NOTES

INTRODUCTION: THE THEATER OF COPYRIGHT

  1. An incomplete list of exceptions would include Thomas Guback, The International Film Industry: Western Europe and America Since 1945 (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1969); Ian Jarvie, Hollywood’s Overseas Campaigns: The North Atlantic Movie Trade, 1920–1950 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Richard Maltby, Harmless Entertainment: Hollywood and the Ideology of Consensus (New York: Scarecrow Press, 1983); Toby Miller, Nitin Govil, John McMurria, Richard Maxwell, and Ting Wang, Global Hollywood 2 (London: British Film Institute, 2005); and Albert Moran, ed., Film Policy: International, National, and Regional Perspectives (London: Routledge, 1996).

  2. United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131 (1948).

  3. Legislature of Louisiana, House of Representatives, Act No. 456, H. B. 936, 110th Cong., Regular Session, 2007. (See www.legis.state.la.us.)

  4. I am adopting a formulation of fair use frequently used by legal scholar Peter Jaszi. See, for example, Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011).

  5. Recently, copyright lawyer and historian William Patry has denounced the rhetoric of the copyright wars as polarizing and unproductive. He wants to see the copyright wars replaced by rational economic logic. Scholars Peter Jaszi and Patricia Aufderheide have similarly attempted to free their readers “from the disempowering structure of a ‘copyright wars’ way of thinking.” And Jaszi and Aufderheide have successfully empowered many different communities of media makers to take advantage of fair use. These are admirable goals, and I hope that they are able to replace the copyright wars with reasoned, rational decision-making. See William Patry, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), and Aufderheide and Jaszi, Reclaiming Fair Use, x.

  6. Framing copyright as a war is particularly apt, since it has always been a highly contested area of regulation. Moreover, copyright has often served as extension of other wars, both real and metaphorical. Copyright law has been enlisted into the culture wars and used to censor heretical and scandalous texts since the eighteenth century. In chapter 1, for example, I discuss late-nineteenth-century judges’ use of copyright law to dictate morality to vaudeville performers and early filmmakers. Copyright has been pressed into the service of economic wars as well. The United States, for example, regularly implores the World Trade Organization to reform trade with China and other countries by exacting stricter copyright penalties. Copyright is often just one battlefield in a larger theater of war. The idea that the creative expression contained in a work of art is itself property is, of course, another metaphor. Because copyright regulates abstract qualities like originality, authorship, and expression, it may just be inevitable that it will be thought of in terms of metaphors.

  7. With all three technologies, Congress stepped in to set the terms for reusing copyrighted media rather than allowing copyright holders to have complete control over their works. These government-imposed compulsory licenses radically transformed both copyright law and the media industries. Radio DJs, for example, freely play music knowing that their stations do not have to negotiate separate licenses for every song they play. Instead, the stations pay a fee to an organization that disperses money to composers. Imagine the atrophying of music played over the air if radio stations needed to obtain separate permission for every song they played. Compulsory licenses were both a method of assimilating formerly piratical activities and, at the same time, a way of allowing media companies to profit from new technologies. Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lockdown Culture and Control Creativity (New York: Penguin, 2004). Historian Adrian Johns reads a more metaphysical goal into piracy debates as he traces intellectual property piracy back to the eighteenth century. Johns argues that in debates about piracy, we define “the nature of the relationship we want to uphold between creativity, communication, and commerce.” Johns, Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 5.

  8. Interview with Fred von Lohmann, “Hearsay Culture,” KZSU-FM, Stanford, CA (July 4, 2007).

1. PIRACY AND THE BIRTH OF FILM

  1. Terry Ramsaye, A Million and One Nights: A History of the Motion Picture Through 1925 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1926), 309.

  2. Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342 (C. C. D. Mass. 1841). Several film theorists have noted the early theorization of film present in the Edison v. Lubin case. André Gaudreault has observed that the Edison cases prefigure by eighty years theorists’ debates about cinematic storytelling: “The Infringement of Copyright Law and Its Effects (1900–1906)” in Thomas Elsaesser with Adam Barker, eds., Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative (London: British Film Institute, 1990), 114–22. And Mary Ann Doane notes that early film copyright cases revolve around changing conceptions of the spectator; The Emergence of Cinematic Time: Modernity, Contingency, Irony (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002), 156–58.

  3. Lawrence Lessig discusses the move from piracy to legality in several new media in Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (New York: Penguin, 2004).

  4. For an exhaustive chronicle of the Townsend Act, see Report of the Register of Copyrights (Washington, D. C.: GPO, 1912), 136–38. See also William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright (Eagan, MN: Thomson West, 2006).

  5. Interestingly, Brady was commonly considered the artist or author of all works exhibited under his name, even those shot by his assistants or commissioned by him. See Alan Trachtenberg, Reading American Photographs: Images as History, Mathew Brady to Walker Evans (New York: Hill and Wang, 1989), 37.

  6. Pascal Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 12.

  7. The phrase “spark of originality” is borrowed, anachronistically, from Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S. D. N. Y 1999).

  8. See essays by Holmes, André Bazin, and Siegfried Kracauer collected in Alan Trachtenberg, ed., Classic Essays on Photography (New Haven: Leete’s Island Books, 1980).

  9. Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82 (1879).

10.  “The Congress shall have the power … 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.” U. S. Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 8 (emphasis added).

11. On Sarony see Paul Goldstein, Copyright’s Highway: From Guttenberg to the Celestial Jukebox, rev. ed. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003), 46–47; Jane Gaines, Contested Culture: The Image, the Voice, and the Law (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), ch. 2.

12. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53 (1884).

13. Thornton v. Schreiber, 124 U. S. 612 (1888).

14. “New Practice in the Copyright of Photographs,” Scientific American 82.7 (Feb. 17, 1900): 102.

15. Georges Sadoul, Lumière et Méliès (Paris: Editions Denoel, 1985); Jay Leyda, “A Note on Progress,” Film Quarterly 21.4 (Summer 1968): 28–33; David Bordwell, “The Art Cinema as a Mode of Film Practice,” Poetics of Cinema (New York: Routledge, 2007); Jane M. Gaines, “Early Cinema’s Heyday of Copying: Too Many Copies of L’Arroseur arrosé (The Waterer Watered),” Cultural Studies 20.2–3 (Mar./May 2006): 227–44. For more on remakes and borrowings, see chapter 2.

16. Charles Musser, Before the Nickelodeon: Edwin S. Porter and the Edison Manufacturing Company (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991),239.

17. Charles Musser, The Emergence of Cinema: The American Screen to 1907 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 278.

18. Musser, Before the Nickelodeon, 209.

19. See Lisa Gitleman, “Recording Race, Recording Sound, Recording Property,” in Mark M. Smith, ed., Hearing History: A Reader (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2004), 291.

20. Joseph P. Eckhardt, The King of the Movies: Film Pioneer Siegmund Lubin (Madison: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1997), 37; Musser, The Emergence of Cinema, 330.

21. Edison v. American Mutoscope Co., 114 F. 926 (2d Cir. 1902).

22. In 1898 the Edison Company had sued Vitagraph for film duping but settled out of court. Vitagraph became a licensee of Edison and also became its surreptitious duper. See Musser, Before the Nickelodeon, 134.

23. Letter, James White to Howard Hayes (June 10, 1903) in Thomas A. Edison Papers: A Microfilm Edition (Frederick, Md.: University Publications of America, 1987–), reel 223, frames 854–856 (hereafter, Edison Papers).

24. Agreed Statement of Facts, Edison v. Lubin (Edison Papers, reel 223, frames 857–861).

25. Brief of Thomas A. Edison Manufacturing Company, Edison v. Lubin (Edison Papers, reel 223, frames 872–881).

26. Brief of Thomas A. Edison Manufacturing Company, Edison v. Lubin (Edison Papers, reel 223, frame 876).

27. White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U. S. 1 (1908).

28. The best method for protecting computer software is still disputed, and many programs are protected by patents and licenses in addition to or instead of by copyrights.

29. Letter, William Edgar Gilmore to William Peltzer (July 29, 1902), Edison Papers (reel 223, frame 882).

30. Musser, Before the Nickelodeon, 207–208; Musser, The Emergence of Cinema, 207.

31. American Mutoscope & Biograph Co. v. Edison Manufacturing Co., 137 F. 262 (C. C. D. N. J 1905); Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U. S. 55 (2d Cir. 1911).

32. Edison v. Lubin, 199 F. 993 (E. D. Pa 1903).

33. Robert Sklar, Movie-Made America: A Cultural History of American Movies, rev. and exp. (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 23; Ramsaye, A Million and One Nights, 396; and Fred J. Balshofer and Arthur C. Miller, with the assistance of Bebe Bergsten, One Reel a Week (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), 8–9. Balshofer misidentifies Gaston as Georges.

34. Edison Papers (reel 188, frame 559); Kerry Segrave, Piracy in the Motion Picture Industry (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2003), 27.

35. Musser, Before the Nickelodeon, 208. The ad is quoted in Eckhardt, King of the Movies, 46.

36. Siva Vaidyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 89. The economist Harold Scott Wallace also suggests that Edison v. Lubin along with other patent and copyright cases helped to stabilize the film industry. See Wallace, “Competition and the Legal Environment: Intellectual Property Rights in the Early American Film Industry,” Department of Economics Working Paper Series, University of Connecticut (Oct. 1998). Film was not simply ignored by the legislators in 1909. Edison lawyer Frank Dyer lobbied to have film kept out of the 1909 Act because the existing case law was beneficial to the film industry.

37. Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographic Co., 188 U. S. 239 (1903).

38. Edison v. Lubin, 122 F. 240 (3rd Cir. 1903).

39. Edison v. Lubin (1903). Letter, Howard Hayes to Edison, Edison Papers (reel 223, frame 892).

40. Letter, William Gilmore to Howard Hayes, Edison Papers (reel 223, frame 884).

41. All of the correspondence and documentation about this incident can be found in a folder labeled “Correspondence: Foreign Films (1904),” Edison Papers (reel 223, frames 463–477). Dyer is quoted in Musser, Before the Nickelodeon, 277.

42. Ramsaye, A Million and One Nights, 321. On the Biograph cases, see Eckhardt, King of the Movies, 46, 54. For the correspondence between Edison and Lubin regarding the 1904 trademark dispute, see Edison Papers (reel 223, frames 478–485).

43. Richard Abel, The Red Rooster Scare: Making Cinema American, 1900–1910 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 89, 232; Eckhardt, King of the Movies; and Balshofer and Miller, One Reel A Week, 5–9.

44. For a detailed account of the transition to story films that discussed the impact of copyright, see Musser, Before the Nickelodeon, ch. 8.

45. Letter, Frank Dyer to Thorvald Solberg (Oct. 6, 1905); letter, Solberg to Dyer (Oct. 11, 1905); Edison Papers (reel 323, frames 453–456).

46. Biograph Co. v. Edison (1905).

47. Patrick Loughney, “From Rip Van Winkle to Jesus of Nazareth: Thoughts on the Origins of the American Screenplay,” Film History 9.3 (1997): 284.

