CNI-COPYRIGHT by thread

SubjectAuthor Date
Course Announcement: Digital Licensing OnlineKim NayyerFri Feb 27 2004 - 21:15:10 GMT
RE: Re: The Grey AlbumDeMarte, LukeThu Feb 26 2004 - 21:45:29 GMT
RE: Re: The Grey AlbumMike BradleyFri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
RE: Re: The Grey AlbumAgenbroad, James (Civ,ARL/CISD)Fri Feb 27 2004 - 21:15:10 GMT
Re: the law IS what the law IS.Kevin GriersonThu Feb 26 2004 - 20:55:13 GMT
Re: the law IS what the law IS.Steven JamarThu Feb 26 2004 - 21:45:29 GMT
RE: Re: Decompiler service - Object code IS "protected" by copyright lawEthan AckermanThu Feb 26 2004 - 20:55:13 GMT
Re: Re: Compilation of video scenes onto DVDBrock Shinen, Esq.Thu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
Re: The Grey AlbumTheodora MichaelsThu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
Re: Re: Peter Pan.Ohad MayblumWed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Malla PollackWed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Robert F. BodiThu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Keith TaborFri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Frederick Emrich, Editor, info-commons.orgFri Feb 27 2004 - 21:15:10 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Robert F. BodiFri Feb 27 2004 - 21:15:10 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"David DaileyFri Feb 27 2004 - 21:15:10 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Robert F. BodiMon Mar 01 2004 - 16:00:13 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Keith TaborTue Mar 02 2004 - 21:15:29 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Mike HoldernessWed Mar 03 2004 - 16:05:06 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Keith TaborWed Mar 03 2004 - 20:50:00 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"sstouden[_at_]thelinks.comWed Mar 03 2004 - 20:50:00 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Mark DavisonThu Mar 04 2004 - 16:15:13 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Keith TaborThu Mar 04 2004 - 21:25:54 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Terry CarrollFri Mar 05 2004 - 16:05:19 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"sstouden[_at_]thelinks.comFri Mar 05 2004 - 23:15:38 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Keith TaborMon Mar 08 2004 - 18:05:45 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"Robert F. BodiTue Mar 09 2004 - 21:10:32 GMT
Re: Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"sstouden[_at_]thelinks.comThu Mar 11 2004 - 16:25:44 GMT
RE: Re: Compilation of video scenes onto DVDEric Von VorysWed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
RE: Re: Compilation of video scenes onto DVDConlon, JulieThu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
RE: Re: Compilation of video scenes onto DVDJohn MitchellFri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
RE: Re: Compilation of video scenes onto DVDEric Von VorysFri Feb 27 2004 - 21:15:10 GMT
The Grey AlbumNick ZalesWed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
Re: The law is interpretedRobert F. BodiWed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:20 GMT
The law is interpretedHerb ColemanTue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:32 GMT
Re: Compilation of video scenes onto DVDBrock Shinen, Esq.Tue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:32 GMT
Re: Re: 321 StudiosKathleen WilliamsonTue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:32 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law ISRobert F. BodiTue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:31 GMT
RE: Peter Pan.Agenbroad, James (Civ,ARL/CISD)Tue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:31 GMT
Re: H.R. 3261? -- Fine! But don't call them "facts"David DaileyTue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:31 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Robert F. BodiTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Bob WarnerTue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:31 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.sstouden[_at_]thelinks.comWed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Keith TaborWed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Robert F. BodiWed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Bob WarnerThu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Robert F. BodiThu Feb 26 2004 - 20:55:13 