C.G. Jung Foundation for Analytical Psychology, Inc.
Statement of Educational Purpose
The C.G. Jung Foundation for Analytical Psychology is a nonprofit educational organization. While the Jung Foundation’s programs involve analytical psychology and related subjects, these offerings are intended, and should be viewed, as a source of information and education, and not as therapy. Jung Foundation does not offer psychoanalytic or other mental health services.
In consideration of your registration and attendance at all programs, you waive any and all claims that you have or may have in the future against the C.G. Jung Foundation for Analytical Psychology, its employees and officers, and release them from all risks, liability and covenant of any kind that you may suffer or sustain, before, during or after the program, unless such was caused by the gross negligence of the C.G. Jung Foundation for Analytical Psychology.
Copyright and Fair Use
(Discussion by webmaster, Maxson McDowell)
Most images and legends included on this website are protected by copyright. Their reuse elsewhere may infringe copyright law.
The C.G. Jung Foundation uses the images and legends in good faith under the fair-use privilege.
Our understanding of fair use comes from Jonathon Band's analysis of four fair-use decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals in 2006 and 2007 1. Band is an international authority on the laws governing intellectual property and the internet. We also draw on a recent commentary by Jason Schultz 2 who is also an expert on fair use and the internet.
(a) In his introduction Band says: 'In the absence of recent decisions applying fair use in the educational context, a strong current of fair use pessimism has developed on many college campuses. This restrictive view of fair use has a number of sources. First, consistent with their short term economic interest, copyright owners have consistently misstated the scope of the fair use privilege in a wide variety of fora. Second, certain academics have overstated the fragility of fair use in an effort to advance their theories of copyright law or their legislative proposals. Third, some of the fair use guidelines ... are three decades old, and thus do not reflect the expansion of fair use over time.'
'Three recent fair use decisions by federal circuit courts ... demonstrate that fair use pessimism, especially in the educational context, is ill founded. In all three cases, the courts found commercial uses to be fair [because] ... transformative. In two of the three cases ... the courts gave little weight to the plaintiff's loss of licensing revenue.'
(b) We use images and legends on this website for the purpose of education in psychology.
With regard to scholarship and education, Band notes that in September, 2007 the Tenth Circuit made the following expansive statement about fair use: 'the fair use defense permits scholars and teachers to quote extensively from [a copyrighted] book and even reproduce entire sections for the purpose of commenting on (say) the parallels between the narrator's literal and figurative vision. Because the purpose of the fair use defense is to "afford considerable 'latitude for scholarship and comment,' " the [Supreme] Court has described it as a "guarantee of breathing space within the confines of copyright" ' Golan v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2006).
(c) Our use of images and legends is transformative because the material is both 'repurposed' and 'recontextualized'.
In 1994 the Supreme Court said that use is transformative when it does not 'merely supersede the objects of the original creation [but] instead adds something new, with a further purpose of different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message' Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994).
Band notes that 'the transformative nature of the use increasingly appears to be the most important criterion, swallowing the other factors. However, the notion of the kind of use that a court will consider transformative is far broader than the term "transformative" suggests. While the term "transformative" implies that the work itself has been changed, i.e., the user has made what would be considered to some extent a derivative work, both Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com and Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley make clear that repurposing a work or placing it in a new context may be sufficient to render a use transformative'
We use images and legends to evoke a relevant psychological response which makes specific, associated, psychoanalytic content more vivid and thus more psychologically accessible. We understand all of this to fit the court's description of fair use 'transformatively different from [the material's] original expressive purpose... [use that] enhances the reader's understanding of the .. text' Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, 448 F.3d 615, 609-10 (2d Cir. 2006).
We have chosen each image or legend because its particular quality is psychologically evocative of the verbal content it illustrates. We understand this to fit the court's description of fair use that has a genuine creative rationale for borrowing [the] image, rather than using it merely to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh' Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2006).
Our use of each image or legend is integrated with other material. Band notes that 'the more integrated a work is with other material, the stronger the claim of fair use.
