Re: Copyright in Arrangement (Was: Re: Academics and coursepacks)

On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> I thought of this as well, but it seems to me that it causes a lot of
> problems to come to this conclusion. Usually, casebook authors will
> include cases that are pertinent to what they are teaching. Then,
> depending on why they pick a particular case, they will then eliminate
> those parts of the case that are irrelevant (or perhaps redundant) to
> the point they are trying to make. Assuming you have another casebook
> and author on the same subject, there will no doubt be some overlap
> in case selection, and I would argue that there is also going to be
> considerable overlap in which portions of the opinion to keep and
> which to edit out.

Probably -- but that goes more to novelty than to originality.

> In other words, you may have only a few ways to be creative in this
> process, at least in some instances, and this would tend to reduce the
> probability of making that particular component of the casebook
> copyrightable.

My guess (but only a guess) is otherwise. It would be interesting to pick up two or three Con Law casebooks and check. I'd be willing to bet, for example, that if you looked at how each one dealt with some of the second-tier con law cases (say, Miranda v. Arizona or Wickard v. Filburn), you'd see some very different cuts.

I do think you'll probably be right on some of the more basic cases first enunciating a particular proposition of law, e.g., Roe v. Wade or Marbury v. Madison, because in those cases there will be some portions that are clearly the heart of the case and that need to be reproduced at length without cuts in order to make the point accurately.

--
Terry Carroll       |    
Santa Clara, CA     |    
carroll[_at_]tjc.com     |       
Modell delendus est |