Spring 2019
HU Course No. 600-728
http:/http://sdjlaw.org/Copyrights/index.htm
revised 26 February 2019
Please note that this syllabus is subject to modification during
the semester to incorporate new developments in the law and to
meet the students' needs as perceived by the professor.
Where: HC G108
When: T Th 11:10 am -12:25 pm
This course is one of the fundamental intellectual property courses offered at HUSL. The course covers the basics of copyright law with particular attention to issues of copyrightability and problems of social justice raised by current copyright law. International aspects will be considered as well.
Copyrights is a statutory course. It is primarily about learning the Copyright Act of 1976. Normally I do not identify relevant statutory sections in the syllabus. I expect you to read all sections noted in the cases and materials and in class. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of studying the statute. You are expected to know the statute well. The final exam will test for both your facility in finding law in the statute and in interpreting it by testing you on a section of the statute which was not covered thoroughly (or perhaps not at all) in class.
The course will be graded mostly on the final exam. The exam will be completely open book. As noted above, copyright law is statutory and the starting point for any analysis is the statute. This goes for the exam as well, i.e., start your analysis on the exam with the statute. The other grade components are the preparation of the creative works and class attendance and participation.
With the growth in the importance of copyrights and in the number of students taking copyright courses nationally, the number and variety of commercial supplemental educational materials, including treatises, hornbooks, audio tapes, flashcards, and other materials, have expanded dramatically. If you choose to use these materials, be sure to use current editions since important aspects of the law have been changing frequently for at least the past 20 years. Consequently, materials just a few years old could provide wrong or misleading information.
Julie E. Cohen, Lydia Pallas Loren, Ruth Gana Okediji, & Maureen A. O'Rourke, Copyright in a Global Information Economy (4th ed. Wolters Kluwer 2015). ISBN 9781454852018
2018 supplement (pdf)
2018 Replacement Ch. 7 (pdf)
2015 Statutory SupplementMost recent supplement to the Cohen book – be certain to check the supplement for updated notes and additional cases for the various sections assigned from the main text. You are responsible for all of the material in the most recent Supplement that supplements material assigned from the main text even if that the syllabus does not include a specific assignment of the material in the Supplement.
Website supported by the coursebook authors -- lots of useful information and links
Steven D. Jamar, Copyright Basics (2013)
Steven D. Jamar & Lateef Mtima, A Social Justice Perspective on Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship, Ch. 6 in Megan Carpenter, ed., Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Evolving Economies: The Role of Law (Elgar Law and Entrepreneurship Series 2012)
Jamar, Crafting Copyright Law to Encourage and Protect User-Generated Content in the Internet Social Networking Context, 19 Widener L.J. 843 (2010).
Other supplemental materials posted online or handed out from time to time
Office
402 Houston Hall
Phone
202-806-8017
stevenjamar@gmail.com (I will typically respond to email within 24 hours.)
Office Hours
The times listed below will change later in the semester. I will post up-to-date office hours online at http://iipsj.com/SDJ/index.htm.
Mon
2:40-4:00
Tues
2:40-4:00
Thur
2:40-4:00
I am often in my office at times not posted as office hours and during those times I am generally able to meet with students.
Occasionally I will not be able to keep these office hours because of other commitments.
If you need to see me at another time, please contact me so we can make an appointment.
1.
Self Portrait
2 pts.
2.
3 pts.
3.
5 pts.
4.
10 pts.
5.
5 pts.
6.
65 pts.
7.
10 pts.
Please note that items 1-5 are graded primarily on effort rather than result. If you do the work and it shows sufficient effort, you get full points. If you do a rushed, pro-forma job, or if it is turned in late (sometimes I will excuse a tardy submission), you get half points.
Cover sheet requirements and general requirements for practical exercises
1. In the upper left hand corner of the cover sheets for all materials handed in, you must include your name, the course title, date, and the project title (e.g., copyrightable form), the due date, the date submitted (if different from the due date):
Your Name
Copyrights
Derivative Work (or whatever the project is)
February xx, xxxx (due date for the project)
Date submitted (if different from the due date)2. The Cover Sheet must be typed.
