Steven Johnson, Lawrence Lessig, & Shepard Fairey at the NY Public Library on Mashup & Remix

When someone tells you they have an “objective” method of judging value, run!

One of the reasons I find disputes concerning the authenticity and provenance of works of art so fascinating is that the art market often magnifies the subjectivity and volatility that all markets are subject to. In practice 20 years ago I often deposed investment bankers at great length on their methods and judgments in valuing companies. I was always amazed at the subjectivity that went into numbers that got translated into hard dollar amounts that investors treated like objective, indisputable measures of value. Now, in a fascinating piece in the New Yorker, David Garan writes about

Canadian forensic art expert named Peter Paul Biro, who, during the past several years, has pioneered a radical new approach to authenticating pictures. He does not merely try to detect the artist’s invisible hand; he scours a painting for the artist’s fingerprints, impressed in the paint or on the canvas. Treating each painting as a crime scene, in which an artist has left behind traces of evidence, Biro has tried to render objective what has historically been subjective. In the process, he has shaken the priesthood of connoisseurship, raising questions about the nature of art, about the commodification of aesthetic beauty, and about the very legitimacy of the art world. Biro’s research seems to confirm what many people have long suspected: that the system of authenticating art works can be arbitrary and, at times, even a fraud.

Of course, as Garan writes, the desire to replace subjective judgment regarding the authenticity of artworks with some “objective” scientific method is longstanding:

The desire to transform the authentication process through science—to supplant a subjective eye with objective tools—was not new. During the late nineteenth century, the Italian art critic Giovanni Morelli, dismissing many traditional connoisseurs as “charlatans,” proposed a new “scientific” method based on “indisputable and practical facts.” Rather than search a painting for its creator’s intangible essence, he argued, connoisseurs should focus on minor details such as fingernails, toes, and earlobes, which an artist tended to render almost unconsciously. “Just as most men, both speakers and writers, make use of habitual modes of expression, favorite words or sayings, that they employ involuntarily, even inappropriately, so too every painter has his own peculiarities that escape him without his being aware,” Morelli wrote. He believed that not only did an Old Master expose his identity with these “material trifles”; forgers and imitators were also less likely to pay sufficient attention to them, and thus betray themselves. Morelli became known as the Sherlock Holmes of the art world.

To many connoisseurs, however, the nature of art was antithetical to cold science. Worse, Morelli made his own share of false attributions, prompting one art historian to dismiss him as a “quack doctor.”

But Garan’s article reveals that Biro may not be all he’s cracked up to be. Neither are objective methods of valuing business.

Viacom’s schizophrenia over YouTube: the industry cries “serial killer!”

Does YouTube threaten the entertainment industry? On the one hand, Viacom and others will scream that it threatens the very livelihood of those who produce our entertainment. On the other, Viacom and others use it effectively to promote their products. And would you really prefer a regime that required YouTube to approve the legitimacy of every video uploaded to it? Frankly, it simply wouldn’t exist if that were required. To me it makes sense that if a copyright holder believes his copyright is being infringed by an online video, he can have it removed upon request. And if the person who uploaded the video believes the request is mistaken, he can ask Google to review it and make its determination at that point whether it will allow it to remain.

Moreover, history teaches that you should view with extreme skepticism the cries of alarm from the entertainment industry. In doing so, you likely would be doing them a favor.

As I wrote the other day in connection with the decision dismissing Viacom’s lawsuit against Google alleging copyright infringement for the posting on YouTube of videos infringing Viacom’s copyrights, As I wrote above, the existing regime makes sense to me and, as I wrote in that recent post,  ”[t]he decision is a straightforward application of the DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision, which insulates service providers from liability for activities by their users that infringe copyrights.” Viacom, of course, disagrees, stating in its press release:

We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the intent of Congress, and the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in its most recent decisions. We intend to seek to have these issues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible.

And those who represent the interests of large corporate copyright holders such as Viacom, like the Washington Legal Foundation (whose mission is to “champion free market principles [and] limited and accountable government”) argue that the decision allows Google “to exploit the statute’s safe harbors by designing an entire business model based on improperly profiting from copyrighted content.” Ronald Cass writes in Forbes that the decision is “broad enough to sink the protection copyright holders had enjoyed under the law.” And the Directors Guild of America claims its members’ very livelihoods are at stake:

We fear that the precedent established in this ruling, if not overturned by the appeals court, could result in a drastic rising tide of Internet theft that could decimate our members’ livelihoods, their pension and health plans, and their ability to continue creating the content that is beloved by people all over the world.

Reading these dire warnings you might not realize that as the judge stated in his decision Google took down the offending videos the day after Viacom delivered a mass takedown notice identifying the ones it claimed a copyright in. Nor would you realize that Viacom recognized the value of YouTube to its business by employing people to post its videos to YouTube to promote its productions while at the same time other Viacom employees were adding those same videos to the list for the takedown notice:

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately “roughed up” the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt “very strongly” that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

Fear that directors will have their livelihoods decimated and that the decision sinks copyright protection is of course, nothing new for an entertainment industry that can profit enormously from new technologies they demonize, so Viacom’s schizophrenia is, perhaps, progress over Hollywood’s reaction to the VCR, which was 100% self-destructive. In 1982, Jack Valenti, in sworn testimony before Congress , stated “that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.” But, as Digital America explains, Valenti was not merely crying wolf — he was describing the greatest benefit to the movie industry in the last 40 years as a serial killer:

As the VCR became more important to the consuming public, the Hollywood establishment that fought it bowed to its inevitable benefits. In January 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded 5-4 that VCRs were legal products and that home taping of copyrighted works fell under the “fair use” exception to copyright. While Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA), legislative attempts to codify the Betamax decision and fair video recording rights are still pending before Congress. CEA (at that time known as the Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronic Industries Association), in cooperation with the Home Recording Rights Coalition, protected the legality of home recording and promoted the acceptance of the new technology.

Additionally Hollywood studios established home video divisions to reap the profits from a technology it once considered a threat. Blay’s idea sparked a retail revolution as hundreds of mom-and-pop video rental and sales stores popped up in every community in America. In 1987, video rental income reached $5.25 billion for the year, surpassing movie theater ticket sales for the first time. Today, movie studios regularly make more money on a film from home video sales and rentals than from the theatrical box office.

Stealing what you love

John Pareles wrote, in “Plagiarism in Dylan, or a Cultural Collage?,”that “[i]deas aren’t meant to be carved in stone and left inviolate; they’re meant to stimulate the next idea and the next.” Accordingly, in words apropos of a point I’ve made over and over and over on this blog, he explains:

The absolutely original artist is an extremely rare and possibly imaginary creature, living in some isolated habitat where no previous works or traditions have left any impression. Like virtually every artist, Mr. Dylan carries on a continuing conversation with the past. He’s reacting to all that culture and history offer, not pretending they don’t exist. Admiration and iconoclasm, argument and extension, emulation and mockery — that’s how individual artists and the arts themselves evolve. It’s a process that is neatly summed up in Mr. Dylan’s album title “Love and Theft, ” which itself is a quotation from a book on minstrelsy by Eric Lott. (hyperlinks added)

Another masterful artist, David Foster Wallace, wrote, “No one who is invested in any kind of art . . . can read [Lewis Hyde's book] The Gift and remain unchanged.” It is Hyde’s thesis not merely that all art builds on earlier art, but that it is precisely the artist’s recognition that his creations are gifts that sustains his creativity. In other words, the capacity to create is a gift given to the artist and is given only if the artist understands his own creations as gifts themselves that other artists can use themselves in their acts of creation:

It is the assumption of this book that a work of art is a gift, not a commodity. Or, to state the modern case with more precision, that works of art exist simultaneously in two “economics,” a market economy and a gift economy. Only one of these is essential, however: a work of art can survive without the market, but where there is no gift there is no art.

So it should be no surprise that Andreas Hykade entitled this brilliant video “Love & Theft“:

Free culture and produce art!

From Appropriation Art:

Today many artists and creators use, reproduce, appropriate and incorporate materials found within popular culture and society. These raw materials reflect and embrace the world around us: snippets of film and TV, radio spots, advertisements, news headlines, bits of text, characters, fragments of song…and so on. Artists use this source material just as artists have used raw material for thousands of years. Artists use this source material because it is meaningful and relevant and evocative. Artists must have the freedom to transform this raw material into new works with new interpretations and new meanings in order for culture to advance. These new works push boundaries, question the status quo, advance technologies. These new works encourage experimentation and invention. And while appropriation practice may not be the foundation for every artist, it is inconceivable that . . . we would actually advocate restricting or even banning these forms of expression.

The practice of Appropriation is a fundamental part of many creative cultural activities. Works of visual art that use Appropriation have a long, distinguished and well documented place in the History of Art. This work is collected and exhibited in major cultural institutions . . . around the world. We cannot open a book on modern and contemporary art without being presented with some form of appropriation. Appropriation integrates existing cultural product (movies, top 40 songs, television, radio, advertising, characters etc.), but in such a way that these cultural products are transformed and a new and original work of art is created. Yet in spite of the history, vitality and importance of Art using appropriation, this process is being threatened, as are the rights of artists who practice it. And vulnerable new forms of creativity using appropriation are at threat of being extinguished.

Requiring licenses for artistic appropriation has nothing to with providing incentives to create.

