Category: Uncategorized

Responsibilities

• Serve on the nominating committee for one year, beginning officially upon
  election (in October) and completing the roster of candidates by the following
  May 1. One Chair will be determined by incoming members and reported to the Chair of CCCC within two weeks of election results.
• Work with the Nominating Committee Chair to solicit nominations from CCCC members.
• Initiate suggestions for nominations, individually and as a group.
• Attend the open meeting and the closed meeting of the nominating committee at the CCCC Annual Convention (usually on Friday afternoon). CCCC does not provide funds for committee members to attend the meeting.
• Work within standard policies of NCTE and CCCC on multiple roles, involvement of people of color, and related matters.
• Advise the following years nominating committee.

 

Candidates agree not to campaign during the election process.

NCTE Policy on Campaigning

 

Past CCCC Nominating Committee Members

 

Click here to go back to the main CCCC Election page.

FORUM: Issues about Part-Time and Contingent Faculty is a peer-reviewed publication concerning working conditions, professional life, activism, and perspectives of non-tenure-track faculty in college composition and communication. It is published twice annually (alternately in CCC and TETYC) and is sponsored by the Conference on College Composition and Communication. Faculty and scholars from all academic positions are welcome to contribute.

Editor
Forum is currently between editors, and the next editor will be announced soon. Until then, please send submissions and inquiries to the Forum production office at ttiller@ncte.org.

 

 

Getting to Portland…

Save up to 10% on your travel by using NCTE’s discount code with Delta!

Reservations and ticketing are available via Delta’s Website. Select “Book a Trip” and then enter meeting code NMNKJ in the box provided.

Reservations may also be made by calling Delta Meeting reservations at 800-328-1111, Monday to Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. CDT.

 

Getting around Portland…

Use the Tri-Met MAX Light Rail System.

The MAX Light Rail System is Portland’s public transportation system that consists of buses, street cars, and light rail trains. It’s inexpensive and very convenient. If you are staying in a hotel reserved through the NCTE/CCCC housing block, you will receive two complimentary passes per room.

 

 

1. To take action!

As writing professionals, the subject of our work — writing — is at often the center of discussions about teaching, students, and learning. Share your successes and learn new strategies from others!

You can:

• Participate in the Taking Action Workshops!
• Visit the Action Hub!

 

2. To develop new approaches to teaching and research!

You’ll help others develop their ideas and bring home new ones for your own work!

You can:

• Choose from  the 406 concurrent sessions, 53 poster sessions, 31 roundtable discussions, and more taking place at the convention.
• View handouts and contribute your own via the Online Searchable Program.
• Attend a full- or half-day preconvention workshop (morning or afternoon) to dive deeply into a topic.

 

3.  To make connections!

CCCC’s Special Interest Groups, caucuses, and informal talking times offer great opportunities to make connections with others and around issues important to you!

You can:

• Explore the online program for meetings of special interest groups and caucuses.
• Connect with those offering the latest resources in the CCCC Exhibit Hall.
• Network with other attendees during social events in the area. See the local website for more information on these opportunities.
• Strike up valuable conversations simply standing in line for coffee!

  

Why do others attend?

Each year, educators and researchers from around the world attend the CCCC Annual Convention for a multitude of different reasons. These include:

• Topical range of convention sessions
• Exposure to new concepts/cutting edge ideas
• Access to information for teaching and scholarship
• Chance to make professional contacts/renew connections
• Meeting new colleagues and networking
• Visiting the exhibit hall of professional materials

Are you attending CCCC 2016?  Share YOUR reasons for attending on social media using the hashtag #4C16!