3. Cover sheets are required even for items submitted by email, i.e., text in the body of the email is not sufficient. You should submit works by email only when express permission is given to do so. You should also submit a hard copy as well as soon as is practicable thereafter.
4. The cover sheet should include an explanation of the work you are submitting and an brief analysis as to why it is or is not copyrightable using code sections supplemented by Copyright Office regulations and decided court cases as appropriate. The analysis should typically be one to four single-spaced paragraphs and should fit on one or two pages. Each of the assignments below describe the content of the cover sheet for each assignment with more specificity and this general description is subject to the more detailed requirements for each assignment.
In class draw a self portrait. Be sure to put your name on it legibly. No cover sheet is required for this assignment. Also submit by email a selfie you take for class. No cover sheet is required for these two items.
Prepare a blank form that would be likely to be copyrightable. A "form" in this context means a form that would be used for gathering, storing, or organizing information. Be sure to refer to the Copyright office regulations on copyrighting forms.Include a cover sheet (see above) briefly explaining what the form is for and why you think it may be copyrightable. If you doubt that your form would be accepted for copyright, please explain why.
Prepare a two dimensional artistic work, e.g., a photograph or drawing, or a very small three dimensional work. It can be a computer graphic as well as hard copy. I prefer that it be something you prepare specifically for this class so that you think about the creative process and its relation to copyright as you create it. Nonetheless, it need not be a work you prepare for this course; it can be a work you did at any time for any reason.Include a cover sheet (see above) briefly explaining:
(a) what the work is (e.g., photograph of three elephants at sunset on the Chobe River bank, Namibia);
(b) when you created it;
(c) a brief reflection on the creative process you went through to create the work;
(d) whether you would permit it to be included in a Copyright Class Exhibit which might be displayed toward the end of the semester; and
(e) whether it is copyrightable applying the standards for copyrighting such a work. All works will be returned at the end of the semester.
I will be providing you with a old French poem and a literal translation of it and perhaps one or two other translations. You are to prepare a derivative work which would be a translation of the French poem into English. You will need to decide what elements of the poem to keep and what to discard. It should be a derivative work, not an "inspired by" sort of new creation. That is, you should capture enough of the style and structure of the poem as well as its content so that it would recognizably be derived from the original.Include a cover sheet (see above) briefly explaining the approach you took to the translation/derivative work. What aspects of the poem did you try to keep? Which did you choose to set aside? Why? Include your personal reflection on something you learned about yourself, about writing, about creativity, about language, etc., from this exercise.
Write a parody of a poem, song, or short story (extra credit for performance in front of the class if it is more than a trivial amount of work). Hand in both the original work (if appropriate) and your parody. If the work is something with which I am familiar, I do not need a copy of the original.
Parodies can be done as small group projects. Although live performances are generally encouraged and preferred, for some parodies use of video, editing, and so on, can be effective. Such performances can be submitted through youtube, flash drives, or via other methods to be arranged ahead of time with the professor.
Each person must draft and submit his or her own cover sheet, even for group projects. The cover sheet must include your name, the course title, project date, and the project title (e.g., parody), and it must be typed. In addition, the cover sheet should list the other students who worked on the project and should state whether or not you (or your group) intend to perform the parody. In addition to the standard analysis to be included on the cover sheet, it should briefly identifying what you are parodying and why you think your work would or would not qualify as fair use.
The final exam is typically 3 hours long and is open book -- you may use the text, the statute, and any other materials you care to bring. You may not access the internet or use computers (other than for the exam software), cell phones, PDAs, etc.The fact patterns and exam questions based on them from 1997 through 2016 are online and available for downloading. Toward the end of the semester I provide an extended fact pattern on which the exam will be based. The fact pattern may be based on a previous fact patterns or it may be new. This fact pattern provides you with a structure for reviewing the course and preparing for the exam.
The following description is intended to help you focus your exam preparation efforts. It is not a statement of what the exam will or will not contain. Nor is it a promise that it will break down in time and focus as indicated here. Nonetheless, this is a rough guide as to how I see the exam at this point and if you prepare accordingly you should be well prepared for the exam even if it is quite different from what is noted below (which it may well be).
