1E Statutes 101 2, 6-9, 110, 121, 504a

Foundational Copyright (Dec. 1 Boston; Dec. 15 Amherst) This is the text of Statutes 101 2, 6-9, 110, 121, 504a

2B Copyright Workshop Agenda Session 2

This is the agenda for Day 2 of the Copyright Boot Camp. Advanced Topics : Licensing, Negotiation, and Scholarly Communication (Dec. 2 Boston, Dec. 16 Amherst

2I Negotiating Author Agreements

Advanced Topics : Licensing, Negotiation, and Scholarly Communication (Dec. 2 Boston, Dec. 16 Amherst) Laura Quilter, UMass - Authors & Scholarly Communication. Includes an overview of copyright in relation to author contracts, a hands-on exercise reviewing an author publication agreement, and pointers about talking with authors about their publication agreements

Long Arm of the Law, Indeed

This talk outlines the current trends in library fair use litigation. It provides a structure for discussing the current cases, as well as the importance of the market effect (4th factor) as well as transformative use

2K Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Publishing Agreement (sample contract)

Advanced Topics : Licensing, Negotiation, and Scholarly Communication (Dec. 2 Boston, Dec. 16 Amherst) Laura Quilter, UMass - Authors & Scholarly Communication. Includes an overview of copyright in relation to author contracts, a hands-on exercise reviewing an author publication agreement, and pointers about talking with authors about their publication agreements. This is a sample book contract from Rowman & Littlefield used for teaching purposes

2J Wiley-Blackwell Agreement (sample contract)

Advanced Topics : Licensing, Negotiation, and Scholarly Communication (Dec. 2 Boston, Dec. 16 Amherst) Laura Quilter, UMass - Authors & Scholarly Communication. Includes an overview of copyright in relation to author contracts, a hands-on exercise reviewing an author publication agreement, and pointers about talking with authors about their publication agreements. This is a sample copyright transfer agreement from Wiley-Blackwell used for teaching purposes

1G 92 F.Supp.2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

UMG RECORDINGS, INC., Sony Music Entertainment Inc., Warner Bros. Records Inc., Arista Records Inc., Atlantic Recordings Corp., BMG Music d/b/a The RCA Records Label, Capitol Records, Inc., Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc., Interscope Records, and Sire Records Group Inc., Plaintiffs, v. MP3.COM, INC., Defendant. No. 00 Civ. 472(JSR). United States District Court, S.D. New York. May 4, 2000. Cite as 92 F.Supp.2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) Owners of copyrights in musical recordings sued Internet company, which made MP3 files of recordings available to its subscribers, for infringement. On plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, the District Court, Rakoff, J., held that defendant’s conduct was not fair use. Motion granted

1D U.S. Copyright Law: An Index

Foundational Copyright (Dec. 1 Boston; Dec. 15 Amherst) This is an index of important materials and US Code, Title 17. It is a useful resource for those looking at copyright law

1F Ho v. Taflove

Used in Foundational Copyright (Dec. 1 Boston; Dec. 15 Amherst) In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 10-2144 SENG-TIONG HO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALLEN TAFLOVE, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Ho v. Taflove, 648 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2011) Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:07-cv-04305—Elaine E. Bucklo, Judge. ARGUED JANUARY 20, 2011—DECIDED JUNE 6, 2011 Before RIPPLE and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY, District Judge. * The Honorable G. Patrick Murphy, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois, is sitting by designation. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Seng-Tiong Ho and Yingyan Huang brought this action against Allen Taflove and Shi-Hui Chang in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. They alleged that the defendants, members of another research team at the same university, violated the Copyright Act by publishing equations, figures and text copied from the plaintiffs’ work. The plaintiffs also raised several state law claims against the defendants based on the alleged copying. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to dismiss. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims and therefore declined to address the motion to dismiss