CNI-COPYRIGHT by author

AuthorSubject Date
'Timothy Arnold-Moore'
 RE: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Thu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
Agenbroad, James (Civ,ARL/CISD)
 RE: Re: The Grey AlbumFri Feb 27 2004 - 21:15:10 GMT
 RE: Peter Pan.Tue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:31 GMT
 RE: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservsTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
 RE: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Mon Feb 23 2004 - 22:00:19 GMT
 RE: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservs was Re: permission for screen shotsThu Feb 19 2004 - 22:00:05 GMT
 RE: Re:legal speculation-purpose for legal listservs was Re: permission for screen shotsWed Feb 18 2004 - 18:25:17 GMT
 RE: Re: CA: WMFH=employeeTue Feb 03 2004 - 20:21:11 GMT
Baron, Robert (Phila)
 registering works containing trade secretsFri Feb 13 2004 - 17:52:31 GMT
Bob Warner
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Fri Feb 27 2004 - 21:15:10 GMT
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Thu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Tue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:31 GMT
Brock Shinen, Esq.
 Re: Re: Compilation of video scenes onto DVDThu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
 Re: Compilation of video scenes onto DVDTue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:32 GMT
 Publishing CatalogMon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
 Re: Those Email SignaturesMon Feb 16 2004 - 20:17:22 GMT
 Re: Re: Work-made-for-hire: not labor contractWed Feb 11 2004 - 17:15:04 GMT
Calle Østergaard - Troll Company ApS
 Re: Re: Work-made-for-hire: not labor contractWed Feb 11 2004 - 16:10:01 GMT
 Re: Re: Work For Hire AgreementsTue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
 Re: Re: Work For Hire AgreementsMon Feb 02 2004 - 16:45:58 GMT
Carol Busby
 Contribution to a collective workTue Feb 10 2004 - 18:00:47 GMT
 Re: Re: University professors - work for hireTue Feb 03 2004 - 20:21:11 GMT
Carol Simpson
 Re: permission for screen shotsThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
Chris Mohr
 RE: Re: permission for screen shotsFri Feb 06 2004 - 16:55:01 GMT
Chris Reed
 RE: Re: permission for screen shotsThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
Christine L. Sundt
 RE: Re: Publication through public displayMon Feb 16 2004 - 20:17:22 GMT
Conlon, Julie
 RE: Re: Compilation of video scenes onto DVDThu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
 Compilation of video scenes onto DVDMon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
David Bozak
 Re: Re: no-criticism shrinkwrap [Was: "permission for screen shots"]Wed Feb 11 2004 - 17:15:04 GMT
David Dailey
 Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Fri Feb 27 2004 - 21:15:10 GMT
 Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Tue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:31 GMT
 Re: Re: permission for screen shotsTue Feb 17 2004 - 22:25:16 GMT
 Questions concerning section 506(c)Fri Feb 13 2004 - 17:52:31 GMT
 no-criticism shrinkwrap [Was: "permission for screen shots"]Tue Feb 10 2004 - 18:00:47 GMT
 Re: Re: permission for screen shotsThu Feb 05 2004 - 22:20:27 GMT
 Re: University professors - work for hireTue Feb 03 2004 - 20:21:11 GMT
David P. Dillard
 [NetGold] FOLKLORE : ARTICLE : INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: LAW: Traditional Knowledge 'In Peril'Thu Feb 19 2004 - 22:00:05 GMT
 [NetGold] MICROSOFT : NEWS: Ruling Puts Microsoft's 'Windows' Trademark at RiskMon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
 [NetGold] INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: LAW : ARTICLE: How the Current Congressional Database Protection Bill Would Go Beyond Current Law, and Why It is Unconstitutional and MisguidedWed Feb 11 2004 - 17:15:04 GMT
David Post
 University professors - work for hireMon Feb 02 2004 - 16:45:58 GMT
DeMarte, Luke
 RE: Re: The Grey AlbumThu Feb 26 2004 - 21:45:29 GMT
Dodi Schultz
 Contribution to a collective workTue Feb 10 2004 - 21:05:15 GMT
Doug Isenberg
 Re: 321 StudiosTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
Duhaime, Diane
 RE: Re: permission for screen shotsThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
Edward Barrow
 Re: Re: [NetGold] INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: LAW : ARTICLE: How the Current Congressional Database Protection Bill Would Go Beyond Current Law, and Why It is Unconstitutional and MisguidedThu Feb 12 2004 - 18:55:05 GMT
 Re: Re: permission for screen shotsThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
Elizabeth T. Russell
 Re: famous person's nameMon Feb 09 2004 - 21:00:35 GMT
Eric Von Vorys
 RE: Re: Compilation of video scenes onto DVDFri Feb 27 2004 - 21:15:10 GMT
 RE: Re: Compilation of video scenes onto DVDWed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
ericgoldman[_at_]onebox.com
 RE: no-criticism shrinkwrap [Was: "permission forscreen shots"]Wed Feb 11 2004 - 16:10:01 GMT
Ethan Ackerman
