The fourth of the theories is as yet the least influential but seems to be gaining strength. Its key ideas are that human nature causes people to flourish more under some conditions than under others, and that social and political institutions should be organized to facilitate that flourishing. What, more specifically, are the conditions or “functionings” that enable people to flourish?

Keywords : anticommons, copyright, intellectual property, Lockean Proviso, patent, property rights, state of nature, trademark, utilitarian theory

The architect of Berlin's new main train station won a lawsuit against Deutsche Bahn AG in a court decision that forces the German s tate - owned rail company to replace the building's ceiling with his original design. Architect Meinhard von Gerkan sued Deutsche Bahn for distorting his plan by exchanging his ceiling, designed to resemble a cathedral's nave, for one made of flat metal des igned by another architect. German copyright rules protect the integrity of work by artists and architects.

In his ruling, judge Edmundo Rodríguez Achútegui recognized that Calatrava’s rights as author of the bridge had been infringed, but he ruled that the public utility of the addition took precedence over this private right. “In addition to constituting a singular artistic creation suitable for protection, the work is public one, offering a service to the citizens, and thus satisfies a public interest,” he said. “If we weigh these interests, the public must prevail over the private.

Following my original question, I wanted to add two quotes. First, an excellent quote on originality by the French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard, : ‘It’s not where you take things from. It’s where you take them to.’ Second, Jim Jarmusch who was quoting Godard. “Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations. Architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable. Originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery—celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said, ‘It’s not where you take things from. It’s where you take them to.’” Both are similar to, but much better than the worn Picasso quote : “Good artists copy, great artists steal.”

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 11 – 697

and the doctrine at issue here, the “first sale” doctrine (§109).

These rights are quali- fied, however, by the application of various limitations set forth in the next several sections of the Act, §§107 through 122. Those sections, typically entitled “Limitations on exclusive rights,” include, for example, the principle of “fair use” (§107), permission for limited library archival reproduction, (§108), and the doctrine at issue here, the “first sale” doctrine (§109)

Section 106 of the Copyright Act grants “the owner of copyright under this title” certain “exclusive rights,” including the right “to distribute copies . . . of the copy- righted work to th e public by sale or other transfer of ownership.” 17 U. S. C. §106(3)

The Philosophy of Intellectual Property

Introduction to BASIC LEGAL CITATION

Citators- A set of books and online sources that provide the subsequent judicial history and interpretation of reported cases or lists of cases and legislative enactments construing, applying, or affecting statutes. In America, the most widely used citators are Shepard's citations and Keycite.

Citation signals The citation signal appearing next to a case name indicates whether the decision has received positive, negative, cautionary or neutral treatment in subsequent judgments. The signal is a summary of the annotation information available from the list of appeal proceedings and cases referring to this case. Clicking on these signals will take you to the citation entry for these decisions. Hover your mouse over the symbol for a description.

What rationale is important to include in a brief? This is probably the most difficult aspect of the case to determine. Remember that everything that is discussed may have been relevant to the judge, but it is not necessarily relevant to the rationale of the decision. The goal is to remind yourself of the basic reasoning that the court used to come to its decision and the key factors that made the decision favor one side or the other.

Why highlight? Like annotating, highlighting may seem unimportant if you create thorough, well-constructed briefs, but highlighting directly helps you to brief. It makes cases, especially the more complicated ones, easy to digest, review and use to extract information. Highlighting takes advantage of colors to provide a uniquely effective method for reviewing and referencing a case. If you prefer a visual approach to learning, you may find highlighting to be a very effective tool.

Pencil or pen — which is better to use when annotating? Our recommendation is a mechanical pencil.

In addition to making it easier to review an original case, annotating cases during the first review of a case makes the briefing process easier. With adequate annotations, the important details needed for your brief will be much easier to retrieve. Without annotations, you will likely have difficulty locating the information you seek even in the short cases. It might seem strange that it would be hard to reference a short case, but even a short case will likely take you at least fifteen to twenty-five minutes to read, while longer cases may take as much as thirty minutes to an hour to complete. No matter how long it takes, the dense material of all cases makes it difficult to remember all your thoughts, and trying to locate specific sections of the analysis may feel like you are trying to locate a needle in a haystack. An annotation in the margin, however, will not only swiftly guide you to a pertinent section, but will also refresh the thoughts that you had while reading that section.

