When Is Special Handling Granted - U.S. Copyright Office: Fill & Download for Free

Zero. Distributing copyrighted content to even one person without the copyright owner’s consent (or a valid exception) is an infringement of copyright. The only place where the number of illegal distributions is relevant is when a copyright judge is determining monetary damages for a confirmed infringement.That’s the answer to your actual question as posed. However, looking at the explanatory note under it, I suspect that what you’re really wanting to know is how much can be shared before it’s a copyright violation.That’s where “fair use” comes into play, and Antone Johnson’s response accurately summarizes that. It’s also important to note that the 1976 Copyright Act (which is currently in force, though amended by DMCA and others) specifically mentions “teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use)” as not being a copyright infringement if that use falls within the parameters of “fair use”: 17 U.S. Code § 107Contrary to popular misunderstanding, “Fair use” does not mean “whatever use you think is fair.” Instead, it looks at the original intent of copyright law to begin with and strikes a balance (using four factors) between giving authors/creators a way to profit from their writings & creations and ensuring the overarching purpose of promoting “the progress of science and useful arts.”[1][1][1][1] Thus something is a “fair use” if under those guidelines its use, scope, and impact on the market is sufficiently limited to still promote progress without infringing the rights of the authors/creators.Since I’ve worked with a number of publishers on securing rights for using book chapters and excerpts in online courses, I’ll share some generalized insights here:Publishers pay a lot of attention to how many distributions there will be, and they grant or deny permissions (or price fees) accordingly. A course with one section and a moderate or small enrollment won’t be near as big of a concern to them as a class that typically has lots of enrollments &/or multiple sections.Whether it’s a one-time use or recurring is important as well. If you use a single chapter once in a course because it’s a timely and relevant topic and you want to make it available as a supplemental resource and there isn’t time to negotiate permissions and/or add the book as a textbook, you’ve got a better case for “fair use” than if it’s a chapter you make part of your required readings and want to use in your course every time it’s offered.How much of the work is used in relation to the whole is also a huge factor. Generally, about 10% of the work is about the most you can use and still reasonably argue “fair use.” So if there are 20 chapters in a book and you want to use only one, that probably falls within fair use, but if it’s a 7–10 chapter book and you want to use one chapter, most publishers would argue that’s not a legitimate claim of “fair use.” However, the relative importance of a specific chapter to the book as a whole is also important; if it’s the defining or keystone or most important chapter, you’re proposing to use the essence of the book’s significance without paying for it, and publishers are certainly going to argue that this doesn’t fall within “fair use” guidelines. One anthology book I wanted to use 2 chapters from had 21 chapters, so less than 10%, but one of those chapters was a very famous article which was this book’s biggest claim to fame; the publisher denied my permission request and asked us to buy the book instead (others under similar circumstances will quote fees as royalty pricing).So unfortunately, there isn’t a set or prescribed percentage or numerical quantity that is safe or crosses the line, nor can one easily be recommended, because there are so many variables involved. Even the “four factors” for determining fair use are relative variables which are weighed by a copyright judge in evaluating whether a use fell within or outside of the guidelines.But there are three fairly easy solutions to handling this (without having to worry about whether you’re in the clear or not):Visit the publisher’s website and find their permissions and use requests page (nearly all publishers have one, and many provide an easy-to-use form to spell out the details of your proposed use in order to request permission; others provide a permissions email). Start there (keep in mind, this request & approval process often takes a few weeks), and the more specific you are about exactly what you want to use when, where, & how (given all the factors above), the better your chances of getting approval. If the publisher grants you permission to use it - or quotes you a nominal royalty fee for that use and your institution agrees and pays, you don’t need to worry about copyright violation because you’ve obtained the copyright holder’s permission.There are several companies which specialize in creating Course Packs, which are collections of (usually photocopied, but