1. In this case study, a possible copyright violation could be perceived because there is question regarding the ownership of the name "AlumNet." If a violation, then this instance would have violated Section 106 of the Copyright Law of 1976. However, from the short description of the case study, it appears that the school came up with the name, and is therefore the legal copyright holder.
2. The pro for the school is that they get to use a cute name for their website. Another pro is that the school gets an online communication platform on which past and present students can communicate, called "AlumNet." The con for the school is that some unidentified, alleged copyright holder could claim that they invented the name first.
3. From a business perspective, it appears that the school came up with the name "AlumNet" first, and therefore is the legal copyright holder. Hobbs' book states that "A work is automatically copyrighted at the moment of creation, as long as it exists in a fixed, tangible form." (16) Therefore, unless the alleged copyright holder can prove that they created the name first, then there is no copyright violation in this case.
4. This case study has been presented in an educational perspective. The name is not a form of profit for the school, but rather is simply used as a means of communication among past and present students. Since the name appears to have been originally created by the school, there is no copyright violation.
5. From my personal perspective, it makes me nervous that as a teacher I may come up with some cute name for a class newsletter, a website, etc. and receive a cease and desist letter, even though the name was my own creation! It seems that many people are simply seeking a way to profit by intimidating others, and I hope that as a teacher I am not found in that position.
I hope so, as well.
ReplyDelete