P a g e | 1

American Library Association. “Fair Use in the Electronic Age: Serving the Public Interest.”

Alawon, 4.22 (1995). Web. 3 Dec. 2012.

This is a source from the American Library Association that lists the rights users can expect

under fair use doctrine without infringing upon copyright. It breaks “users” down into “the

public,” “nonprofit libraries and other Section 108 libraries,” and “educational institutions,” and

it lists the rights that pertain to that group. This is a helpful source because it provides relevant

background information on fair use and gives specific expectations for groups.

Aufderheide, Patricia. "The Common Sense of the Fair-Use Doctrine." The Chronicle of Higher

Education (2011). LexisNexis Academic. Web. 3 Dec. 2012.

Patricia Aufderheide is a professor in the School of Communication at American University, and

she has performed much research in the fields of fair-use and copyright. This article provides a

short list of “do’s and don’t’s” when it comes to fair-use, reminding teachers that it is okay to

exercise fair-use rights when teaching or researching and to inform their students about

copyright. She also reminds teachers not to forget that moving away from traditional education

settings requires students to exercise their fair-use rights. Fair use can be used in both

commercial and noncommercial settings, and it is not to be confused with the open-source

movement or Creative Commons. This is a helpful source for our project because it speaks

directly to an educational setting and provides tips for both teachers and students.

Barlow, John Perry. “The Economy of Ideas: Everything You Know about Intellectual Property

Is Wrong.” Intellectual Property: Moral, Legal, and International Dilemmas. Ed. Adam

D. Moore. Boston: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997, 349-72. Print.

P a g e | 2

John Perry Barlow, co-founder and executive chair of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote

this article to explore the future of intellectual property laws. He explains that since ideas can be

reproduced and transferred all over the world without their owner’s permission or even

knowledge, it is impossible to protect them. With the advent of new technologies and uses of the

Internet, ideas are becoming more liquid than solid, as information is becoming part of a giant

database instead of becoming a tangible, patentable object, and, consequently, cannot be

“owned.” Barlow calls this “the most unreal estate imaginable.” This may be a useful source for

us if we choose to delve deeply into the effects of the Internet and Web 2.0 with regards to

intellectual property. It makes a lot of great points about IP and the reasoning behind why it is

controversial on the Internet.

Bartholomae, David. “Writing with Teachers: A Conversation with Peter Elbow.” College

Composition and Communication 46.1 (1995): 62-71. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

In this article, Bartholomae describes the discussion of academic versus personal writing he had

with his colleague, Peter Elbow. He begins by attempting to define the term academic writing,

which is difficult because it varies considerably among disciplines and assignments. In the end,

he decides that academic writing is “crowded by others,” because teachers influence the direction

of the writing and the writing itself is based on the work of other scholars (63). Then he proceeds

to define personal writing, which is free from past scholarship and purely creative. Elbow is a

strong supporter of personal writing, and Bartholomae favors academic writing. Bartholomae

claims that as teachers, they have a responsibility to expose students to the discourse of

academia, which necessitates exposure to past works. He believes that while personal writing

free of any previous concept or bias is attractive, it is unrealistic and Utopian. This is an

P a g e | 3

interesting source because it illustrates the role of intellectual property in the production of new

academic writing.

Boyle, James. “A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism for the Net?” Duke Law

Journal 47.1 (1997): 87-116. Web. 22 Mar. 2013.

In this article, Boyle asserts that the technological age has changed the dynamics and means of

power in society. Most notably, technology has made knowledge the basis of power, because

parties can tightly control the dissemination of their intellectual property to whomever they

choose. As a result, intellectual property is now the governing law. However, Boyle points out

that because this shift in power is so recent, no politics or models of intellectual property law

have been developed. Mostly, Boyle blames society’s preoccupation with the censorship of

“cyberporn” and other unsavory aspects of the Internet for the delayed development. Instead, he

believes society needs to move on and recognize the fact that intellectual property is the key to

determining who controls educational, scientific, and cultural innovation on the Internet. Boyle

goes on to compare the current state of intellectual property politics with the environmentalism

movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s. At that particular point in time, activists were beginning to

worry about the protection of National Parks and environmental disasters such as oil spills. In

order to confront these issues, environmentalists created a set of theoretical frameworks and

analytical tools to create a common discourse among everyone involved. Boyle suggests that

intellectual property is in need of its own theoretical frameworks. This source is useful because it

illustrates the power of intellectual property in the technological age. If students know how much

power rests in the possession of intellectual property, they may better understand why it is

important to obey intellectual property laws.