I’ve been pretty passionate in this blog in expressing my belief that art that appropriates copyrighted work does not infringe the copyrighted work provided the new work stands sufficiently on its own as a creative work. To stand on its own in that way, the new work is one that isn’t attracting an audience merely because of its appropriation of the earlier work. The fact it uses the the copyrighted work to convey meaning through the use of symbols and allusions is no different than the way new, original art has always used the meaning culture attributes to earlier work. Art builds on art.

The counter-argument to my position is that artists need to make money to be able to create art, and if an appropriator can pay for a license, why shouldn’t he? First, merely asking for a license is not the same as obtaining one. Second, the most meaningful pieces of art in our culture are the most successful, and licenses for the use of those works are not likely to be within the financial means of most artists. Third, why should you have to ask for a license to make something new from something someone already has made money from (or as much as their work earned in the market)?

But now Malcolm Gladwell goes right to the heart of the most compelling argument copyright holders have against un-licensed appropriation — that the financial remuneration is an incentive necessary to the creation of art in the first place. Gladwell writes:

Dan Pink is best known for a number of really insightful business books, including “A Whole New Mind.” In “Drive,” he tackles the question of what motivates people to do innovative work, and his jumping-off point is the academic work done over the past few decades that consistently shows that financial rewards hinder creativity. These studies have been around for a while. But Pink follows through on their implications in a way that is provocative and fascinating. The way we structure organizations and innovation, after all, almost always assumes that the prospect of financial reward is the prime human motivator. We think that the more we pay people, the better results we’ll get. But what if that isn’t true? What the research shows, instead, is that the great wellspring of creativity is intrinsic motivation—that is, I do my best work for personal rewards (out of love or intellectual fulfillment) and not external motivation (money).

Maybe you don’t think much of this blog, but I’ve written it now for 18 months and haven’t seen a penny in return. The best writers I know scramble to make their livings through their writing, teaching, parlaying their writing into other creative projects, and whatever else can come their way. I’ve known artists my entire life. I’ve known a few who’ve had vast success, but they are a tiny, tiny minority. The artists I know won’t stop creating if they’re not paid for transformative appropriations of their works.

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution sets for the basis of Congressional power to create laws to protect copyright. It states:

The Congress shall have 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; . . . (emphasis added).

It does not state:

The Congress shall have the Power . . . To further the capacity of authors and inventors to extract any and all value that exists in their creations, by securing for a time in excess of the lifetimes of these Authors and Inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; . . .

The Korean War Memorial Postage Stamp Photo Case: I was way wrong! But I still think I was right, and I think the case is bad for art.

Consider me dumbfounded, or just plain dumb. I thought the copyright infringement case brought by the sculptor of the Korean War War Veterans Memorial (above, left) against the U.S. Postal Service for the use of the memorial’s image in a postage stamp (above, right) was an “easy case” — that the stamp constituted fair use of the image of the memorial because, among other things, I thought the image was sufficiently “transformative” of the memorial itself to constitute a creative work in its own right.

But today, in Gaylord v. U.S. (pdf),the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s holding and ruled that the stamp infringed the sculptor’s copyright in the memorial (pdf). Whereas I thought the image on the stamp was transformative because, among other things, I wouldn’t have even known it was an image of a sculpture rather than a stylized image of actual soldiers unless I’d read otherwise, the court held that the purpose and character of the image on the postage stamp and the purpose and character of the sculpture were identical: “to honor veterans of the Korean War.” Slip op. at 9. The court rejected the reasoning I had advanced, reasoning as follows:

Although the stamp altered the appearance of The Column by adding snow and muting the color, these alterations do not impart a different character to the work. To the extent that the stamp has a surreal character, The Column and its soldiers themselves contribute to that character. Indeed, the Penn State Team suggested that the Memorial have a “dream-like presence of ghostly figures.” Capturing The Column on a cold morning after a snowstorm—rather than on a warm sunny day—does not transform its character, meaning, or message.  Slip Op. at 11.

I am stunned, and I find the court’s limitation of of “transformative” work to work that “comments on or criticizes” the work it appropriates without real rationale, but the odds are long the case will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. It might be a good case for the Supreme Court to weigh in on — the ease and low cost of copying and disseminating images in this day and age makes any and every sort of appropriation art a contentious and wide open field, but I suspect the Supreme Court would prefer to let these issues simmer in the lower courts for some time before it chooses to weigh in on the question. In the mean time, I have to bow in humility to Donn Zaretsky, with whom I engaged in an online debate last summer on this particular case in particular and on the issue of the photographic appropriation of public art in particular. Donn was right, and I was wrong. I suspect, though, that this isn’t the last word we’ll hear on this type of case.

Addendum: The more I think about the decision in Gaylord, the more wrong-headed I believe it is, and the more I think it falls prey to a dangerous proclivity to commercialize every last aspect of our culture, including art. To limit “transformative” uses of copyrighted materials to uses that comment upon or criticize the copyrighted works they appropriate is to eliminate the use of the kind of appropriation as source material that is the very foundation of art. Copyrighted art works become part of the cultural language. A work that has impact in a culture takes on a meaning of its own. That cultural meaning then becomes part of the language of art, and as a part of that language it then has meaning that can be used in the sorts of compressed and symbolic ways that art needs to use in order to be art. To remove copyrighted works from this language in the absence of payment for their use would substantially damage our culture. By the time a work of art becomes available for the free use of other artists as part of the public domain — the duration of the artist’s life plus 70 years — it no longer will have any resonance worth exploiting.

Moreover, it is, I think, strange that the court in Gaylord reasoned that the photograph of the sculpture was not sufficiently original in its own right to be transformative despite what I referred to above — the fact that one would not likely even spot that the photo was of the the memorial, much less a sculpture — because that character of the photo was merely the product of the fact the photo was shot on a snowy day:

To the extent that the stamp has a surreal character, The Column and its soldiers themselves contribute to that character. Indeed, the Penn State Team suggested that the Memorial have a “dream-like presence of ghostly figures.” Capturing The Column on a cold morning after a snowstorm—rather than on a warm sunny day—does not transform its character, meaning, or message. Nature’s decision to snow cannot deprive Mr. Gaylord of an otherwise valid right to exclude. Slip op. at 11.

This reasoning is strange because, as I have pointed out before, photography itself is protected by copyright as “original” — rather than being rejected as mere transmission of the “facts” it conveys — precisely to the extent it reflects the photographer’s choices regarding the framing of the image, the choice of background and lighting, and the resulting mood:

Decisions rendering the photograph a protectable “intellectual invention” included: the posing and arrangement of [the subject] “so as to present graceful outlines”; the selection and arrangement of background and accessories; the arrangement and disposition of light and shade; and the evocation of the desired expression. Courts today continue to hold that such decisions by the photographer–or, more precisely, the elements of photographs that result from these decisions–are worthy of copyright protection. See, e.g., Rogers v. Koons (”Elements of originality in a photograph may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved.”) (citations omitted). Meshwerks v. Toyotoa Motor Sales, Inc. ( 10th Cir. 2008).

I am not sure how one reconciles the idea that photography constitutes original work entitled to copyright protection with the notion that the elements of the art that give it originality — the elements that are the result of the artist’s choice — are merely “nature’s decision” and therefore not an element that make a work sufficiently original to be entitled to stand on its own without paying its way. I also think that the decision is vacuous as an artistic matter.

Finally, the decision plainly has significance with respect to the claim by the Associated Press that Shepard Fairey’s Obama Hope poster infringed Manny Garcia’s photo of then-candidate Obama. I have stated again and again that I think the Hope poster is a non-infringing fair use primarily because of the way it transforms the photo and stands on its own as a creative work. It was many, many months before anyone even identified which photo was Fairey’s source material; even Garcia himself, despite seeing the poster again and again during those months, did not recognize that the poster was derived from his own photo! But there’s no doubt in my mind that the poster does not constitute a comment or criticism of the photo. Under the Federal Circuit’s reasoning, therefore, Fairey’s poster infringes the photo’s copyright. Fortunately, however, the Federal Circuit’s decision is not binding on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where AP v. Fairey is pending, so that court will be left to its own judgment as to the scope of appropriation art will be permitted in this age of digital copying and transmission.

Here’s hoping, on my part, that the court in that case comes to a different decision. Art is a language that draws on and builds from itself. To reduce the language’s components to commodities would be to commercialize one more part of our lives, monetize one of the few things we have left that have not been reduced to the equivalent of cold cash.

Second Addendum: John E. Grant has a very interesting take on the Gaylord decision – he reads the decision as one that focuses on the stamp rather than the photo the stamp consists of:

In reversing the lower court decision, a 2-1 appellate majority ruled that the trial judge was wrong to focus on the transformative aspects of the photograph. Instead, it held that it must analyze the purpose and character of the stamp. The appellate majority then found that the purpose of the stamp was the same as the purpose of the sculpture: to honor Korean War veterans.

It’s an interesting thought, but I’m not sure I entirely buy it. If the photo itself was fair use, then I do not understand why the photographer did not have the right to license the use of that photo to the government for use on the postage stamp. Further, as Grant acknowledges and as I pointed out above, the court reasoned that although the image on the stamp “altered the appearance of the sculpture, . . . the alterations [were attributable] to mother nature, not the photographer and . . .  ’nature’s decision to snow cannot deprive Mr. Gaylord of an otherwise valid right’ to his copyright.” Again, I cannot understand why the very elements that constitute the creative elements of a photograph can in this fair use analysis be passed off as merely “nature’s decisions.”