  

2024

Esther Milu, University of Central Florida, Chair
Nancy Bou Ayash, University of Washington, Seattle
Jessica Edwards, University of Delaware
Gabriel I. Green, Xavier University of Louisiana
Teresa Grettano, The University of Scranton

2023

Eunjeong Lee, Assistant Professor of English, University of Houston, Texas, Chair
Forster Kudjo Agama, Professor of English, Tallahassee Community College, Florida
Quanisha Charles, Associate Professor of English, North Central College, IL
Jada Patchigondla, Lecturer, UCLA Writing Programs, CA
Shane Wood, Assistant Professor of English, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg

2022

RAsheda Young, Rutgers University and New York University, Chair
Adam Hubrig, Sam Houston State University, Texas
Gavin P. Johnson, Christian Brothers University
Lisa King, University of Tennessee-Knoxville
Federico Navarro, Universidad de O’Higgins, Chile

2021

Cristina Sanchez-Martin, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Chair
Trent M. Kays, Hampden-Sydney College, VA
Ashanka Kumari, Texas A&M University, Commerce
Hannah J. Rule, University of South Carolina, Columbia
Erin McLaughlin, University of Notre Dame, IN

2020

Jaquetta Shade-Johnson, Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, OK, Chair
Jacob Babb, Indiana University Southeast, Albany
Genevieve Garcia de Mueller, Syracuse University, NY
Mara Lee Grayson, California State University Dominguez Hills, Carson
Brooke R. Schreiber, Baruch College (CUNY), New York, NY

2019

James Chase Sanchez, Middlebury College, Vermont, Chair
Jeffrey Klausman, Whatcom Community College, Bellingham, Washington
Rebecca Lorimer Leonard, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Santos Ramos, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Michigan
Rachel Riedner, George Washington University, Washington, DC

2018

Jennifer Wingard, University of Houston, Texas, Chair
Franny Howes, Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls
Andrea Malouf, Salt Lake Community College, Utah
Steve Parks, Syracuse University, New York
Andrea Riley Mukavetz, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Michigan

2017

Christie Toth, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Chair
Isabel Baca, University of Texas at El Paso
M. Melissa Elston, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville
Candace Epps-Robertson, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
Lori Ostergaard, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan

2016

Staci M. Perryman-Clark, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Chair
Timothy R. Amidon, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins
Christina V. Cedillo, Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, Oklahoma
Mike Edwards, Washington State University, Pullman
Erika Lindemann, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

2015

Lauren Fitzgerald, Yeshiva University, New York, New York, Chair
Jennifer Richardson Burg, Southern Vermont College, Bennington
Cheryl Glenn, Pennsylvania State University, University Park
Clancy Ratliff, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
Jim Webber, University of Nevada, Reno

2014

Shirley K. Rose, Arizona State University, Tempe, Chair
Will Banks, Eastern Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
Derek Mueller, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti
Michelle Bachelor Robinson, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Cheri Lemieux Spiegel, North Virginia Community College, Sterling

2013

Linda Bergmann, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, Chair
Amy Kimme Hea, University of Arizona, Tucson
Seth Kahn, West Chester University of Pennsylvania
Elaine Richardson, Ohio State University, Columbus
Rochelle (Shelley) Rodrigo, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia

2012

Kelly Ritter, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, Chair
Michael Day, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb
Zandra L. Jordan, Spelman College, Atlanta, Georgia
Carlos Salinas, University of Texas-El Paso
Blake Scott, University of Central Florida, Orlando

2011

Martine Courant Rife, Lansing Community College, Michigan, Chair
Kay Halasek, Ohio State University, Columbus
Anne Herrington, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Les Perelman, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
Mya Poe, Penn State University, University Park

2010

William Condon, Washington State University, Pullman, Chair
Damián Baca, University of Arizona, Tucson
Susan K. Miller-Cochran, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Mary P. Sheridan-Rabideau, University of Wyoming, Laramie
Katherine Kelleher Sohn, Pikeville College, Kentucky

2009

Cristina Kirklighter, Texas A & M University-Corpus Christi, Chair
Jennifer Clary-Lemon, University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Tom Deans, University of Connecticut, Storrs
Jenn Fishman, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Shirley Wilson Logan, University of Maryland, College Park

2008

William DeGenaro, University of Michigan, Chair
Karen Lunsford, University of California Santa Barbara
Cecilia Rodriguez Milanes, University of Central Florida
Annette Harris Powell, University of Louisville
Howard Tinberg, Bristol Community College

2007

Rebecca Moore Howard, Syracuse University, Chair
Sandie McGill Barnhouse, Rowan-Cabarrus Community College
Julie Lindquist, Michigan State University
William J. Macauley, Jr., College of Wooster
Raul Sanchez, University of Florida