48. Musser describes the negotiation over strongman Sandow’s fee for performing in the Black Maria, in Before the Nickelodeon, 39.

49. Musser, The Emergence of Cinema, 193–200.

50. Broder v. Zeno Mauvais Music Co., 88 F. 74 (C. C. N. D. Cal. 1898).

51. Segrave, Piracy in the Motion Picture Industry, 8; Broder v. Zeno (1898) [“Dora Dean”]; Martinetti v. Maguire, 16 F. Cas. 920 (C. C. N. D. Cal. 1867) [Black Crook]; Glyn v. Weston Feature Films (1 Ch. 261 1916); Edward S. Rodgers, “Copyright and Morals,” Michigan Law Review 18.5 (Mar. 1920): 390–404; Jeanne Thomas Allen, “Copyright and Early Theatre, Vaudeville, and Film Competition,” in John Fell, ed., Film Before Griffith (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 176–87. Even when vaudeville copyright cases were decided on different grounds, the question of moral censorship was always present; see, for example, Barnes v. Miner, 122 F. 480 (C. C. S. D. N. Y. 1903).

52. Martinetti v. Maguire (1867); Herbert Reynolds, “Aural Gratification with Kalem Films: A Case History of Music, Lectures and Sound Effects, 1907–1917” Film History 12.3 (2000): 427 (internal quotation marks removed).

53. Fuller v. Bemis, 50 F. 926 (C. C. S. D. N. Y. 1892).

54. Tom Gunning, “Now You See It, Now You Don’t: The Temporality of the Cinema of Attractions,” in Lee Grievson and Peter Krämer, eds., The Silent Cinema Reader (New York: Routledge, 2004), 41–50.

55. Allen, “Copyright and Early Theatre, Vaudeville, and Film Competition.”

56. On film and theater style from the period, see Ben Brewster and Lea Jacobs, Theater to Cinema: Stage Pictorialism and the Early Feature Film (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).

57. David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, and Kristin Thompson, The Classical Hollywood Cinema (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), 130.

58.  “Dramatic Authors Ask for Protection,” New York Times, Mar. 29, 1908, 8.

59. Ibid.

60. For example, Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2001).

61. Letter, Frank Dyer to Thorvald Solberg (Mar. 22, 1909); Letter, Thorvald Solberg to Frank Dyer (Mar. 23, 1909), Edison Papers (reel 193, frames 172–173); Bordwell, Staiger, Thompson, Classical Hollywood Cinema, 132.

62. On the Berlin conference of 1908 and the Berne Convention, see Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union, 18–21.

63. Vaidyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs.

64. Segrave, Piracy in the Motion Picture Industry, 47–48.

65. Both sides hired lawyers with long resumés in the field of literary, dramatic, and film copyright. Kalem’s lawyers were John W. Griggs and Drury Cooper. Griggs had served as Attorney General under President William McKinley, and he had a long career in international policymaking and as a lawyer for media companies; he eventually became president of the Marconi Wireless Company. Cooper had represented Biograph in its first copyright case against Edison, which Biograph lost. Biograph v. Edison (1905). Klaw & Erlanger hired the firm and lawyer who had helped Augustin Daly forge dramatic copyright law in Daly v. Brady, 175 U. S. 148 (1899) and Daly v. Webster, 163 U. S. 155 (1896).

66. Brief of Kalem Company in Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros. (1911).

67. For a recent example of a case in which defendants unsuccessfully claimed that new technology was fair use because it increased sales, see CleanFlicks of Colorado v. Steven Soderbergh, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D. Col. 2006). For an example of a case in which a successful parody hurt the market for the original but was still determined to be fair use, see Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 482 F. Supp. 741 (S. D. N. Y. 1980).

68. Brief of Harper and Brothers, Henry Wallace, and Klaw & Erlanger in Kalem v. Harper Bros. (1911).

69. Ibid., 15.

70. Kalem v. Harper Bros., 169 F. 61 (2nd Cir. 1909).

71. Brief of Klaw & Erlanger in Kalem v. Harper Bros. (1911), 16.

72. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U. S. 913 (2005).

73. Louis Menand, The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America (Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2001), 342–43; Jeffrey Rosen, The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America (New York: Times Books, 2006), 116.

74. Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographic Co., 188 U. S. 239 (1903).

75. In their respective histories of U. S. copyright law both Paul Goldstein and Siva Vaidhyanathan suggest that Holmes’s view of copyright was, in part, immediate and personal as well as jurisprudential. In 1899, Holmes had lost a case before the Supreme Court involving his father’s well-known story, The Autocrat of the Breakfast Table. The court found unanimously that the story had fallen into the public domain, because its copyright registration had not been renewed. As executor of his father’s literary estate, Holmes lost all future profits from the sale of the story as well as the right to authorize translations, dramatizations, and, potentially, film adaptations. He clearly understood copyright law from the author’s perspective. Goldstein, Copyright’s Highway, 46, and Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs, 95, 211n22.

76. Kalem v. Harper Bros. (1911).

77. Ibid.

78. Harper Bros. v. Klaw & Erlanger, 232 F. 609 (S. D. N. Y. 1916); Report of the Register of Copyrights (1912), 136–38; Patry, Patry on Copyright.

79. United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co., 225 F. 800 (E. D. Pa. 1915); Janet Staiger, “Combination and Litigation: Structures of U. S. Film Distribution, 1896–1917,” Cinema Journal (1983): 41–73.

80. Bordwell, Staiger, Thompson, Classical Hollywood Cinema, 132; Eckhardt, King of the Movies.

81. Bordwell, Staiger, Thompson, Classical Hollywood Cinema, 132; Eileen Bowser, The Transformation of Cinema, 1907–1915 (New York: Scribner, 1990), 227.

82. Patrick Loughney suggests that production companies started optioning plays even before the 1909 Ben-Hur decision; see “From Rip Van Winkle to Jesus of Nazareth,” 285–86. Frances Taylor Patterson’s advice can be found in Cinema Craftsmanship: A Book for Photoplaywrights (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Howe, 1920), 81. Other books for screenwriters that contained copyright advice include Eapes Winthrop Sargeant, The Technique of the Photoplay, 2d ed. (New York: Moving Picture World, 1913).

83. Peter Decherney, Hollywood and the Culture Elite: How the Movies Became American (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), ch. 2; Edward Azlant, “The Theory, History, and Practice of Screenwriting, 1897–1920” (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1980); Dana Polan, Scenes of Instruction: The Beginnings of the U. S. Study of Film (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), ch. 1.

84. Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U. S. 230 (1915).

2. HOLLYWOOD’S GOLDEN AGE OF PLAGIARISM

  1. For criticism of copyright law’s relation to originality, see the essays in Martha Woodmansee and Peter Jaszi, eds., The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature (Durham: Duke University Press, 1994) and James Boyle’s great chapter, “I Got a Mashup,” in The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008). For an introduction to the Hollywood studio system, see David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, and Kristin Thompson, The Classical Hollywood Cinema (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985) and John Belton’s discussion of the star and genre systems in American Cinema/American Culture, 3d ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2008).

  2. International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U. S. 215 (1918) (Justice Brandeis dissenting); Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U. S. 539 (1985). Also see Yochai Benkler, “Free as the Air to Common Use: First Amendment Constraints on Enclosure of the Public Domain,” N. Y. U. Law Review 74.354 (1999).

  3. Peter Jaszi, “When Works Collide: Derivative Motion Pictures, Underlying Rights, and the Public Interest,” UCLA Law Review 28.715 (1980): 729.

  4. I use the word plagiarism in this chapter because Hollywood controlled borrowing through both legal and institutional means. But I also use the term plagiarism because it was the technical word used in court decisions throughout much of the twentieth century.

  5. Kerry Segrave, Piracy in the Motion Picture Industry (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2003), 6, 15, 17, 18, 19.

  6. Ibid., 17.

  7. Fuller v. Bemis, 50 F. 926 (S. D. N. Y. 1892); Mary Louise Fuller, “Garment for Dancers,” U. S. Patent 518347 (Apr. 17, 1894).

  8. Loie Fuller, Fifteen Years of a Dancer’s Life (Boston: Small, Maynard, 1913), 41–42, 55–56; Richard Nelson Current and Marcia Ewing Current, Loie Fuller: Goddess of Light (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1997), 40–44, 62.

  9. David Robinson, From Peep Show to Palace: The Birth of American Film (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), 122.

10. Thomas A. Edison Papers: A Microfilm Edition (Frederick, Md.: University Publications of America, 1987–), reel 223, frames 810, 813.

11. For a great recent assessment of comedy and copyright, see Dotan Oliar and Christopher Sprigman, “There’s No Free Laugh (Anymore): The Emergence of Intellectual Property Norms and the Transformation of Stand-Up Comedy,” Virginia Law Review 94.8 (Dec. 2008), 1787–1867.

12. Daly v. Palmer, 6 F. Cas. 1132 (S. D. N. Y. 1868).

13. American Mutoscope & Biograph Co. v. Edison Manufacturing. Co., 137 F. 262 (D. N. J. 1905).

14. Charles Musser, Before the Nickelodeon: Edwin S. Porter and the Edison Manufacturing Company (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 282.

15. Jay Leyda, “A Note on Progress,” Film Quarterly 21.4 (Summer 1968): 28–33; Jay Leyda, “Waiting Jobs,” Film Quarterly 6.2 (Winter, 1962–63): 29–33; Tom Gunning, “‘Heard Over the Phone’: The Lonely Villa and the de Lorde Tradition of the Terrors of Technology,” Screen 32.2 (Summer 1991); Musser, Before the Nickelodeon, 424.

16. Rudolph Arnheim, “Chaplin’s Early Films” (1929), rpt. in “Walter Benjamin and Rudolf Arnheim on Charlie Chaplin,” trans. John MacKay, Yale Journal of Criticism 9 (1996): 312.

17. Theodore Huff, Charlie Chaplin (New York: Arno, 1972), 125; Walter Benjamin, “A Look at Chaplin” (1929), rpt. in “Walter Benjamin and Rudolf Arnheim on Charlie Chaplin,” 310.

18. Siegfried Kracauer, “Two Chaplin Sketches,” trans. John MacKay, Yale Journal of Criticism 10 (1997): 115–20.

19. Theodor W. Adorno, “Chaplin Times Two,” trans. John MacKay, Yale Journal of Criticism 9 (1996): 57–61. Adorno’s remarks about laughter appear in The Dialectic of Enlightenment and are quoted in MacKay’s “Translator’s Introduction,” 57. MacKay points out that Adorno defended his admiration for Chaplin—and at the same time may have explained the soft approach reserved for this Hollywood star—with a personal anecdote: “Perhaps I may justify my speaking about him by recounting a certain privilege which I was granted, entirely without my having earned it. He once imitated me, and surely I am one of the few intellectuals to whom this happened” (Adorno, “Chaplin Times Two,” 60).

