Academic literature on the topic 'Lutheran school principals'

ResumoO artigo é recorte de uma pesquisa sobre a Matemática nas escolas paroquiais luteranas gaúchas do século XX e tem por objetivo analisar as edições do periódico O Pequeno Luterano, editadas na década de 1940, com ênfase para o discurso matemático veiculado no mesmo, por meio dos textos, imagens e enunciados, suas intencionalidades e abordagens. O periódico foi editado para o público infantil pela Igreja Evangélica Luterana do Brasil, por meio da Casa Publicadora Concórdia de Porto Alegre, no período de 1939 a 1966. Com abordagem qualitativa e análise de fontes documentais, a pesquisa possui aporte metodológico na pesquisa histórica e no conceito de cultura escolar, para análise das 86 edições do Pequeno Luterano (1939-1949). O principal objetivo dos editores do periódico era, de forma lúdica, inserir as crianças na prática religiosa luterana por meio de textos, histórias, informações e curiosidades de cunho moral e religioso e de formação geral. Foi usado no ensino das diferentes áreas do conhecimento nas escolas paroquiais luteranas gaúchas do século passado. Os editores propunham desafios matemáticos para desenvolver o raciocínio lógico das crianças e valorizavam as habilidades concretas e abstratas do aprendizado matemático através do cálculo escrito e mental, em forma de atividades lúdicas. Cálculos foram relacionados com a biografia de matemáticos e os conhecimentos matemáticos integrados a histórias de cunho moral e religioso, com o propósito de manter as crianças inseridas na prática religiosa luterana.Palavras-chave: História da Educação Matemática. Escolas Paroquiais Luteranas Gaúchas. Periódico Infantil.AbstractThe article it’s a clipping of a research about the Mathematics in the gaucho Lutheran parochial schools of the 20th century and has aims analyze the editions of the journal The Little Lutheran, edited in the 1940s, with emphasis on the mathematical discourse conveyed in it, through texts, images and statements, their intentions and approaches. The journal was edited for the infantile public by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil, through of the Concordia Publishing House of Porto Alegre, in the period of 1939 to 1966. With qualitative approach and analysis of documentary sources, the research possui methodological approach on history research and on concept of school culture, to analised of the 86 editions of the journal Little Lutheran (1939 1949). The principale aims of the editors of the journal was, de forma lúdica, insert the children in the Lutheran religious practice through of texts, stories, information and curiosities of nature moral and religious and of general education. Was used, complementarily, in the teaching of the different areas of knowledge in the gaucho Lutheran parochial schools of the past century. The editors proposed mathematical challenges to develop the logical reasoning of the children and valued the concrete and abstract skills of the mathematical learning through of the written and mental calculation, in form of playful activities. Calculations were related to the biography of mathematicians and the mathematical knowledges integrated with stories of moral nature and religious, with the purpose of keeping the children inserted in Lutheran religious practice.Keywords: History of Mathematics Education. Gaucho Lutheran Parochial Schools. Children’s Journal.

Resumo: Filipe Melanchthon é um pensador praticamente desconhecido no Brasil, particularmente no âmbito dos estudos filosóficos. Tendo sido um dos principais representantes dos ideais da Reforma protestante no século 16, em geral é lembrado apenas como um colaborador de Lutero. Entretanto, Melanchthon foi um intelectual multidisciplinar, formado a partir dos ideais do humanismo renascentista, tendo publicado abundantemente em diversas áreas, como estudos de línguas (particularmente latim e grego), análise literária de obras da antiguidade clássica, astrologia, astronomia, história, educação, retórica e filosofia (particularmente ética e lógica). Além disso, foi idealizador e promotor de uma profunda reformulação do ambiente escolar e universitário alemão, o que lhe valeu o título de praeceptor germaniae. Isso ao lado de seu engajamento com o movimento religioso da Reforma e as tarefas de elaboração teológica, as controvérsias doutrinárias e a organização prática da vida eclesiástica que tal engajamento implicava. Aqui se abordam estudos contemporâneos sobre a compreensão do papel da filosofia no pensamento de Melanchthon, apontando desdobramentos da mesma particularmente para a compreensão filosófica da religião. Ernst Troeltsch já tinha demonstrado como esta concepção peculiar de Melanchthon se tornou base para a organização dos estudos universitários durante o período conhecido como ortodoxia protestante, que antecedeu a época do Iluminismo. A situação da pesquisa sobre um dos modos paradigmáticos como se fundamentou a relação entre religião e racionalidade apresenta a relevância deste pensador para a compreensão do desenvolvimento da filosofia da religião.Abstract: Philip Melanchthon is a practically unknown thinker in Brazil, especially in the realm of philosophical studies. Being one of the main representatives of the ideals of the Protestant Reformation in the 16. Century, he is generally remembered only as Luther’s right-hand man. Nevertheless, Melanchthon was a multidisciplinary intellectual. Shaped in the humanistic ideals of the Renaissance, he abundantly published in many fields, from language studies (particularly Latin and Greek), literary analysis of classical antiquity works, astrology, astronomy, history, education, to rhetoric and philosophy (particularly ethics and logic). In addition, he idealized and promoted a deep reformulation of the German school and university system, for which he was awarded the title of praeceptor germaniae. This besides his engagement with the religious movement of the Reformation, his theological elaboration, and the doctrinal controversies as well as the practical organization of church life which such engagement implied. This paper will examine some contemporary studies on the role philosophy played in Melanchthon’s thought, particularly its contribution to the philosophical understanding of religion. Ernst Troeltsch had already shown how Melanchthon’s peculiar conception had become the basis for the organization of university studies during the period known as Protestant orthodoxy that preceded the Age of Enlightenment. The state of research on one of the paradigmatic modes through which the relationship between religion and rationality was founded shows Melanchthon’s significance for understanding the development of the philosophy of religion.

