FALL 2009 |
Copyright Law |
|
Course No. 9200 703 (and 803) 001 , Course IDs 79436,
79944
|
MW 4:45-6:15 p.m.
|
Room W-215
|
|
| Professor Jay Dratler, Jr. |
Room 231D (IP Alcove)
|
(330) 972-7972
|
jdratler@gmail.com
|
| Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Jay Dratler, Jr. For permission, see CMI. |
Week 1 |
Monday, August 24: Casebook, Preface and Pages
1-15. |
Back to Top |
Week 2 |
| Monday, August 31: Casebook, pages 38 - 63. Wednesday, September 2: Casebook, pages 63 - 81. |
Back to Top |
Week 3 |
| Monday, September 7: Labor Day, NO CLASS. Wednesday, September 9: Casebook, pages 82 - 102. Also, work through Problem, Shyster on Dog Bites, in study groups or individually, taking careful notes on each step in your analysis. |
Back to Top |
Week 4 |
| Monday, September 14: Statutory Supplement, Copyright
Act of 1976, § 102(b). Casebook, pages 103 - 121. Wednesday, September 16: Casebook, pages 121 - 145 and Notes and Questions on Patenting Computer Programs. |
Back to Top |
Week 5 |
| Monday, September 21: Statutory Supplement, Copyright
Act of 1976 § 101 (defintions of "pictorial, graphic and sculptural
works" and "useful article") [Read each definition
several times!]. Casebook, pages 145 - 170. [How do courts
determine whether or not a design's aesthetic features are "separable"
from its utilitarian features? As you read the design cases, make
a note of the various suggested standards. Which makes most sense? Which
is easiest to apply?] Wednesday, September 23: Casebook, pages 171- 188. [Continue asssessing and comparing standards for protecting useful articles. Which is most practical?] |
Back to Top |
Week 6 |
| Monday, September 28: Casebook, pages 189 - 207. [Why
did Nichols and Sheldon produce opposite results? Can
you explain/distinguish the two cases in detail and on their facts? How
do you draw the line between idea and expression for each?]. Wednesday, September 30: Casebook, pages 207 - 239. |
Back to Top |
Week 7 |
| Monday, October 5: Casebook, pages 239 - 260. Wednesday, October 7: Casebook, pages 261 - 286. |
Back to Top |
Week 8 |
| Monday, October 12: Casebook, pages 287 - 306. Wednesday, October 14: Statutory Supplement, Copyright Act of 1976, §§ 114(a) - (c), 115(a) - (c)(2). Casebook, pages 306 - 331, 592 - 603. [This material covers the special statutory rules for music and other sound recordings. Note that there are two copyrights for music, in (1) the underlying nondramatic musical work ("sheet music") and (2) the sound recording. What exclusive rights does the copyright owner have in each? Why are there so many "cover" songs, i.e., different versions of the same popular song by different artists? How do Sections 114 and 115 encourage them? The last set of pages provides textual background on the music, TV, and cable industries, with emphasis on compulsory licensing. As you read them, consider when compulsory licensing is appropriate. Should Congress provide compulsory licenses for peer-to-peer file-sharing systems like Grokster and KazaA? For Google's book projects?] |
Back to Top |
Week 9 |
| Monday, October 19: Statutory Supplement,
Copyright Act of 1976, §§ 106, 109, 501, 602. Casebook, pages
331 - 348.
[Quality King is a difficult case illustrating a classic
argument of statutory interpretation: that the opponent's view would render
part of the statute superfluous. What business circumstances led
to the lawsuit? What was the copyright owner trying to do and why?
Be sure to outline the steps in statutory interpretation argued by
each side. Which side had the better argument and why?] Wednesday, October 21: Statutory Supplement, Copyright Act of 1976, §§ 203, 304. Casebook, pages 518 - 542. [Eldred is an important constitutional decision. What does it say about Congress' power over copyright law? about Congress' power to increase the duration of copyright? Is there any practical limit? Is that result wise policy? Does it accord with copyright's two main purposes? Is there a First Amendment defense to copyright infringement? What purpose did the two terms of copyright under the 1909 Act serve? Do the current termination rights under §§ 203 and 304(c) serve the same purpose? How do the two sections differ? ] |
Back to Top |
Week 10 |
| Monday, October 26: Reread Statutory Supplement,
Copyright Act of 1976, §§ 203, 304. Casebook, pages 562
- 573. [What effect did/does an outstanding copyright in an underlying
work have on the right to exploit derivative works? Under the 1909 Act,
did it matter whether the underlying work was in its initial or renewal
term of copyright? If so, how? What
change did the 1976 Act make in a licensee's right to continue exploiting
a derivative work? To make new derivative works?] Wednesday, October 28: Statutory Supplement, Copyright Act of 1976, § 201(c). Casebook, pages 542 - 561. [How do Boosey & Hawkes and Tasini differ? Does one involve a license and the other statutory permission? Does a copyright defendant need one if she has the other?] |
Back to Top |
Week 11 |
| Monday, November 2: Statutory Supplement, Copyright
Act of 1976, §§ 101 (definitions of "derivative work," "joint
work," and "work made for hire"), 201(a), (b). Casebook,
pages 573 - 592 and Weissmann v. Freeman. [Disputes
over copyright ownership are common in general business pratice. Can
you articulate the differences among: (1) sole authorship; (2) joint authorship;
(3) a derivative work; and (4) a work made for hire? How would you
advise a client on the differences and on avoiding any pitfalls they create?] Wednesday, November 4: Statutory Supplement, Copyright Act of 1976, § 107. Casebook, pages 349 - 376. [Are the four stautory fair-use factors the last word, or are there other considerations? Do they explain the outcome of the cases? Are they like elements of a tort, or must they be weighed and balanced on the scale of equity?] |
Back to Top |
Week 12 |
| Monday, November 9: Casebook, pages 376 - 407. [The
opinions are long, but Section 107 provides the basic analytical framework. Make
a "buzzword" outline of Section 107; then, as you read the cases,
outline the subissues for each of the four statutory factors, any additional
factors considered, and how the courts analyzed each. Be sure to
note how each court weighed each factor, whether for or against the plaintiff. (As
a guide for study and analysis, use the same analytical structure for cases
decided under the 1909 Act, even though Section 107 was not yet in force.)] Wednesday, November 11: Casebook, pages 438 - 460; Fonovisa v. Cherry Auction, Inc. |
Back to Top |
Week 13 |
| Monday, November 16: Casebook, pages 460 - 497. Wednesday, November 18: Statutory Supplement, Copyright Act of 1976, § 1201 [Read subsections (a) through (c) and (f) twice; skim the rest]. Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. and Notes on Lexmark decision. |
Back to Top |
Week 14 |
| Monday, November 23: Kelly
v. Arriba Soft Corp.; Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment,
Inc. Wednesday, November 25: Problems: Liability of YouTube and Google Book Project. |
| Back to Top |
PRACTICE EXAMINATIONBack to Top |
FINAL EXAMINATION |
FALL 2009 COURSES |