This book is a guide – as its title might suggest – to all things digital when it comes to music.  It serves as not so much an analysis on copyright in the music industry as a whole, but rather as a set of legal and technical guidelines so that one may participate in the consumption and production of such music without infringing on copyrights.  In other words, it describes for the reader all of the ins-and-outs of the digital music industry so that one may know where in the law his practices may reside. 

            Hill’s book has entire chapters devoted to the assessment of what is legal, what is not, and how to go about participating in said sanctioned musical practices.  He identifies a list of acceptable file-sharing websites, and offers his own commentary on why others are forbidden, as well as why these are acceptable.  The book begins with a basic introduction into the technologies and methods used in the digital realm and then goes deeper to list available services and to comment on the merits of various practices.  His advice is clear and he condones no illegal activity, yet he makes clear why certain people might be motivated to circumvent copyright laws in terms of digital music.  He further lists specific file types and programs that are used in these practices and he identifies useful software.  He finishes the book with another broad chapter about the “Conscience of Digital Music” as a whole as well as his prediction of the future of the industry.

Hill’s technological knowledge is a key aspect of this book that has allowed me to delve deeply into the details of digital music production and sharing.  He explains these issues in simple terms, while still conveying the complexity of their implications.  In writing this final paper, the technological terms and details from this book will provide much-needed expertise in a field that I am not necessarily well-versed in.  In my analysis of the acceptability of digital sampling, I must first know how the practice works and what techniques are involved; this book offers me this knowledge, which is key to reaching a conclusion in my final paper on what sampling is acceptable within copyright law.

  In February of 2007, Universal City Studios Productions (Universal Studios) filed a complaint against gossip blogger Mario Lavandeira (p/k/a Perez Hilton) alleging copyright infringement.  According to the document, Universal Studios produced and distributed the romantic comedy “The Break Up” starring Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston.  Universal Studios filed an application with the U.S. Copyright office to register the motion picture.  During production or post-production of the motion picture, Universal Studio alleges that certain images of Jennifer Aniston were illegally copied, including a topless movie still of the actress.  Obtaining this image (provided as “Exhibit A” in the complaint), Perez Hilton posted an “identical reproduction” on his website.  Universal Studio charges that Perez Hilton “reproduced, distributed and publically displayed [Universal Studio’s] copyrighted images…in violation of [Universal Studio’s] exclusive rights…under 17 U.S.C. § 106.”  Universal Studios sought an order from the court “enjoining Defendants from any further infringement” and requested the “U.S. Marshall to seize and impound all items…which infringed [Universal Studio’s] copyrights.”  Responding to the lawsuit, Perez Hilton’s attorney Bryan Freedman stated, “[Hilton] used [the photograph] for the purpose of news commentary and satire as he often does with photographs. That constitutes fair use and there's nothing illegal or improper with that use."
  The complaint and Freedman’s response are extremely useful in determining whether or not Perez Hilton’s use of a movie still constitutes fair use.  First, is should be noted that Freedman chose the word “satire” to describe his client’s use of the photo, rather than “parody.”  This puts his client in a more difficult position, as it is harder to proclaim fair use for satirical works.  When posting the image on his website, Hilton drew three white teardrops under Aniston’s eyes, claiming that this constitutes a fair use as it transforms the work.  Although the case was settled out of court, a quick analysis of the four factors, which will be elaborated on in my research paper, clearly demonstrates that these few marks do not constitute a fair use of the movie still.  There is nothing transformative in Hilton’s expression of the photograph, as no new meaning was added to the work.  The purpose of Hilton’s use was simply to display a topless photo of a famous actress.  The commentary he added below, simply stating that the picture was a topless photo of an actress, was completely unrelated to the three teardrops.  Had the commentary discussed Aniston’s highly emotional nature, Hilton would have a better claim of fair use as he transformed the picture to match his opinions.    Furthermore, in regard to the nature of the work, the fact that that photo of Aniston was not used in the final cut of the movie weighs against Hilton, as Universal Studios has the right to show the first public appearance of the movie still.  The third factor, amount and substitutability of portion taken, does really not weigh in favor of one party, as the “newsworthy” significance of the movie still and the alleged satire requires the whole movie still to be used.  The final factor, the effect of use upon the potential market, significantly weighs in favor of Universal Studios.  As Universal Studios held the copyright to this still, it is possible the studio could have licensed the image for a substantial fee.  Overall, Hilton’s use of the movie still as the news story does not constitute a fair use as he did not transform the still.

