Amanda McQuade

AP Seminar
11/28/16
A Day
Annotated Bibliography
U.S Copyright Office Definitions, The United States Copyright Office, Washington, D.C,
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/definitions.html. 2014.
Granted that no authors were listed, this source could be the most valuable of all the
sources given. The reason why this source is so credible, is because it provides the definitions of
all the important elements of Copyright laws and Fair Use. It is simplified, refined, and very
helpful, because it provides the reasonings why laws were put into place. It provides definitions I
consistently look back to when creating the bibliography of sources, because it is a very basic
foundation, to the complexity of the Acts and Opinions given about the helpfulness or the
harmfulness of Copyright Laws. This is my most used source, and my most referred definition.
U.S Constitution. Article I, Sec. 8
In Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, the following is written: To promote the progress of
Science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right
to their respective writings and discoveries. This is a very credible source, because it is written
in the US Constitution, the rule book of America. This source relates to copyright, by giving a
creator the right to protect their own findings, and it also gives ownership to the artist. This
source is very important to include, especially for the individual rights of the people. This was a
very useful source, because it gives foundational explanations as to why copyright laws and
protection exists in the first place: to protect the rights of artists, authors and innovators from
their work being stolen.
The Copyright Act of 1976. Sections 107-122.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106. 1976.
This source is extremely important and credible, because it is the primary doctrine of fair
use, and basis of the United States Copyright Law. The most important pieces of information
from this source, are from Sections 107-122. These sections, summarized, grant the owner
exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute copyrighted works, to perform, and display musical,
dramatic, sculptural and graphic works publicly, and the rights to perform sound recordings by
the means of digital audio transmissions. This is a very helpful source, because it is a primarily
used doctrine for the topic of Copyright and Fair Usage, and it gives a legal perspective to the
issues of stealing in music, film, arts, and books. It does provide ownership of content, but does
not restrict creativity.

Benefits Of Copyright Protection Explained. Starting Business.

http://www.registertrademarks.net/1367/benefits-copyright-trademark/.
There is no author, for this source. However, this source includes many arguments for
copyright protection laws, and justifies how important these laws are. It includes a very well
thought definition and explanation for copyright. This source also includes both descriptions of
the benefits of copyright, as well as justifying what these laws mean, if you own copyrighted
material. This source is very simple to understand, and does not over complicate the copyright
system, unlike many other sources about copyright law
Fair Use and Intellectual Property: Defending the Balance Electronic Frontier
Foundation, San Francisco, California.
https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property.
There is no author stated, yet there are many valid points presented in this article. It is
very persuasive, because the author has a clear understanding of why copyright laws were
placed, but the author does see flaws within the system of copyright, trademarks, and fair use.
What really stands out from the rest of the article, is its introduction. In the introduction, the
author introduces the idea, that copyright laws overpower free speech! The author understands,
that laws are placed to encourage authors and creators by helping them receive rights and profit,
but also comprehends the problems with regulations, such as fair use.
Lenz vs Universal Music Corporation Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco,
California. https://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal. 2007.
In this article,there is no stated author. There are very important, credible, primary
documents of the case. There is a brief synopsis of the case itself: the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (known as the EFF), filed a suit against Universal Music Publishing Group (or the
UMPG). This was all to protect the rights of a mother who posted a very short video of her son
dancing to a Prince song on the internet. Her video was taken down by YouTube for copyright
infringement by Universal. In the article, the particular quote by the mother makes the read
sympathize with the people who have been restricted by copyright, and the people who are not
protected under copyright laws.
Carlisle, Stephan. Copyright Stifles Innovation and Creativity! (Says the Internet): It
Doesnt; And Heres Why. Nova Southeastern University, Lauderdale, Florida.
http://copyright.nova.edu/copyright-does-not-stifle-innovation-creativity/. 2014
Stephan Carlisle is a copyright officer of Nova State University, so he is a credible author.
Carlisle argues in this editorial, that Copyright laws do not cause any harm to creators, but gives
the right of ownership to creators without infringement, and actually leave room for freedoms
and parodies. This is a helpful source, because it helps balance out the many unorganized
accusations of Copyright Laws. Many examples include the themes of Copyright Laws
controlling content and the creators of content, when actually, Copyright Laws protect the rights
of the artist, and there is enough room for other creators to become inspired by the artist, just as