From:

A COMPENDIUM OF CLEV ER AND AMUSING LAW REVIEW WRITINGS

Legal Writing for the Courts: An Annotated Bibliography

Sample Model Case Brief (Should be ONE page (Typed) MAXIMUM!):

How To Write a Case Brief

Ho w to R ead a Judicia l Opin ion: A G uid e for N ew L aw Stu den ts Professor Orin S. Kerr George Washington University Law School Washington, DC Version 2.0 (August 2005) This essay is desig ned to help entering law students understand ho w to read cas es for class. It explains what judicial opinions are, how they are structured, and what you should look for when you read them. Part I explains the various ingredients found in a typical judicial opinion, and is the most essential section of the essay . Par t II discusses what you should look for when you re ad an opinion for class. Part II I con clu des with a brief discussion of why law schools use the case method.

The cases on the subject are collected in a footnote to Somerset Bank v. Edmund, 10 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 726; 76 Ohio St. Rep. 396, the head-note to which reads: "Public policy and sound morals alike forbid that a public officer should demand or receive for services performed by him in the discharge of official duty any other or further remuneration or reward than that prescribed or allowed by law." This rule of public policy has been relaxed only in those instances where the legislature for sufficient public reason has seen fit by statute to extend the stimulus of a reward to the public without distinction, as in the case of United States v. Matthews, 173 U.S. 381, where the attorney-general, under an act for "the detection and prosecution of crimes against the United States," made a public offer of reward sufficiently liberal and generic to comprehend the services of a federal deputy marshal. Exceptions of that character upon familiar principles serve to emphasize the correctness of the rule, as one based upon sound public policy.

MINTURN, J. The plaintiff occupied the position of a special police officer, in Atlantic City, and incidentally was identified with the work of the prosecutor of the pleas of the county. He possessed knowledge concerning the theft of certain diamonds and jewelry from the possession of the defendant, who had advertised a reward for the recovery of the property. In this situation he claims to have entered into a verbal contract with defendant, whereby she agreed to pay him $500 if he could procure for her the names and addresses of the thieves. As a result of his meditation with the police authorities the diamonds and jewelry were recovered, and plaintiff brought this suit to recover the promised reward.

The judgment below for that reason must be reversed.

The testimony makes it manifest that he was a special police officer to some extent identified with the work of the prosecutor's office, and that position, upon well-settled grounds of public policy, required him to assist, at least, in the prosecution of offenders against the law. The services he rendered, in this instance, must be presumed to have been rendered in pursuance of that public duty, and for its performance he was not entitled to receive a special quid pro quo.

The District Court, sitting without a jury, awarded plaintiff a judgment for the amount of the reward, and hence this appeal.

Various points are discussed in the briefs, but to us the dominant and conspicuous inquiry in the case is, was the plaintiff, during the period of this transaction, a public officer, charged with the enforcement of the law?

STEPHEN GRAY, RESPONDENT, v. THERESA D. MARTINO, APPELLANT Supreme Court of New Jersey 91 N.J.L. 462; 103 A. 24 February 2, 1918, Decided

Dicta Dicta refers to anything that isn't relevant to the case's holding. Often judges will use a case to expound upon their theories of the law. The theories may not be relevant to the case at hand, but it gives the judge a chance to give direction to the lower courts by putting the theory in writing. Dicta does not carry weight as a precedent. But it's useful to note how the court might have ruled given a different set of circumstances.

THE ELEMENTS OF BRIEFING Procedural History Legal Issue Facts of Case Statement of Rule Policy Dicta Reasoning Holding Concurrence Dissents

Reasoning The reasoning gives the reader insight into how the court arrived at its decision. It is instructive in nature. Courts often back their holdings with several lines of reasoning, each of which should be summarized in this section. Unnecessary repetition of facts or the issue should be avoided. A court�s rationale for its holding might be a simple explanation of its thought process. Alternatively, the reasoning might be based on the plain language of the statute, Congressional intent, the re-enactment doctrine, or other common means of resolving judicial disputes.

