Don’t forget to call your mashup a reflection and critique of the works it appropriates!

In determining whether a work that appropriates a copyrighted work is a non-infringing fair use, the fundamental issue is whether the new work transforms the copyrighted work to a degree that makes the new work so creative it stands on its own. One thing that puzzles me is the degree to which courts rely on the artist’s expressed intent in deciding whether the new work is transformative. Are we really supposed to ground our determination of whether a work is “transformative” in the artist’s own expressed purposes?

To do so poses all sorts of problems. As Sister Wendy Beckett explains in the Encyclopedia Britannica Online in words that are so well accepted they are almost trite,

The passageway provided by art is very wide. No single interpretation of art is ever “right,” not even the artist’s own. He or she can tell us the intent of the work, but the actual meaning and significance of the art, what the artist achieved, is a very different matter. (It is pitiable to hear the grandiose discussions of artists’ work by the least talented of our contemporaries.) We should listen to the appreciations of others, but then we should put them aside and advance toward a work of art in the loneliness of our own truth. Each of us encounters the work alone, and how much we receive from it is wholly the effect of our will to accept this responsibility.

What was Jackson Pollock’s purpose in painting Lavender Mist? Van Gogh’s in painting The Irises? Haven’t we accepted by now the limitations focus on artistic intention would impose on our appreciation of art?

Not only does art live in its relationship with its audience, not in its creator’s mind, but to explore questions of intent in determining a work’s originality inevitably will raise questions of an artist’s stature. Is Jeff Koons original? According to Wikipedia, ‘[s]upporters claim (for Balloon Dog) “an awesome presence… a massive durable monument’ (Amy Dempsey, ed. Styles, Schools and Movements, 2002, Thames & Hudson), and for other work that it is possible to be ‘wowed by the technical virtuosity and eye-popping visual blast’ (Jerry Saltz, art critic). On the other hand, “Mark Stevens of The New Republic dismissed [Koons] as a ‘decadent artist [who] lacks the imaginative will to do more than trivialize and italicise his themes and the tradition in which he works… He is another of those who serve the tacky rich.’ Michael Kimmelman of The New York Times saw ‘one last, pathetic gasp of the sort of self-promoting hype and sensationalism that characterized the worst of the 1980s’ and threw in for good measure “artificial,” cheap” and “unabashedly cynical.”‘”

It seems likely a lot of people would have a difficult time considering anything by Koons original.

Yet, in Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 252-53 (2d Cir. 2007)(emphasis added), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in holding that Koons’ appropriation of a copyrighted photograph constituted fair use, based its conclusion that the new work was “transformative” precisely on Koons’ statements regarding what he intended:

Koons asserts — and Blanch does not deny — that his purposes in using Blanch’s image are sharply different from Blanch’s goals in creating it. Compare Koons Aff. at P4 (“I want the viewer to think about his/her personal experience with these objects, products, and images and at the same time gain new insight into how these affect our lives.”) with Blanch Dep. at 112-113 (“I wanted to show some sort of erotic sense[;] . . . to get . . . more of a sexuality to the photographs.”). The sharply different objectives that Koons had in using, and Blanch had in creating, “Silk Sandals” confirms the transformative nature of the use. See Bill Graham Archives, 448 F.3d at 609 (finding transformative use when defendant’s purpose in using copyrighted concert poster was “plainly different from the [*253] original purpose for which they were created”); see also 17 U.S.C. § 107(1) (first fair-use factor is the “purpose and character of the use” (emphasis added)).

Koons is, by his own undisputed description, using Blanch’s image as fodder for his commentary on the social and aesthetic consequences of mass media. Castle Rock Entm’t, 150 F.3d at 142 (quoting Leval, supra, 103 Harv. L. Rev, at 1111). When, as here, the copyrighted work is used as “raw material,” Castle Rock Entm’t, 150 F.3d at 142 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), in the furtherance of distinct creative or communicative objectives, the use is transformative. Id.; see also Bill Graham Archives, 448 F.3d at 609 (use of concert posters “as historical artifacts” in a biography was transformative); Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 1998) (parody of a photograph in a movie poster was transformative when “the ad [was] not merely different; it differ[ed] in a way that may reasonably be perceived as commenting” on the original). His stated objective is thus not to repackage Blanch’s “Silk Sandals,” but to employ it “‘in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings.’”

The test for whether “Niagara’s” use of “Silk Sandals” is “transformative,” then, is whether it “merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted, alteration incorporated); Davis, 246 F.3d at 174 (same). The test almost perfectly describes Koons’s adaptation of “Silk Sandals”: the use of a fashion photograph created for publication in a glossy American “lifestyles” magazine — with changes of its colors, the background against which it is portrayed, the medium, the size of the objects pictured, the objects’ details and, crucially, their entirely different purpose and meaning — as part of a massive painting commissioned for exhibition in a German art-gallery space. We therefore conclude that the use in question was transformative.

Given the focus on an artist’s expressed intent in making a work of art, it would seem wise for appropriation artists to be versed in the proper lingo. Call your work “a reflection and criticism of the themes evoked by the original.” You might even want to call your work a “parody” of the original, but doing so might be a little too blatant. It is plain that in the recent decision enjoining the publication of a “sequel” to The Catcher in the Rye, the judge was significantly influenced by the fact the author and his representatives had described the work in words that didn’t fit the legal standard they wanted to meet. The judge’s opinion seems in fact to indicate that if only the author had used the magic words to describe his work the outcome might have been different:

Until the present lawsuit was filed, Defendants made no indication that 60 Years [the new work] was in any way a parody or critique of Catcher [in the Rye]. Quite to the contrary, the original jacket of 60 Years states that it is “. . . a marvelous sequel t one of our most beloved classics.” . . . Additionally, when initially confronted with the similarities between the two works, rather than explaining that 60 Years was a parody or critique of Catcher, Colting’s [the new work’s author] literary agent, Mr. Sane, contended that 60 Years “is a completely freestanding novel that has nothing to do with the original Catcher in the Rye.”

Opinion and Order at 16, n. 3.

Colting, obviously, should have called his work a parody and critique, not a sequel or a “freestanding novel.” It’s odd to think that makes a difference, though. No matter what he said, his work would be the same.