Telif Hakkını Mülkiyet Olarak Gördüğümüzde Görmediğimiz Şey

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 4, 235 - 282, 16.09.2022

Jessica Litman Çevirmen: Müge Çetin

Öz

Eser sahiplerinin telif hakkı düzeni içerisindeki asli yerleri hakkındaki tüm söylevlere rağmen, telif hakkı düzenlemeleri aslında onlara çok az güç ve daha az para vermektedir. Aracılar telif haklarına sahip olup; eser sahiplerine yaptıkları ödemeleri azaltırken, kendi gelirlerini en üst düzeye çıkartabilecek şekilde lisansları yapılandırabiliyorlar. Telif hakkı çalışanlar, bu durumu yüzeysel olarak ele almaktadır. Çünkü hukukçular olarak; telif haklarının mülkiyet hakkı olduğunu, mülkiyet haklarının serbest bir şekilde devredilebildiğini ve mülkiyet hakkını devralan kişinin, asıl hak sahibinin yerini aldığını itirazsız kabul ediyoruz. Bu çalışmada, 1710 tarihli kanuni telif haklarını yaratan ve bunları yayımcıların ve matbaacıların elinde toplayan Anne Kanunu (The Statue Of Anne) ile Amerikan Yerlilerinin elinde bulunan toprakların kendilerinden alınmasında kritik bir işlevi olan 1887 tarihli Dawes Kanunu’nu karşılaştırıyorum. Bu iki kanunun hikayesinden aynı ahlaki değeri çıkartıyorum: Bir şeyi serbestçe devredilebilir bir mülkiyet hakkı olarak tesis etmek, çoğu kez zenginlik ve pazarlık gücündeki eşitsizlikleri yansıtan veya şiddetlendiren sonuçlara yol açar. Mülkiyet hakkını çevreleyen hukuki dogma, bunu fark etmememizi kolaylaştırır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Telif Hakkı , Mülkiyet , Eser Sahiplerinin Hakları , Devredilebilirlik , Dawes Kanunu

What We Don’t See When We See Copyright As Property

Öz

For all of the rhetoric about the central place of authors in the copyright scheme, our copyright laws in fact give them little power and less money. Intermediaries own the copyrights, and are able to structure licenses so as to maximise their own revenue while shrinking their payouts to authors. Copyright scholars have tended to treat this point superficially, because – as lawyers – we take for granted that copyrights are property; property rights are freely alienable; and the grantee of a property right stands in the shoes of the original holder. I compare the 1710 Statute of Anne, which created statutory copyrights and consolidated them in the hands of publishers and printers, with the 1887 Dawes Act, which served a crucial function in the American divestment of Indian land. I draw from the stories of the two laws the same moral: Constituting something as a freely alienable property right will almost always lead to results mirroring or exacerbating disparities in wealth and bargaining power. The legal dogma surrounding property rights makes it easy for us not to notice.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Copyright , Property , Authors’ Rights , Alienability , Dawes Act

Kaynakça

• Aistars S, Hartline D and Schultz M, ‘Copyright Principles and Priorities to Foster a Creative Digital Marketplace’ (2016) 23 Geo. Mason L.Rev. 769
• Alexander I, ‘All Change for the Digital Economy: Copyright and Business Models in the Early Eighteenth Century’ (2010) 25 Berkeley Tech.L.J. 1351
• Anderson R T, Berger B, Krakoff S and Frickey P E, American Indian Law: Cases and Commentary (3rd edn, St. Paul 2015)
• Aragon N, ‘Note: Calculating Artists’ Royalties: An Analysis of the Courts’ Dualistic Interpretations of Recording Contracts Negotiated in a Pre-Digital Age’ (2017) 2017 Cardozo Law Review De Novo 180
• Band J and Butler B, ‘Some Cautionary Tales about Collective Licensing’ (2013) 21 Michigan State International Law Review 687
• Banks M, ‘MEPs Rally against Planned EU Copyright Reform’ (The Parliament 8 June 2018) https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/meps-rally-against-planned-eu-copyright-reform
• Banner S, How the Indians Lost Their Land (Cambridge, MA 2005)
