COPYRIGHT LAW
Fall 2008
Instructor:
Susanna Fischer
Office:
Room 412
Phone:
202-319-5568
E-mail:
fischer@law.edu
TWEN Site:
Copyright Law, Fall 2008
Class meets from 6:20 to 7:35 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays in Room 208
READING LIST
Important Information:

The Casebook ("Casebook") for this course is Robert A. Gorman & Jane C. Ginsburg,
Copyright: Cases And Materials (7th edition 2006) (published by Foundation Press) plus the
accompanying Statutory Supplement ("Supp.") (2008 edition) (published by Foundation
Press). Both the Casebook and the Supp. are available for purchase in the CUA bookstore.
Please bring both to each class.

You should read all assignments carefully unless specifically instructed to skim.

Sometimes assignments are listed as "recommended". This means that you are not required
to read the material, but that it may be a helpful supplement to the required reading
assignments. I have also provided citations to many articles that you may like to read to
expand your knowledge on particular aspects of copyright law.

For each assignment, you should also read, where cited in the Casebook, all sections/articles
of the following: 1976 Copyright Act (Appendix A to Supp); 1909 Copyright Act (Appendix
B to Supp.); Regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office (www.copyright.gov/title37/) (see
Appendix C to Supp.); Berne Convention (Appendix D to Supp.); Universal Copyright
Convention (Appendix E to Supp.); TRIPS Agreement (Appendix F to Supp.); WIPO
Copyright Treaty (Appendix G to Supp.); and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty
(Appendix H to Supp.).

I may add to, delete from, make corrections to, or otherwise change the reading assignments
and/or Syllabus. Please check TWEN daily, preferably after 5P.M.. Sometimes you may be
required to read very recent case law and/or articles that are not included in your Casebook.
I shall distribute any such additional required reading in class or, if available electronically,
shall provide a link or citation on TWEN or by e-mail.

Please try to answer (or at least think about) all Discussion Questions in this Reading List as
well as all questions in the assigned Casebook readings. There will not be sufficient class
time to cover all of the Casebook questions in class, but I am are happy to discuss any
questions you may have via e-mail, or in person either after class or by appointment.

You are not required to read the entire original cases that are cited or excerpted in the
Casebook, but putting in this extra effort is always recommended.

The Course Outline, containing more information and guidelines for this course, including
information on grading, participation, etc., is available on the course TWEN site as well as
on the class website at http://faculty.cua.edu/fischer .
UNIT 1: INTRODUCTION TO COPYRIGHT LAW CONCEPTS
WEEK ONE
Class of August 18: Introductory Class
Strongly recommended, although not required, Copyright Office Basics, published by the U.S.
Copyright Office (www.copyright.gov, Circular No. 1)
The overview of copyright law at Casebook pp. 37-49. If you do not get a chance to read it for this
class, I strongly recommend reviewing it later in the course, because it provides a good summary of
"the big picture" of copyright.
Time permitting, I will cover a few basic concepts.
Class of August 20: Introduction to Copyright: History and General Concepts
REQUIRED WRITING EXERCISE: Please prepare a short personal statement, which
should be typed or word processed, maximum length 1 page, which tells us a little about
you so that I can get to know you better. I am particularly interested in why you are taking
copyright law, what you hope to learn about it this semester, and whether you have any prior
experience with copyright or other intellectual property (as an author, through employment, etc.).
This should have your name on it and is due in class on August 20.
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: History and sources of U.S. copyright law. What are
the historical influences of our modern law? What are the sources of modern U.S. copyright law?
To what extent is it important to know about predecessor statutes to the 1976 Copyright Act?
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 1-18; [Note: other recently enacted (since 2004)
changes to copyright law are available on the Copyright Office website at:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ if you are interested; we will discuss some of them,
where relevant to the scope of this course, in subsequent classes. A list of copyright related
bills introduced so far in the 110th Congress is available at www.copyright.gov/legislation]
Recommended: (1) Statute of Anne available online at:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/eurodocs/anne_1710.htm or
http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html
(2) First U.S. Copyright Statute of 1790 available online at:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1790
-2-
Citation Note: American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc. (p. 18): cert. dismissed, 516 U.S. 1005,
116 S.Ct. 592, 133 L.Ed.2d 486 (1995)
Discussion Questions for Class of August 20
1. What is copyright? Does it preclude others from using ideas?
2. To what extent is copyright a property right? To what extent is it a personal right of the author?
To what extent is it a monopoly? Whose interests must be balanced in determining the proper extent
of copyright?
3. From what legal system(s) does American copyright law derive?
4. What is the Statute of Anne? Why was it enacted? What were its key provisions? How did the
stationers interpret the rights they obtained under the Statute of Anne? Did the courts agree?
5. Did the states have copyright laws immediately following the American Revolution?
6. Why did the framers of the American Constitution include the Patent and Copyright Clause in
the Constitution? What does this Clause provide? Where is it found in the Constitution? What is its
purpose? Private benefit, public welfare, or both? Or something else?
7. What did the Copyright Act of 1790 provide? What similarities are there between the Statute of
Anne and the 1790 Act?
8. What was the issue for the Supreme Court in the case of Wheaton v. Peters? How did the Supreme
Court rule on this issue?
9. As new Federal copyright laws succeeded the 1790 Act, how (in general) did they change the
protection for copyrighted works provided under the 1790 Act? What improvements were made by
the 1909 Copyright Act? What problems and pressures led to the enactment of the 1976 Copyright
Act?
10. What are the key provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act?
11. What is the Berne Convention? Why did it take nearly 100 years for the United States to ratify
the Convention? When did this ratification take place?
12. What amendments have been made to the 1976 Copyright Act since 1990?
Additional Reading Material on History of Copyright Law

For a different take on the origins of copyright law, see William Patry Blog entry of October
31, 2005 (Contributions of Cultural Historians) at:
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/10/contributions-of-cultural-historians.html

Abrams, The Historic Foundations of American Copyright Law: Exploding the Myth of
Common Law Copyright, 29 Wayne L. Rev. 1119 (1983).
-3-

Irah Donner, The Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Framers Include
It With Unanimous Approval?, 36 Am. J. Legal. Hist. 361, 362, 365 (1992).

Karl Fenning, The Origin of the Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution, 17 Geo.
L.J. 109 (1929)

Jane C. Ginsburg, A Tale of Two Copyrights: Literary Property in Revolutionary France and
America, 64 Tul. L. Rev. 991 (May, 1990).

Craig Joyce & L. Ray Patterson, Essay: Copyright in 1791: An Essay, 52 Emory L.J. 909
(Spring, 2003).

Tyler T. Ochoa, Origins and Meanings of the Public Domain, 28 Dayton L. Rev. 215 (2002).

Edward C. Walterscheid, To Promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts: The
Background and Origin of the Intellectual Property Clause of the United States Constitution,
2 J. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (Fall, 1994)

Elizabeth Armstrong, Before Copyright: The French Book-Privilege System 1498-1526
(Cambridge University Press, 2002)

Adrian Johns, The Making of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making (University of
Chicago Press, 2000)

Mark Rose, Authors and Owners: The Invention of Copyright (Harvard University Press,
1995)

Christopher Witcombe, Copyright in the Renaissance: Prints and the Privilegio in SixteenthCentury Venice and Rome (Brill Academic Publishers 2004)

Susan P. Liemer, How We Lost Our Moral Rights and the Door Closed on Non-Economic
Values in Copyright, 5 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (Fall, 2005)

Craig Joyce, A Curious Chapter in the History of Judicature: Wheaton v. Peters and the Rest
of the Story (Of Copyright in the New Republic), 42 Hous. L. Rev. 325 (Summer, 2005)

Susanna Frederick Fischer: Dick Whittington and Creativity: From Trade to Folklore, From
Folklore to Trade, 12 Tex. Wesleyan L. Rev. 5 (Fall, 2005)

Christine Haight Farley, The Lingering Effects of Copyright’s Response to the Invention of
Photography, 65 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 385 (Spring, 2004)

Michael W. Carroll, The Struggle for Music Copyright, 57 Fla. L. Rev. 907 (Sept. 2005)

Thomas F. Cotter, Gutenberg’s Legacy: Copyright, Censorship, and Religious Pluralism, 91
Calif. L. Rev. 323 (Mar. 2003)

Shubha Ghosh, Deprivatizing Copyright, 54 Case W. Res. 387 (Winter 2003)

Ann Bartow, The Hegemony of the Copyright Treatise, 73 U. Cin. L. Rev. 581 (Winter,
2004)
WEEK TWO
Class of August 25: Introduction to Copyright II
-4-
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: What is the underlying rationale for copyright law?
Is it a necessary economic incentive to ensure sufficient creative output? Comparison of copyright
to other forms of intellectual property.
A. Economic Analysis of Copyright Doctrine
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 18-26 (up to Ladd article), 29 (starting at Burrow-Giles
case)-37 (up to C),
B. Copyright Compared to Other Forms of Intellectual Property
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 49 (start at D)-57 (up to E); 60 (starting at "Trademark
and the Lanham Act")-61 (up to Lanham Act); 63-70 (starting with Frederick Warne case).
Recommended: Casebook pp. 61-63, 71-74; MasterCard International v. Nader 2000, 70 U.S.P.Q. 2d
1046, 2004 WL 434404 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
Discussion Questions for Class of August 25
1. "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." Samuel Johnson, as quoted in III
Boswell's Life of Johnson 19 (Hill ed. 1934). Do you agree? Why or why not?
2. Think about whether the primary purpose of copyright law is to benefit an author (by
encouraging creation of works) or to benefit the general public by making creative works available.
Do these interests conflict?
3. What kinds of rewards, if any, are necessary to spur the creation of works of authorship?
4. Does copyright law as presently formulated lead to excessive production of unmeritorious
creative works?
5. What alternatives to copyright protection would be possible or preferable?
6. Do you agree with the authors of your Casebook that the drafters of the Constitution's Patent
and Copyright Clause were engaging in a bit of economic analysis? Is economic analysis the only
way to think about copyright? If not, is it the best way?
7. What is a patent? How does it differ from a copyright?
8. What is a trademark? How does it differ from a copyright?
9. Can intellectual property rights overlap?
10. Can there be a copyright in a photograph? Is there copyright in a photograph that is a mere
mechanical reproduction?
11. Must a work be a great work of art to be copyrightable?
-5-
12. Can a picture that is an advertisement be copyrighted?
Additional Reading Materials on Economic Analysis of Copyright Law

Stephen Breyer, The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copyright in Books,
Photocopies, and Computer Programs, 84 Harv. L. Rev. 281 (1970)

Barry Tyerman, The Economic Rationale for Copyright Protection: A Reply to Professor
Breyer, 18 UCLA L. Rev. 1100 (1971)

Stephen Breyer, Copyright: A Rejoinder, 20 UCLA L. Rev. (1972)

Wendy Gordon, Fair Use as Market Failure: A Structural and Economic Analysis of the
Betamax Case and its Predecessors, 82 Colum. L. Rev. 1600 (1982)

Julie Cohen, Lochner in Cyberspace: The New Economic Orthodoxy of "Rights
Management", 97 Mich. L. Rev. 462 (1998)

Thomas B. Nachbar, Monopoly, Mercantilism, and the Politics of Regulation, 91 Va. L. Rev.
1313 (Oct., 2005)

Jane Ginsburg, Future Directions for Copyright Research in the U.S. (text of the opening
lecture of the Cambridge Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law, available at:
http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/docs/view_doc_info.php?class=1&doc=2425)

Jed Rubenfeld, The Freedom of Imagination: Copyright’s Constitutionality, 112 Yale L.J. 1
(Oct., 2002)
UNIT II: COPYRIGHTABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Class of August 27: Copyrightable Subject Matter I: Original Works of Authorship
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS – The “originality” requirement under the
Constitution and the Copyright Act and the “work of authorship” requirement under the
Constitution and the Copyright Act. How original must a work be to be protectable under
copyright law?
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 75-84 (up to 2); Supp., p. 1 (Item A1).
Discussion Questions for Class of August 27
1. Is "originality" a constitutional requirement? Does the 1976 Copyright Act contain a clear legal
standard for "originality"? What is the standard for originality enunciated by the U.S. Supreme
Court in the Feist case?
2. Can you think of any examples of protectable works of authorship that do not fit within the
categories in § 102 of the 1976 Copyright Act? If so, what?
3. Which of these § 102 categories have accompanying definitions in § 101?
4. Would U.S. copyright law protect a fragrance?
-6-
Additional Reading Materials on Authorship

Jane C. Ginsburg, The Concept of the Author in Comparative Copyright Law, 52 DePaul L.
Rev. 1063 (Summer, 2003) (a self-confessed “authors’ rights enthusiast” compares the
concept of authorship in various common law and civil law jurisdictions and concludes that,
despite some variation, all these systems agree that “an author is a human being who
exercises subjective judgment in composing the work and who controls its execution.”
Ginsburg argues that the basis for our copyright law is creativity, and cautions that if this is
no longer valued, the law must be changed).

