# data[].attributes.body
Research shows journalists can restore media trust

Written by Louisiana State University
copyright:Public Domain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research shows journalists can restore media trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a first-of-its-kind study from LSU's Manship School of Mass Communication, researchers discovered journalists can increase media trust by speaking out in defense of their profession, while also doing more fact checking. ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Public Domain  Journalism images if have a shutterstock account

# data[].attributes.subject
Public Domain  Journalism images if have a shutterstock account

# data[].attributes.body
Public Domain Pictures.net created by Bobek Ltd. Copyright 2007 - 2019 by Bobek Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 5951382

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Journalism Images - Public Domain Pictures - Page 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Journalism Images. Royalty free stock photos. All pictures are free for commercial and personal use.

# data[].attributes.headline
A New Contract for the Press: Copyright, Public Domain Journalism, and Self-Governance in a Digital AgeMike Ananny  & Daniel Kreiss 

# data[].attributes.subject
A New Contract for the Press: Copyright, Public Domain Journalism, and Self-Governance in a Digital AgeMike Ananny  & Daniel Kreiss 

# data[].attributes.body
Copyright © 2018 Informa UK Limited

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many scholars argue that digital technologies are creating unprecedented opportunities for democratic expression, but fear that the networked public sphere is threatened by overly broad intellectual property rights. Focusing on journalism, we argue that this literature too narrowly emphasizes legal and technical restrictions on the fair use of cultural goods, and that more attention needs to be paid to whether expression in public spheres is inclusive, diverse, and of sufficient quality to meet the needs of democratic publics. Drawing on the underlying principle of copyright-as a public subsidy to promote and protect access to social expression-and positive interpretations of the First Amendment, we propose a two-tiered, content-neutral, opt-in system of state-funded incentives for journalism. Our first tier reverses the mechanism of copyright and subsidizes journalistic content produced for the public domain. Drawing on the "public journalism" tradition, we define a second tier of state-support for journalistic producers engaging in practices-transparency, accountability, dialogue, reliability, and collaboration- that can increase the quality of content. We conclude by suggesting a preliminary institutional model for administering these state incentives.

Additional information

Author information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A New Contract for the Press: Copyright, Public Domain Journalism, and Self-Governance in a Digital Age

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many scholars argue that digital technologies are creating unprecedented opportunities for democratic expression, but fear that the networked public sphere is threatened by overly broad intellectual property rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Extra

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether you need an image for your blog post, a soundtrack to your video or that YouTube clip for your documentary, if you're dealing with multimedia it's likely you'll end up using - or wanting to use - someone else's work as part of your own.

Here are some basic tips on finding and using multimedia across the web in a way that won't (hopefully) land you in hot water.

The public domain myth

One of the mistakes that has repeatedly landed journalists and their employers in trouble is confusion over the term " public domain ".

Public domain has two possible meanings. In copyright terms, public domain refers to work whose copyright has expired, meaning that anyone can use it without having to ask the copyright holder. Disney - a fierce lobbyist itself for extending copyright - has used 'public domain' material as the basis for most of its cartoons, from the work of the Grimm Brothers to a host of other fairy tales, myths and legends.

But sometimes you will hear journalists talk about something being " in the public domain", in other words 'public'. For instance, when the Irish Daily Mail published photos of an air traffic controller from her website, they defended the decision on the grounds that the image was "in the public domain".

But this is not the same.

For example, pretty much every piece of media, almost by definition, is "in the public domain". Newspapers and magazines sit on the newsstands; television and radio reports are broadcast on huge city centre screens and speakers.

But if you take that content and reproduce it in its entirety without permission, you are breaking copyright law.

The $7,500 copyright scam

If you need any persuading about this, read this post about a copyright scam whereby images are pushed to the top of Google Images search results pages, and then bloggers sued for using them without permission.

It seems odd that media organisations so used to protecting their own, very public, content, should think that another person's photo, or video, or report, should be fair game because it is "in the public domain". But they do.

If you want public domain (in the sense of 'copyright expired') content, there are some useful sources. The Public Domain Review, for example, publishes a range of public domain work and has this guide to finding them. And Angela Grant writes here about finding public domain video, among other things (note that Angela refers to US law, not that of other countries).

But never assume something is public domain because it is "in public".

One point to make: while an image, story, or composition may be out of copyright, its performance, re-design or re-telling may not.

Just ask Disney.

Creative Commons - making UGC copyright explicit

If you're dealing with content that's been published on a platform like Flickr or YouTube, you may be able to find out the copyright status of that content relatively easily.

Both allow users to easily establish copyright through the Creative Commons licence. You can either look for that licence in the relevant part of the page hosting the content.

On YouTube it is under the video:

On Flickr this is on the right hand side under License:

Make sure you click on that licence to find out what terms it requires.

Creative Commons, for example, has a number of elements:

Whether the material can be used only in noncommercial contexts, or for commercial use as well

Whether the material can be adapted and changed, or must be left unchanged

Whether you must use the same CC licence if you use this material (e.g. you cannot use a noncommercial licence but then allow your work to be used commercially)

Whether you must attribute the work (this is where many people breach the licence)

If you're unsure of where your work fits against those criteria (for example, whether it's considered as "commercial"), then approach the copyright holder for clarity. Remember that the CC licence is only a default position, and can be negotiated. Also, if you cannot get any response and decide to publish anyway, your attempts to contact the copyright holder will be important if there are any legal proceedings.

If you want others to publish their content under a CC licence, it helps if you publish at least some of your own work under a CC licence too. Indeed, if it contains other CC material, their licences may require you to.

Flickr and YouTube aren't the only sites that use Creative Commons licences, of course. To search for media under a CC licence (including on those sites), use the search facility on the Creative Commons site and select the engine you want to search through.

If you're running a hyperlocal site, or any site that needs images of places, check out Geograph, which hosts Creative Commons-licensed images of locations around the UK.

There are also specialist sites for sharing music under CC, such as Freesound.

