Alumnet

I would claim fair use on this material. The name would be used for educational purposes, students created the page, assuming students were learning to build a website. Next, one would have to argue that by using the name, Alumnet was taking profit away from the copyright owners.
The nature of the use was that it was a website that students developed, thus the nature of the work would be considered when calling fair use.
This would be very hard to argue, because this is a specific group of people that they are targeting for this name, and are no way competing with the owners of the original name.
This would be for a transformative use, because the purpose of this name is specific.
The next would be the amount that one copyrighted. If it is just simply the name of the site, then one is not in any copyright violation.

If the name was developed before the other group copyrighted it, then the school could continue to use the name without any harm. In a town next to mine, we have a "Burger King" that is unrelated to THE Burger King. One is able to do this because the name was established before the chain made the name.

Lesson Plans

First, just because one does create a cease and desist letter, does not necessarily actually mean anything. This is often just a scare tactic. In this situation, this may be the case. I believe that this is fair use. First, the material is being used for non-profit educational use. When claiming fair use, one looks at the purpose of the material. Under the Best Practices in Fair Use for Educators, one can create and share curriculum materials that include copyrighted materials. The teacher could even sell this material because it is for curriculum use.  The next question is the question of transformative.
I would argue that this is a transformative use of copyrighted materials because the purpose of the graphics has been transformed thus making it appropriate for one to claim fair use.
Finally, I would argue that the small group of educators using the graphics would not affect the market value for the graphics.

Movies All Day

This is a case study I really struggled with. I have heard of this happening at Johnson. Our Student Government Association has been unable to plan a movie night because of copyright issues. Coming into this case study, I had this view that it would not be okay. My mind was changed with the Fair-Sale Doctrine. The first thing I would ask is if the movies were purchased legal. Assuming the movies were purchased legally, one could use the fair-sale doctrine.  When one purchases a movie, they receive a kind of right. This also involves the fact that one can loan out the movie as one wishes. Thus, the school can play the movie under the fair-sale doctrine. I also believe it would be very difficult for one to argue that by playing the movie one is preventing others from actually buying the films. Thus, the movies would not have a large economical effect on the film maker.   This case is not a situation in which the teacher is handing out multiple copies of the film that are pirated. This would not be under the fair-sale doctrine.
Overall, I say have the movie day!

Pooh News

In this school, educators can easily claim fair use on "Pooh News". First, fair use looks at the context of the material. Pooh news was for educational purposes. Another question one should ask is the use transformative. The name "Pooh News" is transformative because the intent of the name is not the same as the copyrighted "Winnie the Pooh".  The next is the amount of copying that took place in comparison to the whole work. This is clear that the students' only used a small portion of the copyrighted work. Next, the question of whether or not the "Pooh News" would infringes upon the market value of "Winnie the Pooh". I think that this is clear that it would not. Finally, one can not control all information about any particular source. One can not sensor all uses of Winnie the pooh because of fair use.

Gap Steal

This case I found very interesting. I researched the case more and found that the man who posted his photo on Flickr did put the photo in creative commons. The issue with this is that Gap still did not ask for permission to use the photo, and made money off of it. This means that although the photo is creative commons, it is still a copyright violation.

In an educational setting, this would not be the case. Students would be using this photo in a transformative way. The photo has been altered and turned into something new. Plus, the photo was in creative commons, which was created to enhance educational situations. It would be also hard to argue that a students' project could take away profit from the original photographer of the photo. 

Controversial Billboard

This was not a copy write violation. While it was clear that this billboard was offence and demeaning it was not a copy write violation. The mother gave the right to the photographer to sell photos of her daughter and to even use the photos as stock photos. When one gives this permission anyone can use the images for anything. She signed a release, and from that moment on she lost control on how her daughter's photos could be used. The mother could by law do nothing about these images. 

 In an educational setting, this situation would be the same since the photos are stock images. Students could freely use this photos, without concern of any copy write violation! It would have not even have to be considered transformative!

A Family Christmas Card

For this specific situation, I do believe it is a copy write violation. When one gets professional photos taken, such as the case with this case study, the photographer would give a licensing agreement to the family. From there, the family would be able to freely post the blog on social media. Some photographers even let one freely print photos from a selected photo service. Since the shop did not have a licensing agreement, the shop should not have printed the photo. 

In an educational setting, this could work under the Fair  Use Act.  For example, students might have an assignment to make a fake advertisement when studying economics. This would be used for educational purposes.  This is because this would be used for a transformative purpose, therefore,would fall under the Fair Use Act.