In the fast-paced entertainment world, Perez Hilton has become a mainstream celebrity, operating his gossip-driven website www.perezhilton.com. Before the weekly tabloids hit the stands, Hilton breaks celebrity gossip on his website, which receives million of visitation hits a day. To accompany his commentary, Hilton uses photographs, music, and movie clips, all of which are copyrighted material. This research paper examines claims of copyright infringement against the famous blogger by photographers, movie studios, and photography agencies. In his defense, Hilton argues that his use of this copyrighted material constitutes fair use, as he transforms the works through his infamous white doodling for the purposes of his news commentary. This paper will elucidate whether Hilton, on "Hollywood's most hated website", violates the rights of valid copyright holders, or transforms their material for a different purpose, through careful of examination of legal documents and the four factor fair use test, to determine: "Perez Hilton: Fair Use Blogger or Incessant Infringer?"

    X17 is a photography agency that “owns and operates one of the world’s leading archives in celebrity-related photographs.”  Perez Hilton posted reproductions of X17’s work, and often drew sexually explicit “satirical” doodling on the pictures.  Using more than fifty-one reproductions of X17’s images, X17 filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement.  According to the complaint, “X17 has licensed the rights to reproduce its copyrighted works…to hundreds of newspapers, television stations and other prominent media outlets throughout the world.”  X17 alleges that Hilton used “timely photographs covering breaking news events” on his gossip written website that “receives 2.5 millions viewers” daily and “generates thousands of dollars per day in advertising revenue from it website.  Some of the photos included “Britney Spears driving her son on her lap,” “Britney Spears exposing herself,” and “Cameron Diaz in a beige sweater out golfing.”  In the case of all fifty-one photos, X17 argues, “The photographs were virtually identical reproductions of copyrighted work. [Hilton] thereby reproduced X17’s copyrighted works in copies, distributed copies of the copyrighted works, and publically displayed copyrighted works…in violation of exclusive rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106 that X17 holds in the photographs.”  As a prayer for relief, X17 asked the court “for the entry of an injunction providing that [Hilton]…be permanently enjoined” from using X17’s photographs.  Additionally, X17 asked for “actual damages for copyright infringement,” “a seizure order directing the U.S. Marshall to seize and impound” X17’s copyrighted photos in Hilton’s possession, and “for a disgorgement by [Hilton] to [X17] of all profits” derived from Hilton’s use of the photographs, among other damages and fees.
     This complaint is useful in my research paper as it involves Hilton’s use of newsworthy and not-newsworthy copyrighted photographs.  In the document, X17 establishes that hundreds of gossip tabloids and magazines rely on its photographs, which break news events.  In the case of these photographs, it would be hard for Hilton to proclaim fair use.  A quick analysis of the factors of fair use reveals that Hilton’s doodling on the X17’s image of Britney Spears driving with her son on her lap does not transform it in any way, as his news story simply refers to Spear’s reckless endangerment of her child.  Hilton uses the image in it entirety and if posted on his website immediately, it would destroy the licensing value of the photograph.  Therefore, Hilton’s use of a newsworthy photograph, in which he doodles on the photograph, does not constitute fair use.  This is the same if Hilton did not doodle, because if Hilton can use the image and write his own news story below discussing what's in the photo, and this was determined to be a fair use, why would tabloids ever license a photo if they could also claim fair use?  In that case, why would paparazzi or photographers exist at all if they could not license their photos?  Finally, Hilton’s use of a non-newsworthy photograph, such as Heather Locklear eating, may be deemed a fair use if he transforms the photograph to match his news story. Overall, this source allows me to evaluate different situations of Hilton’s use of photographs and whether or not his use of copyrighted images constitutes a fair use.

