Fall 2013 Copyright Reading Group | h2ocopyright | May 10, 2013

H2O

This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.

Fall 2013 Copyright Reading Group

by h2ocopyright Show/Hide
      1. 1.1.1 Show/Hide More 17 U.S.C 102
        Original Creator: Prof. William T. Fisher III Current Version: h2ocopyright
    1. 1.2 Show/Hide More Fixation
      Original Creator: h2ocopyright
    2. 1.3 Show/Hide More Originality
      Original Creator: h2ocopyright
      1. 1.3.1 Show/Hide More 17 U.S.C 102
        Original Creator: Prof. William T. Fisher III Current Version: h2ocopyright
      1. 1.4.1 Show/Hide More 17 U.S.C 102
        Original Creator: Prof. William T. Fisher III Current Version: h2ocopyright
      2. 1.4.2 Show/Hide More Non-Traditional Subject Matter
        Original Creator: h2ocopyright
        Throughout the course we'll be reading about more traditional copyright subject matter, such as music, movies, and written work. However, as noted in 17 U.S.C 102, those only constitute a subset of materials that are eligible for copyright protection. This playlist presents cases about some of the more obscure protectable works.
        1. 1.4.2.1 Show/Hide More Architecture
          Original Creator: h2ocopyright
        2. 1.4.2.2 Show/Hide More Useful Articles
          Original Creator: h2ocopyright
        3. 1.4.2.3 Show/Hide More Software
          Original Creator: h2ocopyright
      1. 2.1.1 Show/Hide More Formalities
        Original Creator: h2ocopyright
      2. 2.1.2 Show/Hide More Copyright Term
        Original Creator: h2ocopyright
        1. 2.1.2.3 Show/Hide More Eldred v. Ashcroft
          Original Creator: h2ocopyright
        1. 2.1.4.1 Show/Hide More Chapter Two: The Art of Making Copyright Laws, Digital Copyright, Jessica Litman
          The process of developing and legislating copyright laws described in this chapter is illustrative of how these laws are often created. Many special interests leverage their power to have laws crafted that may not always serve the best interest of the American public.
    1. 2.2 Show/Hide More Authorship
      Original Creator: h2ocopyright
      1. 2.2.1 Show/Hide More 17 U.S.C. 201
        Original Creator: Prof. William T. Fisher III Current Version: h2ocopyright
      1. 3.1.1 Show/Hide More 17 U.S.C. 106
        Original Creator: Prof. William T. Fisher III Current Version: h2ocopyright
      2. 3.1.3 Show/Hide More Sampling
        Original Creator: h2ocopyright
        1. 3.1.3.1 Show/Hide More Newton v. Diamond
          Original Creator: h2ocopyright
          1. 3.1.3.1.1 Show/Hide More Newton v. Diamond
            Original Creator: Prof. William T. Fisher III Current Version: h2ocopyright
        2. 3.1.3.3 Show/Hide More Sampling Examples
          Original Creator: h2ocopyright
          Peruse the website whosampled.com. It has thousands of “before” and “after” instances of sampling, showing how artists have sampled and been sampled from for decades. The information manifested in these lineages raises several important copyright issues. A few of these are mentioned in the notes below.
          1. 3.1.3.3.1 Show/Hide More "Amen, Brother" The Winstons (1969)
            This album has been sampled 894 times since its release in 1969. Often times the samples taken are simple instrumental loops. At what point does a sample simply replace an instrument? In trademark law, something can become so ubiquitous as to be unprotectable. Should a similar policy apply to music sampling? Would this example qualify?
          2. 3.1.3.3.2 Show/Hide More "I Shot the Sheriff," Eric Clapton (1974) sampled in "Fight the Power," Public Enemy (1989)
            This instance of sampling raises questions about the “amount and substantiality” test. The sampled portion comprises just a single note, but it is quite an identifiable note. Could the expression of a single note ever be so unique as to be protected by copyright?