Terrica Carrington Image

Terrica Carrington

is an attorney serving as Copyright Counsel with the Copyright Alliance, a Washington, DC-based organization representing the copyright interests of creators across the United States. In her role as Copyright Counsel, Terrica has worked on a number of legal and policy issues related to copyright law, in addition to working with the Copyright Alliance’s creator members. She is also an adjunct professor at George Mason University School of Law, where she assists with the Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic. Terrica earned her J.D. from George Mason University School of Law in 2016, and her B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2012. She is admitted to practice law in Virginia and Washington, DC.

Recent Articles by Terrica Carrington

Filling in the Holes: The CASE Act is Where Good Intention Meets Good Policy

While there are a number of falsehoods being spread about the CASE Act by those who philosophically oppose any legislation that will help the creative community, there are a few honest critiques that are based on simple misunderstandings about the bill rather than malice. Take, for instance, an article published earlier this week on this blog which characterizes the CASE Act’s intentions as noble, but argues that there are “three gaping holes” that make for bad policy…. The CASE Act will not bring an end to copyright infringement, nor is it intended to. Subversive parties that intend to infringe and skirt the law are unlikely to be brought to justice under the CASE Act. But the CASE Act is good policy for achieving what it is intended to do: provide an alternative to federal court where consenting parties who presently cannot afford to, might finally get their day in court.

Strong IP protection provides inventors and creators the economic freedom to create

Critics argue that intellectual property is bad for innovation in part because it allows for “monopolies” that prevent the public from using certain creations without permission for a period of time. As a preliminary matter, the use of the misleading scare-term “monopolies” to describe property rights in inventive and creative labor is clearly an attempt to skew the debate from the outset. After all, you wouldn’t call property rights in hard-copy creations, like the crops a farmer harvested, “monopolies” in those creations. Furthermore, if public access is the concern, a system that fails to provide inventors and creators the economic freedom to create things to market to the public in the first place will be far more harmful than a system that secures justly-earned property rights in inventors’ and artists’ productive labors.