<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/tag/copyright+academic_exception+weisser</link>
<title>PennTags Feed for /tag/copyright+academic_exception+weisser</title>
<description>PennTags Feed</description>
<item><guid isPermaLink="true">http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/8276</guid>
<link>http://tags.library.upenn.edu/makerecord/url/8276</link>
<title>Williams v Weisser</title>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Williams v Weisser, 273 Cal. App. 2d 726&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; This case from 1969 is the second, and by far the most famous,&amp;nbsp;common law decision&amp;nbsp;to establish the concept of an &amp;lsquo;academic exception.&amp;rsquo;&amp;nbsp; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The case concerns B. J. Williams a professor at UCLA and Edwin Weisser a man who had a business selling class notes to UCLA students.&amp;nbsp; Weisser hired a student to attend Williams&amp;rsquo; class and using the notes the student took created a product that he sold to other students.&amp;nbsp; Williams sued Weisser to stop him from doing this saying that as the owner of the lecture notes he had the right to decide when and how they were published.&amp;nbsp; Weisser disagreed saying that the notes were a work for hire and therefore the university owned the rights and Williams had no grounds to sue.&amp;nbsp; UCLA produced a letter they had sent to all professors saying that they did not make a claim to own any of the professor&amp;rsquo;s lecture notes.&amp;nbsp; The courts eventually ruled that Williams did own the rights to his notes and thus Weisser was in the wrong.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; This case is one of the clearest cases establishing the academic exception.&amp;nbsp; There is no other claim for Weisser other than that the notes are a work for hire.&amp;nbsp; When both the employer and the employee deny&amp;nbsp;that&amp;nbsp;and say that the very notion of a university having claim to the copyright of their employees lecture notes is unecessary, then&amp;nbsp;they&amp;nbsp;have established the idea of the academic&amp;nbsp;exception very strongly.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; There are downsides to this case with regards the Mauro v Allentown case.&amp;nbsp; First, the case decided the academic exception at the university level and did not address the high school level.&amp;nbsp; However it does establish it for class notes and the Irish medley is a classroom aid similar to a set of class notes, produced by the instructor, and not necessarily essential to the teaching of a class, only beneficial.&amp;nbsp; Second, and more importantly, the case was decided prior to the implementation of the 1976 Copyright Act, which clearly defines the work for hire clause.&amp;nbsp; That definition seems to allow no wiggle room for the academic exception.&amp;nbsp; This means that other decisions would be needed to extend and further establish the academic exception.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