• Barringer F, ‘Freelancers Suing Again on Copyright’ (New York Times, 6 July 2001) https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/06/business/freelancers-suing-again-on-copyright.html
• Bently L, ‘Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Problems Facing Freelance Creators in the UK Media Marketplace, A Briefing Document on Behalf of the Creators Rights Alliance’ (Creatorsrights, 29 June 2009) http://www.creatorsrights.org.uk/media/between.pdf
• Berger, ‘Red: Racism and the American Indian’ (2009) 56 UCLA Law Review 591
• Blagden C, The Stationers Company: A History 1403–1959 (London 1960)
• Blake L and Stuart D K, ‘Analysis of a Recording Contract’ in M Halloran (ed), The Musician’s Business and Legal Guide (Upper Saddle River 2008) 282, 312
• Bowker, ‘Self-Publishing in the United States 2010–15’ (2015) http://media.bowker.com/documents/bowker-selfpublishing-report2015.pdf
• Bracha O, ‘The Adventures of the Statute of Anne in the Land of Unlimited Possibilities: The Life of a Legal Transplant’ (2010) 25 Berkeley Tech.L.J. 1427
• Carlisle S, ‘DMCA ‘Takedown’ Notices: Why ‘Takedown’ Should Become ‘Takedown and Stay Down’ and Why It’s Good for Everyone’ (Nova Southeastern University Copyright Office Blog, 23 July 2014) http://copyright.nova.edu/dmca-takedown-notices/
• Carroll M A, ‘Whose Music Is it Anyway? How We Came to View Musical Expression as a Form of Property’ (2004) 72 University of Cincinnati Law Review 1405
• Chu J and Marino T, ‘Victims of IP Theft Need Better Protection’ (The Hill, 12 March 2014) http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/200630-victims-of-ip-theft-need-better-protection
• Cohen J E, Configuring the Networked Self (New Haven 2012)
• Cool L L, ‘Recording Artist’ in Privacy and Piracy: The Paradox of Illegal File Sharing on Peer-to-Peer Networks and the Impact of Technology on the Entertainment Industry, Hearing Before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs 108th Congress (30 September 2003)
• Cowdray K, ‘ALCS Survey Finds 15% Drop in Average Author Earnings since 2013’ (The Bookseller, 27 June 2018) https://www.thebookseller.com/news/alcs-reveals-average-author-earnings-even-lower-four-years-ago-818891
• CREATe Copyright Research Centre at the University of Glasgow, Copyright Evidence Wiki http://www.copyrightevidence.org/evidence-wiki/index.php/Copyright_Evidence
• Curtis R, How to Be Your Own Literary Agent: An Insider’s Guide to Getting Your Book Published (Houghton Mifflin Company New York 2003)
• David Streatfield, ‘Amazon Signs Up Authors, Writing Publishers Out of Deal’ (New York Times, 17 October 2011) https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/technology/amazon-rewrites-the-rules-of-book-publishing.html
• Deahl R, ‘New Guild Survey Reveals Majority of Authors Earn Below Poverty Line’ (Publishers Weekly, 11 September 2015) https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/68008-new-guild-survey-reveals-majority-of-authors-earn-below-poverty-line.html
• Deazley R, On the Origin of the Right to Copy (Oxford 2004)
• Deboe A, A History of the Indians of the United States (Norman, OK 1970)
• Deboe A, The Road to Disappearance: A History of the Creek Indians (Norman, OK 1966)
• DiCola P and Touve D, ‘Licensing in the Shadow of Copyright’ (2014) 17 Stanford Technology Law Review 397
• DiCola P, ‘Money From Music: Survey Evidence on Musicians’ Revenue and Lessons About Copyright Incentives’ (2013) 55 ACJ 301
• Doctorow Cory, Information Doesn’t Want to Be Free: Laws for the Internet Age (2014, Mc Sweeney’s San Francisco ) 8
• Dupont D, ‘Composer Maria Schneider Warns Students about the Future of the Music Industry’ (Bowling Green Independent News, 31 March 2018) http://bgindependentmedia.org/composer-maria-schneider-warns-students-about-the-future-of-the-music-industry/
