Talk:Module 3: The Scope of Copyright Law - Revision history

Tfisher: Removing all content from page

2009-08-30T21:33:31Z

Removing all content from page

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 30 August 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~'''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?~~

Kisbell at 05:32, 5 August 2009

2009-08-05T05:32:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:32, 5 August 2009
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?

Kisbell at 05:31, 5 August 2009

2009-08-05T05:31:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:31, 5 August 2009
Line 17:		Line 17:

	+ 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?

Kisbell at 05:30, 5 August 2009

2009-08-05T05:30:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:30, 5 August 2009
Line 15:		Line 15:

	+ 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?		+ 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.

Kisbell at 05:23, 5 August 2009

2009-08-05T05:23:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:23, 5 August 2009
Line 14:		Line 14:
	+ 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.		+ 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? ~~If so, that strikes me as a strange interpretation of the language.~~		+ 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?

Kisbell at 05:21, 5 August 2009

2009-08-05T05:21:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:21, 5 August 2009
Line 13:		Line 13:

	+ 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.		+ 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? If so, that strikes me as a strange interpretation of the language.

Kisbell at 05:15, 5 August 2009

2009-08-05T05:15:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:15, 5 August 2009
Line 11:		Line 11:

	+ 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 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.

Kisbell at 04:19, 5 August 2009

2009-08-05T04:19:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:19, 5 August 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:
	* isn't the "employment and works for hire" section redundant to the [edit] Audiovisual/Cinematographic Works And Computer Programs section at least in part?		* 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.

Cpeterson at 02:40, 4 August 2009

2009-08-04T02:40:41Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 02:40, 4 August 2009
Line 1:	Line 1:
		'''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?
		*

Cpeterson: Removing all content from page

2009-08-04T02:40:36Z

Removing all content from page

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:40, 4 August 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~'''CHRIS NOTES'''~~
	* Need a cite for the SCOTUS case mentioned under The Concept of Originality.