Weinstein v University of Illinois et al.  811 F.2d 1091; 1987 U.S. App.

     This case decided in 1987 is the most recent ‘major’ decision in the ‘academic exception.’  Marvin Weinstein was an assistant professor in the University of Illinois’ College of Pharmacy.  He was told that he needed ‘publish or perish’ in his tenure track position.  If he didn’t publish enough papers he would be fired and there was no opportunity for a renewal of his position short of being tenured.  He wrote a paper with a colleague named Belsheim.  When Belsheim submitted the paper for publication he put the names in alphabetical order and Weinstein was upset because he felt that his name should have been placed first, being the primary author of the article.  He sued Belsheim and the university on the grounds that this was his work and he should control how it was published.  Since this case was filed after 1976 the work for hire clause could have been applied.  However the university declared that they had no interest in maintaining the copyright of professors' works and that it was a general understanding that professors owned their own research and papers despite them working for the university.  Weinstein lost his case but more importantly created the beginnings of an academic exception after the 1976 copyright act.

     This case related to Mauro v Allentown in several ways.  The first is this case re-establishes the idea of an academic exception, not necessarily an ironclad exception, but it brings it to light.  It also brings up the exception for work related to the job but not necessarily required in the actual performance of the job.  Weinstein was not required to write, but if he didn’t he would not have his contract renewed.  In the same way Mauro was not required to write his medley, it was outside the strict interpretation of his position.  The potential problems for this case are that Weinstein is explicitly dealing with university professors and not high school teachers, and also that the university stated that they did not seek to hold the copyright of their professors.  So if Allentown does declare that they wish to maintain control of their professor's copyrights then there may be fewer legal recourses for Mr. Mauro to pursue.