Even if the media you are interested in using does not use a CC licence, of course, you can still approach the copyright holder for permission to use it.

Attribution does not cover you for copyright

Another mistake that some people make is to believe that simply linking to the source, or naming the photographer/source, is enough to avoid copyright issues.

This is only the case if the licence for the material says so.

Copyright has two elements: moral rights, and economic rights.

The moral right is the right to be identified as the author of a piece of work. This is the attribution which is in pretty much every copyright licence, Creative Commons or otherwise.

But it's not the right that most people sue over.

The economic right is the right to right to "allow or prevent the copying of their work or the performance of their work in public" ( IPO). This translates into the ability to earn money from a piece of work. And this is what people largely sue over.

Attributing a photo only covers the moral right. It does not mean you won't be sued.

If, then, you have used an image, video or audio without the permission of the rights holder (granted through a Creative Commons licence or directly to you through correspondence) then you are still probably breaking copyright law.

Embedding versus re-broadcasting

If the media is hosted on a platform like YouTube, you may be able to embed it on a webpage without seeking permission at all: if the creator* has enabled embedding then they would have little argument in suing for breach of copyright because:

By enabling embedding they have given an 'implied' right; and

They could stop you publishing it instantly by disabling embedding.

Also, your embedding of their media would not lead to any loss of revenue (as advertising can be embedded too), so it is unlikely that there would be any damages to sue for.

*note: this does not apply to video created by other people and uploaded by someone other than the copyright holder.
UPDATE: Interestingly on this note, in March 2014 Getty Images made it possible to embed 35 million of its images for non-commercial use:

"In essence, anyone will be able to visit Getty Images' library of content, select an image and copy an embed HTML code to use that image on their own websites. Getty Images will serve the image in a embedded player - very much like YouTube currently does with its videos - which will include the full copyright information and a link back to the image's dedicated licensing page on the Getty Images website."

Reality bites

Of course, it's one thing to talk about the strict legal position, and another to talk about what actually happens. Journalists regularly publish content that breaks the law - but make a judgement about the likelihood of ending up in court over that. For example, I can say that the Queen is corrupt (a defamatory statement) and be almost certain that the Queen is not going to sue me (because she has a history of not doing so).

Media lawyers are not just there to advise publishers on their strict legal position, but on the balance of risk involved, and how to reduce those risks. While you cannot always avoid risks, you can avoid them in simple ways:

Always try to establish the copyright situation regarding any media you use: who holds the copyright (there may be more than one copyright owner: for example, performer and composer), and what are the terms of the licence?

Try to contact the copyright holder if you're in any doubt - even if you can't contact them your efforts to do so will help you if you do end up in court.

Always attribute authorship and link to the source (this can be done in title credits, captions and/or links on the host webpage). Copyright claims normally revolve around loss of earnings: anything that may have contributed to that (i.e. not linking to the source) will likely add to damages.

Minimal cost and royalty free

'Royalty free' is a vague term which is often confused with, simply, 'free'. It most often refers to media which is paid for once and can then be used multiple times in different contexts.

For example, you might pay for a CD of 'royalty free' music or sound effects which can be used across multiple video projects - saving you the hassle of acquiring permissions every time for different music.

Or you might buy a CD of royalty free images (clip art, for example) that you can use across various design projects.

If you're studying in a school of media, or working in a large media organisation, they will probably have some royalty free media for students or employees to use - so ask around to find out what's available.

But don't use it for the sake of it: the quality can vary. In addition, many other media projects may have relied on the same libraries, so you can lose distinctiveness.

You should also be aware that the licences of even so-called 'royalty free' material can be restrictive: the Wikipedia entry on royalty free music notes that "the royalty-free music license at SmartSound states "You must obtain a "mechanical" license for replication of quantities in excess of 10,000 units." ( Read the licence here)

Thankfully for those who want more diversity, the internet has made new types of royalty free media - and new pricing - possible, as a wider range of photographers and other media creators can now sell their work through online marketplaces.

Pond5 has sound effects, photos, video, illustrations, music and even After Effects projects from $2 up - as well as occasional free material. iStockphoto covers most of those, and adds Flash files too - again at often very cheap prices. Quality, however, does cost more.

Stock.XCHNG deserves special mention, boasting that it is the world's "leading free stock photo site" and hosting thousands of royalty free images. Even if the image is 'free', however, it's only free under the terms of the licence - so always check them.

You can find many more sources by searching for articles like this on the 'best places to get free images'.

On the audio front, there are sites like Audiosocket, which allow you to browse and licence independent music for your film (if you use Vimeo you can also add this through their music store).

If you know of other sources or issues to consider in finding material for multimedia, I'd love to know.

UPDATE: Here's a useful flow chart on copyright via Mau Gris - although note that this is based on US law, which is more forgiving on images used for satirical purposes.
For more on these issues, and for related tools and links, see my bookmarks at http://delicious.com/paulb/creativecommons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether you need an image for your blog post, a soundtrack to your video or that YouTube clip for your documentary, if you're dealing with multimedia it's likely you'll end up using - or wanting to use - someone else's work as part of your own.

# data[].attributes.body
Set of Principles in Fair Use for Journalism
Document Coordinated by:Peter Jaszi,
Professor of Law, American University Washington College of LawPat Aufderheide, Co-Director, Center for Media & Social Impact, American University
COPYRIGHT 2019 CMSI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
June 2013
Coordinated by:

Peter Jaszi,
Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law

Pat Aufderheide,
Co-Director, Center for Media & Social Impact, American University

With funding from:
The Robert R. McCormick Foundation

Journalists have created a set of principles that allows them to stop censoring their journalistic choices, especially in emerging digital environments. This Set of Principles reduces risk of copyright infringement by clarifying professional community standards. It identifies seven situations in which journalists routinely employ fair use, and what its limitations are: Incidental capture; proof; use in cultural journalism; illustration; historical reference; to foster public discussion and advancing the story.