Jack Mackie, litigator-artist: artists aren’t entitled to stop uses of their work merely because they don’t like those uses.

A friend (who happens to be a relative too) points out to me that the artist whose lawsuit I wrote about yesterday — Jack Mackie, creator of the popular outdoor artwork in Seattle known as “The Dance Steps” — has previously sued over the alleged infringement of his copyright in that work. He was largely unsuccessful in the earlier lawsuit, Mackie v. Reiser, 296 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1189 (2003), but not for a lack of trying — he appealed his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and even sought to have that decision reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In Reiser, Mackie sued the Seattle Symphony Orchestra for using a photo of part of The Dance Steps without his permission in a Symphony promotional campaign. Even assuming the Symphony’s use of the image constituted an infringement, the court ruled that Mackie was not legally entitled to statutory damages for copyright infringement because he had not registered his copyright in The Dance Steps; nor was he entitled to damages from the Symphony’s “direct profits.” He was awarded $1,000, based on the trial court’s determination that that is the amount he would have been paid by the Symphony for a license to use the work, but he even appealed that award as inadequate because he did not like the way the Symphony used the image of his work.

The court focused on his claim for “indirect profits” — that is, the profits the Symphony earned from its promotional material that were attributable to the allegedly infringing use of an image of Mackie’s work. But Mackie was not able to produce evidence that any of the Symphony’s profits were attributable to their use of the image of The Dance Steps. In fact, “Mackie’s damages expert had testified that it was impossible to determine how much of the Pops revenue could be traced to the infringing artwork.” Although the expert subsequently testified that he had been wrong and that he believed 1.5% of the Symphony’s profits from the campaign could be traced to its use of the image of The Dance Steps, the court held that that belief was too much based on speculation. Interestingly, at trial, Mackie himself “conceded that his putative loss of future earnings was speculative at best [and] . . . that he had previously given permission for others to use ‘The Tango’ without payment of a royalty.”

Finally, the court ruled that there were no grounds to award Mackie more than $1,000 to represent the amount the Symphony would have had to pay him for a license to use an image of The Dance Steps despite Mackie’s “personal objections to the manipulation of his artwork.” It is important to understand that copyright does not give an artist the power to stop a use of his work merely because he doesn’t like the use. And, indeed, the court concluded: “Although it is not hard to be sympathetic to his concerns,  . . . Mackie’s subjective view, which really boils down to “hurt feelings” over the nature of the infringement, has no place in this calculus.”

Photographing public art: a persistent fair use problem

I have a friend, a sculptor, who has sold several of his pieces as public art. He laughs at the idea that he could somehow recover more money than he has already received for any use the public makes of his sculptures. And he’ll soon be a lawyer. The way he figures it, he’s sold unlimited public use of the art for whatever uses the public will make of it — even money-making uses.

But his view is a generous one. Often the creators of public art will pursue anyone who uses images of their public art under the copyright laws. To my mind, it’s one more of an infinite  number of  manifestations of our collective obsession with converting everything we can into a marketable commodity. Nevertheless, the efforts of artists to restrict others from making and using images of their public art is far from frivolous. Donn Zaretsky and I had a couple of go rounds last year in connection with the use on a postage stamp of a photograph of the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. I am still convinced that the postage stamp in that case makes fair use of the image of the memorial, but we’ll have to wait and see whether my conviction that it isn’t even a close case is vindicated.

But now from the Citizens Media Law Project comes word of a similar, and perhaps more difficult, case, from Seattle, where photographer Mike Hipple is being sued by sculptor Jack Mackie over the photo Hipple took about 10 years ago of a woman standing near the “Dance Steps on Broadway” sculpture in Seattle’s Capitol Hill. As the Citizens Media Law Project explains:

The lawsuit has outraged scores of residents who find Mackie to be out of step with the public’s interest. Mackie installed the eight sets of inlaid bronze shoe prints, mapping out well-known dances such as the waltz and rumba, in 1982 when the city rebuilt the neighborhood’s sidewalks. Despite receiving public financing for the project, Mackie retained rights to the artwork. Those rights, according to § 106 of the U.S. Copyright Act, include the exclusive right to reproduce the work or to create derivative work from it.

Finally, I agree with the following sentiments: “any scheme that involves paying to photograph seems antithetical to the public interest. The most reasonable solution is to keep public artwork completely open to the public. Until cities do this, however, commercial photographers may want to think twice about incorporating public artwork into their photographs.”

Nevertheless, I also agree with Hipple that the photo constitutes fair use of the sculptures image? Why? Because the photo stands on its own as a creative work. Hipple has taken a work embedded in a sidewalk in front of a public building and made it into a beautiful image that evokes both dance and confusion in a world full of complicated instructions seemingly sending us in a myriad of different directions. I don’t know how often I can say it: art builds on art. Culture builds on culture. And the sooner we ease up on our madness to monetize everything the sooner we’ll be sane.

Breaking through to the other side: the music and publishing industries are dying. Music and writing will live on in new ways, and we’re living through the revolution.

My sister, Amy Friedman, is a brilliant writer who, like most artists I know who make their livings as artists, has managed to make her way by working her butt off doing a million different writerly things. She wrote a weekly column for the Kingston Weekly Standard, Canada’s oldest newspaper. In 1992 she began to write Tell Me a Story, which, on a weekly basis syndicated by Universal Press Syndicates, produces an “original story or a children’s classic accompanied by a captivating illustration that will launch the imagination.” She must now have written over a thousand of these stories. Two compilations of these stories have been published as books, Tell Me a Story and The Spectacular Gift. She personally produced 3 CD collections of these stories read by actors and backed by music composed specifically for each work. (You can buy them here, individually or as a 3 CD boxed set). Each one of the CDs has won numerous awards, and the most recent was the Winner of 2009 Parents Choice Gold Medal and 2009 NAPPA Gold Medal for story telling. John Wood of Kid Muzic wrote of the first CD: “The talent is first-rate from top to bottom. The stories literally jump off the CD and into the listener’s imagination – I love the choices on all levels! This is the real deal”

Amy has also written 2 works of non-fiction, Kick the Dog and Shoot the Cat and Nothing Sacred: A Conversation With Feminism. She continues to write and publish both fiction and nonfiction for newspapers, magazines and literary journals. She also performs her stories, often accompanied by musicians, in schools and at summer festivals. She is presently working on a novel, a collection of short stories and a television adaptation of Tell Me a Story. She’s a brilliant teacher of writing too.

In short, Amy is an artist, she works like hell at it, she produces brilliant work, and she has never, to put it mildly, been economically secure in the way, say, many of my law students expect to be.

So I took it very seriously when she sent me the following yesterday:

All the authors I know, every one of them, is freaking out. Celebrity books. No reviewers anywhere. Insane advances to celebrities leaving nothing left for others, no reviewers, too many reviewers, Kindle, celebrity books, the death of Editor and Publisher and Kirkus Reviews, all the authors I know are freaking out. If my memoir had gone to editors even three years ago, it would be sold by now. Everyone’s scared. Whaddya think? http://bit.ly/5O2CQI

I’m choosing not to freak out. I’m choosing to say, this too shall pass, and it will enliven the art world in some new way. (That’s my prayer, anyway)

In the article Amy linked to, Katharine Weber, a former National Book Critics Circle board of directors member, novelist and short story writer, details some of the changes wrought by the internet on book publishing and concludes, among other things, “That literary work will continue to lose value as it is seen even more as just another form of communication, rather than as a work of art with its own integrity.”

There are 2 important points I want to make here: (1) I do not write incessantly about copyright and the slippery notion of authorship as some ivory tower intellectual without strong connections to artists and art art of all sorts, and (2) I have a very personal stake in these questions. So this (with some slight edits) is what I wrote back to Amy yesterday:

Not freaking out is always the better choice. I can’t think of a situation in which freaking out adds value; in fact, I can’t think of a situation in which freaking out doesn’t considerably worsen the situation.

But the fact so many people are freaking out is, in my opinion, because we’re living through a frigging technological revolution. Come on, you remember your Marx. The stuff he was brilliant about: material and economic reality determine cultural reality. Cultural reality has an effect on material reality too. That’s why the experience of a cultural freakout is not a healthy thing. It leads to bad decisions. Had Jack Valenti and the entire film industry had their way, there would be no VHS machines, no CD and DVD burners, etc., etc. But it turned out that the VHS was the biggest financial boon the film industry had ever experienced.

The way we produce, copy, and disseminate information had entirely changed. Anyone sitting in a coffee shop can produce a document that looks as if it’s been typeset. (And I’m sure my students have no clue what typesetting is.) That document can be copied at virtually no cost, and disseminated world-wide at virtually no cost. So, guess what? The entire publishing industry as we’ve known it is a walking corpse. You can almost imagine the zombie image composed of parts of Sarah Palin, Oprah, Dan Brown, and Tiger Woods lumbering down Manhattan’s avenues.

What will result? I don’t know yet. But I strongly disagree with Katherine Weber’s statement that “literary work will continue to lose value as it is seen even more as just another form of communication, rather than as a work of art with its own integrity.” The idea that literary work is anything other than a vast cultural discussion is a relic of the Romantics.