Holding As the issue�s complement, the holding consists of two parts: (1) a “yes” or “no” conclusion to the brief�s issue and (2) the rule of law the court establishes. The rule of law is a guidepost that courts use to decide future cases based on the legal concept of stare decisis (judicial tendency to follow prior decisions).

Beginning the issue with “are” or “is” often leads to a clearer and more concise expression of the issue than beginning it with “may,” “can,” “does,” or “should.” The latter beginnings may lead to vague or ambiguous versions of the issue. Examine the following alternative statements of the judicial issue from Aiken Industries, Inc. (TC, 1971), acq.: Issue 2 (Poor): Are the interest payments exempt from the withholding tax? Issue 2 (Poor): Should the taxpayer exempt the interest payments from withholding tax? In the first version of issue 2 above, to which interest payments and which withholding tax is the writer referring? The issue does not stand alone since it cannot be precisely understood apart from separately reading the brief�s facts. The extreme brevity leads to ambiguity. In the second version, the question can be interpreted as a moral or judgment issue rather than a legal one. Whether the taxpayer should do (or should not do) something may be a very different issue than the legal question of what the law requires. A legal brief, however, should focus on the latter. Rewriting issue 2 as follows leads to a clearer expression of the precise issue: Issue 2 (Better): Are interest payments exempt from the U.S. 30% withholding tax when paid to an entity established in a tax treaty country for no apparent purpose other than to escape taxation on the interest received?

Issues should be stated so that they “stand alone.” That is, issues should be completely understandable without reference to the facts or other sections of the brief or judicial decision. Use of the definite article “the” indicates that the issue does not stand alone when it alludes to prior information.

dural issue : What is the appealing party claiming the lower court did wrong (e.g., ruling on evidence, jury instructions, granting of summary judgment, etc.)?

antive issue : A substantive statement of the issue consists of two parts -- i. the point of law in dispute ii. the key facts of the case re lating to that point of law in dispute (legally relevant facts) You must include the key facts from the case so that the issue is specific to that case. Typically, the disputed issue involves how the court applied some element of the pertinent rule to the facts of the specific case. Resolving the issue will determine the court’s disposition of the case.

b. Identify legally relevant facts, t hat is, those facts that tend to prove or disprove an issue before the court. The relevant facts tell what happened before the parties enter ed the judicial system. c. Identify procedurally significant facts. You should set out (1) the cause of action (C/A) (the law the plaintiff claimed was broken), (2) relief the plaintiff requested, (3) defenses, if any, the defendant raised.

Identify the relationship/status of the parties (Note: Do not merely refer to the parties as the plai ntiff/defendant or appellant/appellee; be sure to also include more descr iptive generic terms to identify the relationship/status at issue, e.g., buyer/seller, employer/employee, landlord/tenant, etc.)

Functions of case briefing A. Case briefing helps you acquire the skills of case analysis and legal reasoning. Briefing a case helps you understand it. B. Case briefing aids your memory. Briefs help you remember the cases you read (1) for class discussion, (2) fo r end-of-semester review for final examinations, and (3) for writing and analyzing legal problems.

nctions A. A case brief is a dissection of a judici al opinion -- it contains a written summary of the basic components of that decision. B. Persuasive briefs (trial and appella te) are the formal documents a lawyer files with a court in support of his or her client’s position

A CAUTIONARY NOTE Don’t brief the case until you have read it through at least once. Don’t think that because you have found the judge’s best purple prose you have necessarily extracted the essence of the decision. Look for unarticulated premises, logical fallacies, manipulation of the factual record, or distortions of precedent. Then ask, How does this case relate to other cases in the same general area of law? What does it show about judicial policymaking? Does the result violate your sense of justice or fairness? How might it have been better decided?