This Set of Principles was created by journalists convened by chapters of the Society of Professional Journalists and in some cases the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. In 10 cities nationwide, they conducted 17 meetings, facilitated by Profs. Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi of American University. Endorsers include the Poynter Institute, New America Media, and others.

Introduction

What This Is

This document is a statement of principles to help journalists in the United States interpret the copyright doctrine of fair use. It is intended for anyone who engages in the set of practices that entails creating media of any kind that refers to real-life events of public interest, in service of public knowledge, whether that person is a full-time professional or an individual who takes it upon himself or herself to report about specific issues or events. In other words, the definition of "journalism" to which this document speaks is defined by acts, not titles, and is an inclusive one, reflecting (in part) the changing nature of the technologies that support and enable journalistic practice.

Fair use is the right to use copyrighted material without permission or payment under some circumstances-especially when the cultural or social benefits of the use are predominant. It is a general right that applies even in situations where the law does not provide an explicit authorization for the specific use in question. As with more familiar rights of free expression, people use this right without any formal notification or registration.

This guide identifies seven situations that represent the current consensus within the community of working journalists about acceptable practices for the fair use of copyrighted materials. It identifies some common situations encountered by journalists, principles for the application of fair use in those situations, and the limitations that journalists recommend to define the zone of greatest comfort for employment of this right - all consistent with the development of the fair use doctrine in the courts.

What This Isn't

This set of principles does not describe the full extent of fair use rights. Instead, it describes how those rights should apply in certain common situations for journalists. The fair use rights of journalists may, of course, extend to other situations as well.

It is not a guide to using material that authors or owners give the public permission to use, such as works covered by Creative Commons licenses. Anyone can use those works the way their owners authorize-although other uses also may also be permitted under the fair use doctrine, depending on the terms of the license in question. Likewise, it is not a guide to the use of material that has been specifically licensed, which may be subject to contractual limitations, or to material that the journalist has received with permission and under some limiting terms, whether they are made orally or in writing.

It is not a guide to material that is already free to use without considering copyright. For instance, all works produced by an employee of the federal government on work time (and that include no third-party copyrighted material) are in the public domain, as are many older works. For more information on "free use," consult the document "Yes, You Can!" (centerforsocialmedia.org/files/pdf/free_use.pdf). It is also important to remember that facts are not copyrightable. Thus, journalists (and anyone else) are free to report facts first reported by others, as well as reasonable inferences others have derived from facts, though not always in the same words. In addition, headlines and many ledes are freefor all to repeat, if indeed they are simple declarations of facts.

This is not a guide to ways of using material that are without copyright consequences. For example, current court decisions indicate that simply linking to content that is legitimately available online is an activity that copyright does not regulate.

Obviously, plagiarism, the representation of others' work as your own, is never acceptable, and would also be infringing, if the others' work were copyrighted.

Fair use does not apply in situations where a journalist or the journalist's organization has contracted with another organization to provide materials. In most cases, contractual agreements that require payment for use-for instance, an agreement to pay for a photograph or a video clip if a trial version has been sent, or an agreement to pay per use for an acquired news photograph, or standing contracts with providers-override otherwise valid fair use arguments.

Likewise, this document does not deal with journalists' legal responsibilities under bodies of law other than copyright, such as privacy, defamation, and national security. Nor does it address the current resurgence of interest (however well- or ill-founded) in legal regulation of the process by which journalists repeat "hot news" first reported by others.

Finally, this set of principles does not specifically address the issues raised by the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which creates barriers to otherwise lawful fair uses of copyrighted materials that are available only in formats that incorporate technological protection measures (such as encryption), and prohibits the deletion of embedded information identifying the author or source of a document under certain circumstances.

How This Document Was Created

This set of principles was created by journalists, after the issuing of an American University report, Copyright, Free Speech, and the Public's Right to Know: How Journalists Think about Fair Use, on the problems journalists face in understanding their fair use rights. With support from the Society for Professional Journalists, Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, sometimes with legal colleagues, led 17 deliberative meetings in Baltimore; Boston; Chicago; Duluth, MN; Fort Lauderdale; Los Angeles; Minneapolis; New York; San Francisco; and Washington, D.C. In these meetings, common, recurrent fair use issues in journalism were discussed in depth by small groups of experienced practitioners. These meetings guided the drafting of the set of principles. The principles were reviewed by an expert legal advisory board, whose members are listed at the end of this document.

Fair Use

These days, copyright is ubiquitous - all kinds of new material, from the highly significant to the relatively trivial, is automatically protected upon its creation. Likewise, a wide swath of older material, dating back to 1923 or even before, is (and will for some time continue to be) subject to protection. United States law provides copyright protection to all kinds of "works of authorship," whether deathless prose or someone's to-do list. But this is only one aspect of copyright law, which was designed to implement government policy that fosters the creation of culture. Reusing existing cultural material can be, under some circumstances, a critically important part of generating new culture. In fact, the cultural value of this kind of re-use is so well established that it is written into the social bargain at the heart of copyright law, as inscribed in the United States Constitution.

The bargain is this: we as a society give limited property rights to creators to encourage them to produce culture. At the same time, we give other creators the chance to use that same copyrighted material, without permission or payment, in some circumstances. Without the second half of the bargain, we could all lose important new cultural work.

Copyright law has several features that permit quotations from copyrighted works without permission or payment, under certain conditions. Fair use is the most important of these features. It has its origins in 18th century British law, has been an explicit part of U.S. copyright for more than 170 years, and includes elements (the right to engage in criticism and commentary, for example) that are widely recognized through the world. In the U.S., where it applies, fair use is a user's right. In fact, as the Supreme Court has pointed out (in its 2003 Eldreddecision and the 2011 Golan decision), fair use helps to keep copyright from violating the First Amendment. New creation inevitably incorporates existing material. As copyright protects more works for longer periods than ever before, creators face new challenges: licenses to incorporate copyrighted sources become more expensive and more difficult to obtain-and sometimes are simply unavailable. As a result, fair use is more important today than ever before.

