Paper 1: Fair use, old newspapers, and copyright

[The scenario here is entirely fictitious]

Professor Ulrich is preparing a website documenting a period from 1976-1987 when migrant agricultural workers were exposed to a new pesticide that caused acute (though temporary) health problems. During the decade it took for regulatory agencies to take action, a common approach was for the pesticide manufacturer to suggest that the cheapest solution was to hire a few extra workers, and for companies to do just that and also to attribute the illnesses to laziness.

Ulrich's sources are

• almost two hundred articles in twenty three rural newspapers about the problem,
• several times that many letters to the editor in those same papers,
• a decade's worth of trade-journal advertisements from the pesticide manufacturer,
• five corporate memos leaked to Ulrich, documenting in very dispassionate prose the "they get sick, so you'll need more" approach to workers,
• interviews Ulrich has made with a few workers, twenty years later.

Ulrich wants to make all these original sources available on the website, as he feels they add greatly to the impact of the story. The problem is that, except for the last item above, he doesn't have permissions to do that. He knows he has virtually no budget for licensing fees; the site will be hosted by his university.

Twelve of the newspapers have simply gone out of business; Ulrich has no idea who if anyone still owns their assets. Four have been purchased by a major media conglomerate with a very conservative outlook; Ulrich contacted two of the four  for permission and received one response from the parent conglomerate's Los Angeles attorney asking detailed information about how the articles and letters would be used, and incidentally claiming that, yes, they did own the copyrights on the letters to the editor. Ulrich fears they will not be happy when they find out what he wants the material for. Of the remaining seven papers, two were happy to share, two asked for a rather hefty annual fee for online use, two sent him a schedule of fees applicable only to print (not online) publication, and one didn't answer at all. 

Ulrich attempted to reach some of the letter-writers themselves, but had very few successes. Many of the letter-writers apparently used pseudonyms, due to fear of the INS. Most current workers Ulrich asked told him they either didn't know the letter-writers, or did once but had no idea where they were now; sometimes Ulrich suspected evasion but just as often he felt they were sincere. This field search did lead him to the few interviews he made.

Ulrich hasn't yet  tried asking the pesticide manufacturer for permission to reprint some of the ads; he is virtually certain they will do whatever they can to make sure this subject isn't brought up again. He hasn't even admitted possession of the memos to the corporation from which they were leaked.

Discuss the following in a paper:

• What Ulrich's ethical obligations are, and to whom, regarding copyrights.
• How he might approach this project.
• The Fair Use arguments for Ulrich's use of the material.
• Whether use of some materials is more justifiable than others.
• What alternatives he might have to reproducing documents.
• Whether Ulrich has any other ethical obligations beyond copyrights.