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Robert F. BodiFri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.sstouden[_at_]thelinks.comFri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.sstouden[_at_]thelinks.comFri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Keith TaborFri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Keith TaborFri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Robert F. BodiFri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Robert F. BodiFri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Robert F. BodiFri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Bob WarnerFri Feb 27 2004 - 21:15:10 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Robert F. BodiMon Mar 01 2004 - 16:00:13 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.sstouden[_at_]thelinks.comMon Mar 01 2004 - 16:00:13 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Keith TaborMon Mar 01 2004 - 16:00:13 GMT
Re: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Bob WarnerMon Mar 01 2004 - 21:30:30 GMT
Re: the law IS what the law ISSteven JamarTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
RE: 321 StudiosScott WarnerTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
RE: 321 StudiosJohn MitchellTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
Re: Re: Decompiler service - should I seek legal advice?Gregory AharonianTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
Re: 321 StudiosMaureen Cohen HarringtonTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
Re: 321 StudiosDoug IsenbergTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
Re: 321 StudiosMalla PollackTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
RE: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservsAgenbroad, James (Civ,ARL/CISD)Tue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
RE: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Agenbroad, James (Civ,ARL/CISD)Mon Feb 23 2004 - 22:00:19 GMT
RE: Re: the law IS what the law IS.'Timothy Arnold-Moore'Thu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
RE: Re: the law IS what the law IS.John MitchellThu Feb 26 2004 - 21:45:44 GMT
RE: Re: the law IS what the law IS.John MitchellThu Feb 26 2004 - 22:11:05 GMT
RE: Re: the law IS what the law IS.Harold FederowFri Feb 27 2004 - 16:45:10 GMT
321 Studiosjnoble[_at_]dgsys.comMon Feb 23 2004 - 22:00:19 GMT
Re: what about this? a lawsuit?Nick ZalesMon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
RE: Re: what about this? a lawsuit?John MitchellMon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
RE: Re: what about this? a lawsuit?John MitchellTue Feb 24 2004 - 16:30:17 GMT
Re: brown v boardSteven JamarMon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
Publishing CatalogBrock Shinen, Esq.Mon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
Re: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservsMike HoldernessMon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
Re: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservsRobert F. BodiMon Feb 23 2004 - 22:00:18 GMT
Re: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservsRoy MurphyWed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
Re: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservsRobert F. BodiThu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
RE: Re: Decompiler service - should I seek legal advice?I.R.MaturanaMon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
RE: Re: Decompiler service - should I seek legal advice?Ethan AckermanTue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:32 GMT
RE: Re: Decompiler service - should I seek legal advice?I.R.MaturanaThu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
Compilation of video scenes onto DVDConlon, JulieMon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
RE: H.R. 3261?Lee, DanFri Feb 20 2004 - 21:30:04 GMT
Re: Re: what about this? a lawsuit?Robert F. BodiFri Feb 20 2004 - 21:30:04 GMT
Re: Re: what about this? a lawsuit?sstouden[_at_]thelinks.comMon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
Re: Re: what about this? a lawsuit?Robert F. BodiMon Feb 23 2004 - 22:00:18 GMT
Re: Re: what about this? a lawsuit?Robert F. BodiMon Feb 23 2004 - 22:00:18 GMT
Re: Re: what about this? a lawsuit?Robert F. BodiTue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:31 GMT
Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservs was Re: permission for screenSteven JamarFri Feb 20 2004 - 16:15:09 GMT
