In America, are lectures given by university professors subject to copyright/international property laws? If so, which laws and statutes relate to them?
Anything you produce is automatically copyrighted as soon as it appears. This is the basic copyright law of the land, as of the 1976 Copyright Law revisions.
I’m assuming you’re asking because of the Andrew Jones flap about paying students to tape lectures for political scrutiny. This is as illegal as taking your posts here on the Dope and selling them would be.
Whether merely copying your posts and making them available without being paid is a violation would depend on their future use. Small excerpts would presumably be legal under Fair Use, but amounts large enough to form a full context might be very iffy. Iffy is the word, as there are too many ifs about what could happen under various circumstances to say anything definitive.
But doesn’t the SMDB do exactly this? They take the post of all of us here, and sell subscriptions to it.
Of course, we all agreed to let them do that under their ‘terms of service’.
Funny how express consent changes things. :rolleyes:
As Exapno points out, you have granted the Chicago Reader the right to do this. Unless the professor explicity grants you the right to copy his lectures, it’s a violation.
In order for something to get copyright protection, it must be creative, original, and fixed in a perceivable medium. In the case of a university lecture, I’m guessing that the professor’s notes from which he gives the lecture would qualify as the fixation, unless the professor routinely arranges to have his lectures recorded (including audio-only) or transcribed. This might be an interesting question because I don’t think a good professor would read verbatim from notes. I wonder if anyone with more experience in this area could talk about the fixation issue here.
Experience? No. But I recall my Copyrights professor telling us that his lecture wasn’t copyrightable because it wasn’t fixed. But if he wanted to protect his lectures, all he had to do was leave a tape recorder running. That was several years ago, however, so my memory may be faulty.
–Cliffy
I will confirm that this is how we learned it. Some smart ass (probably me) commented that he didn’t see any type of recording device, and my professor commented that said smart ass was free to stay in lecture without a recording device which were strictly prohibited from class as stated in the student handbook. Suprise, suprise, I looked later on that day and there it was! :eek:
But the professor would still have to have his own recorder running in order for him to exercise copyright. Right?
A lot of profs these days will put their lecture notes on the web after class, either as text or in PowerPoint form. Would a professor’s paraphrasing of those notes during the lecture be considered different from what ends up in the web? Doesn’t seem to me that that should be the case, but I’m curious now…
From the copyright law:
So if it’s recorded, it’s “fixed” under the definition of the law. But the copyright is owned by the person giving the lecture, not the person using the recorder.
A moot point. Since the professor is giving the lecture AND making the PowerPoint presentation, he owns copyright to both.
If he’s using a pre-made presentation (like one associated with a textbook), whoever created the presentation has copyright. Most textbook manufacturers grant you a license to copy their PowerPoints (otherwise, there’s no point), and the professor’s actual lecture (especially an audio recording, which does not show the PowerPoint) is owned by the professor.
Doesn’t the recording constitute a performance copyright and not necessarily a content copyright, unless a fixed transcript exists somewhere? Trivial difference, I know.
Disclaimer: My knowledge of copyright law is limited to “fair use” and is not thorough even there. However, I’d say that this is a circumstance where the case law actually uses the common sense of the “reasonable man.”
It is the content of the professor’s lecture which he makes available to the public, for the cost of tuition, in conjunction with the college which pays him a salary to do so. How he presents it, i.e., the style which he uses, is secondary to the content. This is why colleges tend to hire physicists to teach physics, rather than one physicist to write lectures presented by skilled orators/actors: the expertise and not the delivery is the key element being “sold.”
U.S. courts tend to give leeway when a work has been reproduced for the purpose of political debate, and not for monetary gain.
Both, I’d say. Again, I’m no expert.
–Cliffy
All that is required is some fixation. That fixation can be a recording. The distinction between performance rights and composition rights comes into play only after you have copyright protection and the only relevant thing there is that they are separate rights that can be licensed separately.
I have never heard of any law - statutory or case - that would make the sale or distribution of spontaneous speeches by non-public figures legal. If one exists, I’d be very interested in reading it.
Whether a professor at a public institution delivering a verbal lecture constitutes a public figure the way a politician does is another legal question that I don’t have an absolute answer to. If anyone can shed some light on that I’d appreciate it.
Why don’t the Doper lawyers ever come into these threads? 
(raises hand)
Sorry, I didn’t remember your identifying yourself as such.
So what’s the answer to my questions then? Hmm?