2006

Gwendolyn D. Pough, Syracuse University, Chair
Jennifer Beech, University of Tennessee
Paul Heilker, Virginia Tech
Jody Millward, Santa Barbara City College
Charles Schuster, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee

2005

Paul M. Puccio, Bloomfield College, Chair
Krita Ratcliffe, Marquette University
Jess Enoch, University of New Hampshire
Irwin Weiser, Purdue University
Jeanne Gunner, Chapman University

2004

Joyce Irene Middleton, St. John Fisher College, Chair
Paula Gillespie, Marquette University
Paul Kei Matsuda, University of New Hampshire
Gail Y. Okawa, Youngstown State University
Ben R. Wiley, St. Petersburg College

2003

Lynn Quitman Troyka, Chair
Lisa Albrecht, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
William Condon, Washington State University, Pullman
James Inman, University of South Florida, Tampa
Morris Young, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio

2002

Sidney Dobrin, Chair
Charles Coleman
Donna Reiss
Patricia A. Stephens
Rebecca Taylor

2001

Diana Hacker, Chair
Linda Adler-Kassner
Kay Halasek
Chet Pryor
Peter Vandenberg

2000

Christine R. Farris, Chair
Janice Albert
Susanmarie Harrington
Joseph Janangelo
Rosentene Bennett Purnell

1999

Chris Anson, Chair
Kristine Hansen
Pearl Saunders
Keith Walters
Art Young

1998

Kathleen Blake Yancey, Chair
Akua Duku Anokye
Deboran Brandt
Scott DeWitt
Kay Halasek

1997

Xin Liu Gale, Chair
Gayle Duskin (was elected but didn’t serve)
Diana George
David Jolliffe
Kim Lynch
Nancy Shapiro

1996

Freddy Thomas, Chair
Mara Holt
Linda Johnson
Sarah-Hope Parmeter
Elizabeth Rankin

1995

Susan C. Jarratt, Chair
John Clifford
Donald Cunningham
Christine A. Hult
Shirley Wilson Logan
Teresa M. Purvis

1994

James Reither, Chair
Beth Daniell
Joyce Neff Magnotto
Susan McLeod
Jerrie Cobb Scott

Keynote Speaker:  Jose Antonio Vargas
9:30 a.m.–10:30 a.m.

Jose Antonio Vargas  is a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist and filmmaker whose work centers on the changing American identity. He is the founder of Define American, a nonprofit media and culture organization that seeks to elevate the conversation around immigration and citizenship in America. In 2015, MTV aired White People, a television special he directed on what it means to be young and white in America, as part of its “Look Different” campaign. In February 2016, Vargas launched #EmergingUS, a multimedia news platform he conceived focusing on race, immigration, and the complexities of multiculturalism.

In June 2011, the New York Times Magazine published a groundbreaking essay Vargas wrote in which he revealed and chronicled his life in America as an undocumented immigrant. A year later, he appeared on the cover of TIME magazine worldwide with fellow undocumented immigrants as part of a follow-up cover story he wrote. He then wrote, produced, and directed Documented, a documentary feature film on his undocumented experience. Its world premiere was at the AFI Docs film festival in Washington, DC, in 2013; it was released in theaters and broadcast on CNN in 2014, and it received a 2015 NAACP Image Award nomination for outstanding documentary. Documented is now available on various digital platforms.

Among other accolades Vargas has received are a Public Service Award from the National Council of La Raza, the country’s largest Latino advocacy organization; the Salem Award from the Salem Award Foundation, which draws upon the lessons of the Salem Witch Trials of 1692; and the Freedom to Write Award from PEN Center USA.

A very proud graduate of San Francisco State University ( ‘04), where he was named Alumnus of the Year in 2012, and Mountain View High School (‘00), he loves jazz, hip hop, and anything by Gershwin, and worships at the altars of Altman, Almodóvar, Didion, Baldwin, and Orwell.

  

The following information will be needed to submit your program proposal for CCCC 2025. All proposals must be submitted through the online proposal system by 9:00 a.m. ET on Friday, May 31, 2024.