The exam is likely to include:
This list does not foreclose questions on anything covered in the course, including questions which require basic knowledge about pre-Berne compliance notice, the 1909 statutory publication requirement, etc.
- one question which will require you to demonstrate facility with statutory interpretation (e.g., a technical work-made-for-hire question which requires reading definitions closely, or a new statutory section which you will be required to parse and apply);
- one or two typical law school essay questions which will require synthesis and application of a variety of things about copyright law (sample topics: subject matter, substantial similarity, fair use, preemption); and
- may include one essay question seeking to cause you to reflect on copyright in general (e.g., consider the relationship of copyright law and artistic creativity).
The law school attendance policy will be enforced. If you miss 25% or more of the scheduled class sessions, you will receive an "F" for the course unless you formally withdraw from the course before the last day to drop a course as set by the law school academic calendar. Under the law school policy, attendance means being present at the start of class and throughout the class period. Tardy students and students who leave class early, including those who leave and return during class, may be counted as absent.
Please note that the planned schedule often changes during the semester from a variety of factors. We may get ahead of schedule early in the semester, so be sure to read ahead. As the semester goes on, we may at at times fall behind due to cancelled classes, changes of emphasis, and other factors. Nonetheless, this schedule will be followed fairly closely in terms of order of coverage of material and we usually do not fall more than a week behind. Upcoming assignments will be announced at the end of each class.
Read all assigned pages including all notes and questions. We will not cover all of them in class. Sometimes the syllabus identifies particular notes or questions to pay particular attention to.
Sometimes, but not always, we will do the problems in the text in
class. Working problems is the best way to learn the law in a code
course. The book also has practice exercises and we may do some in
class from time to time.
For all text assignments, be sure to read the relevant Copyright Act provisions in the statutory supplement. This is a statutory course.
Website supported by the coursebook authors -- lots of useful information and links
Introduction to the course - scope, teaching methods, grading
Listen to/watch the following works and consider whether you consider the second work as infringing the first work. Consider distinctions of making a copy, making a derivative work, and making a work inspired by another.
Sweet Little Sixteen, Surfin' USA
Super Freak, Can't Touch This
He's So Fine, My Sweet Lord
Got To Give It Up, Blurred LinesThen listen to the following two items and consider the problem of what aspects of music are or should be protectible.
The Four Chord Song
Pachelbel Rant
Watch the following two works and give some thought to the ideas of parody and fair use generally and how they might apply to these works.
Ultimate Goat Edition Compilation
Uptown Funk Hollywood film mash up
Overview of Copyright -- Read: Jamar, Copyright Basics (2013); Read: Cohen 3-8, 21-34, [8-21 are optional but recommended]; Read: Steven D. Jamar & Lateef Mtima, A Social Justice Perspective on Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship, Ch. 6 in Megan Carpenter, ed., Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Evolving Economies: The Role of Law (Elgar Law and Entrepreneurship Series 2012).