Copyright law does not specify exactly how to apply fair use, and that gives the fair use doctrine a flexibility that works to the advantage of users. Creative needs and practices differ with the field, with technology, and with time. Rather than following a specific formula, lawyers and judges decide whether an unlicensed use of copyrighted material is "fair" according to a "rule of reason." This means they will take all the facts and circumstances into account to decide if an unlicensed use of copyrighted material generates social or cultural benefits that ultimately are greater than the costs it imposes on the copyright owner.

Fair use is flexible-but it is not unreliable. In fact, for any particular field of critical or creative activity, lawyers and judges have long considered the shared opinions of practitioners in assessing what is "fair" within their field. In weighing the balance at the heart of fair use analysis, judges typically consider the non-exclusive list of "factors" mentioned in Section 107 of the Copyright Act: the nature of the use; the nature of the work used; the extent of the use; and its economic effect (the so-called "four factors"). This still leaves much room for interpretation, especially since the law is clear that these are not the only permissible considerations.

So how have judges interpreted fair use? In reviewing the history of contemporary fair use litigation, we find that judges return again and again to two key questions:

* Did the unlicensed use "transform" the copyrighted material by using it for a different purpose than that of the original, or did it just repeat the work for the same intent and value as the original?

* Was the material taken reasonably appropriate in kind and amount, considering the nature of the copyrighted work and of the use?

If the answers to these two questions are "yes," a court is likely to find a use fair. Because that is true, such uses often are not challenged in the first place. Many of the cases that proceed into the courtroom involve uses that test the limits of fair use, rather than ones within the large field of common fair use practice

Both key questions touch on, among other things, the question of whether the use will cause excessive economic harm to the copyright owner. Courts have told us that copyright owners are not entitled to an absolute monopoly over transformative uses of their works. By the same token, however, when a use supplants a copyright owner's core market, it is unlikely to be fair. For example, a journalist cannot reproduce large parts of a competitor's article merely to avoid the trouble of doing their own reporting. Another consideration may influence the way in which these questions are analyzed in practice: Whether the user acted reasonably and in good faith, in light of general practice in his or her particular field. The fact that community practice influences judicial decisions makes it important for communities of practice to understand and articulate their fair use rights.

Many of the most common journalistic activities in which quoting, reproducing, or referencing copyrighted material occurs are self-evidently transformative, when done in a responsible and professional manner. This is true whether the journalist is working in print, audio, video, or online; fair use is not medium-specific. Likewise, the principles of fair use apply equally to a newspaper article, a piece of music, a film, a user's tweet, and a website. However, since all fair use instances are context-dependent and case-by-case, potential fair users of copyrighted material should weigh all the circumstances in making a decision about how to proceed.

Journalists and Fair Use

Journalists have long depended upon the right of fair use to incorporate copyrighted material into their work, and to this day, they do so constantly. Journalists use it, often without thinking about it or even knowing they are doing so, to quote or paraphrase source material, to provide proof or illustration of assertions, and to engage in comment or critique, among other uses. Indeed, the business of journalism is sustained in part by fair use, which enables appropriate, timely, unlicensed quotations and references to newsworthy material.

Fair use protects journalists' free speech rights from within the structure of copyright. Those rights fuel journalists' mission to inform the public. Thus mission has a far-reaching effect; journalists play a key part in shaping the way members of a society understand the actions and motives of others - and sometimes of themselves. This self-understanding is generated not only by the headline news of the day and hard-hitting investigative reporting of government malfeasance, but by cultural criticism, editorial writing, sports reporting, beat, and community reporting.

Journalists' fair use rights are particularly favored in U.S. copyright law. Criticism, comment and news reporting are all singled out in the law as specific examples of general purposes appropriate for fair use. But whether specific instances constitute fair use must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

For many years, journalistic practice on fair use was established by journalists' newsroom conventions, often grounded in advice from manuals previously vetted by company lawyers, and on the occasional visit to their institution's lawyers. Increasingly, journalists, particularly those who work outside of large media organizations, find themselves unsure about their right to quote copyrighted material, particularly in newer, digital formats and in social media. As Copyright, Free Speech, and the Public's Right to Know documented, the most common consequences of such insecurity are delay, higher costs, and failure to publish and innovate.

Journalists recognize that re-using copyrighted material is central to their work. Responsible aggregation is a key and perennial feature of journalism; journalists always have "advanced the story" by building upon the work of other journalists, whether through attributed quotation or unattributed reference. Of course, much common journalistic re-use of existing material does not even require fair use, since facts themselves are not copyrightable. Often, however, bare facts are not enough; the very words or images through which information is expressed may be part of the story. Thus, in practice, much journalistic re-use and follow-on work has always (if sometimes unknowingly) depended on fair use.

However, the rise of journalistic enterprises that embrace aggregation as a business model has created a heightened awareness, and sometimes alarm, about re-use and sharing of journalistic work. This document will help journalists understand what is acceptable re-use, and what the journalistic community, with expert legal advice, believes goes beyond fair use.

Journalists' commonly-held understandings, as documented in the Statement, are drawn from the their collective experience and supported by legal analysis. This set of principles will enhance capacity to employ fair use, both for journalists and for their various gatekeepers, including editors, publishers, insurers and lawyers, who determine whether and in what form the work of journalists reaches the public. Thus, this set of principles helps to show that the uses of copyrighted materials described here are reasonable and appropriate for the purposes of journalism.

Fair use is in wide and vigorous use today in many professional communities beyond journalism. Some of these other professional communities have also set forth their understandings in consensus documents, including the 2005 Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use, which may be useful to some journalists. All these documents are available at centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use. Although professional groups typically create such documents, no one needs to be a member of a professional group to benefit from their interpretations.

SET OF PRINCIPLES IN FAIR USE FOR JOURNALISM

General Points About Principles and Values

These principles apply to all forms of media. In all cases, a digital copy is the same as a hard copy in terms of fair use, and an on-line use (unless otherwise noted) is equivalent to an off-line one. Text, photography, music, and video are all equally eligible for fair use.