F. Jay Doherty, Not a Spike Lee Joint? Issues in the Authorship of Motion Pictures Under
U.S. Copyright Law, 49 UCLA L. Rev. 225 (2001)

Keith Aoki, Authors, Inventors and Trademark Owners; Private Intellectual Property and
the Public Domain, 18 Colum.-VLA J. L. & Arts 1 (1993)

Peter Jaszi, Toward a Theory of Copyright: The Metamorphoses of “Authorship”, 1991
Duke L.J. 455 (deconstructionist attack on the Romantic concept of the author in copyright
law)

Jeffrey Malkan, What is a Copy?, 23 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 419 (2005)

Randall P. Bezanson, Speaking Through Others’ Voices: Authorship, Originality, and Free
Speech, 38 Wake Forest L. Rev. 983 (Winter, 2003)
WEEK THREE
September 1: No Class - Labor Day Holiday
Class of September 4: Copyrightable Subject Matter II: Fixation in Tangible Form
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: What is the fixation requirement? Is it a
constitutional requirement? A statutory requirement? To what extent can statutes be enacted that
protect unfixed works?
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 84-96 (up to B); Supp., pp. 1-7 (down to C)
Recommended but not required:
http://www.insidecounsel.com/issues/insidecounsel/15_164/ip/105-1.html as well as January 6,
2006 posting on William Patry blog at: http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2006/01/now-thatskiss.html and also William Patry blog posting for July 13, 2005 on oral argument before Second
Circuit in Martignon at http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2005/07/bootleg-oral-argument.html and
excerpt from Lessig blog praising Judge Baer’s decision at:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002171.shtml (September, 2004)
Citation Note: Playboy Enters. v. Webbworld, Inc. (p. 88) aff'd, 168 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 1999);
United States v. Moghadam (p. 91), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied, 193 F.3d 525 (11th Cir.
1999), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 1529 (2000), KISS Catalog v. Passport Int’l Prods., motion for
-7-
reconsideration denied, 405 F. Supp. 1169 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2005) Judge Dale Fischer’s
opinon is available online at: http://www.geocities.com/williampatry875/copyright5.pdf
Discussion Questions for Class of September 3
1. Is "fixation" a constitutional requirement?
2. Can you think of examples of any unfixed works of authorship?
3. When, if ever, will a live broadcast be fixed?
4. What kind of works are protected under 17 U.S.C. § 1101(a)? Is this statute constitutional? Why
or why not?
Additional Reading Materials On Fixation

Lee H. Rousso, The Criminalization of Bootlegging: Unnecessary and Unwise, 1 Buff. Intell.
Prop. L.J. 169 (Fall, 2002)

Angela T. Howe, Note: United States v. Martignon & Kiss Catalog v. Passport Int’l
Products: The Anti-bootlegging Statute and the Collision of International Intellectual
Property Law and the U.S. Constitution, 20 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 829 (2005)

Tyler T. Ochoa, Copyright, Derivative Works and Fixation: Is Galoob a Mirage, or Does the
Form(Gen) of the Alleged Derivative Work Matter?, 20 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech.
L.J. 991 (2004) (advocating the adoption of the rule that the derivative right is dependent
upon the other exclusive rights).

Matthew D. Asbell, Comment and Recent Development: Progress on the WIPO
Broadcasting and Webcasting Treaty, 24 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 349 (2006)

Daniel Gervais, Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual Property: A TRIPS-Compatible
Approach, 2005 Mich. St. L. Rev. 137 (Spring, 2005)

Arthur R. Miller, Common Law Protection for Products of the Mind: An “Idea” Whose
Time Has Come, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 703 (Jan., 2006)

Gregory S. Donat, Note, Fixing Fixation: A Copyright with Teeth for Improvisational
Performers, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1363 (1997)

Caroline T. Nguyen, Note: Expansive Copyright Protection for All Time? Avoiding Article
I Horizontal Limitations Through the Treaty Power, 106 Colum. L. Rev. 1079 (June, 2006)

Hazell Malcolmson, Note: Copyright Infringement in the Digital Age: The Issue of Unfixed
Works, 16 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 297 (Fall, 2005)
WEEK FOUR
Class of September 6: Copyrightable Subject Matter III: Idea-Expression Dichotomy
ON CALL:
-8-
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: What is the idea-expression dichotomy? How and to
what extent does the copyright statute and courts exclude ideas and functional matter from
copyright protection?
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 96-111
Citation Note: Bibbero Systems, Inc. v. Colwell Systems, Inc. (p. 106), 893 F.2d 1104 (9th Cir.
1009), amended by, rehearing denied by, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 2562 (9th Cir. Feb. 20, 1990)
Recent Cases: Eagle Servs. Corp. v. H20 Indus. Servs., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42454 (N.D.
Ind. Sept. 28, 2005; ATC Distribution Group, Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions &
Parts, Inc., 402 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2005)
Discussion Questions for Class of September 8
1. To what extent does copyright law protect ideas? Functionality?
2. How do you separate idea from expression?
3. How do you separate expressive aspects of a work from functional aspects of that work?
4. When can a business or legal form be copyrightable, if at all? What about a recipe?
5. What is the blank form rule? Is it a proper reading of Baker v. Selden? Of § 102(a)?
6. Is Baker v. Selden still good law?
7. What is the idea/expression dichotomy?
Additional Reading Materials on Idea/Expression Dichotomy

Hon. Jon O. Newman, New Lyrics for an Old Melody: The Idea/Expression Dichotomy in
the Computer Age, 17 Cardozo Arts & Ent LJ 691 (1999)

Paul I. Kravitz, “Idea/Expression Dichotomy” and “Method of Operation”: Determining
Copyright Protection for Computer Programs, 8 DePaul Bus. L.J. 75 (Fall, 1995)

Alfred C. Yen, A First Amendment Perspective on the Idea/Expression Dichotomy and
Copyright in a Work’s “Total Concept and Feel”, 38 Emory L.J. 393 (Spring, 1989)

Jay Rubin, Television Formats: Caught in the Abyss of the Idea/Expression Dichotomy, 16
Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 661 (Winter, 2006)

Amy B. Cohen, Copyright Law and the Myth of Objectivity: The Idea-Expression
Dichotomy and the Inevitability of Artistic Value Judgments, 66 Ind. L.J. 175 (Winter, 1990)

Leslie A. Kurtz, Speaking to the Ghost: Idea and Expression in Copyright, 47 U. Miami L.
Rev. 1221 (May, 1993)
-9-

Edward Samuels, The Idea-Expression Dichotomy in Copyright Law, 56 Tenn. L. Rev. 321
(Winter, 1989)

Edward C. Wilde, Replacing the Idea/Expression Metaphor with a Market-Based Analysis in
Copyright Infringement Actions, 16 Whittier L. Rev. 793 (1995)
Class of September 10: Copyrightable Subject Matter IV: Facts
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: How do courts distinguish ideas from expression in
factual works?
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 111-131 (up to 2)
Discussion Questions for Class of September 10
1. To what extent are facts copyrightable under the current copyright law? Should facts be
copyrightable? Why or why not?
2. How is "compilation" defined in the 1976 Copyright Act? Please think of three examples of
compilations that you own.
3. What is the difference between a “compilation” and a “collective work”?
4. What is required for a compilation to be copyrightable? If a compilation includes unusual facts,
will that make it copyrightable?
5. What should be required, in your opinion, for a compilation to be copyrightable?
6. Does protection for compilation include protection for underlying works?
Additional Reading Materials on Factual Works

Robert C. Denicola, Copyright in Collections of Facts: A Theory for the Protection of
Nonfiction Literary Works, 81 Colum. L. Rev. 516 (1981)

Jane C. Ginsburg, Creation and Commercial Value: Copyright Protection for Works of
Information, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 1865 (1990)

Robert A. Gorman, Fact or Fancy? The Implications for Copyright, 29 J. Copyright Soc'y
590 (1982)

Ralph D. Clifford, Random Numbers, Chaos Theory, and Cogitation: A Search for the
Minimal Creativity Standard in Copyright Law, 82 Denv. U.L. Rev. 259 (2004)
WEEK FIVE
Class of September 15: Copyrightable Subject Matter V: Compilations
- 10 -
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: If copyright protection is excluded for facts and
ideas, to what extent is a compilation of facts or ideas copyrightable? Should the law be changed to
give greater protection to databases?
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 131-163; Supp. pp. 7 (from C)-8 (up to F). Skim
European Union Directive 96/9 at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996L0009:EN:HTML
RECOMMENDED: So far no legislation to protect databases has been enacted. For a fairly
recent attempt, take a look at Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act (H.R.
3261 in 108th Congress). You can access it on Thomas at: http://thomas.loc.gov/ [type in bill
number]. Also, take a look at another bill introduced in the 108th Congress, The Consumer Access
to Information Act of 2004, H.R 3272 (also available on Thomas). Also, see Collections of
Information Antipiracy Act, H.R. 354, 106th Cong. (1999) (to provide protection for certain
collections of information) (placed on Union Calendar, Calendar No. 212); Collections of
Information Antipiracy Act, Sen. 2291, 105th Cong. (1998) (to prevent the misappropriation of
collections of information) (died in Subcommittee); Collections of Information Antipiracy Act, H.R.
2652, 105th Cong. (1997) (to provide protection for certain collections of information) (died in
Senate Judiciary Committee after passing the House); Database Investment and Intellectual Property
Antipiracy Act of 1996, H.R. 3531, 104th Cong. (1996) (to promote investment and prevent
intellectual piracy with respect to databases) (died in Committee). A draft database treaty was
submitted to the WIPO diplomatic conference in 1996. It can be downloaded from
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/treaties/database.html It was circulated for discussion, but was
never debated.
Citation Note: CCC Information Services v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports, Inc., (p. 140),
cert. denied, 516 U.S. 817, 116 S.Ct. 72, 133 L.Ed. 2d 32 (1995); Southco, Inc. v. Kanebridge
Corp. (p. 147), 390 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. en banc 2004), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 336 (2005); ATC
Distrib. Group, Inc. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc., (p. 148) rehearing,
rehearing en banc denied, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 12391 (6th Cir. June 20, 2005); BellSouth
Advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Donnelley Information Publishing, Inc. (p. 149), cert.
denied, 520 U.S. 1101, 114 S.Ct. 943, 127 L.Ed. 2d 232 (1994); Assessment Technologies of WI,
LLC v. WIREdata, Inc., 350 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003), plaintiff ordered to pay defendant
attorney’s fees, 361 F.3d 434 (2004); Sparaco v. Laler, Matusky, Skelly, Engineers LLP (p.
156), 303 F.3d 460 (2d Cir. 2002), cert. denied 2003 U.S. LEXIS 2525 (2003)
Recent Cases on merger doctrine: New York Mercantile Exchange v. Intercontinental
Exchange, (2d Cir., August 1, 2007); Naghi v. Europe’s Finest, Inc. v. Charles Shaw, 114
Fed. Appx. 606 (5th Cir. 2004); Eagle Servs. Corp. v. H20 Industrial Services, Inc., 2006 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 9081 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 22, 2006)
Discussion Questions for Class of September 15
1. To what extent are works of history copyrightable?
- 11 -
2. To what extent are maps copyrightable?
3. What is the merger doctrine? How does it relate to the idea/expression dichotomy?
4. To what extent does the European Union protect compilations of information? How does this
differ from current U.S. law?
4. Should U.S. law provide stronger protection for databases? Would this be constitutional? Why or
why not?
Additional Reading Materials on Database Protection

Paula Baron, Back to the Future: Learning from the Past in the Database Debate, 62 Ohio
St. L.J. 879 (2001)

Paul Bender, The Constitutionality of Proposed Federal Database Protection Legislation, 28
Dayton L. Rev. 143 (2002).

Jane C. Ginsburg, Copyright, Common Law, and Sui Generis Protection of Databases in the
United States and Abroad, 66 U.Cin.L. Rev. 151 (1997)

Dov S. Greenbaum, Commentary: The Database Debate: In Support of an Inequitable
Solution, , 13 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 431 (2003)

Stan Karas, Privacy, Identity, Databases, 52 Am. U.L.Rev. 393 (Dec. 2002)

Jacqueline Lipton, Balancing Private Rights and Public Policies: Reconceptionalizing
Property in Databases, 18 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 773 (Summer, 2003)

Arthur Miller, Copyright Protection for Computer Programs, Databases, and ComputerGenerated Works: Is Anything New Since CONTU?, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 977 (Mar. 1993)

Malla Pollack, The Right to Know? Delimiting Database Protection at the Juncture of the
Commerce Clause, the Intellectual Property Clause, and the First Amendment?, 17 Cardozo
Arts & Ent. L. J. 47 (1999)

Sharon K. Sandeen, A Contract by Any Other Name is Still a Contract: Examining the
Effectiveness of Trade Secret Clauses to Protect Databases, 25 IDEA 119 (2005)

Estelle Derclaye, An Economic Analysis of the Contractual Protection of Databases, 2005
U. Ill. J. Tech. & Pol’y 247 (Fall, 2005)

YiJun Tian, Reform of Existing Database Legislation and Future Database Legislation
Strategies: Towards a Better Balance in the Database Law, 31 Rutgers Computer & Tech.
L.J. 347 (2005)

Sarah Duran, “A Species of Mutant Copyright Law”: An Argument Against Using the
Commerce Clause to Protect Databases, 8 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 87 (Spring, 2006)