Background: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are older or ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy have limited treatment options and poor survival. In the VIALE-A study, venetoclax (Ven) + azacitidine (Aza) improved overall survival and response rates compared with placebo (Pbo) + Aza in older or unfit patients with newly diagnosed AML (DiNardo et al. N Engl J Med. 2020). Although cytopenia is common in AML, Ven+Aza was associated with hematologic adverse events in 83% of patients in the VIALE-A study (vs 69% in the Pbo+Aza arm). Here, the frequency and management of cytopenia are analyzed in patients achieving a best response of complete remission (CR) or CR with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) in the VIALE-A study. Methods: This double-blind, Pbo-controlled, multicenter Phase 3 study (NCT02993523) enrolled patients with newly diagnosed AML who were ineligible for intensive chemotherapy due to age ≥75 years or comorbidities. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive 75 mg/m2 Aza (Days 1-7 of each 28-day cycle) plus either daily 400 mg Ven (Ven+Aza) or Pbo (Pbo+Aza). Disease response was assessed via bone marrow aspirate and biopsy at the end of Cycle 1 and at least every 3 cycles thereafter. After patients achieved blast clearance (bone marrow blasts <5%), various dosing modifications were implemented to manage cytopenia (Table 1). Cytopenia, defined here as Grade 4 neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count <500/μL) or Grade 4 thrombocytopenia (platelet count <25×103/μL) lasting ≥7 days, was assessed using laboratory data. Results: In total, 186 of 283 (66%) Ven+Aza-treated patients and 33 of 144 (23%) Pbo+Aza-treated patients achieved a best response of CR or CRh (CR/CRh). Of patients with a best response of CR/CRh in the Ven+Aza arm, 77% achieved blast clearance by the end of Cycle 1, 88% by the end of Cycle 2, 92% by the end of Cycle 3, and 98% by the end of Cycle 4. Of patients with a best response of CR/CRh in the Pbo+Aza arm, 33% achieved blast clearance by the end of Cycle 1, 55% by the end of Cycle 2, 76% by the end of Cycle 3, and 91% by the end of Cycle 4. After achieving blast clearance, 75% and 67% of patients in the Ven+Aza and Pbo+Aza arms, respectively, had a delay of the next cycle, with a median duration per cycle delay post-blast clearance (range) of 9.0 (1-39) and 5.5 (1-21) days. Among CR/CRh patients, more patients receiving Ven+Aza versus Pbo+Aza had post-remission cytopenia (87% vs 45%; Table 2). A similar percentage of CR/CRh patients in both arms (Ven+Aza, 26%; Pbo+Aza, 24%) had in-cycle dose interruptions (ie, days without Ven/Pbo exposure between a cycle's first and last Ven/Pbo dose), with a median duration (range) of 2.0 days (1-20) for Ven+Aza and 1.0 (1-13) for Pbo+Aza. A greater proportion of CR/CRh patients experienced post-remission cycle delays due to cytopenia in the Ven+Aza arm (77%) than in the Pbo+Aza arm (30%). Furthermore, a higher percentage of CR/CRh patients had post-remission cycles with a reduction in Ven/Pbo dosing days and/or cycle delays totaling ≥7 days due to cytopenia in the Ven+Aza arm (75%) than in the Pbo+Aza arm (27%). Among these patients, the median percentage of days without Ven/Pbo administration while in remission (out of the total number of days in remission) was 18% (range, 1-69) in the Ven+Aza arm and 13% (3-44) in the Pbo+Aza arm. Ultimately, 129 CR/CRh patients (69%) in the Ven+Aza arm and 10 (30%) in the Pbo+Aza arm received ≤21-day Ven/Pbo dosing post-remission, with a median time from remission to first ≤21-day cycle (range) of 92.0 days (1-480) for Ven+Aza and 74.0 days (6-405) for Pbo+Aza. Conclusion: In the VIALE-A study of older or unfit patients with newly diagnosed AML, the majority of responding patients in the Ven+Aza arm required dosing modifications to manage cytopenia, of which delays between cycles or within-cycle reductions of Ven dosing days were most common. Post-remission cytopenia and dosing modifications were more frequent with Ven+Aza versus Pbo+Aza treatment. The impact of cytopenia and dosing modifications on patient outcomes with Ven+Aza is currently being analyzed and will be reported at a future date. Disclosures Pratz: AbbVie: Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Research Funding; Boston BioMedical: Consultancy; Astellas: Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Millennium: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Agios: Other: Scientific Advisory Board, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Scientific Advisory Board. DiNardo:MedImmune: Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Syros: Honoraria; Notable Labs: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ImmuneOnc: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Calithera: Research Funding. Selleslag:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Belgian College: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Alexion: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Yamamoto:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Zenyaku: Research Funding; Sumitomo Dainippon: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ono: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Nippon Shinyaku: Honoraria, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Mochida: Honoraria; Meiji Seika Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; IQIVA/Incyte: Research Funding; HUYA: Consultancy; IQIVA/HUYA: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Yakult: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Consultancy; Solasia Pharma: Research Funding; SymBio: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Bayer: Research Funding; Aichi Cancer Center: Current Employment. Konopleva:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Reata Pharmaceutical Inc.;: Patents & Royalties: patents and royalties with patent US 7,795,305 B2 on CDDO-compounds and combination therapies, licensed to Reata Pharmaceutical; Ascentage: Research Funding; Eli Lilly: Research Funding; Stemline Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ablynx: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann La-Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kisoji: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding. McDonald:venetoclax advisory board in South Africa (in CLL context): Consultancy; Alberts Cellular Therapy: Current Employment. Babu:Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; Nektar: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Lilly: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca/MedImmune: Research Funding; Argenx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Lutheran Hospital: Other; Fort Wayne Medical Oncology & Hematology: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Sanofi: Research Funding. Stevens:Amgen, MorphoSys: Consultancy. Kantarjian:BioAscend: Honoraria; Delta Fly: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Adaptive biotechnologies: Honoraria; Aptitute Health: Honoraria; Oxford Biomedical: Honoraria; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Traina:University of São Paulo at Ribeirão Preto Medical School: Current Employment; AbbVie: Other: Principal Investigator for Protocol Number M15-656 . Venditti:Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Mayer:AbbVie: Research Funding; Principia Biopharma: Research Funding. Montez:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Genentech, Inc.: Current Employment. Ramsingh:Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months; Genentech: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Jin:Genentech: Current Employment. Ainsworth:AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Duan:AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or options. Svensson:AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Werner:AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Potluri:AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or stock options. Jonas:AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; GlycoMimetics: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Tolero: Consultancy; Treadwell: Consultancy; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Accelerated Medical Diagnostics: Research Funding; AROG: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding; Hanmi: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; LP Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Sigma Tau: Research Funding.

RESUMOOs problemas atuais que o Direito Internacional enfrenta possuem relação direta com os pontos que pertencem a uma compreensão primordial sobre a formação do conceito de comunidade universal. Dessa forma, cabe salientar que tais questões têm profunda relevância no pensamento dos grandes mestres da Escola Ibérica da Paz, no séc. XVI e XVII. O presente artigo tem por objetivo apresentar alguns dos estudos produzidos pela Escola de Salamanca, em especial, as contribuições de Francisco de Vitoria e Francisco Suárez, realizados durante este período. Através de uma metodologia bibliográfica e tendo como fio condutor a Opinião Consultiva nº 16/1999 da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, visa investigar a criação do Direito Internacional Público, questão candente destes estudiosos. Ainda procura-se analisar as principais contribuições conceituais aportadas pela Escola de Salamanca como fundamentação para o desenvolvimento da paz e justiça entre as nações, por meio de confrontações das noções de razão da humanidade e razão do Estado, com vias à compreensão da comunidade universal. Como resultado, concluiu-se que o resgate dos estudos tomistas, aliados ao movimento da Igreja em revisar alguns costumes antes criticados por Lutero e pelo humanismo da baixa Idade Média, trouxeram grandes contribuições para a renovação do Direito das Gentes (posteriormente considerado nas suas relações com os Direitos Humanos) e para a constituição de uma comunidade internacional enraizada em outro fundamento que não a razão do Estado.PALAVRAS-CHAVEDireito Internacional; Escola Ibérica; Comunidade universal; Opinião Consultiva nº 16/1999. ABSTRACTThe current problems faced by international law have direct relation with the points that belong to a primordial understanding on the formation of the concept of universal community. Thus, it is important to point out that such questions have profound relevance in the thinking of the great masters of the Iberian School of Peace (16th and 17th centuries). This article aims to present some of the studies produced by the School of Salamanca, especially the contributions of Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez during this period. Through a bibliographic methodology and guided by the Advisory Opinion No. 16/1999 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the article aims to investigate the creation of public international law, an issue looked upon by these scholars, and seeks to analyze the main conceptual contributions provided by the School of Salamanca as the foundation for the development of peace and justice between nations, through the confrontation of the notions of reason of humanity and reason of State, with the objective of understanding the universal community. As a result, it was concluded that the rescue of Thomistic studies, allied with the Catholic movement towards revising some customs previously criticized by Luther and the humanists of the Late Middle Ages, made major contributions to the renewal of the Law of the People (later considered in their relations with Human Rights) and to the constitution of an international community rooted in a foundation other than the reason of State.KEYWORDSInternational Law; Iberian School; Universal community; Advisory Opinion No. 16/1999.