now some offer digital) articles, chapters from books, and other supplemental resources to be distributed along with the textbooks or in class (and schools can usually charge a reasonable fee to recoup the costs of providing that). There are providers who specialize in brokering such rights and permissions for a fee and this can be a huge timesaver if you need this often or have more than one text or resource you need to include. The best known of these is probably University Readers but there are others, including MBS Direct (which also offers an e-text variation). Check and see if your institution has a standing agreement with one of those specialty providers. If they do, locate their site and start a quote for inclusion of that work in a packet. You can find more information about that here: Academic Coursepacks (Stanford Libraries - Copyright & Fair Use).Another option is clearinghouses such as Copyright Clearance Center and XanEdu, which specialize in brokering rights & permissions directly with the publishers and so offer a list of pre-negotiated titles with terms and fees. Look the particular work up on one of these sites and you’ll be able to find out whether they’ve already negotiated a permission and fee arrangement for it, and if they have, you can purchase access on those terms to obtain that permission.Hope that helps you understand the best options.NOTE: I share this information not as legal advice (I am not a lawyer) but as tips, suggestions, and generalized recommendations from a practitioner with 5+ years’ experience in this area. If you ever have doubts about the legality of a specific practice, consult your institution’s legal counsel (or academic/instructional media center which works with that legal counsel on such matters) for clarification.Footnotes[1] U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Preface[1] U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Preface[1] U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Preface[1] U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law: Preface

IMMIGRATIONWhat Happens When You Overstay Your Visa or I-94?By Ilona Bray, J.D., University of Washington Law SchoolLearn about the consequences of overstaying a visa or I-94.Whenever someone enters the United States on a visa (or using the Visa Waiver Program), that person is given a date by which he or she must leave. For some visitors, such as tourists and seasonal workers, the required departure date may be a few months away. For others, such as students or workers, it may be several years away. If your departure day passes, and you overstay your visa, you're in the United States unlawfully.There's not much difference under U.S. immigration law between someone who enters unlawfully, without a visa, and someone who stays past the time permitted. When you overstay, you become what's called "out of status." If immigration officials catch up with you, will will likely be removed, and face further consequences.This article will help you understand when your permitted stay expires and the consequences of being in the U.S. without immigration status.U.S. Immigration Officials Decide How Long You Can StayYour visa is merely an entry document; it doesn't state how long you can stay in the United States. Technically speaking, a visa allows you only to travel from your own country to a port of entry in the United States.When you arrive at the port of entry, a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer decides whether to allow you to come into the country and if so, how long you can stay. It's possible that the officer could turn you away. The officer makes the final decision.Your "Out-of-Status" Date Is Not Shown on Your VisaWhen the CBP officer allows you to enter the United States, he or she will either give you a second card to keep with your visa, called a Form I-94, or more likely will simply enter the relevant information into a computer database.Your Form I-94 is what actually determines how long you can legally stay in the country. The date on your visa (which may be several years away) tells you only how long you can use the visa to arrive in the United States.If you didn't receive a physical I-94 card, you can download and print out the needed information, including your out-of-status date, from the Arrival/Departure Forms: I-94 and I-94Wpage of the CBP website.If you came to the U.S. on an F-1 student visa, your I-94 will not have an actual date, but will say "D/S" for duration of status. That means that you are allowed to stay in the United States for as long as it takes you to complete your studies (assuming that you maintain a full-time course load and otherwise comply with the terms of your status during that time). You're also allowed a 60-day "grace period" after your studies are done, to enjoy some vacation or get ready to leave.Consequences of an OverstayIf you stay past the date on your Form I-94 or the end of your studies on an F-1, you're in the country illegally. This