Ray K. Harris and Susan Stone Rosenfield, Symposium: Human Genetic Sampling, Ethical,
Legal, and Social Considerations: Copyright Protection for Genetic Databases, 45 Jurimetrics
J. 225 (Winter, 2005)
- 12 -
Class of September 17: Copyrightable Subject Matter VI: Derivative Works
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: When will a derivative work be copyrightable? What
level of originality is required?
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 164-81
Citation Note: Batlin v. Snyder (p. 164), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 857, 92 S.Ct. 156, 50 L.Ed. 2d
135 (1976); Entertainment Research Group, Inc. v. Genesis Creative Group, Inc. (p. 175),
cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1021, 118 S.Ct. 1302, 140 L.Ed. 2d 468 (1998); Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits,
Inc. (p. 176), 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000), subsequent appeal on defenses of merger
doctrine and scenes a faire, 323 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2003); Schiffer Pub. v. Chronicle Books (p.
177), 73 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090 (E.D. Pa. 2004), awarding plaintiffs costs and attorneys fees,76
U.S.P.Q.2d 1493 (E.D. Pa. 2005); Maljack Productions, Inc. v. UAV Corp. (p. 180), cert.
denied, 119 S.Ct. 2036, 144 L.Ed. 2d 214 (1995).
Recent Case: Glades Pharmaceuticals, LLC. V. Murphy, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36198 (Dec.
16, 2005)
Discussion Questions for Class of September 17
1. What is a "derivative work"?
- IMPORTANT in connection with contracts/licenses
2. Is the copyright requirement of originality different for a derivative work than for a work not
based on another work? Is more sweat required? More creativity?
Additional Reading Materials on Derivative Works

Steven S. Boyd, Deriving Originality in Derivative Works: Considering the Quantum of
Originality Needed to Attain Copyright Protection in a Derivative Work, 40 Santa Clara L.
Rev. 325 (2000)

Paul Goldstein, Derivative Rights and Derivative Works in Copyright, 30 J. Copyright Soc'y
209 (1982)

Jason L. Cohn, Note, The King James Copyright: A Look at the Originality of Derivative
Translations of the King James Version of the Bible, 12 J. Intell. Prop. L. 513 (Spring, 2005)
WEEK SIX
Class of September 22: Copyrightable Subject Matter VII: Pictorial, Graphic, and Sculptural Works
ON CALL:
- 13 -
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: When is a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work
excluded from copyright protection on the grounds of lack of originality or functionality?
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 206-252; Supp., pp. 8 (from F)-10 (up to G) [NOTE:
these Supp. pages supplement pp. 228, 248 of Casebook]; skim H.R. 2033 (bill proposing to
provide sui generis protection for fashion design). Available on http://www.thomas.gov (look up
by bill number). See also S. 1975 (also available on Thomas).
Citation Note: Pivot Point Int’l., Inc. v. Charlene Prods., Inc., 372 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2004),
rehearing en banc denied, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 16553 (7th Cir. Ill. Aug. 10, 2004)
Discussion Questions for Class of September 22
1. To what extent does a work's utility affect its copyrightability?
2. To what extent is a photograph copyrightable? How does the idea/expression dichotomy apply?
3. What is a design patent? How does it differ from a copyright?
4. Has Congress enacted design protection legislation?
5. What is a "useful article" under the current Copyright Act?
6. What is "conceptual separability"? How do the courts determine conceptual separability? Is there
one definitive test?
7. Should there be greater protection for fashion design?
Additional Reading Materials on Pictorial, Graphic and Sculptural Works

Shira Perlmutter, Conceptual Separability and Copyright in the Designs of Useful Articles,
37 J. Copyright Soc'y 339 (1990)

Raymond M. Polakovic, Should the Bauhaus Be in the Copyright Doghouse? Rethinking
Conceptual Separability, 64 U. Colo. L. Rev. 871 (Summer, 1993)

John B. Fowles, The Utility of a Bright-Line Rule in Copyright Law: Freeing Judges from
Aesthetic Controversy and Conceptual Separability in Leicester v. Warner Bros., 12 UCLA
Ent. L. Rev. 301 (Spring, 2005)

Jacob Bishop, Note: Stealing Beauty: Pivot Point Int’l v. Charlene Products and the
Unfought Battle Between the Merger Doctrine and Conceptual Separability, 2006 Wis. L.
Rev. 1067 (2006)

Michael S. Oberman and Trebor Lloyd, Copyright Protection for Photographs in the Age of
New Technologies, 2 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 10 (1996)

Photographer’s Rights: Case for Sufficient Originality Test in Copyright, 30 J. Marshall L.
Rev. 149 (1996)
- 14 -

Christine Haight Farley, The Lingering Effects of Copyright’s Response to the Invention of
Photography, 65 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 385 (Spring, 2004)

Hedrick, Lisa J.,Tearing Fashion Design Protection Apart at the Seams, 65 Washington and
Lee Law Review 215 (2008)
Additional Reading Materials on Copyrightability of Typeface Design

Lillian Abbott Pfohl, Serif Wars: An Argument for the Protection of Typeface Design,
(2001) Syracuse L. & Tech. J. 1. 1 (2001) (prize-winning student paper by a law clerk clerking
for a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit).

Terrence J. Carroll, Comment, Protection for Typeface Designs: A Copyright Proposal, 10
Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 139 (1994)

Phillip W. Snyder, Typeface Design After the Desktop Revolution: A New Case for Legal
Protection, 16 Colum.-VLA J.L. & Arts 97 (1991)

Typeright: http://www.typeright.org/ (lobbying group of typeface designers - lots of great
links and advocacy for copyrightability of typeface)
Class of September 24: Copyrightable Subject Matter VIII: Architectural Works
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: When is a building or architectural plan
copyrightable?
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 252-259; Supp., pp. 10 (from G)-11 (up to H)
Citation Note: Yankee Candle Co. v. New England Candle Co. (p. 253), vacated on
settlement, 29 F. Supp. 2d 44 (1998).
Recent Cases: KB Home v. Antares Homes, Ltd., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37484 (N. D. Tex.
Dec. 29, 2005); Chirco v. Gateway Oaks, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43081 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 26,
2005); VIAD Corp. v. Stak Design, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6572 (E. D. Tex. Apr. 14,
2005); Trek Leasing, Inc. v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 8 (2005); Mason Pilon Architects, LLC
v. HNTB Corporation, 2006 WL 2331013 (D. Ct. 2006)
Discussion Questions for Class of September 24
1. Are buildings copyrightable under the current Copyright Act even though they are useful articles?
2. Are architectural plans copyrightable under the current Copyright Act? If so, to what extent?
3. How was copyright protection expanded for architectural works in 1990?
4. What is an "architectural work"?
- 15 -
5. Are computer programs copyrightable? Should they be copyrightable? Why or why not?
6. Should computer-authored works be copyrightable?
Additional Reading Materials on Copyright Protection for Architectural Works

Melissa M. Mathis, Note: Function, Nonfunction, and Monumental Works of Architecture:
An Interpretive Lens in Copyright Law, 22 Cardozo L. Rev. 595 (2001)

Raleigh W. Newsam, Architecture and Copyright - Separating the Poetic from the Prosaic,
71 Tul. L. Rev. 1073 (1997)

Andrew Inesi, Images of Public Places: Extending the Copyright Exemption for Pictorial
Representations of Architectural Works to Other Copyrighted Works, 13 J. Intell. Prop. L.
61 (Fall, 2005)

Antoinette Vacca, Comment: The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act: Much Ado
About Something?, 9 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 111 (2005)

Adam T. Mow (Architect), Comment & Note: Building with Style: Testing the Boundaries of
the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act, 2004 Utah L. Rev. 853 (2004)

John B. Fowles, The Utility of a Bright-Line Rule in Copyright Law: Freeing Judges from
Aesthetic Controversy and Conceptual Separability in Leicester v. Warner Bros., 12 UCLA
Ent. L. Rev. 301 (Spring, 2005)
WEEK SEVEN
Class of September 29: Copyrightable Subject Matter IX: Characters and Sound Recordings
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS FOR THIS CLASS: When is a character copyrightable separately from
a literary, pictorial or other work in which it appears? When is a sound recording copyrightable and
what is the difference between a sound recording and a musical work?
A. Characters:
·REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 259-268; Supp., p. 11 (from H)-12 (up to J) [NOTE:
Supp. amends p. 264 of Casebook]
Citation Note: Nichols v. Universal Pictures Co. (p. 259), cert. denied, 282 U.S. 902, 51 S. Ct.
216, 75 L.Ed. 795; Gaiman v. McFarlane (p. 265), 360 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2004), rehearing
denied, rehearing en banc denied, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 6387 (7th Cir. Wis. Mar. 31, 2004)
Recent Cases: Baco v. TTMV Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45926 (D. Puerto Rico June 1,
2006); JB Oxford & Co. v. First Tennessee Bank Nat’l Ass’n et al., 427 F. Supp.2d 784 (M. D.
Tenn. April 12, 2006; Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 330 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2002); Quaglia v.
Bravo Networks, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11636 (D. Mass. Mar. 21, 2006); Wendt v.
Ratzenberger, 125 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 1997), reh'g denied, 197 F.3d 1284 (see Judge Kozinski's
dissenting opinion), cert. denied 121 S. Ct. 33 (Oct. 2, 2000)
- 16 -
B. Sound Recordings:
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 268-273 (please note when preparing for class that most
of class time will be spent discussing characters)
Citation Note: Newton v. Diamond (p. 270), 349 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 2003), amended by,
rehearing denied by, rehearing, en banc, denied by, 388 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2004), reprinted
as amended at 388 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 2905 (2005)
Discussion Questions for Class of September 29
1. To what extent are characters copyrightable independent of the story? To what extent should
they be copyrightable?
2. What tests do the courts apply to determine the copyrightability of characters?
3. Does it make any difference to their copyrightability if characters are depicted pictorially or
graphically?
4. What is a sound recording? What is the difference between a sound recording and a
phonorecord? Between a sound recording and a musical work?
5. How is the scope of protection for a sound recording narrower than for other categories of
copyrightable works under § 102?
6. Who are the authors of a sound recording?
Additional Reading Materials on Copyrightability of Characters

Mark Bartholomew, Protecting the Performers: Setting a New Standard for Character
Copyrightability, 41 Santa Clara L. Rev. 341 (2001)

Leslie A. Kurtz, The Independent Legal Lives of Fictional Characters, 1986 Wis. L. Rev. 429

Keith Poliakoff, License to Copyright: The Ongoing Dispute Over the Ownership of James
Bond, 18 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 387 (2000)

Gregory S. Schienke, Comment, The Spawn of Learned Hand – A Reexamination of
Copyright Protection and Fictional Characters: How Distinctly Delineated Must the Story Be
Told?, 9 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 63 (2005)

Leslie A. Kurz, Digital Actors and Copyright – From the Polar Express to Simone, 21 Santa
Clara Computer & High Tech L.J. 783 (May, 2005)

Dennis S. Karjala, The Investiture of Professor Dennis S. Karjala as the Jack E. Brown
Professor of Law: Harry Potter, Tanya Grotter, and the Copyright Derivative Work, 38 Ariz.
St. L.J. 17 (Spring, 2006) See also Professor Edmund W. Kitch’s Comment on this article at
38 Ariz. St. L.J. 41 (Spring, 2006)
- 17 -

Andrew E. Jakowich, Property and Democracy in Virtual Worlds, 11 B.U.J. Sci. & Tech. L.
173 (Summer, 2005)
Additional Reading on Copyrightability of Sound Recordings

Michael W. Carroll, The Struggle for Music Copyright, 57 Fla. L. Rev. 907 (Sept. 2005)

John P. Strohm, Comment: Writings in the Margin (of Error): The Authorship Status of
Sound Recordings Under United States Copyright Law, 34 Cumb. L. Rev. 127 (2003/2004)

Scott Franklin, Note & Comment: What is So B-A-D about D-A-B? How High Definition
Radio Affects the Producers of Sound Recordings, 25 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 203
(2004/2005)

Travis R.A. Kuda, Comment: Authorship of Sound Recordings: Why Sound Recordings
Should Have Joint Authorship, 33 Sw. U. L. Rev. 379 (2004)
Class of October 1: Copyrightable Subject Matter X: Government Works and Public Policy Issues
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS FOR THIS CLASS: To what extent are the works of federal and state
governments, model codes, and immoral or obscene works excluded from copyright protection?
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 273-300; Supp., p. 12 (J)
Citation Note: Veeck v. Southern Building Code Cong. Int'l, Inc (p. 280)., 293 F.3d 791 (5th
Cir. en banc. 2002), cert. denied, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 5186 (2003); Mitchell Bros. Film Group v.
Cinema Adult Theater (p. 295), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 917, 100 S.Ct. 1277, 63 L.Ed. 2d 6 01
(1980). Various Amicus Briefs of Law Professors in Veeck v. SBCCI are available at:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/amicus/ (scroll down to find links to these amicus briefs)
Recent Cases: Int’l Code Council, Inc. and Building Officials and Code Adminstrators Int’l,
Inc., v. Nat’l Fire Protection Ass’n, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13783 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27,
2006) (also relevant on merger doctrine); Practice Management Information Corp. v.
American Medical Ass'n (p. 251), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 933, 118 S.Ct. 339, 139 L.Ed. 2d 263
(1997), opinion amended, 133 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 2367 (1998),
reh'g denied, 119 S.Ct. 285, 142 L.Ed. 2d 235 (1998);
Discussion Questions for Class of October 1
1. To what extent are federal government works copyrightable?
- What about works paid for by Federal Government?
2. To what extent are state government works copyrightable?
3. To what extent are private legislative codes copyrightable?
- 18 -
4. Can obscenity of a work amount to an affirmative defense to copyright infringement? To what
extent does a work's obscenity affect its copyrightability?
Additional Reading on Copyrightability of Government Works and Public Policy Issues

Malla Pollack, Intellectual Property Protection for the Creative Chef, or How to Copyright a
Cake: A Modest Proposal, 12 Cardozo L. Rev. 1477 (1991)

