Chapter 2 examines how copyright’s treatment of collaboration and crediting elevates might over right with problematic consequences for both creative and egalitarian interests. Drawing on the history of the beloved musical Rent, the chapter begins by assessing how the imposition of copyright’s mutual-intent requirement has transformed questions of joint authorship into a referendum on leverage that fails to recognize modalities of creation that are more collaborative in nature and disproportionately burdens individuals with lesser bargaining power, thereby disadvantaging women, people of color, and the poor. Meanwhile, the striking lack of a law of crediting has undermined the efficacy of the copyright regime by stymieing the allocation of capital resources towards the very individuals with the ability to best advance progress in the arts. And, when viewed through the prisms of gender, race, and class, it has also left those at society’s margins most vulnerable to exploitation and disproportionately susceptible to receiving insufficient credit for, and participation in, the spoils of their creative labors. To better align copyright with its policy goals and to promote social justice, our laws of collaboration and crediting must begin to privilege creativity over clout, and not the other way around.

Chapter 7 describes how 3D printing technology will disrupt trademark law’s core function of indicating the source or origin of manufactured goods. The technology dissociates product design from product manufacturing. Design is embodied in a 3D printable file, while manufacturing is commoditized and democratized. When 3D printable files, as opposed to manufactured goods, are offered for sale, symbols appearing “inside” of the digital files (i.e., on the digital object) do not indicate the source of the file. Rather, source indicators are found “outside” of the file, on the websites that offer the files for sale. 3D printing technology will also radically disrupt the doctrine of post-sale confusion. At the same time, current, expanded theories of trademark law condemn uses of symbols that might dilute a trademark or suggest a connection to a trademark owner. These stronger versions of trademark protection, which are widely criticized, would give trademark owners to the right to control most uses of their marks “inside” of files. This would inhibit innovation and creative expression without a clear benefit to the public. Therefore, I recommend against these stronger protections for DMFs.