T h i s p r o t e c t i o n i s s u b j e c t t o a n i m p o r t a n t l i m i t a t i o n . T h e m e r e f a c t t h a t a w o r k i s c o p y r i g h t e d d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t e v e r y e l e m e n t o f t h e w o r k m a y b e p r o t e c t e d . O r i g i n a l i t y r e m a i n s t h e s i n e q u a n o n o f c o p y r i g h t ; a c c o r d i n g l y , c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n m a y e x t e n d o n l y t o t h o s e c o m p o n e n t s o f a w o r k t h a t a r e o r i g i n a l t o t h e a u t h o r . P a t t e r s o n & J o y c e 8 0 0 - 8 0 2 ; G i n s b u r g , C r e a t i o n a n d C o m m e r c i a l V a l u e : C o p y r i g h t P r o t e c t i o n o f W o r k s o f I n f o r m a t i o n , 9 0 C o l u m . L . R e v . 1 8 6 5 , 1 8 6 8 , a n d n . 1 2 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ( h e r e i n a f t e r G i n s b u r g ) .

F a c t u a l c o m p i l a t i o n s , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , m a y p o s s e s s t h e r e q u i s i t e o r i g i n a l i t y .

C e n s u s t a k e r s , f o r e x a m p l e , d o n o t " c r e a t e " t h e p o p u l a t i o n f i g u r e s t h a t e m e r g e f r o m t h e i r e f f o r t s ; i n a s e n s e , t h e y c o p y t h e s e f i g u r e s f r o m t h e w o r l d a r o u n d t h e m . D e n i c o l a , C o p y r i g h t i n C o l l e c t i o n s o f F a c t s : A T h e o r y f o r t h e P r o t e c t i o n o f N o n f i c t i o n L i t e r a r y W o r k s , 8 1 C o l u m . L . R e v . 5 1 6 , 5 2 5 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ( h e r e i n a f t e r D e n i c o l a ) . C e n s u s d a t a t h e r e f o r e d o n o t t r i g g e r c o p y r i g h t b e c a u s e t h e s e d a t a a r e n o t " o r i g i n a l " i n t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s e n s e . N i m m e r § 2 . 0 3 [ E ] . T h e s a m e i s t r u e o f a l l f a c t s — s c i e n t i f i c , h i s t o r i c a l , b i o g r a p h i c a l , a n d n e w s o f t h e d a y . " [ T ] h e y m a y n o t b e c o p y r i g h t e d a n d a r e p a r t o f t h e p u b l i c d o m a i n a v a i l a b l e t o e v e r y p e r s o n . " M i l l e r , s u p r a , a t 1 3 6 9 .

I t i s t h i s b e d r o c k p r i n c i p l e o f c o p y r i g h t t h a t m a n d a t e s t h e l a w ' s s e e m i n g l y d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t o f f a c t s a n d f a c t u a l c o m p i l a t i o n s . " N o o n e m a y c l a i m o r i g i n a l i t y a s t o f a c t s . " I d . , § 2 . 1 1 [ A ] , p . 2 - 1 5 7 . T h i s i s b e c a u s e f a c t s d o n o t o w e t h e i r o r i g i n t o a n a c t o f a u t h o r s h i p . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n i s o n e b e t w e e n c r e a t i o n a n d d i s c o v e r y : T h e f i r s t p e r s o n t o f i n d a n d r e p o r t a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t h a s n o t c r e a t e d t h e f a c t ; h e o r s h e h a s m e r e l y d i s c o v e r e d i t s e x i s t e n c e . T o b o r r o w f r o m B u r r o w - G i l e s , o n e w h o d i s c o v e r s a f a c t i s n o t i t s " m a k e r " o r " o r i g i n a t o r . " 1 1 1 U . S . , a t 5 8 . " T h e d i s c o v e r e r m e r e l y f i n d s a n d r e c o r d s . " N i m m e r § 2 . 0 3 [ E ] .