Nick Martini, Annual Review of Law and Technology: Veeck v. Southern Building Code
Congress International, Inc., 18 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 93 (2003)

Dennis S. Karjala, Distinguishing Patent and Copyright Subject Matter, 35 Conn. L. Rev. 439
(Winter, 2003)

Shubha Ghosh, Copyright as Privatization: The Case of Model Codes, 78 Tul. L. Rev. 653
(Feb. 2004)

Michael Ariens, The Ethics of Copyrighting Ethics Rules, 36 U. Tol. L. Rev. 235 (Winter,
2005)
WEEK EIGHT
UNIT III: OWNERSHIP OF COPYRIGHT
Class of October 6: Ownership I
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS FOR THIS CLASS: Who/what is an author who can own a protectable
copyright right? Must authors be human beings?
A. Concepts of Authorship
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 301-304 (up to 2)
B. Work Made for Hire
REQUIRED READING: Casebook, pp. 304-329; Supp., p. 13 (item a) [NOTE: Supp. amends
p. 319 of Casebook]
Citation Note: Estate of Burne Hogarth v. Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc., 342 F.3d 149 (2d Cir.
2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 937 (2004), sanctions allowed, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22312
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2004), sanctions vacated, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13436 (S.D.N.Y. July 7,
2005); Pavlica v. Behr, (p. 323), 397 F. Supp.2d 519 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), reconsideration denied
by, reargument denied by, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29877 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2005), motion
granted in part, denied in part, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38710 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2006);
Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Dumas ( p. 329), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1010, 116 S.Ct. 567, 133 L.Ed.
2d 491 (1995), opinion of district court on remand, 960 F. Supp. 710, aff'd, 159 F.3d 1347 (2d
Cir. 1998); Armento v. Laser Image, Inc. (p. 329), aff'd, 134 F.3d 362 (4th Cir. 1998); Martha
- 19 -
Graham Sch. & Dance Found., Inc. v. Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance (p.
318), 380 F.3d 624 (2d Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 161 L.Ed. 2d 1110 (2005), on remand at,
findings of fact/conclusions of law at 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12241 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2005)
Recent Cases: Gilpin v. Siebert, 419 F. Supp.2d 1288 (D. Ore. 2006); Manasa v. University of
Miami ( p. 278), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1976)
Discussion Questions for Class of October 6
1. Is authorship based on conception, execution, or something else?
2. What is a work made for hire? Is it constitutional to protect works made for hire?
3. What are the two kinds of works made for hire in the current copyright statute? What is the test
for each?
4. What is the "teacher exception"?
Additional Reading Materials on Authorship and Works Made for Hire

Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, The Creative Employee and The Copyright Act of 1976, 54 U.
Chi. L. Rev. 590 (1987)

Jonathan Hudis, Software "Made for Hire": Make Sure Its Really Yours, 40 J. Copyright
Soc'y 8 (1996)

Russ VerSteeg, Defining "Author" for the Purposes of Copyright, 45 Am. U. L. Rev. 1323
(1996)

Kathleen Abitabile & Jeanette Picerno, Dance and the Choreographer's Dilemma: A Legal
and Cultural Perspective on Copyright Protection for Choreographic Works, 27 Campbell L.
Rev. 39 (Fall, 2004)

Travis R.A. Kuda, Comment: Authorship of Sound Recordings: Why Sound Recordings
Should Have Joint Authorship, 33 Sw. U. L. Rev. 379 (2004)

Charles Coker, Note & Comment: The Dissonance of Work for Hire in Commissioned
Sound Recordings: Boulez v. Commissioner Revisited, 25 Loy. L. A. Ent. L. Rev. 435 (2005)

Seventh Annual Entertainment Law Initiative Essay Competition: “It’s Mine! No, It’s Mine!
No, It’s Mine!” Works-Made-For-Hire, Section 203 of the Copyright Act, and Sound
Recordings, 7 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Pract. 381 (Summer, 2005)

Michael P. Matesky, II, Whose Song is it Anyway? When are Sound Recordings Used in
Audiovisual Works Subject to Termination Rights and When are they Works Made for
Hire?, 5 Va. Sports & Ent. L.J. 63 (Fall, 2005)

Sharon Connelly, Authorship, Ownership, and Control: Balancing the Economic and
Artistic Issues Raised by the Martha Graham Copyright Case, 15 Fordham Intell. Prop.
Media & Ent. L.J. 837 (Spring, 2005)
- 20 -

Nancy S. Kim, Martha Graham, Professor Miller and the “Work for Hire” Doctrine:
Undoing the Judicial Bind Created by the Legislature, 13 J. Intell. Prop. L. 337 (Spring, 2006)

Anne W. Braveman, Note & Comment: Duet of Discord: Martha Graham and Her NonProfit Battle Over Work for hire, 25 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 471 (2005)

Bethany M. Forcucci, Casenote: Dancing Around the Issues of Choreography & Copyright:
Protecting Choreographers After Martha Graham School and Dance Foundation, Inc. v.
Martha Graham Center of Contemporary Dance, Inc., 24 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 931 (2006)

Woodrow Barfield, Intellectual Property Rights in Virtual Environments: Considering the
Rights of Owners, Programmers, and Virtual Avatars, 29 Akron L. Rev. 649 (2006)

Daniel J. Wakin, Pilobolus Suffers Bitter Breach Over Rights to Choreography, New York
Times (July 24, 2006) at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/arts/dance/24pilo.html?ei=5090&en=7299fea5d23
b8022&ex=1311393600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Class of October 8: Ownership II - Joint Works
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS FOR THIS CLASS: How is authorship determined where more than
one person contributes to a work?
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 329-344, Supp., pp. 13 (from 3)-16 (up to B)
Citation Note: Gaiman v. McFarlane (p. 340), 360 F.3d 644, reh'g denied, 2004 U.S. App.
LEXIS 6327 (7th Cir. Wis. Mar. 31, 2004)
Recent Cases: Brown v. Flowers, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 19055 (4th Cir. 2006) (see dissent in
particular); Burkitt v. Flawless Records, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11986 (E.D. La. 2005)
Discussion Questions for Material for Class of October 8
1. What is a joint work?
2. What rights does each co-author have in a joint work?
3. How do courts determine whether a work is a joint work?
Additional Reading Materials on Joint Authorship

Mary LaFrance, Authorship, Dominance, and the Captive Collaborator: Preserving the
Rights of Joint Authors, 50 Emory L.J. 193 (2001)

Teresa Huang, Note and Brief: Gaiman v. McFarlane: The Right Step in Determining Joint
Authorship for Copyrighted Material, 20 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 673 (2005)
- 21 -

Keith Poliakoff, License to Copyright: The Ongoing Dispute Over the Ownership of James
Bond, 18 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 387 (2000)

Please also see articles on joint authorship of sound recordings listed under Class of October
4 and William Patry blog posting for August 2 2006 at: http://williampatry.blogspot.com/

Harry L. Self III, Settlement of Infringement Claims by Copyright Co-Owners, 13 Tex.
Intell. Prop. L.J. 65 (Fall, 2004)
WEEK NINE
Class of October 13: No Class – Columbus Day Holiday
Class of October 14: (Administrative Monday) Ownership III - Transfer of Copyright Ownership
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS FOR THIS CLASS: How can copyright owners grant some or all of
their rights to others? What formalities are required for an effective transfer?
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 344-356 (up to 2), 375 (starting at s. 201)-387; Supp., pp.
16 (from B)-17 (up to 2), 18 [NOTE: Supp. amends pp. 346, 384, and 385 of Casebook]
RECOMMENDED: Students who have a particular interest in learning more about copyright
transactions should read the material on scope of grant at Casebook pp. 356-375 (up to s. 201) and
Supp. p. 17. None of this material will be on the final examination.
Citation Note: Olan Mills, Inc. v. Eckerd Drug of Texas, Inc. ( p. 343), available on
Westlaw: 1989 WL 90605 (N.D. Tex. 1989); Zuill v. Shanahan (p. 343), cert. denied, 519 U.S.
1090, 117 S.Ct. 763, 136 L.Ed.2d 710 (1997); Faulkner v. Nat’l Geographic Enterprises (p.
384), 209 F.3d 26 (2d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9270 (Dec. 12, 2005);
Greenberg v. Nat’l Geographic Society (p. 384), 244 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied,
534 U.S. 951 (2001) (reconsidered in 2007)
Recent Cases: R. Miller Architecture, Inc. v. Edgington Enterprises, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 54635 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2006); NASCAR v. Scharle, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 15254 (3d
Cir. Feb. 2, 2006); Williams v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 12358 (9th Cir.
2006); Field v. Google, 412 F. Supp.2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006); Pavlica v. Behr, 397 F. Supp.2d
519 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), reconsideration denied, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29877 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
Discussion Questions for Class of October 14
1. What is a "transfer of copyright ownership" under the current Copyright Act?
2. What is a license? A non-exclusive license? An exclusive license?
3. What is an assignment?
- 22 -
4. Is a transfer of copyright ownership that is not in writing valid?
5. What is recordation?
- may one record regarding unregistered copyright?
6. What was at issue in Tasini? Was it a pyrrhic victory for the freelancers?
- see Greenberg v. National Geographic (11th Cir. June 2007)
Additional Reading Materials on Transfer of Copyright Ownership

Chrstopher Norgaard and Sandra J. Garcia, The Ninth Circuit's Decisions in Foad v. Musil
Govan Azzalino and Gardner v. Nike, Inc.: The Creation, Interpretation and Assignment of
Copyright Licenses under State and Federal Law, 33 Sw. U. L. Rev. 347 (2004)

Michael S. Bogner, The Problem with Handshakes: An Evaluation of Oral Agreements in
the United States Film Industry, 38 Colum. J. L. & Arts. 359 (Spring, 2005)

Gabe Bloch, Note and Brief: Transformation in Publishing: Modeling the Effect of New
Media, 20 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 647 (2005)

Joel Hecker, Copyright in the Digital Age: Reflections on Tasini and Beyond: Contracting
and the Rights of Photographers, 53 Case W. Res. 659 (Spring, 2003)

Steve Davis, Contract Options for Individual Artists: A Coffeehouse Debate: Artists’
Contracts in the Evolving Internet Era, 29 Colum. J. L. & Arts 323 (2006)

Lateef Mtima, Tasini and Its Progeny: The New Exclusive Right or Fair Use on the
Electronic Publishing Frontier?, 14 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 369 (Winter,
2004)

Jennifer M. Hoekstra, Faulkner v. National Geographic Enterprises, Inc.: Conflict over
Defining Revisions, 8 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 247 (Spring, 2006)
UNIT IV: DURATION OF COPYRIGHT
Class of October 15: Duration and Renewal
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS FOR THIS CLASS: How long do copyright rights last? How long is it
constitutional for these to last? How did duration of copyright change from the 1909 Act to the
1976 Act?
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 388-426; Supp., pp. 19-32 [NOTE: Supp. amends pp.
423, 424, 427, and 432-34 of Casebook]; Peter B. Hirtle’s Copyright Duration Chart at:
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ (valid as of Jan. 1, 2008)
RECOMMENDED: Take a look at the Copyright Office Orphan Works Report at:
http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/ and proposed legislation, H.R. 5889, Orphan Works Act of
- 23 -
2008, and S. 2913, Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008, both available on the Copyright
Office site at: http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/ and Thomas (search by bill number)
Citation Note: P.C. Films v. Turner Entertainment Co. (p. 420), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 542,
142 L.Ed. 2d 450 (1998); Saroyan v. William Saroyan Found. (p. 420), aff'd without opinion,
864 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1988); Epoch Producing Corp. v. Killiam Shows (p. 422), cert. denied,
424 U.S. 955, 96 S.Ct. 1429, 47 L.Ed. 2d 360 (1976); Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Roger Miler
Music, Inc., 396 F.3d 762 (6th Cir. 2005), rehearing, en banc, denied, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS
5623 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 374 (2005)
Recent Cases: Dimensional Music Publishing, LLC v. Kersey, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42610
(June 23, 2006)
Discussion Questions for Class of October 15
1. What is the term of copyright under current law for a published work created by a single author
on or after January 1, 1978? For a joint author? For an unpublished work created on or after
January 1, 1978? For a work made for hire created on or after January 1, 1978?
2. What is the term of copyright for a published work created before 1978? For an unpublished
work?
3. What is the public domain? How do works enter the public domain? Can works ever be
recaptured, for copyright purposes, from the public domain? If so, when?
4. How long is it constitutional for a copyright to last? Is the Sonny Bono Term Extension Act of
1998 constitutional? Why or why not?
5. Was Eldred v. Ashcroft correctly decided? Why or why not?
6. What is the renewal term? What works have renewal terms? How long is the renewal term? For
what works is there automatic renewal?
7. What is the "orphan works" problem and how does it relate to duration? To what extent should
legislation be enacted to remedy this problem?
8. What is restoration of copyrights? Under the analyses in Luck's Music and Golan, what, if any,
difference would it make if Congress restored copyrights in US works as opposed to foreign works
from Berne and WTO countries?
Additional Reading Materials on Copyright Duration

Kenneth D. Crews, Copyright Duration and the Progressive Degeneration of a Constutional
Doctrine, 55 Syracuse L. Rv. 189 (2005)

William Patry, The Failure of the American Copyright System: Protecting the Idle Rich, 72
Notre Dame L. Rev. 907 (1997)
- 24 -