carries serious consequences.For starters, your visa is automatically cancelled. So even if it was a multiple entry visa, you cannot use it to enter the United States again. Your overstaying is also likely to prevent you from getting another visa to the U.S. in the future.You're also accruing what is known, in legal terms, as "unlawful presence" in the United States. A period of 180 days or more of unlawful presence makes you "inadmissible" to the United States. That means that you will not be granted a visa, green card (lawful permanent residence), or other immigration benefit for a period of either three or ten years, depending on how long you overstayed. An overstay of between 180 and 365 days results in a three-year bar on reentry; an overstay of over 365 days results in a ten-year bar on reentry.You may, under certain circumstances (usually if you have close family in the U.S. who would experience extreme hardship were you denied the visa or green card) seek a waiver of this ground of inadmissibility.You Have Options Before You OverstayBefore your Form I-94 expires, there are steps you can likely take if you know you're not going to be able to leave the country by the appropriate date. You can potentially submit a request to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services asking for an extension. Once that request is in, you are allowed to stay until receiving a decision.Such a request is, in most cases (such as B-2 visas for visitors for pleasure), done using USCIS Form I-539. However, the exact requirements and procedures vary depending on what type of visa you have. If, for example, you're on a work visa, then your employer will need to be part of requesting the extension.If the extension is denied, you must leave right away.If your Form I-94 has already expired, you should speak to an attorney as soon as possible. The more quickly you act, the more options you may have.Questions for Your Immigration LawyerAre extensions of my type of visa allowed? Under what circumstances?I overstayed a visa and married a U.S. citizen. Can I successfully apply for a green card?I've been called to immigration court because of being in the U.S. unlawfully after an overstay. How should I handle this?I've already gotten one visa extension. Can I get another?READ MORE: Immigration , VisasGet Professional HelpFind a Immigration lawyerPractice Area:SelectAffirmative ActionAlternative Dispute ResolutionAnimal LawAnimal Law BasicsAssaultAviation LawBanking LawBankruptcyBirth Control LitigationBusiness LawNonprofit and Charitable OrganizationsCivil RightsClass ActionsCommunications and MediaConstruction LawConsumer LawContractsCorporate LawCriminal LawDebtor and CreditorDefective Drug LitigationEducation LawElder LawEminent DomainEmployee BenefitsEntertainment LawEnvironmental LawFamily LawFinanceGeneral PracticeGovernmentHealth CareLong Term CareImmigrationInsuranceIntellectual PropertyInternet LawLabor and EmploymentLegal MalpracticeLegal SeparationAdmiralty and Maritime LawMedical MalpracticeMergers, Acquisitions and DivestituresMesotheliomaMilitary LawMilitary Law BasicsPersonal InjuryProducts LiabilityReal EstateRestraining OrdersSecuritiesSocial SecuritySSRI LitigationTaxationToxic TortsToxic Torts BasicsTrusts and EstatesEstate PlanningVioxx LitigationWelding Rod LitigationWhite Collar CrimeWills and ProbateWorkers CompensationZoning, Planning and Land UseArbitrationAirplane Crash LitigationCommercial BankingConsumer BankingMortgagesBankruptcy BasicsBusiness BankruptcyPersonal BankruptcyForeclosuresMirena IUDNuvaRingYasminBusiness LitigationBusiness FormationBuying and Selling of BusinessesBusiness FinanceeCommerceBusiness PlanningBusiness EnterprisesClosely Held Business LawFranchises and FranchisingJoint VenturesLimited Liability Company LawPartnership LawSmall Business LawDiscriminationCivil LibertiesGay and Lesbian RightsHuman RightsVoting RightsLibel, Slander and DefamationPrivacy LawTelecommunications LawConstruction AccidentsConstruction Law BasicsConsumer ContractsVehicle Finance & RepairDebt CollectionConsumer FraudIdentity TheftLemon LawUS Small Claims CourtWarranty LawBreach of ContractContracts BasicsCriminal Law BasicsTypes of CrimesLawyersDUI/DWITraffic ViolationsJuvenile LawDrug CrimesExpungementsParole and ProbationSex CrimesCollectionsCreditors RightsByettaGranuFloPradaxaCollege & University LawSchool LawSpecial EducationElder Abuse & NeglectElder Care & HousingPension and Profit Sharing PlansDivorceChild CustodyChild SupportChildrenChildrens RightsMatrimonial LawAdoptionsChild Abuse and NeglectDomestic ViolenceMilitary DivorcePaternityPremarital AgreementsSpousal SupportUnmarried CouplesVisitation RightsEquipment Finance and LeasingFinancing BasicsHealth InsuranceMedicare and MedicaidCitizenshipDeportationGreen CardsGeneral ImmigrationVisasAuto InsuranceLife InsuranceProperty InsuranceProfessional LiabilityLife and Health InsuranceNatural DisastersCopyrightsIntellectual Property LicensingPatentsTrademarksE