These principles apply to situations in which a journalist has unconditioned access to material, regardless of the source. When a user has obtained a copy illegally, however, that may affect fair use analysis. Further, in situations where there is only one source of the material (as may be true of some archival items), the holder of the material may impose the conditions he/she chooses, and fair use will yield to them. If a journalist receives material subject to specific restrictions on use, the journalist is bound by those restrictions.

The principles are all subject to a "rule of proportionality." Journalists have a right under fair use to employ as much of a copyrighted work that they need to accomplish their goals-and sometimes even to use an entire work, such as a photograph, or a critical source document. By the same token, the fairness of a use depends, in part, on whether the user took only what was reasonably appropriate to accomplish his or her legitimate purpose. Journalists thus cannot reliably use numerical rules of thumb in making this determination.

Journalists share values that shape their expectations for fair use of others' copyrighted material. Attribution is a highly prized journalistic value, though not one that features significantly in the U.S. copyright law (unlike that of other countries). Merely identifying the source material does not make an otherwise unjustified use "fair," nor does the law literally require that uses be accompanied by attribution in order to be considered fair. However, journalists believe strongly that there is an ethical and academic imperative to provide proper attribution. And, obviously, if it is important to use specific copyrighted content in a particular piece of journalism, appropriate citation helps make that justification more apparent. At the same time, journalists appreciate that the form and content of an appropriate attribution will vary by medium and context. And of course, journalists may wish to use works for which full attribution cannot be provided (because of a promise of confidentiality, for example, or because the information is not discoverable).

Journalists also share the strong value that when copyrighted material has been prepared, even indirectly, with taxpayer money, the journalist's responsibility and the fair use claim on the material are both increased. The public's investment in the original material correspondingly emphasizes the public's right to know.

Journalists also value the importance of honoring each other's work not only with attribution but, where possible and appropriate, with payment. Particularly in dealing with work that comes from war zones or other areas of difficult and dangerous access, they highly value their colleagues' contribution to the mission to inform the public. While this value does not override either the ability or will to employ fair use where appropriate, it may sometimes color journalists' decisions on whether to employ their fair use right.

Journalists recognize the importance of timeliness, which is part of the core mission of journalism. They respect the importance of deadlines not merely for their business model but to meet the mission of informing the public in a timely way. This is particularly true for issues of public safety, public health, and fast-moving news of universal interest and impact. Therefore, journalists consider the issue of timeliness in relation to public importance as well in making their fair use decisions. Consideration of the urgency of the public's need to know may influence not only a decision to fairly use material; it may also affect how much material is taken. By the same token, however, journalists understand that merely beating the competition to a story should not, in itself, a justification for violating the copyrights of third parties. The Principles and Limitations below represent, among other things, a balancing of sometimes conflicting journalistic imperatives.

In general, the Principles and Limitations below apply with equal force to all kinds of source material, from cell phone videos of a war zone to routine coverage of a political campaign. In specific instances, of course, they will apply differently depending on how the considerations they detail play out in specific journalistic contexts.

ONE: Incorporation of copyrighted material captured incidentally and fortuitously in the process of recording and disseminating news

Journalists report on a modern reality permeated with copyrighted content. They constantly capture such material incidentally in the course of reporting on specific events and activities. This is not material they have chosen to include for its own sake; rather, it is an inseparable part of the reality they seek to portray. Excluding (or drastically curtailing) the amount of such material contained in reporting would compromise the truth-telling mission of journalism.

PRINCIPLE: Fair use applies to the incidental and fortuitous capture of copyright material in journalism.
LIMITATIONS:
* Fair use does not apply where a journalist has gained access to a person or place by agreeing, either orally or in writing, to forego specific uses of the material gathered as a result.

* Neither does it apply if a journalist inserts copyrighted material into the reality being recorded and disseminated, as by asking musicians playing at an event to perform a particular song, or distorts news choices in order to include copyrighted material.

* The journalist should not repurpose incidentally captured material-for instance, a popular song sung by a celebrity at an event-for aesthetic or entertainment purposes, whether elsewhere in the same piece or in other work.

* The journalist should attribute the material in a reasonable manner. Where relevant, attribution should extend to entities or individuals other than copyright owners (e.g., the art gallery where a picture is hanging or the performer who interprets a song at a public event)

TWO: Use of copyrighted material as proof or substantiation in news reporting or analysis

Journalists routinely include copyrighted material, whether from a report, a memo, a video, or a photograph, and whether informally generated in social media or through traditional media channels, as evidence of their claim that something did or did not happen, or to support (or negate) the assertions of a source or other newsworthy person.

PRINCIPLE: Fair use applies when journalists use copyrighted material as documentation, to validate, prove, support, or document a proposition.

LIMITATIONS:

* The journalist should take as much as is reasonably appropriate to enable the news consumer to assess validity of a journalist's assertions and interpretations.

* The journalist should consider the value of the copyrighted material to the public's understanding of and confidence in the reporting.

* The journalist should attribute the material in a reasonable manner.

THREE: When copyrighted material is used in cultural reporting and criticism

Journalists quote elements from movies, songs, books, articles, blog posts, exhibit displays, online videos, images circulated in social media, and other copyrighted material, in the course of reporting on cultural phenomena, and in reviewing and commenting on cultural products, events, and expression. Journalists employ copyrighted material both in referring to the existence of phenomena and in developing arguments about them. Journalistic reporting, comment and criticism on cultural expression is a critically important part of the circulation of culture in a society. In order to do that work, journalists need to be able to reference and quote the material they discuss, making their selections and forming their commentary without the permission of the owners of the work.

PRINCIPLE: The use of textual, visual and other quotations of cultural material for purposes of reporting, criticism, commentary, or discussion constitutes fair use.

LIMITATIONS:

* The journalist should take as much is reasonably appropriate to enable the news consumer to understand the point being made.

* The journalist should contextualize the material to make clear its relevance to the current work.

* The journalist should make the connection between the cultural criticism or commentary and the selection of copyrighted material clear to the news consumers, by means of text references, captions, voice-over, or other signaling.