Christina Bohannan, Reclaiming Copyright, 23 Cardozo Arts & Ent LJ 567 (2006)
WEEK TEN
Class of October 20: Renewals and Derivative Works, Termination of Transfers
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS FOR THIS CLASS: The tension between assignments of copyright and
renewal rights and protection for the authors and their families
A. Renewals and Derivative Works
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 436-446
Citation Note: Russell v. Price ( p. 444), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 952, 100 S.Ct. 2919, 64 L.Ed.2d
809 (1980); Shoptalk, Ltd. v. Concorde-New Horizons Corp. ( p. 446), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct.
2399, 144 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1999); Batjac Prods. v. GoodTimes Home Video Corp. (Casebook p.
446), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 2046, 144 L.Ed. 214 (1999)
B. Termination of Transfers
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 447-463, Supp., p. 32 (from C)-57
Recent Cases: Steinbeck v. McIntosh, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38346 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2006);
Milne v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc., 430 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2005)
Discussion Questions for Class of October 20
1. If the author, A, of a copyrighted work conveys to another, B, during the initial term of the
copyright the exclusive right to create a derivative work, what happens to the derivative rights after
the term of copyright is renewed? Can A grant to C the right to produce a new derivative work
during the renewal term? Can B make a new derivative work based on A's work? Can B continue to
exploit the derivative work that he or she already made using A's work? What happens to the
derivative rights if copyright in A's work is not renewed?
2. Does publication of a motion picture based on an unpublished screenplay publish the underlying
screenplay (i.e. effect a divestive publication of the underlying work)? Why or why not?
3. What is termination of a transfer? In what situations did Congress provide for a termination?
Who benefits from these termination provisions in the current Copyright Act?
4. Who can terminate a grant of copyright rights? When can a grant be terminated? How is a grant
terminated? What is the effect of termination?
5. What differences exist between the termination provisions in section 203 of the current
Copyright Act and section 304 of the current Copyright Act?
- 25 -
Additional Reading Materials on Termination

Geoffrey P. Hull, Termination Rights and the Real Songwriters, 7 Vand. J. Ent. L & Prac.
301 (Spring, 2005)

Seth M. Goldstein, Note: Hitchcock’s “Rear Window” & International Copyright Law: An
Examination of Stewart v. Abend & Its Effect on International Copyright Renewal and
Exploitation, 14 Cardozo J. Int’l & Comp. L. 247 (Spring, 2006)

Ashok Chandra, Note: Crisis of Indefinite Consequence: How the Derivative Works
Exception and the Lanham Act Undercut the Remunerative Value of Termination of
Transfers, 16 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 241 (Fall, 2005)

Michael P. Matesky, II, Whose Song is it Anyway? When are Sound Recordings used in
Audiovisual Works Subject to Termination Rights and When are They Works Made for
Hire?, 5 Va. Sports & Ent. L.J. 63 (Fall, 2005)

John Molinaro, Notes & Comments: Who Owns Captain America? Contested Authorship,
Work-for-Hire and Termination Rights Under the Copyright Act of 1976, 21 Ga. St. U.L.
Rev. 565 (Winter, 2004)
UNIT V: FORMALITIES
Class of October 22: Formalities I: Publication and Notice
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS FOR THIS CLASS: The lesser importance of the formalities of
publication and notice over the history of copyright law, but the practical advantages remaining to
authors of copyright notice
A. Formalities pre-1976 Act
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 464-478
Citation Note: Uproar Co. v. National Broadcasting Co. (p. 468), cert. denied, 298 U.S. 670,
56 S.Ct. 835, 80 L.Ed. 1393 (1936); La Cienega Music Co. v. ZZ Top (p. 468), cert. denied,
316 U.S. 927, 116 S.Ct. 331, 133 L.Ed.2d 231 (1995); Batjac Prods. v. GoodTimes Home Video
Corp. (p. 469), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 2046, 144 L.Ed. 214 (1999); Shoptalk, Ltd. v. ConcordeNew Horizons Corp. (p. 469), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 2399, 144 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1999); Estate of
Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 194 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 1999), rehearing en banc
denied, 207 F.3d 666 (11th Cir. 2000); case ultimately settled (see 184 F. Supp.2d 1353 (N.D.
Ga. 2002) (granting Estate’s request for protective order); BMG v. Gonzalez (p. 482), 430
F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 2032 (2006)
Recent Cases: Open Source Yoga Unity v. Choudhury, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10440 (N.D.
Cal. Apr. 1, 2005)
- 26 -
B. Publication and Notice under 1976 Act
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 478-485; Supp., p. 58 (up to D) [NOTE: Supp.
amends pp. 479, 483 of Casebook]
Discussion Questions for Class of October 22
1. What formalities are required to obtain copyright protection?
2. How were the formalities requirements changed when the 1976 Act was enacted? What about
when the 1976 Act was amended after the United States acceded to the Berne Convention?
3. Should there be any required formalities for copyright protection? Why or why not?
Additional Reading Materials on Copyright Formalities of Notice and Publication

W. Russell Taber, Copyright Déjà vu: A New Definition of “Publication” Under the
Copyright Act of 1909, 58 Vand. L. Rev. 857 (April, 2005)

Michael B. Landau, “Publication,” Musical Compositions and the Copyright Act of 1909:
Still Crazy After All these Years, 2 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 29 (Winter, 2000)

Walter A. Effross, Owning Enlightenment: Proprietary Spirituality in the “New Age”
Marketplace, 51 Buffalo L. Rev. 483

Kenneth D. Hurwitz, Note, Omission of Coyright Notice Under Section 405(a): What Kind
of Oxymoron Makes a Deliberate Error?, 60 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 956 (Nov. 1985)

Douglas A. Hedenkamp, Free Mickey Mouse: Copyright Notice, Derivative Works, and the
Copyright Act of 1909, 2 Va. Sports & Ent. L.J. 254 (Spring, 2003)

Christopher Sprigman, Reform(aliz)ing Copyright, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 485 (Nov. 2004)
WEEK ELEVEN
Class of October 27: Formalities II: Deposit and Registration
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: The practical advantages of registering copyright, the
two separate deposit requirements
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 485-494, Supp., pp. 58 (at D) [amending p. 486 of
Casebook]
REQUIRED EXERCISE: Please go to the Copyright Office website at:
http://www.copyright.gov/ , click on "How to Register a Work", print out Form TX and Short
Form TX and bring to class.
- 27 -
Recent Cases: Torres Negro v. Rivera, 433 F. Supp.2d 204 (D. P.R. 2006); Shady Records,
Inc. v. Source Enterprises, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26143 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2004);
Geoscan, Inc. of Texas v. Geotrace Technologies, Inc., 226 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2000);
Kodadek v. MTV Networks, 152 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1998); DaimlyerChrysler Servs. v.
Summit National, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32049 (E.D.Mich. May 22, 2006); Broadcast Music,
Inc. v. Rooster’s, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5525 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 14, 2006); Small v.
Northstar Imaging Solutions, L.L.C., 364 F. Supp.2d 648 (E.D.Mich. 2005); Syntek
Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v. Microchip Tech., Inc., 307 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2002), Cinebase
Software, Inc. v. Media Guaranty Trust, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15007 (N.D. Cal. 1998)
Discussion Questions for Class of October 27
1. What is the deposit requirement? Did the 1976 Act change it?
2. Is registration required for copyright protection under the 1976 Act? Should it be?
- Registration vs. application
3. How do you register a copyright? How much does it cost to do this?
Additional Reading Materials on Deposit and Registration

Douglas Y’Barbo, On Section 411 of the Copyright Code and Determining the Proper
Scope of a Copyright Registration, 34 San Diego L. Rev. 343 (Winter, 1997)

Steven J. Metalitz, Copyright Registration After Feist: New Rules and New Roles?, 17
Dayton L. Rev. 763 (Spring, 1992)

Elise M. Stubbe, Copyright Registration Practice for the Non-Copyright Attorney, 52 LA
Bar Jnl. 448 (April/May, 2005)
UNIT VI: RIGHTS OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER
Class of October 29: Right of Reproduction
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: The bundle of exclusive rights owned by the
copyright owner, the scope of the right of reproduction, and how courts determine infringement of
the right of reproduction
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 502-559 (up to Computer Associates v. Altai); Supp., pp.
65-72 [NOTE: Supp. amends pp. 504, 506, 508, 509 and 523 of Casebook]
Recent Cases: Flaherty v. Filardi et al., 388 F. Supp.2d 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); Hayes v. Ja
Rule, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37848 (M.D. N.C. Aug. 19, 2005); Mestre v. Vivendi Universial
US Holding Co., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41024 (D. Ore. Aug. 15, 2005); Lava Records v. Ates,
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46683 (W.D. La. July 11, 2006)
- 28 -
Discussion Questions for Class of October 29
1. Other than the right of reproduction, what are the other exclusive rights of the copyright owner
in § 106 of the Copyright Act?
2. What is a copy? What is a phonorecord? Why does it matter?
3. What must the plaintiff prove to prove infringement of the right of reproduction?
4. To what extent can the plaintiff rely on expert evidence to prove infringement of the right of
reproduction?
5. What is striking similarity?
6. Can someone be liable for copyright infringement even where copying is unintentional? Should a
defendant be liable for unintentional or unconscious copying?
7. What is the difference between proving copying and proving infringement?
Additional Reading Materials on the Right of Reproduction

Swatee L. Mehta, Tiffany Design, Inc. v. Reno-Tahoe Speciality, Inc., 15 Berkeley Tech. L.J.
49 (2000)

Sarah Brashears-Macatee, Total Concept and Feel or Dissection? Approaches to the
Misappropriation Test of Substantial Similarity, 69 Chi.-Kent. L. Rev. 913 (1993)

Jarrod M. Mohler, Comment: Toward a Better Understanding of Substantial Similarity in
Copyright Infringement Cases, 68 U. Cin. L. Rev. 971 (Spring, 2000)

William A. Hall, Kohus v. Mariol: The Sixth Circuit Adopts Two-Step Test for Substantial
Similarity in Copyright Infringement, 34 U. Mem. L. Rev. 995 (Summer, 2004)

Jeannette Rene Busek, Comment: Copyright Infringement: A Proposal for a New Standard
for Substantial Similarity Based on the Degree of Possible Expressive Variation, 45 UCLA L.
Rev. 1777 (Aug. 1998)

Robert C. Osterberg and Eric C. Osterberg, Substantial Similarity in Copyright Law (PLI
2003), reviewed at 22 Ent. & Sports Law 14 (Spring, 2004)
WEEK TWELVE
Class of November 3: Infringing Copying, Infringement of Computer Programs, Substantial Similarity
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: How courts determine substantial similarity in the
context of infringement of the right of reproduction for computer programs and other types of
copyrightable works
- 29 -
REQUIRED READING: Read carefully Casebook pp. 559-588; Supp., p. 73 (Item 7) [NOTE:
Supp. amends p. 586 of Casebook]
Skim Casebook pp. 181 (starting at E)-206 (cases on protectability of computer programs under
copyright law)
Citation Note: Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (p. 558 of Casebook), aff'd 35 F.3d
1435 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1184 (1995); Franklin Mint Corp. v. National
Wildlife Exchange, Inc., (p. 587 of Casebook), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 880 (1978); Apple
Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. (p. 181), cert. dismissed, 464 U.S. 1035, 1043
S.Ct. 690, 79 L.Ed. 2d 158 (1984).
Discussion Questions for Class of November 3
1. How do the assigned cases determine substantial similarity in cases of non-literal copying? If
different tests are applied, what is the best test?
2. How do courts determine infringement of copyright in computer programs? To what extent is
or should computer programs be treated differently than other copyrighted works in this regard?
3. EXERCISE: Would you find copyright infringement of the Adler Santa statuette in Photograph
A on Casebook p. 494 by the World Bazaars statute? Why or why not?
Additional Reading on Copyright Protection for Computer Programs

Kenneth W. Dam, Some Economic Considerations in the Intellectual Property Protection of
Software, 24 J. Legal Studies 321 (1995)

Marci A. Hamilton & Ted Sabety, Computer Science Concepts in Copyright Cases: The Path
to a Coherent Law, 10 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 239 (1997)

Dennis S. Karjala, A Coherent Theory for the Copyright Protection of Computer Software
and Recent Judicial Interpretations, 66 U. Cin. L. Rev. 53 (1997)

Jeffrey D. Coulter, Computers, Copyright and Substantial Similarity: The Test Reconsidered,
14 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 47 (Fall, 1995)

Milton R. Wessel, Whelan v. Jaslow: An Appraisal: Substantial Similarity, 2 J.L. & Tech. 35
(Winter, 1997)

Donald F. McGahn II, Copyright Infringement of Protected Computer Software: An
Analytical Method to Determine Substantial Similarity, 21 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L. J.
88 (1995)

Tsu-Man Peter Tu, Computer Software Copyright Infringement – Three-Step Test for
Substantial Similarity, Involving Abstraction, Filtration, and Comparison, Should Be Applied
in Determining Whether Computer Software Copyright has Been Infringed, 25 Seton Hall L.
Rev. 412 (1994)

John H. Butler, Case Note, Pragmatism in Software Copyright: Computer Associates v.
Altai, 6 Harv. J. Law & Tec 183 (Fall, 1992)
- 30 -

William F. Patry, Can Our Current Conception of Copyright Law Survive the Internet Age?
Copyright and Computer Programs: A Failed Experiment and A Solution to a Dilemma, 46
N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 201 (2002/2003)

Glynn S. Lunney, Lotus v. Borland: Copyright and Computer Programs, 70 Tul. L. Rev.
2397 (June, 1996)