CommerceWage and Hour LawJob HuntingHuman Resources LawEmployment DiscriminationEmployment ContractsAmericans with Disabilities ActFamily and Medical Leave ActOccupational Safety and Health (OSHA)Sexual HarassmentWrongful TerminationMaritime Personal InjuryChildbirth and ObstetricsMedical FacilitiesProfessional Duty of careAsbestosMesothelioma BasicsTypesVeterans BenefitsPersonal Injury BasicsTrucking AccidentsSlip And FallMedical LiabilityEnvironmental Health & SafetyProduct SafetyAutomobile AccidentsDog BitesHead And Spinal InjuriesMotorcycle AccidentsNursing Home LitigationRailroad AccidentsSexual AbuseWrongful DeathDrug and Medical Device LitigationIVC FilterMedtronic InfuseMetal on Metal HipsPelvic MeshProduct Liability BasicsLawyers Brokers and ResourcesResidential Real EstateLandlord and TenantHomeowners Association LawResidential Real Estate Own KeepCommercial Real EstateCommercial LeasingCondominium LawNeighbors and PetsInitial Public OfferingsSecurities BasicsSecurities FraudSocial Security BasicsSocial Security Disability InsuranceCelexaEffexorLexaproLuvoxPaxilProzacSymbyaxZoloftBusiness TaxationIncome TaxSales and Use TaxProperty TaxEstate & Gift TaxationCapital Gains TaxTax AuditsTax PlanningAsbestos LitigationMold LitigationAsset ProtectionGuardianship and ConservatorshipPowers of AttorneyTrustsLiving WillsWills and Probate BasicsZip Code:SUBMITHow It WorksBriefly tell us about your caseProvide your contact informationConnect with local attorneysBuild Your BusinessCanadian LawyersAbout UsContact UsTerms of UsePrivacy PolicyCookie PolicyCopyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or should be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on the site are paid attorney advertisements. Your access of/to and use of this site is subject to additional Supplemental Terms.;

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.I was thinking about your question. I was reading about how the US Government handles kidnapping where concessions like money are demanded by the kidnappers in an overseas operation.This site, War on the Rocks are about US National Security Professionals in handling issues such as international kidnapping.‘No Concessions’? A Closer Look at U.S. Hostage Recovery PolicyEDUCATING THE FORCEABOUTSIGN INBECOME A MEMBER‘NO CONCESSIONS’? A CLOSER LOOK AT U.S. HOSTAGE RECOVERY POLICYDANIELLE GILBERTFEBRUARY 27, 2019BOOK REVIEWSJason Rezaian, Prisoner: My 544 Days in an Iranian Prison — Solitary Confinement, a Sham Trial, High-Stakes Diplomacy, and the Extraordinary Efforts It Took to Get Me Out (Anthony Bourdain/ Ecco, 2019).Joel Simon, We Want to Negotiate: The Secret World of Kidnapping, Hostages, and Ransom (Columbia Global Reports, 2019).From the start, America has had a hostage problem. In the early 1790s, the nation faced one of its first foreign policy crises when Barbary pirates from Algiers captured more than a dozen American naval vessels, demanding enormous ransoms. When Congress sent $1 million to free the ships and their crews, a gang of Tripolitan pirates interceded and demanded payment of their own. As G. Thomas Woodward wrote, “One characteristic common to all diplomatic dealings with the Barbary powers was that no payment was ever final.” Having learned their extortion was successful, the pirates kidnapped another 700 Americans over the subsequent 20 years.Fast forward to the 20th century, which has been riddled with concessions to hostage takers. “America will never make concessions to terrorists,” President Ronald Reagan famously proclaimed in 1985. “To do so would only invite more terrorism … Once we head down that path there would be no end to it, no end to the suffering of innocent people, no end to the bloody ransom all civilized nations must pay.” His remarks were a response to Shiite Hizballah militants’ hijacking TWA flight 847 with dozens of Americans on board. Over the course of 17 days, the hijackers killed an American Navy diver and held 39 men hostage, while demanding the release of 766 Lebanese prisoners held in Israel. Three days after the Americans were freed, Israel released a little under half of the prisoners. U.S. and Israeli officials denied any connection to the hijacking. From the 1970 Dawson’s Field prisoner exchange to the Iran Contra Affair, American presidents have long worked with allies to assuage terrorists and bring hostages home — despite maintaining, on paper, that they will never pay ransoms or make concessions to hostage takers.This position has strategic and moral heft, and it leaves the door open to a surprising range of options. But the inconsistent, confusing nature of ransom policy and hostage recovery has fueled a circuitous debate: Should the United States pay ransoms? Arguments for and against making concessions fall into a space with limited data and towering emotional stakes.Weighing in are two new books on captivity, which lend a fresh perspective on how to bring Americans home in the murky middle ground between stated