UIC Law Open Access Repository
Not a member yet
4764 research outputs found
Sort by
There Are No Outsiders Here: Rethinking Intersectionality as Hegemonic Discourse in the Age of #MeToo, 16 Legal Comm. & Rhetoric: JAWLD 1 (2019)
No full textExtending Batson to Peremptory Challenges of Jurors Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, 40 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 1 (2019)
No full textThere Has Been an Infringement of My Work and My Circuit Does Not Allow Me to Sue! The Time Has Come to Hash-Out the Federal Circuit Court Discrepancy on Copyright Registration, 18 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 344 (2019)
Get PDFThe time has come to relieve the ambiguity created by the continued lack of consensus regarding the proper interpretation of 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). The persistent split amongst the various Federal Courts regarding the meaning of § 411(a)’s registration requirement allows some fortunate artists to immediately enforce their rights in a number of jurisdictions, while artists from other jurisdictions are prohibited from immediately enforcing the same rights. Several circuit and district courts subscribe to the “application approach,” while others employ the “registration approach.” This comment delves into the rationale behind the respective approaches, and discusses the arguments made for and against each one. In the end, this comment will ultimately highlight and advocate in favor of the seemingly superior features of the “application approach.” Additionally, this Comment also addresses the importance of adopting an efficient, uniform interpretation of § 411(a) that alleviates the uncertainty that plagues this portion of the Copyright Act. This comment suggests that the proper cure for this ambiguity lies in an enhanced application approach, coupled with a claimant’s obligation to amend her complaint at bar following the Copyright Office’s decision regarding a pending application for registration
Can Accessibility Liberate The Lost Ark of Scholarly Work?: University Library Institutional Repositories Are Places of Public Accommodation”, 52 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 327 (2019)
Get PDFFor any body of knowledge – an ark of power or a corpus of scholarship – to be studied and used by people, it needs to be accessible to those seeking information. Universities, through their libraries, now aim to make more of the scholarship produced available for free to all through institutional repositories. However, the goal of being truly open for an institutional repository is more than the traditional definition of open access. It also means openness in a more general sense. Creating a scholarship-based online space also needs to take into consideration potential barriers for people with disabilities. This article addresses the interaction between the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and university academic library based institutional repositories. This article concludes that institutional repositories have an obligation to comply with the ADA to make scholarly works available to potential users with disabilities. For managers of institutional repositories, following the law is an opportunity to make scholarship even more widely available. University open access institutional repositories need to be accessible to existing and potential disabled users. However, there are no specific rules that university institutional repositories must follow to be compliant with the ADA’s “public accommodation” standard. Accessibility is a changeable, moveable wall, consistently and constantly needing to be additionally inclusive of more – more technology and more users, regardless of disability or limitations. Institutional repositories should not become the crated Ark of the Covenant with their secrets locked inside; instead, they should be as open as possible to all, sharing the scholarship inside
“Fair and Open Competition” or Death to the Union? Project Labor Agreements in Today’s Politically Contentious Atmosphere, 52 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 531 (2019)
Get PDFMany federally-funded construction projects include project labor agreements that include working with specific unions to complete a project. The uniqueness of the construction industry was recognized in the National Labor Relations Act, which allowed project labor agreements on construction projects. PLAs came back to the forefront in 1992 when President Bush issued an executive order prohibiting PLAs on federal construction projects. Since then, a number of presidential executive orders have been issued changing whether project labor agreements may be used. This Comment analyzes the arguments for and against project labor agreements in the construction industry, use of presidential executive orders, precedential cases, and proposed congressional activity
Panel I: Blockchain and the Law, 34 UIC J. Marshall J. Priv. & Tech. L. 1 (2019)
Get PDFThe most disruptive technology to emerge in the past decade, blockchain technology has had an immediate impact on the legal industry to address the new issues that blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and distributed ledger technologies present. This panel provides an overview of blockchain technology, including current and potential applications, and discusses how blockchain intersects with various sectors of the law. The panelists define this new technology, identify potential legal challenges ahead, and explain how new and seasoned attorneys can engage in this emerging area
Inflection Point: Private Land Use Covenants, The Housing Crisis, and The Warming Planet, 52 UIC J. MARSHALL L. REV 741 (2019)
Get PDFPrejudicial Routine Shackling of Defendants Without Proper Judicial Assessment During Pretrial: A Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Violation, 52 UIC J. MARSHALL L. REV 881 (2019)
Get PDF