Jon S. Wilkins, Note: Protecting Computer Programs as Compilations Under Computer
Associates v. Altai, 104 Yale L. J. 435 (1994)
Class of November 5: More on the Right of Reproduction: Compulsory Licenses as a Limit on the Right of
Reproduction, Infringement of the Right of Reproduction in Sound Recording
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: The compulsory license (mechanical license) limit on
the right of reproduction for musical works, how the reproduction right in a sound recording is
infringed
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 589-603; Supp., pp. 73 (from 2)-75 (up to B) [NOTE:
Supp. amends pp. 592, 597 and 602 of Casebook]
Citation Note: Cherry River Music v. Simitar Entertainment [p. 594] is reported at 38 F.
Supp. 2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); Newton v. Diamond, 349 F.3d 591 [p. 270, 589] (9th Cir. 2003),
reprinted as amended at 388 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 2905 (2005)
Discussion Questions for Class of November 5
1. What is a phonorecord? How does it differ from a copy?
2. What is a compulsory license?
3. What is a mechanical license (see § 115 of the Copyright Act)? When is it available? What must
a person wishing to obtain a compulsory license do to obtain one? How is the compulsory license
royalty rate determined?
4. What is the Harry Fox Agency? What do they do?
5. To what extent does the § 115 compulsory license apply to on-demand digital audio streams?
6. What is the scope of the reproduction right of the copyright owner for a sound recording?
7. Do private copies of sound recordings violate the Copyright Act?
8. What is the "technological fix" provided by the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992?
9. What does § 1201(k) of the DMCA provide for digital audiovisual works?
- 31 -
10. When does sampling constitute copyright infringement?
Additional Reading Materials on Mechanical and Other Compulsory Licenses,
Infringement of the Right of Reproduction in Sound Recordings, Especially in the Context
of Sampling,

Harry Fox Agency website at http://www.harryfox.com/index.jsp

David Kostiner, Comment: Will Mechanicals Break the Digital Machine?: Determining a
Fair Mechanical Royalty Rate for Permanent Digital Phonorecord Downloads, 21 Santa
Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 235 (Nov., 2004)

Michael Botein and Edward Samuels, Compulsory Licenses in Peer-to-Peer File Sharing: A
Workable Solution?, 30 S. Ill. U. L. J. 69 (Winter/Fall 2005)

Amy Ai Dac Lam, Comment: Internet Music Downloads: A Copyright Owner’s Protection
of Royalties in the United States and Abroad, 34 Sw. U. L. Rev. 267 (2004)

Mario F. Gonzalez, Are Musical Compositions Subject to Compulsory Licensing for
Ringtones?, 12 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 11 (Fall, 2004)

Carlos Ruiz de la Torre, Towards the Digital Music Distribution Age: Business Model
Adjustments and Legislative Proposals to Improve Legal Downloading Services and Counter
Piracy, 3 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 503 (Summer, 2006)

Carmen Kate Yuen, Scuffling for a Slice of the Ringtone Pie: Evaluating Legal and Business
Approaches to Copyright Clearance Issues, 3 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 541 (Summer, 2006)

Marcy Rauer Wagman and Rachel Ellen Kopp, The Digital Revolution is Being
Downloaded: Why and How the Copyright Act Must Change to Accommodate An EverEvolving Music Industry, 13 Vill. Sports & Ent. L.J. 271 (2006)

Note: Jazz Has Got Copyright Law and That Ain’t Good, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 1940 (Apr.
2005)

Olufunmilayo B. Arewa, From J.C. Bach to Hip Hop: Musical Borrowing, Copyright and
Cultural Context, 84 N.C.L. Rev. 547 (Jan. 2006)

Matthew R. Brodin, Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films: The Death of the Substantial
Similarity Test in Digital Sampling Copyright Infringement Cases: The Sixth Circuit’s Flawed
Attempt at a Bright-Line Rule, 6 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 825 (2005)

M. Leah Somoano, Note: Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films: Has Unlicensed
Digital Sampling of Copyrighted Sound Recordings Come to an End?, 21 Berkeley Tech. L.J.
289 (2006)

John Schietinger, Note and Comment, Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films: How the
Sixth Circuit Missed a Beat on Digital Music, 55 DePaul L. Rev. 209 (Fall, 2005) Ryan C.
Grelecki, Can Law and Economics Bring the Funk . . . or Efficiency? A Law and Economics
Analysis of Digital Sampling, 33 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 297 (Fall, 2005)

Melissa Hahn, Note: Digital Music Sampling and Copyright Policy – a Bittersweet
Symphony? Assessing the Continued Legality of Music Sampling in the United Kingdom,
the Netherlands, and the United States, 34 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 713 (Spring, 2006)
- 32 -

Fredrich N. Lim, Grey Tuesday Lead to Blue Monday? Digital Sampling of Sound
Recordings After the Grey Album, 2004 U. Ill. J. L. Tech. & Pol’y 369 (Fall, 2004)

Jennifer R. R. Mueller, Note: All Mixed Up: Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films and De
Minimis Digital Sampling, 81 Ind. L.J. 435 (Winter, 2006)

Jeremy Scott Sykes, Note: Copyright –The De Minimis Defense in Copyright Infringement
Actions Involving Music Sampling, 36 U. Mem. L. Rev. 749 (Spring, 2006)

Jeremy Beck, Music Composition, Sound Recordings and Digital Sampling in the 21st
Century: A Legislative and Legal Framework to Balance Competing Interests, 13 UCLA Ent.
L. Rev. 1 (2005)

Carlos Ruiz de la Torre, Digital Music Sampling and Copyright Law: Can The Interests of
Copyright Owners and Sampling Artists Be Reconciled?, 7 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 401
(Summer, 2005)

Steven D. Kim, Taking De Minimis Out of the Mix: The Sixth Circuit Threatens to Pull the
Plug on Digital Sampling in Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 13 Vill. Sports &
Ent. L.J. 103 (2006)
WEEK THIRTEEN
Class of November 10: Infringing Derivative Works, Moral Rights
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS FOR THIS CLASS: Scope of the right of adaptation, scope of moral
rights
A. Derivative Works
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 603-621 (up to Moral Rights); Supp., p. 75 (item B.2)
[NOTE: Supp. amends p. 620 of Casebook]; Clean Flicks of Colorado v. Soderberg, 433 F.Supp.2d
1236 (D. Colo. 2006).
RECOMMENDED: see also William Patry copyright blog posting July 2006 at:
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2006/07/as-dirty-as-we-wanna-be.html and Freedom to Tinker
blog posting on case at: http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1039
Citation Note: Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc. [CB p. 615], cert. denied,
507 U.S. 985 (1993); Mirage Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co. [CB p. 613], cert.
denied, 489 U.S. 1018 (1989); Futuredontics, Inc. v. Applied Anagramics [CB p. 613], aff'd
152 F.3d 925 (9th Cir. 1998); Krause v. Titleserv, Inc. [p. 620], 402 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2005),
cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 622 (2005)
B. Moral Rights
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 621-641; skim 642-647; Supp., pp. 75 (from 3)-88
[NOTE: Supp. amends p. 627 of Casebook and adds new case]
- 33 -
Citation Note: Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc. [CB p. 629], cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1208 (1996);
English v. CFC&R East 11th Street LLC [CB p. 634], also reported in Westlaw at 1997 WL
746444, aff'd, 198 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 1999); Williams v. UMG, 281 F. Supp.2d 1177 (C.D.Cal.
2003) [p. 641], subsequent appeal at 2005 U.S. App. LXIS 12358 (9th Cir. May 12, 2006);
Keane v. Fox, 297 F. Supp.2d 921 [p. 642] affirmed, 129 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2005), cert.
denied, 126 S.Ct. 426 (2005)
Recent Cases: Berrios Nogueras v. Home Depot, 330 F.Sup.2d 48 (D.P.R. 2004); Scott v.
Dixon, 309 F. Supp.2d 395 (E.D.N.Y. 2004); Hunter v. Squirrel Hill Associates, 413 F. Supp.
2d 517 (E.D. Pa. 2005)
Discussion Questions for Class of November 10
1. How is infringement of the derivative works right determined? To what extent does it differ
from infringement of the right of reproduction?
2. To what extent does a work need to be original to constitute an infringing derivative work?
3. To what extent were moral rights already recognized in U.S. law prior to accession to the Berne
Convention?
4. To what extent was the 1976 Copyright Act amended after accession to Berne to include moral
rights?
5. What types of copyrightable works do these moral rights apply to?
6. Can the moral rights in the US Copyright Act be waived or transferred?
7. Does U.S. law currently afford sufficient moral rights protection?
Derivative Works

Dennis S. Karjala, The Investiture of Professor Dennis S. Karjala as the Jack E. Brown
Professor of Law: Harry Potter, Tanya Grotter, and the Copyright Derivative Work, 38 Ariz.
St. L.J. 17 (Spring, 2006)

Michael K. Erickson, Comment: Emphasizing the Copy in Copyright: Why Noncopying
Alterations Do Not Prepare Infringing Derivative Works, 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev. 1261 (2005)

Kelly M. Slavitt, Fixation of Derivative Works in a Tangible Medium: Technology Forces a
Reexamination, 46 IDEA 37 (2005)

Erin E. Gallagher, Note: On the Fair Use Fence Between Derivative Works and Allegedly
Infringing Creations: A Proposal for a Middle Ground, 80 Notre Dame L. Rev. 759 (Jan.
2005)

Aaron Clark, Not All Edits Are Created Equal: The Edited Movie Industry’s Impact on
Moral Rights and Derivative Works Doctrine, 22 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J.
51 (Nov. 2005)
- 34 -

Emilio B. Nicolas, Why The Ninth Circuit Added Too Much to Subtract Add-on Software
from the Scope of Derivative Works Under 17 U.S.C. § 106(2): A Textual Argument, 2004
Syracuse Sci. & Tech. L. Rep. 4 (Fall, 2004)

Patrick W. Ogilvy, Frozen in Time? New Technologies, Fixation, and the Derivative Work
Right, 3 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 687 (Summer, 2006)

Rob Sanders, Note: The Second Circuit Denies Music Publishers the Benefits of the
Derivative Works Exception: Fred Ahlert Music Corp. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., 29
Sw. U.L. Rev. 655 (2000)

Mitchell L. Stoltz, Note: The Penguin Paradox: How The Scope of Derivative Works in
Copyright Affects the Effectiveness of the GNU GPL, 85 B.U.K. Rev. 1439 (Dec. 2005)

Note: “Recoding” and the Derivative Works Entitlement: Addressing the First Amendment
Challenge, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 1488 (Mar. 2006)

Gregory C. Lisby, Web Site Framing: Copyright Infringement through the Creation of an
Unauthorized Derivative Work, 6 Comm. L. & Pol’y 541 (Autumn 2001)

Lydia Pallas Loren, The Changing Nature of Derivative Works in the Face of New
Technologies, 4 J. Small & Emerging Bus. L. 57 (Spring, 2000)

Gerald O. Sweeney, Jr. & John T. Williams, Mortal Kombat: The Impact of Digital
Technology on the Rights of Studios and Actors to Images and Derivative Works, 3 Minn.
Intell. Prop. Rev. 95 (2002)

Tyler Ochoa, Copyright, Derivative Works and Fixation: Is Galoob a Mirage, Or Does the
Form(Gen) of the Alleged Derivative Work Matter?, 20 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech
L.J. 991 (May 2004)
Moral Rights

Patricia Alexander, Comment: Moral Rights in the VARA Era, 36 Ariz. St. L.J. 1471 (Winter,
2004)

Jane C. Ginsburg, Have Moral Rights Come of (Digital) Age in the United Stats?, 19
Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 11 (2001)

Edward J. Damich, The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990: Toward a Federal System of
Moral Rights Protection for Visual Art, 39 Cath. U. L. Rev. 945 (1990)

David Nimmer, The Moral Imperative Against Academic Plagiarism (Without a Moral Right
Against Reverse Passing Off), 54 DePaul L. Rev. 1 (Fall, 2004)

RayMing Chang, Revisiting the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990: A Follow-up Survey About
Awareness and Waiver, 13 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 129 (Winter, 2005)

Kristina Mucinskas, Moral Rights and Digital Art: Revitalizing the Visual Artists’ Rights Act,
2005 U. Ill. J. L. Tech. & Pol’y 291 (Fall, 2005)

Natalia Thurston, Note and Brief: Buyer Beware: The Unexpected Consequences of the
Visual Artists Rights Act, 20 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 701 (2005)
- 35 -

Carrie Jones, Comment: Site-Specific Art Parks on Moral Ground: Distilling Old Whine in
New Battles over the Visual Artists Rights Act, 9 Comp. L. Rev. & Tech. J. 355 (Winter,
2005)

Brooke Davidson, Case Note and Comment: A Thousand Words: Pollara v. Seymour and
the Trend to Under-Value and Under-Protect Political Art, 14 DePaul-LCA J. Art & Ent. L.
257 (Spring, 2004)

Graeme W. Austin, The Berne Convention as a Canon of Construction: Moral Rights After
Dastar, 61 N.Y.U. Ann.. Surv. Am. L. 111 (2005)