And there will still be books bought. They’ll be read on electronic readers a lot and in codex form a lot – I’m pretty sure demand for the scroll and the inscribed tablet has vanished entirely. And there will be some illicit copying and distribution (that might not in the end result in a net loss to the author).

But sure, publishing houses and anyone who’s convinced her livelihood is dependent on publishing houses is freaking out. Let them. The recording industry once had a monopoly on producing and distributing recorded music. Now any kid can do it on his laptop. And musicians are still making money. The music industry will scream and scream that the internet is killing it, but that’s because the music industry’s ways of producing and distributing music over the past 100 years have as much relevance today as the horse and carriage industry’s ways of producing and distributing means of transportation had after the automobile became widely used.

As Mike Masnick at techdirt has written, a recent report by 2 British economists (pdf) demonstrates that “the UK music industry is actually growing. Let me repeat that: despite all of the whining and complaining about the state of the music industry, some of the music industry’s own economists are admitting that the market is growing. Not surprisingly, it found that retail product sales have declined, but the other parts of the industry have grown noticeably more than the decline in retail sales. This growth has come from a few sources. Live show attendance has increased more than retail sales have decreased. Consumers have actually spent more. On top of that, the business to business side of the industry (sponsorships, licensing, advertisements, etc.) has grown as well, opening up new and lucrative means of making money.”

Neither Masnick nor I would paint the present situation has some new technologically produced utopia — too much of the money in the music industry is going to touring artists from the ancient days of our youths, among other things. But the point he is making is that trying to pass laws and create digital locks and promote misleading propaganda is not going to recreate a model of producing and distributing recorded music that no longer makes any sense.

Something new is developing, there’s no stopping it, and the thrilling thing is that we are part of creating it.

If I had to bet, I suspect in the long run we’ll probably end up with fewer writers making too much money, and more making at least some.

But there’s been literature for what, at least 3000 years? The fall of the structure which produced and sold it in the 20th Century capitalist West won’t mean there won’t be great literature. There may be more. I really think so.

I bought and started re-reading Lewis Hyde’s Trickster Makes this World yesterday. The Trickster is the character who operates between realms, at doorways, through openings that others don’t cross either because they don’t see them or they’re afraid of what’s on the other side. (The intro to Hyde’s book is available as a pdf here — provided by Hyde himself.) And the trickster is the artist. If there’s ever been a doorway to a new reality in the world of literature, we’re facing it head on. Let’s break on through to the other side!

Who owns the rights to ebooks – publishers who bought the rights to publish “in book form” or the original authors? I’ll bet on the authors.

Who owns the rights to electronic versions of books governed by contracts published back in the days when there was no such thing as an e-book?

Typically, the contracts an author signed with the publishers of those books gave the publisher the exclusive right to publish “in book form” or “in any and all editions.” According to the New York Times (hyperlinks added),

In 2001, Random House sued RosettaBooks, an e-book publisher, for copyright infringement when Rosetta signed contracts with authors . . . to release digital versions of previously published novels.

In its suit, Random House relied on wording in its contracts that granted it all rights to publish the works “in book form.”. . .

In 2001, a federal judge in Manhattan denied Random House’s request for a preliminary injunction against RosettaBooks, ruling that “in book form” did not automatically include e-books. An appellate court similarly denied Random House’s request.

On Friday, however, the Times reports (hyperlinks in original) that “Markus Dohle, chief executive of Random House, sent a letter (pdf) to dozens of literary agents, writing that the company’s older agreements gave it ‘the exclusive right to publish in electronic book publishing formats.’” According to Mr. Dohle’s letter:

The vast majority of our backlist contracts grant us the exclusive right to publish books in electronic formats, as well as more traditional physical formats. At the same time, we are aware there have been some misunderstandings conceming ebook rights in older backlist titles. Our older agreements often give the exclusive right to publish “in book form” or “in any and all editions”. Many of those contracts also include enhanced language that references other forms of copying or displaying the text that might be developed in the future or other relevant language that more specifically reflects the already expansive scope of rights. Such grants are usually not limited to any specitic format, and indeed the “f0rm” of a book has evolved over the years to include variations of hardcover, paperback and other written word fonnats, all of which have been understood to be included in the grant of book publishing rights. Indeed, ebook retailers market, merchandise and sell ebooks as an alternate book format, alongside the hardcover, trade paperback, and mass market versions of a given title. Whether physical or digital, the product is used and experienced in the same manner, serves the same function, and satisfies the same fundamental urge to discover stories, ideas and infomation through the process of reading.

Accordingly, Random House considers contracts that grant the exclusive right to publish “in book form” or.”in any and all editions” to include the exclusive right to publish in electronic book publishing formats. Our agreements also contain broad non-competition provisions. so that the author is precluded from granting publishing rights to third parties that would compromise the rights for which Random House has bargained. We believe the effective exercise of electronic rights is key to the future of publishing and that the combined marketing of print and digital formats increases overall sales and creates the largest possible pool of revenues for authors and publishers, Our efforts and investments in the digital realm perfectly complement Random House’s unmatched physical sales and distribution capabilities, which remain a centerpiece of our business and relationships.

But William Styron’s family disputes Random House’s assertions that it owns the rights to publish electronic versions of Mr. Styron’s books. One problem with Random House’s position is that, despite what Mr. Dohle writes, Random House’s contract with Mr. Styron did not grant to Random House rights that refer to “forms of copying or displaying the text that might be developed in the future,” and, in further contradiction to Mr. Dohle’s words, were quite explicit in being “limited to . . . specific format[s].” As the District Court decision in the case between Random House and Rosetta Stone makes clear, Styron’s contract granted Random House “an exclusive license to ‘print, publish and sell the work in book form,’ Styron also gave it the right to ]license publication of the work by book clubs,’ ‘license publication of a reprint edition,’ ‘license after book publication the publication of the work, in whole or in part, in anthologies, school books,’ and other shortened forms, ‘license without charge publication of the work in Braille, or photographing, recording, and microfilming the work for the physically handicapped,’ and ‘publish or permit others to publish or broadcast by radio or television … selections from the work, for publicity purposes ….’”

The court reasons that the “separate grant language . . . to convey the rights to publish book club editions, reprint editions, abridged forms, and editions in Braille . . . would not be necessary if the phrase ‘in book form’ encompassed all types of books. That [language] specifies exactly which rights were being granted by the author to the publisher.”

The court further opined that “a reasonable person ‘cognizant of the customs, practices, usages and terminology as generally understood in the particular trade or business,’  would conclude that the grant language does not include ebooks. ‘To print, publish and sell the work in book form” is understood in the publishing industry to be a ‘limited’ grant.’” (citations and footnote omitted)

Finally, the court pointed out that Random House itself had acknowledged that ebooks are a new medium (and thus, presumably, not within the contemplation of the parties when they entered into their agreements to allocate their respective rights):

In this case, the “new use” – electronic digital signals sent over the internet – is a separate medium from the original use – printed words on paper. Random House’s own expert concludes that the media are distinct because information stored digitally can be manipulated in ways that analog information cannot. Ebooks take advantage of the digital medium’s ability to manipulate data by allowing ebook users to electronically search the text for specific words and phrases, change the font size and style, type notes into the text and electronically organize them, highlight and bookmark, hyperlink to specific parts of the text, and, in the future, to other sites on related topics as well, and access a dictionary that pronounces words in the ebook aloud. The need for a software program to interact with the data in order to make it usable, as well as the need for a piece of hardware to enable the reader to view the text, also distinguishes analog formats from digital formats. See Greenberg v. National Geographic Soc’y, 244 F.3d 1267, 1273 n.12 (11th Cir. 2001) (Digital format is not analogous to reproducing the magazine in microfilm or microfiche because it “requires the interaction of a computer program in order to accomplish the useful reproduction involved with the new medium.”). (citation omitted; hyperlink added).

There’s no question the publishing houses are fighting for their very existence. It’s interesting, though, that copyright holders are fighting the publishing companies over those rights. So much of the focus in this area of late has been over Google’s right to copy books to make them searchable so that they could be found and, as a result, purchased or otherwise obtained from the rightful owners of the books themselves. But now it’s the publishers who are trying to stretch the rights they contractually negotiated for decades ago to realms no one imagined at the time.

It will be interesting to see where this goes next. As a contracts professor, my first impression is that Random House isn’t exactly in the strongest of positions.

Protecting an artist’s legacy: maximize the income from his works, or seek to embody his art? Moral rights and the successors to John Cage.

One of the more remarkable “copyright” fights has, literally, been over silence. The copyright issues are interesting, but I’m particularly interested in the insights provided by Lewis Hyde that I recently came across and the way they bear on a lawyer’s duty to pay as much or more attention to a client’s heart and soul as it is to pay attention to a client’s legal rights and remedies.

The new information comes from the Official Blog of the John Cage Trust, a wonderful new addition to the blogosphere brought by the “not-for-profit organization founded shortly after Cage’s death to support and nurture his legacy.” As American Masters explains, Cage was not merely one of the 20th Century’s most important composers; his work and thought extends to every creative field:

His sense that music was everywhere and could be made from anything brought a dynamic optimism to everything he did. While recognized as one of the most important composers of the century, John Cage’s true legacy extends far beyond the world of contemporary classical music. After him, no one could look at a painting, a book, or a person without wondering how they might sound if you listened closely.