T h e o r i g i n a l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t a r t i c u l a t e d i n T h e T r a d e - M a r k C a s e s a n d B u r r o w - G i l e s r e m a i n s t h e t o u c h s t o n e o f c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n t o d a y . S e e G o l d s t e i n v . C a l i f o r n i a , 4 1 2 U . S . 5 4 6 , 5 6 1 - 5 6 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . I t i s t h e v e r y " p r e m i s e o f c o p y r i g h t l a w . " M i l l e r v . U n i v e r s a l C i t y S t u d i o s , I n c . , 6 5 0 F . 2 d 1 3 6 5 , 1 3 6 8 ( C A 5 1 9 8 1 ) . L e a d i n g s c h o l a r s a g r e e o n t h i s p o i n t . A s o n e p a i r o f c o m m e n t a t o r s s u c c i n c t l y p u t s i t : " T h e o r i g i n a l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y m a n d a t e d f o r a l l w o r k s . "

I n B u r r o w - G i l e s , t h e C o u r t d i s t i l l e d t h e s a m e r e q u i r e m e n t f r o m t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n ' s u s e o f t h e w o r d " a u t h o r s . " T h e C o u r t d e f i n e d " a u t h o r , " i n a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s e n s e , t o m e a n " h e t o w h o m a n y t h i n g o w e s i t s o r i g i n ; o r i g i n a t o r ; m a k e r . " 1 1 1 U . S . , a t 5 8 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d ) . A s i n T h e T r a d e - M a r k C a s e s , t h e C o u r t e m p h a s i z e d t h e c r e a t i v e c o m p o n e n t o f o r i g i n a l i t y . I t d e s c r i b e d c o p y r i g h t a s b e i n g l i m i t e d t o " o r i g i n a l i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n c e p t i o n s o f t h e a u t h o r , " 1 1 1 U . S . , a t 5 8 , a n d s t r e s s e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f r e q u i r i n g a n a u t h o r w h o a c c u s e s a n o t h e r o f i n f r i n g e m e n t t o p r o v e " t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h o s e f a c t s o f o r i g i n a l i t y , o f i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o d u c t i o n , o f t h o u g h t , a n d c o n c e p t i o n . " I d . , a t 5 9 - 6 0 .

I n T h e T r a d e - M a r k C a s e s , t h e C o u r t a d d r e s s e d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s c o p e o f " w r i t i n g s . " F o r a p a r t i c u l a r w o r k t o b e c l a s s i f i e d " u n d e r t h e h e a d o f w r i t i n g s o f a u t h o r s , " t h e C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d , " o r i g i n a l i t y i s r e q u i r e d . " 1 0 0 U . S . , a t 9 4 . T h e C o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t o r i g i n a l i t y r e q u i r e s i n d e p e n d e n t c r e a t i o n p l u s a m o d i c u m o f c r e a t i v i t y : " [ W ] h i l e t h e w o r d w r i t i n g s m a y b e l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d , a s i t h a s b e e n , t o i n c l u d e o r i g i n a l d e s i g n s f o r e n g r a v i n g , p r i n t s , & c . , i t i s o n l y s u c h a s a r e o r i g i n a l , a n d a r e f o u n d e d i n t h e c r e a t i v e p o w e r s o f t h e m i n d . T h e w r i t i n g s w h i c h a r e t o b e p r o t e c t e d a r e t h e f r u i t s o f i n t e l l e c t u a l l a b o r , e m b o d i e d i n t h e f o r m o f b o o k s , p r i n t s , e n g r a v i n g s , a n d t h e l i k e . " I b i d . ( e m p h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l ) .

O r i g i n a l i t y d o e s n o t s i g n i f y n o v e l t y ; a w o r k m a y b e o r i g i n a l e v e n t h o u g h i t c l o s e l y r e s e m b l e s o t h e r w o r k s s o l o n g a s t h e s i m i l a r i t y i s f o r t u i t o u s , n o t t h e r e s u l t o f c o p y i n g . T o i l l u s t r a t e , a s s u m e t h a t t w o p o e t s , e a c h i g n o r a n t o f t h e o t h e r , c o m p o s e i d e n t i c a l p o e m s . N e i t h e r w o r k i s n o v e l , y e t b o t h a r e o r i g i n a l a n d , h e n c e , c o p y r i g h t a b l e .