This article analyses the public persona of Jeremy Gilley, a documentary filmmaker, peace campaigner, and the founder of the organisation Peace One Day (POD). It begins by outlining how Gilley’s persona is presented in a manner which resonates with established archetypes of social campaigners, and how this creates POD’s legitimacy among grassroots organisations. I then describe a distinct, but not inconsistent, facet of Gilley’s persona which speaks specifically to entrepreneurs. The article outlines how Gilley’s individuality works to simultaneously address these overlapping audiences and argues that his persona can be read as an articulation of social entrepreneurship. Gilley represents an example of a public personality working to “crystallise issues and to normativise debates” (Marshall “Personifying” 370) concerning corporate involvement with non-profit organisations and the marketisation of the non-profit sector. Peace One Day (POD) is a UK-based non-profit organisation established in 1999 by actor-turned-documentary-filmmaker Jeremy Gilley. In the 1990s, while filming a documentary about global conflict, Gilley realised there was no internationally recognised day of ceasefire and non-violence. He created POD to found such a day and began lobbying the United Nations. In 2001, the 111th plenary meeting of the General Assembly passed a resolution which marked 21 September as the annual International Day of Peace (United Nations). Since 2001, POD has worked to create global awareness of Peace Day. By 2006, other NGOs began using the day to negotiate 24-hour ceasefires in various conflict zones, allowing them to carry out work in areas normally too dangerous to enter. For example, in 2007, the inoculation of 1.3 million Afghan children against polio was possible due to an agreement from the Taliban to allow safe passage to agencies working in the country during the day. This was repeated in subsequent years and, by 2009, 4.5 million children had been immunised (POD Part Three). While neither POD nor Gilley played a direct part in the polio vaccination programmes or specific ceasefires, his organisation acted as a catalyst for such endeavours and these initiatives would not have occurred without POD’s efforts.Gilley is not only the founder of POD, he is also the majority shareholder, key decision-maker, and predominant public spokesperson in this private, non-charitable, non-profit organisation (Frances 73). While POD’s celebrity supporters participate in press conferences, it is Gilley who does most to raise awareness. His public persona is inextricably linked with POD and is created through a range of presentational media with which he is engaged. These include social media content, regular blogposts on POD’s website, as well as appearances at a series of speaking events. Most significantly, Gilley establishes his public persona through a number of documentary films (Peace One Day; Day After; POD Part Three), which are shot largely from his perspective and narrated by his voiceover, and which depict POD’s key struggles and successes.The Peace Campaigner as an Activist and Entrepreneur In common with other non-profit organisations, POD relies on celebrities from the entertainment industries. It works with them in two key ways: raising the public profile of the organisation, and shaping the public persona of its founder by inviting comparisons of their perceived exceptionalness with his ostensible ordinariness. For example, Gilley’s documentaries depict various press conferences held by POD over a number of years. Those organised prior to POD recruiting celebrity spokespeople were “completely ignored by the media” whereas those held after celebrity backing from Jude Law and Angelina Jolie had been secured attracted considerable interest (Day After). Gilley explains his early difficulties in publicising his message by suggesting that he “was a nobody” (POD Part Three). This representation as a “nobody” or, more diplomatically, as “ordinary,” is a central component of Gilley’s persona. “Ordinariness” here means situating Gilley outside the political and entertainment elites and aligning him with more everyday suburban settings. This is done through a combination of the aesthetic qualities of his public presentation and his publically narrated back-story.Aesthetically speaking, Gilley presents his ordinariness through his casual attire and long hair. His appearance is similar to the campaigners, youth groups and school children he addresses, suggesting he is a representative of that demographic but also distancing him from political elites. The diplomats Gilley meets, such as those at the UN, wear the appropriate attire for their elite political setting: suits. In one key scene in the documentary Peace One Day, Gilley makes his first trip to the UN to meet Kofi Annan, UN General Secretary at the time, and appears at their doors clean cut and suitably dressed. He declares that his new appearance was designed to aid his credibility with the UN. Yet, at the same time, he makes explicit that he borrowed the suit from a friend and the tie from his grandfather and, prior to the meeting, it was decided, “the pony tail had to go.” Thus Gilley seeks the approval of both political elites and the ordinary public, and constructs a persona that speaks to both, though he aligns himself with the latter.Gilley’s back-story permeates his films and works to present his ordinariness. For example, POD has humble beginnings as an almost grassroots, family-run organisation, and Gilley depicts a campaign run on a shoestring from his mother’s spare bedroom in an ordinary suburban home. Although British Airways provided free flights from the organisation’s outset, Gilley shows his friends volunteering their time by organising fundraising events. POD’s modest beginnings are reflected in its founder, who confides about both his lack of formal education and lack of success as an actor (Day After). This “ordinariness” is constructed in opposition to the exceptional qualities of POD’s A-list celebrity backers—such as Angelina Jolie, who does enjoy success as an actor. This contrast is emphasised by inviting Jolie into Gilley’s everyday domestic setting and highlighting the icons of success she brings with her. For example, at his first meeting with Jolie, Gilley waits patiently for her and remarks about the expensive car which eventually arrives outside his house, denoting Jolie’s arrival. He notes in the voiceover to his The Day after Peace documentary, “this was unbelievable, Angelina Jolie sat on my sofa asking me what she could do, I couldn’t stop talking. I was so nervous.”Gilley promotes his ordinariness by using aesthetics and personal narrative. Evidence of how he struggled to realise his goals and the financial burdens he carried (Peace One Day) suggest that there is something authentic about Gilley’s vision for Peace Day. This also helps Gilley to align his public persona with common understandings of the political activist as a prophetic social visionary. POD is able to tap into the idea of the power of the individual as a force for change with references to Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Although Gilley makes no direct comparison between himself and these figures, blog entries such as “ten years ago, I had an idea; I dared to dream that I could galvanise the countries of the world to recognise an official day of ceasefire and nonviolence. Mad? Ambitious? Idealistic? All of the above” (Gilley “Dream”), invite comparisons with King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. This is further augmented by references to Gilley as an outsider to political establishments, such as the UN, which he is sure have “become cynical about the opportunity” they have to unite the world (BBC Interview).Interestingly, Gilley’s presentation as a pragmatic “change-maker” whose “passion is contagious” (Ahmad Fawzi, in POD Concert) also aligns him with a second figure: the entrepreneur. Where Gilley’s performances at school and community groups present his persona as an activist, his entrepreneur persona is presented through his performances at a series of business seminars. These seminars, entitled “Unleash Your Power of Influence,” are targeted towards young entrepreneurs and business-people very much consistent with the “creative class” demographic (Florida). The speakers, including Gilley, have all been successful in business (POD is a private company) and they offer to their audiences motivational presentations, and business advice. Although a semi-regular occurrence, it is the first two events held in July 2010 (Unleash 1) and November 2010 (Unleash 2) that are discussed here. Held in a luxury five-star London hotel, the events demonstrate a starkly different aspect of POD than that presented to community groups and schools, and the amateur grassroots ethic presented in Gilley’s documentary films—for example, tickets for Unleash 2 started at £69 and offered ‘goody bags’ for £95 (author’s observation of the event)—yet consistencies remain.Aesthetically speaking, Gilley’s appearance signifies a connection with these innovative, stereotypically young, founders of start-up companies and where Gilley is an outsider to political organisations; they are outsiders to business establishments. Further, many of these companies typically started, like POD, in a spare