P a g e | 4

Boyle, James. “The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain.”

Law and Contemporary Problems 66.1.5 (2003): 33-74. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

Boyle begins his article analyzing a poem that critiques the English enclosure movement of the

18th century, which involved the state seizing previously public land and turning it into private

property. While many protested this process, claiming it harmed the cohesiveness of

communities and damaged citizens’ relationship with the environment, others viewed the

enclosure movement as a great success. During the movement, the government took previously

unused land and created production and profit. Supporters believed the increased profits

improved the economy and served the greater good.

Next, Boyle suggests that we are now in the midst of a second enclosure movement, in which

knowledge previously belonging to the public domain is being claimed as intellectual property.

Boyle believes the second enclosure movement continues unchecked, the effects will be

extremely harmful to society. He states that the public domain and creative commons are

important for fostering widespread collaboration on important problems and issues that would

otherwise be impossible. Appropriation of information in the public domain by intellectual

property law jeopardizes this collaboration. This is a valuable source because it provides

historical context for the acquisition of previously public property for private use.

Bracha, Oren. “The Ideology of Authorship Revisited: Authors, Markets, and Liberal Values in

Early American Copyright.” The Yale Law Journal 118.2 (2008): 186-271. Web. 10 Apr.

2013.

P a g e | 5

In this article, Bracha discusses the ideology of authorship and its relation to the development of

copyright law. Bracha specifically focuses on the nineteenth century, claiming that the most

important interaction between authorship and copyright law occurred during this period. The

author’s discussion is split into five parts. First, Bracha cites other works that analyze the

relationship between authorship and copyright law. He argues that these works lack a true

understanding of the relationship because most of them halt their research at the end of the

eighteenth century. Second, Bracha examines the transition from the eighteenth century to the

nineteenth century, which is when the concept of original authorship began to flourish. As a

result, copyrights were given to authors rather than publishers. Third, the author discusses the

doctrine of originality, which worked to define the degree of originality an author’s work needed

to possess in order to qualify for a copyright. Fourth, the spread of copyright protection to

multiple genres and mediums is described. Fifth, Bracha discusses the late nineteenth century

evolution in copyright law that began to account for more complex authorship situations, such as

collaborative works. This source would be helpful to our presentation because it provides

historical context for the development of authorship and intellectual property.

Breyer, Stephen. “The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copyright in Books,

Photocopies, and Computer Programs.” Harvard Law Review 84.2 (1970): 281-351.

Web. 8 Apr. 2013.

In 1970, Congress considered revising the Copyright Act of 1909. This prompted Stephen Breyer

to write an article that analyzes the moral and economic reasoning behind copyrights on books.

Essentially, this reasoning states that without copyright law, neither publishers nor authors would

make profits and authors’ hard work would not be properly protected. After considering this

reasoning, Breyer states that while he does not believe copyright laws should be abolished, he

P a g e | 6

does not believe they should be expanded either. Instead, he recommends weakening copyright

law, stating that the extension of copyright protection for 56 years after the author’s death is too

long. He also suggests that the making one hardcopy of a document for personal use and storing

digital copies for research purposes should be legal. Breyer also addressed the extension of

copyright law to computer software since the 1970’s marked the rise of personal computer use.

Basically, he concluded that software should not be protected by copyright law because it

already turned a huge profit without protection and software consumers were often required to

purchase many additional services and products in addition to software, such as maintenance

tools and services. This article is interesting because it offers a modern history of U.S. copyright

law on intellectual property and describes the rationale behind the law in detail. It also offers

early opinions of computer software as intellectual property.

Buskirk, Martha. “Commodification as Censor: Copyrights and Fair Use.” October 60 (1992): 82

-109. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

In this article, Buskirk explores the idea of intellectual property as a commodity rather than

solely academic work. In order to ensure readers’ understand the basics of intellectual property

and copyright law, Buskirk begins by providing a brief history of copyright law starting with the

invention of the printing press in the sixteenth century to the early development of individual

authorship in the eighteenth century (as opposed to publisher controlled text). The history lesson

on the development of authorship concludes in 1976 when the U.S. passed legislation that based

copyright terms on authors’ life spans plus fifty years. Next, Buskirk moves to the topic of fair

use, which aids the creation of new intellectual property by allowing copyrighted sources to be

quoted or copied in certain circumstances. She argues that without well defined fair use

P a g e | 7

guidelines critics would not be able to sufficiently analyze works, resulting in a form of

censorship.

