Re: Copyright Exam Questions [was "State trooper lays claim to software he developed"]

Even if NPO2's performance is not an authorized performance of a work of joint authorship, according to the intent of the parties, the performance may well be permitted by sec. 110.

NPO1's distribution of the videotape of NPO2's performance would seem to be an actionable unauthorized reproduction and distribution of the performance, unless the performance itself is an unprotecta\\ble infringement.

Litigation would seem to be beyond the evident means, and beneath the supposed eleemosynary purposes, of both organizations. Somebody should tell them that they are being petty.

John Noble

At 5:55 PM -0500 17/1/07, Mike Oliver wrote:
>On 1/16/07, Terry Carroll <<mailto:carroll[_at_]tjc.com>carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
>Interesting story over at
><http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=552682>http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=552682
>...
>
>Basic facts are that a Wisconsin state trooper modified some software,
>apparently originally written by the state of Iowa. Whether he did so on
>state time and using state facilities, or under the state's direction, is
>apparently subject to dispute. Wisconsin is demanding he turn over the
>code. The trooper has filed suit, in a state court.
>
>This would make a great exam question.
>
>
>Maybe one of your industrious students will see the post and be
>rewarded with the question on one of your exams!
>
>So, while we are on this exam question kick, here is a real life
>"exam question" for a non profit, for which I do pro bono, and for
>which I did not have a great answer:
>
>2 Non Profit Organizations (NPOs) meet and agree to put on a joint
>theatre play which consists of short "sketches." Neither of them
>enter into any agreement, however, both received grants for funding,
>and the grant application indicated it was a "collaborative" effort
>between them.
>
>Each NPO has written scripts for some of the sketches, the scripts
>are created by high school actors in a collaborative process. The
>NPOs agree before the project begins, to collaborate and edit the
>sketches into a cohesive play, that will flow from one sketch to the
>next. They exchange some ideas, they discuss to some extent the
>"theme" of each sketch, they talk about some ideas for transitions
>etc, however, neither shares the written scripts with the other
>right away.
>
>NPO 1, using the ideas, revises the sketches and scripts being
>contributed by NPO 1, and sends them over to NPO 2, and then tries
>to schedule times to meet and collaborate on creating the scripts
>for the entire play and to incorporate NPO 2's sketches. Here is
>where it gets weird. NPO 2 goes dark (as in will not meet), and no
>actual collaboration takes place. However, NPO 2 produces a
>compiled play script, containing some of NPO 1's scipts (but
>revised), and NPO 2's own scripts.
>
>The high school kids put on the play to rave reviews, and the
>director of NPO 1 video tapes the entire thing, apparently without
>previously telling NPO 2 that it would be taped. NPO 2 finds out
>about the tape, and claims that the copyright in the entire play is
>solely owned by NPO 2, and the copyright in the tape is a derivative
>work, also owned by NPO 2 (actually, not sure they claimed this).
>
>The director of NPO 1 wants to copy the tape, and distribute it, for
>a fee, to the parents of the students in the play; and to publicly
>display the tape (as in viewing) to the parents at a school
>function. The parents would make a donation to the NPO and receive
>the tape as part of the "benefit."
>
>There are a host of issues in this hypo, but the main issue was
>whether NPO 1 could distribute the video of the play to the parents,
>and charge for it, or offer it as a benefit on a donation, and
>whether they could hold a viewing of the tape at the school. Both
>NPOs are 501(c)(3)'s.
>
>I cannot say what my advice was, but I can say that this was a mess,
>copyright ownership, fair use, license and joint authorship - wise.
>As I am not making any fees on this, I would graciously accept
>anyone's take on the facts, as to whether NPO 2 would have a right
>to distribute the video tape, or to hold a public viewing of it at
>the school.
>
>--
>Mike Oliver
>Bowie & Jensen, LLC
>29 W. Susquehanna Ave.
>Suite 600
>Towson, MD 21204
Received on Fri Jan 19 2007 - 04:30:45 GMT