20. Gilbert Seldes, The Seven Lively Arts (New York: Harper and Bros., 1924), 41–42. For more essays on Chaplin as artist, see Richard Schickel, ed., The Essential Chaplin: Perspectives on the Life and Art of the Great Comedian (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006).

21. Charles Maland, Chaplin and American Culture: The Evolution of a Star Image (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), 10–11.

22. Kathy Merlock Jackson, “Mickey and the Tramp: Walt Disney’s Debt to Charlie Chaplin,” Journal of American Culture 26 (2003): 439–44.

23. John McCabe, Charlie Chaplin (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978), 88-89; Joyce Milton, Tramp: The Life of Charles Chaplin (New York: Da Capo, 1998), 123–24.

24. Terry Ramsaye, A Million and One Nights: A History of the Motion Picture Through 1925 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1926), 732; Ulrich Ruedel, “Send in the Clones,” The BFI Charles Chaplin Symposium (July 2005) (http://chaplin.bfi.org.uk/programme/conference/pdf/ulrich-ruedel.pdf)

25. See, for example, Susan McCabe, “‘Delight in Dislocation’: The Cinematic Modernism of Stein, Chaplin, and Man Ray,” Modernism/Modernity 8 (2001): 429–52; Anthony Paraskeva, “Wyndham Lewis v. Charlie Chaplin,” Forum for Modern Language Studies 43 (2007): 223–34; Austin Briggs, “Chaplin’s Charlie and Joyce’s Bloom,” Journal of Modern Literature 20 (1996): 177–86; David Chinitz, T. S. Eliot and the Cultural Divide (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 87–88, 101; Haim Finkelstein, “Dalí and Un Chien andalou: The Nature of a Collaboration,” in Rudolf E. Kuenzli, ed., Dada and Surrealist Film (New York: Willis, Locker & Owens, 1987), 129–30; Paul Hammond, ed., The Shadow and Its Shadow: Surrealist Writings on the Cinema, 3d ed. (San Francisco: City Lights, 2000).

26. Matthew S. Witkovsky, “Surrealism in the Plural: Guillaume Apollinaire, Ivan Goll, and Devětsil in the 1920s,” Papers of Surrealism 2 (2004): 1–14; Clare Cavanagh, “Rereading the Poet’s Ending: Mandelstam, Chaplin, and Stalin,” PMLA 109 (1994): 71–86; Susan Delson, Dudley Murphy: Hollywood Wild Card (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006), 60.

27. Milton, Tramp, 124; Maland, Chaplin and American Culture, 317.

28. Milton, Tramp, 124. Terry Ramsaye reports that the box-office receipts at the Crystal Hall dropped 50 percent when they showed Chaplin imitators rather than Chaplin himself. Ramsaye, A Million and One Nights, 732, 737.

29. See, for example, “Charlie Chaplin Protests,” Los Angles Times, Mar. 8, 1922; “Delay of Chaplin Suit,” Los Angeles Times, Apr. 7, 1922; “Chaplin Papers Here,” Los Angeles Times, Apr. 23, 1922; “Chaplin Injunction,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 5, 1924.

30. “Chaplin to Testify in Loeb Film Suit,” New York Times, May 6, 1927, 20.

31. “Charlie Chaplin Sues Chaplin Imitator,” Los Angeles Examiner, Feb. 20, 1925.

32. “Chaplin Garb Is Called Old,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 21, 1925, A1.

33. Ibid.; “Fears Monopoly in Acting,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 24, 1925, A10; “Aplin Will Call Chaplin,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 26, 1925, A1.

34. “Chaplin Pants Real Issue,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 25, 1925, A1.

35. Charles Chaplin v. Western Features Productions, 137 F. 262 (1925); “Chaplin Trial Ends Today,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 28, 1925, A11.

36. “Challenges Title of Film Comedian,” Los Angeles Times, May 20, 1925, A1; “Chaplin Wins Suit to Protect Make-Up,” New York Times, May 20, 1925, 8; “Chaplin Loses Fight on Exclusive Make-Up,” New York Times, July 12, 1925, E2; “Chaplin Legally Unique,” Los Angeles Times, July 12, 1925, B16; emphasis added.

37. “Chaplin Legally Unique,” B16.

38. “Chaplin to Testify in Loeb Film Suit,” 20; “Sues Chaplin For $100,000,” New York Times, Nov. 15, 1928, 25; Charles Chaplin v. Charles Amador, 93 Cal. App. 358 (1928); Kustoff v. Chaplin, 120 F.2d 551 (9th Cir. 1941); and Roy Export Company Establishment of Vaduz, Liechtenstein v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 672 F.2d 1095 (2nd Cir. 1982).

39. Chaplin v. Amador (1928), 8.

40. Affidavit of Lee A. Ochs, Chaplin v. Western Features (1925).

41. See, for example, Bert Lahr v. Adell Chemical Co., 300 F. 2d 256 (1st Cir. 1962); and Lone Ranger v. Cox, 124 F. 2d 650 (4th Cir. 1942).

42. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F. 2d 119 (2nd Cir. 1930); Robert C. Osterberg and Eric C. Osterberg, Substantial Similarity in Copyright Law (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 2004), ch. 5. Both the trial and appellate decisions carefully noted that Chaplin was “the first person to use the said clothes, as described herein and as described in the complaint, in his performing as an actor in motion pictures” (Chaplin v. Amador [1928], emphasis added). This is a dubious claim—there were many other screen tramps before Chaplin—but it also reveals the great advantage of performers adapting characters to a new medium.

43. The Marx Brothers copyright lawsuits include Henry Barsha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 32 Cal. App. 2d 556, 90 P. 2d 371 (1939); Marx Bros. v. United States, 96 F. 2d 204 (9th Cir. 1938); and Clancy v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. 37 U. S. P. Q. 406 (S. D. N. Y. 1938).

44. Witwer v. Harold Lloyd Corp., 46 F. 2d 792 (S. D. N. Y. 1930); Jeffrey Vance and Suzanne Lloyd, Harold Lloyd: Master Comedian (New York: Abrams, 2002), 126–27.

45. Witwer v. Harold Lloyd (1930); Harold Lloyd Corp. v. Witwer, 65 F. 2d 1 (9th Cir. 1933); Tom Dardis, Harold Lloyd: The Man on the Clock (New York: Penguin, 1984).

46. Witwer v. Lloyd (1930) and Lloyd v. Witwer (1933).

47. See White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U. S. 1 (1908); Roe-Lawton v. Hal Roach Studios, 18 F. 2d 126 (S. D. Cal. 1927).

48. Witwer v. Lloyd (1930).

49. Lloyd v. Witwer (1933).

50. “Plagiarism Suit Lost by Lloyd” Los Angeles Times (Nov. 19, 1930), A9 (internal quotation marks omitted). See also “Finds Harold Lloyd Pirated Witwer Plot,” New York Times (Nov. 19, 1930), 48.

51. Bachman v. Belasco, 224 F. 817 (2nd Cir. 1915); Bachman v. Belasco, 224 F. 815 (S. D. N. U. 1913); London v. Biograph, 231 F. 696 (2nd Cir. 1916).

52. James O’Neill v. General Film Co., 171 A. D. 854 (N. Y. App. Div. 1916); Roe-Lawton v. Hal Roach Studios (1927); Nichols v. Universal (1930); Barbadillo v. Goldwyn, 42 F. 2d 881 (S. D. Cal. 1930); Shipman v. R. K. O. Radio Pictures, Inc., 100 F. 2d 533 (2nd Cir. 1938); Dellar v. Samuel Goldwyn, Inc., 150 F. 2d 612 (2nd Cir. 1945).

53. Harry Carr, “The Lancer,” Los Angeles Times, June 27, 1930, A1.

54. Lloyd v. Witwer (1933).

55. Ibid.

56. Ibid.

57. “Silent Star Heir Sues Disney,” BBC News Online (Oct. 31, 2000); in 1976 a judge did accept the doctrine of unconscious or subconscious plagiarism in the case of Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (S. D. N. Y. 1976). In the case, Judge Owen asked how George Harrison could have composed a song so similar to one by the Shiffons, and he concluded: “What happened? I conclude that the composer, in seeking musical materials to clothe his thoughts, was working with various possibilities. As he tried this possibility and that, there came to the surface of his mind a particular combination that pleased him as being one he felt would be appealing to a prospective listener; in other words, that this combination of sounds would work. Why? Because his subconscious knew it already had worked in a song his conscious mind did not remember. Having arrived at this pleasing combination of sounds, the recording was made, the lead sheet prepared for copyright and the song became an enormous success. Did Harrison deliberately use the music of He’s So Fine? I do not believe he did so deliberately.”

58. On scènes à fair see William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright (Eagan, MN: Thomson West, 2006).

59. Frank S. Nugent, “The Screen in Review,” New York Times, Aug. 17, 1939, 23; Bosley Crowther, “The Dissenting Opinions,” New York Times, Dec. 31, 1939, 89.

60. Leon Yankwich quoting Judge Lancombe, James M. Cain v. Universal Pictures Co., 47 F. Supp. 1013 (S. D. Cal. 1942).

61. Patry, Patry on Copyright, 4–24.

62. Richard Fine, “Hollywood and the Profession of Authorship, 1928–1940” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1979), 308–309; Richard Fine, James M. Cain and the American Authors’ Authority (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1992), 70; Richard Maltby, “‘To Prevent the Prevalent Type of Book’: Censorship and Adaptation in Hollywood, 1924–1934,” American Quarterly 44.4 (Dec. 1992): 559–60.

63. Maltby, “‘To Prevent the Prevalent Type of Book, ’” 559–60, 566; Lee Shippey, “The Lee Side O’ L. A.,” Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1935, A4; Murray Ross, Stars and Strikes: Unionization of Hollywood (New York: AMS Press, 1967), 49–54; T. J. Walsh, “Playwrights and Power,” in Arthur Gerwitz and James K. Kolb, eds., Art, Glitter, and Glitz: Mainstream Playwrights and Popular Theatre in 1920s America (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004); Tad Friend, “Credit Grab,” The New Yorker, Oct. 20, 2003.

64. Philip K. Scheuer, “James M. Cain Takes Up Hapless Author’s Cause,” Los Angeles Times, June 2, 1946, C1.

65. Ibid.; Morris E. Cohen, “Literary Works: A Question of Ownership,” Hollywood Quarterly 2.2 (Jan. 1947): 184–90; Fine, James M. Cain and the American Authors’ Authority.

66. “‘Cain Plan’ Scored by Writers Group,” New York Times, May 8, 1947, 14; “People Who Read and Write,” New York Times, July 20, 1947, BR8; Byron Price, “Freedom of Press, Radio, and Screen,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, The Motion Picture Industry, 254 (Nov. 1947): 137–39; Fine, James M. Cain and the American Authors’ Authority.

67. Ross, Stars and Strikes, 59.

68. “Film Held No Plagiarism,” New York Times, Aug. 1, 1934, 14.

69. Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 105.