Fixation -- Cohen 49-60: Williams (3d Cir. 1982) pp. 54-56; Cartoon Network (2d Cir. 2008) pp. 57-60
Originality -- Cohen 61-72: Burrow-Giles v. Sarony (1884)(Oscar Wilde photo) pp. 61-64; Bleistein (1903) (circus poster) pp. 64-67; Alfred Bell v. Catalda (2d Cir. 1951) (mezzotints) pp. 67-70
Project 1: Drawing and selfie assigned; drawing due in class; selfie due by Tuesday next week via email
Originality -- Cohen 72-90: Feist (1991) pp. 73-78; Mannion v. Coors (SDNY 2006) (basketball player photo) pp. 79-83; Meshwerks v. Toyota (10th Cir. 2008) pp. 83-88 notes (especially notes 4 & 5) on pp. 88-89; problems p. 89
Idea/Expression Dichotomy -- Cohen 90-109: Baker v. Selden (1879) (accounting forms); Hoehling v. Universal (2d Cir. 1980) (Hindenburg) pp. 98-103; ATC Distribution (6th Cir. 2005)(auto parts catalogue) pp. 105-109
Derivative Works -- Cohen 109-121: Batlin (2d Cir. 1976) pp. 111-113; Shrock v. Learning Curve (7th Cir. 2009) pp. 114-118
Compilations -- Cohen pp. 121-136 CCC v. Maclean Hunter (2d Cir. 1994) (car values -- "bluebook") pp. 122-126; Matthew Bender v. West (2d Cir. 1998) (arrangement protection by pagination) pp. 126-128; Roth Greeting Cards (9th Cir. 1970) pp. 131; Satava v. Lowry (9th Cir. 2003) (jellyfish sculptures) pp. 133-135
Project 2: Form assigned; due Thursday next week (Copyright Office Reg. 202.1) (p. 97)
Sole Authorship – Cohen 137-140: Lindsay v. Titanic (SDNY 1999) pp. 138-139
Joint Authorship – Cohen pp. 140-146: Erickson v. Trinity Theatre (7th Cir. 1994) pp. 140-41; Aalmuhammed (9th Cir. 1999) (Malcolm X )
Works Made for Hire – Cohen 146-172: Who is an employee?: CCNV (1989) pp. 147-153; JustMed v. Byce (9th Cir. 2010)(digital audio larynx) pp. 153-158. Scope of employment/written agreement: Rouse (S.D. Iowa 2007) (research professors; beef quality checked with ultrasound) pp. 160-166; WMFH Type 2-specially commissioned works pp. 169-172
US Gov't Works – Cohen pp. 172-175
Useful articles with pictorial, graphic, and sculptural aspects – Cohen pp. 177-19: Mazer (1954) (Balinese dancer lamp base) pp. 178-79; Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. (S. Ct. 2017) (cheerleader uniforms) replace main text pp. 181-192 with 2018 supplement (pdf) pp. 4-18; Brandir (2d Cir 1987) (ribbon bike rack) pp. 187-188
Note on alternatives to copyright for protecting designs pp. 193-96
Architectural works -- Cohen pp. 196-206 Nelson-Salabes v. Morningside (4th Cir. 2002) (D. Md 2001)(assisted living apartments) pp. 198-201; Intervest v. Canterbury (11th Cir. 2008) (house floor plans) pp. 201-204
Computer Software – Cohen pp. 206-243: Apple v. Franklin (3rd Cir. 1983) (operating system object code) pp. 208-211; Computer Associates v. Altai (2d Cir. 1992) (structure of program) pp. 212-219; Lotus v. Borland (1st Cir. 1995)(user interface) pp. 221-229; Oracle v. Google (Fed. Cir. 2014) (use of Java in Android OS) pp. 229-239;
Note on alternative methods to protect software – Cohen pp. 240-243
The Reproduction Right -- Cohen 248-308: Exact copy pp. 248-253; De Minimus copy pp. 253-257: Gottlieb Development (SDNY 2008) (Picture in background of interior shot in film) pp. 253-257
Reproduction Right -- Substantially similar copy pp. 257-308: Three Boys v. Bolton (9th Cir. 2000)(Isley Brothers' "Love is a Wonderful Thing") pp. 259-262; Selle v. Gibb (7th Cir. 1984) ("How Deep Is Your Love") pp. 262-264); Ty v. GMA (7th Cir. 1997 (beanie babies) pp. 264-266
Reproduction Right – Substantial Similarity Roots – pp. 270-308: Nichols (2d Cir. 1930) ("Abie's Irish Rose" pp. 271-275); Arnstein v. Porter (2d Cir. 1946) pp. 275-276
Substantial Similarity 2d Circuit approach – Steinberg (SDNY 1987) pp. 277-283; Boisson (2d Cir. 2001)(ABC's quilts) pp. 283-286; Mannion (SDNY 2006) (basketball player photo) pp. 286-290
Practice exercise -- "oriental rugs" p. 291
Substantial Similarity 9th Circuit approach – Cavalier v. Random House (9th Cir. 2002) (Nicky Moonbeam and Goodnight Elmo) pp. 293-298; Swirsky v. Carey (9th Cir. 2004) ("Thank God I Found You") pp. 298-303; Sid & Marty Krofft(9th Cir. 1997) (McDonaldland v. HR Puff-n-Stuff) (cited in the 9th Circuit cases)
Listen to and compare Marvin Gaye's "Got To Give It Up" with Pharrell & Thicke's "Blurred Lines" (after 9th Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision, the case settled) The Institute for IP and Social Justice submitted an amicus brief to the 9th Circuit in support of the Gaye estate.