Type of Session (select one)

• Concurrent Panel (3 or more presenters only)
• Roundtable Session (3 or more roundtable leaders)
• Engaged Learning Experience
• Individual 30-Minute Presentation (1-2 presenters)
• Poster
• Committee Meeting
• Event
• Cross-Caucus Event
• Workshop – Wednesday Morning
• Workshop – Wednesday Afternoon
• Workshop – Wednesday All-Day
• Workshop – Saturday Afternoon
• Standing Group-Sponsored Panel
• Standing Group-Sponsored Workshop: Wednesday Morning
• Standing Group-Sponsored Workshop: Wednesday Afternoon
• Standing Group-Sponsored Workshop: All-Day Wednesday
• Standing Group-Sponsored Workshop: Saturday Afternoon
• Special Interest Group/Business Meeting: Thursday
• Special Interest Group/Business Meeting: Friday

Proposal Level (select one)

• Two-year
• Four-year
• Graduate level

Title of Session (no more than 160 characters and spaces)

Abstracted Description (no more than 400 characters and spaces)

Description (no more than 4,000 characters and spaces)

Briefly describe the goals of the proposed session and the means by which those goals will be pursued. What should the audiences/participants take away from the session, and how will you help them accomplish that goal?

Do not refer to speakers/performers by name. If more than one presenter is included, identify separate presentations by “Speaker 1” and “Speaker 2.”

Individual proposals that are accepted will be combined into panels by the Program Chair and Stage 2 Reviewers.

For SIGs, Standing Group, and Workshop proposals, please also specify meeting day and space needs.

Clusters

Please select the most appropriate cluster for your proposal from the list below. Your proposal will be reviewed according to the cluster.

1. First-Year Writing
2. College Writing and Reading
3. Institutions: Labor Issues, Professional Lives, and Survival
4. Writing Programs
5. Writing Centers (including Writing and Speaking Centers)
6. Community, Civic, and Public Contexts of Writing
7. Approaches to Teaching and Learning
8. Inclusion and Access
9. Histories of Rhetoric
10. Creative Writing and Publishing
11. Information Literacy and Technology
12. Language, Literacy, and Culture
13. Professional and Technical Writing
14. Theory, Research Methodologies, and Praxis
15. Antiracism and Social Justice
16. Writing Abundance

Sponsored By

If the session will be sponsored by a Standing Group or Special Interest Group, please enter the group name in this field.

Proposal Form Queries

Note: These are for panel, workshop, roundtable, and engaged learning experience sessions – not for individual paper proposals.

Submitters will be asked to note if the following are applicable to the proposal:

• Our proposal includes a multinational slate of presenters or facilitators.
• Our proposal includes presenters and facilitators with diverse career trajectories (e.g., undergraduate and/or graduate students; staff, tenured, tenure-line, and adjunct faculty).
• Our proposal includes presenters or facilitators representing a diversity of identities (Black, Chicanx, Indigenous, Asian, 2SLGBTQIA+, multilingual, transnational, for example).
• Panelists or facilitators in our proposal represent multiple institutions and institutional types.

Participant Information

The following information is needed for each participant:

• Full Name
• Email Address
• Affiliation
• Role
  • Chair
  • Speaker
  • Respondent
  • Roundtable Leader
  • Workshop Facilitator
  • Chair and Speaker
  • Chair and Roundtable Leader
  • Chair and Respondent
  • Workshop Facilitator and Speaker
  • Standing Group or Caucus Chair
  • Special Interest Group Chair
  • Group Leader
• Session or Presentation Title
• Willing to Serve as Documentarian?

Special Note for Proposal Submitters:

• Please note that when you submit a proposal draft, a confirmation email will be sent to the 1st person listed on the proposal submission. Please make sure you, the submitter, is listed first so you receive the email as it will include information on re-entering the proposal system so you can edit the proposal, if needed.