 RE: Re: Decompiler service - Object code IS "protected" by copyright lawThu Feb 26 2004 - 20:55:13 GMT
 RE: Re: Decompiler service - should I seek legal advice?Tue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:32 GMT
Frederick Emrich, Editor, info-commons.org
 Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Fri Feb 27 2004 - 21:15:10 GMT
Gregory Aharonian
 Re: Re: Decompiler service - should I seek legal advice?Tue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
Harold Federow
 RE: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Fri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
 RE: Re: Those Email SignaturesWed Feb 18 2004 - 14:50:12 GMT
 RE: Re: Sale of Goodwill as Sale of TrademarkWed Feb 18 2004 - 14:50:12 GMT
Heather Vargas
 Re: Re: famous person's nameTue Feb 10 2004 - 15:55:11 GMT
 Standard Technical MeasuresTue Feb 10 2004 - 15:55:11 GMT
Herb Coleman
 The law is interpretedTue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:32 GMT
I.R.Maturana
 RE: Re: Decompiler service - should I seek legal advice?Thu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
 RE: Re: Decompiler service - should I seek legal advice?Mon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
info[_at_]joybutler.com
 owner/authorship problemFri Feb 13 2004 - 17:52:31 GMT
Ivan Hoffman
 Re: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Tue Feb 03 2004 - 17:25:36 GMT
 Re: University professors - work for hireMon Feb 02 2004 - 22:20:38 GMT
James Love
 April 5, 2004 - NYC - TACD workshop on Global Access to Essential Learning ToolsWed Feb 04 2004 - 16:20:02 GMT
Jessica R. Friedman
 RE: Re: doll manufacturing copyright infringement claimsFri Feb 06 2004 - 22:15:02 GMT
 doll manufacturing copyright infringement claimsThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
Jimmy Wales
 Re: Re: permission for screen shotsThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com
 321 StudiosMon Feb 23 2004 - 22:00:19 GMT
 Re: owner/authorship problemFri Feb 13 2004 - 17:52:31 GMT
John Allison
 Re: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Tue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
John Eye
 permission for screen shotsWed Feb 04 2004 - 20:10:43 GMT
John Hampton
 Work-made-for-hire: not labor contractMon Feb 09 2004 - 15:55:12 GMT
John Levine
 Re: Re: permission for screen shotsThu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
 Re: Re: permission for screen shotsMon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
 Re: permission for screen shotsThu Feb 05 2004 - 16:10:20 GMT
 Re: Termination rights, was Work For Hire AgreementsTue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
 Re: Re: Work For Hire Agreements, terminationMon Feb 02 2004 - 16:45:58 GMT
John Mitchell
 RE: Re: Compilation of video scenes onto DVDFri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
 RE: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Thu Feb 26 2004 - 22:11:05 GMT
 RE: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Thu Feb 26 2004 - 21:45:44 GMT
 RE: 321 StudiosTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
 RE: Re: what about this? a lawsuit?Tue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
 RE: Re: what about this? a lawsuit?Mon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
 RE: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservs was Re: permission for screen shotsFri Feb 20 2004 - 21:30:04 GMT
 RE: Those Email SignaturesTue Feb 17 2004 - 18:55:44 GMT
Joseph Pietro Riolo
 Re: Questions concerning section 506(c)Mon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
JQ Johnson
 Re: University professors - work for hireWed Feb 11 2004 - 16:10:01 GMT
Kathleen Williamson
 Re: Re: 321 StudiosTue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:32 GMT
 Re: Questions concerning section 506(c)Mon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
 owner/authorship problemThu Feb 12 2004 - 21:56:04 GMT
 owner/authorship problemThu Feb 12 2004 - 21:55:58 GMT
 famous person's nameMon Feb 09 2004 - 15:55:12 GMT
Keith Tabor
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Fri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Fri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
 Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Fri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
 Re: Re: Decompiler service - should I seek legal advice?Wed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Wed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
 Re: Sale of Goodwill as Sale of TrademarkTue Feb 17 2004 - 22:25:16 GMT
 Re: Those Email SignaturesMon Feb 16 2004 - 20:17:22 GMT
 Re: owner/authorship problemFri Feb 13 2004 - 17:52:31 GMT
 Re: doll manufacturing copyright infringement claimsFri Feb 06 2004 - 16:55:01 GMT
Kevin Grierson
 Re: the law IS what the law IS.Thu Feb 26 2004 - 20:55:13 GMT
 Re: Those Email SignaturesTue Feb 17 2004 - 22:25:16 GMT
 Re: Work For Hire AgreementsMon Feb 02 2004 - 16:45:58 GMT
Kim Nayyer
 Course Announcement: Digital Licensing OnlineFri Feb 27 2004 - 21:15:10 GMT
 Editorial re Copyright Collectives and Electronic WorksWed Feb 11 2004 - 20:15:14 GMT