bedroom. The speakers at the Unleash events provide insights into their background which frequently demonstrate a rise from humble beginnings to business success, in the face of adversity, and as a result of innovation and perseverance. Gilley is not out of place in this environment and the modest beginnings of POD are relayed to his audience in a manner which bears a striking similarity to his for-profit counterparts.An analysis of Gilley’s presentations at these events demonstrates clear links between the dual aspects of Gilley’s public persona, the political economy of POD, and the underlying philosophy of the organisation—social entrepreneurship. The next section sets out some of the principals of social entrepreneurship and how the aspects of Gilley’s persona, outlined above, reinforce these.Personifying Social EnterpriseGenerally speaking, the business literature greatly emphasises entrepreneurs as “resourceful, value-creating change agents” who are “never satisfied with the status quo [... and are] a forceful engine of growth in our economy” (Dees and Economy 3-4). More recently, the focus of discussion has included social entrepreneurs. These individuals work within “an organisation that attacks [social and environmental] problems through a business format, even if it is not legally structured as a profit-seeking entity” (Bornstein and Davis xv) and advocate commercially oriented non-profit organisations that establish “win-win” relationships between non-profits and business.This coming together of the for- and non-profit sectors has range of precedents, most notably in “philanthrocapitalism” (Bishop and Green) and the types of partnerships established between corporations and environmentalists, such as Greenpeace Australia (Beder). However, philanthrocapitalism often encompasses the application of business methods to social problems by those who have amassed fortunes in purely commercial ventures (such as Bill Gates), and Beder’s work describes established for- and non-profit institutions working together. While social entrepreneurship overlaps with these, social entrepreneurs seek to do well by doing good by making a profit while simultaneously realising social goals (Bornstein and Davis 25).Read as an articulation of the coming together of the activist and the entrepreneur, Gilley’s individuality encapsulates the social enterprise movement. His persona draws from the commonalities between the archetypes of the traditional grassroots activist and start-up entrepreneur, as pioneering visionary and outsider to the establishment. While his films establish his authenticity among politically attuned members of the public, his appearances at the Unleash events work to signify the legitimacy of his organisation to those who identify with social entrepreneurialism and take the position that business should play a positive role in social causes. As an activist, Gilley’s creates his persona through his aesthetic qualities and a performance that draws on historical precedents of social prophets. As an entrepreneur, Gilley draws on the same aesthetic qualities and, through his performance, mitigates the types of disjuncture evident in the 1980s between environmental activists, politicians and business leaders, when environmentalist’s narratives “were perceived as flaky and failed to transform” (Robèrt 7). To do this, Gilley reconstitutes social and environmental problems (such as conflict) within a market metric, and presents the market as a viable and efficient solution. Consequently, Gilley asserts that “we live in a culture of war because war makes money, we need to live in a culture of peace,” and this depends on “if we can make it economical, if we can make the numbers add up” (Unleash).Social enterprises often eschew formal charity and Gilley is consistent with this when he states that “for me, I think it has to be about business. [...] I think if it’s about charity it’s not going to work for me.” Gilley asserts that partnerships with corporations are essential as “our world is going to change, when the corporate sector becomes engaged.” He, therefore, “want[s] to work with large corporations” in order to “empower individuals to be involved in the process of [creating] a more peaceful and sustainable world” (Unleash). One example of POD’s success in this regard is a co-venture with Coca-Cola.To coincide with Peace Day in 2007, POD and Coca-Cola entered into a co-branding exercise which culminated in a sponsorship deal with the POD logo printed on Coca-Cola packaging. Prior to this, Gilley faced a desperate financial situation and conceded that the only alternative to a co-venture with Coca-Cola was shutting down POD (Day After). While Coca-Cola offered financial support and the potential to spread Gilley’s message through the medium of the Coke can, POD presumably offered good publicity to a corporation persistently the target of allegations of unethical practice (for example, Levenson-Estrada; Gill; Thomas). Gilley was aware of the potential image problems caused by a venture with Coke but accepted the partnership on pragmatic grounds, and with the proviso that Coke’s sponsorship not accompany any attempt to influence POD. Gilley, in effect, was using Coca-Cola, displaying the political independence of the social visionary and the pragmatism of the entrepreneur. By the same token, Coca-Cola was using POD to garner positive publicity, demonstrating the nature of this “win-win” relationship.In his film, Gilley consults Ray C. Anderson, social enterprise proponent, about his ethical concerns. Anderson explains the merits of working with Coke. In his Unleash addresses, such ethical considerations do not feature. Instead, it is relayed that Coca-Cola executives were looking to become involved with a social campaign, consistent with the famous 1970s hilltop advertisement of “teaching the world to sing in harmony.” From a meeting at Coca-Cola’s headquarters in Atlanta, Gilley reveals, a correlation emerged between Gilley’s emphasis on Peace Day as a moment of global unity—encapsulated by his belief that “the thing about corporations [...] the wonderful thing about everybody […] is that everybody’s just like us” (Unleash)—and the image of worldwide harmony that Coca-Cola wanted to portray. It is my contention that Gilley’s public persona underpinned the manner in which this co-branding campaign emerged. This is because his persona neatly tied the profit motive of the corporation to the socially spirited nature of the campaign, and spoke to Coca-Cola in a manner relatable to the market. At the same time, it promoted a social campaign premised on an inclusiveness that recast the corporation as a concerned global citizen, and the social campaigner as a free-market agent.Persona in the Competitive Non-Profit SectorThrough a series of works P. David Marshall charts the increasing centrality of individuality as “one of the ideological mainstays of consumer capitalism [...and] equally one of the ideological mainstays of how democracy is conceived” (Marshall “New Media-New Self” 635). Celebrity, accordingly, can be thought of as a powerful discourse that works “to make the cultural centrality of individuality concretely real” (Marshall “New Media-New Self” 635). Beyond celebrity, Marshall offers a wider framework that maps how “personalisation, individuality, and the move from the private to the public are now part of the wider populace rather than just at play in the representational field of celebrity” (Marshall, “Persona” 158). This framework includes fundamental changes to the global, specifically Western, labour market that, while not a fait accompli, point to a more competitive environment in which “greater portions of the culture are engaged in regular—probably frequent—selling of themselves” and where self-promotion becomes a key tool (Marshall, “Persona” 158). Therefore, while consumerism comprises a backdrop to the proliferation of celebrity culture, competition within market capitalism contributes to the wider expansion of personalisation and individualism.The non-profit sector is also a competitive environment. UK studies have found an increase in the number of International NGOs of 46.6% from 1995/6-2005/6 (Anheier, Kaldor, and Glasius. 