While text is regulated by reasonable fair use laws, the author suggests that images are in danger

of being censored due to copyright holders maintaining almost complete control over their

creations. In modern times, images have become commodities that consumers associate with

brands or products rather than individual ideas or authors. This association results in the desire to

strictly control the reproduction of images because they represent economic value, resulting in

Trademark law. To illustrate her point, Buskirk cites the example of strictly copyrighted Disney

cartoon characters. After discovering that a pre-school had created their own reproductions of

popular Disney characters such as Mickey Mouse, Disney claimed the school was in violation of

copyright law and pursued legal action. This source is relevant to our presentation because it

offers a very detailed description of images as intellectual property, as well as emphasizes the

importance of fair use. Also, discussion of familiar brands such as Disney may help students

relate to the material.

Carlson, Scott. “Whose Work Is It, Anyway?” Chronicle of Higher Education, 29 July 2005.

Web. 18 July 2012.

In this article, Scott Carlson, senior reporter at The Chronicle of Higher Education, explains the

problems “orphaned” works create for those who want to use the works. Publications with no

known author are considered orphan works, and they create problems when people want to use

their works and give credit to the author. There are many viewpoints on how to use orphan

works: first, if unable to find the author after a thorough search, one may use the publication. If

the author makes himself known within five years, then he may get a share of the profit received

P a g e | 8

by the person who used the work. Second, orphan works should be fully protected, as many

photographers’ and illustrators’ works are often used without their knowledge and/or consent

because people cannot find them. This might be a helpful source to explain situations in which

students cannot find the author to a source they might want to use. It is a topic whose laws are

under debate, so it might be beneficial to discuss.

CCCC Caucus on Intellectual Property. “Use Your Fair Use: Strategies toward Action.” College

Composition and Communication 51.3 (February 2000): 485-487.

The CCCC Caucus on Intellectual Property wrote this section of their journal to remind their

readers (teachers, mostly) that they are much less restricted than they think they are. They show

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, which is about fair use, and they give the guidelines

that courts use in order to determine if something is fair use. They encourage teachers to educate

others about fair use so they can get all the sources they can to use in their classrooms. This is

definitely a usable source because it is easy to read and understand. It gives clear guidelines and

breaks down the fair use section of the Copyright Act.

Decherney, Peter. “Communicating Fair Use: Norms, Myth, and the Avant-Garde.” Law and

Literature 25.1 (2013): 50-64. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

In this article, Decherney explores the ambiguity of fair use laws in the creative marketplace.

First, he starts by claiming that the legal system does not actually handle the majority of fair use

violations. Instead, he says “gatekeepers” (teachers, publishers, studios) handle fair use issues

before they ever get to court. Also, he believes analysis of fair use should not be approached

through the lens of economics or the legal system, but through storytelling. According to

Decherney, fair use “myths” are spread to “gatekeepers” and the public through stories that have

P a g e | 9

no clear origin. Fair use “myths” are incorrect concepts of fair use law that are commonly seen as

correct as a result of storytelling. For the second half of his article, the author focuses on the

1960’s and 1990’s avant-garde American film communities’ creation and communication of fair

use myths, because the ability to critique and manipulate others’ work is vital to the field.

Additionally, their fair use never resulted in lawsuits, played a major role in the industry’s

creative development, and experienced change over time. He concludes that fair use myths are

circulated throughout the film community as a result of people sharing false accounts of

filmmakers’ fair use in movies. This is a useful source because it illustrates the confusing nature

of fair use enforcement.

Golub, A. “Copyright and Taboo.” Anthropological Quarterly 77.3 (2004): 521-530. 4 Apr.

2013.

Alex Golub is an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He

wrote this article to explore the relationship between the self and the body as seen through people

in different cultures: third world, first world, and the online world. He explains how in some

cultures, taking a picture of someone is the equivalent of stealing their soul, whereas in a first

world culture, it is not treated like that at all, although people are arrested for video-taping events

that they do not have the rights to be video-taping because they are stealing “the image and

likeness” of the person being taped. It is ironic that this seems very primitive, even though first

world countries are not primitive areas. This could be a helpful source just to gain a deeper

insight on copyright in first world America. It’s interesting to see how primitive taboos pop up

even though first world countries seem so far removed from third world countries.

