Grades are in. Just waiting for approval.

Nobody failed the exam.

There were four questions that were missed by so many of you that I just gave everyone credit for them. (16, 55, 89, and 98). Keep that in mind if you review your exam. You got those four right, no matter what you answered.

If you have questions pre-exam, post them here. I can not guarantee that I will get to all of them, but I will try my damndest.

Someone told me that the “previous posts” link is not working. (It is usually at the bottom of the page so you can just rewind to the beginning of the semester).

There are two ways to fix this:

1. Clear your browser cache and then force reloading the page and see what happens.
2. You can work around the problem by clicking the “categories” pages, or using links in the syllabus to go “back in time.”

In short, if you neglected to read the blog all semester, you can still cram. You just need to be creative about it.

Read Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 2003) by class on Tuesday. Come back and offer your comments or critiques of the case. Mine are obviously noted. This may give you some insight into how I dissect a case when drafting exam questions from that particular case.

Also, review this subsequent case involving the same parties. Don’t be shocked when you see that it is a 37 page case, the first 21 pages are just the names of all of the parties involved.

Take a look at some of the work performed by Mike Relm. Mike Relm (I think the proper term for him is turntablist) is an amazing performer. I was first exposed to him as the opening act for the Blue Man Group a year or so ago.

Of course, being the law wonk that I am, the whole time I was watching him perform, in between my thoughts of “this is AWESOME,” and “damn it feels good to be a gangsta,” (which just randomly goes through my head all the time). I was thinking “I wish my class was here, we could have a whole discussion about whether this is infringement, fair use, new life, etc.“

Take a look. What do you think? Feel free to share your opinion of his work if you like (and I don’t mind if you disagree with my high opinion of his work), but I’m really looking for your legal analysis. (In other words, comments void of legal analysis will be posted, but not count for any class participation credit). Pretend that you are Mike Relm’s attorney, he has paid your retainer, and he wants to know if he is going to have any legal problems arising from his performance.

and here is more Mike Relm

If you don’t think this is cool, I’m flunking you. (ok, just kidding about that).

This has nothing to do with the earlier post — but as Blog Comments do not seem to be popular, I am closing the grading for blog comments as of today. You may still comment if you like, and intelligent comments will be considered for extra credit purposes. However, you can take this off your list of “required things to do.”

Apparently we have a problem (actually a few of them).

My teaching style is relaxed. I don’t mind friendly joking back and forth. I don’t even mind being the butt of jokes (in fact, I enjoy it) My classes to date have all been relatively relaxed, friendly, collegial, yet professional and enjoyable.

This class is not. In previous semesters, it was possible for me to do things a little bit outside the box, but still have a productive and enjoyable class. About half of this class seems to be missing the point.

It appears that my lack of being a hard ass has translated into a belief by a substantial percentage of the class that my class is to be treated as a remedial reading class in an F school district. When so few of you are prepared, and when I need to tell a classroom of law students to shut up so that they are not speaking over their peers (who prepared for class), it irks me. It irks me a lot.

I posted a warning on August 26 that lack of preparation would be grounds for you being marked absent for the day. Link. That warning has now ripened into a policy.

Here is the “new regime” part one.

1. I will no longer ask for volunteers. I will call upon you at random. If you are not prepared for class and you are called upon, you will be marked as absent for the day. Being prepared means being prepared to discuss any and all cases assigned for that day or any that came before. If we happen to be a day behind, you’ll still need to be prepared with the reading for that day as noted on the syllabus. If you are not prepared for class, but want to sit there and listen, sit in the back row and remain silent. Anyone in the back row will receive a zero for class participation for the day, but will not be called on. Sorry to all of you who have staked out the back row already – you will need to move forward, if appropriate.
2. Anyone gabbing while another student is speaking will be asked to leave. I will not physically throw you out, but failure to leave when requested will result in a ZERO for class participation for the entire semester. No exceptions. No warnings. Second infraction = honor code referral. I’m a little weary of disrespect being shown to me in class — but I am furious at the lack of respect being shown to one another.
3. Off-class web surfing cuts into the quality of the class, and that policy has not been relaxed. Accessing the web during class (unless it is a site that I have directed you to) is prohibited. See Class Policies at 13. More than one of you have already earned a ZERO for class participation for the semester for violating this policy. I have no qualms about adding to that list. Since I must grade on a curve, I’d rather give the “C or lower” grades to those of you who can’t follow simple directions.

If I need to be more of a prick, trust me, I have the capacity to do so. My “prick o meter” goes from 1 to 10. This is me at a “3″.

Stay tuned for “part two” (if it becomes necessary).

Modification/Relaxation (Posted Nov. 3, 2007) – The back row will not receive a zero automatically for the day.

Review this link, then do your own research. Give me your candid opinion (1000 words or less)

Read this entry and the linked case materials.

MGM v. Honda and copyrightability of characters.

The Sam Spade test makes it clear that characters are not copyrightable unless they constitute the story being told. Unfortunately the text does not go very far to explain what this means. What does it mean that the character is the story being told. The only reasonable clue and the one discriminator I am left to hang my hat on is this…people don’t watch Rocky, Tarzan, Bond or Sherlock Holmes for the story line but to watch their heroes in action. Is that the standard upon which we determine the copyrightability of characters? Need we bother considering uniqueness, originality, creative expression. The Spade test seems to require a series of episodes to create the ‘story being told’ characteristic of the character. Batman was a pretty unique character once, and certainly he is should fit the ‘story being’ told test but his characteristic attributes have become almost common. The dark night. The Hero with a dark side, battling his own internal demons as well as the demons of the world… The main character from “The Shield” saves the innocents but violates all sorts of laws and social conventions in the process. Spider man has been given a dark side, Superman has been given a dark side, Hell boy, The new character from TBS “Saving Grace” battling her internal demons while saving the world. How about Blade…we even have sympathetic vampires now. So Batman’s defining characteristic is not so unique any more, but it was once. Am I to understand, that now, since he so easily meets the Sam Spade test, Batman is copyrightable, but after his first issue, when he was still a unique, original and creative expression, since he was not yet the story, Batman was not protected? Is Cinderella the story being told, or is she a character in the story. Is Cinderella protected? Is Cinderfella? (a final reference obscure enough to impress Dennis Miller)

In class on Tuesday, Ms. Warrington asked if a violation of a creative commons license would be a breach of contract claim or a copyright claim. I said that I would do more research, but I thought that it would likely sound in copyright, and not in contract.

It looks like at least one court says I am wrong.

Yum! Humble pie!