• Dusollier S, Ker C, Iglesias M and Smith Y, ‘Contractual Arrangements Applicable to Creators: Law and Practice of Selected Member States’ study commissioned by the European Parliament Directorate General for Internal Policies (2014) http://www.cross-innovation.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/IPOL-JURI_ET2014493041_EN.pdf
• Europe Economics IViR, ‘Remuneration of Authors of Books and Scientific Journals, Translators, Journalists and Visual Artists for the Use of Their Works’ study prepared for the European Commission (ivir.nl, 2016) https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/remuneration_of_authors_final_report.pdf
• European Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the Document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market 19–29 (eu-lex.europa, 11 July 2012) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012SC0204&from=EN
• Feeley S, ‘‘Before Long to be Good Friends:’ Diplomatic Perspectives of the Tuscarora War’ in M. LeMaster and B.J. Wood (eds), Creating and Contesting Carolina (Columbia 2013)
• Finklestein H, ‘The Copyright Law: A Reappraisal’ (1956) 104 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1025
• Fisher W III, Promises to Keep: Technology, Law & the Future of Entertainment
• Fisk C, ‘Authors at Work: The Origins of the Work-for-Hire Doctrine’ (2003) 15 Yale J.L. & Human 1
• Fisk C, ‘Hollywood Writers and the Gig Economy’ (2018) 2017 U.Chi. Legal F. 177
• Fowler G A, ‘Your Data Is Way More Exposed than You Think’ (Wall Street Journal, 24 May 2017) https://www.wsj.com/articles/your-data-is-way-more-exposed-than-you-realize-1495657390
• Friedlander J P, ‘RIAA Year-End Music Industry Revenue Report’ (Riaa 22 March 2018) http://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/RIAA-Year-End-2017-News-and-Notes.pdf
• Future of Music Coalition, ‘Principles for Artist Compensation in New Business Models’ (2 April 2009) https://www.futureofmusic.org/article/article/principles-artist-compensation-new-business-models
• Gadd I, ‘The Stationers Company in England before 1710’ in I. Alexander and H.T. Gomez-Arostegui (eds), Research Handbook on the History of Copyright Law (Cheltenham 2018) 81
• Garcia K, ‘Private Copyright Reform’ (2013) 20 Mich. Telecom. & Technology Law Review 1
• Garon J M, ‘Digital Hollywood 2.0: Reimagining Film, Music, Television and Publishing Distribution as a Global Artist Collaborative’ (2013) 21 Michigan State International Law Review
• Geiger C, Bulayenko O and Frosio G, ‘The Introduction of a Neighbouring Right for Press Publishers at EU Level: The Unneeded (and Unwanted) Reform’ (2017) 39 EIPR 202
• Gervais D (ed), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights (3rd edn, Frederick 2016)
• Gervais D, ‘User- Generated Content and Music File-Sharing: A Look at Some of the More Interesting Aspects of Bill C-32’ in M. Geist (ed), From “Radical Extremism” to “Balanced Copyright”: Canadian Copyright And The Digital Agenda (Irwin Law 2010) 450
• Gervais D, (Re) structuring Copyright: A Comprehensive Path to International Copyright Reform (Cheltenham 2017)
• Giblin R, ‘Reimagining Copyright’s Duration’ in R. Giblin and Kimberlee (eds), What If We Could Reimagine Copyright? (2017)
• Giblin R, ‘Should It Be Copyright’s Role to Fill Houses with Books?’ in S. Frankel and D. Gervais (eds), Intellectual Property and Regulation of the Internet: The Nexus with Human and Economic Development (Wellington 2017)
• Giblin R, ‘The Author Made 3p from the Sale of this Book’ (The Author’s Interest Blog, 3 April 2018) https://authorsinterest.org/2018/04/03/more-on-fair-trade-for-authors/
• Gibson J, Johnson P and Dimita G, ‘The Business of Being an Author: A Survey of Authors’ Earnings and Contracts’ (ORCA, April 2015) https://orca.cf.ac.uk/72431/1/Final%20Report%20-%20For%20Web%20Publication.pdf