70. Stodart v. Mutual Film Corp., 249 F. 507 (S. D. N. Y 1917); Stodart v. Mutual Film Corp., 249 F. 513 (2nd Cir. 1918); Ronald Cracas, “Judge Learned Hand and the Law of Copyright,” Copyright Law Symposium 7.55 (1956).

71. Stodart v. Mutual Film Corp. (1917); Cracas, “Judge Learned Hand and the Law of Copyright.”

72. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F. 2d 119 (2nd Cir. 1930).

73. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. (1930). My account of Learned Hand’s influence on the idea/expression dichotomy and of the Abie’s Irish Rose and Letty Lynton cases, in particular, is greatly indebted to Siva Vaidhyanathan’s Copyrights and Copywrongs and Ronald Cracas’s “Judge Learned Hand and the Law of Copyright.”

74. Lou Taylor, The Study of Dress History (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), 183–84; David Wallace, Hollywoodland (New York: St. Martin’s, 2002), 110–12.

75. Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81F. 2d 49 (2nd Cir. 1936).

76. Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 309 U. S. 390 (1940); “Authors Win Half-Million on Film Piracy Charge,” Los Angeles Times, May 10, 1938, 1; “Damages of $587,604 Fixed in Plagiarism,” New York Times, May 10, 1938, 17; “Damage in MGM Copyright Suit,” Wall Street Journal, May 10, 1938, 9; “Ruling on Plagiarism Upsetting,” Los Angeles Times, July 31, 1939, 8; “High Court Limits Copyright Scope,” New York Times, Mar. 26, 1940.

77. “Sues Over ‘Road to Glory,’” New York Times, Nov. 10, 1939, 31; “Movie Writer Collapses at $1,000, 000 ‘Piracy’ Trial,” Washington Post, Dec. 12, 1939, 11; Sheets v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (D. D. C. 1940).

78. Roland Flamini, Thalberg: The Last Tycoon and the World of M. G. M. (New York: Crown, 1994), 196, 202–203, 209.

79. Universal Pictures Co., Inc. v. Harold Lloyd Corp., 162 F. 2d 354 (9th Cir. 1947).

80. Henry Barsha v. Metro-Godwyn-Mayer, 32 Cal. App. 2d 556 (1939); Barsha v. MGM was not the Marx Brothers’ first copyright suit nor even the only plagiarism suit leveled against A Day at the Races. The Marx Brothers were found guilty of infringement in a plagiarism suit the year before (Marx Bros. v. Unites States, 96 F. 2d 204 [9th Cir. 1938]). They were acquitted in the other plagiarism suit involving A Day at the Races: Clancy v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. 37 U. S. P. Q. 406 (S. D. N. Y. 1938).

81. Harry R. Olsson, “Dreams for Sale: Observations on the Law of Idea Submissions and Problems Arising Therefrom,” Law and Contemporary Problems 23.1 (Winter 1958): 54–55.

82. Victor Desny v. Billy Wilder, 46 Cal. 2d 715 (Cal. 1956); Eric Hoyt, “The ‘Fantastic, Unusual’ Case of Ace in the Hole,” Cinema Journal 50.2 (Winter 2011): 21–40.

83. Julian Blaustein v. Richard Burton, 9 Cal. App. 3d 161 (1970); Buchwald v. Paramount Pictures Corp. 13 USPQ 2d (BNA) 1497 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1990); Pierce O’Donnell and William Lockard, “You Have No Idea,” Los Angeles Lawyer (Apr. 2002). For more on idea protection, see Harry Warner, “Legal Protection of Program Ideas,” Virginia Law Review 36.3 (Apr. 1950): 289–322, and Leon R. Yankwich, “Legal Protection of Ideas: A Judge’s Approach,” Virginia Law Review 43.4 (Apr. 1957): 375–95.

84. The Buchwald case also demonstrates another way that studios responded to awards given to writers in the post–Letty Lynton studio system. The court decided that Buchwald deserved his share of the film’s profits because his ideas had been used. But when the court attempted to determine the size of the film’s profits, it unearthed another strategy the studios had developed to keep writers as salaried craftsman. Although Buchwald’s contract entitled him to a share in the film’s profits, the Hollywood accountants calculated that this film, which had grossed over $280 million worldwide, did not turn a profit in the end. The studios’ lawyers and accountants perfected a system for insulating themselves against the modest power that courts had bestowed on writers.

85. Pierce O’Donnell and Dennis McDougal, Fatal Subtraction: The Inside Story of Buchwald v. Paramount (New York: Doubleday, 1992).

86. See Friend, “Credit Grab,” for a compelling account of the Writers Guild review process.

87. For a summary of the issues involved in protecting television formats, see Jay Rubin, “Television Formats: Caught in the Abyss of the Idea/Expression Dichotomy,” Fordham Intellectual Property, Media, and Entertainment Law Journal 16.661 (Winter 2006): 663–708, and Warner, “Legal Protection of Program Ideas.”

88. Robert W. Gilbert, “‘Residual Rights’ Established by Collective Bargaining in Television and Radio,” Law and Contemporary Problems 23.1 (Winter 1958): 102–124.

89. Thomas F. Brady, “Hollywood Deals,” New York Times, Feb. 1, 1948, X5.

90. Chris Anderson, Hollywood TV: The Studio System in the 1950s (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994); Michel Hilmes, Hollywood and Broadcasting: From Radio to Cable (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990); William Boddy, Fifties Television: The Industry and Its Critics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990).

91. Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 102 F. Supp. 141 (S. D. Cal, 1951); Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 216 F. 2d 945 (9th Cir. 1954), cert. denied 348 US 971 (1955).

92. Warner Bros. Pictures Inc. v. CBS (1954).

93. Ibid.

94. Bevan v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 610 (S. D. N. Y1971).

95. Osterberg and Osterberg, Substantial Similarity in Copyright Law, ch. 5.

96. Loew’s Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 131 F. Supp. (S. D. Cal. 1955); Columbia Pictures Corp. v. NBC, 137 F. Supp. 348 (S. D. Cal. 1955).

97. Loew’s Inc. v. CBS, Inc. (1955); Columbia Pictures Corp. v. NBC (1955).

98. Loew’s Inc. v. CBS, Inc. (1955); Columbia Pictures Corp. v. NBC (1955).

99. Loew’s Inc. v. CBS, Inc. (1955); “The Parody Defense to Copyright Infringement: Productive Fair Use after ‘Betamax,’” Harvard Law Review 97.6. (Apr. 1984): 1402; Saturday Night Live defended its use of parody in Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 623 F. 2d 252 (2nd Cir. 1980); Luther R. Campbell aka Luke Skyywalker v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U. S. 569 (1994); Bruce P. Keller and Rebecca Tushnet, “Even More Parodic Than the Real Thing: Parody Lawsuits Revisited,” Trademark Reporter 94 (2004): 979–1016; on Carroll Burnett’s parody of Gone with the Wind, see Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. et al v. Showcase Atlanta Cooperative Productions, Inc., 479 F. Supp. 351, 357 (ND Ga. 1979).

3. AUTEURISM ON TRIAL: MORAL RIGHTS AND FILMS ON TELEVISION

  1. Fairbanks v. Winik, 198 N.Y.S. 299, 299 (Sup. Ct. 1922); Fairbanks v. Winik, 201 N.Y.S. 487, 488 (App. Div. 1923).

  2. Fairbanks v. Winik, 198 N.Y.S. 299, 299 (Sup. Ct. 1922); Fairbanks v. Winik, 201 N.Y.S. 487, 488 (App. Div. 1923).

  3. The Chaplin case is discussed in the previous chapter.

  4. Curwood v. Affiliated Distributors, 283 F. 223 (S. D. N. Y 1922).

  5. On copyright and the Romantic idea of authorship, see Martha Woodmansee, “The Genius and the Copyright: Economic and Legal Conditions of the Emergence of the ‘Author,’” Eighteenth-Century Studies 17.4 (Summer 1984): 425–48, and Peter Jaszi, “Toward a Theory of Copyright: The Metamorphoses of Authorship,” Duke Law Journal 455 (1991): 455–502. On the marketing of auteurs, see Timothy Corrigan, A Cinema Without Walls: Film and Culture After Vietnam (New Brunswick, NJ: A Cinema Without Walls, 1991).

  6. Jane Ginsburg, “A Tale of Two Copyrights: Literary Property in Revolutionary France and America,” Tulane Law Review 64.5 (May 1990): 991–1031.

  7. On the development of the work-for-hire doctrine, see Peter Jaszi and Martha Woodmansee, “Copyright in Transition,” in Carl F. Kaestle and Janice A. Radway, eds., A History of the Book in America, vol. 4: Print in Motion: The Expansion of Publishing and Reading in the United States, 1880–1940 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009), 90–101.

  8. The Creative Commons has made it much easier for authors to give away some or all of their rights by providing free licenses; see www.creativecommons.org.

  9. Pascal Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 285.

10. Act of Mar. 3, 1891, 51st Cong., 2d sess., 26 Stat. 1106. On the history of Berne, see Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union, and William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright (Eagan, MN: Thomson West, 2006).

11. The bill would have made it easier for Hollywood studios to bypass play producers and negotiate film rights directly with authors, and it would have allowed Hollywood to prosecute even inadvertent copyright infringers. Play producer William Brady, who had always been an active copyright lobbyist, attacked the bill as the creation of Hollywood, and the Famous Players–Lasky Company (later Paramount) in particular. Paul J. Sherman, “The Universal Copyright Convention: Its Effect on United States Law,” Columbia Law Review 55.8 (Dec. 1955): 1137–75.

12. “International Copyright Protection and the United States: The Impact of the UNESCO Universal Copyright Convention on Existing Law,” Yale Law Journal 62.7 (June 1953): 1065–1096; “Says Movie Interests Wrote Copyright Bill,” New York Times, May 20, 1930, 22; “Vestal Bill Vexes Dill,” Spokesman Review (Jan. 24, 1931): 7.

13. Joining Berne did not necessarily entail adopting moral rights. Great Britain joined the 1928 Berne Convention without adopting moral rights; instead, the U. K. argued that other areas of British law offered equivalent protection for authors and artists, as the United States would when it finally joined Berne in 1989. “Copyright Reform and the Duffy Bill,” Yale Law Journal 47.3 (Jan. 1938): 433–50; Philip K. Scheuer, “News of Film and Play Productions,” Los Angeles Times, Apr. 5, 1936, B4.

14. “Movies Seek Change in Copyright Pact,” New York Times, July 11, 1939, 24. Determining the moral rights holder in the collaborative medium of film is extremely difficult, and different countries have found different solutions. One solution would be to ask whose personality (or artistic vision) would be harmed by the violation of the bundle of protections under a moral rights regime. In the end, when the United States did finally relent and sign an international copyright treaty, they signed the UNESCO Universal Copyright Convention in 1952, which left moral rights to national discretion. The United States eventually joined the Berne Convention as well, but not until 1989, sixty years after the 1928 revision. In response, Congress passed very limited moral rights legislation, the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 or VARA. But even VARA allows artists to waive their moral rights, which again is tantamount to nullifying them.