  Chapter One of Title 17 of the United States Code presents the “Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright” in American law.  According to Section 102, copyright protection is given to “original works of authorship” including “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.” Section 106 states the “exclusive rights” of the owner of a copyright includes “to display the copyrighted work publicly.” Section 107 delineates that “the fair use of a copyrighted work...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”   In evaluating an alleged a fair use, Section 107 presents four factors to be considered: “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational uses; the nature of the copyrighted word; the amount and substitutability of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for a value of the copyrighted work.”  In Section 113, “Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,” an exclusive right is given to the copyright owner to “reproduce a copyrighted pictorial…in or on any kind of article, whether useful or not.”  Chapter Five of Title 17 presents “Copyright Infringement and Remedies” in American law.  Stated in Section 501, “anyone who violates the exclusive rights of a copyright owner…is an infringer.”  In Section 502, the law states “any court having jurisdiction…may…grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.” Additionally, Section 504 states the infringer of copyright is liable for “the copyright owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, ” or “statutory damages.”  Statutory damages may be awarded up to the amount of $150,000.  
    For the purposes of my research paper, the aforementioned sections establish that photographs can be copyrighted and cites the four factors used to analyze fair use cases.  Argued by the photography agencies in complaints, the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publically” is flagrantly violated by Perez Hilton, who often displays copyrighted photographs before the agencies can license them to weekly tabloids and newspapers.  Although Hilton argues that his use of the photographs represents “news reporting,” the four factors stated in the copyright law will allow me to determine if Hilton’s infamous doodles and commentary constitutes a fair use.  Hilton’s alleged fair use will heavily depend on whether his doodling on the photographs is transformative, in that it adds new meaning or expression to the copyrighted work, or if his news commentary is transformative, in that it adds value in the form of new insights or understandings.  Furthermore, the “Copyright Infringement and Remedies” section will allow me to evaluate the photographers and photography agencies’ prayers for relief in the filed complaints.  The law states that infringers are liable for either actual damages and additional profits or statutory damages.  If Perez Hilton’s use of photographs was infringement, it will be interesting to research whether or not courts would award statutory damages per photograph or award actual damages.  Although Hilton does not charge a fee for visiting his website, he earns significant revenue by means if advertising, and his use of copyrighted photographs certainly increase his advertising rates.

    Zomba Recording LLC (“Zomba”) is a record company that distributes copies and phonorecords of sound recordings performed by music artists, including Britney Spears, Leona Lewis, and Beyonce Knowles.   On October 30, 2007, Zomba released Britney Spears’s album Blackout, her first record released since 2003.  According to the first amended complaint filed by Zomba against Mario Aramando Lavandeira, the legal name of celebrity blogger Perez Hilton (“Hilton”), Hilton posted copies of tracks of the album on his website www.perezhilton.com.  As a result, Zomba was forced to push forward the release of Spear’s album.  From August 23, 2007 to October 6, 2007, Hilton consistently posted eight unreleased Britney Spears’ tracks (Perfect Lover, Heaven on Earth, Break The Ice, Everybody, Hot as Ice, Piece of Me, Radar, and Kiss You All Over), as well as one released track (Gimme More).  The complaint states that Zomba consistently appealed to the Recording Industry Association of America to demand that Hilton remove the sound recordings from his website and demanded that Hilton’s Internet service provider (“ISP”) disable access to the sound recording.  Although the ISP disabled access to the recordings, Hilton “continued to post and re-post unlawful copies” of the sound recordings.  For each of the individual sound recordings, Zomba argued that Hilton infringed Zomba’s copyright “ by copying and reproducing plaintiff’s [sound recordings],… by distributing copies…to the public,” and “by performing [sound recordings] publically.”  As a prayer for relief for copyright infringement, Zomba asked that Hilton be “enjoined…from infringing…[Zomba’s] copyrights…” and that Hilton “be required to pay plaintiff…damages…[Zomba] has sustained in consequence of [Hilton’s] infringement.   
    This complaint is of importance to my research paper as it involves Hilton’s use of sound recordings.  An analysis of the four factors of fair use clearly weighs in favor of Zomba.  For one, there is nothing transformative in Hilton’s posting of the songs.  He does not produce a new mix of alter the material in any way, shape, or fashion.  This is also the first case in which the nature of the copyrighted work weighs heavily against Hilton, as all but one of the songs was unpublished.  As under copyright law the author has the right to control the first public appearance of its expression, Hilton clearly violated this right by posting the tracks before the release.  Although the tracks posted did not represent the final release version, the heart of the work was expressed through the “draft” versions on Hilton’s website.  Therefore, coupled with the fourth factor, the sound recordings on Hilton’s website substantially effected the potential market, as individuals could substitute the tracks online for the actual album.  This conclusion is further substantiated by the fact that Zomba was forced to release the album two weeks earlier in an attempt to retain its economic profit.

