Kaplan, Donald M. “Homosexuality and American Theatre: A Psychoanalytic Comment.” The    Tulane Drama Review, 9.3 (Spring, 1965): 25-55. The MIT Press. University of Pennsylvania Library, Philadelphia. 7 April 2008. <http://hdl.library.upenn.edu/1017/6965/2>.

 In this article, Kaplan comments on the increased display of homosexuality in American theater, and tries to explain why this change had come about by 1965. It is important to note that, as taboo as homosexuality may be today, in the 1960’s dialogue regarding the subject was simply unmentionable. Not half as much research on the “true” factors for a homosexual being had been conducted, while the limitations on a homosexual’s “mentality and creative vision” were far more pervasive. Nevertheless, Kaplan opens his discussion with a quote straight from Elia Kazan (an artist who’s sexuality, he believes, is “questionable): “The whole concept is rather thrilling, the realization of a dream. In the few days that we have been working together I have had more fun than I have had in years.” This “realization,” Kaplan states, is the transformation of a homosexual’s dreams into reality—a reality that is becoming more and more popular in modern America, he believes. Unfortunately, Kaplan quickly seems to contradict this “modern” notion by defending homosexuals through the “verified” results of outdated ink-blot tests; nevertheless, he quickly goes on to discuss both scientific and social beliefs regarding the notion of sexuality.
    Tennessee Williams was one of these homosexual artists whose dreams have been realized, and while the Streetcar film has toned down many of its intended homosexual undertones, the original version is almost blatant in its discussion of homosexuality. Kaplan criticizes the play for its “Me-Tarzan-You-Jane” sexuality when it comes to Stanley’s relationship with both Stella and Blanche, citing the unrefined terms “making out” and “getting those colored lights going on” as crude representations of heterosexual relationships. However, Blanche’s one true love happened to be gay. This “nervous, tender, uncertain boy” who wrote poetry is sympathetically portrayed, and is arguably a pivotal character in Streetcar’s synopsis. This fact proves Kaplan’s point that homosexual “rebellion against instinctual deprivation” is rapidly spreading in both American theater and cinema. It also sheds light on the changing face of what American authors were willing to write and what American audiences were willing to see.
 

Another monumental case in which Williams Electronics sues the company Artic International for making a video game that was nearly identical to Williams Electronics Inc's popular game, Defender.
The game Defense Command was determined to be nearly identical to Defender in both the "play mode" in which the player gains control of the character, and the "attract mode" which is defined by the screen that displays before the coins are inserted. Artic's defense was that there was no "fixation" as far as the audio and visual effects presented on screen were concerned. When a person plays "Defense Command" whether in attract mode, or play mode, the person changes what is occurring on the screen, and so there is an element of transience to the images and sounds presented to the player (even though said changes are infinitesimal). Essentially, Artic made the argument that each player is a co-author of his individual game. The Courts however, did not accept Artic's argument of transience.
It was concluded that Artic's claims were not sufficient, considering that within the play mode, there was enough repetition of audio and visual material that the little difference made by the interference of the player was insignificant, and within the attract mode, there was basically no player manipulation.
The most important aspect of this case, which relates significantly to my paper is fact that this case brought into question whether or not ROM was copyrightable. Artic claimed that by initiating the case, Williams was arguing that ROM was in fact not only a machine part, but intellectual property. Still, the Court dismissed this claim as the ROM was said to merely prove fixation, and that it was not copyrightable. Artic also argued that it copied object code, rather than source code, making this case groundbreaking on another level. Copy of object code would not have infringed upon copyright, considering it was un-copyrightable. It is important to note that in order for a decision to be reached, the Court had to deliberate and almost translate existing copyright law in order to reach a conclusion and counter argument to match Artic's claim. The case ended in favor of Williams, because the Court was able to study existing Copyright law in order to accommodate the technology.

Williams v Weisser, 273 Cal. App. 2d 726

     This case from 1969 is the second, and by far the most famous, common law decision to establish the concept of an ‘academic exception.’ 

     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.  Weisser hired a student to attend Williams’ class and using the notes the student took created a product that he sold to other students.  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.  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.  UCLA produced a letter they had sent to all professors saying that they did not make a claim to own any of the professor’s lecture notes.  The courts eventually ruled that Williams did own the rights to his notes and thus Weisser was in the wrong.

     This case is one of the clearest cases establishing the academic exception.  There is no other claim for Weisser other than that the notes are a work for hire.  When both the employer and the employee deny that and say that the very notion of a university having claim to the copyright of their employees lecture notes is unecessary, then they have established the idea of the academic exception very strongly.

     There are downsides to this case with regards the Mauro v Allentown case.  First, the case decided the academic exception at the university level and did not address the high school level.  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.  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.  That definition seems to allow no wiggle room for the academic exception.  This means that other decisions would be needed to extend and further establish the academic exception.