310). At the same time, the number of large charities (with an income greater than £10 million) rose, between 1999-2013, from 307 to 1,005 and their annual income rose from approximately £10bn to £36bn (Charity Commission). These quantitative changes in the sector have occurred alongside qualitative changes in terms of the orientation of individual organisations. For example, Epstein and Gang describe a non-profit sector in which NGOs compete against each other for funds from aid donors (state and private). It is unclear whether “aid will be allocated properly, say to the poorest or to maximize the social welfare” or to the “efficient aid-seekers” (294)—that is, NGOs with the greatest competitive capabilities. A market for public awareness has also emerged and, in an increasingly crowded non-profit sector, it is clearly important for organisations to establish a public profile that can gain attention.It is in this competitive environment that the public personae of activists become assets for NGOs, and Gilley constitutes a successful example of this. His persona demonstrates an organisation’s response to the competitive nature of the non-profit sector, by appealing to both traditional activist circles and the business sector, and articulating the social enterprise movement. Gilley effectively embodies social entrepreneurship—in his appearance, his performance and his back-story—bridging a gap between the for- and non-profit sectors. His persona helps legitimate efforts to recast the activist as an entrepreneur (and conversely, entrepreneurs as activists) by incorporating activist ideals (in this instance, peace) within a market framework. This, to return to Marshall’s argument, crystallises the issue of peace within market metrics such and normativises debates about the role of corporate actors as global citizens, presenting it as pragmatism and therefore “common sense.” This is not to undermine Gilley’s achievements but, instead, to point out how reading his public persona enables an understanding of efforts to marketise the non-profit sector and align peace activism with corporate power.References Anheier, Helmut K., Mary Kaldor, and Marlies Glasius. Global Civil Society 2006/7. London: Sage, 2007.BBC Storyville. Director Interview: Jeremy Gilley. BBC. 2004. 7 Feb. 2010.Beder, Sharon. Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism. Totnes, UK: Green Books, 2002.Bishop, Matthew, and Michael Green. Philanthrocapitalism. London: A&C Black, 2008.Bornstein, David, and Susan Davis. Social Entrepreneurship: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.Charity Commission for England and Wales. “Sector Facts and Figures.” N.d. 5 Apr 2014.Day after Peace, The. Dir. Jeremy Gilley. Peace One Day, 2008.Dees, J. Gregory, and Peter Economy. "Social Entrepreneurship." Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs. Eds. J. Gregory Dees, Jed Emerson, and Peter Economy. New York: Wiley, 2001. 1-18.Epstein, Gil S., and Ira N. Gang. “Contests, NGOs, and Decentralizing Aid.” Review of Development Economics 10. 2 (2006): 285-296.Florida, Richard. The Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition for Talent. New York: Harper Business, 2006.Frances, Nic. The End of Charity: Time for Social Enterprise. New South Wales: Allen & Unwin, 2008.Fraser, Nick. “Can One Man Persuade the World, via the UN, to Sanction a Global Ceasefire Day?” BBC. 2005. 7 Feb. 2010.Gill, Leslie. “Labor and Human Rights: The ‘Real Thing’ in Colombia.” Transforming Anthropology 13.2 (2005): 110-115.Gilley, Jeremy. “Dream One Day.” Peace One Day. 2009. 23 Jun 2010.Levenson-Estrada, Deborah. Trade Unionists against Terror: Guatemala City, 1954-1985. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1994.Marshall, P. David. Celebrity and Power. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001.Marshall, P. David. “Intimately Intertwined in the Most Public Way: Celebrity and Journalism.” The Celebrity Culture Reader. Ed. P. David Marshall. Oxon: Routledge, 2006. 316-323.Marshall, P. David. “New Media – New Self: The Changing Power of Celebrity.” The Celebrity Culture Reader. Ed. P. David. Marshall. Oxon: Routledge, 2006. 634-644.Marshall, P. David. “Personifying Agency: The Public–Persona–Place–Issue Continuum.” Celebrity Studies 4.3 (2013): 369-371.Marshall, P. David. “Persona Studies: Mapping the Proliferation of the Public Self.” Journalism 15.2 (2014): 153-170.Newsnight. BBC 2. 20 Sep. 2010. 22.30-23.00.Peace One Day. Dir. Jeremy Gilley. Peace One Day, 2004.Peace One Day Concert: Live at the Royal Albert Hall Gilley. Dir. Jeremy Gilley. Peace One Day, 2008.Peace One Day Part Three. Dir. Jeremy Gilley. Peace One Day, 2010.Robèrt, Karl-Henrik. The Natural Step: Seeding a Quiet Revolution. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers, 2002.Thomas, Mark. Belching Out the Devil: Global Adventure with Coca-Cola. London: Ebury Press, 2008.United Nations General Assembly. “International Day of Peace. A/RES/55/282" 111th Plenary Meeting. 2001. 10 June 2014 ‹http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/55/282&Lang=E›.Unleash Your Power of Influence. Triumphant Events and Peace One Day. 2010.

IntroductionThe Internet (especially in the so-called Web 2.0 phase), digital media and file-sharing networks have thrust copyright law under public scrutiny, provoking discourses questioning what is fair in the digital age. Accessible hardware and software has led to prosumerism – creativity blending media consumption with media production to create new works that are freely disseminated online via popular video-sharing Web sites such as YouTube or genre specific music sites like GYBO (“Get Your Bootleg On”) amongst many others. The term “prosumer” is older than the Web, and the conceptual convergence of producer and consumer roles is certainly not new, for “at electric speeds the consumer becomes producer as the public becomes participant role player” (McLuhan 4). Similarly, Toffler’s “Third Wave” challenges “old power relationships” and promises to “heal the historic breach between producer and consumer, giving rise to the ‘prosumer’ economics” (27). Prosumption blurs the traditionally separate consumer and producer creating a new creative era of mass customisation of artefacts culled from the (copyrighted) media landscape (Tapscott 62-3). Simultaneously, corporate interests dependent upon the protections provided by copyright law lobby for augmented rights and actively defend their intellectual property through law suits, takedown notices and technological reinforcement. Despite a lack demonstrable economic harm in many cases, the propertarian approach is winning and frequently leading to absurd results (Collins).The balance between private and public interests in creative works is facilitated by the doctrine of fair use (as codified in the United States Copyright Act 1976, section 107). The majority of copyright laws contain “fair” exceptions to claims of infringement, but fair use is characterised by a flexible, open-ended approach that allows the law to flex with the times. Until recently the defence was unique to the U.S., but on 2 January Israel amended its copyright laws to include a fair use defence. (For an overview of the new Israeli fair use exception, see Efroni.) Despite its flexibility, fair use has been systematically eroded by ever encroaching copyrights. This paper argues that copyright enforcement has spun out of control and the raison d’être of the law has shifted from being “an engine of free expression” (Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises 471 U.S. 539, 558 (1985)) towards a “legal regime for intellectual property that increasingly looks like the law of real property, or more properly an idealized construct of that law, one in which courts seeks out and punish virtually any use of an intellectual property right by another” (Lemley 1032). Although the copyright landscape appears bleak, two recent cases suggest that fair use has not fallen by the wayside and may well recover. This paper situates fair use as an essential legal and cultural mechanism for optimising creative expression.A Brief History of CopyrightThe law of copyright extends back to eighteenth century England when the Statute of Anne (1710) was enacted. Whilst the length of this paper precludes an in depth analysis of the law and its export to the U.S., it is important to stress the goals of copyright. “Copyright in the American tradition was not meant to be a “property right” as the public generally understands property. It was originally a narrow federal policy that granted a limited trade monopoly in exchange for universal use and access” (Vaidhyanathan 11). Copyright was designed as a right limited in scope and duration to ensure that culturally important creative works were not the victims of monopolies and were free (as later mandated in the U.S. Constitution) “to promote the progress.” During the 18th century English copyright discourse Lord Camden warned against propertarian approaches lest “all our learning will be locked up in the hands of the Tonsons and the Lintons of the age, who will set what price upon it their avarice chooses to demand, till the public become as much their slaves, as their own hackney compilers are” (Donaldson v. Becket 17 Cobbett Parliamentary History, col. 1000). Camden’s sentiments found favour in subsequent years with members of the North American judiciary reiterating that copyright was a limited right in the interests of society—the law’s primary beneficiary (see for example, Wheaton v. Peters 33 US 591 [1834]; Fox Film Corporation v. Doyal 286 US 123 [1932]; US v. Paramount Pictures 334 US 131 [1948]; Mazer v. Stein 347 US 201, 219 [1954]; Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aitken 422 U.S. 151 [1975]; Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co. 440 US 257 [1979]; Dowling v. United States 473 US 207 [1985]; Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises 471 U.S. 539 [1985]; Luther R. Campbell a.k.a. Luke Skyywalker, et al. v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S 569 [1994]). Putting the “Fair” in Fair UseIn Folsom v. Marsh 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841) (No. 4,901) Justice Storey formulated the modern shape of fair use from a wealth of case law extending back to 1740 and across the Atlantic. Over the course of one hundred years the English judiciary developed a relatively cohesive set of principles governing the use of a first author’s work by a subsequent