, it’s not okay to simply take a lecturer’s work. If you want to copy any part of a lecture, or the lecturer’s handout, ask for permission. And if the lecturer is kind enough to grant permission, stay within the scope of the permission granted (as an example, if the lecturer says it’s okay to use one photo, it means one photo).
Getting permission, and staying within the terms of what the lecturer permits, is the right thing — and the legal thing — to do.
Put the cellphone down.
Listen to the speaker instead.
SOURCES
- See Judy G. Russell, “Copyright and the genealogy lecture,” The Legal Genealogist, posted 18 Feb 2015 (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : accessed 18 Sep 2018). ↩
- U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics, PDF version at 1 (https://www.copyright.gov : accessed 18 Sep 2018) (“Copyright is a form of protection provided by U.S. law to authors of ‘original works of authorship’ from the time the works are created in a fixed form. Copyright protection in the United States exists automatically from the moment the original work of authorship is fixed”). ↩
- Ibid. at 4 (“registering a work is not mandatory, for
works of U.S. origin”). ↩ - Ibid. (“Applying a copyright notice to a work has not been required since March 1, 1989”). ↩
- See 17 U.S.C. § 101 (“Definitions: fixed”). ↩
- U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 1: Copyright Basics PDF version at 4 (“the term of copyright is the life of the author plus seventy years after the author’s death”). ↩
- See 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) (“Statutory damages”). ↩
- See U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 14: Copyright in Derivative Works and Compilations, PDF version at 1 (https://www.copyright.gov : accessed 18 Sep 2018). ↩
- See e.g. Board for Certification of Genealogists, Genealogist’s Code of Ethics (http://bcgcertification.org/ : accessed 18 Sep 2018) (“I will not reproduce for public dissemination, in an oral or written fashion, the work of another genealogist, writer, or lecturer without that person’s written consent”). ↩
What if the guy taking a photo of every single slide was using it strictly for his own notes and later study. He never showed it to another person. Would that be a violation of the author’s copyright, or simply fair use?
Also, what if he used the information in those slides, quoting from them and giving proper attribution, as a small part of a longer work that he authored which was essentially his own. Perhaps, even offering a critique of the other author’s work. Would that be fair use? Thanks for your answers to these questions.
The Copyright Act gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to make or authorize copies. When the speaker said “no photos,” any copying was wrong. Moreover, it’s incredibly rude to everyone else around — I want to see and hear the speaker, not the dude’s hand and cellphone going up coming down going up coming down. And while using a very small part of the information might be fair use (and offering a critique is an appropriate use), it’s really better to do our own research, period.
About your second question, people who want to use my work in their work with proper attribution are not the people who photograph all the slides in a live lecture. Instead, they approach me separately, tell me what they are doing, and ask if I’d be willing to provide certain material for their use. They defer to my copyright.
“I’m writing a review of your lecture for my blog. There were a couple slides I wanted to speak about in more depth, but I don’t feel that my notes are complete. Would you mind providing those slides for reference purposes so that I can make sure what I’m writing is accurate?”
Absolutely. And if an attendee has a hearing or other issue that needs accommodation, as long as he or she asks in advance, I’m always good with that too. But the “stick a hand up and photograph every slide” guy really got my goat. I wasn’t close enough to intervene without interrupting the presentation, but boy! was I ever angry on behalf of the presenter.
Crazy thought: Politely ask the presenter if a printed or electronic copy is available for your own, private, use, rather than sniping photos of the entire presentation.
Ms. Russell has also correctly admonished the behavior from a moral standpoint. While we can argue the legality of the act and what, if any, damages would be awarded, it is the moral hurdle we as a community should focus on crossing. It is up to the rest of the attendees to call out clear violations of rules set by the conferences and presenters for theft of intellectual property. See something? Say something.
But let me repeat and emphasize the key word: THEFT.
In my opinion, this is no different than going through the vendor hall and taking items off the tables, arguing that it’s only for your own, personal, use. We shouldn’t openly tolerate the theft of any property no matter what its format.
Two thumbs up for this comment!
I agree that it’s rude, and I would never do that, but I was wondering about the law, and I appreciate your answers. I know if I buy a book or check it out of the library, I can quote small portions of it in my own work, if my piece is essentially a new work. It sounds like for some reason there is more protection for works in electronic form than works in printed form if an author can prevent even the copying of slides for personal use and/or later critique.