• Ginsburg J C and Sirinelli P, ‘Private International Law Aspects of Authors’ Contracts: The Dutch and French Examples’ (2015) 39 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 171
• Ginsburg J C and Treppoz E, International Copyright Law US and EU Perspectives: Text and Cases (Cheltenham 2015)
• Ginsburg J C, ‘Copyright Use and Excuse on the Internet’ (2000) 24 Colum.-VLA J.L. & Arts 1
• Ginsburg J C, ‘Fair Use for Free, or Permitted-but-Paid?’ (2015) 29 Berkeley Tech Law Journal
• Ginsburg J C, ‘The Place of the Author in Copyright’ in R.L. Okediji (ed), Copyright Law in an Age of Exceptions and Limitations (2017)
• Goldstein P and Hugenholz B, International Copyright (2nd edn, Oxford 2010)
• Gomez-Arostegui H T, ‘The Untold Story of the First Copyright Suit under the Statute of Anne in 1710’ (2010) 25 Berkeley Tech.L.J. 1247
• Grynberg M, ‘Property Is a Two-Way Street: Personal Copyright Use and Implied Authorization’ (2010) 79 Fordham Law Review 435
• Guinan Jr. J J, ‘Duration of Copyright: Study No. 30’ (1957) (77–79) reprinted in Copyright Society of the USA Studies on Copyright vol. 1
• Haefeli E, ‘Kieft’s War and the Cultures of Violence in Colonial America’ in M.A. Bellesiles (ed), Lethal Imagination: Violence and Brutality in American History (New York 1999)
• Handke C and Towse R, ‘Economics of Copyright Collecting Societies' (2007) 38 International Review of Intellectual Property & Competition Law 937
• Hansen H, Carson D, Moglen E, Seltzer W and Sims C, ‘Mickey Mice? Potential Ramifications of
• Harmon E, ‘‘Notice and Stay Down’ Is Really Filter Everything’ (Electronic Frontier Foundation Deeplinks Blog, 21 January 2016) available at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/notice-and-stay-down-really-filter-everything
• Harris M, ‘How Much Is a Word Worth?’ (Medium, 16 April 2018) https://medium.com/s/story/how-much-is-a-word-worth-7fcd131a341c
• Horbaczewski H, ‘No Silver Lining for the Emperor’s New Clothes: Golan and the Traditional Contours of Copyright’ (2012) 59 (4) Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A. 865
• Huntsberry F, ‘Paramount Pictures’ in Promoting Investment and Protecting Commerce Online:
• IFPI, ‘Rewarding Creativity: Fixing the Value Gap’ http://www.ifpi.org/value_-gap.php 19 April 2018
• International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, ‘Europe’s Creators, Cultural and Creative Industries’ Call to the European Council: Secure the Aims of the Proposed Copyright Directive in the DSM’ (12 April 2018) http://www.ifpi.org/downloads/EU_Creators_Cultural_and_Creative_Industries_Call_to_European_Council.pdf
• Joint Comments of the American Association of Independent Music et. al., In re: Section 512 Study (31 March 2016) https://www.riaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Music-Community-Submission-in-re-DMCA-512-FINAL-7559445.pdf
• Kades E, ‘The Dark Side of Efficiency: Johnson v M’Intosh and the Expropriation of American Indian Lands’ (2000) 148 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1065
• Kaminski M E, ‘The Capture of International Intellectual Property Through the US Trade Regime’ (2014) 87 S.Cal.L.Rev. 977
• Katz A, ‘Copyright Collectives: Good Solution but for Which Problem’ in R. C. Dreyfuss, D. Zimmerman and H .First (eds), Working Within the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society (New York 2010)
• Katz A, ‘Copyright, Exhaustion, and the Role of Libraries in the Ecosystem of Knowledge’ (2016) 13 I/S Journal of Law & Policy for the Information Society 81
• Kerr O, ‘A Lukewarm Defense of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’ in A Thierer and C W Crews (eds), CopyFights: The Future of Intellectual Property in the Information Age (Cato Instıtute 2002)
• Kinsella E, ‘Damien Hirst and Anish Kapoor Land on UK Rich List (Again)’ (Artnet News, 8 May 2017) https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artists-on-sunday-times-rich-list-952055
