Last spring semester, I wrote a paper on the Obama Hope poster copyright debacle (otherwise known as the Fairey v Associated Press case). I often referred to Jessica Litman's Digital Copyright book as a quick reference for copyright and the DMCA. I'm happy to be returning to the Litman book, because she flushes out the complicated nature of copyright in a way that is understandable for all of us non-copyright attorneys out there.

During class, we covered the most important points from the first 6 chapters. Here are a few of my favorites/the points that furthered clarified copyright law:

1. Benefits of copyright law should be split between creators and the public ("If creators can't gain some benefit from their creations, they may not bother to make new works" (15)).
- I like reading/thinking about the progression of copyright law. In the Copyright manual, we read about the Statute of Anne and how it was put in place to ultimately give the government some control over what was published, as a means of censorship. 200 years later, copyright morphed into the American law that supposedly encouraged creativity. Does the incentive provided by copyright still encourage creativity? After looking at its complicated nature, changes, interpretations, etc, it seems as though it may do the opposite. If we look at elements of copyright like the Moral Rights Act, and the overall idea of property rights, I believe copyright law may stifle the creation of new works because it maintains an old work for decades at a time.

2. Four metaphors (ordered from "old way" of copyright to the "new way"):
a. Balance
b. Bargain: Public gives limited exclusive rights in order to encourage production.
c. Incentive: greater protection and increased limitations increase incentives (in other words, every time we expand copyright law, its limitations and exceptions are further narrowed).
d. Property rights: intellectual property ought to be treated like other property rights

3. Additionally, we discussed exactly why copyright law is so complicated - it's due to everything from the lawmakers' approach when creating the laws to the application of the law to the constantly shifting area of technology. Is it possible to create a law (and apply it) to highly fluid and subjective topic? Well, yes, but it needs a lot of work and everyone needs a lot of help. Thanks (I think) for the attorneys who specialize in copyright.