    Seeking summary judgment on the issue of the copyright claim, Perez Hilton, in X17 Inc. vs. Mario Lavadereia, filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, partial summary judgment.  According to the document, “X17’s copyright infringement claim fails because [the court] lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”  Hilton stressed that the Copyright Act provides that "no action for infringement of the copyright in any work shall be instituted until registration of the copyright claim has been made,” and therefore, “an invalid registration nullifies the federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”  In it’s applications filed with the U.S. Copyright Office, X17 identifies itself as the author and that the photographs were a “work made for hire,” but does no state the actual photographer or reference any agreement between the photographer and the agency.  As a latch ditch effort, X17 created assignment agreements as a “litigation strategy.”  In the document, Hilton declares that none of the photographers were X17 employees and that he and X17 were not competitors, both claims substantiated with testimony of the photographers and principals of the photography agency.  Hilton asserts, “Summary judgment should be granted on X17’s copyright claim because the undisputed facts demonstrate that’s its purported copyright registrations are invalid.”  When X17 represented itself as the owner of the photographs on the basis that they were “works for hire,” it must prove that the “work was prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment” or a “certain work 'specially ordered of commissioned.’”  Hilton declares that the photographers were not employees of X17 and that there was no agreement between the agency and the photographer in writing that the photographs were “works for hire.”  Additionally, the document purports that the three-month grace period to register some of the photographs after first publication had passed, and therefore, X17 could not meet the requirement for statutory damages and fees.     
    Hilton’s claim that material misrepresentations in X17’s copyright applications invalidate the registrations serves as an alternative defense to his fair use claim.  For my research paper, this document allows me to investigate whether or not X17’s copyrights are valid and to dissect the relationship between the paparazzi agency and the photographers.  This is the first document that introduces the term “work for hire,” as X17 maintains that they were assigned the rights to the photographs and commissioned the works.  However, if Hilton was able to successfully prove that X17 does not hold valid copyrights to the photographs, his use of the photographs, newsworthy or not newsworthy, with doodles or without doodles, would not constitute infringement, as the photographs may belong in the public domain.  Therefore, photography agencies such as X17 should ensure the proper protection of their photographs, and perhaps change their business model from “independent contractors” to employees to properly classify the photographs as “works for hire.”

