I like this idea a lot.

Oops. CITE tags don't work here; that first paragraph in my comment above was citing an earlier comment in the thread.

I also believe it may still be legally wrong, #5, because universities own the copyright to works created within their walls. I know this is a FACT when it comes to student film.

Actually, at UF at least it all depends. For student films made through the Documentary Institute at the University of Florida, the students keep the copyright and can do whatever they want with the films they make, including releasing any or all of them under a Creative Commons license. I know this because I attended the Documentary Institute and we released our film under a CC license.

This professor may or may not even own the copyright to the text of his lectures and as a result may or may not be able to transfer the rights to them to anyone else; it all depends on the terms of employment in his department.

In any case, I doubt very much that summarizing what someone says runs afoul of copyright laws; else the gist of MLK's "I have a dream" speech would be as cost-prohibitive as the full text.

This is a phenomenally stupid position for the professor to take, since it would essentially render much of journalism (summarising something that someone said) illegal. That can't win in court; there's no way.

And, FWIW, I went to UF and will admit to buying class notes for a class I was stuck in and didn't care about. There's no way I can be convinced it's a substitute for going to class and taking your own notes, any more than taking a required class I didn't care about was a substitute for taking an unrequired one I did.

The two quotation marks are in front of the link rather than surrounding it; the link is to http://sociologicalimages.blogspot.com/2008/03/male-gaze-does-not-allow-for-boy.html.