Multiple scattering calculations - Geometry for spherical atmospheres

Geometric relationships involved in multiple scattering calculations for spherical planet

Conflicts Between Copyright and the First Amendment After Harper & Row, Publishers v. Nation Enterprises

The relationship between copyright and the first amendment has been discussed repeatedly in the past fifteen years. A free speech privilege has been asserted as a defense in many copyright infringement actions, and the topic has been the subject of lively academic debate. Although no court has held an infringement claim to be defeated by a first amendment defense, considerable attention has been paid to the potential conflict between copyright and free speech interests. Commentators have speculated that in some situations copyright protection could impermissibly abridge the first amendment. The United States Supreme Court\u27s decision in Harper & Row, Publishers v. Nation Enterprises, in which the Court refused to create a “public figure exception”\u27 to copyright, finally resolves some of the questions about the interplay between copyright and free speech principles, but will not cease speculation about the need for a first amendment exception to copyright. This article analyzes Nation Enterprises and discusses its impact on the relationship between copyright and free speech interests. It asserts that the Copyright Act and the first amendment are effectively accommodated by the Supreme Court\u27s conception of copyright as the engine of free expression, its approach to the fair use doctrine, and its recognition of the idea/expression dichotomy. This thesis is defended by reexamining the decision in Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Associates in light of Nation Enterprises. This article concludes that as a consequence of Nation Enterprises there is no need to define an independent first amendment or public interest defense because copyright\u27s existing internal structure already limits its application to a constitutionally permissible sphere

Thin But Not Anorexic: Copyright Protection for Compilations and Other Fact Works

Questions about the copyrightability of compilations and other low authorship fact works, and about the scope of protection, have continued to trouble courts long after the Supreme Court\u27s landmark decision in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Services Co. in 1991. Justice O\u27Connor\u27s opinion, explaining why a standard white pages telephone directory did not meet the constitutional and statutory requirements for copyright protection, defined an original work of authorship as one that is independently created by its author and that evidences at least a minimal level of creativity. The latter requirement has been elusive, in part because Justice O\u27Connor defined creativity by negative example, describing how an author\u27s efforts in preparing a compilation might not satisfy the requirement. This Article, with the help of many post-Feist opinions, elaborates on Justice O\u27Connor\u27s guidance for determining whether a compilation or other low authorship work is entitled to copyright protection and, if so, whether the work has been infringed. It was observed forty years ago to make the copyright turnstile revolve, the author should have to deposit more than a penny in the box, and some like measure ought to apply to infringement. This Article explains how much more than a penny is needed to get through the turnstile and that courts have been relatively consistent in applying Feist in a variety of contexts, thereby ensuring that copyright does not improperly extend to facts, ideas, systems and concepts. Traditional case-by-case application of the fundamental principles of Feist is working well and the sweat of the brow rationale for protection has not been resurrected

Due Process Rights Before EU Agencies: The Rights of Defense

This Article discusses the procedural safeguards that have been recognized in the EU and the parallels between procedural due process in the United States and the rights of defense in the EU. It compares these respective rights and safeguards and explains how U.S. and EU procedures for agency adjudications are converging. Part II sets out the fundamental principles of American due process and EU right to be heard jurisprudence. Part III provides a detailed analysis of the rights of defense in the EU and highlights how this bundle of rights parallels the rights to notice and opportunity to be heard in the United States. Part IV discusses four of the significant components of the rights of defense: adequate notice, the opportunity to make one\u27s views known to the administration, the right of access to documents in the administration\u27s files, and the requirement of reasoned decisions. The Article concludes that notwithstanding the infrequent utilization of adversarial hearings in EU administrative adjudications, the procedural safeguards provided in adjudicative proceedings before the Commission and EU agencies satisfy the U.S. conception of procedural due process. These procedures are essential for protecting and maintaining the rule of law in the EU, as well as in the United States

Copyright Law and Your Neighborhood Bar and Grill: Recent Developments in Performance Rights and the Section 110(5) Exemption

This Article attempts to clarify the chaotic state of the law concerning performance rights. First, it briefly summarizes the history of this right and discusses some of the problems Congress sought to resolve when it passed the 1976 Act. Second, it outlines several of the Act\u27s key provisions on the performance right. Finally, it discusses the recent decisions which have interpreted these provisions and analyzes their impact on the activities of commercial establishments. These decisions show that the pertinent sections of the 1976 Act provide reasonably clear guidelines outlining the ways in which copyrighted works can be publicly performed or exhibited without fear of infringement