  On November 22, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas.  At the exact time of the murder, Abraham Zapruder, who happened to be filming a home video, documented photographic evidence of the assassination on his camera.  A few days after, “Life” magazine, a publication of Time Incorporated, purchased the rights to the film, and parts of the film were then published in several issues of the magazine.  In his book “Six Seconds in Dallas,” Josiah Thompson utilized “sketches” of the Zapruder film, which were later declared as clear copies, to enhance his study of Kennedy’s assassination.  In response to the book’s publication, Time Incorporated filed a complaint against Thompson and his publisher, alleging the film was “stolen surreptitiously” and the defendants use of “copies of the frames” was “an infringement of statutory copyrights, an unfair trade practice, and unfair competition.”
    In response to a motion by Time Incorporated for summary judgment, the district judge evaluated whether or not Thompson’s use of the film shots constituted a fair use.  The judge notes that Life properly registered the film with the copyright office and stated that Thompson’s book “relie[d] heavily on the Zapruder pictures.”  At a first question to be answered, the judge considered whether or not there was a valid copyright in the Zapruder pictures.  The judge evaluated the plaintiff’s assertion that the pictures were simply records of what took place and that “news could not be copyrighted.”  Evaluating past precedents, the judge stated “any photograph may claim the necessary originality to support a copyright claim merely by virtue of the photographers’ personal choice of subject matter, angle of photograph… and the…time it was taken.”   Next, the judge evaluated whether or not the use of the pictures constituted a “fair use.”  The judge declared that there was “a public interest in having the fullest information available on the murder of President Kennedy.  Thompson did serious work on the subject and has a theory entitled to public consideration.”  Further, the judge proclaimed that the book “was not bought because it contained the Zapruder pictures” but because of the “theory of Thompson and its explanation is supported by the pictures” and that there was no injury to Time Incorporated because there was “no competition.”  For these reasons, the judge granted summary judgment for the defendants as the use was deemed a fair use.     
    This decision is vital for my research paper, as it discusses the fact that all pictures can qualify for the originality needed for copyright and that “serious work” and a “theory” in association with a copyrighted photo can constitute fair use.  For one, Hilton cannot claim that a paparazzo’s photograph lacks originality, and therefore cannot be copyrighted, because the photographer, among other things, personally chose “the subject matter.”  Furthermore, it exposes the fact Hilton cannot claim fair use in cases where he publishes newsworthy photographs because he simply states what is in the photograph, rather than imparting a theory or adding anything transformative.  Individuals go to Hilton’s website to see the photographs, not to see Hilton’s obvious explanation of them.  As opposed to this case, where Time Incorporated and Thompson operated in different markets, Hilton and the copyright holder are in direct competition, as Hilton greatly reduces the value of copyrighted work because the pictures are exhibited in whole on his website.

In this post from “The Blog Herald,” Jonathan Bailey proclaims that the X17, Inc. vs. Perez Hilton case has the “potential to drastically impact bloggers and small webmasters."  Bailey cites the copyright cases against Hilton, including the Universal Studios suit involving a topless photograph of Jennifer Aniston.  In discussing the X17 case, he purports that the blogger and the photograph agency were at a stalemate, as Hilton’s motion to dismiss the suit was denied, but he was allowed to “keep his site online while the lawsuit was pending.”  However, Hilton’s site temporarily went down when Crucial Paradigm, his Australian web host, blocked Hilton’s access “due to the volume of copyright complaints,” and subsequently, he moved his site to the Voxel Dot Net server.  The blog post discusses a separate lawsuit filed by Hilton against the photograph agency, an obvious vindictive move, “citing what [Hilton] called unfair competition.”  Hilton argues that X17 “does not pay its photographers properly” and “hires illegal immigrants” to maintain low costs.  In discussing “what was at stake,” Bailey asserts that the decision could establish guidelines for using others photographs on the Internet, especially in regard to published versus unpublished works.  He believes that if the ruling is broad enough, the decision could “impact the Youtube crowd, many of whom take copyrighted works and make humorous modifications to the video, and it could impact link blogging services that republish articles, such as Google Reader’s “Share” feature.” 
    For the purposes of my paper, this blog post introduces information not contained in the legal documents filed in court.  The fact that Hilton’s server terminated his service is representative of the highly contentious nature of the X17 lawsuit.  Although the case only involves one individual, Hilton seems to be at the forefront of the blog world; therefore, the outcome of this case may have broad implications for the whole cyber world.  The decision of the lawsuit may elucidate what constitutes a parody in regard to photographs.  Small alterations to the photographs, in the form of doodles, may be deemed a satire, rather than a parody, by a court of law, thereby making it harder for Hilton to claim fair use.  Additionally, the “unfair competition” lawsuit referenced in the blog post may reveal Hilton’s desire to retaliate against X17.  He obviously lacks standing in a lawsuit filed that alleges that X17 exploits its photographers, some with “criminal backgrounds and gang affiliations.”  The lawsuit is clearly a public attack aimed at damaging X17’s reputation.  Finally, this blog is the first source to reference Hilton’s procedure for a takedown request.  The existence of this procedure on his website seems backwards, as Hilton is attempting to secure DMCA protection for himself.  However, Section 512 of American copyright law grants protection from monetary damages if “the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider.”  In this case, however, Hilton himself is posting the copyrighted pictures on his website, not an third-party user, so he affords himself no DMCA protection.