RE: what about this? a lawsuit?meFri Feb 20 2004 - 16:15:09 GMT
H.R. 3261?urbanekFri Feb 20 2004 - 16:15:09 GMT
RE: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservs was Re: permission for screen shotsAgenbroad, James (Civ,ARL/CISD)Thu Feb 19 2004 - 22:00:05 GMT
RE: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservs was Re: permission for screen shotsJohn MitchellFri Feb 20 2004 - 21:30:04 GMT
[NetGold] FOLKLORE : ARTICLE : INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: LAW: Traditional Knowledge 'In Peril'David P. DillardThu Feb 19 2004 - 22:00:05 GMT
Re: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservs was Re: permission for screen shotsRobert F. BodiThu Feb 19 2004 - 18:30:05 GMT
Re: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservs was Re: permission for screen shotssstouden[_at_]thelinks.comMon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
Re: Re: legal speculation-purpose for legal listservs was Re: permission for screen shotsRobert F. BodiMon Feb 23 2004 - 22:00:19 GMT
Registration of an unpublished work created in the 1960sLara PearsonThu Feb 19 2004 - 18:30:05 GMT
RE: Re:legal speculation-purpose for legal listservs was Re: permission for screen shotsAgenbroad, James (Civ,ARL/CISD)Wed Feb 18 2004 - 18:25:17 GMT
Re: Re: Sale of Goodwill as Sale of TrademarkRobert F. BodiWed Feb 18 2004 - 18:25:17 GMT
RE: Re: Those Email SignaturesHarold FederowWed Feb 18 2004 - 14:50:12 GMT
RE: Re: Sale of Goodwill as Sale of TrademarkHarold FederowWed Feb 18 2004 - 14:50:12 GMT
Re: Sale of Goodwill as Sale of TrademarkKeith TaborTue Feb 17 2004 - 22:25:16 GMT
Sale of Goodwill as Sale of TrademarkNick ZalesTue Feb 17 2004 - 18:55:44 GMT
RE: Those Email SignaturesJohn MitchellTue Feb 17 2004 - 18:55:44 GMT
Re: [NetGold] MICROSOFT : NEWS: Ruling Puts Microsoft's 'Windows' Trademark at Risksstouden[_at_]thelinks.comTue Feb 17 2004 - 18:55:44 GMT
Re: Those Email SignaturesKeith TaborMon Feb 16 2004 - 20:17:22 GMT
Re: Those Email SignaturesBrock Shinen, Esq.Mon Feb 16 2004 - 20:17:22 GMT
RE: Legal theory translation help pleasePaula Holm JensenMon Feb 16 2004 - 20:17:22 GMT
CCC transaction reportingLiz DavisMon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
Those Email SignaturesMike BradleyMon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
Re: Those Email SignaturesSteven JamarTue Feb 17 2004 - 18:55:44 GMT
Re: Those Email SignaturesKevin GriersonTue Feb 17 2004 - 22:25:16 GMT
RE: Re: Publication through public displayRobert PanzerMon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
RE: Re: Publication through public displayChristine L. SundtMon Feb 16 2004 - 20:17:22 GMT
sims copyright issues for artistsSimHippy[_at_]aol.comMon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
Re: Questions concerning section 506(c)Kathleen WilliamsonMon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
Lawsuit against Austin, TX CopyshopsSmith, Robert E.Mon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
[NetGold] MICROSOFT : NEWS: Ruling Puts Microsoft's 'Windows' Trademark at RiskDavid P. DillardMon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
Legal theory translation help pleaseMike HoldernessMon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
RE: owner/authorship problemMike BradleyFri Feb 13 2004 - 19:30:22 GMT
RE: Re: owner/authorship problemMike BradleyFri Feb 13 2004 - 19:30:22 GMT
registering works containing trade secretsBaron, Robert (Phila)Fri Feb 13 2004 - 17:52:31 GMT
owner/authorship probleminfo[_at_]joybutler.comFri Feb 13 2004 - 17:52:31 GMT
Re: Publication through public displayVance R. KovenFri Feb 13 2004 - 17:52:31 GMT
Re: owner/authorship problemjnoble[_at_]dgsys.comFri Feb 13 2004 - 17:52:31 GMT
Re: owner/authorship problemKeith TaborFri Feb 13 2004 - 17:52:31 GMT
Questions concerning section 506(c)David DaileyFri Feb 13 2004 - 17:52:31 GMT
Re: Questions concerning section 506(c)Joseph Pietro RioloMon Feb 16 2004 - 15:25:10 GMT
owner/authorship problemKathleen WilliamsonThu Feb 12 2004 - 21:56:04 GMT
Publication through public displayLara PearsonThu Feb 12 2004 - 21:56:04 GMT
owner/authorship problemKathleen WilliamsonThu Feb 12 2004 - 21:55:58 GMT