O r i g i n a l i t y i s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t . T h e s o u r c e o f C o n g r e s s ' p o w e r t o e n a c t c o p y r i g h t l a w s i s A r t i c l e I , § 8 , c l . 8 , o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , w h i c h a u t h o r i z e s C o n g r e s s t o " s e c u r [ e ] f o r l i m i t e d T i m e s t o A u t h o r s . . . t h e e x c l u s i v e R i g h t t o t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e W r i t i n g s . " I n t w o d e c i s i o n s f r o m t h e l a t e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y — T h e T r a d e - M a r k C a s e s , 1 0 0 U . S . 8 2 ( 1 8 7 9 ) ; a n d B u r r o w - G i l e s L i t h o g r a p h i c C o . v . S a r o n y , 1 1 1 U . S . 5 3 ( 1 8 8 4 ) — t h i s C o u r t d e f i n e d t h e c r u c i a l t e r m s " a u t h o r s " a n d " w r i t i n g s . " I n s o d o i n g , t h e C o u r t m a d e i t u n m i s t a k a b l y c l e a r t h a t t h e s e t e r m s p r e s u p p o s e a d e g r e e o f o r i g i n a l i t y .

T h e k e y t o r e s o l v i n g t h e t e n s i o n l i e s i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h y f a c t s a r e n o t c o p y r i g h t a b l e . T h e s i n e q u a n o n o f c o p y r i g h t i s o r i g i n a l i t y . T o q u a l i f y f o r c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n , a w o r k m u s t b e o r i g i n a l t o t h e a u t h o r . S e e H a r p e r & R o w , s u p r a , a t 5 4 7 - 5 4 9 . O r i g i n a l , a s t h e t e r m i s u s e d i n c o p y r i g h t , m e a n s o n l y t h a t t h e w o r k w a s i n d e p e n d e n t l y c r e a t e d b y t h e a u t h o r ( a s o p p o s e d t o c o p i e d f r o m o t h e r w o r k s ) , a n d t h a t i t p o s s e s s e s a t l e a s t s o m e m i n i m a l d e g r e e o f c r e a t i v i t y . 1 M . N i m m e r & D . N i m m e r , C o p y r i g h t § § 2 . 0 1 [ A ] , [ B ] ( 1 9 9 0 ) ( h e r e i n a f t e r N i m m e r ) . T o b e s u r e , t h e r e q u i s i t e l e v e l o f c r e a t i v i t y i s e x t r e m e l y l o w ; e v e n a s l i g h t a m o u n t w i l l s u f f i c e . T h e v a s t m a j o r i t y o f w o r k s m a k e t h e g r a d e q u i t e e a s i l y , a s t h e y p o s s e s s s o m e c r e a t i v e s p a r k , " n o m a t t e r h o w c r u d e , h u m b l e o r o b v i o u s " i t m i g h t b e . I d . , § 1 . 0 8 [ C ] [ 1 ] .

T h e r e i s a n u n d e n i a b l e t e n s i o n b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o p r o p o s i t i o n s . M a n y c o m p i l a t i o n s c o n s i s t o f n o t h i n g b u t r a w d a t a — i . e . , w h o l l y f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n n o t a c c o m p a n i e d b y a n y o r i g i n a l w r i t t e n e x p r e s s i o n . O n w h a t b a s i s m a y o n e c l a i m a c o p y r i g h t i n s u c h a w o r k ? C o m m o n s e n s e t e l l s u s t h a t 1 0 0 u n c o p y r i g h t a b l e f a c t s d o n o t m a g i c a l l y c h a n g e t h e i r s t a t u s w h e n g a t h e r e d t o g e t h e r i n o n e p l a c e . Y e t c o p y r i g h t l a w s e e m s t o c o n t e m p l a t e t h a t c o m p i l a t i o n s t h a t c o n s i s t e x c l u s i v e l y o f f a c t s a r e p o t e n t i a l l y w i t h i n i t s s c o p e

i t i s b e y o n d d i s p u t e t h a t c o m p i l a t i o n s o f f a c t s a r e w i t h i n t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f c o p y r i g h t . C o m p i l a t i o n s w e r e e x p r e s s l y m e n t i o n e d i n t h e C o p y r i g h t A c t o f 1 9 0 9 , a n d a g a i n i n t h e C o p y r i g h t A c t o f 1 9 7 6

