An Ethical Prohibition that Isn’t — And Never Really Was

By Robert E. Erard, Ph.D.
The National Psychologist
March 11, 2013

A decade after the 2002 APA Ethics Code and the HIPAA Privacy Rule should have settled the matter many psychologists continue to believe fervently that they have some special ethical duty to resist all formal requests for their raw test data, even when these requests are accompanied by releases from the test taker and even by subpoenas or court orders.

When asked for their test data, some psychologists claim paternalistically that nobody could ever understand what these mysterious numbers mean without being a licensed psychologist. They seem to ignore the fact that we ourselves have an ethical duty (Ethical Standard 9.10; APA, 2002) to provide test feedback (i.e., explaining those numbers), not to mention that most test publishers routinely sell test forms and computerized test interpretations to psychiatrists, social workers, counselors and others.

Other psychologists contend that either test copyrights or licensing agreements with test publishers prevent them from complying with these requests. They overlook the fact that the Fair Use Doctrine under the Copyright Act of 1976 (2011), the legal rights of test takers to their health care information and discovery rules governing the bases for experts’ opinions in forensic matters have consistently trumped these arguments when they have been put to the test (e.g., see Carpenter v. Yamaha, 2006).

The entire story is here.

Publishers and Georgia State See Broad Implications in Copyright Ruling

By Jennifer Howard
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Published May 14, 2012

The publisher plaintiffs in the closely watched lawsuit over Georgia State University's use of copyrighted material in electronic reserves say they are "disappointed" with much of the ruling handed down by a federal judge on Friday. But they made the best of it in statements issued Monday, playing up points on which the judge had agreed with them. And one plaintiff, Oxford University Press, said that the decision "marks a significant first step toward addressing the need for clarity around issues of copyright in the context of higher education."

Meanwhile, in its own series of public comments, the university praised the judge's careful handling of a complex issue. It called the ruling, by Judge Orinda D. Evans of the U.S. District Court in Atlanta, "significant not only for Georgia State University, but for all educational fair use in general," in the words of President Mark P. Becker.

Kerry L. Heyward, the university's chief lawyer, added that the case "highlights the importance of fair use in providing academic faculty a cost-effective, legal way to spread important knowledge to their students." And Nancy H. Seamans, the university's dean of libraries, took a wider view of Georgia State's approach to fair use, saying that the university's policy on e-reserves "was based on practices from the broader academic library community."

The entire story is here.

Judge rules largely for GSU in copyright case

By Bill Rankin and Laura Diamond
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Originally published May 14, 2012

A federal judge in Atlanta has ruled in favor of Georgia State University on almost all infringement claims filed by three publishing houses in a closely watched case that tested the nature of copyright law in the digital age.

Senior U.S. District Judge Orinda Evans rejected 69 copyright claims against GSU filed by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and SAGE Publications. The publishers had accused GSU of "massive" copyright violations by allowing professors to download and reproduce excerpts from published works for course materials.

(cut)

GSU, applying a 2009 policy, tried to comply with the Copyright Act, Evans said. "The truth is that fair use principles are notoriously difficult to apply," she wrote.

The entire article is here.

Thanks to Gary Schoener for this information.