Publication through public displayLara PearsonThu Feb 12 2004 - 21:55:58 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 MisguidedEdward BarrowThu Feb 12 2004 - 18:55:05 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 Misguidedsstouden[_at_]thelinks.comThu Feb 12 2004 - 21:55:58 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 Misguidedsstouden[_at_]thelinks.comThu Feb 12 2004 - 21:56:04 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 MisguidedRoy MurphyThu Feb 12 2004 - 17:15:25 GMT
Re: Re: doll manufacturing copyright infringement claimsWilliam T. McGrathThu Feb 12 2004 - 17:15:25 GMT
Re: Re: Contribution to a collective workVance R. KovenWed Feb 11 2004 - 20:15:14 GMT
It's baaa--aaackWallace J.McLeanWed Feb 11 2004 - 20:15:14 GMT
Editorial re Copyright Collectives and Electronic WorksKim NayyerWed Feb 11 2004 - 20:15:14 GMT
RE: Re: Work-made-for-hire: not labor contractSandy ShepardWed Feb 11 2004 - 20:15:14 GMT
[NetGold] INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: LAW : ARTICLE: How the Current Congressional Database Protection Bill Would Go Beyond Current Law, and Why It is Unconstitutional and MisguidedDavid P. DillardWed Feb 11 2004 - 17:15:04 GMT
Re: Re: no-criticism shrinkwrap [Was: "permission for screen shots"]David BozakWed Feb 11 2004 - 17:15:04 GMT
Re: Re: Work-made-for-hire: not labor contractCalle Østergaard - Troll Company ApSWed Feb 11 2004 - 16:10:01 GMT
Re: Re: Work-made-for-hire: not labor contractBrock Shinen, Esq.Wed Feb 11 2004 - 17:15:04 GMT
Re: Re: Work-made-for-hire: not labor contractMike HoldernessWed Feb 11 2004 - 20:15:14 GMT
RE: no-criticism shrinkwrap [Was: "permission forscreen shots"]ericgoldman[_at_]onebox.comWed Feb 11 2004 - 16:10:01 GMT
RE: no-criticism shrinkwrap [Was: "permission for screen shots"]Tim Arnold-MooreWed Feb 11 2004 - 16:10:01 GMT
Contribution to a collective workDodi SchultzTue Feb 10 2004 - 21:05:15 GMT
Re: Contribution to a collective workMike OliverTue Feb 10 2004 - 19:45:20 GMT
Re: Work-made-for-hire: not labor contractMike HoldernessTue Feb 10 2004 - 19:45:20 GMT
no-criticism shrinkwrap [Was: "permission for screen shots"]David DaileyTue Feb 10 2004 - 18:00:47 GMT
Contribution to a collective workCarol BusbyTue Feb 10 2004 - 18:00:47 GMT
Re: Contribution to a collective workSteven JamarWed Feb 11 2004 - 16:10:01 GMT
Re: Re: famous person's nameHeather VargasTue Feb 10 2004 - 15:55:11 GMT
Standard Technical MeasuresHeather VargasTue Feb 10 2004 - 15:55:11 GMT
famous person's nameRuth Dukelow/mlcTue Feb 10 2004 - 15:55:11 GMT
RE: famous person's nameSandy ShepardMon Feb 09 2004 - 21:00:35 GMT
Copyright in Multimedia worksRaza Ahmed SiddiquiMon Feb 09 2004 - 21:00:35 GMT
Re: famous person's nameVance R. KovenMon Feb 09 2004 - 21:00:35 GMT
Re: famous person's nameElizabeth T. RussellMon Feb 09 2004 - 21:00:35 GMT
RE: Work-made-for-hire: not labor contractMike BradleyMon Feb 09 2004 - 21:00:35 GMT
famous person's nameKathleen WilliamsonMon Feb 09 2004 - 15:55:12 GMT
Work-made-for-hire: not labor contractJohn HamptonMon Feb 09 2004 - 15:55:12 GMT
RE: Re: doll manufacturing copyright infringement claimsJessica R. FriedmanFri Feb 06 2004 - 22:15:02 GMT
Re: doll manufacturing copyright infringement claimsKeith TaborFri Feb 06 2004 - 16:55:01 GMT
Re: doll manufacturing copyright infringement claimsWilliam T. McGrathTue Feb 10 2004 - 19:45:20 GMT
Mellon Postdoctoral Research FellowOlga FrancoisThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
Re: Re: permission for screen shotsEdward BarrowThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
Re: Re: permission for screen shotsJimmy WalesThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
Re: Re: permission for screen shotsDavid DaileyThu Feb 05 2004 - 22:20:27 GMT
Re: Re: permission for screen shotsRobert F. BodiTue Feb 17 2004 - 18:55:44 GMT
Re: Re: permission for screen shotsRobert F. BodiTue Feb 17 2004 - 18:55:44 GMT
Re: Re: permission for screen shotsRobert F. BodiTue Feb 17 2004 - 18:55:44 GMT
Re: Re: permission for screen shotsDavid DaileyTue Feb 17 2004 - 22:25:16 GMT
Re: Re: permission for screen shotsRobert F. BodiWed Feb 18 2004 - 18:25:17 GMT
Re: Re: permission for screen shotsJohn LevineMon Feb 23 2004 - 16:45:18 GMT
Re: Re: permission for screen shotsRobert F. BodiMon Feb 23 2004 - 22:00:18 GMT
Re: Re: permission for screen shotsJohn LevineThu Feb 26 2004 - 17:40:10 GMT
RE: Re: permission for screen shotsChris ReedThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
RE: Re: permission for screen shotsMike BradleyThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
RE: Re: permission for screen shotsDuhaime, DianeThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