T h i s c a s e c o n c e r n s t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f t w o w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d p r o p o s i t i o n s . T h e f i r s t i s t h a t f a c t s a r e n o t c o p y r i g h t a b l e ; t h e o t h e r , t h a t c o m p i l a t i o n s o f f a c t s g e n e r a l l y a r e . E a c h o f t h e s e p r o p o s i t i o n s p o s s e s s e s a n i m p e c c a b l e p e d i g r e e . T h a t t h e r e c a n b e n o v a l i d c o p y r i g h t i n f a c t s i s u n i v e r s a l l y u n d e r s t o o d . T h e m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l a x i o m o f c o p y r i g h t l a w i s t h a t " [ n ] o a u t h o r m a y c o p y r i g h t h i s i d e a s o r t h e f a c t s h e n a r r a t e s . " H a r p e r & R o w , P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . v . N a t i o n E n t e r p r i s e s , 4 7 1 U . S . 5 3 9 , 5 5 6 ( 1 9 8 5 ) .

T h i s c a s e r e q u i r e s u s t o c l a r i f y t h e e x t e n t o f c o p y r i g h t p r o t e c t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o t e l e p h o n e d i r e c t o r y w h i t e p a g e s

Alexander v. Haley, 460 F.Supp. 40 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)

Lecture 1: The Foundations of Copyright Law

the parties, the procedural posture, the facts, the issue , the h olding, and the analysis.

When a law student briefs a case, he typically identifies several pieces of information: the parties, the procedural posture, the facts, the issue , the h olding, and the analysis. Although it seems foreign at first, identifying this information, understanding judicial opinions , and applying their reasoning to new cases becomes much easier with practice.

the judge will state the legal issue(s) involved, her decision about the issue s (the holding) , and her reasoning.

H o w t o R e a d O p i n i o n s

The opinion will also typically give the name of the judge or justice who wrote it. In some cases, judges sitting together will decide not to reveal wh o wrote an opinion. In that situation, it will say p e r c u r i a m /DWLQIRU³E\WKHFRXUW ́ ) i QSODFHRIDMXGJH¶VQDPH

In a judicial opinion, the judge explains her ruling and the reasoning behind it. At its heart, an opinion is similar to a scholarly essay or even a short story. However, like any genre, the judicial opinion has some unique and unusual characteristics.

Student brief A student brief is a short summary and analysis of the case prepared for use in classroom discussion. It is a set of notes, presented in a systematic way, in order to sort out the parties, identify the issues, ascertain what was decided, and analyze the reasoning behind decisions made by the courts. Although student briefs always include the same items of information, the form in which these items are set out can vary. Before committing yourself to a particular form for briefing cases, check with your instructor to ensure that the form you have chosen is acceptable.

Appellate brief An appellate brief is a written legal argument presented to an appellate court. Its purpose is to persuade the higher court to uphold or reverse the trial court’s decision. Briefs of this kind are therefore geared to presenting the issues involved in the case from the perspective of one side only. Appellate briefs from both sides can be very valuable to anyone assessing the legal issues raised in a case. Unfortunately, they are rarely published. The U.S. Supreme Court is the only court for which briefs are regularly available in published form. The Landmark Briefs series (REF. LAW KF 101.9 .K8) includes the full texts of briefs relating to a very few of the many cases heard by this court. In addition, summaries of the briefs filed on behalf of the plaintiff or defendant for all cases reported are included in the U.S. Supreme Court Reports. Lawyer’s Ed., 2nd. series (REF. LAW KF 101 .A42).

Confusion often arises over the term “legal brief.” There are at least two different senses in which the term is used.