FINAL EXAMINATION

COPYRIGHT LAW OF THE UNITED STATES

PROFESSOR BECK

Spring 2006

 

 

 

1.                  You have three (3) hours to complete this exam.

 

2.                  This is an open book exam. You may use any notes, books or other written materials to assist you in responding to the questions.

 

3.                  There are three (3) essay questions on this exam.  Answer each question as fully as you can, citing any appropriate cases, public policies, and statutes that are relevant.  Remember to allocate your time among the three questions.

 

a.       Question 1 = 40 points

b.      Question 2 = 35 points

c.      Question 3 = 25 points

      Total    = 100 points

 

4.                  Only write on the front side of the page in your blue books.  Write legibly or print if your handwriting is difficult to read.  If I cannot read your response to a question, your grade will be adversely affected.

 

5.                  Write your exam number on your exam envelope, all used blue books, exam materials and at the top of this exam question packet, and each page of questions.   Do not use your name, student ID number, or Social Security Number.

 

6.                  At the conclusion of the exam, return all test materials, including blue books, scratch paper, and this exam question packet to the envelope and submit it to the proctor. DO NOT seal the envelope. Students who do not return all exam materials at the end of the exam may not be graded.

 


QUESTION NO. 1 (40 Points)

 

            Plaintiff Video Clips Inc. (“P”) is in the business of licensing motion pictures or portions thereof, for exhibition on television and home video.  P generally charges between $2000 and $5000 per minute for a license to use excerpts of its movies in television productions.

 

In 1985 P acquired the exclusive television rights to the movie “Stage Lights”.  That movie tells the story of a boy who becomes a famous conductor, and includes a number of performances by well-known classical artists.  One, Lily Vanillie, sings her favorite aria (“Lily’s Song”).  This performance is about 5 minutes of the two hour movie. 

 

            Defendant Good Foundation (“D”), is a properly registered nonprofit corporation dedicated to improving public awareness of the fine arts.  D produces a television program called The Classics Show (“TCS”) which is distributed free to nonprofit and community television and cable channels..  Each one hour TCS program is a compilation of clips of  classical arts performances taken from visual materials donated to D by video distributors, artists and cultural institutions.  D forbids commercial advertisements in any of its programs.

 

            In 1990, P, in return for a license fee of $5000 granted Moviemaker (“M”) the right to use not more than two minutes of the Vanillie segment in a documentary on famous opera singers.  Subsequently M donated a copy of the documentary to D and authorized D to use the documentary in TCS programs.  The documentary includes about 90 seconds of Lily’s Song.  This clip was preceded by M’s five minute interview with Ms. Vanillie, and about 30 seconds of voice over at the start of the Lily’s Song clip.  Thus, about one minute of Lily’s Song from Stage Lights was used without change in the documentary.

 

            Subsequently, M donated a copy of the documentary to D, and authorized D to use the documentary in TCS programs.  In a TCS program in 2004, D incorporated the  Vanillie clip from the documentary in one of its programs, which was distributed to and broadcast by several non-profit and community television stations.

 

P discovered this broadcast and promptly filed suit for copyright infringement, alleging that the broadcast of the TCS program containing the clip of Lily’s Song is an infringement of its exclusive television rights in Stage Lights. D has answered the complaint, denying that the TCS program containing the Lily’s Song clip is an infringing copy of Stage Lights, and asserting defenses of license and fair use. 

 

P moves for summary judgment of infringement.  Discuss P’s infringement claim and D’s defenses to that claim.


 

QUESTION NO. 2 (35 Points)

 

Precise Legal Forms (“P”) developed an automated forms program for California law firms.  This program (“CalForms”) consists of a database of 550 legal forms organized into 16 categories or legal topics such as Landlord Tenant.  P compiled this database from a variety of official and public domain sources and included a few forms newly created by P.  To develop the automation software, P used Automax, a commercially available program used to create automated forms.  Automax has a number of options available to the automator to vary the screen displays, but P generally used the Automax default option, which creates “dialog boxes” which ask the the end user for the information needed to complete the selected form.   Each form in the database has a set of dialog boxes that P created using Automax.