Cage was particularly interested in investigating composition through chance procedures. Thus, it is not surprising that the homepage of JohnCage.org points right now to “Eddie Kohler’s beautiful application devoted to John Cage’s Indeterminacy: New Aspect of Form in Instrumental and Electronic Music.” According to Stereophile (quoted on Amazon.com), Cage composed Indeterminacy by reading “90 stories, his speed determined by the story’s length. In another room, beyond earshot of Cage, David Tudor, pianist and veteran Cage collaborator, performed miscellaneous selections from Cage’s Concert for Piano and Orchestra and played pre-recorded tape from Cage’s Fontana Mix. The resulting collaboration is an astounding piece of ‘music,’ and a fine introduction to the innovations of John Cage. ‘A wonderfully curious way to hear stories.’”

Perhaps Cage’s most well-known work is 4′33″. Solonmusic.net describes the piece’s first performance and the audience’s reaction (footnotes omitted):

The first performance of John Cage’s 4′33″ created a scandal. Written in 1952, it is Cage’s most notorious composition, his so-called “silent piece”. The piece consists of four minutes and thirty-three seconds in which the performer plays nothing. At the premiere some listeners were unaware that they had heard anything at all. It was first performed by the young pianist David Tudor at Woodstock, New York, on August 29, 1952, for an audience supporting the Benefit Artists Welfare Fund — an audience that supported contemporary art.

Tudor placed the hand-written score, which was in conventional notation with blank measures, on the piano and sat motionless as he used a stopwatch to measure the time of each movement. The score indicated three silent movements, each of a different length, but when added together totalled four minutes and thirty-three seconds. Tudor signaled its commencement by lowering the keyboard lid of the piano. The sound of the wind in the trees entered the first movement. After thirty seconds of no action, he raised the lid to signal the end of the first movement. It was then lowered for the second movement, during which raindrops pattered on the roof. The score was in several pages, so he turned the pages as time passed, yet playing nothing at all. The keyboard lid was raised and lowered again for the final movement, during which the audience whispered and muttered.

Cage said, “People began whispering to one another, and some people began to walk out. They didn’t laugh — they were just irritated when they realized nothing was going to happen, and they haven’t fogotten it 30 years later: they’re still angry.” Maverick Concert Hall, the site of the first performance, was ideal in allowing the sounds of the environment to enter, because the back of the hall was open to the surrounding forest. When Tudor finished, raising the keyboard lid and himself from the piano, the audience burst into an uproar — “infuriated and dismayed,” according to the reports. Even in the midst of an avant garde concert attended by modern artists, 4′33″ was considered “going too far.”

Laura Kuhn, the Cage Trust’s Executive Director, graciously points readers to a excerpts from a conversation between Nicholas Riddle, general manager of Peters Edition, which owns the copyrights in Cage’s works, and Hyde, the author of an eagerly awaited forthcoming book on the “cultural commons.”  The part of the exchange between Riddle and Hyde Ms. Kuhn has posted concerns the work that became the focus of one of the more notorious copyright lawsuits of all-time, brought by Peters Edition against Mike Batts, a British composer. In the course of producing the album Classical Graffiti for the The Planets, Batts inserted a one minute silence between two sections of the album that were in radically different styles. According to Riddle, Batts said, “”I thought for my own amusement it would be funny to call it something, so I called it A Minute’s Silence and credited it as track 13, and put my name as Batt/Cage, as a tongue-in-cheek dig at the John Cage piece.’”

Subsequently, Batts’ “record company forwarded the [album] to MCPS, which was handling the mechanical royalties for these CDs. They then identified Cage’s 4’33” as the work in question and started to pay out pro rata royalties to [Peters Edition] as Cage’s publisher.” After Batts’ “homage” became the subject of newspaper reports, Peters Edition “agreed to a run-off between the Batt piece (performed by The Planets) and the Cage piece, performed at the clarinet by our London firm’s Head of New Music, Marc Dooley.”

As Riddle notes, the press described the subsequent lawsuit brought against Batts by Peters Edition as a claim that “Batts stole his silence from Cage.” I can’t say that I didn’t have precisely that impression. Riddle explains the lawsuit to Hyde differently — since Batts attributed the 1 minute of silence to Cage, he was either earning royalties for Cage’s work or identifying something as Cage’s work that wasn’t. Either way, he’d owe Peters Edition money:

The claim was nothing to do with stealing silence from Cage. The issue was entirely that Batt identified this silence as having Cage authorship, leading to a presumption that he was quoting in some sense from 4’33”, and was so successful in doing so that the collecting society started to pay out mechanical royalties for it. There were really only two options here: either, the track really was intended as a quotation from 4’33” or some other unidentified Cage work, in which case mechanical royalties were due; or, he was misappropriating Cage’s name in the context of a musical work, and that also would not do. He, after all, was the one who claimed it was Cage in the first place. Was he passing off something else as being by Cage, or was the work actually Cage? Since performances of 4’33” could be said in some sense to be self-identified as such, it was really his call.

As Hyde recognizes in his response to Riddle, the claim that identification of the minute of silence as a work by Cage was a “misappropriation” of Cage’s name to give value to a work it would not have had without that attribution is founded in the concept of “moral rights,” which are (except in very narrow circumstances not applicable to the lawsuit against Batts) not recognized in U.S. copyright law. As Hyde very concisely describes an artist’s moral rights, “such rights include the right of attribution, the right to prevent false attribution, and the right of integrity.”

I can understand why if one were talking about a conventional musical composition Riddle is right — Batts would owe money either because he had earned royalties from the sale, without permission, of a work that Cage had composed or, under the doctrine of moral rights, he had made money from a work that presumably sold in part because it had been falsely attributed to Cage.  Nonetheless, I cannot get my head around the idea that 1 minute of silence is a quotation of 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence or that the attribution wasn’t a perfectly legitimate parody of Cage’s work rather than an effort to extract money from listeners who would mistakenly think they were listening to Cage’s silence, not Batts’. Even in a realm of moral rights there must be room for parody.

Nonetheless, to the shock of many, Batts settled the lawsuit and paid an undisclosed sum of money to the John Cage Trust. Riddle admits he is not at liberty to discuss the details of the settlement and writes that he and Batts did not discuss the reasons Batts agreed to the financial settlement, but he suggest that his own belief is that Batts as an artist recognized a need to acknowledge the legitimacy of the publisher’s claims:

[M]y personal take on this is that it is important to remember that Mike Batt is also a composer and that a significant part of his income is from royalties earned on his existing works. The same applies to CDs of his music or the music of the bands he creates and promotes. He is heavily invested himself in the concept of intellectual property and its value. And rightly so, in my view.

Hyde doesn’t dispute the merits of Riddle’s explanation of the legal bases of the lawsuit, but he does raise (in a remarkably gentle and respectful way) another entirely different doubt he has about the wisdom of the lawsuit. Hyde points to Cage’s Buddhist beliefs and convictions that his art was not a projection of his personality. In fact, moral rights are grounded in the idea that an artist’s creations are in some way embodiments and extensions of the artist: one violates an artist’s moral rights if one violates a work’s “integrity” by, for example, defacing it, because defacement of the work is in some sense a defacement of the artist. To attribute to an artist a work that isn’t by the artist is, in turn, to violate the artist’s identity by identifying the artist with something that is not the artist; an artist’s genuine work, in contrast, is the artist.

But Cage did not believe his compositions embodied or otherwise constituted extensions into the world of his identity. As Hyde writes, Cage was not interested in chance as a means of revealing the personality. He even wrote, “Personality is a flimsy thing on which to build an art.” Instead,

Cage was after [Jacques] Monod’s ‘absolute newness’ of pure chance. He was not out to discover any hidden self, nor did he think chance operations would reveal any hidden, already-existing divine reality, as ancient diviners thought. ‘Composition is like writing a letter to a stranger,’ he once said. ‘I don’t hear things in my head, nor do I have inspiration ….’”

If Hyde is right, then pursuing a claim that Cage’s moral rights had been infringed by Batts would be to assert a claim Cage himself did not believe in. If Cage had understood that, would he have refused to assert the claim? I think there’s a good chance of that. Would you sue someone for doing something you thought was a perfectly legitimate thing to do even if someone told you that if you sued them you’d get money? It’s important to understand that a lawyer represents the client, not the client’s abstract legal rights. But when someone’s rights pass to another (whether by contract, by trust instrument, by will, or otherwise), the new owner of the rights may have his own idea of what is important to protect.

How much is that successor bound by the original right’s holder’s understanding and intentions? That is a very, very interesting and difficult question. Hyde is suggesting, I think, that Riddle and Peters Edition were really watching out for the concerns of Peters Edition and not for the concerns of John Cage as an artist, that Riddle might have done far more to preserve Cage’s legacy than he did by extracting some money from Batts for the John Cage Trust.

Cleveland Museum of Art allowed to use 50% of income from trusts for expansion; 1st time in Ohio since 1955.

