Copyright Protection of Lecture Notes

Tags

,

‘My economics teacher is forcing us to give up all of our work for the semester. Every page of notes and paper must be turned over to her to be destroyed to prevent future students from copying it. My binder was in my backpack, and she went into my backpack to take it. Is that legal?’ Besides the issue with private property invasion, which was the trigger of that post, there is much more important question: Can a teacher ask a student not to retain knowledge? How does IP law relate to teaching and sharing knowledge? Whose property are those notes?” – from Slashdot

I came across this question today and wanted to comment.  I won’t turn this into a full-blown legal analysis of copyright protection of class lecture notes, but there are some ideas I felt were important enough to mention.  Leaving aside the issue of the teacher going into the backpack, I’ll focus on the IP question because it just seems to keep popping up.  It’s a thorny issue that really shouldn’t be all that thorny.

First, keep in mind that facts and ideas are not protected by copyright.  Only the “expression” of facts or ideas can be protected.  When a student writes down notes from a lecture, he is primarily concerned with documenting the important facts and ideas of the lesson.  Any elements of the teacher’s expression that are copied into the notes are typically ancillary and of little real value to the student. Going further, it should be recognized that the facts and ideas that a teacher lectures on are primarily repackaged information that the teacher has derived from other sources.  A teacher seeking to enforce copyright ownership of this information is farcical at best.

I understand that classroom dynamics have been changing rapidly over the last few decades, with the introduction of photocopies, digital recorders, email, etc.  The “expression” of ideas, as opposed to the ideas themselves, can increasingly be captured verbatim.  Hence the growing and potentially misguided belief that copyright law needs to step in to protect a teacher’s expression of the facts. To the contrary, teachers need to get innovative and figure out how to embrace these technologies to further their one real goal…educating students.

Last year, a University of Florida professor brought a suit filled with interesting copyright claims against a commercial note-taking service.  To summarize, this service was paying students to take class notes and then sellingthose notes online as study aids.  I haven’t been able to locate an update to see how that case was resolved…it may have settled.  If someone has more information on the outcome, please leave a comment.  Regardless, the situation described in the question above does not involve a commercial note-taking service, just a tuition-paying, education-seeking economics student.  Therefore, many of the commercial elements that made the Florida professor’s copyright claims somewhat palatable do not exist here.

I find it remarkable that any teacher would ask a student to hand in all of their class resources at the end of a semester.  After all, there are actually students who go to university to gain knowledge they can use for the rest of their life…not just for the length of one semester and to be forgotten upon handing in the final exam.  Class materials, including quizzes, tests and lecture notes, are often important resources later in a student’s professional life.  Is the threat of future students copying the notes really so severe that it outweighs the potential value to the note-taking student?

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Pamela Mougin v. French Lick Resorts and Casino

Tags

, , , , ,

Pamela Mougin v. French Lick Resorts and Casino LLC et al

Court Case Number: 1:11-cv-01367-TWP-MJD
File Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Plaintiff: Pamela Mougin
Plaintiff Counsel: Theodore J. Minch of Sovich Minch LLP
Defendant: French Lick Resorts and Casino LLC, Worth Group, John Does 1-10
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Violation of Visual Artists Rights, Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

Amended Complaint:

 

Stipulated Order of Dismissal:

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Century 21 v. Realty One Limited

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Century 21 Real Estate, LLC v. Realty One Limited et al

Court Case Number: 2:11-cv-00269-WTL-MJD
File Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Plaintiff: Century 21 Real Estate, LLC                                                                                              
Plaintiff Counsel: Ryan T. Brown of Gordon & Rees LLP
Defendant: Realty One Limited
Steven Ault
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Breach of Contract, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Orgin, Trademark Dilution, Audit Demand/Accounting and Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

Stories from the Week that Was – 10/2-10/8/11

Stories from the Week that Was – 10/2-10/8/11

Computer Virus Hits U.S. Drone Fleet

Survival Guide for Citizens in a Revolution

Patent Reform without Congress

Patent Troll Says Anyone Using WiFi Infringes; Won’t Sue Individuals ‘At This Stage

First ‘Official’ Statement from the Occupy Wall Street Movement

“A great trademark is appropriate, dynamic, distinctive, memorable and unique.” – Primo Angeli

Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Copyright Case

Tags

The Supreme Court of the United States gets back to work this week and will be hearing oral arguments on a copyright case, Golan v. Holder. [FULL SCHEDULE] Here’s the skinny on what you’ll want to know about the case going into Wednesday morning’s arguments:

GOLAN V. HOLDER

DECISION BELOW: 609 F.3d 1076

Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 (Section 514) did something unique in the history of American intellectual property law: It “restored” copyright protection in thousands of works that the Copyright Act had placed in the Public Domain, where they remained for years as the common property of all Americans. The Petitioners in this case are orchestra conductors, educators, performers, film archivists and motion picture distributors, who relied for years on the free availability of these works in the Public Domain, which they performed, adapted, restored and distributed without restriction. The enactment of Section 514 therefore had a dramatic effect on Petitioners’ free speech and expression rights, as well as their economic interests. Section 514 eliminated Petitioners’ right to perform, share and build upon works they had once been able to use freely.

The questions presented are:

  1. Does the Progress Clause of the United States Constitution prohibit Congress from taking works out of the Public Domain?
  2. Does Section 514 violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?

Stay tuned to the Indiana IP&T blog for a transcript and summary of the oral arguments. Go here for links to the Merit Briefs and a long list of Amicus Briefs.