RE: Re: permission for screen shotsChris MohrFri Feb 06 2004 - 16:55:01 GMT
CALL FOR PAPERS: Deadline: February 9, 2004Olga FrancoisThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
doll manufacturing copyright infringement claimsJessica R. FriedmanThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
Re: doll manufacturing copyright infringement claimsSteven JamarFri Feb 06 2004 - 16:55:01 GMT
Re: permission for screen shotsJohn LevineThu Feb 05 2004 - 16:10:20 GMT
permission for screen shotsJohn EyeWed Feb 04 2004 - 20:10:43 GMT
Re: permission for screen shotsSteven JamarThu Feb 05 2004 - 16:10:20 GMT
Re: permission for screen shotsCarol SimpsonThu Feb 05 2004 - 21:45:23 GMT
Re: permission for screen shotsSteven JamarWed Feb 18 2004 - 14:50:12 GMT
April 5, 2004 - NYC - TACD workshop on Global Access to Essential Learning ToolsJames LoveWed Feb 04 2004 - 16:20:02 GMT
RE: Re: University professors - work for hireTurley, Patrick CTue Feb 03 2004 - 21:45:07 GMT
RE: Re: CA: WMFH=employeeAgenbroad, James (Civ,ARL/CISD)Tue Feb 03 2004 - 20:21:11 GMT
Re: Re: University professors - work for hireCarol BusbyTue Feb 03 2004 - 20:21:11 GMT
Re: Re: University professors - work for hiresstouden[_at_]thelinks.comThu Feb 05 2004 - 22:20:42 GMT
Re: Re: University professors - work for hireNancy WillardWed Feb 11 2004 - 22:20:48 GMT
Section 201 c: any later collective work in the same seriesMike BradleyTue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
Re: Termination rights, was Work For Hire AgreementsJohn LevineTue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
Re: University professors - work for hireIvan HoffmanMon Feb 02 2004 - 22:20:38 GMT
Re: University professors - work for hireDavid DaileyTue Feb 03 2004 - 20:21:11 GMT
RE: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Mike PhillipsMon Feb 02 2004 - 22:20:38 GMT
RE: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Sandy ShepardMon Feb 02 2004 - 22:20:38 GMT
RE: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Mike BradleyTue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
RE: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Mike BradleyTue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
Re: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must theybesigned?Robert F. BodiMon Feb 02 2004 - 22:20:38 GMT
Copyright status of previous manuscripts of published workRobert E. Jones, IIIMon Feb 02 2004 - 22:20:38 GMT
Re: Re: Work For Hire Agreements, terminationJohn LevineMon Feb 02 2004 - 16:45:58 GMT
Amicus opportunity for part-time law professorsMalla PollackMon Feb 02 2004 - 16:45:58 GMT
University professors - work for hireDavid PostMon Feb 02 2004 - 16:45:58 GMT
Re: University professors - work for hireSteven JamarTue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
Re: University professors - work for hireJQ JohnsonWed Feb 11 2004 - 16:10:01 GMT
Re: Re: Work For Hire AgreementsCalle Østergaard - Troll Company ApSMon Feb 02 2004 - 16:45:58 GMT
Re: Re: Work For Hire AgreementsWilliam T. McGrathMon Feb 02 2004 - 16:45:58 GMT
Re: Re: Work For Hire AgreementsCalle Østergaard - Troll Company ApSTue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
Re: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Terry CarrollMon Feb 02 2004 - 16:45:58 GMT
Re: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?John AllisonTue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
Re: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Terry CarrollTue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
Re: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Terry CarrollTue Feb 03 2004 - 16:55:07 GMT
Re: Re: Work For Hire Agreements - when must they besigned?Ivan HoffmanTue Feb 03 2004 - 17:25:36 GMT
Re: Work For Hire AgreementsKevin GriersonMon Feb 02 2004 - 16:45:58 GMT
Re: division of royalties when licensing both trademark and copyrightTheodora MichaelsWed Feb 11 2004 - 16:10:01 GMT
Re: Re: Decompiler service - should I seek legal advice?Robert F. BodiTue Feb 24 2004 - 21:56:32 GMT
Re: Re: Decompiler service - should I seek legal advice?Keith TaborWed Feb 25 2004 - 16:30:21 GMT
Re: Re: Decompiler service - should I seek legal advice?Robert F. BodiThu Feb 26 2004 - 20:55:13 GMT
Re: Re: fair use questionRobert F. BodiMon Feb 02 2004 - 22:20:38 GMT
Re: Re: Amazon.com "Limited License Grant"Robert F. BodiTue Feb 17 2004 - 22:25:16 GMT

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