• Koenigsberg F I, ‘The Fifth Annual Christopher Meyer Memorial Lecture: Humpty Dumpty in Copyright Land’ (2004) 51 J. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. 677
• Kretschmer M and Hardwick P, ‘Authors’ Earnings from Copyright and Non-Copyright Sources: A Survey of 25,000 British and German Writers’ (Dorset 2007) https://micro-sites.bournemouth
• Kretschmer M, ‘Copyright and Contracts: Regulating Creator Contracts: The State of the Art and a Research Agenda’ (2010) 18 J.Intell.Prop. L. 141
• Kretschmer M, ‘Does Copyright Law Matter? An Empirical Analysis of Creators Earnings’ (SSRN 21 May 2012) SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2063735
• Kretschmer M, ‘Private Copying and Fair Compensation: An Empirical Study of Copyright Levies in Europe’ (2011) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310183/ipresearch-faircomp-201110.pdf
• Kretschmer M, Singh S, Bently L and Cooper E, ‘2011 Copyright Contracts and Earnings of Visual Creators: A Survey of 5800 British Designers, Fine Artists, Illustrators and Photographers’ (2011) https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4899875.pdf
• Krikorian G and Kapczynski A (eds), Access to Knowledge in the Age of Intellectual Property (New York 2010)
• Lemley M A, ‘Faith-Based Intellectual Property’ (2015) 62 UCLA Law Review 1328
• Lemley M A, ‘IP in a World Without Scarcity’ (2015) 90 New York University Law Review 460
• Lessig L, Free Culture (New York 2004)
• Lessig L, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It (New York 2011)
• Levine R and Ride F: How the Internet is Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back (1st edn, Vintage Books 2011)
• Litman J, ‘Copyright Noncompliance (Or Why We Can’t ‘Just Say Yes’ To Licensing)’ (1997) 29 N.Y.U. Journal of International Law & Policy 237
• Litman J, ‘Information Privacy/Information Property’ (2000) 52 Stanford Law Review 1283
• Litman J, ‘Lawful Personal Use’ (2007) 85 Texas Law Review 1871
• Litman J, ‘Readers’ Copyright’ (2011) 58 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 325
• Litman J, ‘Real Copyright Reform’ (2010) 96 Iowa Law Review 1
• Litman J, ‘Sharing and Stealing’ (2004) 26 Hastings Communication & Entertainment Law Journal
• Litman J, ‘The Exclusive Right to Read’ (1994) 13 Cardozo Arts & Ent.L.J. 29
• Litman J, ‘The Politics of Intellectual Property’ (2009) 27 Cardozo Arts & Entertaintment Law Journal 313
• Litman J, ‘War & Peace: The 34th Annual Donald C Brace Lecture’ (2006) 53 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 1
• Litman J, ‘What Notice Did’ (2016) 96 Boston University Law Review 717
• London T and Pesner B, Outrageous Fortune: The Life and Times of the New American Play (TDF New York 2009)
• Long M, ‘Publishers Raise New Concerns over SGAE Practices’ (IQ Magazine, 11 June 2018) https://www.iq-mag.net/2018/06/publishers-new-concerns-sgae-practices/#.Wx_5t1Mvw74
• Loren L P, ‘Renegotiating the Copyright Deal in the Shadow of the Inalienable Right to Terminate’ (2010) 62 Fla.L.Rev. 1329
• Lunney G, Copyright’s Excess: Money and Music in the US Recording Industry (Cambridge 2018)
• McLeod K, Freedom of Expression (1st edn, Doubleday New York 2005)
• Menell P and Nimmer D, ‘Judicial Resistance to Copyright’s Inalienable Right to Terminate Transfers’ (2010) 33 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 227
• Merges R P, ‘The Concept of Property in the Digital Era’ (2008) 45 Houston Law Review 1239; A Mossoff, ‘Is Copyright Property?’ (2005) 42 San Diego Law Review 29
• Mullins B and Nickas J, ‘Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign’ (WSJ, 14 July 2017) https://www.wsj.com/articles/paying-professors-inside-googles-academic-influence-campaign-1499785286
• N.J. Newton (ed), Cohen’s Handbook of Federal Indian Law: 2005 Edition (Newark 2005)