A follow up to my posts (here and here) regarding the power of museums to deviate from the terms of a donor’s limitations on the use of money donated:

Last week, the Cleveland Museum of Art won permission from a Cuyahoga County Probate Court judge to use 49.99% of the income (not the principal) from 4 trusts over a period of 10 years (up to an amount not to exceed $75 million) to finance the museum’s ongoing renovation and expansion. The 4 trusts were established in 1920, 1935, 1938, and 1952. It is the first time since 1955 that the museum has sought such relief from the terms of a donor’s trust, which is also the last time such relief has been sought by any museum in Ohio.

These facts plainly do not justify the fears the museum’s critics hold up as the consequence of such rulings.

ADDENDUM: The Art Law Blog was right on top of this, and also has written, commented upon, and linked to articles about the background.

How do we decide how a long buried corpse would want his art treated? And is the corpse’s former intent all we care about?

My post last week about art museums and the doctrine of deviation provoked in the comments precisely the kind of discussion/argument that I tried to point out is the whole point: how do we decide how to apply rules or other written expressions when they are applied in contexts that have radically changed. To literally apply the words written by a donor that restrict the use of a gift by an art museum when doing so would threaten the entire point of the gift (a thriving art museum) seems pretty absurd to me. If what we’re trying to do is discern a donor’s intent, shouldn’t we be a little more flexible?

Thus, I am particularly pleased to note Donn Zaretsky’s reference to the Philadelphia Inquirer’s conclusion that the new Barnes Foundation building (the subject of a couple of those comments to my original post) shows “obvious respect for Barnes’ legacy – for his idiosyncratic view of how art should be displayed and appreciated – should reassure supporters of the move.” That’s precisely the point: Barnes’ original bequest might have forbidden the move, but the result of his restriction, 60 years after his death, was the closing off of a multi-billion dollar collection of art to the wider public, strife between the Foundation and its neighbors, and a threat to the very existence of the Foundation itself. Isn’t it at least arguable that satisfying much of Barnes’ obvious intent — precisely how the art is housed and shown — while making it accessible to the world in a location where it is welcome is a reasonable effort to accommodate what he would have wanted? And isn’t it appropriate that we have institutions like courts to decide whether that reasonable argument or the opposing one (Barnes stated in his bequest the collection should never be moved, so it should never be moved, even if there are circumstances now that he did not anticipate and we could not predict his reaction to)?

And that’s not even to mention that there is a public interest involved. Are we to so honor “property” rights that we would sacrifice billions of dollars of the world’s culture to the whim of the owner? As Zaretsky asks in another post:

What if Barnes’s Will had provided that the works were to be exhibited in Merion for exactly 50 years — and then were to be burned in a big bonfire?

Should we honor donor intent in that case?

Or can we agree that sometimes the public interest trumps the donor’s intent?

Dan Bull: Dear Lily [an open letter to Lily Allen]

I’m would never argue that sharing for free without any transformative effect an entire copyrighted song without permission is fair use, but there’s a lot to be said for the argument that the anti-file sharing campaign is bad for music. And Lily Allen’s problem was she really didn’t understand what she was talking about.

Copyright and Good Judgment: Damien Hirst, Idiot.

In England, a 17 year old artist named Cartrain created a collage that included an image of Damien Hirst’s diamond encrusted skull, a work entitled “For the Love of God.” As the Independent reports: “The collages were put up for sale on a website, 100artists.com. Hirst reported him to the Design and Artists Copyright Society and a string of legal letters were sent to Cartrain’s art dealer, Tom Cuthbert, at 100artworks.com, about the teenager’s pieces, also called For the Love of God. The online gallerysurrendered them to Hirst with a verbal apology.” So, in July, Cartrain walked into a museum showing some of Hirst’s works and walked off with a box of pencils from one of the installations. As Cartrain explained, “That same day I made up a fake police appeal poster advertising that the pencils had been removed from the Tate and that if anyone had any information they should contact the police on the phone number advertised.” “A few weeks later I went out and I returned home to find out the art and antiques squad from New Scotland Yard had called round with a warrant for my arrest.” According to the Independent, Cartrain “was told by custody officers that the pencils were valued at £500,000 and that he had damaged ‘the concept of a public artwork titled Pharmacy … valued at £10,000,000.’ Cartrain is on bail and, if convicted, his actions will feature among the highest value modern art thefts in Britain. Does Damien Hirst have the right to foreclose the use of images in which he owns the copyright from collages? Plainly, I don’ t think so. But it’s also one of those situations in which I’d tell a client to just back off. Reportedly, Hirst sold the skull for $100 million. The image is ubiquitous. I know I’ve sent it to friends as part of an app on Facebook. Do you, I’d ask, really need to be so heavy-handed in connection with a kid trying to get his start as an artist? (hat tip to Techdirt)

The fair use test — some cases are easy, some are hard, and some are somewhere in between. A follow up to the dialog regarding the postage stamp and the Korean War Veterans Memorial.

Donn Zaretsky, unsurpisingly, took exception to the post I wrote yesterday, in which I strongly condemned his assertion that “you can make the traditional four-factor fair use analysis do whatever you want it to do. As Judge Kozinski has said, the analysis can always go in either direction.” (emphasis is Zaretsky’s) The back-and-forth originated in our disagreement about the decision that a postage stamp that is a reproduction of a photograph of a sculpture forming part of the Korean War Veterans Monument on the Mall in Washington, D.C. does not infringe the sculptor’s copyright in the sculpture. There is a reproduction of the stamp and a photograph of the sculpture in my original post. I believe the court was right and that the determination that the stamp is a non-infringing fair use is a pretty easy one. Given that he is invested in his belief the law’s 4-part test to determine fair use is an utterly arbitrary one that in every case can as easily support one position as another, Zaretsky thinks I’m wrong.

In response to his latest post, I sent him the following e-mail (hyperlinks added):

Donn -

As I said, judging the competing merits in any case that results in a lawsuit rational parties are willing to take to trial and even up on appeal is almost always a question of choosing between better and worse arguments, not a matter of mechanically applying rules that result in obviously predictable outcomes. But I still haven’t heard your argument that the postage stamp that uses a impressionistic photograph of the sculpture in the Korean War Veterans Monument is not entitled to fair use beyond (1) your mere assertion, borrowed from an IP lawyer, that the stamp is a “derivative,” not a transformative, use and (2) a few unfounded legal contentions regarding the definition of a derivative work and the relevance of the nature of the allegedly infringed work.

First, any work of appropriation art is by definition “derivative”; plainly, the mere fact one work is derived from another does not make it an infringing “derivative” work not entitled to fair use protection. As William Patry puts it in his treatise, Patry on Copyright, “[t]he derivative right is subject to a number of special limitations and one general exception, fair use.” Id., Section 12:24. In other words, calling a work a “derivative” work does not answer the question whether it is fair use. So you can’t evade evaluating the elements of the fair use right merely by denominating a work an allegedly infringing work a ”derivative one.”

Nor is there any basis for the assertion by the IP lawyer on whose opinion you rely that a transformative work can only be a work whose uses and purposes are different than the uses and purposes of the original copyrighted work. First, it is impossible to define a work’s “uses and purposes” in any reasoned way without making that definition the a priori determination of your conclusion regarding whether those uses and purposes are identical to those of another work. You can define the uses and purposes narrowly (the sculpture is intended as a 3 dimensional work of commemorative art displayed in a public forum visited by millions of people every year) or broadly (the sculpture is an expressive aesthetic work)? Are the uses and purposes of the sculpture public art and the stamp a means of governmental commemoration of the sacrifices of our veterans, the creation of a collectible for philatelists, and a means of collecting revenue. If so, the uses and purposes of the works are entirely different. Or are both works expressive works of art? Then they share identical uses and purposes.

Second, even if you’re going to play that logically incoherent definition game, there are numerous cases ruling that works whose uses and purposes were very similar to the uses and purposes of copyrighted works were nonetheless entitled to fair use protection. In Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006),, Jeff Koons’ painting was a two dimensional image, just as was the photograph he appropriated. The court held that Koons’ painting was sufficiently transformative to be a non-infringing fair use of the photograph. In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 2 Live Crew’s “Pretty Woman” and Roy Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman” were both songs directed at the popular market. The Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew’s song, despite borrowing almost the entirety of the melody of Orbison’s song, was a non-infringing fair use. In the Wind Done Gone case, both that novel and Gone with the Wind were novels sold for commercial gain. The court held that The Wind Done Gone was a non-infringing fair use despite the fact it borrowed the characters and a lot of the story line from Gone with the Wind.

I could go on, but I’ve made my point: merely stating that the stamp is derived from the sculpture doesn’t begin to answer whether the stamp is a non-infringing fair use, nor is there any legal authority supporting the thought that a transformative work  must be a for different uses purposes than the uses and purposes of the source work.

Which is also to say that the mere fact that someone, even an IP lawyer, believes my position is wrong doesn’t mean her argument is as convincing as mine. Obviously, you and everyone else must judge for themselves, but please give me reasoned argument, not baseless assertion.

Plainly too it is well established that merely transposing a novel into a film is not transformative. That answers your point about the Harry Potter novel’s adaptation into a film. The statutory grant of rights to a copyright holder in “derivative” works sets forth the types of transpositions that generally are considered not to be fair use: these include works “such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, [or] condensation.”

