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.