• N.W. Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox (Oxford 2008)
• Newman J M, ‘The Myth of Free’ (2018) 86 George Washington Law Review 551
• Newman M, ‘Sony Music Entertainment to Start Paying Indie Artists and Labels Spotify Sale Proceeds as Early as August’ (Billboard 14 June 2018) https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8461117/sony-music-canada-spotify-pay-indie-artists-labels
• O’Malley Greenburg Z, ‘America’s Wealthiest Celebrities: The Top 10 by Net Worth’ (Forbes, 18 December 2017) https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2017/12/18/americas-wealthiest-celebrities-2017-the-top-ten-by-net-worth/
• O’Malley Greenburg Z, ‘Revenge of the Record Labels: How the Majors Renewed Their Grip on Music’ (Forbes, 15 April 2015) https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2015/04/15/revenge-of-the-record-labels-how-the-majors-renewed-their-grip-on-music
• O’Malley Greenburg Z, ‘Spotify Goes Public at $30 Billion: When Will Artists See Any of That?’ (Forbes, 3 April 2018) https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2018/04/03/spotify-ipo-goes-public-at-30-billion-when-will-artists-see-any-of-that
• O’Malley Greenburg Z, ‘The World’s Highest Paid Women in Music 2017’ (Forbes, 20 November 2017) https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2017/11/20/the-worlds-highest-paid-women-in-music-2017/
• O’Rourke M, ‘Bargaining in the Shadow of Copyright Law After Tasini’ (2003) 53 Case Western Reserve University Law School 605
• Oman R, ‘Going Back to First Principles: The Exclusive Rights of Authors Reborn’ (2008) 8 Journal of High Technology Law 169
• Orphanides K G, ‘The EU’s Bizarre War on Memes is Totally Unwinnable’ (Wired 18 June 2018) http://www.wired.co.uk/article/eu-meme-war-article-13-regulation
• Patry W, How to Fix Copyright (Oxford 2011)
• Patry W, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars (Oxford 2009)
• Patterson L R, Copyright in Historical Perspective (Nashville 1968)
• Paulson M and Gelles D, ‘Hamilton, Inc.: The Path to a Billion-Dollar Broadway Show’ (NY Times 8 June 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/theater/hamilton-inc-the-path-to-a-billion-dollar-show.html
• Peoples G, ‘War of Words: Labels and Trade Groups Target YouTube’s ‘Value Gap’’ (Billboard 13 April 2016) https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7333110/war-of-words-labels-trade-groups-youtube-value-gap
• Perzanowski A and Schultz J, The End of Ownership (1st edn, 2016)
• Pessach G, ‘Deconstructing Disintermediation: A Skeptical Copyright Perspective’ (2013) 31 Cardozo Arts & Entertaintment Law Journal 833
• Preston D, ‘Why Is it So Goddamned Hard to Make a Living as a Writer Today?’ Authors Guild Bulletin 63, Summer 2017
• Radin M J, Boilerplate (Princeton University Press 2013) 33–51, 168–76; L. Hyde, Common as Air: Revolution, Art, and Ownership (1st edn, Farrar Straus and Giroux 2010)
• Rasenberger M and Pepe C, ‘Copyright Enforcement and Online File Hosting Services: Have Courts Struck the Proper Balance’ (2012) 59 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A 627
• Recording Industry Association of America, ‘Press Release: Historic Coalition of 213 Musical Artists Calls on Congress to Pass CLASSICS Act, Fix the ‘Pre-1972’ Loophole for Legacy Artists’ (RIAA, 13 February 2018) https://www.riaa.com/historic-coalition-213-musical-artists-calls-congress-
• Reese R A, ‘Optional Copyright Renewal: Lessons for Designing Copyright Systems, The 38 Annual Horace J. Manges Lecture’ (2015) 39 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 145
• Reese R A, ‘Termination Formalities and Notice’ (2016) 96 B.U.L. Rev. 895; Authors Alliance, ‘Termination of Transfers’ (2017) https://www.authorsalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/20180315-ToT-Templates.pdf