U.S. policy and reality. Jason Rezaian’s Prisoner and Joel Simon’s We Want to Negotiate delve into the intricate world of hostage negotiation. They show what can happen when governments work to recover their citizens at any cost, reflecting on the costs borne by the United States for its ambiguous stance.We Don’t Negotiate with Terrorists… Until We DoToday, America may stand by its “no concessions” policy, but there are four ways in which it violates the spirit, if not the letter, of this prohibition. First, America tends to negotiate if the hostage taker is a state. Though there is a technical, legal distinction between hostages (those abducted by non-state actors) and detainees (those held by states), the line is blurred when Americans are taken for the express purpose of becoming a bargaining chip. The Barack Obama administration exchanged prisoners and political concessions for the release of Alan Gross from Cuba and Jason Rezaian and others from Iran. President Donald Trump seems to prefer trading photo opportunities for hostage freedom, granting summits and Oval Office recognition in exchange for detainees from North Korea and Egypt. In all of these cases, American prisoners were individual pieces of larger diplomatic deals.Second, America negotiates if the hostage is a soldier. Captured Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was exchanged for five members of the Taliban, released from Guantanamo in 2014. Bergdahl’s case was controversial for several reasons, but few questioned the fundamentals: The Geneva Conventions provide for the release and exchange of prisoners of war.Third, America negotiates if someone else is paying. U.S. law prohibits providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. A White House official even threatened the parents of slain journalist James Foley, who were desperate to recover their son from the Islamic State. Nevertheless, no American has ever been prosecuted for paying a ransom. Into this permissive environment step all kinds of third-party intermediaries, including other states and foreign nationals. For example, the FBI reportedly helped the family of American hostage Warren Weinstein pay a ransom to al-Qaeda by facilitating the payment through a Pakistani middleman. Qatar, well-known for its staggering ransom payments and terrorist financing, played a key, murky role in bringing kidnapped American journalist Peter Theo Curtis home.Finally, the United States permits paying ransom as long as the hostage taker has not been designated as a foreign terrorist organization. Americans routinely pay legal ransoms to criminal organizations and other armed political groups. These cases are handled both by the U.S. government’s interagency Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell and a vast network of kidnap and ransom insurance policies and crisis management personnel.Thus, the U.S. government’s “no concessions” policy means only this: We will not give our money to a foreign terrorist organization to bring a civilian home.Escape From Tehran: A Family MatterWashington Post reporter and former Tehran bureau chief Jason Rezaian’s riveting memoir Prisoner tells the story of his unlawful detention in Iran. But this important, personal book is about so much more. Prisoner is simultaneously an homage to Persian culture, a heartwarming love story, a prison buddy comedy, and an insightful glimpse into high-level diplomacy. Rezaian seamlessly depicts his decades-long fascination with opening Iran to the world, fierce loyalty and love of his family, and harrowing first-person details of a journalist thrown into jail on false charges, held indefinitely and without cause.The ordeal begins with a wild accusation: “‘You’re the head of the American CIA station in Tehran, [and] the odds are you will spend the rest of your life as our guest.’” Abducted by elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Jason and his wife Yeganeh (Yegi) are placed in solitary confinement for months without trial. He gauges that readers will “want to read about what it’s like to be isolated in one of the world’s most infamous prisons, how someone survives that, but you don’t really want to know. It’s a hard experience, designed to dehumanize and disjoint the subject from reality, and guess what? It works.” While Rezaian is spared physical torture, the narrative lays bare the psychological horrors wrought from the confusion, isolation, and monotony of his imprisonment.And yet, Rezaian’s book never once belies his steadfast humanity or departs from his journalistic mission to help “the public make sense of nonsense.” It verges from the laugh-out-loud funny to the patently absurd, as he recounts being accused of plotting a great avocado conspiracy and tricking his guards into standing while he sang “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Prisoner is an excellent read for the pleasure of spending time with Rezaian, a generous, funny, and exceedingly compassionate soul whose