long as they do not COPY the artist directly. There are fine lines, when it comes to Copyright
infringement and fair usage, but Mr. Carlisle provides a somewhat irritated, but very educational
take on the ongoing war between Copyright and the Internet.
Halperin, Rose, Jennie. Princes battle with copyright claims. Creative Commons,
Mountain View, California.
https://creativecommons.org/2016/05/23/controversy-recap-issues-surroundingcopyright-princes-estate/. 2016
The music artist and legend, Prince, has fought time and time again with bootleggers,
music corporations, and even YouTube, for the protection of his music and rights. The author,
Jennie Rose Halperin, has a history of working as a manager of community marketing, and
works as a Creative Commons as a Community Manager, who helps authors share creativity
through media, so she is a reliable author. Britton Payne, a professor of law, explains: Prince
was a tireless advocate of his rights as an artist, using copyright law to control and protect his
artistic footprint, even when it seemed like it would cost him more than it would gain. As
someone who has been inspired by the Purple Rain star, among many other musicians and
artists, it is natural to defend that inspiration and that art form, when you have respect for them
and what they create. This source, as expected, opposes many of the articles chosen for this
project, and provides a different point of view to the court case Lenz vs Universal.
Gasaway, Lara. Copyright Issues and Scholarly Communications. UNC Chapel Hill,
Chapel Hill, NC. http://www.unc.edu/scholcomdig/whitepapers/gasaway.pdf. 2005.
Lara N. Gasaway is a professor of law at the University Of North Carolina Chapel HIll
school of Law, so she is very credible with copyright law. In the article, Gasaway explains the
importance of copyright law, and exists to strengthen the rights of authors, but the copyright laws
can restrict an author from collaborating with others. In this article, Gasaway provides a straightto-the-point attitude about her findings, which is persuasive in a way, because it gives the reader
clarity. However, this was one of my least favorite sources because it did not give an exact
viewpoint on how Gasaway feels about Copyright and Fair Use, but she explains it thoroughly. It
gives the reader the choice to agree or disagree with Copyright and Fair Use.
Lessig, Lawrence. Laws that Choke Creativity. TED.
http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity Mar. 2016.
Lecture.
Lawrence Lessig speaks about not only copyright law, but has expanded on the topic with
trespassing, not only in the world of YouTube, or any kind of social media, but in real life
experiences of others, such as flying planes over the land of farmers, and ASCAPs exclusive
license over content! This may be one of the most valuable sources listed on copyright, because
it provides another important persuasive technique, besides licenses and fair use papers, and that
is human experience. The Speaker, Lawrence Lessig, is extremely credible, for his work as a
Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, membership of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, and won the Free Software Foundations Freedom award. This source is extremely
credible, not only because of its bias (and the speaker outspokenly admits himself to be liberal),
but it provides truth, in its opinions, about creativity and artistry. According to the speaker,

Artists and Creators have to be able to share their work more freely, and the businesses should
enable more content to be competed with, so there are more opportunities to share creative ideas,
and more competition.
Richmond, Shane. Copyright Laws Dont Work in the Digital Age Politico, Arlington
County, Virginia, http://www.politico.eu/article/copyright-laws-dont-work-in-the-digitalage/. 2015.
Shane Richmond, author of the article is credible because he is a technology writer and
has extensive knowledge of Copyright law. This source pertains to the question by challenging
how helpful copyright laws are, especially in a world of technology and Social Media, where it is
difficult to keep ownership when things are constantly copied and shared. The source is helpful
in seeing the side of the people who have gotten into trouble, for unkowningly using copyright
protected material in their own media creations. One great example of this was a mother
videotaping her son dancing to Lets Go Crazy by Prince, posted it on Youtube, and was faced
with charges from using copyrighted material. This source was very helpful, in persuasion,
because it is obviously biased, and concludes that copyright laws often do not work in our
technologically progressive era.
Skirpan, Rebecca. An Argument that Independent Creation is as Likely as Subconscious
Copying in Music Infringement Cases. Seton Hall University, South Orange, New
Jersey, http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1123&context=student_scholarship. 2013
In this article, Rebecca Skirpan discusses the junction between independent creations in
music, and similarities between musical pieces. In Skirpans absurdly thorough, six-part, timeconsuming think piece, she makes herself credible by explaining that copywriting, is protecting
the creator, but explains her thinking through the thoughts of a musician. It is a lot easier to see
the point of view of a creator, and understanding why copyright laws are not always helpful in
the world of music.This is a personal favorite source, because it puts things into perspective of
how an artist sees creativity. Artists, believe protection is vital, but a lot of the time, artists are
creators and innovators, while reading laws and understanding fair usage are not their area in
expertise. This provides a way, for artists to truly understand the laws, and for artists to be truly
understood.
Walker, Melody. Economists say Copyright and Patent Laws are Killing Innovation; Hurting
Economy. Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
https://source.wustl.edu/2009/03/economists-say-copyright-and-patent-laws-are-killinginnovation-hurting-economy/. 2009.

Melody Walker is a director of Communications at the Olin Business School at

Washington University in St. Louis. She presents the viewpoints of Michele Boldrin, an Italian
Economist, and David K. Levine, an economics professor at Washington University in St. Louis,
and their concerns about copyright and how it affects the economy. This is a credible source,

because Boldrin is an expert in fields of economics and intellectual property, and Levine is also
experienced in economics, and how copyright laws affect the creators protection and profit. In
the article, Boldrin and Levine propose that copyright laws should be abolished altogether,
because they negatively affects competition and innovation. The current copyright system, does
not follow the Constitution, but licenses are being misused by copyright holders.