On Thursday, April 14, 2005, at 06:35 PM, Sheldon Halpern wrote:
> I think the question and this answer miss the point. If the lecture is > not read from prepared matter, it is simply not copyrightable; it is > not a work fixed in a tangible medium of expression by or under the > authority of the author. The lecturer, creating an unfixed work, does > not have a copyright interest; the college, of course, is not the > author and therefore it has no copyright interest.
This is incorrect, I think. If the work is being videotaped by the college with the consent of the lecturer, that is most likely "under the authority of the author." If it is not being done under the authority of the author, then the taping itself is infringing if, as is typical for these things, the lecture is largely fixed (given from prepared notes). The scope of just what "under the authority of the author" means is not fully clear in this setting.
> At 05:30 PM 4/14/2005, you wrote:
-- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:sjamar[_at_]law.howard.edu Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction." Albert EinsteinReceived on Fri Apr 15 2005 - 21:35:00 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:54 GMT