Kapczynski, Amy. “The Access to Knowledge Mobilization and the New Politics of Intellectual

P a g e | 10

Property.” The Yale Law Journal 117.5 (2008): 804-885. Web. 8 Apr. 2013.

Kapczynski’s article addresses the increased critique of intellectual property law in the United

States and abroad by a multitude of different groups, from farmers to computer programmers.

Instead of focusing on intellectual property in relation to academia or publishing, the article

discusses intellectual property in a more general sense. These groups are protesting the

constraints intellectual property law places on “access to knowledge” or A2K in all areas of

society and learning. They are asking the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to

pass an Access to Knowledge Treaty that would ensure enough access to intellectual property to

stimulate and protect innovation in areas such as generic medicine and software development.

The author then goes on to investigate the sociological theories behind the success of the A2K

movement. This article is fascinating because it explores various applications of intellectual

property law on a global scale.

Lewin, Peter. “Creativity or Coercion: Alternative Perspectives on Rights to Intellectual

Property.” Journal of Business Ethics 71.4 (2007): 441-455. Web. 8 Mar. 2013.

Lewin seeks to discover what intellectual property rights reflect about the subject of property

rights as a whole, especially in relation to modern technology. First, he examines property rights

in general and separates the approaches to thinking about property rights into two categories:

Consequentialist and Axiomatic. Consequentialist approaches “are based on a consideration of

the consequences of different property rights regimes” (441). On the other hand, Axiomatic

approaches “are based on criteria said to be independent of consequences” (441). The author

sides with the Consequentialists because he believes possible legal, economic, and ethical

consequences always need to be taken into consideration. This could be a helpful source because

P a g e | 11

it describes property rights in a general sense. It also explores the ways in which modern

technology has complicated intellectual property rights. For instance, the author points out how

we have become a culture of copiers (movies, television shows, music, etc.).

May, Christopher. “The Hypocrisy of Forgetfulness: The Contemporary Significance of Early

Innovations in Intellectual Property.” Review of International Political Economy 14.1

(2007): 1-25. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

In this article, May argues that intellectual property rights are not universal, and their

development must be studied within their own specific historical, political, and cultural context.

This context is the combination of technological, legal/political, and philosophical forces that

occurred during the rise of capitalism in Europe. May believes it’s understandable that the

development of intellectual property rights paralleled the development of capitalism, because

intellectual property rights are knowledge as a commodity. He goes on to describe the

development of intellectual property rights from their early beginnings in 15th century Venice to

their present state. He provides such a detailed picture of intellectual property rights’ historical

context because he wants to emphasize that they are not “natural.” Instead, he states that modern

intellectual property rights are the result of commercialization and regulation in a capitalist

society. The detailed history provided by the author could be very useful for explaining the

origins and background of intellectual property to students.

Newby, Tyler G. “What’s Fair Here is Not Fair Everywhere: Does the American Fair Use

Doctrine Violate International Copyright Law?” Stanford Law Review 51.6 (1999):

1633-1663. Web. 25 Apr. 2013.

P a g e | 12

In this article, Newby examines fair use at an international level. He begins by telling the story of

how Nanosoft, an American software company, became involved in an international legal

dispute with Sonoco, a Japanese software company. Sonoco had recently developed a popular

hand-held personal computer, the Handyman, and Nanosoft wanted permission to develop

software applications for the device. Sonoco refused, but by “reverse engineering” (1634) the

Handyman’s operating system code, Nanosoft was able to develop the applications anyway.

Sonoco sought legal action against the American company, because in order to engineer the

code, Nanosoft would have had to copy part of the code that was protected by copyright.

Nanosoft claimed that their actions were in accordance with U.S. fair use laws. The power to

settle the dispute was eventually given to the World Trade Organization (WTO), which ruled in

favor of Nanosoft. The Japanese government responded by asserting that American fair use laws

violate international copyright law. The author argues that in this case, yes, American fair use

laws were in violation of international law. He believes that the dispute should have been solved

between the two nations rather than the WTO in order to ensure a fair outcome. This is a useful

source because it illustrates the differences between U.S. and international copyright laws, as

well as the complications that result from these differences.