author without consent. Storey’s synthesis of these principles proved so comprehensive that later English courts would look to his decision for guidance (Scott v. Stanford L.R. 3 Eq. 718, 722 (1867)). Patry explains fair use as integral to the social utility of copyright to “encourage. . . learned men to compose and write useful books” by allowing a second author to use, under certain circumstances, a portion of a prior author’s work, where the second author would himself produce a work promoting the goals of copyright (Patry 4-5).Fair use is a safety valve on copyright law to prevent oppressive monopolies, but some scholars suggest that fair use is less a defence and more a right that subordinates copyrights. Lange and Lange Anderson argue that the doctrine is not fundamentally about copyright or a system of property, but is rather concerned with the recognition of the public domain and its preservation from the ever encroaching advances of copyright (2001). Fair use should not be understood as subordinate to the exclusive rights of copyright owners. Rather, as Lange and Lange Anderson claim, the doctrine should stand in the superior position: the complete spectrum of ownership through copyright can only be determined pursuant to a consideration of what is required by fair use (Lange and Lange Anderson 19). The language of section 107 suggests that fair use is not subordinate to the bundle of rights enjoyed by copyright ownership: “Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright” (Copyright Act 1976, s.107). Fair use is not merely about the marketplace for copyright works; it is concerned with what Weinreb refers to as “a community’s established practices and understandings” (1151-2). This argument boldly suggests that judicial application of fair use has consistently erred through subordinating the doctrine to copyright and considering simply the effect of the appropriation on the market place for the original work.The emphasis on economic factors has led courts to sympathise with copyright owners leading to a propertarian or Blackstonian approach to copyright (Collins; Travis) propagating the myth that any use of copyrighted materials must be licensed. Law and media reports alike are potted with examples. For example, in Bridgeport Music, Inc., et al v. Dimension Films et al 383 F. 3d 400 (6th Cir. 2004) a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the transformative use of a three-note guitar sample infringed copyrights and that musicians must obtain licence from copyright owners for every appropriated audio fragment regardless of duration or recognisability. Similarly, in 2006 Christopher Knight self-produced a one-minute television advertisement to support his campaign to be elected to the board of education for Rockingham County, North Carolina. As a fan of Star Wars, Knight used a makeshift Death Star and lightsaber in his clip, capitalising on the imagery of the Jedi Knight opposing the oppressive regime of the Empire to protect the people. According to an interview in The Register the advertisement was well received by local audiences prompting Knight to upload it to his YouTube channel. Several months later, Knight’s clip appeared on Web Junk 2.0, a cable show broadcast by VH1, a channel owned by media conglomerate Viacom. Although his permission was not sought, Knight was pleased with the exposure, after all “how often does a local school board ad wind up on VH1?” (Metz). Uploading the segment of Web Junk 2.0 featuring the advertisement to YouTube, however, led Viacom to quickly issue a take-down notice citing copyright infringement. Knight expressed his confusion at the apparent unfairness of the situation: “Viacom says that I can’t use my clip showing my commercial, claiming copy infringement? As we say in the South, that’s ass-backwards” (Metz).The current state of copyright law is, as Patry says, “depressing”:We are well past the healthy dose stage and into the serious illness stage ... things are getting worse, not better. Copyright law has abandoned its reason for being: to encourage learning and the creation of new works. Instead, its principal functions now are to preserve existing failed business models, to suppress new business models and technologies, and to obtain, if possible, enormous windfall profits from activity that not only causes no harm, but which is beneficial to copyright owners. Like Humpty-Dumpty, the copyright law we used to know can never be put back together.The erosion of fair use by encroaching private interests represented by copyrights has led to strong critiques leveled at the judiciary and legislators by Lessig, McLeod and Vaidhyanathan. “Free culture” proponents warn that an overly strict copyright regime unbalanced by an equally prevalent fair use doctrine is dangerous to creativity, innovation, culture and democracy. After all, “few, if any, things ... are strictly original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before. No man creates a new language for himself, at least if he be a wise man, in writing a book. He contents himself with the use of language already known and used and understood by others” (Emerson v. Davis, 8 F. Cas. 615, 619 (No. 4,436) (CCD Mass. 1845), qted in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, 62 U.S.L.W. at 4171 (1994)). The rise of the Web 2.0 phase with its emphasis on end-user created content has led to an unrelenting wave of creativity, and much of it incorporates or “mashes up” copyright material. As Negativland observes, free appropriation is “inevitable when a population bombarded with electronic media meets the hardware [and software] that encourages them to capture it” and creatively express themselves through appropriated media forms (251). The current state of copyright and fair use is bleak, but not beyond recovery. Two recent cases suggest a resurgence of the ideology underpinning the doctrine of fair use and the role played by copyright.Let’s Go CrazyIn “Let’s Go Crazy #1” on YouTube, Holden Lenz (then eighteen months old) is caught bopping to a barely recognizable recording of Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” in his mother’s Pennsylvanian kitchen. The twenty-nine second long video was viewed a mere twenty-eight times by family and friends before Stephanie Lenz received an email from YouTube informing her of its compliance with a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) take-down notice issued by Universal, copyright owners of Prince’s recording (McDonald). Lenz has since filed a counterclaim against Universal and YouTube has reinstated the video. Ironically, the media exposure surrounding Lenz’s situation has led to the video being viewed 633,560 times at the time of writing. Comments associated with the video indicate a less than reverential opinion of Prince and Universal and support the fairness of using the song. On 8 Aug. 2008 a Californian District Court denied Universal’s motion to dismiss Lenz’s counterclaim. The question at the centre of the court judgment was whether copyright owners should consider “the fair use doctrine in formulating a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” The court ultimately found in favour of Lenz and also reaffirmed the position of fair use in relation to copyright. Universal rested its argument on two key points. First, that copyright owners cannot be expected to consider fair use prior to issuing takedown notices because fair use is a defence, invoked after the act rather than a use authorized by the copyright owner or the law. Second, because the DMCA does not mention fair use, then there should be no requirement to consider it, or at the very least, it should not be considered until it is raised in legal defence.In rejecting both arguments the court accepted Lenz’s argument that fair use is an authorised use of copyrighted materials because the doctrine of fair use is embedded into the Copyright Act 1976. The court substantiated the point by emphasising the language of section 107. Although fair use is absent from the DMCA, the court reiterated that it is part of the Copyright Act and that “notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A” a fair use “is not an infringement of copyright” (s.107, Copyright Act 1976). Overzealous rights holders frequently abuse the DMCA as a means to quash all use of copyrighted materials without considering fair use. This decision reaffirms that fair use “should not be considered a bizarre, occasionally tolerated departure from the grand conception of the copyright design” but something that it is integral to the constitution of copyright law and essential in ensuring that copyright’s goals can be fulfilled (Leval 1100). Unlicensed musical sampling has never fared well in the courtroom. Three decades of rejection and admonishment by judges culminated in Bridgeport Music, Inc., et al v. Dimension Films et al 383 F. 3d 400 (6th Cir. 2004): “Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this stifling creativity in any significant way” was the ruling on an action brought against an unlicensed use of a three-note guitar sample under section 114, an audio piracy provision. The Bridgeport decision sounded a death knell for unlicensed sampling, ensuring that only artists with sufficient capital to pay the piper could legitimately be creative with the wealth of recorded music available. The cost