Can you copyright a syllabus?

[fluffyhamster]

Hmm, 'generic' made me think, wouldn't it be better to write a general kind of book of supplementary activities, rather than mention or target a specific course? If the contents were any good, it would sell some, regardless of what the blurbs said on the cover.

[Matty]

Some very interesting arguments on both sides.

I agree that publishers want to protect their brand identities.

I don't agree that I should try to create materials that compete with publishers. I've met a lot of EFL teachers who think they can write better materials than what's in the books. Most of what I've seen aren't.

The main reason to write support materials is to create a more integrated approach to teaching and learning. Recycling is an essential part of language acquisition that all too often gets ignored. It's my biggest gripe with a lot of publisher's materials, although some recent publications have started to address this problem more actively.

It would be nice for schools/teachers to have resources on hand, without having to re-design lessons and courses, which a lot of teachers do at the moment, to cover vocabulary and language points more thoroughly and give students a better chance of mastering English.

Just my opinion.

[jotham]

Here is a similar US court case in 1997.

CASTLE ROCK v CAROL PUBLISHING
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/ca ... 3d_132.htm

1. This case presents two interesting and somewhat novel issues of copyright law. The first is whether The Seinfeld Aptitude Test , a trivia quiz book devoted exclusively to testing its readers' recollection of scenes and events from the fictional television series Seinfeld , takes sufficient protected expression from the original, as evidenced by the book's substantial similarity to the television series, such that, in the absence of any defenses, the book would infringe the copyright in Seinfeld . The second is whether The Seinfeld Aptitude Test (also referred to as The SAT ) constitutes fair use of the Seinfeld television series...

3. We conclude that The SAT unlawfully copies from Seinfeld and that its copying does not constitute fair use and thus is an actionable infringement. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in favor of Castle Rock....

Defendants are Beth Golub, the author, and Carol Publishing Group, Inc., the publisher, of The SAT, a 132-page book containing 643 trivia questions and answers about the events and characters depicted in Seinfeld. These include 211 multiple choice questions, in which only one out of three to five answers is correct; 93 matching questions; and a number of short-answer questions. The questions are divided into five levels of difficulty, labeled (in increasing order of difficulty) "Wuss Questions," "This, That, and the Other Questions," "Tough Monkey Questions," "Atomic Wedgie Questions," and "Master of Your Domain Questions." Selected examples from level 1 are indicative of the questions throughout The SAT:

1. To impress a woman, George passes himself off as

a) a gynecologist

b) a geologist

c) a marine biologist

d) a meteorologist

11. What candy does Kramer snack on while observing a surgical procedure from an operating-room balcony?

12. Who said, "I don't go for those nonrefundable deals . . . I can't commit to a woman . . . I'm not committing to an airline."?

a) Jerry

b) George

c) Kramer


There is no evidence that The SAT 's publication diminished Seinfeld 's profitability, and in fact Seinfeld 's audience grew after The SAT was first published.

Castle Rock has nevertheless been highly selective in marketing products associated with Seinfeld, rejecting numerous proposals from publishers seeking approval for a variety of projects related to the show. Castle Rock licensed one Seinfeld book, The Entertainment Weekly Seinfeld Companion , and has licensed the production of a CD-ROM product that includes discussions of Seinfeld episodes; the CD-ROM allegedly might ultimately include a trivia bank. Castle Rock claims in this litigation that it plans to pursue a more aggressive marketing strategy for Seinfeld -related products, including "publication of books relating to Seinfeld ."...

The district court granted summary judgment to Castle Rock on the copyright claim. It held that defendants had violated plaintiff's copyrights in Seinfeld and that such copying did not constitute fair use.

[jotham]

This issue may also come under derivative works, which the original copyright owner has rights to.

Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author.

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

[Matty]

Great stuff jotham!

A really good extract that illustrates the perils of creating 'derivative works'.

To my eyes, the main body of the presecutor's case was that the book extensively used copright materials from the Seinfeld TV show, so this is outright copyright theft.

The more interesting part is about 'derivative works'. In other words, if you base original material, such as trivia questions, on a copyrighted work. At what point does this become a breach of copyright? Please allow me to illustrate what I mean with a few examples using Harry Potter, since there's been a recent court case involving derivative works in the news:

I haven't actually read any of the books so I'll put ?????? instead of details.

Which of these is derivative?

1. Who is the author of the world famous Harry Potter books?

2. In the Sourcerer's Stone, a character creates a spell that tranforms Harry potter's friend, ??????, into an animal. What animal is it?