I see Harry Potter movies and I have no question they’re the same stories with the same characters as the books. Many of the characters in the Harry Potter book also are likely merely as characters to be afforded copyright protection as a result of their individuality. In contrast, however, I look at the stamp and a photo of the sculpture and for all I know they’re derived from a common source or similar common sources, not one from the other. (You can see a picture of the stamp and a straightforward photo of the sculpture in my original post.) Moreover, you could hardly call any of the individual figures in the sculpture ones that in themselves are individualized in such a way that they could be considered copyrightable characters; compare those figures to the characters of Harry, Hermione, Ron, and Dumbledore and consider whether your analogy betwen Harry Potter films/Harry Potter books and the stamp/sculpture really is a very compelling analogy.

Nor can you consider the tranformative nature of the allegedly infringing work (part of the factor pertaining to the purpose and character of the challenged work) apart from the other factors in the 4-part test. Among those other factors, the most significant is the effect of the allegedly infringing work on the market for the copyrighted work. I can’t begin to wonder how the stamp could hurt the market the sculptor can exploit with his copyright in the original work. Talk about different uses and purposes! If we take the sculptor’s copyright (as I think we properly should) to extend to straight, “photorealist” depictions of the sculpture (whether in photographs or in other media) that are sold for commercial gain, I can’t see how the stamp would hurt that market. And the sculpture as a sculpture, of course, has no commercial market. It’s public art!

Nor is it legitimate if you are engaging in real legal analysis to dismiss as “completely irrelevant”, as you did in your response to my original post, the fact the sculpture was created for and sold to the government for display in a public area visited by millions of people annually. One of the 4 factors in the 4-factor test is explicitly “the nature of the copyrighted work.” Thus, for example, all else being equal, an appropriating work will have a better shot at being fair use if it appropriates a published work rather than an unpublished work. Why? Because the author of an unpublished work has not yet had an opportunity to exploit the commercial market for his work. For example, J.D. Salinger was able to enjoin the publication of a biography of him that contained large portions of unpublished letters he had written. At the time the biography was scheduled to appear, Salinger had not published
anything for about 30 years. Given this long silence and his immense popularity as a writer, there was a market of readers thirsting to buy anything he’d written that they hadn’t already seen. Thus, regardless of its merits as a biography, the biography was going to be sold to that market, the readers who would buy the book simply because it contained big chunks of previously unpublished writing by Salinger.

In short, the “nature” of the sculpture is very relevant to whether the stamp is entitled to fair use protection. The sculpture is a work of public art on view permanently in a location that is one of the most popular tourist destinations in our country. And it was sold to our government — that is, to the public — rather than to a private art museum. Merely dismissing these facts as “irrelevant” is to ignore that your blog is called the art “law” blog. The law doesn’t ignore these factors. [You might note in connection with this factor that I believe the fact that Mark Cuban sent a message via Twitter to all of his followers demonstrated that he didn't have a very strong interest in controlling the use of the words.]

Finally, a “commercial” product is not one that produces revenue. It is a product produced for private commercial gain. Thus, for example, political advertisements plainly directed at raising money are entitled to greater fair use protection than commercial advertisements. And the fact the appropriating work is used by a non-profit entity also
distinguishes it significantly from one used by a commercial entity seeking to raise revenue for the profit of private persons as private persons. I would also suspect that the fact the non-profit use in the case of the postage stamp is a purely public use (rather, than, say, a  use by a private non-profit entity like a foundation) renders it even  less “commercial.”

Finally, you bring up several other cases. I’m not sure how bringing  them up and suggesting they might be difficult cases supports your proposition that the 4-part test is useless and can be equally supportive of any position. Each claim of fair use must be evaluated on its own merits. As you can see in this little back and forth we are having, there are just too many relevant variable to reduce the judgment to simple rules. But again, the fact that the judgments are complex does not mean that, as you implied in your original post, they are arbitrary.

So the fact you might be able to point me to a difficult fair use case doesn’t mean the 4-part test is arbitrary and useless — and that’s what you said. It means that there’s a legal rule under which there are close cases. And there are others that aren’t. Welcome to the law.

But I’ll give you my quick take on each of those cases anyway, and you can make your own judgments (and call me on it when I turn out to be utterly off base).

I can’t really judge the Catcher in the Rye/60 Years On case because, due to the ruling, I have not been able to compare the two works. Nonetheless, having read the decision and the expert opinions in the case, I wouldn’t be shocked if the trial court’s decision is reversed on appeal. The judge who enjoined the publication of 60 Years On largely based her decision on (1) a determination that Holden Caulfield is a copyrighted character, the Holden character in 60 Years On is identical intellectually and emotionally to the Holden character in Catcher in the Rye, and (2) the fact the author and his representatives represented the book as a “sequel” to Catcher in the Rye, only resorting to calling it a ”parody” when they were sued by Salinger. I think one potential defect in her reasoning was her conclusion that the identity of the 2 Holden’s precluded the possibility that 60 Years On commented upon and criticized Catcher in the Rye. What she seemed to miss is the possibility (one that was central to the declaration sworn to in the case by Martha Woodmansee, a very influential and accomplished scholar of conceptions of authorship and the history of copyright) that it was precisely 60 Years On was, precisely, commenting on the observation that Holden showed no emotional or intellectual development in the course of Catcher in the Rye. In other words, depicting the 80 year old Holden as emotionally and intellectually identical to the 16 year old Holden was a commentary on Holden’s failure to change in the course of the original novel. 60 Years On also seems, through the emotional immaturity of Holden and other literary devices, also to critique Salinger for having frozen himself in time in 1964 as far as his reading public is concerned in 1964. Copyright exists to promote creativity. What has Salinger done since 1964 to promote creativity? If anything, he’s only stifled it in himself and in others.

But we’ll see. The Second Circuit will read the two works, review the sworn statements of the experts, and come to its own conclusion. But, as I said above, I wouldn’t be shocked if it reverses the decision of the trial court judge.

As to the Patrick Cariou/Richard Prince case: I strongly suspect Cariou will win. I’ve thought about this case far less than the others you brought up, but I myself don’t find nearly as great a difference between Prince’s collages and Cariou’s photographs as I do between the stamp is of the Korean War Veteran Memorial sculpture. In addition, both Prince and Cariou’s works are graphic, 2-dimensional works made for personal commercial gain by private individuals. Moreover, there appears to be more individual character in the subjects of Cariou’s photographs than in the sculpture’s figures. I would never imagine that Prince’s collages and Cariou’s photographs were derived from a common third source. I myself think there should be much greater latitude given to appropriation art than the law gives, but the way I read the law I feel I’ll stand by my (pretty superficial assessment) that Cariou likely will win.

As to the Shepard Fairey/Manny Garcia dispute, I’m on record with my strong conviction that Fairey will win. You can see what I’ve written in the posts you’ll find here (set forth in reverse chronological order).

Thanks for reading, and for the dialog, and take care,

peter

ADDENDUM: I seem to have gotten under Zaretsky’s skin, which really isn’t my point. I appreciate the dialog. I don’t think I have all the answers. I might be wrong. But I like to see law supporting legal arguments, not unsupported opinions. Before I’d even finished the e-mail above, he had posted another piece, this one arguing I’m wrong to conclude, emphatically, that there’s no way the postage stamp could have an impact on the market the for the sculptor’s copyrighted work. He argues, in essence, that there is an impact on the market for the copyrighted work because if the Postal Service had paid for a license to use an image of his sculpture on their stamp he would have made money and that granting fair use protection to “derivative works” would deprive the copyright holder of the income he is entitled to from derivative works. In support of this argument he relies on a law professor’s statement that “The right way to frame the question [whether a work has an impact on a copyrighted work's market], I think, is whether an artist who creatively appropriates a … photograph needs to pay for a license to do so.”

Again, no cases, no statutes — just opinions. And the point simply doesn’t make sense to me. Maybe someone can make sense of it to me; maybe I’m dense. But, again, this argument seems circular. An artist needs to pay for a license to appropriate a copyrighted work only if the artist’s work is not entitled to fair use protection. The only way to determine whether a work is entitled to fair use protection is to work your way through the 4-part test. If you concluded, for example, that any artist making a collage needed to pay for a license to use any copyrighted work appropriated in the collage, Jeff Koons could not have won in Blanch v. Koons.

While one of the 4 factors in the 4-part test is the impact of the work on the copyrighted work’s markets, it wouldn’t make sense to assume that the copyrighted work’s markets must include the market for all types of works like the challenged one. To do so would be to assume that any appropriating work that produces a revenue stream is not fair use. That is not the law.

Finally, Zaretsky refers again to the decision in the 60 Years On/Catcher in the Rye case. He points out that the judge, in ruling that finding that 60 Years On is entitled to fair use protection would potentially have an impact on the market value inherent in Salinger’s copyright in Catcher in the Rye, stated “it is quite likely that the publishing of 60 Years and similar widespread works could substantially harm the market for a Catcher sequel or other derivative works.”

Besides the fact that I think there is a real possibility that decision will be reversed on appeal, there are a couple of reasons I don’t find this reasoning terribly persuasive. First, the conclusion that there is a potential harm to the market for Catcher sequels or other derivative works assumes the conclusion I suggested above might be the basis of a reversal — the appellate court might well find that 60 Years On is no mere sequel but instead constitues a genuinely creative commentary upon and critique of Catcher in the Rye and Salinger himself.