of licensing samples can often outweigh the creative merit of the act itself as discussed by McLeod (86) and Beaujon (25). In August 2008 the Supreme Court of New York heard EMI v. Premise Media in which EMI sought an injunction against an unlicensed fifteen second excerpt of John Lennon’s “Imagine” featured in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a controversial documentary canvassing alleged chilling of intelligent design proponents in academic circles. (The family of John Lennon and EMI had previously failed to persuade a Manhattan federal court in a similar action.) The court upheld Premise Media’s arguments for fair use and rejected the Bridgeport approach on which EMI had rested its entire complaint. Justice Lowe criticised the Bridgeport court for its failure to examine the legislative intent of section 114 suggesting that courts should look to the black letter of the law rather than blindly accept propertarian arguments. This decision is of particular importance because it establishes that fair use applies to unlicensed use of sound recordings and re-establishes de minimis use.ConclusionThis paper was partly inspired by the final entry on eminent copyright scholar William Patry’s personal copyright law blog (1 Aug. 2008). A copyright lawyer for over 25 years, Patry articulated his belief that copyright law has swung too far away from its initial objectives and that balance could never be restored. The two cases presented in this paper demonstrate that fair use – and therefore balance – can be recovered in copyright. The federal Supreme Court and lower courts have stressed that copyright was intended to promote creativity and have upheld the fair doctrine, but in order for the balance to exist in copyright law, cases must come before the courts; copyright myth must be challenged. As McLeod states, “the real-world problems occur when institutions that actually have the resources to defend themselves against unwarranted or frivolous lawsuits choose to take the safe route, thus eroding fair use”(146-7). ReferencesBeaujon, Andrew. “It’s Not the Beat, It’s the Mocean.” CMJ New Music Monthly. April 1999.Collins, Steve. “Good Copy, Bad Copy: Covers, Sampling and Copyright.” M/C Journal 8.3 (2005). 26 Aug. 2008 ‹http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0507/02-collins.php›.———. “‘Property Talk’ and the Revival of Blackstonian Copyright.” M/C Journal 9.4 (2006). 26 Aug. 2008 ‹http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0609/5-collins.php›.Donaldson v. Becket 17 Cobbett Parliamentary History, col. 953.Efroni, Zohar. “Israel’s Fair Use.” The Center for Internet and Society (2008). 26 Aug. 2008 ‹http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5670›.Lange, David, and Jennifer Lange Anderson. “Copyright, Fair Use and Transformative Critical Appropriation.” Conference on the Public Domain, Duke Law School. 2001. 26 Aug. 2008 ‹http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/langeand.pdf›.Lemley, Mark. “Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding.” Texas Law Review 83 (2005): 1031.Lessig, Lawrence. The Future of Ideas. New York: Random House, 2001.———. Free Culture. New York: Penguin, 2004.Leval, Pierre. “Toward a Fair Use Standard.” Harvard Law Review 103 (1990): 1105.McDonald, Heather. “Holden Lenz, 18 Months, versus Prince and Universal Music Group.” About.com: Music Careers 2007. 26 Aug. 2008 ‹http://musicians.about.com/b/2007/10/27/holden-lenz-18-months-versus-prince-and-universal-music-group.htm›.McLeod, Kembrew. “How Copyright Law Changed Hip Hop: An interview with Public Enemy’s Chuck D and Hank Shocklee.” Stay Free 2002. 26 Aug. 2008 ‹http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/20/public_enemy.html›.———. Freedom of Expression: Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity. United States: Doubleday, 2005.McLuhan, Marshall, and Barrington Nevitt. Take Today: The Executive as Dropout. Ontario: Longman Canada, 1972.Metz, Cade. “Viacom Slaps YouTuber for Behaving like Viacom.” The Register 2007. 26 Aug. 2008 ‹http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/30/viacom_slaps_pol/›.Negativland, ed. Fair Use: The Story of the Letter U and the Numeral 2. Concord: Seeland, 1995.Patry, William. The Fair Use Privilege in Copyright Law. Washington DC: Bureau of National Affairs, 1985.———. “End of the Blog.” The Patry Copyright Blog. 1 Aug. 2008. 27 Aug. 2008 ‹http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/08/end-of-blog.html›.Tapscott, Don. The Digital Economy: Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill, 1996.Toffler, Alvin. The Third Wave. London, Glasgow, Sydney, Auckland. Toronto, Johannesburg: William Collins, 1980.Travis, Hannibal. “Pirates of the Information Infrastructure: Blackstonian Copyright and the First Amendment.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 15 (2000), No. 777.Vaidhyanathan, Siva. Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity. New York; London: New York UP, 2003.

This study was an investigation into participant perceptions of principal appraisal in Australian Lutheran schools where a national, systematic appraisal process for principals, entitled Principal Appraisal for Development (PAD), has been in place since 2000. The study group for the investigation consisted of fifteen principals, ten chairpersons of school councils and two district directors, all of whom had been involved in the process. The literature review indicated that whilst there was substantive scholarly writing on the purpose and methods of principal appraisal, there was a lack of recorded research on the experience and longer term outcomes of appraisal. Accordingly, the focus of the study was an examination of participant perceptions of the experience and impact of appraisal. The study's theoretical underpinning was symbolic interactionism and it adopted a qualitative approach to answer the central research question: What are principal and governing council chairperson perceptions of the efficacy of principal appraisal processes in Australian Lutheran schools? Data for the study were gathered through focus group and individual qualitative interviews. In addition, documents associated with the appraisal process were obtained for analysis. The data were then analysed using grounded theory methods, leading to the generation of three theoretical propositions. The first proposition was that the efficacy of principal appraisal depended on the completion of an explicit process that followed six clearly defined and understood steps; the second: that five perceptions of the efficacy of the appraisal process could be identified amongst participants; and the third: that the role played by key players in a spirit of trust in the process and in one another facilitated perceptions of efficacy in the appraisal process. Furthermore, the context in which the process took place, the actual purpose of the process and the nature of responses by participants emerged as key factors in each proposition. In particular, these factors determined whether the appraisal process advanced through the six defined stages required to ensure meaningful, long-term development for the principal, which of the perceptions of efficacy of the process for development was held by participants, and the extent to which trust in one another and in the process was evident. From these propositions eight statements that describe the experience of study participants were identified. These comprised: their belief that a development purpose must have priority in appraisal for perceptions of efficacy of the process; credible messages needed to emerge from the appraisal process for perceptions of its efficacy; appraisal needed to be perceived as a complex process of change involving meaning-making; principal as agent and initiator in the appraisal process facilitated perceptions of efficacy; a supportive and improvement-oriented environment for professional development was associated with perceptions of efficacy of the process; professional development of the principal needed to be perceived as a complex process; trust in the process and in one another was necessary for perceptions of appraisal's efficacy; and appraisal was recognised as having outcomes that may distract from development. These findings have specific implications for the policy and practice of principal appraisal in Lutheran schools, especially as PAD is reviewed. The findings also have application to other appraisal settings and generated key questions to assist in developing, implementing and evaluating principal appraisal systems. The study also indicated that those involved in the appraisal process need to think through how appraisal, development and accountability are related. These concepts are important and legitimate, and are to be both separated and recognised in any employment context. The study found that appraisal that resulted in development was a complex process of change involving shifts to meaning and behaviour. Such a process needed to be supported through an environment of trust with an improvement focus. The study has indicated that appraisal for development needs to be informed more fully by an understanding of the professional development literature. In summary, the study has contributed to an understanding of the place of appraisal in the learning and development of school principals.