Substantial Similarity in technology cases – Computer Associates v. Altai (2d Cir. 1992) pp. 304-308
Project 3: Pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work - Assigned Thursday-- due on in two weeks
Derivative Works -- Cohen 308-334: Warner Bros. v. RDR (SDNY 2008) (Harry Potter Lexicon) pp. 309-319; Mirage Editions (9th Cir. 1988) (Nagel art pasted on ceramic) pp. 324-326; Lee v. A.R.T (7th Cir. 1997) (remounted works on tile) pp. 326-328; Micro Star v. FormGen (9th Cir. 1998) (Duke Nukem) pp. 329-333
Characters -- Cohen 334-343: Warner Bros. v. X One X (8th Cir. 2011) (promotional images from "Wizard of Oz" and "Gone With the Wind") pp. 335-342; DC Comics v. Towle (9th Cir. 2015) Supp. pp. 21-25
The Distribution Right -- Cohen 341- 353: Capitol Records v. Thomas (D. Minn. 2008) (sound recordings posted online) pp. 346-352
First Sale Doctrine – Cohen 353-362: Bobbs-Merrill (1908) (book price setting) pp. 354-355; Capitol Records v. ReDigi (SDNY 2013) (license of digital copies of music)
Importation and Exhaustion – Cohen 364-377: Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley (2013) (importing books lawfully sold overseas) pp. 365-375
Public Peformance or Display – Cohen 377-419: Cartoon Network v. CSC (2d Cir. 2008) (DVR); ABC v. Aereo (2014) (local repeater wifi) pp. 385-393
Cable and satellite retransmission – pp. 394-396
De Minimus and public display – pp. 396-398
Display – Cohen 398-408: Perfect 10 v. Amazon (9th Cir. 2007) (thumbnail images for searching online) pp. 398-403
Education and Distance Learning – pp. 407-408
Project 3: Pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work due Thursday this week
The Music Industry -- Cohen ch. 7 replacement pdf pp. 2-44: VMG Salsoul, LLC v. Ciccone (9th Cir. 2016) (sampling) pp. 12-24
Music – public performance – Cohen ch. 7 replacement pdf pp. 24-44: In re Pandora Media (SDNY 2014) (online music streaming) replacement Ch. 7 pp. 36-42
Moral Rights - Cohen 449-483: Gilliam (2d Cir. 1976) (Monty Python) pp. 450-454; Dastar v. 20th Century Fox (2003) (Films of WWII) pp. 455-458;
VARA – Cohen. 458-473: Mass. Museum v. Buchel (1st Cir. 2010)(unfinished work) pp. 460-466; at end of p. 467– 2018 Supp. pp. 43-43; Martin v. Indianapolis (7th Cir. 1999) (outdoor sculpture destroyed during remodeling/reconstruction of area) pp. 468-473; Cohen v. G&M Realty L.P. (E.D.N.Y. 2018) 2018 Supp. pp.43-49
Performers Rights – Cohen pp. 473-480: Martignon (2d Cir. 2007) pp. 474-478
Project 4: derivative work - Due on Thursday in two weeks, read statute on derivative works (this project requires a significant amount of time and effort) (source materials and instructions (download))
Direct Infringement -- Cohen 483-492: Religious Technology Center v. Netcom(N.D. Cal. 1995) (scientology texts) pp. 484-487; Cartoon Network v. CSC (2d Cir. 2008) (DVR) pp. 487-489
Vicarious Liability and and Contributory Infringement -- Cohen 492-509; Fonovisa (9th Cir. 1996) ("swap" meet); Perfect 10 v. Amazon (9th Cir. 2007)(thumbnails for online searching) pp. 497-500; Perfect 10 v. VISA (9th Cir. 2007) (suing credit card company as contributory infringers) pp. 503-508
Online Service Provider Liability (OSP) – Cohen 509-538 (§512): Viacom v. YouTube (2d Cir. 2012) pp. 513-524; Page 526. After the two Practice Exercises, insert new subsection 9.C.3 and renumber the next subsection as 9.C.4.