Critique is a protected use under the copyright law. But for anything else, remember that a lecture is a one-of-a-kind item, and attendees are essentially contracting with the society and lecturer for access. If the rules say no photographs, then that’s that. If I write a book, I can sell it to you under the condition that you not reproduce any part of it. If you access records at a repository or a website, the owner of the records can say you can’t make a copy except under specific terms and conditions.
There seems to be this disconnect in the minds of others where “please do not” and “no” applies to everyone else, but not them, because they know themselves. Perhaps its time to make conference attendees to start saying a pledge, or swear an oath. No means NO. Simple, easy, right? One would think.
Wonder if he came to your copyright lecture at the end of the day? Probably not…
🙂
You mentioned hard of hearing in passing. Now that I’m in my 90’s, I have become deaf. A pair of hearing aids give me some help (and I have a self-learned ability to lip-read to some extent), but lectures just get more and more confusing. What would be ideal for people in my condition would be a complete recording which could be played, rewound and replayed until the concepts are understood.
I don’t think there is a way to accomplish this. I wouldn’t wish to disturb other attendees, and I certainly don’t wish to hijack another’s work.
I don’t even know how to approach a lecturer for such a blanket permission (assuming I found a non-interruptive method to cater to my needs.
For example: You have a clear speaking voice and a good delivery pace, BUT when you were at the MosGA conference, I missed about a third of the content of your each of your lectures, because the broadcast failed me.
Just a couple of suggestions: One attendee at recent lectures has a device that connects to her hearing aids. I wear it around my neck and it broadcasts to her. Alternatively, I wouldn’t have an issue with someone who brought an audio recorder to the podium while I’m getting set up to ask that it be left on to record because of a hearing issue. And anyone who truly needs accommodations should always talk to the speaker in advance. Most speakers I know will work with you.
Perhaps a polite letter should go out to a few of the organizations who put genealogy conferences together, asking them to comsider what can be done accomodate the special needs of attendees who are hearing impaired when planning their next conference. Given the average age of the audience for genealogy lectures skews higher than for the average pop concert, there are probably a lot of people who would appreciate it. Maybe, a system of reserved seating in the front of the room, or near the speakers, for those who have difficulty seeing or hearing. I’m sure most of us who don’t have to deal with the problems of aging eyes and ears would gladly give up a seat in the front row to someone who needed to be closer to the podium (or for the visually impaired, the screen. Acoustics should also be among the factors considered in the site selection process. Some sites just have lousy acoustics no matter who is listening or how high the speaker volume is set. (I’ve been to lectures where every word being spoken in the room next door is more clearly sudible through the walls, than the words of the speaker I came to see.)
So, in doing our estate planning, I asked for a statement regarding copyright on my photographs, books, and other materials being passed to a particular individual (let’s avoid the orphan situation), and the lawyer didn’t understand my request and thus did not include anything. Any suggestions for getting through to her?
Don’t sign the will and don’t pay the lawyer until the clause is inserted to your satisfaction. The lawyer works for you, not the other way around!! 🙂
Forget about copyright. The guy photographing each and every slide is not listening to the presentation. When he gets home and looks at his images they will be useless to him because he won’t have heard anything the speaker said. There will be no way to put the slides into proper context. Taking notes would be more effective than taking pictures.
Hence, the title of the post… and the concluding line.
Shouldn’t the room monitor at the conference have stepped in and stopped this?
Not every conference has a room monitor. And, seriously, what part of “no photographs” did this dude not understand?
I believe that if the speaker has expressly stated that no photos are to be allowed, they should also say at the beginning that anyone violating this will be escorted out. Period, end of story. If there are no consequences, there will be no change of behavior. How about – if you photograph without permission, your phone will be confiscated until the end of the presentation? (Or taken by the person sitting next to you and thrown across the room).
We’re surely going to have to say more than we do… but it infuriates me that we have to treat adults as we would bratty children.
Amen!!
So glad to see you reminding people (agaIn) about this issue.
As a speaker we advise them to keep cellphones off, not to record or photograph.
BUT – what should we do once we find someone has taped us, copied our slides?
What’s a speaker to do if s/he notices an attendee recording their talk?
I know that people would appreciate any suggestions that you may have on how to best handle this issue, should it arise.