Michael Landau, Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox: The Need for Stronger Protection of
Attribution Rights in the United States, 61 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 273 (2005)
Class of November 12: Right of Distribution, First Sale Right, and Public Performance Right
ON CALL:
A. Right to Distribute under Section 106(3)
READING: Casebook pp. 647-657 (to 3); Supp., pp. 89-98 (down to 3) [NOTE: Supp. amends
pp. 648, 651, and 655 of Casebook]
Citation Note: Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Webbworld, Inc. [CB p. 650], aff'd, 168 F.3d 486
(1999)
B. Right of Public Performance
READING: Casebook pp. 664-669, 673 (starting at 3)-681; Supp., p. 98 (item D) [NOTE: Supp.
amends p. 673 of Casebook]
Citation Note: Associated Music Pubs., Inc. v. Debs Mem. Radio Fund, Inc. [CB p. 560],
cert. denied, 323 U.S. 766 (1944); Patterson v. Century Prods., Inc. [CB p. 560], cert. denied,
303 U.S. 655 (1938); Jerome H. Remick & Co. v. American Auto. Accessories Co. [CB p.
560], cert. denied, 269 U.S. 556 (1925)
C. Right of Public Display,
READING: Casebook pp. 681-686; Supp. pp. 99-102 (down to 5) [NOTE: Supp. amends p.
684 and replaces in part pp. 685-86 of Casebook]
D. Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings
READING: Casebook pp. 686-693; Supp., pp. 102 (from 5)-103 (down to 6) [NOTE: Supp.
amends pp. 692 and 693 of Casebook]
E. Limitations on the Rights of Public Performance and Display
- 36 -
READING: Casebook pp. 693-700, skim 700 (starting at b)-714); Supp. pp. 103(from 6) -104
[NOTE: Supp. amends p. 703, 714 of Casebook]
Citation Note: Cablevision Co. v. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am. [CB p. 706], cert. denied, 487
U.S. 1235 (1988)
Discussion Questions for Class of November 12
1. What is the First Sale doctrine? Which rights does it apply to?
2. What exceptions, if any, to the First Sale doctrine, exist in current US Copyright law?
3. What is the meaning of "public" for the public performance and display rights?
4. What are performing rights societies? What function do they serve?
5. What are "grand" and "small" rights?
6. What exceptions exist for the rights of public performance and display?
7. What is droit de suite? The public lending right? Do these exist in the United States?
Additional Materials on Rights of Distribution, Public Performance, Public Display
Generally

BMI website at: http://www.bmi.com/

ASCAP website at: http://www.ascap.com/index.html

SESAC website at: http://www.sesac.com/

Sound Exchange website at: http://www.soundexchange.com/

Proposed WIPO Broadcasting Treaty (CP Tech) at: http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/

EFF Page on WIPO Broadcasting Treaty at:
http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/

WIPO Copyright and Related Rights page: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/
Additional Reading Materials on First Sale Doctrine

R. Anthony Reese, The First Sale Doctrine in the Era of Digital Networks, 44 B.C.L. Rev.
577 (Mar. 2003)

John A. Rothchild, The Incredible Shrinking First-Sale Rule: Are Software Resale Limits
Lawful?, 57 Rutgers L. Rev. 1 (Fall, 2004)

Michael N. Lang, Comment: The Regulation of Shrink-Wrapped Radio: Implications of
Copyright on Podcasting, 14 CommLaw Conspectus 463 (2006)
- 37 -

Benjamin Aitken, Download, Stream, or Somewhere in Between: The Potential for Legal
Music Use in Podcasting, 2006 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 12 (2006)

Matthew J. Astle, Will Congress Kill the Podcasting Star?, 19 Harv. J. Law & Tec 161 (Fall,
2005)

Edward L. Carter & Scott Lunt, Podcasting and Copyright: The Impact of Regulation on
New Communication Technologies, 22 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 187 (Jan.
2006)

Laura Jeanne Monique Silvey, Cutting out the “Good” Parts: The Copyright Controversy
over Creating Sanitized Versions of VHS/DVD Movies, 33 Sw. U. L. Rev. 419 (2004)

Eurie Hayes Smith IV, Digital First Sale: Friend or Foe?, 22 Cardozo Arts & Ent. LJ 853
(2005)

Victor F. Calaba, Quibbles ‘n Bits: Making a Digital First Sale Doctrine Feasible, 9 Mich.
Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 1 (2002)

Lothar Determann & Aaron Xavier Fellmeth, Don’t Judge a Sale by Its License: Software
Transfers Under the First Sale Doctrine in the United States and the European Community,
36 U.S.F. L. Rev. 1 (Fall, 2001)

Justin Graham, Preserving the Aftermarket in Copyrighted Works: Adapting the First Sale
Doctrine to the Emerging Technological Landscape, 2002 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 1 (2002)

Brian Mencher, Digital Transmissions: To Boldly Go Where No First Sale Doctrine Has
Gone Before, 10 UCLA Ent. L. Rev. 47 (Fall, 2002)
Additional Reading Materials on Public Lending Right

Jennifer M. Schneck, Note: Closing the Book on the Public Lending Right, 63 N.Y.U. L.
Rev. 878 (Oct. 1988)

Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and
on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property [European Rental
Right Directive], [1992] OJ L 346/61 as amended
Additional Reading Materials on Droit de Suite

William A. Carleton, Note: Copyright Royalties for Visual Artists: A Display-Based
Alternative to the Droit de Suite, 76 Cornell L. Rev. 510 (Jan. 1991)

Jennifer B. Pfeffer, Comment: The Costs and Impracticalities Facing Implementation of the
European Union’s Droit de Suite Directive in the United Kingdom, 24 N.W. J. Int’l L. &
Bus. 533 (Winter, 2004)

Michael B. Reddy, The Droit de Suite: Why American Fine Artists Should Have the Right to
a Resale Royalty, 15 Loy. L.A. Ent. L.J. 509 (Summer, 1995)

Jay B. Johnson, Copyright: Droit de Suite: An Artists Is Entitled to Royalties Even After
He’s Sold His Soul to the Devil, 45 Okla. L. Rev. 493 (Fall, 1992)
- 38 -

Shira Perlmutter, Resale Royalties for Artists: An Analysis of the Register of Copyrights’
Report, 16 Colum.-VLA J. L. & Arts 395 (1993)

European Union Resale Rights Directive, Directive 2001/84/EC at
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/documents/documents_en.htm (scroll
down) .

Joanna Cave, An overview of the European Artist's Resale Right Directive 2001/84/EC and
its implementation in the UK via the Artist's Resale Right Regulations 2005, Oxford Journal
of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 2005 at:
http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/1/4/242 (requires subscription to
view entire article)
Additional Reading Materials on Right of Public Performance

Amanda Scales, Sola, Perduta, Abbandonata: Are the Copyright Act and Performing Rights
Societies Killing Classical Music?, 7 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 281 (Spring, 2005)
Additional Reading Materials on Right of Public Display

R. Anthony Reese, Intellectual Property Challenges in the Next Century: The Public Display
Right: The Copyright Act’s Neglected Solution to the Controversy Over RAM “Copies”,
2001 U. Ill. L. Rev. 83 (2001)
Additional Reading Materials on Digital Performance in Sound Recording Right and its
Limitations

Jonathan S. Lawson, Note: Eight Million Performances Later, Still Not a Dime: Why It is
Time to Comprehensively Protect Sound Recording Public Performances, 81 Notre Dame
L. Rev. 693 (Jan. 2006)

Kara M. Wolke, Some Catching Up to Do: How The United States, in Refusing to Fully Sign
on to the WPPT’s Public Performance Right in Sound Recordings, Fell Behind the
Protections of Artists’ Rights Recognized Elsewhere in this Increasingly Global Music
Community, 7 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 411 (Summer, 2005)

Matthew S. DelNero, Long Overdue? An Exploration of the Status and Merit of a General
Public Performance Right in Sound Recordings, 6 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 181 (Spring,
2004)

Joseph E. Magri, The Digital Performance Right and Streaming Music over the Internet, 6
Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 55 (Fall, 2003)

Tomomi Harkey, Note and Brief: Bonneville Int’l Corp. v. Peters: Considering Copyright
Rules to Facilitate Licensing for Webcasting, 20 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 625 (2005)

Matthew D. Asbell, Comment and Recent Development: Progress on the WIPO
Broadcasting and Webcasting Treaty, 24 Cardozo Arts & Ent. LJ 349 (2006)

Jeremy Delibero, Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels and the Webcasting Controversy, 5
Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. 83 (2005)
- 39 -
Additional Reading Materials on Limitations on Public Performance and Display Rights

Tomas A. Lipinski, Legal Reform in an Electronic Age: Analysis and Critique of the
Construction and Operation of S. 487, The TEACH Act of 2001, 2003 BYU Educ. & L. J.
95 (2003)

Brendan T. Kehoe, Note: The TEACH Act’s Eligibility Requirements: Good Policy or a Bad
Compromise, 71 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1029 (Winter, 2005)

Kristine H. Hutchinson, Note: The TEACH Act: Copyright Law and Online Education, 78
N.Y.U. L. Rev. 2204 (2003)

Gretchen Stoeltje, Comment: Light in Custody: Documentary Films, The TEACH Act, and
the DMCA, 20 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech L.J. 1075 (May, 2004)

Charles Leininger, The Business Exemption of 110(5) of the Copyright Act Violates
International Treaty Obligations under TRIPS: Will Congress Honor Its Commitments?, 25
J. NAALJ 622 (Fall, 2005)

Alain J. Lapter, The WTO’s Dispute Resolution Mechanism: Does the United States Take It
Seriously? A TRIPs Analysis, 4 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 217 (Spring, 2005)

Thomas F. Cotter, Accommodating the Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Works for
Religious Purposes Under the Fair Use Doctrine and Copyright Act 110(3), 22 Cardozo Arts
& Ent LJ 43 (2004)
WEEK FOURTEEN
Class of November 17: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: What new protections were introduced by the
DMCA for technological measures and copyright management information? Why are these so
controversial?
REQUIRED READING: CB pp. 944-982, Supp., pp. 161 (from B-166 (up to 2), skim 982-992;
Supp., pp. 165 (from 2)-173 [NOTE: Supp. amends p. 991 and replaces in part pp. 949-50 of
Casebook]
Citation Note: Lexmark v. Static Control Components, 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) (p. 958),
rehearing en banc denied, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 3330 (Feb.15, 2005); Chamberlain v.
Skylink, 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (p. 961), rehearing denied, rehearing, en banc, denied,
2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 27232 (Fed. Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 923 (2005); Storage
Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir.
2005 later proceeding at 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20426 (D. Mass. 2005), rehearing denied,
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28931 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
- 40 -
Recent Cases: Coxcom, Inc. v. Chaffee Int’l, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46564, (D. R.I. 2006);
Davidson & Associates v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005); Macrovision v. SIMA Products
Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34496 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 2006); The IQ Group Ltd. v. Wiesner
Publishing, LLC, 409 F. Supp.2d 587 (D.N.J. 2006); Sony Computer Entertainment America,
Inc. v. Filipiak, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2005); Comcast of Illinois X, LLC v. MultiVision Electronics, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32702 (D. Neb. 2005); DirecTV, Inc. v.
Ward, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9869 (S.D. Oh. 2005); AGFA Monotype Corp. v. Adobe
Systems, Inc., 404 F. Supp.2d 1030 (N.D. Ill. 2005); Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. v. Chronicle
Books, LLC, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23052 (E.D. Pa. 2004); Blueport Co, LLP v. The United
States, 2006 U.S. Claims LEXIS 181 (Fed. Cl. 2006)
Discussion Questions for Class of November 17
1. What threats, if any, do new digital technologies pose to copyright owners of audiovisual and
other works?
2. What new rights do copyright owners of digital works have under the DMCA?
3. What exceptions exist for these rights?
4. Is the DMCA necessary? Is it constitutional?
Additional Reading Materials on the DMCA and Technological Protection Measures

Michael J. Madison, Rights of Access and the Shape of the Internet, 44 B.C.L. Rev. 433
(Mar. 2003)

Cathy Nowlen, Edelman v. N2H2: Copyright Infringement? Reverse Engineering of
Filtering Software Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 10 J. Intell. Prop. L. 409
(Spring, 2003)

Peter Eckersley, Virtual Markets for Virtual Goods: The Mirror Image of Digital Copyright,
18 HArv. J. Law & Tec 85 (Fall, 2004)

Jane C. Ginsburg, Legal Protection of Technological Measures Protecting Works of
Authorship: International Obligations and the US Experience, 29 Colum. J. L. & Arts 11
(Fall, 2005)

June M. Besak, Anti-Circumvention Laws and Copyright: A Report from the Kernochan
Center for Law, Media and The Arts, 27 Colum. J. L. & Arts 385 (Summer, 2004)

Marcus Howell, Note: The Misapplication of the DMCA to the Aftermarket, 11 B.U. J. Sci.
& Tech. L. 128 (Winter, 2005)

Diane M. Barker, Notes: Defining the Contours of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act:
The Growing Body of Case Law Surrounding the DMCA, 20 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 47 (2005)

David Brett Kinitsky, Comment and Recent Development: Software Copyright Law and the
DMCA Under the Microscope: Blizzard v. BNetd as the Lens, 24 Cardozo Arts & Ent LJ
367 (2006)
- 41 -

Anupam Chander, Cyberpersons, Propertization, and Contract in the Information Culture:
Exporting DMCA Lockouts, 54 Clev. St. L. Rev. 205 (2006)

Zohar Efroni, A Momentary Lapse of Reason: Digital Copyright, the DMCA and a Dose of
Common Sense, 28 Colum. J.L. & Arts 249 (Spring, 2005)

YiJun Tian, Problems of Anti-Circumvention Rules in the DMCA & More Heterogenous
Solutions, 15 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 749 (Spring, 2005)

Gregory Laurence Clinton, Casenote and Comment: Why a DVD Is Like A Garage Door
Opener: The Federal Circuit Tackles the DMCA in Chamberlain, 13 Geo. Mason L. Rev.
1115 (Fall, 2005)