15. See Thomas M. Pryor, “Film Writer Seeks to End RKO Suit,” New York Times, June 5, 1952, 39.

16. For more on Iron Curtain see Daniel J. Leab, “The Iron Curtain (1948): Hollywood’s First Cold War Movie,” Historical Journal of Film, Radio, and Television 8.2 (1988): 153–88; Solomon Volkov, Shostakovich and Stalin: The Extraordinary Relationship Between the Great Composer and the Brutal Dictator, trans. Antonia W. Bouis (New York: Knopf, 2004), ch. 6; Per Skans, “The 1948 Formalism Campaign,” in Ian MacDonald, The New Shostakovich, rev. and ed. Raymond Clarke (London: Pimlico, 2006).

17. Volkov, Shostakovich and Stalin; Dmitry Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 80 N.Y.S. 2d 575 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. 1948), aff’d, 87 N.Y.S. 2d 430 (N. Y. App. Div. 1949).

18. Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox (1948).

19. Soc. Le Chant de Monde v. Soc. Fox Europa, Cour d’appel [CA] [regional court of appeal] Paris, 1e ch., Jan. 13, 1953, Gaz. Pal. 1953, 191, note Ancel (Fr.).

20. Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), 8.

21. By the early 1950s, the studios had become so stubborn about releasing their films that the Justice Department sued Hollywood (ultimately unsuccessfully), claiming that its unmovable hold on its films amounted to monopolistic behavior. Michel Hilmes, Hollywood and Broadcasting: From Radio to Cable (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990); William Lafferty, “Feature Films on Prime-Time Television,” in Tino Balio, ed., Hollywood in the Age of Television (London: Unwin Hyman, 1990), 235–56; William Boddy, Fifties Television (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990); Chris Anderson, Hollywood TV: The Studio System in the 1950s (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994).

22. Autry v. Republic Prods., Inc., 104 F. Supp. 918 (S. D. Cal. 1952), aff’d, 213 F. 2d 667 (9th Cir. 1954).

23. Thomas M. Pryor, “Roy Rogers Suing on Video Problem,” New York Times, July 24, 1951, 21.

24. He accused the studio of violating antitrust and labor laws by forcing actors to give away television rights when they signed new film contracts. Talent should be allowed, he argued, to negotiate rights for different media separately. “Autry Sues Studio Over Films for TV,” New York Times, Oct. 31, 1951, 31.

25. Autry v. Republic (1952).

26. Thomas M. Pryor, “TV-Movie Tie-Ins Remain Confused,” New York Times, May 15, 1952, 39.

27. Autry v. Republic (1954), emphasis added; Republic v. Roy Rogers (1954); Frank Chesley, “Homer Truett Bone,” HistoryLink.org (Dec. 28, 2003), see www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5628.

28. Locke’s relevant theory of property can be found in John Locke, Two Treatises on Government, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). To be fair, Locke was equally concerned about the rights of readers when it came to intellectual property; see Ronan Deazley, Rethinking Copyright: History, Theory, Language (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2006), ¹43.

29. Walter Ames, “Republic Sells Autry, Rogers Films to Video; Pair Happy in Musicals,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 22, 1955, 26.

30. Boddy, Fifties Television, 71.

31. See Douglas Gomery, The Hollywood Studio System: An Introduction (London: British Film Institute, 2005); Thomas Schatz, “The New Hollywood,” in Jim Collins, Hilary Radner, and Ava Preacher Colli, eds., Film Theory Goes to the Movies (New York: Routledge, 1993), 8–36; Geoff King, New Hollywood Cinema: An Introduction (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002).

32. Jon Lewis, Hollywood v. Hardcore (New York: New York University Press, 2000); Peter Biskind, Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock’n’Roll Generation Saved Hollywood (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998).

33. On Sarris’s influence, see Robert Stam, Film Theory: An Introduction (Maiden, MA: Blackwell, 2000), 89–90, and Peter Wollen, review of Andrew Sarris’s You Ain’t Heard Nothin’ Yet, in Sight and Sound 8.11 (1998): 20–25.

34. Joyce Haber, “Otto Preminger Likes and Earns His Reputation,” Los Angeles Times, July 19, 1970, R13.

35. Philip K. Scheuer, “Otto’s Midas Touch Pays Off,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 30, 1965, C9; Preminger v. Columbia Pictures Corp., 267 N.Y.S.2d 594 (Sup. Ct. 1966).

36. Stevens v. National Broadcasting Company, 76 Cal. Rptr. 106 (Ct. App. 1969); “Writ to Keep Film Off TV is Refused,” New York Times (October 14, 1965), 53; Preminger v. Columbia (1966)

37. Peter Bart, “N.B.C.-TV Is Sued by Film Director,” New York Times, Oct. 27, 1965; “TV Commercials Play Knock-Knock,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 18, 1965, D16; Stevens v. National Broadcasting Co. (1969).

38. “TV Commercials Play Knock-Knock,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 18, 1965, D16.

39. Walt Dutton, “Television-Movie Tiff Shaping Up,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 18, 1966, C16.

40. Ben Gross, “Artistic Last Laugh May Be on Hollywood,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 8, 1966, C13.

41. For a discussion of contracts that involve rights to publication using future technologies see, for example, Rhonda Baker, Media Law: A Users Guide for Film and Programme Makers (London: Routledge, 1995), and New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001).

42. Jeremy Braddock and Stephen Hock, eds., Directed By Alan Smithee (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001). In his directorial debut, the New York Times noted that Death of a Gunfighter “was sharply directed by Allen Smithee.” Howard Thompson, “Screen: Tough Western: ‘Death of a Gunfighter’ Stars Widmark,” New York Times, May 10, 1969, 34.

43. John G. Cawelti, “Chinatown and Generic Transformation,” Mystery, Violence, and Popular Culture (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004), 193–209.

44. Will Brooker, Using the Force: Creativity, Community, and “Star Wars” Fans (New York: Continuum, 2002), 164.

45. Tom Shales, “Viewpoint,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 24, 1978, P7; Dale Pollock, Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas, updated edition (New York: Da Capo, 1999), 197.

46. Pollock, Skywalking, 198; Kirk Honeycutt, “Are TV Films ‘Ripping Off’ Hollywood?” New York Times, May 18, 1980, D41.

47. Sid & Marty Krofft Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F.2d 1157, 1167 (9th Cir. 1977); Siva Vaidhyanathan, Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 114–15; Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. MCA, Inc., 209 U. S. P. Q. (BNA) at 201; Dennis McDougal, The Last Mogul: Lew Wasserman, MCA, and the Hidden History of Hollywood (New York: Da Capo, 2001), 426.

48. “FVI: What You Didn’t Know,” Montoro interview by Jim Bertges, The Unknown Movies (n.d.); see www.badmovieplanet.com/unknownmovies/reviews/fvi.html.

49. Smith v. Montoro, 648 F.2d 602, 603 (9th Cir. 1981).

50. Warner Bros. Inc. v. Film Venture International, 403 F. Supp. 522 (C.D. Cal. 1975). While the court denied the injunction enjoining the film, they did enjoin FVI from using advertisements that resembled The Exorcist’s ads.

51. Universal v. Film Venture International (1982).

52. Les Brown, “B.B.C.’s ‘Monty Python’ Surprise Hit on Public TV,” New York Times, Mar. 15, 1975; Thomas Meehan, “And Now for Something Completely Different,” New York Times, Apr. 18, 1976, 159; Hendrik Hertzberg, “Onward and Upward with the Arts: Naughty Bits,” The New Yorker, Mar. 29, 1976.

53. Dick Adler, “Python Objects to ABC Editing,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 18, 1975, H31; Hertzberg, “Naughty Bits,” 70, 72.

54. Marcia Landy, Monty Python’s Flying Circus (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2006), 28.

55. See Peter Jaszi, “When Works Collide: Derivative Motion Pictures, Underlying Rights, and the Public Interest,” UCLA Law Review 28.715 (1980), for a discussion of the contract issues in the case.

56. Adler, “Python Objects,” H31; Robert Hewison, Monty Python: The Case Against (New York: Grove Press, 1981), 46. Note that the term “mutilation” had been used in different contexts in earlier copyright cases. See, for example, Robert Spoo, “Copyright Protectionism and Its Discontents: The Case of James Joyce’s Ulysses in America,” Yale Law Journal 108.3 (Dec. 1999): 633–67.

57. Michael Palin, Diaries, 1969–1979: The Python Years (New York: St. Martin’s, 2006), 275–78; Hertzberg, “Naughty Bits,” 82.

58. Hertzberg, “Naughty Bits,” 78; Hewison, Monty Python, 53.

59. Hertzberg, “Naughty Bits,” 72, 84; Palin, Diaries, 275–78.

60. “U.S. Judge Upholds ABC-TV Showing of Monty Pythons,” New York Times, Dec. 25, 1975, 43; “Judge Allows ABC to Air Its Monty Python Special,” Wall Street Journal, Dec. 26, 1975, 3; Palin, Diaries, 278; Hertzberg, “Naughty Bits,” 86.

61. Hertzberg, “Naught Bits,” 86; Hewison, Monty Python, 54.

62. Hertzberg, “Naught Bits,” 87.

63. Ibid. Michael Palin comments on the Pythons’ friendship with Hertzberg in Palin, Diaries, 271.

64. Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1976), list of supporting case law removed.

65. Gilliam v. ABC (1976); Gene Autry had also used a Lanham accusation in his case (Autry v. Republic [1954]).

66. Hewison, Monty Python, 56.

67. John J. O’Connor, “TV: Emmy Ceremonies, Efficient but Rather Dull,” New York Times, May 19, 1976, 60.

68. Palin, Diaries, 355; Susanne Ault, “‘South Park’ Creators Prove Python Charmers,” Variety, Oct. 11, 1999. On the Pythons’ decision to upload clips to YouTube, see Chris Anderson, Free: The Future of a Radical Price (New York: Hyperion, 2009), 1–2. Terry Gilliam again ran into trouble when his film Brazil (1985) was significantly edited to be aired on television, although he chose not to sue.

69. Timothy M. Casey, “The Visual Artists Rights Act,” Hastings Communication and Entertainment Law Journal 85 (1991–92): 89.

70. Michael Cieply, “Movie Classics Transformed to Color Films,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 11, 1984, 37. For detailed treatments of the colorization debates, see Eric J. Schwartz, “The National Film Preservation Act of 1988: A Copyright Case Study in Legislative Process,” Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 36.2 (Jan. 1989): 138–59; Stuart Klawans, “Rose-Tinted Spectacles,” in Mark Crispin Miller, ed., Seeing Through Movies (New York: Pantheon, 1990), 150–85; Anthony Slide, Nitrate Won’t Wait (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1992), ch. 9; Craig A. Wagner, “Motion Picture Colorization, Authenticity, and the Elusive Moral Right,” New York University Law Review 64 (1989): 628–724.