* The journalist should honor any promises that he or she has affirmatively made to the provider of copyrighted cultural material (such as video clips from new movies).

* The journalist should attribute the material in a reasonable manner.

FOUR: When copyrighted material is used as illustration in news reporting or analysis

Journalists use copyrighted material to illustrate as well as provide proof of a story. They may include a photograph from an event, include quotations from people attending an event, or provide an audio sound portrait from an event, among many other uses of illustration. Illustration in reporting is not merely decorative. It serves a news function by adding information and context otherwise either not available or provided in a much less efficient or effective way.

PRINCIPLE: Fair use applies to illustration in news reporting.
LIMITATIONS:
* The illustration should add meaningfully to the audience's understanding of the facts or issues.

* The amount employed should be reasonably appropriate to the illustrative purpose.

* When the illustrative material is provided by a business that provides material primarily designed to illustrate current events, such as a syndicated news service, and the use is for reporting on current events, the journalist should purchase the material.

* The journalist should attribute the material in a reasonable manner.

FIVE: When copyrighted material is used as historical reference in news reporting or analysis

Journalists often make reference to previous events, to people in earlier situations, to previously existing structures, and to other historical items in the process of reporting or commenting on the news. Historical contextualizing is an important aspect of the work of reporting and analysis. Journalists not only share facts with their users, but help them to understand the meaning of those facts. Arts journalists often need to compare current work to earlier work, or provide a meaningful comparison with others' work to situate creative effort within a tradition or a trend.

PRINCIPLE: Fair use applies to journalistic incorporation of historical material.
LIMITATIONS:
* The journalist should contextualize the historical material to make clear its relevance to the current work.

* The journalist should take an appropriate amount that will provide the relevant historical context.

* The journalist should attribute the material in a reasonable manner.

SIX: Using copyrighted material for the specific purpose of starting or expanding a public discussion of news

Sometimes journalists make available to users copyrighted material garnered in the process of news reporting or analysis, to enrich discussion about the public significance of that material. Increasingly, journalists enlist members of the news-consuming public to participate in news generation - through "crowdsourcing" techniques, for example. Such practices must function, of course, as an adjunct to a journalist's reporting, editorializing, analysis or critique, rather than as a substitute for it. But now that it is more possible than ever before to tap into expertise distributed throughout the populace, it is part of the journalist's mission not only to deliver information, but to share, responsibly and appropriately, underlying documentation that can deepen the understanding of news.

PRINCIPLE: The use of copyrighted material to promote public discussion and analysis can qualify as fair use.

LIMITATIONS:

* The journalist should make clear to news consumers why the material is being made available, and what kinds of responses it is intended to elicit - for example, critical commentary, analysis, new contextual information, or follow-on reporting of additional facts.

* The journalist should use as much material as is appropriate to provide news consumers with an opportunity to engage productively with the material.

* Where linking to the material is an alternative compatible with the journalist's objectives, it should be preferred to unlicensed re-use of copyrighted material.

* The journalist (or outlet) should make available tools and forums designed to encourage participation by news consumers.

* The journalist should make efforts to use the ensuing discussion or other contributions to further generate news.

* The journalist should attribute the material in a reasonable manner.

SEVEN: Quoting from copyrighted material to add value and knowledge to evolving news

Journalists constantly derive knowledge from earlier journalism as they advance the story, contributing new information while summarizing or quoting from what is already known. Although some of this aggregation merely consolidates non-copyrightable facts, some takes verbatim excerpts of copyrighted material reporting facts or opinions. When done in ways that conform to the journalistic mission, uses of this kind recontextualize the excerpted material. Such recontextualization can be transformative, making the quotation a fair use in some circumstances.

PRINCIPLE: Fair use can apply to the quotation of earlier journalism.

LIMITATIONS:

* The journalist should make clear what she or he is adding to the existing work.

* Reviews of preexisting reports on a story or issue should where possible incorporate excerpts from multiple sources.

* The excerpts should be as brief as is reasonably appropriate to the journalist's objectives, and, in any event, not be so extensive that they effectively replicate the original stories or function as a consumer substitute for them.

* The journalist should attribute the material in a reasonable manner. Attribution should be clearly apparent to the reader or viewer, and it should be possible for that individual to navigate easily to the original source.

* Any contractual restrictions that the journalist agreed in receiving the material would apply to quotation from it should be observed.

Notes

Legal Advisory Board

Jamie B. Bischoff, Esq.
Ballard Spahr, LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Michael Donaldson, Esq.
Donaldson & Callif
Los Angeles, California

Anthony Falzone, Esq.
Deputy General Counsel, Pinterest, Inc.
San Francisco, California

Prof. Jack I. Lerner
USC Gould School of Law and Annenberg School of Journalism
Los Angeles, California

Prof. Michael J. Madison
University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Thank You

Thank you to the many journalists who took precious time to participate in this process; to Society for Professional Journalists Executive Director Chris Vachon and board member Kevin Z. Smith from the Society of Professional Journalists, for support throughout the process; to Janet Liao and Mark Hallett of the McCormick Foundation for financial support and commitment to the project and the concept; to Prof. Jennifer Urban of University of California Berkeley School of Law and to Dan Satorius, Esq., for hosting sessions; to Angelica Das, the project manager; to our graduate fellows including Bryan Bello, Katie Bieze, and Jan Lauren Boyles; and to Center for Social Media intern Miles Zinni.

Endorsers
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Feel free to reproduce this work in its entirety. For excerpts and quotations, depend upon the principles of fair use. Association of Alternative Newsmedia
Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Communication
Center for Public Interest Journalism
J-Lab: The Institute for Interactive Journalism
Mediashift
National Association of Black Journalists, Digital Journalism Task Force
National Lesbian and Gay Journalism Association
New America Media
Poynter Institute
Robert R. McCormick Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Set of Principles in Fair Use for Journalism - Center for Media and Social Impact

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
June 2013 Coordinated by: Peter Jaszi, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law Pat Aufderheide, Co-Director, Center for Media & Social Impact, American University With funding from: The Robert R. McCormick Foundation Journalists have created a set of principles that allows them to stop censoring their journalistic choices, especially in emerging digital environments.

