Re: Re: Copyright and Distance Education

I understand what you're saying. Nicely put!

On 8/1/03 9:10 AM, "Michael Carroll" <carroll[_at_]law.villanova.edu> wrote:

> First, I did not take a position on how the courts should interpret the work
> for hire provision. I simply said there's an argument that two appellate
> panels have appeared sympathetic to that would interpret the 1976 Act as
> containing a teacher exception notwithstanding the statute's plain language.
>
> Second, it is of course possible that a court called upon to decide the
> status of teaching materials and scholarship would hold that the plain
> language governs and they're both works for hire. Or the court could split
> the baby and say that scholarship is not within the scope of employment but
> teaching materials are. Such interpretations would run counter to the
> understanding of most teachers.
>
> You want to draw the inference that Congress knew about the teacher
> exception and did not codify it and therefore we should infer that Congress
> made a policy choice to end the exception. The counter-argument is that
> Congress was attempting to codify the work for hire doctrine as developed by
> the courts and it chose the language it thought would do that. The intent to
> codify existing law -- including the teacher exception -- should guide
> interpretation of the 1976, particularly in light of settled expectations
> within the academic community. Notice too that publishers seek copyright
> assignments and licenses from the teachers not the institutions, indicating
> that they do not consider the materials prepared as works for hire.
>
> I'm not taking a position in favor of either interpretation, I simply point
> out that predicting which one would prevail is less certain than has been
> assumed.
>
> Best,
> MC

- Received on Fri Aug 01 2003 - 22:19:53 GMT