• Reilly T, ‘Copyright and a Synergistic Society’ (2017) 18 Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 575
• Ringer B A, ‘Renewal of Copyright: Study No. 31’ (1963) (121–122) reprinted in Copyright Society of the USA Studies on Copyright vol. 2 503
• Robinson L G, ‘The Judicial Conquest of Native America: The Story of Johnson v M’Intosh’ in C. Goldberg, K.K. Washburn and P.P. Frickey (eds), Indian Law Stories (New York 2011) 29
• Rogers A, ‘Google’s Academic Influence Campaign: It’s Complicated’ (WIRED, 14 July 2017) https://www.wired.com/story/googles-academic-influence-campaign-its-complicated/
• Royster J V, ‘The Legacy of Allotment’ (1995) 27 Ariz.St.L.J. 1
• Samuelson P, ‘Legally Speaking: The EU’s Controversial Digital Single Market Directive’ 61 Communications of the ACM, forthcoming November 2018; ‘Google Criticized for Push Against EU Copyright Reform’ (Financial Times, 26 June 2018) https://www.ft.com/content/a8031d7a-78a0-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d
• Samuelson P, ‘The Copyright Grab’ (WIRED, 1 January 1996), https://www.wired.com/1996/01/white-paper/
• Schechner S and Kostove N, ‘Google and Facebook Likely to Benefit from Europe’s Privacy Crackdown’ (Wall Street Journal, 23 April 2017) https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-europes-new-privacy-rules-favor-google-and-facebook-1524536324
• Schmidt E A, The Divided Dominion: Social Conflict and Indian Hatred in Early Virginia Boulder, CO (2014)
• Schwartz E A, The Rogue River Indian War and Its Aftermath: 1859–1980 (Norman, OK 1997)
• Schwartz P M and Treanor W M, ‘Eldred and Lochner: Copyright Term Extension and Intellectual Property as Constitutional Property’ (2003) 112 Yale Law Journal 2331
• Senftleben M, ‘Copyright, Creators, & Society’s Need for Autonomous Art – the Blessing and Curse of Monetary Incentives’ (2017) in Giblin and Weatherall, What If We Could Reimagine Copyright?
• Shapiro R and Aneja S, ‘Unlocking the Gates: America’s New Creative Economy’ (2018) http://www.recreatecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ReCreate-Creative-Economy-Study-Report.pdf
• Silbey J, The Eureka Myth: Creators, Innovators and Everyday Intellectual Property (Stanford 2015)
• Siwek S E, ‘Copyright Industries in the US Economy: 2016 Report’ (December 2016) http://www.iipawebsite.com/pdf/2016CpyrtRptFull.PDF with Computer and Communications Industry Association, Fair Use Industries in the U.S. Economy: Economic Contributions of Industries Relying on Fair Use (2017) http://www.ccianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Fair-Use-in-the-U.S.-Economy-2017.pdf
• Sprigman C, ‘Copyright and Creative Incentives: What We Know (and Don’t)’ (2017) 55 Hous.L.R. 451
• Statista, ‘Dossier: Film Industry in the U.S.’ (2018) https://www.statista.com/study/11472/film-industry-in-the-united-states-statista-dossier/
• Stewart J B, ‘In the Chamber of Secrets: J.K. Rowling’s Net Worth’ (New York Times, 24 November 2016) https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/business/in-the-chamber-of-secrets-jk-rowlings-net-worth.html
• Taplin J, ‘Is it Time to Break Up Google?’ (New York Times, 22 April 2017) available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/opinion/sunday/is-it-time-to-break-up-google.html
• Taplin J, Move Fast and Break Things: How Facebook, Google, and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy (1st edn, Pan Books 2017)
• Towse R, ‘Copyright and Artists: A View From Cultural Economics’ (2006) 20 Journal Economic Surveys 567
• Towse R, ‘Economics of Copyright Collecting Societies and Digital Rights: Is there a Case for a Centralised Digital Copyright Exchange?’ (2012) 9 Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues 3
• Tushnet R, ‘Economies of Desire: Fair Use and Marketplace Assumptions’ (2009) 51 William & Mary Law Review 513