resilience, curiosity, and honesty shine through every passage.For those interested in U.S. hostage and detainee policy, the book provides critical lessons as well. Rezaian’s was a textbook case of a hostage taking disguised as a detention — his imprisonment became a bargaining chip in high-stakes international diplomacy, and his release reflects what America will do to bring these hostages home. Moreover, Prisoner shows how much family advocacy matters. From the moment of his arrest, Rezaian had unwavering support from his brother, Ali, and his employer, the Washington Post, who worked relentlessly behind the scenes — closing Jason’s email, hiring lawyers, meeting with experts — until the harrowing final moments of Jason’s 544-day ordeal. Ali traveled to Washington 20 times in 2015, and he met with “heads of state, arms dealers, journalists, and diplomats” in his dogged effort to bring Jason home.Veteran human rights attorney Jared Genser and former hostages I have interviewed all agree: A determined family member clamoring for attention is the biggest predictor that the government will help the case. “Family engagement in Washington matters enormously,” Genser told me. “The sophistication of the family matters — and the families that make the most noise will get help.” A central component of the work by support organizations like Hostage US and the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation, as well as the Family Engagement Team at the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell, is to make this process less arbitrary — creating a system of support that is available to all families in this devastating situation.Questions of Causality in U.S. Hostage PolicyAs the executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, Joel Simon is often on the other side of these hostage-taking attacks — supporting families, promoting journalists’ safety, and advocating for hostages’ release. In his broadly researched new book, Simon travels the world to investigate the patchwork approach to hostage recovery — speaking to officials in Washington, Madrid, Paris, and London; learning the secrets of the trade from hostage negotiators and insurance personnel; and portraying the tragedies of grieving family members and former hostages.Simon’s goal in We Want to Negotiate is to explore the justification for America’s “no concessions” stance to understand the policy’s efficacy, as well as the “moral and political consequences of providing funding to a terrorist organization.” He quickly uncovers enormous variation, even among close-knit allies: Some countries “take a hard line, and others are willing to talk” — a mixed strategy that generates terrible outcomes for all target nations. For example, Simon reports that the Spanish government directly negotiates with — and pays ransoms to — terrorists, which has saved hostages’ lives. “Every one of the estimated 70 Spaniards taken hostage by Islamist groups and Somali pirates have come home alive,” a record “… unmatched by any other country.” On the other hand, France is subject to massive public pressure to intervene in hostage crises, where a culture of public protests trains and maintains focus on bringing captives home. Simon reports that the French pay, but often through intermediaries. And he suggests that this has had a Barbary-like effect on future risk: “According to data provided by the French Foreign Ministry, the number of French nationals abducted overseas quintupled from 11 to 59 a year between 2004 and 2008.”Beyond his interviews, Simon relies heavily on analysis of studies on hostage outcomes by the Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point, the New America Foundation, and the RAND Corporation, as well as a peer-reviewed article in the European Journal of Political Economy. While the first three studies conclude that the U.S. “no concessions” policy does not make Americans any safer, the journal article comes to the opposite conclusion, demonstrating that making concessions actually increases future kidnapping risk by 64 to 87 percent. Simon dismisses this latter finding, citing the study’s “sophisticated quantitative” methods used to analyze a dataset of kidnappings drawn from media sources, which he deems “… unreliable on such matters.” (He appears unconcerned that the other three studies also rely on media sources — using the same dataset with significant reporting flaws.)Simon seeks to establish that the concessions policy doesn’t work because kidnappers don’t take the policy into account when deciding to take a hostage. The problem is that it’s exceedingly difficult to measure causality in a phenomenon like kidnapping. We cannot assume that kidnappers select their victims — and decide whether to kill them or demand ransom — at random, without first considering the victim’s nationality and their government’s ransom policy. The relevant country’s policy may be a critical determinant of the decision to capture. Though Simon and the studies he