Talk:Module 3: The Scope of Copyright Law: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
+ The original phrasing of the case study - She will discuss with Nadia what can be reproduced, what can be quoted, and what copyright law might be implicated in the creation of the course packet. - is much broader than the later discussion, which is limited to questions of authorship in the resulting course packet. Seems strange. | + The original phrasing of the case study - She will discuss with Nadia what can be reproduced, what can be quoted, and what copyright law might be implicated in the creation of the course packet. - is much broader than the later discussion, which is limited to questions of authorship in the resulting course packet. Seems strange. | ||
+ Are we comfortable assuming familiarity with Wikipedia in the discussion questions? | + Are we comfortable assuming familiarity with Wikipedia in the discussion questions? Similarly, do we expect people to know what the Public Domain Day is? | ||
Revision as of 00:32, 5 August 2009
CHRIS NOTES
- Need a cite for the SCOTUS case mentioned under The Concept of Originality.
- Need a cite for the US copyright statute quote.
- The section on owning a copy vs owning a copyright should be substantiated and expanded
- need a cite for Kluwer v. Lamoth in the joint authorship section
- there is nothing about transformative use in the derivative/transformative section???
- isn't the "employment and works for hire" section redundant to the [edit] Audiovisual/Cinematographic Works And Computer Programs section at least in part?
KAI Comments
+ The inclusion of this sentence -- This rule provides a solution for performances that are being broadcast or transmitted, but, arguably, live performances that are simultaneously recorded but not transmitted are still unprotected by copyright law. -- may be more confusing than educational.
+ The location of the discussion "what is an author" seems very odd. The term is used frequently prior to this, but this section is the first in which the concept is addressed (in contrast to other concepts that were discussed back in Module 1). Maybe move it up.
+ I don't understand the use of the word "only" in this sentence -- Article 2, Section 5 of the Berne Convention only requires the protection of collective works: “Collections of literary or artistic works such as encyclopedias and anthologies which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such, without prejudice to the copyright in each of the works forming part of such collections.” Is it meant to contrast collections with compilations?
+ The original phrasing of the case study - She will discuss with Nadia what can be reproduced, what can be quoted, and what copyright law might be implicated in the creation of the course packet. - is much broader than the later discussion, which is limited to questions of authorship in the resulting course packet. Seems strange.
+ Are we comfortable assuming familiarity with Wikipedia in the discussion questions? Similarly, do we expect people to know what the Public Domain Day is?