 

Kim Dian Gainer, Ph.D., Radford University, Radford, VA

OVERVIEW

Carol Loeb Shloss is a James Joyce scholar who teaches at Stanford University.  Her attempt to write and publish a biography about Joyce’s daughter (Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake [Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003]) was met with threats of litigation by the estate of James Joyce.  As a result, material that arguably should have fallen under the aegis of fair use was stripped from the book.  Her attempt to provide scholars with the missing material via a web-based electronic supplement was also met with threats of litigation.  With the help of the staff of the Fair Use Project of Stanford University’s Center for Internet and Society, Shloss brought suit in federal court in an effort to win a ruling verifying that her intended use of the material was indeed protected by the doctrine of fair use.  The suit was filed in June of 2006, with an amended suit being filed in October of that year.  The estate of James Joyce filed for a dismissal in January of 2007.  In February the motion to dismiss was rejected by the Court in a twenty page ruling whose language exposed serious weaknesses in the estate’s defense against the amended complaint.  By the end of March, the estate had settled, and Shloss had not only prevailed but won concessions that went beyond her original request for relief.  One of the significant intellectual property cases of 2006 was settled in under a year, but its effects may be felt considerably longer. 

BACKGROUND

The James Joyce estate in general and Joyce’s grandson Stephen Joyce in particular have a well-established record of attempting to control the author’s reputation by threatening to file lawsuits alleging copyright infringement.  Thus, in 1988, for example, pressure by the estate forced the excision of material from Brenda Maddox’s biography of Nora Joyce (Nora: The Real Life of Molly Bloom [Houghton Mifflin, 1988]).  In the 1990s the estate blocked a performance based upon a short story by Joyce that, ironically, was itself based upon a folk tale.  In 1998 the estate sued to block live readings of Ulysses on the internet.  In 2000 the estate sought and won an injunction against a university press that wished to include an excerpt from Ulysses in an anthology but objected to the size of the licensing fee (7,000 Euros) demanded by the estate.  In 2002 the estate prevailed in a case against a publisher who wished to bring out a version of the 1922 edition of Ulysses, an edition that had entered the public domain but for which copyright had been retrospectively restored.  Perhaps most dramatically, in 2004 Stephen Joyce threatened legal action that would have derailed exhibits and readings intended to be a part of the ReJoyce Dublin 2004 festival.  This dispute led to an act of parliament. In order to safeguard this centennial celebration of Bloomsday, the Irish legislature hastily passed an act that protected public exhibits and readings from charges of copyright infringement.

THE DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLICATION OF THE BOOK IN DISPUTE

Against this background, Carol Loeb Shloss, began work on a biography of Lucia Joyce (Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake [Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003]).  As had Brenda Maddox before her, Shloss ran into roadblocks thrown up by the Joyce estate.  In 1996 she contacted Stephen Joyce and requested his assistance in pursuing her project.  His reply went well beyond refusing his aid.  He stated that Shloss could not use the letters or papers of Joyce’s daughter.  He first granted and then withdrew permission for the use of a published poem, apparently taking the latter action because Shloss intended to use other materials of which he did not approve.   In 2002 Stephen Joyce wrote to Shloss to add to the list of materials that she was blocked from using.  Among these materials: the medical files and records of Lucia Joyce.  That same year Joyce contacted Shloss’ publisher, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, and in a series of contacts via phone and letter threatened legal action against the book.  He also enlarged his list of materials whose use he wished to block, adding to the roll letters written by individuals who were not members of the Joyce family.  The publisher’s attorney, Leon Friedman, responded to Joyce by adducing the fair use doctrine.  Joyce wrote in reply that the estate had shown itself willing in the past “to put our money where our mouth is.”  This and other statements suggested that Joyce intended to sue if he was not satisfied with the response to his demands.  Correspondence between Joyce and Friedman then broke off, as the attorney concluded that the estate would never grant Shloss permission to use any material for which it claimed to hold copyright, and the publisher’s attention turned to editing Shloss’ manuscript to avoid legal action by the Joyce estate.  These edits resulted in thirty pages being cut from the manuscript.  Shloss contended that these cuts removed vital evidence, and the reviews that the book received upon its publication in 2003 suggest that, if not eviscerated, the book had at the very least been enervated.