• United States Copyright Office, Circular No. 9: Works Made for Hire (2012) available at https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf
• United States Copyright Office: Section 512 Public Roundtable (2 May 2016) https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section512/public-roundtable/transcript_05-02-2016.pdf
• US Copyright Office, Section 512 Study (2017) https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section512/
• Van Houweling M, ‘Making Copyright Work for Authors Who Write to Be Read’ (2015) 38 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 381
• Viswanathan B and Mossoff A, ‘Open-Access Mandates and the Seductively False Promise of ‘Free’’ (Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property Briefing Paper 4, April 2017) http://apo.org.au/node/93506
• Von Lohmann F, ‘Measuring the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Against the Darknet: Implications for the Regulation of Technological Protection Measures’ (2004) 24 Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Reviw 635
• Wijminga H, Klomp W, Van Der Jagt M and Poort J, ‘World Intellectual Property Association International Survey on Private Copying: Law and Practice 2016’ (Wipo, 2017) http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1037_2017.pdf
• Zimmerman D, ‘Copyright As Incentives: Did We Just Imagine That?’ (2010) 12 Theo Inq Law 29
• 6 Casa Duse v Merkin, 791 F.3d 247, 260 (2d Cir. 2015)
• 19 Recordings v Sony Music Entertainment, No. 14-CV-1056 (SDNY filed 24 June 2015)
• Blackfeet Tribe of Indians v State of Montana, 729 F.2d 1192 (9th Cir. 1984), aff’d 471 US 759 (1985)
• Bleistein v Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U. S. 239, 248–49 (1903)
• BMG Rights Management v Cox Communications, 881 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2018)
• Capitol Records v Thomas-Rasset, 692 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2012)
• Colliery Eng’r Co. v United Correspondence Schs., 94 F. 152, 153 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1899)
• Community for Creative Non Violence v Reid, 490 US 730 (1989)
• DC Comics v Pacific Pictures Corp., 545 Fed, Appx. 678 (9th Cir. 2013)
• Eldred v. Ashcroft” (2003) 13 Fordham Intellectual Property Media & Entertainment Law Journal 771
• EMI Christian Music v MP3Tunes, 844 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2016)
• FBT Productions v Aftermath Records, 621 F.3d 958 (9th Cir 2010)
• FBT Productions, 621 F.3d 958 (9th Cir 2010)
• Fred Fisher Music Co. v M. Witmark & Sons, 318 U.S. 643 (19439
• JAH IP Holdings v Mascio, 2014 US Dist LEXIS 16246 (D. Colo. 2014)
• Johnson’s Lessee v M’Intosh, 21 US 543 (1923)
• JustMed v Byce, 600 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2010)
• Keiler v Harlequin Enters., 751 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2013)
• Larson v Warner Brothers, 640 Fed. Appx. (9th Cir. 2016)
• Lawrence v Dana, 15 F. Cas. 26 (C.C.D. Mass 1869)
• Legitimate Sites v. Parasites Hearing Before the Subcommittee On Intellectual Property of the House Judiciary Committee 112th Congress (14 March 2011)
• Malmsteen v Universal Music Group, 940 F. Supp. 2D 123, 132–33 (SDNY 2013).
• Marvel Characters v Kirby, 726 F. 3d 119 (2d Cir. 2013)
• Milne v Stephen Slesinger, Inc., 430 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir. 2005).
• NY Times v Tasini, 533 U.S. 483, 499–506 (2001).
• Parton v Prang, 18 F. Cas. 1273, 1278 (C.C.D. Mass. 1872)
• Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v Steinbeck, 537 F.3d (2d Cir. 2008)
• Pulte v Derby, 20 F. Cas. 51 (C.C. D. Ohio 1852)
• Sony BMG Music Entertainment v Tenenbaum, 660 F.3d 487 (1st Cir. 2011).
• Tasini v NY Times, 972 F. Supp. 804 (SDNY 2007), rev’d 206 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2000)
• Tavares v Capitol Records, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34317 (ND Cal. 2013)