    On www.perezhilton.com, Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr., better known as Perez Hilton, posts gossip and news stories about celebrities.  The self-declared “Queen of All Media” posts up to twenty-five stories a day, and his website receives between two and four millions unique visitors per day.  On his website, Hilton’s posts mostly consist of three parts: a title for the post, a photograph of a celebrity, and a news story or commentary.  Additionally, on most of his posts, Hilton uses a computer program that allows him to doodle on the photographs with virtual white paint.  His doodles are often sexually explicit, as he draws phallic symbols on celebrities’ faces and bodies.  In some occasions, Hilton substitutes doodles with virtual white handwriting over the photographs, often consisting of sexual or exclamatory statements.  To acquire the photographs, Hilton navigates entertainment websites, mostly those of photograph agencies, and copies the image for his own use.  Along the right side of his website, Hilton displays advertisements serviced by Blogads; it has been reported that Hilton earns up to $110,000 per month in advertising revenue.  On the left side of his website, Hilton offers his “Perez by phone” service, in which monthly subscribers receive pre-recorded messages from Hilton regarding breaking news stories, as well as a link to his clothes fashion line.  In another section of his website, Hilton includes a copyright statement on, in which he declares, “All images on perezhilton.com are readily available in various places on the Internet and believed to be in public domain. Images posted are believed to be posted within our rights according to the U.S. Copyright Fair Use Act.”
    Perez Hilton’s website is the cornerstone for my research project, as my paper investigates whether or not his use of copyrighted photographs constitute a fair use.  The doodling, the photographs, as well as the news commentary, will offer the substance needed to evaluate his fair use claim.  An analysis of his website reveals that there are, in general, five different types of posts that constitute a mix of newsworthy and not newsworthy photographs, photographs that contain and do not contain doodling, and news commentary that does or does not relate to the photograph used.  These distinct blog posts complicate my research, as it is important to determine if any or all of the uses constitute a fair use.  The existence of his telephone service, his clothing line, and the multitude of advertisements confirm that Hilton makes a substantial profit from his website.  The website’s profitability will be a factor in determining the appropriate damages awarded to the photographs’ copyright holders if Hilton’s use of the material is determined to be infringement.  Finally, Hilton’s “Copyright Statement” on his website appears to reveal a flaw in his affirmations.  For one, the notion that all the images he uses are “readily available on the Internet” and are believed to be in the “public domain” is nonsensical.  The next part of his statement, that images posted fall within his rights under the fair use act, completely contradicts his first statement.  If Hilton believes the images he used were in the public domain, there would be no need to establish a fair use, as he would have every right to use the photographs.  This flagrant inconsistency, in my opinion, immediately weakens his claims of fair use, as he obviously does not completely understand the principles behind it.

This is a chapter from the U.S. code pertaining to copyright. For the purpose of my research paper only sections 502 & 504 are being focused on.

Section 502 deals with remedies for copyright infringement, specifically injunctions, and is subdivided into two parts. The first one makes it legal for courts to "grant temporary and final injunctions on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright." This can be interpreted that courts may rule however is necessarry and within power in order to prevent occurrences of copyright infringement. The second part of section 502 says that any court in the United States, having jurisdiction of the relevant parties, may serve any injunction as described in part a. It also says that once an injunction is served it shall be operative in and shall be enforceable by the United States.

Section 504 deals with damages and profits stemming from copyright infringement. Essentially it provides the legal grounds for an infringer to be financially liable for the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits made by the infringer, attributable to the copyrighted work.

These pieces of law are important for my research because they provide the legal grounds for a government or appropriate agencies to go after copyright infringers. Furthermore they provide legal grounds for any theory of indirect liability for infringement; specifically in those cases when an online service provider such as IsoHunt makes profit in the form of advertisement revenue much of which can be attributed to the popularity of copyrighted content found using the service.