cites claim that kidnapping is opportunistic, what if the Islamic State had a highly selective targeting process, taking different captives for different needs? Patterns in ransom demands suggest this might be the case: European hostages were ransomed for several million euros each, while demands for Americans Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff exceeded $100 million. What if the latter demands were intentionally impossibly high? This would serve as a way to raise the stakes and attention, reaping the rewards of recruitment instead of cash. Simon seems to agree. Of the videos portraying hostages’ brutal beheading, he writes, “ISIS recruiters would track engagement with the content, and reach out via direct message on Twitter to anyone who reacted positively. In this sense the execution videos were worth far more to ISIS than any ransom payment they might have received.”It’s impossible to ever really know, but asking perpetrators can shed light on motives. My research involves speaking directly to former kidnappers to find out why they did what they did. In dozens of interviews with ex-combatants from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), for example, perpetrators affirmed that kidnapping targeting is highly selective, organized, and planned. In other words, their violence was not random or opportunistic. The FARC also claims to capture different targets for different reasons: those they call “economic retentions” for ransom, and “prisoners of war” for attention and political concessions. While the former almost always returned home after a ransom was paid, the latter faced much higher levels of violence and rates of death. In other words, a ransom payment might not be able to save a hostage intended for another purpose. The question of concessions’ efficacy must be secondary to understanding when and why groups make certain demands.Changing the DebateThese books provide two key takeaways for improving hostage recovery and negotiation policy. Until now, a standard approach to hostage cases has been to limit options for recovering the hostage while increasing publicity as much as possible. The former could be “no concessions” policy or a set of hand-tying mechanisms, such as locking a family’s assets if they reported a kidnapping to the police. The latter assumes that sustained public effort can change kidnappers’ minds by educating them about the value of a human life.Instead, Rezaian’s and Simon’s books point to a different approach to saving American lives at the lowest possible “price”: put more options on the table. More indirectly, they suggest the potential benefit of limiting publicity surrounding hostage taking.As Rezaian depicts in Prisoner, his release was part of a massive diplomatic bargain, at a time of maximum U.S. leverage. Ultimately (and you should read the book and see for yourself), Jason and Yegi were released along with two other dual nationals (Amir Hekmati and Saeed Abedini) as part of the Obama administration’s broader Iran deal, the JCPOA. In exchange, the United States released several Iranian sanctions violators from U.S. prisons and agreed to pay a $1.7 billion settlement due from the days of the Shah. Senior U.S. officials, led by Brett McGurk, had negotiated for months, expanding the bargaining set until mutually acceptable terms were agreed. As Genser told me, the U.S. government was able to free Alan Gross the same way — putting more options on the table, framing it within a broader deal.As any negotiator will tell you, it is easier to find mutually agreeable terms if you’re working with a larger zone of possible agreement. The 2015 update to hostage policies, codified through the Presidential Policy Directive (PPD-30) on hostage recovery, expands this negotiating range. PPD-30 states:The United States may assist private efforts to communicate with hostage-takers, whether directly or through … intermediaries, and the United States Government may itself communicate with hostage-takers, their intermediaries, interested governments, and local communities to attempt to secure the safe recovery of the hostage.The Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell, which has recovered more than 200 hostages since its inception in 2015, exercises a range of options, from facilitating criminal ransoms, to influencing the behavior of captor networks, and to engaging third-party mediators. As the cell’s former director Special Agent Rob Saale told me, “You can’t be a conventional thinker in this business. You need creativity and a willingness to think outside the box.” One of the greatest features of the fusion cell is that it brings together experts from the FBI, State Department, CIA, and defense and intelligence communities to deal with each kidnapping case. That collaboration is not just about getting all equities in the room, but also about combining a diverse set of perspectives to augment available options and find a new solution every time.This lesson applies