Lara Pearson
 Registration of an unpublished work created in the 1960sThu Feb 19 2004 - 18:30:05 GMT
 Publication through public displayThu Feb 12 2004 - 21:56:04 GMT
 Publication through public displayThu Feb 12 2004 - 21:55:58 GMT
Lee, Dan
 RE: H.R. 3261?Fri Feb 20 2004 - 21:30:04 GMT
Liz Davis
 CCC transaction reportingMon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
Malla Pollack
 Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Wed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
 Re: 321 StudiosTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
 Amicus opportunity for part-time law professorsMon Feb 02 2004 - 16:45:58 GMT
Maureen Cohen Harrington
 Re: 321 StudiosTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
me
 RE: what about this? a lawsuit?Fri Feb 20 2004 - 16:15:09 GMT
Mike Bradley
 RE: Re: The Grey AlbumFri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
 Those Email SignaturesMon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
 RE: owner/authorship problemFri Feb 13 2004 - 19:30:22 GMT
 RE: Re: owner/authorship problemFri Feb 13 2004 - 19:30:22 GMT
 RE: Work-made-for-hire: not labor contractMon Feb 09 2004 - 21:00:35 GMT
 RE: Re: permission for screen shotsThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
 Section 201 c: any later collective work in the same seriesTue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
 RE: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Tue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
 RE: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Tue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
Mike Holderness
 Re: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservsMon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
 Legal theory translation help pleaseMon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
 Re: Re: Work-made-for-hire: not labor contractWed Feb 11 2004 - 20:15:14 GMT
 Re: Work-made-for-hire: not labor contractTue Feb 10 2004 - 19:45:20 GMT
Mike Oliver
 Re: Contribution to a collective workTue Feb 10 2004 - 19:45:20 GMT
Mike Phillips
 RE: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Mon Feb 02 2004 - 22:20:38 GMT
Nancy Willard
 Re: Re: University professors - work for hireWed Feb 11 2004 - 22:20:48 GMT
Nick Zales
 The Grey AlbumWed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
 Re: what about this? a lawsuit?Mon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
 Sale of Goodwill as Sale of TrademarkTue Feb 17 2004 - 18:55:44 GMT
Ohad Mayblum
 Re: Re: Peter Pan.Wed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
Olga Francois
 Mellon Postdoctoral Research FellowThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
 CALL FOR PAPERS: Deadline: February 9, 2004Thu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
Paula Holm Jensen
 RE: Legal theory translation help pleaseMon Feb 16 2004 - 20:17:22 GMT
Raza Ahmed Siddiqui
 Copyright in Multimedia worksMon Feb 09 2004 - 21:00:35 GMT
Robert E. Jones, III
 Copyright status of previous manuscripts of published workMon Feb 02 2004 - 22:20:38 GMT
Robert F. Bodi
 Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Fri Feb 27 2004 - 21:15:10 GMT
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Fri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Fri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Fri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Fri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
 Re: Re: Decompiler service - should I seek legal advice?Thu Feb 26 2004 - 20:55:13 GMT
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Thu Feb 26 2004 - 20:55:13 GMT
 Re: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservsThu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
 Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Thu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Wed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
 Re: The law is interpretedWed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:20 GMT
 Re: Re: Decompiler service - should I seek legal advice?Tue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:32 GMT
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law ISTue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:31 GMT
 Re: Re: what about this? a lawsuit?Tue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:31 GMT
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Tue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
 Re: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservs was Re: permission for screen shotsMon Feb 23 2004 - 22:00:19 GMT
 Re: Re: permission for screen shotsMon Feb 23 2004 - 22:00:18 GMT
 Re: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservsMon Feb 23 2004 - 22:00:18 GMT
 Re: Re: what about this? a lawsuit?Mon Feb 23 2004 - 22:00:18 GMT
 Re: Re: what about this? a lawsuit?Mon Feb 23 2004 - 22:00:18 GMT
 Re: Re: what about this? a lawsuit?Fri Feb 20 2004 - 21:30:04 GMT
 Re: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservs was Re: permission for screen shotsThu Feb 19 2004 - 18:30:05 GMT