Second — and this is where I’ll stray much further away from anything I’ve seen in the case law than in anything I’ve written regarding Zaretsky’s statements yesterday or today — this reasoning seems contrary to the entire purpose of copyright: to promote creativity. Let’s suppose copyright law did not prevent people from writing sequels to books by other people and someone wrote a sequel to Catcher in the Rye that in no way, shape, or form consituted a commentary upon or critique of Catcher in the Rye (and let’s assume such a thing were possible). Let’s say too that Salinger himself wrote a sequel to Catcher in the Rye. What would happen? One possibility, the most likely one perhaps, is that the knock-off sequel had no market impact because the market judged it to be a poor substitute for the real thing. In that case Salinger has suffered no harm. Let’s suppose instead that the knock-off was deemed by the market far better than Salinger’s sequel. Then Salinger has suffered harm, but why? Because the audience has determined that the knock-off was better. To prevent its publication, therefore, would be to stifle creativity, not to promote it. The same would be true if the knock-off and other knock-offs competed well but did not overwhelm Salinger’s work. We’d have two or more works the market had judged substantially equal in creative worth. In other words, the market will reward or punish the copyright holder according to the extent he maintains his creative edge. Why should copyright law step in and change that result?

James Boyle: “A Song’s Tale: Mashups, Borrowing, and the Law”

Professor James Boyle lectures on the 199 year history of a song protesting the government’s inept response after Hurricane Katrina, tracing its sources back over 100 years through the work of, among others, Kanye West, Ray Charles, and Clara Ward. Each (I’m shocked, shocked) of these musicians borrowed from the music of others before them, yet they borrowed in different ways, under different legal rules, in a different musical culture. Their music was shaped, for better and worse, by those constraints. At the end of the 100 year journey, we can have a sense of how the music of the future may be shaped, and of what our musical culture will give up in the process.

Why is music the main battleground in the copyright wars?

Andrew Dubber is an established scholar working in Britain, an author, and an online music consultant writing a book “about the music industries and intellectual property in the digital age.” He’s also writing a blog as “a scrapbook of material for” the book. The book and the blog, Deleting Music, are “[s]pecifically . . . about the problems that arise when music is only considered in terms of its function as commerce, rather than as culture.”

Two days ago Dubber raised this question: why is his focus on music when the issues he is exploring “extend[] way beyond popular music into books, visual arts, academic works, medicine… and extend[] into the realms of international trade, global politics and genuine life and death issues”? He believes that the reason is that the music industry is uniquely threatened by the commercialization of culture:

There’s a genuine cultural crisis going on in the music industries. Master tapes are decaying in vaults. Original works – by artists you’ve heard of, not just obscure and irrelevant wannabes – are not being preserved. Archives and libraries are only reluctantly being supplied with copies of released material – and not reliably so.

In music, perhaps in more than any other field, culture is not merely being prevented from being remixed – it’s completely disappearing, preventing it from forming the basis of any future works or research. And it’s that, more than anything else, that I want to communicate through this book.

This is not a hypothetical problem, or merely an unfair distribution of power. Popular music culture is literally vanishing right now. Magnetically-charged metal oxide particles are falling from master tapes as we speak.

To me, that’s important, urgent – and worthy of its own book

Music has been the center-piece in the recent copyright wars. Dubber knows better than I the impact of the music industry’s practices on the culture, but I think there’s a very good legal explanation for the music industry’s centrality to today’s copyright disputes.

In both the plastic arts and in literature there is a long history of, well, “remixing” as a legitimate method of creation. There has been in music as well, but not in quite the concrete and specific way there can be in painting and literature. Collage is a long-established artistic genre, and in literature the wholesale copying and rearranging of existing work as a composition method goes back to the foundation of Western literature in Homer. In music, on the other hand, while composition has always been a matter of reworking existing formulas, we’ve been operating in recent times on a general assumption that lifting a single note from an earlier recording constitutes copyright infringement. For long enough this practice has been the norm in the music industry that most people I know simply assume it’s an indisputable fact that if you sample anything from a copyrighted work you must pay for the sample.

But that’s a very debatable proposition. So where did it come from?

Paying for every last sampled note from a copyrighted song only became standard industry practice beginning in 1991 practice after Judge Kevin Duffy in Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. , 780 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), in a decision that did not even consider issues pertaining to fair use, enjoined the distribution of Biz Markie’s third album because one of its songs sampled three words and the accompaniment ostinato of Gilbert O’Sullivan’s cheesy hit “Alone Again, Naturally.” Duffy wasn’t satisfied with a mere injunction; he also referred the defendants to the U.S. Attorney’s office for criminal prosecution and began his opinion, like a preacher from the pulpit with these words:

“Thou shalt not steal” has been an admonition followed since the dawn of civilization Unfortunately, in the modern world of business this admonition is not always followed.

The U.S. Attorney’s office exercised its prosecutorial discretion and refused to seek an indictment against Biz Markie or his producers. One likes to think the prosecutors were more thoughtful about the copyright issues the case raised than was Judge Duffy.

But Biz Markie’s record company did not appeal the decision and, in fact, the decision marked the beginning of the music industry’s practice of requiring permission and payment for any sample. The companies that at the time constituted the industry had a strong interest in maintaining the regime Duffy’s decision put into place (a regime bolstered in 2004 by the decision in  Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2004), in which the court ruled that the defendant had committed copyright infringement by using in his own musical recording a two-second sample from an earlier copyrighted recording, lowering the pitch, and looping the sample to extend it to 16 beats). Deference to this legal regime meant that each company’s recordings were inviolate without payment. There was no economic reason to challenge the right of another recording company to require payment for any sample, no matter how small, no matter transformative its use was, and no matter how little impact it would have had on the market for the sampled piece. Moreover, artists who would have challenged the existing regime hardly had the financial wherewithal to take on the industry and the enormously successful artists who benefit from it. Thus, as John Pareles has written, “[a]lthough sampling was just a technological extension of the age-old process of learning through imitation, producers who use samples now pay up instead of trying to set precedents for fair use. “

Thus, the the RIAA states “generally speaking, the use of any part of a song requires a license.”

But, as I have emphasized again and on this blog, law is forced to change when the material conditions it governs change, and the ability to make and stitch together samples into compositions that can be disseminated world-wide — an ability that in 1991 was held almost exclusive by the recording industry — is now within reach of, literally, millions of people. It is inevitable that with this change the deference given to a trial court decision in 1991 would be challenged and that the arguments Judge Duffy entirely ignored in that decision would be examined anew.

But when, and in what circumstances? That is the interesting legal question right now. As I’ve previously written, Greg Gillis, who performs as Girl Talk, creates music that does nothing but violate the rule Judge Duffy declared inviolate since the dawn of civilization — Girl Talk’s work consists entirely of samples of recordings (virtually all copyrighted) stitched together into entirely new works.

Girl Talk’s work therefore has been described as a “lawsuit waiting to happen.” Gillis’s compositions include samples of recordings made by such artists as Metallica, who have demonstrated their willingness to sue people they believe have violated their copyrights, and the Guess Who, whose representative has stated ,  “We’ll chase [Girl Talk] down. What more can you do?” Yet no one, as far as I know, has yet sued Gillis. Why?

Well, I think I am a lawyer just like the lawyers representing Metallica, the Guess Who, and anyone else whose work has been sampled and repurposed by Gillis. And if were advising one of these clients (or I were representing the RIAA and could influence the lawyers for Metallica and the Guess Who), I would advise that client not to sue Girl Talk; Gillis’s argument that he has transformed the copyrighted materials sufficiently that his work constitutes non-inringing fair use is just too good. I’d go after someone I am more likely to beat. Othewise, I’d lose all the leverage I have with the existence, as yet undisputed in case law, of the decisions in Grand Upright Music and Bridgeport Music.

J.D. Salinger may be a phony.

Don’t forget you read it here first: J.D. Salinger’s effort to stop the publication of a sequel to Catcher in the Rye on the grounds it infringes his copyright in the original novel is no sure thing either way. On the one hand, Holden Caulfield is very much his creation, and it seems the market Salinger has created by means of that creation might be considered his exclusive domain under copyright. But, then again, as copyright lawyer Marc Reiner said , the sequel “may qualify as a parody in the court’s eyes, as the ’sequel’ puts the main character as an old man and may show a ‘transformative’ quality to the original-to what extent the book in question transforms the original work can affect whether it is seen as infringement.”

As I explained, this argument is founded principally upon the case in which the copyright owners of Gone with the Wind sued the writer of The Wind Done Gone. The court determined that The Wind Done Gone made fair use of the copyrighted characters and stories Gone with the Wind because “TWDG is more than an abstract, pure f ictional work. It is principally and purposefully a critical statement that seeks to rebut and destroy the perspective, judgments, and mythology of GWTW. Randall’s literary goal is to explode the romantic, idealized portrait of the antebellum South during and after the Civil War.”

Now I don’t think you have to rebut, destroy, and explode the original to constitute commentary constituting fair use upon the original. Nor is it easy for me to imagine a sequel that does not comment upon the original. And isn’t Holden Caulfield now such a cultural icon that he belongs to all of us, not just to J.D. Salinger?

But that’s going too far. I don’t think I could produce “Holden Caulfield” playing cards or action figures without J.D. Salinger’s consent. But if you can use Scarlett O’Hara in a sequel to Gone with the Wind that uses Gone with the Wind to make its own points, why can’t you use a Holden Caulfield nearing 80 to comment on Catcher in the Rye?