Posner, Richard A. “The Truth about Plagiarism.” New York Newsday, 18 May 2003. 18 Dec.

2012.

Richard Posner, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and lecturer at the University of Chicago

Law School, wrote this article to show that plagiarism is not always as horrible a thing as it is

made out to be. It is true that credit should be given to whom it is due, but people develop ideas

off of previous ideas. It is okay to take ideas from something and personalize it—in fact, many

play, book, and movie ideas came from earlier works. If this type of “plagiarism” were punished

P a g e | 13

like other types are, there would no longer be a “dissemination of ideas,” and creativity would

risk being lost. This is a helpful source because it points out that there are some types of

“plagiarism,” by definition, that are okay. Plagiarism is used “loosely and often too broadly,”

according to Posner.

The Purdue OWL. Purdue U Writing Lab, 2010. Web. 10 Feb. 2013.

The Purdue Online Writing Lab (Purdue OWL) provides an extensive collection of

resources for students, tutors, and teachers. Through the OWL, users can access a multitude of

information related to academic writing. For example, the website includes pages that cover

topics such as grammar, English as a second language studies, and style guides. Many of the

pages also include exercises that are meant to help users master the information covered in the

various sections. This website is especially useful to our presentation, because it contains

detailed Modern Language Association (MLA), American Psychological Association (APA),

and Chicago style guides, as well as an explanation of plagiarism. The explanation of plagiarism

could be used to help students understand the importance of correctly citing other peoples’ work

and the style guides could give them the information necessary to do so. Additionally, students

would walk away with knowledge of a convenient resource that they can use at home.

Saint-Amour, Paul K. “Your Right to What’s Mine: On Personal Intellectual Property.” Law and

Literature 25.1 (2013): 103-121. Web. 17 Apr. 2013.

In this article, Saint-Amour discusses the exclusivity and constraints of American copyright law.

While authors are given exclusive rights to their work as a form of motivation, these rights are

also constrained to prevent the violation of free speech laws. Without the freedom to draw from

other authors’ intellectual property, production of new material would be hindered. Saint-Amour

P a g e | 14

extends this line of reasoning by proposing that eventually there will exist a “personal property

right in other people’s intellectual property” (105). In order to illustrate his point, he draws an

interesting comparison between intellectual property and rental property by citing Margaret Jane

Radin’s work on tenants’ rights and rent control. Radin argues that since rented homes are

personal property, or related to one’s sense of self, tenants’ have certain rights that protect

against treatment such as unlawful eviction. Presently, Saint-Amour claims the use of other

people’s intellectual property is based on the legal right to free speech and not personal property.

However, he believes the idea of intellectual property as personal property should still be

considered. He is not advocating the right to copy others’ work simply because you feel a

passing connection with it, but rather “through extended interaction with it-by living with it in a

condition that is like habitation, by mingling our thoughts and feelings with it, making it part of

the domicile of our intellectual, creative, and political self-production” (110). In other words, the

creation of new intellectual property depends on personal relationships with established

intellectual property. This source is useful because it creates an interesting analogy of intellectual

property vs. rental property that students may find relatable.

Schlosser, Melanie. “Fair Use in the Digital Environment: A Research Guide.” Reference & User

Services Quarterly 46.1 (2006): 11-17. Web. 4 Apr. 2013.

Schlosser’s guide was initially created to help librarians and students understand the concept of

fair use in relation to digital information. She begins by drawing comparisons between the

invention of the printing press and the rise of digital information. First, she tells an abbreviated

story of the invention of the printing press and its role in the creation of copyright law. Then, she

goes on to claim that the rise of digital information is just as revolutionary as the invention of the

P a g e | 15

printing press in the world of copyright law. For instance, while the printing press allowed more

widespread distribution of physical text, modern technology allows text to be distributed

digitally across the globe. Next, Schlosser offers a definition of fair use, an explanation of fair

use’s relationship with digital information, reasons this guide is important/relevant in today’s

world, a description of copyright law, and numerous sources related to fair use of digital

information. This source is useful because digital information is now more commonly used by

the average college student than physical texts. Also, the author’s description of fair use is

simple and easy to understand, which may help explain its properties and purpose to students.

The sources Schlosser includes could aid in further research on the topic of fair use.

P a g e | 16