9.C3. Safe Harbor and Termination of Repeat Infringers: Ventura Content v. Motherless, Inc.,(9th Cir. 2018) 2018 supp. pp. 54-59; Lenz v. Universal Music ((9th Cir. 2016)) (home video of toddler bopping to Prince music) 2018 Supp. pp. 61-69
Device Manufacturers and Liability for Inducing Infringement – Cohen 538-562: Sony v. Universal (1984) (summarized in notes) pp. 538-542; MGM v. Grokster (2005) (P2P file sharing) pp. 542-553; Columbia v. Fung (9th Cir. 2013)(BitTorrent) pp. 554-561
Fair Use – Cohen 563-647
Fair Use–Cultural Interchange: Harper & Row (1985) (Ford memoir) pp. 565-571; Campbell (1994) (parody – "Oh! Pretty Woman) pp. 573-580;
Fair Use–Transformative Use other than Parody: Castle Rock (2d Cir. 1998)(Seinfeld Aptitude Test) pp. 582-586; Bill Graham Archives (2d Cir. 2006)(Grateful Dead posters) pp. 586-590; Cariou v. Prince (2d Cir. 2013)(Rasta man photo) pp. 591-598; Steinberg's New Yorker cover and Mad Magazine alternative -- satirizing Apple Maps (Minneapple; Moscow on the Hudson)
Fair Use -- Documentaries: Bound by Law? (on reserve in the library) digital version; Note on "Best Practices" Guidelines pp. 599-600
Fair Use and the First Amendment-- Cohen 601
Fair Use–Transformative Use Revisited – Cohen 602-622: Technical Interchange: Sega (9th Cir. 1992)(Genesis reverse engineering) pp. 602--608; Perfect 10 v. Amazon (9th Cir. 2007) (pp. 609-612; Authors Guild v. HealthTrust (2d Cir. 2014) (scanned books for reserve in university libraries) pp. 613-621;
Fair Use–Other Productive Uses – Cohen 622-645: Sony v. Universal (1984) (VCR time-shifting) pp. 623-628; Cambridge University Press (11th Cir. 2014) (digital coursepacks) pp. 631-642; Sony v. Connectix; Perfect 10; Napster; Texaco)
Good Copy Bad Copy - documentary; Copyright Criminals – documentary; view Artifact trailer
listen to: He's So Fine and My Sweet Lord and the MIDI versions on http://library.law.columbia.edu/music_plagiarism/006/006.html; and Oh! Pretty Woman, Roy Orbison version, and 2 Live Crew version ; For other music check out http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/law/library/song.html
Jamar, Crafting Copyright Law to Encourage and Protect User-Generated Content in the Internet Social Networking Context, 19 Widener L.J. 843 (2010)
Project 4: derivative work: due on Thursday
Project 5: parody assigned - read Copyright Act on Fair Use and Campbell case (Cohen )
Formalities -- Cohen 651-666: MLK Jr. v. CBS (11th Cir. 1999) ("I have a dream" speech") pp. 656-659;
Duration -- Cohen 666-686: Eldred (2003) (extension) pp. 672-680
Cohen 668-669 – Duration/Formalities Worksheet
Renewals & Terminations of Transfers -- Cohen 686-700: Abend (1990)("Rear Window") pp. 686-692 http://www.loc.gov/copyright/forms/
Orphan Works Problem -- Cohen 700-703
Project 5: parody due Tuesday
Copyright and Contract -- Cohen 705-759: Asset Marketing (9th Cir. 2008) (custom software implied license) pp. 708-713
Collective works -- revision -- NYT v. Tasini (2001) (freelance articles put online) pp. 714-719;
New Uses and Old Language – Cohen 721-731: Boosey & Hawkes v. Disney (2d Cir. 1998) (Stravinsky's Rite of Spring in Fantasia) pp. 721-725; Random House v. Rosetta Books (SDNY 2001) (ebooks) pp. 725-730;
