Maybe a little too clearly put for a law school prof.
Sure you didn't have a student write this? ;)
- Brock Shinen <brock[_at_]frenzellaw.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> -
>
>
>
#############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are
> subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to:
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
<https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Received on Fri Aug 01 2003 - 23:56:32 GMT