POST-PUBLICATION DEVELOPMENTS

Given that she had been blocked from including material in her book that she felt had been vital evidence for the support of her thesis, Shloss decided to make the material available in another form, via an electronic supplement at a password-protected website that would be available only to users with US Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.  Even though she felt that her use of the material was protected under the doctrine of fair use, she offered the Joyce estate the opportunity to review the material.  In the succeeding exchange, the Joyce estate once again refused to concede that Shloss had any right to use the materials and again raised the threat of litigation.  What followed could be considered a pre-emptive strike on the part of Shloss: an effort to put paid once and for all the question of whether her use of the materials was or was not protected under the doctrine of fair use.  In June of 2006, attorneys for the Fair Use Project of Stanford University’s The Center for Internet and Society filed suit against the estate of James Joyce in an effort to obtain injunctive relief and declaratory judgments for Joyce scholar Carol Loeb Shloss on the grounds that Professor Shloss’ ability to support her interpretations of Joyce’s writing had been severely compromised by repeated threats of litigation, especially on the part of Joyce’s grandson, Stephen Joyce.  Lawyers representing Shloss included Lawrence Lessig, well known for his studies of copyright law and its implications for scholarship and for the culture as a whole, and Robert Spoo, himself a Joyce scholar who had first-hand knowledge of the difficulty of pursuing studies of Joyce in the face of opposition from the estate.

The suit, as amended in October of 2006, alleged four causes of action in support of the request for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment.  The first count was that the web site intended to provide the documentation excised from the book would not infringe upon any copyrights held by the Joyce estate.  The second was that the use of any copyrighted material at the web site would fall under the aegis of “presumptively fair use.”  The third was that the estate had in fact misused its copyrights in its effort to control scholarship pertaining to James Joyce.  The fourth was an outgrowth of the third, depending as it did upon the notion that the estate’s misuse of copyright had left it with “unclean hands” so that it had in fact forfeited its right to wield its claims of copyright.  The lawyers for the estate filed a reply to the amended complaint in January of 2007.  In it they argued for dismissal of the suit on four grounds: first, that the correspondence between Shloss, her publisher, and her publisher’s attorney “could not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of suit”; second, that the electronic supplement did not exist in finished form at the time Shloss’ complaint had been filed and that as a result no cause for action existed (“no actual controversy”);  third, that the estate had stated its intention not to file a copyright infringement suit over the material at the website; and fourth, that since the original complaint was filed in June of 2006—and since the web site was still under development—no steps had been taken by the estate that could currently give rise to a “reasonable apprehension of suit” based upon the material at the web site as it currently existed.

In February of 2007 the Court issued an opinion in which it refused to dismiss any of the four counts and in its opinion systematically demolished the reasoning behind all but one of the arguments proffered in support of the call for dismissal or for, alternately, the striking of portions of the complaint.  The Court determined that it had jurisdiction, that there was a cause for action, and that any current statements by the estate abjuring litigation had no relevance or future force. The heart of the Court’s refusal to dismiss was that Shloss did indeed have a “real and reasonable apprehension” of legal action on the part of Joyce’s estate and this “real and reasonable apprehension” was a cause for action:

Plaintiff undertook to write a scholarly work on Lucia Joyce—the type of creativity that the copyright laws exist to facilitate.  Defendants’ alleged actions significantly undermined the copyright policy of “promoting invention and creative expression,’ as Plaintiff was allegedly intimidated from using (1) non-copyrightable fact works such as medical records and (2) works to which did not own or control copyrights, such as letters written by third parties.  The Court finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a nexus between Defendant’s actions and the Copyright Act’s public policy of promoting creative expression to support a cause of action for copyright misuse.
(Order Denying Motion to Dismiss 16)

The Joyce estate prevailed in only one small matter: the Court ordered the striking of a paragraph of the amended complaint that pertained to the physical destruction of documents that were in the possession of Stephen Joyce.  The Court ruled that no copyright issues were involved in the decision of the owner of the physical objects as to whether to keep or destroy personal property.