 Re: Re: permission for screen shotsWed Feb 18 2004 - 18:25:17 GMT
 Re: Re: Sale of Goodwill as Sale of TrademarkWed Feb 18 2004 - 18:25:17 GMT
 Re: Re: Amazon.com "Limited License Grant"Tue Feb 17 2004 - 22:25:16 GMT
 Re: Re: permission for screen shotsTue Feb 17 2004 - 18:55:44 GMT
 Re: Re: permission for screen shotsTue Feb 17 2004 - 18:55:44 GMT
 Re: Re: permission for screen shotsTue Feb 17 2004 - 18:55:44 GMT
 Re: Re: fair use questionMon Feb 02 2004 - 22:20:38 GMT
 Re: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must theybesigned?Mon Feb 02 2004 - 22:20:38 GMT
Robert Panzer
 RE: Re: Publication through public displayMon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
Roy Murphy
 Re: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservsWed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
 Re: [NetGold] INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: LAW : ARTICLE: How the Current Congressional Database Protection Bill Would Go Beyond Current Law, and Why It is Unconstitutional and MisguidedThu Feb 12 2004 - 17:15:25 GMT
Ruth Dukelow/mlc
 famous person's nameTue Feb 10 2004 - 15:55:11 GMT
Sandy Shepard
 RE: Re: Work-made-for-hire: not labor contractWed Feb 11 2004 - 20:15:14 GMT
 RE: famous person's nameMon Feb 09 2004 - 21:00:35 GMT
 RE: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Mon Feb 02 2004 - 22:20:38 GMT
Scott Warner
 RE: 321 StudiosTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
SimHippy[_at_]aol.com
 sims copyright issues for artistsMon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
Smith, Robert E.
 Lawsuit against Austin, TX CopyshopsMon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
sstouden[_at_]thelinks.com
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Fri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Fri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
 Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Wed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
 Re: Re: what about this? a lawsuit?Mon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
 Re: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservs was Re: permission for screen shotsMon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
 Re: [NetGold] MICROSOFT : NEWS: Ruling Puts Microsoft's 'Windows' Trademark at RiskTue Feb 17 2004 - 18:55:44 GMT
 Re: Re: [NetGold] INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: LAW : ARTICLE: How the Current Congressional Database Protection Bill Would Go Beyond Current Law, and Why It is Unconstitutional and MisguidedThu Feb 12 2004 - 21:56:04 GMT
 Re: Re: [NetGold] INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: LAW : ARTICLE: How the Current Congressional Database Protection Bill Would Go Beyond Current Law, and Why It is Unconstitutional and MisguidedThu Feb 12 2004 - 21:55:58 GMT
 Re: Re: University professors - work for hireThu Feb 05 2004 - 22:20:42 GMT
Steven Jamar
 Re: the law IS what the law IS.Thu Feb 26 2004 - 21:45:29 GMT
 Re: the law IS what the law ISTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
 Re: brown v boardMon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
 Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservs was Re: permission for screenFri Feb 20 2004 - 16:15:09 GMT
 Re: permission for screen shotsWed Feb 18 2004 - 14:50:12 GMT
 Re: Those Email SignaturesTue Feb 17 2004 - 18:55:44 GMT
 Re: Contribution to a collective workWed Feb 11 2004 - 16:10:01 GMT
 Re: doll manufacturing copyright infringement claimsFri Feb 06 2004 - 16:55:01 GMT
 Re: permission for screen shotsThu Feb 05 2004 - 16:10:20 GMT
 Re: University professors - work for hireTue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
Terry Carroll
 Re: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Tue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
 Re: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Tue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
 Re: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Mon Feb 02 2004 - 16:45:58 GMT
Theodora Michaels
 Re: The Grey AlbumThu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
 Re: division of royalties when licensing both trademark and copyrightWed Feb 11 2004 - 16:10:01 GMT
Tim Arnold-Moore
 RE: no-criticism shrinkwrap [Was: "permission for screen shots"]Wed Feb 11 2004 - 16:10:01 GMT
Turley, Patrick C
 RE: Re: University professors - work for hireTue Feb 03 2004 - 21:45:07 GMT
urbanek
 H.R. 3261?Fri Feb 20 2004 - 16:15:09 GMT
Vance R. Koven
 Re: Publication through public displayFri Feb 13 2004 - 17:52:31 GMT
 Re: Re: Contribution to a collective workWed Feb 11 2004 - 20:15:14 GMT
 Re: famous person's nameMon Feb 09 2004 - 21:00:35 GMT
Wallace J.McLean
 It's baaa--aaackWed Feb 11 2004 - 20:15:14 GMT
William T. McGrath
 Re: Re: doll manufacturing copyright infringement claimsThu Feb 12 2004 - 17:15:25 GMT
 Re: doll manufacturing copyright infringement claimsTue Feb 10 2004 - 19:45:20 GMT
 Re: Re: Work For Hire AgreementsMon Feb 02 2004 - 16:45:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:36:01 GMT