71. Slide, Nitrate Won’t Wait, 123; Woody Allen, “The Colorization of Films Insults Artists and Society,” New York Times, June 28, 1987, A1.

72. “A Colorful Copyright Campaign,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 17, 1986, M1; Klawans, “Rose-Tinted Spectacles,” 157–58.

73. Slide, Nitrate Won’t Wait, 124.

74. Stam, Film Theory, 89.

75. Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Copyright, and Trademarks, The Berne Convention: Hearing on S. 1301 and S. 1971 Before the Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 100th Cong., 2d sess. (1988), 482 (prepared statement of George Lucas).

76. Senate Subcommittee, The Berne Convention (prepared statement of Steven Spielberg), 509. (Ironically, Jaws producer David Brown argued against the directors.) See also “Final Say Over Films at Issue,” New York Times, Mar. 4, 1988, C18; Serge Guilbaut, How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983); Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (New York: The New Press, 2000); Peter Decherney, Hollywood and the Culture Elite: How the Movies Became American (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), ch. 6.

77. Schwartz, “The National Film Preservation Act”; Klawans, “Rose-Tinted Spectacles”; Ronald Brownstein, The Power and the Glitter: The Hollywood Washington Connection (New York: Random House, 1990), 218.

78. National Film Preservation Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-446, 100th Cong., 2d sess. (September 27, 1988), 102 Stat. 1774, 1782, renewed by Act of June 26, 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-307, tit. II, 102d Cong., 2d sess., 106 Stat. 264, 267; Schwartz, “The National Film Preservation Act.”

79. Kara Swisher, “House Takes Steps on Colorization,” Wall Street Journal, June 25, 1988; Irvin Molotsky, “Film-Color Panel Seeks Meaning of ‘American,’” New York Times, Jan. 24, 1989, C19; Andrew L. Yarrow, “Action but No Consensus on Film Coloring,” New York Times, July 11, 1988, C13.

80. Comments of Professor John Belton on Behalf of the Society for Cinema Studies (now the Society for Cinema and Media Studies) and Comments of Professor Peter Jaszi Before the Copyright Office in the Public Hearing on New Technology and Audiovisual Works, United States Copyright Office (Sept. 8, 1988).

81. Turner Entertainment v. Huston, CA Versailles, civ. ch. (Dec. 19, 1994). A translation of the Turner v. Huston decision is published in the Entertainment Law Reporter 16.10 (Mar. 1995); Elizabeth Kolbert, “A Turner Channel Seeks Carriers,” New York Times, Apr. 11, 1994, D5; Lawrie Mifflin, “Clash of the Old-Movie Titans,” New York Times, Mar, 19, 1995, H38.

82. Drew Clark, “Bowdlerizing for Columbine,” Slate.com (Jan. 20, 2003); Directors Guild of America, Press Release, “DGA Denounces Lawsuit Filed Against 16 Directors by Two Entities Engaged in Unauthorized Editing of Films” (Aug. 29, 2002).

83. Clark, “Bowdlerizing;” Michael Apted: “We had, as a guild, a legal obligation to protect the work of our members. But what I was also saying is that we have a moral obligation to do so as well…. It was a very well-planned and orchestrated campaign from the beginning, but it was made much stronger once the studios joined us. There was not just good legal basis, in my mind; there was a very strong moral claim, and that is what I thought was so important and exciting that we took that stand.” Peter Kiefer, “Dialogue with Michael Apted,” The Hollywood Reporter, Aug. 18, 2003; Directors’ Parties Motion for Leave to File Surreply, Huntsman v. Soderbergh, No. 02-M-1662 (MJW) (D. Colo. Jan. 7, 2004).

84. Comment of Jack Valenti in Motion Picture Association of America, Press Release (Sept. 20, 2002), see www.dga.org/news/pr_mpaaasupportsdgastance.php3;. Randall Picker, “CleanFlicks and Digital Rights Management,” University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog (July 1, 2006).

85. Orrin Hatch served as chairman of the Judiciary Committee from 1995 to 2001 and from 2003 to 2005. In one speech, for example, Hatch reveled his position on copyright when he remarked, “There are many who do not understand that ideas, inventions, artistic works, and other commercially-viable products created out of one’s own mental processes deserve the same protection under the law as any other tangible product or piece of real estate…. As I hope you can tell, the protection of intellectual property has been and is one of my top priorities in the Senate.” Orrin G. Hatch, Remarks at the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers World Copyright Summit (June 9, 2009), available at http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/docs/usgov/Speech_Hatch_WCS.pdf ; Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, 119 Stat. 218.

86. [Part 1] Artists’ Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–9, $ 102, 119 Stat. 218; [Part 2] Family Movie Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–9, $ 202, 119 Stat. 223. 309. Id. 310; [Part 3] National Film Preservation Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–9, $ 302, 199 Stat. 224.

87. CleanFlicks of Colo., LLC v. Soderbergh, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D. Colo. 2006).

4. HOLLYWOOD’S GUERRILLA WAR: FAIR USE AND HOME VIDEO

  1. H. R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2nd sess. (Mar. 1967), 66.

  2. For some examples of the influence of gatekeepers on fair use, see Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, Untold Stories: Creative Consequences of the Rights Clearance Culture for Documentary Filmmakers (Washington, D.C.: Center for Social Media, 2004); Fred von Lohmann, “Fair Use as Innovation Policy,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 23.1 (2008); and the International Communication Association’s report, Clipping Our Own Wings Copyright and Creativity in Communication Research (Mar. 2010).

  3. Garret the Copyright Ferret made his debut in the comic book “Copyright Crusader to the Rescue,” a supplement to Weekly Reader 4 (1995); “L.A. Boy Scouts Get Award Patch for ‘Respecting Copyrights,’” Foxnews.com (Oct. 23, 2006); the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s education site can be found at www.teachingcopyright.org. See also Tarelton Gillespie, “Characterizing Copyright in the Classroom: The Cultural Work of A just nti-Piracy Campaigns,” Communication, Culture, & Critique 2.3 (Sept. 2009): 247–318.

  4. Berlin v. E. C. Publications Inc., 329 F.2d 541 (2d Cir. 1964); Rosemont Enterprises v. Random House, 366 F.2d 303 (2d Cir. 1966); Time Inc. v. Bernard Geis Assocs., 293 F. Supp. 130 (D.C.N.Y. 1968).

  5. Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States, 420 U.S. 376 (1975); Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lockdown Culture and Control Creativity (New York: Penguin, 2004), 59–61.

  6. Stephen Breyer, “The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copyright in Books, Photocopies, and Computer Programs,” Harvard Law Review 84.2 (1970): 337; Benjamin Kaplan, “An Unhurried View of Copyright: Proposals and Prospects,” Columbia Law Review 66.5 (May 1966): 843.

  7. H.R. Rep. No. 92-487, 92d Cong., 1st sess., 3 (1971).

  8. Lee Edson, “Lone Inventor with a Genie Complex,” New York Times Magazine, Dec. 17, 1967, 29, 80–87; Frederic Wasser, Veni, Vidi, Video: The Hollywood Empire and the VCR (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001), 60; James Lardner, Fast Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR (New York: Norton, 1987), 115.

  9. Wasser, Veni, Vidi, Video, 63.

10. Lloyd Boardman, “‘Disk-Television’: Some Recurring Copyright Problems in the Reproduction and Performance of Motion Pictures,” University of Chicago Law Review 34.3 (Spring 1967): 703.

11. “Agreement on Guidelines for Classroom Copying in Not-for-Profit Educational Institutions with Respect to Books and Periodicals,” H. R. Rep. No. 94–1476, pp. 68–70 (1976) and “Guidelines for Educational Uses of Music, “H. R. Rep. No. 94–1476, pp. 70–71 (1976); all in 127 Cong. Rec. 18 (1981) 24,048–49. See also Kenneth D. Crews, “The Law of Fair Use and the Illusion of Fair-Use Guidelines,” Ohio State Law Journal 62 (2001), and Ann Bartow, “Educational Fair Use in Copyright: Reclaiming the Right to Photocopy Freely,” University of Pittsburgh Law Review 60 (Fall 1998).

12. “Off-Air Taping for Educational Use: Hearings Before the House Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice,” 96th Cong., 1st sess. (1979), p. 32; “Guidelines for Off-Air Recordings of Broadcast Programming for Educational Purposes,” Cong. Rec. 127 (1981) 24048–49 (remarks of Rep. Robert W. Kastenmeier).

13. The fair use section of the copyright statute reads, in part: [T]he fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

(17 U.S.C. §107)

14. Lucas Hilderbrand, Inherent Vice: Bootleg Histories of Videotape and Copyright (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2009), 129–30.

15. Ibid., 140–54.

16. U.S.C. § 108(f)(3) (1978); Hilderbrand, Inherent Vice, ch. 3.

17. Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corp. v. Crooks, 447 F. Supp. 243 (W.D.N.Y. 1978), 542 F. Supp. 1156 (W.D.N.Y. 1982), and 558 F. Supp. 1247 (W.D.N.Y 1983); William Patry, Fair Use in Copyright Law (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1985), 195–200.

18. Bruzzone v. Miller Brewing Co., 202, U.S.P.Q. 809 (N.D. Cal. 1979).

19. New Boston Television, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 215 U.S.P.Q. 755 (D. Mass. 1981).

20. Lardner, Fast Forward, 21–22.

21. On Disney and TV/home video, see Douglas Gomery, The Hollywood Studio System: An Introduction (London: BFI, 2005), and Douglas Gomery, Shared Pleasures: A History of Movie Presentation in the United States (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992).

22. Robert Metz, “Market Place,” New York Times, May 13, 1977, 81, and Gomery, Shared Pleasures, 278–79.

23. Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 480 F. Supp. 429 (C.D. Cal. 1979).

24. Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios (1979); Steve Wozniak tells the story of the blue box in iWoz: Computer Geek to Cult Icon: How I Invented the Personal Computer, Co-Founded Apple, and Had Fun Doing It (New York: Norton, 2007), ch. 6.

25. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969); Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 659 F2d 963 (9th Cir. 1981).

26. Home Recording of Copyrighted Works: Hearing on H.R. 4783, H.R. 4794, H.R. 4808, H.R. 5250, H.R. 5488, and H.R. 5705, Before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, 97 Cong., 2d sess. (1982) (comments of Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America).

27. Roy Rosensweig, Eight Hours for What We Will: Workers and Leisure in an Industrial City, 1870–1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Andrew Pollack, “Video Recorder Sales Go On,” New York Times, Oct. 21, 1981, D5; Eric Gelman, Janet Huck, Connie Leslie, Carolyn Friday, Pamela Abramshon, Michael Reese, “The Video Revolution,” Newsweek, Aug. 6, 1984. For a complete history of the video store business, see Joshua M. Greenberg, From Betamax to Blockbuster: Video Stores and the Invention of Movies on Video (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008).

28. Eugene Secunda, “VCRs and Viewer Control Over Programming: An Historical Perspective,” in Julia R. Dobrow, ed., Social and Cultural Aspects of VCR Use (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlebaum, 1990), 17, 21; Gomery, Shared Pleasures, 280.