The ensuing settlement represented a complete capitulation by the estate.  First, the estate abandoned its pretense to a right to control the fair use of both the printed and unprinted writings of James Joyce, as well as of the materials pertaining to Lucia Joyce.  (The estate had already acknowledged in court filings that it could claim no control whatsoever over the letters written by individuals who were not members of the Joyce family.)   The estate provided the assurances that Shloss had originally sought from the court: that Shloss could publish the electronic supplement on the web without fear of being sued for copyright infringement.  Moreover, the settlement empowered Shloss to go beyond her original plans for rectifying the damage done to her book.  Instead of being password-protected, the website would be made available to any user, provided that the user had a US IP address.  Finally, the estate put in writing a commitment not to sue for copyright infringement should Shloss publish the material in more traditional form, leaving her free either to include the supplement in future editions of her book or to reintegrate the material into the actual text of her work.  As in the case of the website, such publication would be restricted to the United States.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF FAIR USE

Stephen Joyce attempted to restrict the use a scholar could make of materials by or related to James Joyce and his daughter Lucia.  The outcome of Professor Shloss’ suit suggests that by so doing he and the Joyce estate exceeded their prerogatives as copyright holders.  However, the Joyce estate is not the only one that has attempted to use claims of copyright infringement to inhibit scholarship that the Court described as “the type of creativity that the copyright laws exist to facilitate.”  Although no precedent was set by the Court’s refusal to dismiss Shloss’ suit, the outcome of the case suggests that future litigation may help establish the principle that, regardless of their personal preferences, copyright holders do not possess the power to veto scholarly and creative uses of copyrighted material.  In press releases and interviews, the attorneys associated with Shloss’ suit have indicated that they are willing to pursue additional cases such as this one.  In addition, Shloss has now filed suit to recoup expenses arising from her ten-year struggle to win acknowledgement of her rights as a scholar under the doctrine of fair use.  Both legal and financial pressure may now be brought to bear on copyright holders who attempt to inappropriately control the transformative use of copyrighted material.       

RELEVANT SOURCES
Anderson, Nate.  (2006, 13 June). Is James Joyce’s Estate Misusing Its Copyright?  Ars technica.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060613-7048.html.

Bollier, David. (2006, 31 July). James Joyce’s Estate vs. the Cultural Commons.  OntheCommons.org. Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://onthecommons.org/node/947.

Craven, Sarah.  (2006, Dec. 5). Update: Shloss v. Estate of James Joyce.  The Center for Internet and Society.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5045.

District Court Finds Plaintiff Satisfies “Case or Controversy” Requirement and Sufficiently Alleges Copyright Misuse in Declarat[ive Judgment].” (2007, March 9).  Packets. The Center for Internet and Society.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets/200703/district-court-finds-plaintiff-satisfies-case-or-controversy-requireme.

English Professor Raises Copyright Misuse in Complaint against Estate of James Joyce. (2006, July 6).  Tech Law Journal Daily E-Mail Alert.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2006/07/06.asp.

Fair Use Project and Cyberlaw Clinic at Stanford Law School Represent Scholar in Lawsuit against Joyce Estate.  (2006, June 12).  The Cyberlaw Clinic.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/attachments/Shloss%20v.%20Joyce%20Estate%20Press%20Release.pdf.

Falzone, Anthony.  (2007, March 22.  An Important Victory for Carol Shloss, Scholarship and Fair Use.  The Center for Internet and Society.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5299. 

Foster, Andrea L. (2007, March 26). James Joyce Scholar, in Deal with Author’s Estate, Wins Right to Use Copyrighted Works.  The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/03/2007032604n.htm.

_____.  Lawsuit over Joyce Papers May Clarify Copyright’s Fair-Use Exemption for Scholars. (2006, June 14).  The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/06/2006061401t.htm.

Leff, Lisa. (2006, June 12).  Stanford Professor Sues Joyce’s Estate.  SFGate.com. Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/06/12/entertainment/e171020D91.DTL.

Max, D.T. (2006, June 19). The Injustice Collector: Is James Joyce’s Grandson Suppressing Scholarship?  The New Yorker.  Retrieved April 1, 2007 from http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/06/19/060619fa_fact.

Olson, David. (2007, Feb. 2). Victory in Shloss v. Estate of James Joyce.  The Center for Internet and Society.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5184.

Rimmer, Matthew. (2005, Sept.) Bloomsday: Copyright Estates and Cultural Festivals.  Script-ed 2.3 (Sept. 2005).  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=759244.

Shloss, Carol Loeb. (2007).  Lucia Joyce: Supplemental Material.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://www.lucia-the-authors-cut.info/.

Shloss v. Estate of James Joyce.  (2006, Oct. 25). Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 as attachment to http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5045.