We understand our use to fit the court's description of fair use from Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com, 487 F.3d 721 (9th Cir. 2007), as quoted by Band: ' "more transformative than a parody," the quintessential fair use, "because [the work] provides an entirely new use for the original work, while a parody typically has the same entertainment purpose as the original work." '
(d) We use the most vivid version we can find of each image (and the complete text of some legends) because that version is the most psychologically evocative. For the same reason we understand this use to be encompassed by the court's affirmation that sometimes 'copying the entirety of [the] work is necessary to make a fair use of [it]' Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, 448 F.3d 613 (2d Cir. 2006).
Band notes that 'the amount and substantiality of the portion used has less relevance, particularly if the use is transformative.'
(e) To our knowlege our use of an image or legend does not result in a significant loss of licensing revenue to the owner of the copyright.
We benefit from the transformative use of images and legends (on secondary pages) because we advertise our classes and other programs on the website. The Court of Appeals affirmed that when the use of 'images is transformatively different from their original expressive purpose ... a copyright holder cannot prevent others from entering fair use markets merely by developing or licensing a market for parody, news reporting, educational, or other transformative uses of its own creative work. Copyright owners may not preempt exploitation of transformative markets' Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, 448 F.3d 615 (2d Cir. 2006). In this context the market for psychoanalysis is clearly transformative.
Band comments that 'the existence of a licensing market for a work does not defeat fair use, provided that the use is transformative.'
(f) Band concludes: 'Many rightsholders might not agree with the [U.S. Court of Appeals'] decisions; indeed trade associations representing the major content providers [Motion Picture Association of America, the National Music Publishers™ Association, the Recording Industry Association of America, the American Society of Media Photographers, the Picture Archive Council of America, the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies, Stock Artists Alliance, the Graphic Artists Guild, American Society of Picture Professionals, and National Press Photographers] all filed amicus briefs advocating positions [which were] ultimately rejected by the Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com court. [Despite the legal efforts of all these trade organizations] the [U.S Court of Appeals'] decisions represent the current state of fair use jurisprudence, and they demonstrate strong judicial support for the [fair use] doctrine.'
If anyone wishes us to remove images or legends please contact us immediately.
1Educational fair use today. Jonathan Band, Association of research libraries, December 2007, online.
2Copyright, fair usage, and the struggle against online image misappropriation. Jason Schultz, 'LawGeek', December 2007, online.
Policy on Disruptive Student Behavior
Commensurate with its educational mission, it is the policy of the C.G. Jung Foundation to create learning environments that support civil and respectful discourse. It is the Foundation's policy to be proactive in dealing with issues of students who cause disruptions in the academic environment and impose sanctions on students who regularly disrupt educational activities.
Definitions of Disruptive Behavior
"Disruption" applied to the academic setting means behavior that a reasonable individual would view as interfering with normal academic functions. This may include behavior both inside and outside the physical space of the classroom. Examples include but are not limited to:
Speaking out without being recognized
Interrupting other speakers
Engaging in erratic or irrational behavior
Behaving in a manner that distracts the class from the subject matter or discussion
Engaging in harassing or threatening behavior or personal insults (includes via email, phone, text, etc.)
Refusing to comply with directions from faculty members
Civil expression of disagreement with the course instructor during times when the instructor permits discussion is not, in itself, disruptive behavior and is not prohibited.
When a student demonstrates disruptive behavior, faculty members have authority and responsibility to work with that student toward a satisfactory resolution. Should informal measures not resolve the issue, faculty members may impose sanctions, such as dismissal from the classroom or area for the remainder of the class session or from the program as a whole.
Policy on Refunds
Continuing Education Courses and Workshops
Refunds for Saturday workshops and continuing education courses, less $15 for administrative services, will be made up to seven days before the first session. There will be no refunds issued after classes have begun. No exceptions will be made. Programs are subject to change without notice.
Summer Study Intensive Programs
There will be a cancellation fee of $200 per person on all registration cancellations received on or before the deadline date in the current brochure. No refunds after the cancellation deadline date. Only cancellations made in writing will be deemed valid. Programs are subject to change without notice.