2022 In the Matter of Copyright Claims Board: Representation by Law Students and of Business Entities, No. 2021–9 (Library of Congress)
2022 Green v. United States Dept. of Justice, No. 21-5195 (2d Cir. 2022)
2021 In the Matter of Copyright Claims Board: Initiation of Proceedings and Related Procedures, No. 2021-6 (Library of Congress)
2021 Therolf v. Madera County Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. 5th Div. June 29, 2021)
2021 Rap on Trial
2021 Human Rights Defense Center v. County of Los Angeles, No. 21STCP01342 (Cal. Sup. Ct. April 29, 2021)
- Petition for Writ of Mandate and Declaratory Relief for Violations of the California Public Records Act (with Exhibits A & B)
2020 In the Matter of Section 230 of the Communications Act, No. RM-11862 (Federal Communications Commission)
2020 In the Matter of Exemptions to Permit Circumvention of Access Controls on Copyrighted Works, No. 2020-11 (Library of Congress)
- Petition to Renew a Current Exemption Under 17 U.S.C. § 1201 on behalf of Bobette Buster, Authors Alliance, and the American Association of University Professors
- Petition to Renew a Current Exemption Under 17 U.S.C. § 1201 on behalf of the International Documentary Association, Film Independent, and Kartemquin Educational Films
2019-2020 California Secretary of State Proposed Regulatory Action: Risk Limiting Audits (2019)
- Joint Public Comment Letter from Kim Alexander et al. regarding Request for Public Comment on Risk-Limiting Audits Regulations (Dec. 10, 2019)
- Joint Public Comment Letter from Kim Alexander et al. regarding Public Comment on Modified Risk-Limiting Audits Regulations (Jan. 17, 2020)
2019 People v. Caldwell, No. BA464579-02 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2020):
2019 Estate of Smith v. Graham, No. 19-0028 (2d Cir. 2019):
2019 Stouffer v. National Geographic Partners, LLC, No. 1:18-cv-03127 (D. Colo. 2018):
2018-2019 People v. Perez, No. BM922667A (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2018):
- Letter from Counsel for Anthony Esposito to Kern County District Attorney
- Ex parte Application of Non-Party Journalist Anthony Esposito to Clarify or Vacate Protective Order Against Publicity; Memorandum of Points And Authorities; Declaration of Anthony Esposito with Exhibits A-B; Declarations of Susan Seager with Exhibits C-H
2018 Amicus Brief in FX Networks v. de Havilland, No. B285629 (Cal Ct. App. 2018):
2017-2018 DMCA Section 1201 Rulemaking Proceedings on Behalf of Proposed Class 1 – Filmmakers:
- Petition for Renewal
- Petition for Modification
- Comment in support of streamlined exemption proposal
- Initial Comment
- Reply Comment
- Blog post by Shaia Araghi and Lauren Wertheimer
- Supplemental letter submitted to Copyright Office
2017-2018 DMCA Section 1201 Rulemaking Proceedings on Behalf of Proposed Class 1 – Filmmakers:
- Petition for Renewal
- Petition for Modification
- Initial Comment
- Reply Comment
- Supplemental letter submitted to Copyright Office
2016-2017 Authors Alliance Termination of Transfer Tool
- TERMINATION OF TRANSFER: Information and Templates for Notices of Termination Under § 203 and § 304(c)
- Blog post by Eric Malmgren and Julia Wu
2016 DMCA Section 1201 Study
2015 DMCA Section 1201 Rulemaking Proceedings on Behalf of Proposed Class 5 – Multimedia Ebooks:
- Petition for Exemption
- Initial Comment
- Reply Comment
- Response to USCO Post-hearing Questions to Class 5 Witnesses, June 3, 2015
2015 DMCA Section 1201 Rulemaking Proceedings on Behalf of Proposed Class 6 – Filmmaking Uses:
- Petition for Exemption
- Initial Comment
- Reply Comment
- Blog post summarizing IPAT’s experience, as of March 16, 2015, in participating in the DMCA Rulemaking proceedings on behalf of IDA and other filmmakers.
- Letter to Register of Copyright Regarding Fair Use in Narrative Filmmaking
- Response to USCO Post-hearing Questions to Class 6 Witnesses, June 3, 2015
Other Work:
- Reply Comment in support of net neutrality filed on behalf of the International Documentary Association in Federal Communications Commission proceedings.
- Amicus Brief filed in Garcia v. Google, on behalf of the International Documentary Association and others. The case concerned whether an actress who appeared onscreen for five seconds in the notorious anti-Islam film has a copyright interest in the picture. The brief explains why a ruling that favored the actress’ interest could be devastating to independent filmmakers.