# data[].attributes.headline
Attribution - NoDerivs or NoDerivs-NonCommercial (CC-ND or CC-ND-NC) (example)

# data[].attributes.subject
Attribution - NoDerivs or NoDerivs-NonCommercial (CC-ND or CC-ND-NC) (example)

# data[].attributes.body
Why (and How) We Use Creative Commons for Our Stories by Richard Tofel and Scott Klein is an excellent read on how pieces can be Republished using the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license.

Journalism in the Public Interest

© Copyright 2019 Pro Publica Inc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why (and How) We Use Creative Commons for Our Stories - ProPublica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ProPublica has made important use of Creative Commons since our launch four and a half years ago.

# data[].attributes.headline
Attribution - NoDerivs or NoDerivs-NonCommercial (CC-ND or CC-ND-NC)

# data[].attributes.subject
Attribution - NoDerivs or NoDerivs-NonCommercial (CC-ND or CC-ND-NC)

# data[].attributes.body
extra

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This presentation focusses on what Open Resources are, relevance of open resources in journalism, some case studies on open resources in journalism and platfor...

# data[].attributes.headline
Attribution - ShareAlike (CC-SA often) (example)

# data[].attributes.subject
Attribution - ShareAlike (CC-SA often) (example)

# data[].attributes.body
Best Practices for GitHub: Journalism with R transparency and avoiding issues.
Author: University of Texas in Austin
© Copyright 2018, Andrew Ba Tran

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Best practices for GitHub :: Journalism with R

# data[].attributes.headline
Attribution - ShareAlike (CC-SA often) (example)

# data[].attributes.subject
Attribution - ShareAlike (CC-SA often) (example)

# data[].attributes.body
The practice of book-length journalism : reframing the debate by Matthew Ricketson is a resource read used to teach on the ethics of journalism.  It is a great example of Attribution-sharealike.  The link takes you to an article on the book.  ©2010 Matthew Ricketson. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Australian License (CC BY SA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The practice of book-length journalism : reframing the debate | EQUELLA

# data[].attributes.headline
Attribution - ShareAlike (CC-SA often) (Example) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Attribution - ShareAlike (CC-SA often) (Example) 

# data[].attributes.body
Journalism 'Fake News' & Disinformation
© UNESCO 2018

# data[].attributes.headline
3 Examples of Proper Attribution of Quotations

# data[].attributes.subject
3 Examples of Proper Attribution of Quotations

# data[].attributes.body
In Journalism it is important to quote thoughts and statements correctly . When attributing these quotes the author Mark Nichol has given 3 wonderful examples in this article. This article is Copyright © 2019 Daily Writing Tips . All Right Reserved

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Mark Nichol - 1 minute read

1. "'Of the 230 companies we inventoried in 1984, 54 had gone out of business or been taken over by 1987. From 1981 to 1994, we lost 84 percent,' said Smith."
Interrupt a quotation of more than one sentence with an attribution following the first sentence to avoid a delay in identifying the speaker or writer: "'Of the 230 companies we inventoried in 1984, 54 had gone out of business or been taken over by 1987,' said Smith. 'From 1981 to 1994, we lost 84 percent.'"

2. "Echoing the thoughts of his fellow players, Jones perhaps said it best, 'We never wanted to disappoint him under any circumstances.'"
When an attribution consists of a complete thought that sets up the quotation that follows, use a colon rather than a comma, to set the attribution off from the quotation: "Echoing the thoughts of his fellow players, Jones perhaps said it best: 'We never wanted to disappoint him under any circumstances.'"

3. "And while bin Laden's killing has dealt a crippling blow to his terrorist organization, she said, 'Nobody should believe individual al Qaeda leaders cannot be replaced.'"
To provide context for the quotation, the writer has added the paraphrased dependent clause preceding the attribution, uniting the clause and the quotation into an extended sentence. Because this sentence no longer begins with nobody, the word is no longer capitalized: "And while bin Laden's killing has dealt a crippling blow to his terrorist organization, she said, 'nobody should believe individual al Qaeda leaders cannot be replaced.'"
Want to improve your English in 5 minutes a day? Click here to subscribe and start receiving our writing tips and exercises via email every day.
Recommended Articles for You

Subscribe to Receive our Articles and Exercises via Email

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 Examples of Proper Attribution of Quotations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Mark Nichol - 1 minute read 1. "'Of the 230 companies we inventoried in 1984, 54 had gone out of business or been taken over by 1987. From 1981 to 1994, we lost 84 percent,' said Smith."

# data[].attributes.headline
Citation Vs. Attribution for Self Publishing

# data[].attributes.subject
Citation Vs. Attribution for Self Publishing

# data[].attributes.body
A wonderful article on the difference between citing and attributing while becoming a self publisher, but for my lesson a journalist.  The author Lauri Aesoph gives a great breakdown of how in order to a resource or a text with an open copyright license you must give the original work or person who did the work credit.  It is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Outside ideas and information provide evidence that build an argument or lay the foundation for a textbook's topic. A strong textbook will appropriately reference these sources, showing the student reader where information and ideas that do not originate with the open textbook author come from. This should be done for both restricted and open works through citations and attribution statements. Use this as an opportunity to show students by example how a scholar respects and shares information from other sources.

Even though they share characteristics, citations and attributions play different roles and appear in different places. This chapter defines citation and attribution, explains how and when they should be used in an open textbook, and discusses their purposes, similarities, and differences.

Citation

A citation allows authors to provide the source of any quotations, ideas, and information that they include in their own work based on the copyrighted works of other authors. The Oxford Living Dictionary defines it as a "...quotation from or reference to a book, paper, or author, especially in a scholarly work."

Citation is a common and long-time practice among scholars used to indicate where a resource is from and who the author is. Unlike an attribution, citation is typically used for copyrighted works with restricted rights or "all rights reserved." In other words, it is used in works for which broad permissions have not been granted.