This article is another in the copyright-optimism camp, but less in an economic way than in an intellectual property protection way.  It is targeted to online copyright content owners, and offers insights on one’s rights and recourse involving copyright infringement.  The author understands and accepts the culture of the internet, and that copyright owners may have differing attitudes about the use of their work.  The stance is moderate and professional, illustrating a slow series of steps one can take without rushing to judgment or litigation.  She offers examples of preliminary letters to send to infringers, how to contact them and gather information, create a paper trail, establish ownership of your work, register with the copyright office, send a cease and desist order, and request a search engine ban.  The use of threats and lawsuits is downplayed, and the emphasis is on protection of your work, if that protection is so desired.  There is no single online agency to help with content piracy- the fight is up to the individual, and this article stresses the importance of education and awareness of copyright issues with individual creators. 
Even in this copyright-optimistic world, there is still room for Creative Commons.  The author mentions Creative Commons licenses as a good way to display and track the protections of your work.  Since the focus of the article is on individuals and not large corporations or big business, it touches on more personal content matters and ways individuals can take back and control their rights.  The importance of creative control for lesser-known and less powerful copyright owners cannot be accentuated enough.  The resulting discussion from this article shows how interested people are in learning more about online content issues – what their rights are, and how to get exposure, but still protect their work.  Almost everyone is an online content owner in 2006 – with writings, research, photography or art somewhere on the web.  If more people knew about their options and their rights, the tide could start to turn away from our current over-extensive copyright culture.  This article demonstrates the vital nature of individual creators, and how key it is that they continue to create.  Some people get frustrated with the internet, and feel it is too expensive or time-consuming to post online content – they fear piracy, the takeover of large corporations, or their perceived lack of protection.  There are a variety of myths perpetrated about copyrighted content – that once you put something on the internet it is free to be taken, that online copyright protection is only for media conglomerates, or that content is not copyrighted until you register it.  This article dispels those myths (along with many more), and shows how new licensing models like Creative Commons can help in more ways than one.  It can give control over one’s rights back to the individual and educate them, which can then increase access to creative works on the web, and give society more ammunition to fight increasing copyright control.

The Future of Ideas was Lawrence Lessig’s precursor to Free Culture.  It is extremely tech-heavy and goes into great detail about the history and infrastructure of the internet, and the principles the internet was built upon.  He describes how these values of freedom and the free interchange of ideas are being corrupted by the extreme of copyright control in our society.  The drastic increase and rapid changes in technology have gotten out of hand, and there is no longer a balance between public and private goals.  Our past traditions can still come into play, and changes in technology do not have to alter our law or culture.  The DMCA is a good example of a flawed law put into place as a response to changing technology.  The juxtaposition of the early internet to what it is now is striking – the extremes of copyright and the lack of works in the public domain have severely stifled creativity.
The three main sections of the book are a discussion of the importance of “the commons” on the internet, how to recapture online creativity and innovation, and how to stop the increasing restrictions on the internet.  The first section details the need for more free resources on the internet, and a realm of works that are owned by everyone, without control to their use or access.  Lessig explains in detail the principles of the GNU/Open Source movement, and how important it is to the innovation commons, moreso because large companies lack the ability to quickly adapt to technology changes.  The second section illustrates how the constraints that stifle creativity on the internet need to be removed, and gives examples of online innovation such as HTML books, mp3s, and online cultural databases.  The need for new models and new ideas is strong.  The third section shows how the law is being manipulated by corporations, and their increasing control over web content.  Copyright and patent laws have been virtually re-written to stifle the creativity of individuals, and increase the control of government-backed media conglomerates. 
The book is as pessimistic as Free Culture, but does offer some ideas as to how to alter this negative process.  Lessig introduces the ideas of Creative Commons and 5-year copyright term renewals, if desired by the copyright owner.  He emphasizes the importance of removing special interests, and finding new ways to spread information for free.  He also encourages individuals to go after large corporations if they provide false claims to copyright.
This book is extremely important because of how it details the internet and online copyright issues.  It very accurately describes the foundation of the internet, and shows just how far away from that beginning things have gone.