Jacqueline D. Lipton, Solving the Digital Piracy Puzzle: Disaggregating Fair use from the
DMCA’s Anti-Device Provisions, 19 Harv. J. Law & Tec 111 (Fall, 2005)

Zohar Efroni, Towards a Doctrine of “Fair Access” in Copyright: The Federal Circuit[s
Accord, 46 IDEA 99 (2005)

Joshua Schwartz, Essay: Thinking Outside the Pandora’s Box: Why the DMCA Is
Unconstitutional Under Article I, § 8 of the U.S. Constitution, 10 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y 93
(June, 2005)

Donna L. Lee, Reverse Engineering of Computer Programs Under the DMCA: Recognizing
a “Fair Access” Defense, 10 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 537 (Summer, 2006)

James Gibson, Once and Future Copyright, 81 Notre Dame L. Rev. 167 (Nov. 2005)

John A. Rothchild, Economic Analysis of Technological Protection Measures, 84 Or. L.
Rev. 489 (2005)

Jacqueline Lipton, The Law of Unintended Consequences: The Digital Millennium
Copyright Act and Interoperability, 62 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 487 (Spring, 2005)

Woodrow Neal Hartzog, Falling on Deaf Ears: Is the “Fail-Safe” Trienniel Exemption
Provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Effective in Protecting Fair Use?, 12 J.
Intell. Prop. L. 309 (Spring, 2005)

EFF DMCA page at: http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/DMCA/ (see article on the Unintended
Consequences of the DMCA)

MPAA sites at: http://www.mpaa.org/ _ See especially Anti-piracy page at
http://www.mpaa.org/piracy.asp
Class of November 19: Fair Use
ON CALL:
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: Limitations on all the rights of a copyright owner
imposed by the defense of fair use; the relationship between copyright and the First Amendment
REQUIRED READING: Casebook pp. 715-739, 760-761 (up to Craft), 766 Considerations) 775; Supp., pp. 105-109 (up to Page 812) [NOTE: Supp. amends pp. 733, 746 and 766, and
substitutes new opinion, in Casebook]
- 42 -
Discussion Questions for Class of November 19
1. The defense of fair use is an affirmative defense. What does this mean?
2. How do courts determine when the fair use defense is applicable?
3. Should the defense of fair use be changed in any way?
Additional Reading Materials on Fair Use

Michael J. Madison, A Pattern-Oriented Approach to Fair Use, 45 Wm & Mary L. Rev, 1525
(Mar. 2004)

Rebecca Tushnet, Copy this Essay: How Fair Use Doctrine Harms Free Speech and How
Copying Serves It, 114 Yale L.J. 535 (December, 2004)

Preet K. Tummala, Note: The Seinfeld Aptitude Test: An Analysis Under Substantial
Similarity and the Fair use Defense, 33 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 289 (Fall, 1999)

Michael J. Meurer, Too Many Markets or Too Few? Copyright Policy Toward Shared Works,
77 S. Cal. L. Rev. 903 (July 2004)

John C. Knapp, Laugh and the Whole World . . . Scowls at You? A Defense of the United
States’ Fair Use Exception for Parody Under TRIPS, 33 Denv. J. Int’l L. & Pol’y 347
(Spring, 2005)

Justin Hughes, Introduction to David Nimmer’s Modest Proposal, 24 Cardozo Arts & Ent
LJ 1 (2006)

David Nimmer, A Modest Proposal to Streamline Fair Use Determinations, 24 Cardozo
Arts & Ent L.J. 11 (2006)

Jonathan L. Schwartz, Making the Consumer Watchdog’s Bark as Strong as Its Gripe:
Complaint Sites and the Changing Dynamic of the Fair Use Defense, 16 Alb. L.J. Sci. &
Tech. 59 (2006)

Daniel E. Abrams, Personal Video Recorders, Emerging Technology and the Threat to
Antiquate the Fair Use Doctrine, 15 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 127 (2004)

Nicholas B. Lewis, Comment: Shades of Grey: Can the Copyright Fair Use Defense Adapt
to New Recontextualized Forms of Music and Art?, 55 Am. U.L. Rev. 267 (2005)

Alison R. Watkins, Note: Surgical Safe Harbors: The Family Movie Act and the Future of
Fair Use Legislation, 21 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 241 (2006)

Llewellyn Joseph Gibbons, Entrepreneurial Copyright Fair Use: Let the Independent
Contractor Stand in the Shoes of the User, 57 Ark. L. Rev. 539 (2004)

Laura R. Bradford, Parody and Perception: Using Cognitive Research to Expand Fair Use in
Copyright, 46 B.C.L. Rev. 705 (2005)

Annie R. Lin, Note: Who owns the Cow When We Give Away the Milk for Free? Fair Use
and the Protection of Web-Posted Materials, 3 Buff. Intell. Prop. L.J. 46 (Fall, 2005)
- 43 -

William F. Patry and Richard A. Posner, Fair Use and Statutory Reform in the Wake of
Eldred, 92 Calif. L. Rev. 1639 (Dec. 2004)

Michael J. Madison, Rewriting Fair Use and the Future of Copyright Reform, 23 Cardozo
Arts & Ent LJ 391 (2005)

Stacey L. Dogan, Comment: Sony, Fair use, and File Sharing, 55 Case W. Res. 971 (Summer,
2005)

Wendy J. Gordon, Fair Use: Threat or Threatened?, 55 Case W. Res. 903 (Summer, 2005)

Elisabeth Hanratty, Google Library: Beyond Fair Use?, 2005 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 10
(2005).

Jisuk Woo, Redefining the “Transformative Use” of Copyrighted Works: Towards a Fair
Use Standard in the Digital Environment, 27 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 51 (Fall, 2004)

Jonathan M. Fox, The Fair Use Commercial Parody Defense and How to Improve It, 46
IDEA 619 (2006)

Holger Postel and Jean-Luc Piotraut, The Fair Use Doctrine in the U.S. American Copyright
Act and Similar Regulations in the German Law, 5 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 142 (Spring,
2006)

Ashley Kerns, Modified to Fit Your Screen: DVD Playback technology: Copyright
Infringement or Fair use?, 24 Loy. L.A. Ent. L.J. 483 (2004)

Matthew Sag, God in the Machine: A New Structural Analysis of Copyright’s Fair use
Doctrine, 11 Mich. Telecomm. L. Rev. 381 (Spring, 2005)

Davida H. Isaacs, The Highest Form of Flattery? Application of the Fair Use Defense
against Copyright Claims for Unauthorized Appropriation of Litigation Documents, 71 Mo.
L. Rev. 391 (Spring, 2006)

Evans C. Anyuanwu, Note and Comment: Let’s Keep It On the Download: Why the
Educational use Factor of the Fair Use Exception Should Shield Rap Music from
Infringement Claims, 30 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 179 (2004)

Jonathan Kerry-Tyerman, No Analog Analogue: Searchable Digital Archives and Amazon’s
Unprecedented Search Inside the Book Program as Fair use, 2006 Stan. Tech. L. Rev 1
(2006)

Gregory M. Duhl, Old Lyrics, Knock-Off Videos, and Copycat Comic Books: The Fourth
Fair Use Factor in U.S. Copyright Law, 54 Syracuse L. Rev. 665 (2004)

Stephen E. Blythe, The U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the E.U. Copyright
Directive: Comparative Impact on Fair Use Rights, 8 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 111
(Spring, 2006)

John Tehranian, Et Tu, Fair Use? The Triumph of Natural-Law Copyright, 38 U.C. Davis L.
Rev. 465 (Feb. 2005)

Aaron Power, The Mouse That Roared: Addressing the Post-Modern Quandary of Mashups through Traditional Fair use Analysis, 3 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 531 (Summer, 2006)
- 44 -

Katherine M. Lieb, Note: Can the Television and Movie Industries Avoid the Copyright
Battles of the Recording Industry? Fair use and Visual Works on the Internet, 17 Wash. U.
J. L. & Pol’y 233 (2005)
WEEK FIFTEEN
Class of November 24: Secondary Infringement, the Problem of P2P (Napster, Grokster, etc…), and the
Future of Copyright
BIG PICTURE FOCUS OF THIS CLASS: The scope of secondary liability; how courts have
recently attempted to balance the social benefit and threats of new technologies in recent cases; the
future of copyright law
REQUIRED READING: CB pp. 826-843, 848-883, Supp., pp. 117-144 [Note: Supp. amends
p. 852, 857, and 882 of Casebook]
RECOMMENDED : Skim CB 883-889 (to ALS), 896-907; Supp., pp. 145-158 [NOTE: Supp.
amends pp. 889-90, and replaces in part pp. 891-96, of Casebook]
Discussion Questions for Class of November 24
1. What are the two types of secondary liability recognized by copyright law and what is required for
such liability?
2. Have the courts been successful in balancing the social benefit and threats of the new generation
of P2P technology? If not, how could they do a better job within the confines of the copyright law?
3. Should copyright law change as a result of new technologies or to encourage the development of
new technologies?
Additional Reading Materials on P2P and Secondary Infringement

Lawrence Lessig, A Rotten Ruling, Wired (September 2005) at:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.09/posts.html?pg=7 (on Supreme Court’s
Grokster decision)

Jessica Litman, Sharing and Stealing, 27 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 1 (Fall, 2004)

Peter K. Yu, P2P and the Future of Private Copying, 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 653 (Summer,
2005)

Alexander Peukert, A Bipolar Copyright System for the Digital Network Environment, 28
Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 1 (Fall, 2005)

David L. Wardle, Broken Record: Revisiting the Flaws in Sony’s Fair Use Analysis in Light
of the Grokster Decision, 26 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 1 (2005)
- 45 -

Matthew Sag, Piracy: Twelve Year-Olds, Grandmothers, and Other Good Targets for the
Recording Industry’s File Sharing Litigation, 4 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 133 (Spring,
2006)

Galen Hancock, Intellectual Property Note: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v.
Grokster, Ltd.: Inducing Infringement and Secondary Copyright Liability, 21 Berkeley Tech.
L.J. 189 (2006)

Andrew J. Lee, MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. & In re Aimster Litigation: A Study of
Secondary Copyright Liability in the Peer-to-Peer Context, 2005 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 485
(2005)

Craig A. Grossman, From Sony to Grokster: The Failure of the Copyright Doctrines of
Contributory Infringement and Vicarious Liability to Resolve the War Between Content and
Destructive Technologies, 53 Buffalo L. Rev. 141 (Winter, 2005)

Kelly M. Maxwell, Note: Software Doesn’t Infringe: Users do? A Critical Look at MGM v.
Grokster and the Recommendation of Appropriate P2P Copyright Infringement Standards,
13 CommLaw Conspectus 335 (2005)

Michael Suppappola, The End of the World as we Know It? The State of Decentralized
Peer-to-Peer Technologies in the Wake of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, 4
Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 122 (2004)

John Lobato, Recent Development: The Supreme Court of the United States 2004 Term:
Paying for the Sins of Their Users: Liability and Growing Uncertainty in a Digital Age, 29
Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 357 (Fall, 2005)

Bryan H. Choi, The Grokster Dead-End, 19 Harv. J. Law & Tec 393 (Spring, 2006)

Heather S. Hall, Chalk Talk: The Day the Music Died: The Supreme Court’s Reversal of
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster and Its Impact on Secondary Liability for Copyright
Infringement, 35 J.L. & Educ. 387 (July 2006)

Diane Leenheer Zimmerman, Daddy, Are We There Yet? Lost in Grokster-Land, 9 N.Y.U.
J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y 75 (2005/2006)

Jay Dratler, Common-Sense (Federal) Common Law Adrift in a Statutory Sea, Or Why
Grokster Was a Unanimous Decision, 22 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 413 (Mar.
2006)

Graeme Austin, Importing Kazaa – Exporting Grokster, 22 Santa Clara Computer & High
Tech. L.J. 577 (Mar. 2006)

Seth Robert Belzley, Grokster and Efficiency in Music, 10 Va. J. L. & Tech. 10 (Fall, 2005)

Raymond Shih Ray Ku, Grokking Grokster, 2005 Wis. L. Rev. 1217 (2005)

Malla Pollack, Rebalancing Section 512 to Protect Users from herds of Mice – Trampling
Elephants, Or a Little Due Process is not such a dangerous thing, 22 Santa Clara Computer
& High Tech. L.J. 547 (Mar. 2006)

Jennifer M. Urban & Laura Quilter, Efficient Process or “Chilling Effects”? Takedown
Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 22 Santa Clara
Computer & High Tech. L.J. 621 (May, 2006)
- 46 -

Lawrence F. Rozsnyai, Easy Come, Easy Go: Copyright Infringement and the DMCA’s
Notice and Takedown Provision in Light of Rossi v. MPAA, 2 Shidler J. L. Com. & Tech. 15
(Spring, 2006)

Sven Eric Skillrud, Comment: An Umbrella or a Canopy? Why the 17 U.S.C. Section 512(a)
Safe Harbor Should be Read Broadly, 9 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 91 (2005)

Todd E. Reese, Comment: Wading Through the Muddy Waters: The Courts’ Misapplication
of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 34 Sw. U.L. Rev. 287 (2004)

Jeffrey M. Levinsohn, Comment: Protecting Copyright at the Expense of Internet
Anonymity: The Constitutionality of Forced Identity Disclosure under 512(h) of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act, 23 Temp. Envtl. L. & Tech. J. 243 (Fall, 2004)
- 47 -