_____.  (2006, June 12).  Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/attachments/Complaint%20Endorsed%20Filed%206-12-06.pdf.

_____.  (2006[, Oct. 25]). Declaration of Grace Smith. Exhibits 1-8.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Grace+Smith+Decl_Exhibits%5B1%5D.pdf.

_____.  (2006, Nov. 17). Declaration of Maria K. Nelson in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Carol Loeb Shloss’s Amended Complaint.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from  http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Nelson+Decl%5B1%5D.pdf. 

_____.  (2006, Oct. 24). Declaration of Séan Sweeney in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Carol Loeb Shloss’s Amended Complaint.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Sweeney+Decl%5B1%5D.pdf.

_____.  (2007, April 10).  Notice of Motion and Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 12, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Shloss+Fee+Motion.pdf.

_____.  (2006, Nov. 17).  Notice of Motion and Motion of Defendants Séan Sweeney and the Estate of James Joyce to Dismiss.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Motion+to+Dismiss+Shloss+Complaint%5B1%5D.pdf.

_____.  (2007, Feb. 9).  Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Granting in Part Defendants’ Motion to Strike.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Order+denying+Motion+to+Dismiss.pdf.

_____.  (2007, Jan. 22).  Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Motion to Strike.  US District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division.  Case No. CV 06-3718 JW.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Shloss+Brief+FINAL.pdf.
 
_____.  (2007, March 16).  Settlement Agreement.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/system/files/Shloss+Settlement+Agreement.pdf.

Shloss v. The Estate of James Joyce. (2006, June 12).  News Center.  Stanford Law School.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://www.law.stanford.edu/news/pr/23/Shloss%20v.%20The%20Estate%20of%20James%20Joyce/.

Smith, Dinitia.  (2003, Nov. 22). A Portrait of the Artist’s Troubled Daughter.  The New York Times.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/arts/dance/22JOYC.html?ex=1176436800&en=e8c6e65047f7a49d&ei=5070.

Stanford Scholar Wins Right to Publish Joyce Material in Copyright Suit; James Joyce Estate Agrees to Settle. (2007, March 22).  News Center.  Stanford Law School.  Retrieved April 11, 2007 from http://www.law.stanford.edu/news/pr/55/Stanford%20Scholar%20Wins%20Right%20to%20Publish%20Joyce%20Material%20in%20Copyright%20Suit%3Cbr%2F%3E%20%20%3Cem%3EJames%20Joyce%20Estate%20Agrees%20to%20Settle%3C%2Fem%3E/

Committee Members

Charlie Lowe, Chair
H. Allen Brizee
Mike Edwards
Kim Gainer
Jeff Galin
TyAnna Herrington
Clancy Ratliff
Martine Courant Rife
Kyle Stedman
Annette Vee
Traci Zimmerman

March 2015 Update

The CCCC Committee on Intellectual Property monitors new intellectual property issues that may affect writing teachers, students, and researchers, and it advocates best intellectual property practices.

Committee Charge

This committee is charged with addressing and providing guidance on intellectual property issues that affect CCCC and NCTE and that impact writing instruction generally. More specifically, the committee will:

Charge 1:  Keep the CCCC and NCTE membership informed about intellectual property developments, through reports to the CCCC EC, other forums and new mediums, including the MemberWeb site.

Charge 2:  Maintain a close working relationship with the Caucus on Intellectual Property and Composition Studies and related NCTE groups and staff.

Charge 3: Develop and update CCCC position and policy statements to guide writing teachers’ and researchers’ uses of course packs, electronic materials, issues of plagiarism, etc.

Charge 4: Address issues of concern to the organizations, such as interpretations of fair use, copyright debates, and evolving Intellectual Property policies and continue to be a resource to the NCTE DC officer for their work with lawmakers.

CCCC-IP Annuals

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2019–2020

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2018

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2017

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2016

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2015

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2014

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2013

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2012

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2011

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2010

CCCC Letter to United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2009

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2008

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2007 for Scholars of Composition, Rhetoric, and Communication

Major Intellectual Property Developments of 2006 for Scholars of Composition, Rhetoric, and Communication

Major Intellectual Property Developments of 2005 for Scholars of Composition and Communication