3. On page 259, Harry Potter says, "???? ????? ????? ????, etc." Who was he talking to?

4. Read this summary of chapter 3 before you watch the (legally purchased) DVD, and answer these questions...

Can anyone think of any more common examples that a teacher might use in the classroom or for homework?

When I mean derivative, I mean that a potential court case would find the verdict in favour of a prosecutor.

[jotham]

Can anyone think of any more common examples that a teacher might use in the classroom or for homework?

When I mean derivative, I mean that a potential court case would find the verdict in favour of a prosecutor.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. An individual teacher can use these materials in the classroom or for homework, like when he or she has the class read a book together. That is fair use. A publishing company that makes money, however, has to steer clear of copyright infringements.

[Matty]

Ok, good point.

To clarify, I mean if someone were to publish materials containing stuff like this.

An important point though: If you want to use movies in the classroom, companies like Warner Bros. will sue a school if they find out that you're using their movies in the classroom. No joking!

[Dinara]

Ok, good point.

To clarify, I mean if someone were to publish materials containing stuff like this.

An important point though: If you want to use movies in the classroom, companies like Warner Bros. will sue a school if they find out that you're using their movies in the classroom. No joking!

It's so horrible... I think that people are just going crazy.....I used movies in the classroom when I was teaching English in Russia and people still do it. I think once you bought a movie it's your property, you can watch it by yourself or with your friends or even USE it in the classroom. I paid money for it, and I decide what I want to do with it....I think that our rights as consumers are violated as well. Companies sell us products and tell us what to do with them further. It's so absurd.....

[Matty]

I know.

I've actually tried to talk to Time Warner about creating materials for classroom use and to come up with some kind of mutually amicable agreement but they don't want anything to do with it. Basically, all I got were threats of legal action.

Well, we know that the majority of teachers just use movies and TV shows in the classroom anyway. The threat of legal action against a private independent language academy in somewhere like Bangkok isn't very realistic. I think they're shooting themselves in the foot with this kind of attitude.

[jotham]

U.S. law provides for educational purposes. I believe pages in books or music can be copied per student for learning (as long as it isn't performance.) I'm not sure how or if that extends to movies though.

I've actually tried to talk to Time Warner about creating materials for classroom use and to come up with some kind of mutually amicable agreement but they don't want anything to do with it. Basically, all I got were threats of legal action.

Well, we know that the majority of teachers just use movies and TV shows in the classroom anyway. The threat of legal action against a private independent language academy in somewhere like Bangkok isn't very realistic. I think they're shooting themselves in the foot with this kind of attitude.

This is easy to explain. When you bring a legal matter to their attention concerning copyright, they need to be on record of discouraging it -- not necessarily because they care, per se; but because if it were proven in court that they were treating their own trademark (or copyright too, I think) lackadaisacally, they could lose that right. (Maybe this only applies to trademark).
Recently, Google had trouble when their name entered the dictionary. They sent letters to businesses and publishers warning them not to use it that way. They were scoffed at because Google sets itself up as this cool, casual company that isn't elitist businesspeople. But practically speaking, if they lose their trademark, then what can stop applications such as Yahoo Google, or Microsoft Google?

http://www.out-law.com/page-7193
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01536.html

[Matty]

Well, all I got were threats. I followed it up and got no response from them whatsoever.

I don't know about US copyright law but in the UK you can't copyright a word or any group of letters. Copyright theft could only be proven if you copied their fonts, logos or trademarks, or attempted to impersonate the copyright owner. By this reckoning, you can call your kid "Google Microsoft Disney Cocacola" if you like. Would he/she get arrested for copyright theft at US immigration?

[jotham]

I don't know about US copyright law but in the UK you can't copyright a word or any group of letters. Copyright theft could only be proven if you copied their fonts, logos or trademarks, or attempted to impersonate the copyright owner. By this reckoning, you can call your kid "Google Microsoft Disney Cocacola" if you like. Would he/she get arrested for copyright theft at US immigration?

Nah, I don't think companies care too much about what happens on the individual level, what they write or say. They care about publishers and other companies stealing their multi-million word and the reputation that goes with it.
There may be one exception to this. Xerox mounted a public campaign to get people to stop "Xeroxing" documents and such. It apparently worked. They said “If you use ‘Xerox’ the way you use ‘zipper,’ our trademark could be left wide open."
Apparently, the company was fit to be tied when headlines all over the world splashed Clinton's reference to Obama as the candidate for "change you can xerox."
http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/displ ... yId=113475