29. Kathryn Harris, “Copyright Expert Looks Beyond Court Decision in Betamax Case,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 1, 1981, H3; Kathryn Harris, “Hollywood Wages Battle Over Videocassette Rentals,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 17, 1982, F1. The MPAA also commissioned a report from Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe on the constitutionality of home taping. Home Recording of Copyrighted Works (comments of Jack Valenti); Stephen Prince, A New Pot of Gold: Hollywood Under the Electronic Rainbow, 1980–1989 (New York: Scribner’s, 2000), 100.

30. Charles Schreger, “A Concatenation of Clinkers,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 19, 1980, I7; Lardner, Fast Forward, 207.

31. Secunda, “VCRs and Viewer Control,” 19; Bruce Apar, “Home Videotaping Hurts No Copyrights” (letter), New York Times, Nov. 9, 1981, A20; Ernest Holsendolphs, “Legislative Plan to Tax Video Recording Gear,” New York Times, Mar. 12, 1982, A30; Lardner, Fast Forward, 213, 294; Penny Pagano, “Video Battle Will Now Go to Congress,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 18, 1984, F1; “Video Cassette Debate Off,” New York Times, Feb. 23, 1984, C22; Laura Landro, “Movie Studios’ Cuts in Videocassette Prices Stir Battle with Retailers on Video Rentals,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 23, 1983, 33.

32. Janet Wasko, Hollywood in the Information Age (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995), 128.

33. Lardner, Fast Forward, 207; Jon Pareles, “Royalties on Recorders and Blank Audio Tapes,” New York Times, Nov. 21, 1985, C34.

34. Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984); Prince, A New Pot of Gold, 101; Jonathan Band and Andrew J. McLaughlin, “The Marshall Papers: A Peek Behind the Scenes at the Making of Sony v. Universal,” Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts 17.427 (1993): 433; Pamela Samuelson, “The Generativity of Sony v. Universal: The Intellectual Legacy of Justice Stevens,” Fordham Law Review 74.4 (Mar. 2006): 1831–76; Jessica Litman, “The Story of Sony v. Universal Studios: Mary Poppins Meets the Boston Strangler,” in Jane C. Ginsburg and Rochelle Cooper Dreyfess, eds., Intellectual Property Stories (New York: Foundation Press, 2006), 358–94; Jessica Litman, “The Sony Paradox,” Case Western Reserve Law Review 55 (2005): 917–62.

35. The MPAA continued to work toward a legislative change. In fact, in Jack Valenti’s public response to the Supreme Court’s Sony decision, he focused largely on Congress. “It is Congress,” he told reporters on the day the decision was released, “who must decide if copyright protection is real, or whether it is mush.” Valenti, quoted in Pagano, “Video Battle Will Now Go to Congress,” F1.

36. Leslie Berger, “A Social Event,” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 13, 1981, H10; Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc., 749 F.2d 154 (3rd Cir. 1984); Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Aveco, Inc., 800 F.2d 59 (3rd Cir. 1986); Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc., 866 F2d 278 (9th Cir. 1989); “Ban Upheld on Stores’ Renting Screening Rooms,” New York Times, Sept. 8, 1986, C18; “Video Rental Rooms Fought,” New York Times, Aug. 20, 1984, D1.

37. “Twelve Movie Firms Sue 10 Video Retailers, Charging Film Piracy,” Wall Street Journal, Sept. 15, 1982, 56; “2 Charged with Stealing Films, Selling Copies,” Los Angeles Times, July 16, 1979, E15; Prince, A New Pot of Gold, 95–96; Kerry Segrave, Piracy in the Motion Picture Industry (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2003), 106–108; “McDowell Films Seized in Piracy Investigation,” New York Times, Jan. 18, 1975, 31.

38. Frank Lovece, “Fast Forward,” Billboard, Oct. 11, 1986, 64.

39. There was, however, a brief dip in ticket sales in 1985. Gomery, Shared Pleasures, 276; Gelman et al., “The Video Revolution.”

40. See Gomery, Shared Pleasures, ch, 14, and Prince, A New Pot of Gold, ch. 3.

41. Andrew Pollack, “A Battle Over Video Cassettes,” New York Times, Dec. 11, 1981, D1; Laura Landro, “Film Studios’ Plans to Lease Videocassettes Bring Big Outcry from Squeezed Retailers,” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 18, 1982, 25.

42. Lardner, Fast Forward, 197; Greenberg, From Betamax to Blockbuster, 119.

43. Gomery, Shared Pleasures, 283–85; Edward Jay Epstein, The Big Picture: The New Logic of Money and Power in Hollywood (New York: Random House, 2005), 65–74.

44. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 566 (1985).

45. Loews Inc. v. CBS Inc., 131 F. Supp. (S.D. Cal. 1955); Columbia Pictures Corp. v. National Broadcasting Company, 137 F. Supp. 348 (S.D. Cal. 1955).

46. Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 623 F.2d 252, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 9, 1980).

47. Pierre N. Leval, “Toward a Fair Use Standard,” Harvard Law Review 103.1105 (1990) (internal footnotes omitted; emphasis added).

48. Campbell, v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994).

49. Scott MacDonald, A Critical Cinema 3: Interviews with Independent Filmmakers (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 202.

50. Ibid., 41.

51. David Thompson and Ian Christie, eds., Scorsese on Scorsese, rev. ed. (New York: Faber and Faber, 2003), 21. Completing the circle of misinformation, composer Phil Spector briefly considered seeking an injunction against Mean Streets because the Ronettes cover his song “Be My Baby” on the soundtrack, although it isn’t exactly clear what he thought the infringement was. John Anderson, “In Documentary, Wall of Sound Meets Wall of Law,” New York Times, June 25, 2010.

52. Scott MacDonald, “From Underground to Multiplex: An Interview with Todd Haynes,” Film Quarterly 62.3 (Spring 2009): 57.

53. Andrea Chase, interview with Todd Haynes, PRX Radio (Mar. 25, 2011); see www.prx.org/pieces/60842-mildred-pierce-todd-haynes-on-his-five-part-hbo.

54. See Hilderbrand, Inherent Vice, ch. 4.

55. Naomi Klein, No Logo: No Space, No Choice, No Jobs (New York: Picador, 2009), 181; Andrea Chase, interview with Todd Haynes (PRX Radio); Kembrew McLeod, Freedom of Expression ®: Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity (New York: Doubleday, 2005), 144; Carrie McLaren, “Illegal Art: Freedom of Expression in the Corporate Age,” at www.illegal-art.org/index.html.

56. Francesca Coppa, “Women, Star Trek, and the Early Development of Fannish Vidding,” Journal of Transformative Works 1 (2008); Clive Young, Homemade Hollywood: Fans Behind the Camera (New York: Continuum, 2008).

57. Letter from Morgan Griffin (Mar. 1, 2010).

58. Rebecca Tushnet, “Legal Fictions: Copyright, Fan Fiction, and a New Common Law,” Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Journal 17 (1997): 672–73; Coppa, “Women, Star Trek, and the Early Development of Fannish Vidding”; Jennifer Granick, “Cyber Rights Now: ‘Scotty: Beam Down the Lawyers,’” Wired, Oct. 9, 1997.

59. Dale Pollock, Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas, updated edition (New York: Da Capo, 1999), 220; David A. Cook, Lost Illusions: American Cinema in the Shadow of Watergate and Vietnam, 1970–1978 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 48; Tamara Nunn, “Smashing Home Video?” Orange Coast Magazine (Feb. 1982): 125.

60. Irv Broughton, Producers on Producing: The Making of Film and Television (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1986), 88–90; Young, Homemade Hollywood.

61. Will Brooker, Using the Force: Creativity, Community, and “Star Wars” Fans (New York: Continuum, 2002), 164–68; Tushnet, “Legal Fictions,” 674n113; Leanne Stendell, “Fanfic and Fan Fact: How Current Copyright Law Ignores the Reality of Copyright Owner and Consumer Interests in Fan Fiction,” Southern Methodist University Law Review 58 (Fall 2005); Granick, “Cyber Rights Now.”

62. Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (New York: New York University Press, 2006), 154.

63. Ibid.; Brooker, Using the Force, 177.

64. Chris Hegedus’s remarks are archived on the website of Duke University’s Center for the Study of the Public Domain; see www.law.duke.edu/framed.

65. “A Professor’s Class Video Runs into an MTV Protest,” New York Times, May 18, 1991, 146; Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 37.

66. Fiona Morgan, “A Conference at Duke Law School Looks at How Filmmakers and Musicians Get in Trouble with the Law,” Independent Online (Apr. 7, 2004); Tom Zeller, “Permissions on Digital Media Drive Scholars to Lawbooks,” New York Times, June 14, 2004); The Society for Cinema and Media Studies, “Statement of Best Practices for Fair Use in Teaching for Film and Media Educators,” Cinema Journal 47. 2 (2008); Peter Jaszi and Patricia Aufderheide, “Untold Stories: Collaborative Research on Documentary Filmmakers’ Free Speech and Fair Use,” Cinema Journal 46.2 (Winter 2007): 133–39

67. Jaszi and Aufderheide, “Untold Stories,” 137.

68. Lessig, Free Culture, 187; Jenkins, Convergence Culture; Lawrence Lessig, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (New York: Penguin, 2008). Another group that has advocated for fair use to be supplemented by exemptions is the Copyright Principles Project. See Pamela Samuelson and Members of the Copyright Principles Project, “The Copyright Principles Project: Directions for Reform,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 25 (2010): 1175–1245.

5. DIGITAL HOLLYWOOD: TOO MUCH CONTROL AND TOO MUCH FREEDOM

  1. For the legislative history of the DMCA, see Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2001), and Bill D. Herman and Oscar Gandy Jr., “Catch 1201: A Legislative History and Content Analysis of the DMCA Exemption Proceedings.” Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 24 (2006): 121–90.

  2. Paul C. Spehr, “Unaltered to Date: Developing 35mm Film,” in John Fullerton and Astrid Söderbeergh Widding, eds., Moving Images: From Edison to the Webcam (Sydney: John Libby. 2000).

  3. Janet Staiger, “Combination and Litigation: Structures of U.S. Film Distribution, 1896–1917.” Cinema Journal (1983): 41–73.

  4. Douglas Gomery, The Coming of Sound: A History (New York: Routledge, 2005), ch 1.

  5. Ibid., and Donald Crafton, The Talkies: American Cinema’s Transition to Sound (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 129–30.

  6. James Lardner, Fast Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR (New York: Norton, 1987), 119–20.

  7. Hans Fantel, “Tangles in the Anti-Copying Thicket,” New York Times, Aug. 30, 1987; Paul McDonald, Video and DVD Industries (London: British Film Institute, 2007); Frank Lovece, “Fast Forward,” Billboard, Oct. 11, 1986: 64–65; “How to Get the Most from Your VCR,” Popular Mechanics, Nov. 1983, 154.