Recent studies of effective leadership for schools suggest relationships between the work of principals and beliefs, values and theoretical knowledge. However, it is not clear how these relationships work. In schools of the Lutheran Church of Australia the situation is complicated by expectations that principals will be operating with a Lutheran Christian world view. The precise nature of the role of world view in determining professional action has not been fully researched. This study made use of analysis techniques grounded in symbolic interactionism to examine the construction of meaning and rationale for professional actions by Lutheran secondary school principals. It sought to understand the impact of value on meaning and decision in ethically challenging situations. The central question of this research was: What values influence the reflection of Australian Lutheran secondary school principals as they address ethical dilemmas in their woik? Drawing on the accounts given by three Australian Lutheran secondary pnncipals to provide data for analysis, and making use of membership category analysis techniques, the study found that three statements could be made: 1. There is evidence in the accounts to suggest that the way principals perceive dilemmas is the result of a filtering process where some facts ate not fully considered prior to action. 2. There is evidence in the accounts to suggest that the filtering process is more strongly influenced by sub-rational and trans-rational values than by rational values. 3. There is evidence in the accounts that each piincipal has a world view that is partially shaped by values implicit in the Christian tradition. These findings are tentative because of the limited scope of the research. They have implications for the theoretical literature, suggesting that mote attention needs to be given to the impact of trans-rational and sub-rational values as filters of perception in difficult decisions. 'The findings suggest that any study of the reflection of school principals in ethically challenging situations should take into account the power of non-rational values to be a lens that distorts what is considered in the reflective process'. They also have implications for further research by those interested in Lutheran schools and those interested in the importance of values in shaping perception. Finally they have implications for those who prepare piincipals for Lutheran schools, suggesting the need for a clearer articulation of a philosophy for Lutheran schooling and for the development of the habit of critical reflection in Lutheran principals.

Twenty first century Lutheran secondary schools operate in a complex and demanding social, historical and theological environment. Leadership needs to be conceptualized in a manner which is appropriate for a fluid, dynamic learning community. Contemporary thinking about school leadership explores concepts such as teacher leadership, shared and distributed leadership. Successful school leadership is also perceived to impact positively on student educational outcomes. The leadership of the deputy principal in many school sectors has traditionally been structured on the basis of a bureaucratic, hierarchical model. Such models are increasingly perceived as unhelpful in the school context, yet in response, little has changed for deputy principals. The purpose of the current study was to consider the situation in Lutheran secondary schools. It explored the understandings about leadership embedded in the current role of the deputy principals. This was achieved by comparison of the participants’ perceptions with historical leadership narratives. The key finding of this research is that in Lutheran schools, the leadership role of the deputy is often not as fully developed as would be appropriate in the existing climate, where schools and principals are expected to provide ever expanding services and fulfil multiple purposes. In many schools, the leadership role of the deputy does not provide sufficient training for succession to the principalship. Deputy principals are seen to focus on activity which supports educational leadership, but leaves them on the fringe of it. Deputies are often not involved in major teaching and learning strategic planning, vision and change management. This hinders their preparation for a future role as principal, but also deprives the school of a potentially significant source of leadership activity. Deputy principals are seen to model the Christian ethos of the school through the way they interact with staff and students and their involvement in the devotional life of the school. However, in-depth involvement in ongoing dialogue about Lutheran identity and the church in the school is usually dependent on the interest and passion of the individual deputies, not inherently demanded by the role. There is also a limited understanding of servant leadership influencing the practice of deputy principals in the schools. In order to maximise the effectiveness of the leadership role of the deputy principals in Lutheran secondary schools, it would be timely to draw together key doctrinal statements, leadership theory and Luther’s reflections on vocation, into a cohesive and practical understanding of leadership. This could form the basis for further development of distributed leadership in Lutheran secondary schools and help to ensure that they continue to successfully meet the needs of their communities.

This ethnomethodological study focuses on the worldviews of Lutheran school principals and pastors. Essentially, these leaders in a Lutheran school provide direction and vision for the school learning community. The degree to which their worldviews coalesce will naturally result in positive or negative influences on the whole school community. These leaders within the Lutheran school can be seen as a hub for all kinds of learning experiences and interaction in the context of vital Christian communities in mission outreach and quality education. Any dissonance of worldview has potential for impact on school processes and relationships. The Lutheran Church has defined the role of the pastor in the school and the difference from his role in a congregation (Lutheran Church of Australia, 2002). Lutheran principals have a delegated authority from their school councils to be responsible for the complete oversight of the school’s direction, the observance of policies, and the assignment of tasks and duties of staff. The blurring of responsibility occurs over the pastor’s rightful responsibility in regards to a word and sacrament ministry. In a Lutheran school where the Gospel is to inform all learning, such tension can cloud school dynamics and transformation. The Lutheran church policy, Relative responsibilities of pastor and principal within the Lutheran school, identifies three critical areas of required mutual respect for the Principal and School Pastor: theological, professional and personal (Lutheran Church of Australia, 2001, p. 3). Thus, the ‘worldview’ dimensions considered in this research centre around the theological, the educational and the interpersonal domains. The school transformation themes of lifelong learning, postmodernism and curriculum, school organization and change, and school community relationships are used to challenge worldview dimensions of Principals and School Pastors through a series of online ‘stories’, or scenarios, backed by personal interviews and a document study. The identification of school leadership tension points brings about recommendations for action.

Thesis (EdD) -- Australian Catholic University, 2006.
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. Bibliography: p. 202-211. Also available in an electronic format via the internet.

Professor Miikka Ruokanen reveals the powerfully Trinitarian and participatory nature of Martin Luther’s conception of divine grace in his magnum opus The Bondage of the Will, largely ignored in the previous research. The study establishes a genuinely new understanding of Luther’s major treatise opening up its ecumenical potential. Luther’s debate with Erasmus signifies not only a disagreement concerning free will, but the dispute reveals two contrasting understandings of the very core idea of the Christian faith. For Erasmus, the relationship of the human being with God is based on the rationally and morally acceptable principles of fair play. For Luther, the human being is captivated by the overwhelming power of unfaith and transcendental evil, Satan; only the monergistic grace of the Triune God and the power of the Holy Spirit can liberate him/her. Ruokanen verifies the Trinitarian vision of salvation “by grace alone” as the center of Luther’s theology. This doctrine has three dimensions: (1) The conversion of the sinner and the birth of faith in Christ are effected by prevenient divine grace; justification “through faith alone,” is the sole work of God’s Spirit, comparable to creation ex nihilo. (2) Participation in the person, life, and divine properties of Christ, as well as participation in his salvific work, his cross, and resurrection, are possible solely because of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer. Justification means simultaneously the forensic declaration of the guilty non-guilty on the basis of the atonement by Jesus’ cross, as well as a union with Christ in the Holy Spirit. (3) Sanctification means the gradual growth of love for God and neighbor enabled by the believer’s participation in divine love in the Holy Spirit. Ruokanen’s work offers a crucial modification and advance to the world-renowned Finnish school of Luther interpretation: Luther’s classic use of Pneumatological language avoids the problems caused by using an ontological language.