I don’t hesitate — when I see a serious offender — to stop the presentation to “remind everyone” of the rules. I have been known to do that more than once if need be. If I discovered it after the fact, my response would depend on whether the recording-photos were being used for anything more than personal use. If so, I would act to protect my intellectual property rights. I work too hard and spend too much time creating and updating presentations to have their value destroyed by thieves.
I think check the phones at the door or no entry would be very fair. There are places that do that already, why not a geological conference?
It would be fair but it’s really silly that we have to even consider it. Why can’t we expect attendees to be reasonable/responsible adults? (Don’t answer that — it’s a rhetorical question… 🙂 )
genealogical conference! Spell check can be so stupid.
Copyright aside, it’s annoying to the person sitting behind you to be putting a cellphone directly in her field of vision every 15 seconds. Unfortunately, I know this from experience.
Absolutely. It was annoying to me and I was many rows behind this dude.
Having sat behind someone who was taking photos of every slide I can say that it is extremely annoying and distracting. We as audience members should say something to the offender. I attended one lecture where the speaker paused and ask that the picture taking stop.
I couldn’t agree more that — beyond the speaker’s intellectual property rights — this interferes hugely with the rights of other attendees.
Unfortunately, the dude who did this will not (1) read this blog or (2) think the rules do not apply to him. Perhaps it’s time to institute a policy of instant removal from a lecture of any person violating the rules. Adult timeout, maybe?
Pass the dunce cap? 🙂
Correction: He will not think the rules *do* apply to him. I apologize for the double negative.
Correction: He will not think the rules do apply to him. Brain freeze.
Thank you Judy. From all presenters. You are completely right in stating that copying presentations (including slides or printed material) without express (preferably written) permission. Attendees (all adults I am sure) at conferences or other meeting will surely know and understand this by now. Unauthorized reproduction of someone else’s work in any form is strictly off-base.
I totally agree. I felt that the speakers at NYSFHC were so generous to allow one or two (and in one case, much more!) photos. And yet at my last session was a cell-phone-in-the-air-at-every-slide person way up in front. Grrrr…
So what am I to do in the situation that you describe? I am neither the speaker nor the culprit. Instead, I am the witness, and presumably the speaker is unaware that the crime is being committed. I presume that I have no legal obligation to report the crime, but since you have educated me about the law, I now have a BIG ethical dilemma. Do I knowingly allow the crime to continue and perhaps allow the culprit to slip away without being caught? Or do I stand up, interrupt the speaker, point, and shout “J’accuse!” (Well maybe that is a bit too dramatic.) If this situation happens the next time I am attending one of your lectures, what would you want me to do? And even though you may advise me to act one way, how am I to know if your colleague would want me to make the same choice? Now that we can’t claim ignorance of the law, we need your help with the proper means of enforcing it. Perhaps those of you with the CGL designation could reach a consensus and come up with a Standard so the rest of us won’t spend the rest of the lecture fretting about “What should I do?” Also, since it is within the realm of possibility (no matter how improbable) that a speaker had granted permission for the purported offence, how are the rest of us to know? Should the speaker make a public statement to put the rest of us at ease when we observe the behavior? So many ethical questions! 😉
I understand your dilemma, since I didn’t see a way myself to intervene without disrupting the lecture. I do think if we’re seated close to the culprit, leaning over with a whispered “the speaker said no photos” would be appropriate. The attendee could then whisper back “I have special permission” if that’s the case. Realistically, NO speaker should allow one attendee (or several) to disrupt the experience for others. If we’re going to allow access to presentation slides, it can be done separately, by PDF or other file, on a one-to-one basis without everyone else dealing with the hand-up-hand-down-hand-up-hand-down of the cellphone photographer.
I actually did tell someone at the conference that she was supposed to only take one photo for social media purposes – she got up and moved away from me and continued to take photos! (I was in Salon 1 and there was room to move)
Sigh… 🙁
Thank you for addressing this. I was there and was bothered by it too. I am happy you brought it up.
Kudos to the organizers for doing as much as they could to eliminate the problem. I hope that becomes the norm for all conferences.
If I were the room monitor and knew there was a “no photos” policy I would have NO PROBLEM gently reminding the offender to knock it off.
That’s the expectation where there is a room monitor — but most society meetings and many conferences don’t have one.
Well said!