 

To use CalForms, the user selects a legal topic (such as “Trusts and Estates”)  and subtopic (such as “IRS Forms”), and then chooses the appropriate form.  The actual form does not appear on the computer screen.  Instead, the program displays a series of “dialog boxes” which ask the user for the appropriate information required by the form.  For example, the first dialog boxes might ask “Name” and “Address” and provide blank boxes where the user types the name and address.   The dialog boxes guide the user through the form, ensuring that the form is correctly filled out.  When the last dialog box is filled out, the form is complete and ready to be printed out.  

 

            P timely registered its copyright in CalForms as a computer program and compilation of automated forms, but did not claim a copyright in the forms themselves. P licenses CalForms to law firms, with an express restriction in its shrink-wrap license that “The Licensed Program may not be used to create a product that competes with any product or service of Licensor.”

 

            Dewey Cheatham LLP (“D”) originally licensed CalForms from P, but later decided that it could do a better job.  D then collected its own official and public domain forms and developed its own original forms, and using Automax created its own automated forms program (“GSForms”).  This program has a database of 650 forms.  D also chose to use Automax’s default (dialog box) option, and as a result the appearance of screen displays in GSForms is very similar to that in CalForms.  In developing GSForms, D interviewed all of its employees who used CalForms to identify ways that the new program could be made more user friendly.  D also cross checked its list of forms against CalForms to make sure that it had not missed any official forms.  As a result GSForms is slightly more user friendly that CalForms and includes more forms. 

 

          D’s database includes 650 forms, of which about 70% overlap P’s database.  Thus about 80% of the forms selected by P were included in D’s database.  However, none of the forms developed by P were copied by D.  D’s database has a similar, but not identical organization.  D uses twice as many categories (26) as P (13) and does not use subtopics .  Three of D’s categories are identical to P’s, and five others contain similar subject matter, but have different names.

 

            D has begun licensing GSForms, and P has filed suit, alleging copyright infringement and breach of contract.  P contends that GSForms is substantially similar to CalForms both in the selection and organization of the forms, and in the screen displays and use of dialog boxes, and that D used CalForms in creating GSForms in violation of the license agreement.  D contends that it has not taken any protected expression from the P’s work, that the overlap in forms and their organization is inherent in any collection of legal forms, and that any similarities in the screen displays result from use of the default mode in Automax, which both parties used in automating the forms.  It also contends that the shrink-wrap license is not enforceable, and constitutes copyright misuse.

 

            Discuss P’s claims and D’s defenses, citing relevant authorities and statutes.

 

 

 

           


 

QUESTION NO. 3 (25 Points)

 

            Alvin Architect (“A”) is a self-employed architect.  MegaCorp (“M”) hired A to design a corporate headquarters.  M’s CEO admired the work of Frank Lloyd Wright, and asked A to use Wright’s 1903 Larkin Building as the basis for the design, and also told A that because M intended to add a manufacturing building on the site in a later phase the design needed to readily adaptable to other buildings.  After several designs were rejected, A finally produced blueprints that M accepted.  The written contract provided A a fee of $35,000 as payment in full for the final blueprints.  M then hired Builder Co. (“B”) to construct the building, and A had no further involvement.

 

            M was very pleased with B’s work, and the next year hired B to complete the second phase, the design and construction of the manufacturing plant.  B used A’s blueprints as the basis for the exterior design of manufacturing plant but independently created a new interior design.  As a result,  the outward appearance of the two buildings was very similar.  B was paid $5,000,000 to design and construct the second building, and had profits of $750,000.

 

            When A saw the second building he believed that the design was a copy of his design.  He immediately registered a copyright in his blueprints, and promptly thereafter filed suit for copyright infringement, seeking the profits earned by B in constructing the second building, and attorneys fees. 

 

            B alleges that the use of the blueprints was authorized by M, that A knew that the exterior design would be used as the basis for the second building and that  any damages would be limited to the fee A would have received for modifying his exterior design to the manufacturing building.

 

            Discuss B’s defenses citing relevant statutes and authorities.   

 

 

 

End of Exam