As a scholar and potential author of an open textbook, we assume that you are familiar with the rules around citation. However, the article Warning: When You Must Cite [New Tab] from the Yale Center for Teaching and Learning provides some guidance about how, what, and the amount of a work that can be cited. (See Textbook Citation.)

Attribution

Attribution is the cornerstone condition when using a resource or text released with an open-copyright licence. This legal requirement states that users must attribute - give credit - to the creator of the work. (See Copyright and Open Licences.)

In a CC BY licence, the "CC" stands for "Creative Commons" and the "BY" stands for "Attribution," or who the work is "by."

An attribution statement is used to provide credit to the original creator; its purpose is similar to a citation. Best practice says that the statement should include the title of the work, name of the creator, and licence type (with links to each). When using text from another open educational resource, be clear in your attribution statement what section of your textbook contains this information.

A useful tool to help create attribution statements is the OPEN Attribution Builder [New Tab] by Open Washington. (See also Resources: Captions and Attributions.)

Differences

Citation and attribution serve different purposes.

Citation is used for academic reasons in order to give credit to a colleague for their work as part of academic integrity. It's also used for legal reasons. Attributing an open work fulfills the legal requirement of the open-copyright licence, which requires you to give credit to the creator of the work.

Citation is used for restricted works where the copyright holder does not share the rights of the copy with the general public. The opposite is true for cases where attribution is used.

Citation legally protects an author who wants to refer to someone else's work and to avoid plagiarism and copyright infringement. The author of an open work has given advanced permission for others to use their work. (See Concerns About Plagiarism and Copyright and Open Licences.)

When referencing a restricted work with a citation, one must be careful about the amount referenced. Both direct quotations and paraphrasing are permitted. All of an open work may be used with no limitations; attribution is used to give the author of this work credit.

The closest one can come to altering a restricted work is to paraphrase the original author's ideas and expression of these ideas. Whereas the author of an open work has provided advanced permission to use AND change their work (except in cases where ND - NoDerivatives - has been applied).

Citation styles are varied and established. They dictate how to cite or reference a paraphrase or quotation within text (e.g., with an in-text citation or footnote) and how and where to provide the full reference, whether it be in a reference list, a works cited, or a bibliography and the end of a book.

The styles for attribution statements are still emerging. Current best practice for an attribution statement states it should reside on the same page (digital or printed) as the resource it refers to. Statements can stand alone, e.g., within the caption of an image, or in a list at the bottom of the page.

The following table summarizes the differences between citations and attributions.

Academic and legal purposes (plagiarism and copyright infringement).

Legal purposes (e.g., rules of Creative Commons licences).

The rights of the copy (meaning copyright) are NOT shared with the general public by the copyright holder.

Copyright IS shared with the general public by the copyright holder by marking the work with an open-copyright licence.

Protects an author who wants to refer to a restricted work by another author.

Author of an open work has given advanced permissions to use their work.

Used to quote or paraphrase a limited portion of a restricted work.

Used to quote (or paraphrase) all or a portion of an openly licensed work.

Can paraphrase, but cannot change work without permission.

Author has give advanced permission to change work.

Many citation styles are available: APA, Chicago, MLA.

Attribution statement styles are still emerging, but there are some defined best practices.

A reference list of cited resources are typically placed at the end of the book.

Attribution statements are found on the same page as the resource.

Similarities

There are also similarities between a citation and attribution.

Both can be - and often are - copyrighted. (See Copyright and Open Licences.)

Both give credit to the creator of the original work

For both restricted and open works, the author or creator of a work might be different from the copyright holder. For example, if a faculty member writes an open textbook, their institution might hold copyright. However, it's standard practice to attribute the creator - not the copyright holder - in the attribution statement.

Both can be used for either a newly created work or a revised work

Both can be used when referring to a portion of another work, though the amount that can be cited from a fully copyrighted work is substantially less than what can be used from an open work

Both can be used when building an argument or the foundation of a textbook

Tables: A special case

When BCcampus Open Education began publishing open textbooks, we discovered that there were few openly licenced tables that our authors could use. So, with the help of our copy editors, we developed a way to present information in a table format without violating copyright.

We learned during our research that a table is comprised of two parts:

1. The style or layout of the table, which displays the information. These elements can include the size, placement, and colour of the cells; the style of fonts; and the wording and placement of column and row headers.

2. The data or information contained within the table

Our solution was to instruct authors to create an original table, and then cite the data added to that table. As you can see in the below example from Introduction to Tourism and Hospitality in B.C., we provided the source for the data in the last row in the table. For clarity, we labelled this in-text citation as "Data source." Alternatively, you could add the source information to a footnote.

The original table, created by the author or a designer working with the author, is an original creation. Because of this, no attribution statement is required. The table design is copyrighted by the author (or designer). However, as the data comes from an external source, it requires a citation. This same process can be applied to charts and graphs.

Citation-Attribution Fusion

The libraries at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops have come up with a clever solution to the citation versus attribution dilemma. In the Crediting Images found Online [New Page] section of their APA Citation Style web page, they suggest modifying the APA citation style so it incorporates open licence or public domain information for the image's caption and reference. Here is an example.

The image and its caption would appear like this:

The corresponding reference would be laid out like this:

Vernon, A. (Photographer). (2007). Yellow-bellied marmot pups - Kamloops, BC [digital image]. Retrieved from Wikimedia Commons website: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yellow-bellied_Marmot_pups_-_Kamloops,_BC..jpg

Attributions

1. The concepts and portions of this text have been taken from Quill West's presentation for Pierce College called Citations vs. Attributions. And how to deal with them in your work and is used under a CC BY 4.0 Licence.

2. Table 2.1 by Morgan Westcott is used under a CC BY 4.0 Licence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Outside ideas and information provide evidence that build an argument or lay the foundation for a textbook's topic. A strong textbook will appropriately reference these sources, showing the student reader where information and ideas that do not originate with the open textbook author come from.