From: Ann Okerson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 12:12:34 -0400 Courtesy of Gary Price, INFOdocket.com: 1. SAGE and Oxford U. Press (Identical Statement Released by Both Companies) From the Statement: "We are pleased that the District Court ruling recognized that Georgia State University's flawed 2009 copyright policy resulted in infringement of our works. We will work on an injunction that will reduce the chances that GSU will infringe works posted to its eReserve system in the future. We are also pleased that the Court rejected the idea that public universities can shield themselves from allegations of copyright infringement, thus ensuring that respect for copyright is required of both public and private universities and colleges. This case focused on GSU's takings from books used in graduate or upper-level undergraduate courses. The court did not consider the pattern and practice of GSU's infringement. Despite our disagreement with aspects of the decision, it marks a significant first step toward addressing the need for clarity around issues of copyright in the context of higher education. We appreciate the court's acknowledgement that current practices around fair use vary widely and can use some practical guidelines. No monetary damages have been sought in the case by the publishers; our aim is to establish such practical guidelines. The decision was based on issues that arose in an interim environment, when publishers were still transitioning their materials online so as to ensure availability in multiple digital formats. As more and more of this material becomes digitally available, complying with existing copyright laws will become even easier than it is today. Full Text http://www.sagepub.com/press/2012/may/SAGE_InRegardsGeorgiaStateCopyrightDecision.sp http://global.oup.com/news-items/current/OUP_GSU?cc=us 2. AAP "At the same time, we are disappointed with aspects of the Court's decision. Most importantly, the Court failed to examine the copying activities at GSU in their full context. Many faculty members have provided students with electronic anthologies of copyrighted course materials which are not different in kind from copyrighted print materials. In addition, the Court's analysis of fair use principles was legally incorrect in some places and its application of those principles mistaken. As a result, instances of infringing activity were incorrectly held to constitute fair use. Publishers recognize that certain academic uses of copyrighted materials are fair use that should not require permission but we believe the Court misapplied that doctrine in certain situations" Full Text http://publishers.org/press/66/