  8. Bill Holland, “RIAA Chief Expresses Fears on DAT,” Billboard, Aug. 16, 1986; Will Crutchfield, “Next Home Stereo Advance: Digital Tape Cassettes in 1987,” New York Times, Oct. 24, 1986, A1; Joel L. McKuin, “Home Audio Taping of Copyrighted Works and the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992: A Critical Analysis,” Hastings Communication & Entertainment Law Journal 16 (2994).

  9. S. 506 (1987), H.R. 1384 (1987); S. 2358 (1990). For the legislative history of the AHRA, see Judiciary Committee, S. Rep. No. 102–294 (1992).

10. Peter Jaszi, “Intellectual Property Legislative Update: Copyright, Paracopyright, and Pseudo-Copyright,” talk delivered at the Association of Research Libraries Conference, Eugene, OR (May 1998), available at www.arl.org/resources/pubs/mmproceedings/132mmjaszi.

11. Lawrence Lessig, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (New York: Penguin, 2008), 111–12.

12. Herman and Gandy, “Catch 1201,” 212–90; Litman, Digital Copyright, 144, and Katherine Sender and Peter Decherney, “Defending Fair Use in the Age of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,” International Journal of Communication (2007): 1–7; all of the documents relating to the rulemakings can be found at www.copyright.gov/1201.

13. Electronic Frontier Foundation, Press Release, “DMCA Triennial Rulemaking Failing Consumers Completely: EFF Bows Out of Broken Process” (Dec. 1, 2005).

14. Comments and testimony can be found at www.copyright.gov/1201. Also see Mark Gray, “A ‘Casual Nexus of Harm’: DMCA Circumvention and Rulemaking” (Senior thesis, Princeton University, Apr. 5, 2011).

15. For an excellent account of the rulemaking process and the 2009 rulemaking in particular, see Rebecca Tushnet, “I Put You There: User-Generated Content and Anticircumvention,” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology 12 (2010): 889–946.

16. Sales data come from Apple’s press releases, available at www.apple.com/pr/.

17. Steve Jobs interviewed by Daniel Morrow for the Smithsonian Oral History Project (Apr. 20, 1995), see http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/comphist/sj1.html; Steve Wozniak, iWoz: Computer Geek to Cult Icon: How I Invented the Personal Computer, Co-Founded Apple, and Had Fun Doing It (New York: Norton, 2007); Alex Soojung-Kim Pang, ed., Making the Macintosh: Technology and Culture in Silicon Valley (website), see http://library.stanford.edu/mac/; Danial Cohen, “Review of Making the Macintosh,” History Matters (June 2002), see http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5551/.

18. Gates’s comments are reported in Andy Hertzfeld, “A Rich Neighbor Named Xerox” (Nov. 1983); see folklore.org. The court agreed that, “Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor.” Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994).

19. Owen W. Linzmayer, Apple Confidential 2.0: The Definitive History of the World’s Most Colorful Computer (San Francisco: No Starch Press, 2004), 248; Scully’s comments appear in the film Triumph of the Nerds: The Rise of Accidental Empires (1996).

20. Linzmayer, Apple Confidential 2.0, 248, 250.

21. Steve Jobs, Macworld Keynote Address, Boston, 1997, archived at www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY; World Wide Developers Conference Keynote, June 7, 2010, at www.apple.com/apple-events/wwdc-2010/.

22. Press Release, “Apple Reports Fourth Quarter Results” (Oct. 13, 2004), at www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/oct/13results.html; Katie Marsal, “iPod: How Big Can It Get?” Apple Insider (May 24, 2006).

23. Robert X. Cringely, “Masters Tournament” I, Cringley (blog) (Apr. 9, 2010), at www.cringely.com/2010/04/masters-tournament/; Steven Johnson, “Rethinking a Gospel of the Web,” New York Times, Apr. 9, 2010.

24. Miguel Helft and Ashlee Vance, “Apple Passes Microsoft as No. 1 in Tech,” New York Times, May 26, 2010.

25. Comments of Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted in the Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies: Hearing Before the Copyright Office, Library of Congress, No. Docket No. RM 2008–8 (2008).

26. Some 26 percent of U.S. homes had internet access in 1998; see National Telecommunications and Information Administration, “Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide” (July 28, 1998); Lev Manovich, “What Is Digital Cinema?” (1995), at www.manovich.net/TEXT/digital-cinema.html.

27. Peter H. Lewis, “Prodigy Seen Opening Doors in Cyberspace,” New York Times, May 11, 1995.

28. Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995); Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla. 1993); Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. MAPHIA, 948 F. Supp. 923 USPQ2d (BNA) 1705 (N.D. Cal. 1996).

29. 47 U.S.C. § 230.

30. Barney Frank, 144 Cong. Rec. H7092 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1998).

31. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c); Fred von Lohmann, “Fair Use, Film, and the Advantages of Internet Distribution,” Cinema Journal 46.2 (Winter 2007): 128–33.

32. “YouTube Serves Up 100 Million Videos a Day Online,” USA Today, July 16, 2006.

33. Henry Jenkins, “What Happened Before YouTube?” in Jean Burgess and Joshua Green, YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009), 109–125.

34. Code of Best Practices for Online Video (Washington, D.C.: Center for Social Media, American University, June 2008).

35. Stan Schroeder, “Can Free Content Boost Your Sales? Yes it Can,” Mashable.com (Jan. 23, 2009); Burgess and Green, YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture, 31–32; David Kravets, “Accusations Fly in Viacom, YouTube Copyright Fight,” Threat Level Blog, Wired.com (Mar. 18, 2010); Ben Fritz and Steve Zeitchik, “Viacom Gets Vexed,” Daily Variety (Mar. 14, 2007); Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants,” Motion for Summary Judgment, Viacom International v. YouTube, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-02 103 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Gretchen Morgenson, “Bidder Beware,” New York Times, July 2, 2010.

36. Frederic Lardinois, “It’s Complicated: Warner Music Comes Back to YouTube,” Read Write Web (blog) (Sept. 29, 2009).

37. Chilling effects.org; Reporter’s Shield Legislation: Issues and Implications: Hearing Before the S. Judiciary Comm., 109th Cong. (2005) (testimony of William Safire, New York Times); Jennifer Urban and Laura Quilter, “Efficient Process or ‘Chilling Effects’? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act,” Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal 22 (May 2006): 621–93; David F. Gallagher, “New Economy: A Copyright Dispute with the Church of Scientology Is Forcing Google to Do Some Creative Linking,” New York Times, Apr. 22, 2002.

38. Fred von Lohmann, “Public Interest Cyber-Lawyering on the Electronic Frontier,” lecture delivered at New York University Law School, Feb. 23, 2009.

39. John Doe (aka Brian Sapient) v. Uri Geller, Order to Dismiss, No. C. 07–2478 VRW (N.D. Cal. 2008). To make matters more complicated, Geller claimed that because he was in the U.K., the British fair dealing standard and not the fair use standard applied.

40. Siva Vaidhyanathan, The Googlization of Everything (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011); Johnny Mango, “‘Lost’ Police Incident Report … Is This What Heather Wilson ‘Lost’ 13 Years Ago?” albloggerque (blog) (Oct. 19, 2006), at http://albloggerque.blogspot.com/2006/10/lost-police-incident-reportis-this.html.

41. Letter, Trevor Potter (McCain-Palin, General Counsel) to Chad Hurley (YouTube CEO), Zahavah Levine (YouTube General Counsel), and William Patry (Senior Copyright Counsel, Google) (Oct. 13, 2008). See also Center for Democracy and Technology, “Campaign Takedown Troubles: How Meritless Copyright Claims Threaten Online Political Speech” (Sept. 2010), at www.cdt.org/report/campaign-takedown-troubles-how-meritless-copyright-claims-threaten-online-political-speech.

42. Sarah Lai Stirland, “Stifled by Copyright, McCain Asks YouTube to Consider Fair Use,” Threat Level Blog, Wired.com (Oct. 14, 2008).

43. Corynne McSherry’s quote appears in the introduction to the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s webpage archiving documents relating to Lenz v. Universal, at www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal.

44. Lenz v. Universal, 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Ben Sheffner, “Expect to See Greater Clarity on the Legality of Fan-Created Music Videos,” Billboard.com (Jan. 23, 2010).

45. Calvin Reed, “Ellison, AOL Battle Over DMCA ‘Safe Harbor,’” Publishers Weekly, Apr. 15, 2002; Bob Goodbey, “When the Harbor Is No Longer Safe—AOL and Repeat Infringers,” Hawaii Business (June 2004); Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (N.D. Cal 2008); UMG Recordings. Inc. v. Veoh Networks. Inc., 620 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (C.D. Cal. 2008); UMG Recordings. Inc. v. Veoh Networks Inc., 665 F. Supp. 2d 1099 (C.D. Cal. 2009); Liz Gannes, “Universal Follows through on Video Lawsuit Threats,” GigaOm (Oct. 17, 2006).

46. Memorandum of Law in Support of Viacom’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability and Inapplicability of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Safe Harbor Defense, Viacom International v. YouTube, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-02 103 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

47. See Zack Shenaz, “Content ID and Fair Use,” Google Public Policy Blog (Apr. 23, 2010).

48. CBS, et al., “Principles for User Generated Content Services,” (2007), and Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al., “Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content,” (2007).

CONCLUSION: THE COPYRIGHT REFORM MOVEMENT

  1. Jessica Litman, Digital Copyright (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2001), 194.

  2. Campaign contributions and lobbying efforts are tracked by OpenSecrets.org.

  3. The library organizations and the Digital Future Coalition were largely responsible for the adoption of the triennial rulemaking process through which the Library of Congress creates exemptions to the DMCA. This dynamic process, which seemed like a large concession in 1998, has proven to be a significant check on the reach of the anticircumvention measures of the DMCA.

  4. Joe Trippi, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, the Internet, and the Overthrow of Everything (New York: HarperCollins, 2004).

  5. Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols, “Our Media, Not Theirs: Building the U.S. Media Reform Movement,” In These Times (Apr. 2003).

  6. Cecilia Kang, “Net Neutrality’s Quiet Crusader,” Washington Post, Mar. 28, 2008.

  7. For Lawrence Lessig, see Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (New York: Basic Books, 1999), The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World (New York: Random House, 2001), Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (New York: Penguin, 2004), and Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (New York: Penguin, 2008); and for Siva Vaidhyanathan, see Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity (New York: New York University Press, 2001), and The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control Is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System (New York: Basic Books, 2004).

  8. Eric J. Schwartz and Matt Williams, “Access to Orphan Works: Copyright Law, Preservation, and Politics,” Cinema Journal 46.2 (Winter 2007): 139–45.

  9. Creative Commons tracks the number of Creative Commons licenses at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Metrics. On Creative Commons in China, see Bingchun Meng, “Articulating a Chinese Commons: An Explorative Study of Creative Commons in China,” International Journal of Communication 3 (2009): 192–207.

10. Bill Herman, “The Battle Over Digital Rights Management: A Multi-Method Study of the Politics of Copyright Management Technologies” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2009).