Licensing vs. Contract – Cohen 731-748: Vernor v. Autodesk ( 9th Cir. 2010)(repackaging software) pp. 732-739; Jacobsen v. Katzer (Fed. Cir. 2008) (model train controlling software) pp. 742-745
Misuse – Cohen 748-759: Video Pipeline v. Buena Vista (3d Cir. 2003) pp. 748-751; In re Napster (ND Cal. 2002) pp. 752-758
Preemption -- Cohen 911-931
Implied Preemption: Sears (1964) and Compco (1964) (notes) pp. 913-914; Goldstein (1972) (record piracy) pp. 914-918; Kewanee Oil v. Bicron (1974) (trade secrets not preempted) pp. 919-921; Bonito Boats (1989) (boat hulls) pp. 922-924
Statutory Preemption: §301: Harper and Row (2d Cir. 1983) (Ford memoir) pp. 925-926; Video Pipelines (D.N.J. 2002) (state law counterclaims unfair competition and so on) pp. 926-928
Problems: p. 929
Publicity – Cohen 932-941: Brown v. Ames (5th Cir. 2000) pp. 933-935; Toney v. L'Oreal (7th Cir. 2005) pp. 936-938; Maloney v. T3Media, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017) 2018 Supp. pp. 86-92
Misappropriation – Cohen 941-949: INS v. AP (1918) ("hot news") pp. 941-943; National Basketball v. Motorola (2d Cir. 1997)(tracking sport results in real time) pp. 944-948
Contract – Cohen 949-958: ProCD (7th Cir. 1996)(note) p. 952); Vault v. Quaid (5th Cir. 1988)(note) p. 952-953; Bowers v. Baystate (Fed Cir. 2003) (reverse engineering; shrinkwrap license) pp. 953-957
Remedies -- Cohen 802-848
Injunction: Christopher Phelps pp. 804-806; MGM v. Grokster (N.D. Cal. 2007) (permanent injunction) pp. 806-811; Perfect 10 v. Google (9th Cir. 2011) (preliminary injunction) pp. 811-814
Seizure and Impoundment: p. 815
Remedies -- Cohen 802-848
Actual Damages and Profits: Bouchate v. Ravens (4th Cir. 2003) (logo) pp. 816-823; Frank Music v. MGM (9th Cir. 1989) ("Kismet") pp. 823-828; L.A. News v. Reuters (9th Cir. 2003) pp. 828-831
Statutory Damages: Zomba v. Panarama (6th Cir. 2007)(karaoke)pp. 832-835; Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset (8th Cir. 2012) (24 songs file sharing; $220,000 and $1.9 million in damages) pp. 835-840
Attorney's fees: Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (S. Ct. 2016) 2018 supp, pp. 76-82
Criminal Infringement – Cohen 848-857: U.S. v. Liu (9th Cir. 2013) pp. 848-853; note on LaMacchia (D. Mass. 1994)
Technological Protections (DMCA anti-circumvention-§1201) – Cohen 861-884: Universal v. Reimerdes (SDNY 2000) (DeCSS) pp. 867-877
Limiting Access -- Cohen 885-889: Chamberlain (Fed. Cir. 2004) (garage door openers) pp. 885-893; Lexmark (6th Cir. 2005) (printers) pp. 893-899
Copyright Management Information – Cohen 900-906 (§1202): Murphy v. Millenium Radio (3d Cir. 2011) (shock jocks' photo from New Jersey) pp. 900-904; Kelly v. Arriba Soft (C.D. Cal. 1999) (onine photo thumbs) pp. 904-907
HU and HUSL Policies
Seriousness of Academic Purpose: To achieve its educational purposes, HUSL must maintain an environment conducive to learning and to scholarly endeavors of both faculty and students. Seriousness of academic purpose requires students to prepare daily, to do assignments in a timely fashion, to attend class regularly, to be punctual, and to participate in class in meaningful way.