 

Freedom of Expression is a very recent book in the tradition of Free Culture and The Future of Ideas.  McLeod describes how the two main enemies of the creative public are the CTEA and the DMCA.  He has a more optimistic view than we see in Lessig’s writings – he believes that individuals do have options when it comes to “overzealous copyright bozos”.  Fair use is expensive, but should be used in court cases, following the principle of “use it or lose it”.  And individuals should not back down when confronted with frivolous threats or lawsuits – they should do their research, educate themselves and others, and explore spaces and holes in the law.  He also gives examples of free speech cases where the “copyright bozos” lost, including Nader v. MasterCard, “Victor’s Little Secret” v Victoria’s Secret, and Annie Liebowitz’s case against the Naked Gun franchise.
McLeod’s book is a veritable encyclopedia of examples from every aspect of modern life as to how the privatization of our culture is harming us irrevocably.  He goes over sampling and music, collage art, book publishing and education, filmmaking, the internet and online content, the privatization of nature and public spaces, and electronic voting.  He explains how in today’s world such innovators as Woody Guthrie, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Muddy Waters would be copyright infringers of the highest order.  He argues that “freedom of expression” (which he trademarked for the book as an example of the extreme to which private ownership has gone) needs to have greater meaning to public life.  This ownership, branding, and franchising of life impedes innovation and creativity.  It is better for business, but worse for creative people.  Society as a whole needs the existence of “the commons”, because the alternative goes against our cultural traditions.  In the discussion of folk and blues music, he stresses the importance of building on tradition, and states that “a rented future forgets the past”. 
McLeod explains how compulsory licenses in music would help artists and the market, and how Creative Commons licenses are good for society because they increase the public domain.  He advocates for moderation, and a balanced public policy that takes into account private and public interests.  This book is Free Culture’s “hip” younger brother, and could educate younger generations and pop culture experts to the current state of copyright in the US.

This article, written by Kathleen Murphy in 1999, illustrates some of the copyright issues photographers faced in the early stages of the internet.  This was a time when the online legal rights for photographers and other content owners were unclear and untested.  The rights of photographers were entangled with the property rights of website creators and owners.  Piracy was a problem before digital photography came about, but hosting, storing and displaying photos online made it easier to steal them.  All of a sudden it only took a right click and “save”.  It was also a daunting task to try to catch and punish photo pirates, given the enormity and anonymity of the internet.
 Ms. Murphy describes some cutting-edge technology to track down online piracy, including digital watermarking and web “spider” services like Cyveillance.  She admits that nothing is perfect, and much of the work of catching online copyright infringement is left up to the photographers themselves.  Many photographers were not willing to spend the money on watermarking, or monthly service fees for services like Cyveillance.  It is easy to see how quickly online content owners were lulled into a sense of complacency, that it just “wasn’t worth it” to track down copyright infringers.  In 1999, the alternatives were pricy and unreliable.
 Another key issue discussed is that the contracts photographers signed when licensing their photos to a website were weighed heavily in favor of the website owner, and against the photographer.  Many of them took all rights from the photographer forever.  Those rights would then be transferred to a client, in the case of a stock photo website for example, and the photographer’s rights would be omitted yet again.  Licensing is only mentioned in this context, not in the context of the photographer creating or controlling their own licenses.
 The article seems to be geared toward photographers who sell their photos to “big business” or stock photo sites, and displays a desire for stronger copyright and better online piracy detection.  This was a time when the future of internet content and technology innovation was unsure.  Very few people had the insight to sense what the internet would become, or how important individual content owners would become; on sites like Flickr for example.  Creative Commons deals with some of these issues – it allows photographers greater control over their rights.  It allows people to dictate how their work can be used, and allows for the possibility that not all photographers want “all rights reserved”, as this article would suggest.  Using Creative Commons licensing on your photos will not stop piracy altogether, but it can go a length to prevent unintentional piracy, and make your work more accessible on the internet.  Creative Commons can help create a realm of work online that is in between the two extremes suggested by this article – complete anarchy with constant photo piracy, or strict licensing that takes and wields all of someone’s rights.