to both hostages and detainees. As President Trump told TIME, “We are aggressively pursuing the release of our people. We will leave no lawful tool, partnership or recovery option off the table.” The administration might bear in mind that leaving the JCPOA has only made it harder to recover Baquer and Siamak Namazi, and Xiyue Wang, American citizens still detained in Iran. As Genser notes, “Iran has never once granted a release spontaneously … or because they were bludgeoned.”The second lesson has to do with the publicity of hostage cases. With the exception of notable media blackouts, the assumption has been that sustained attention will help bring a hostage home, because it will show the hostage taker that their captive is valuable. In fact, kidnappers abduct precisely because they know a hostage is an invaluable bargaining chip — and that some democracies would violate their core values just to bring a citizen home.With this in mind, the U.S. government should work with allies, private negotiators, and the media to decisively lower the cost of any negotiation. Hostage takers know that the life of the hostage is valuable, but massive international publicity only raises their asking price. For example, Simon quotes a former French hostage on this matter:[Malbrunot] also recalls the impact that [public protests] had on his captors. Several had initially proposed releasing the hostages after they determined that the two were bona fide journalists and not spies. But another group, seeing the mass protests in France, now believed that the hostages were too valuable to release without a big ransom … the ransom got higher and higher.The lower the perceived value of the individual hostage, the more limited concessions the kidnapper will seek.A massive advocacy campaign likewise called for Rezain’s release: Half a million people signed a petition on Change.org demanding his freedom, and a group of public intellectuals led by Noam Chomsky published an open letter to the Iranian regime. In the wake of this attention, Jason received far better treatment in prison — time in the gym, new clothes, conjugal visits with his wife. Undoubtedly, hearing about global support can boost a prisoner’s spirits. But it is the quiet, painstaking work behind the scenes that brings a prisoner home.Such a quiet campaign can only work if citizens have faith that their government is being responsive to the family, exhausting all legal options to bring the hostage home. As Simon writes, “When citizens are taken hostage in Spain there are no committees, no banners hung from buildings, and no street protests. As the wife of one former hostage pointed out, there is no need to protest if you are confident the government is already doing all it can.” Advocates have suggested that their media strategies are not about getting the attention of the hostage takers, but of their own governments. If families receive constant, open attention from the government; if officials courageously explore every possible option, then perhaps hostages can come home at a bargain price.Hostage taking is a global problem, and as I’ve argued elsewhere, a problem only exacerbated by changing technology. While hostage takers adapt to new conditions, policy debates remain stuck on the same question of ransom payment, missing how complex the U.S. position really is. No government has found a way to keep all its citizens safe at all times, and unless all parties agree, curbing ransom payments will not end the scourge of kidnapping. To do that, kidnapping groups will need to be disarmed or destroyed. In the meantime, at-risk individuals like journalists, aid workers, and maritime employees should receive extensive training to mitigate risk in the hope of reducing the “supply” of hostages. A British hostage negotiator once reminded me of comedian Spike Milligan’s words: “The only sure cure for seasickness is to sit under a tree.”Danielle Gilbert is a 2018-2019 Minerva/Jennings Randolph Peace Scholar at the United States Institute of Peace and a PhD candidate in political science at George Washington University, where she is writing her dissertation on the logic of coercive kidnapping. This article was supported by a Minerva/Jennings Randolph Peace Scholar award from the United States Institute of Peace. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Institute of Peace.BECOME A MEMBERImage: U.S. Department of StateBOOK REVIEWSCommentaryTHE GREAT FISHING COMPETITIONCommentaryLESSONS ON AGING GRACEFULLYHorns of a DilemmaBRENT SCOWCROFT AND THE CALL OF NATIONAL SECURITYABOUTMISSIONPEOPLEFOUNDER'S CLUBCONTACTMEMBERSJOINWARCASTWAR HALLPODCASTSWOTRBOMBSHELLNET ASSESSMENTJAW-JAWHORNS OF A DILEMMAGET MORE WAR ON THE ROCKSSUPPORT OUR MISSION AND GET EXCLUSIVE CONTENTBECOME A MEMBERFOLLOW USNEWSLETTERSUBSCRIBESIGNING UP FOR THIS NEWSLETTER MEANS YOU AGREE TO OUR DATA POLICYPRIVACY POLICYTERMS & CONDITIONSSITEMAPCOPYRIGHT © 2019 WAR ON THE ROCKS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.