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

The myth of authorship and the rise of a new artistic culture

As I’ve pointed out previously, my colleague and friend Martha Woodmansee’s scholarship is fundamental to the reexamination of the historical bases of our present conceptions of “authorship”:

An “author” in the modern sense is the creator of unique literary, or artistic, “works” the originality of which warrants their protection under laws of intellectual property — Anglo American “copyright” and European “authors’ rights.”

Now Abram Sinnreich, in Mashed Up: Music, Technology, and the Rise of Configurable Culture, extends these insights into the quirks that have produced our notion of authorship and the ways the radical changes in the technological realities governing the creation and distribution of artistic works is undermines that notion. truthdig has posted a substantial excerpt, the entirety of which (like the book, no doubt) is well worth reading. Here’s just a taste, one that begins to develop the relationship between the current conventional wisdom of what an author is and its relationship to our social obsession with converting public goods into private property:

The biggest myth of all is the Romantic notion that artists somehow create their work uniquely and from scratch, that paintings and sculptures and songs emerge fully-formed from their fertile minds like Athena sprang from Zeus. Running a close second is the myth that only a handful of us possess the raw talent – or the genius – to be an artist. According to this myth, the vast majority of us may be able to appreciate art to some degree, but we will never have what it takes to make it. The third myth is that an artist’s success (posthumous though it may be) is proof positive of his worthiness, that the marketplace for art and music functions as some kind of aesthetic meritocracy.

Of course, these myths fly in the face of our everyday experience. We know rationally that Picasso’s cubism looks a lot like Braque’s, and that Michael Jackson sounds a lot like James Brown at 45 RPM. We doodle and sing and dance our way through our days, improvising and embellishing the mundane aspects of our existence with countless unheralded acts of creativity. And we all know that American Idol and its ilk are total B.S. (very entertaining B.S., of course!). Each of us can number among our acquaintance wonderful singers, dancers, painters or writers whose creations rival or outstrip those of their famous counterparts, just as each of us knows at least one beauty who puts the faces on the covers of glossy magazines to shame.

And yet, we believe the myths. How could we not? Who among us has the time, the energy, or even the motivation to buck the overwhelming support the myth of the Artist receives from the institutions that govern our society – to dispute our schools, our churches, even our laws? What is copyright, after all, but the legal assertion of an individual’s sole ownership over a unique artifact of creative expression? These laws, sometimes enforced at gunpoint, require us to believe the myths, or face the consequences.

Of course, there’s a reason the myths exist. Our economy runs on the privatization of hitherto public goods. Our legal system is premised on the individual as the locus of all rights, all liability, all blame. Our society’s profound inequalities are only acceptable because we believe ourselves to live in a meritocracy, a world where a person’s success is de facto proof of his or her inherent worthiness. In short, the myth of the Artist-with-a-capital-A allows us to believe in America-with-a-capital-A.

Manny Garcia gives up his claim that he, not the Associated Press, owns the copyright in the photo he shot and that Shepard Fairey used as the source of the image in the Obama Hope poster.

Manny Garcia has dropped all the claims in the lawsuit over whether Shepard Fairey’s Obama Hope poster infringed the copyright in the photo Garcia had taken and that Fairey had used as the source of the image. The Stipulation of Discontinuance with Prejudice filed in the case is embedded below.

What this means is that Garcia has given up his claim that he rather than the Associated Press owns the copyright in the photo. The Associated Press claims that it owns the copyright in the photo on the grounds that Garcia shot it as a “work for hire.” The fact that the claims by Garcia and against him have been discontinued by agreement of the parties “with prejudice” means that Garcia has given up any right to re-assert those claims in the future. The agreement constitutes a final, binding determination that the copyright in the photo belongs to the Associated Press.

It does nothing, however, to illuminate the outcome of the claim by the Associated Press that Fairey’s poster infringes the copyright in the photo. But it does illuminate those familiar with the history of copyright know — the enlargement and enforcement of copyright has always been more about protecting the interests of publishers than it has been of promoting artistic creation:

There is one group of people not shocked by the record industry’s policy of suing randomly chosen file sharers: historians of copyright. They already know what everyone else is slowly finding out: that copyright was never primarily about paying artists for their work, and that far from being designed to support creators, copyright was designed by and for distributors — that is, publishers . . .

Special Friday Night Mashup: Negativland’s “U2,” a lesson in copyright (not least because it’s available online now)

The facts” re U2 v. Negativland:

August 20, 1991: SST Records releases a CD single by Negativland called “U2″, a tape-collage parody of U2’s “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” featuring sampled and scrambled portions of the U2 song itself and a found tape of radio personality Casey Kasem losing his cool. As part of the joke, the CD packaging features the title–the letter “U” and the numeral “2″–largely and prominently with the attribution “Negativland” in much smaller letters below it.

October 5, 1991: two weeks later, a federal judge issues a temporary restraining order at the behest of Island Records and Warner-Chappell Music. “Preferring retreat to total annihilation,” Negativland and SST immediately capitulate to every demand. These demands are:

Everyone who received a copy of the record–reviewers, record stores, radio stations, etc.–must be notified to return it. If they fail to comply, they may be subject to penalties “which may include imprisonment and fines”. Once returned, the records will be forwarded to Island for destruction.

All of SST’s on-hand stock of the record–in vinyl, cassette, and CD–is to be delivered to Island, where it will be destroyed.

All mechanical parts used to prepare and manufacture the record are to be delivered to Island, presumably also for destruction. This includes “all tapes, stampers, molds, lacquers and other parts used in the manufacturing” and “all artwork, labels, packaging, promotional, marketing, and advertising or similar material.”

Negativland’s copyrights in the recordings themselves are assigned to Island and Warner-Chappell. Negativland no longer own what they have created.

Negativland and SST must pay $25,000 and half the wholesale proceeds from the copies of the record that were sold and not returned. Estimated cost to Negativland is $70,000–more than they have made in their 14 years of existence.

From Wikipedia, more of interest on the entire incident:

In June, 1992, R. U. Sirius, publisher of the magazine Mondo 2000 came up with an interesting idea. Publicists from U2 had contacted him regarding the possibility of interviewing Dave Evans (aka “The Edge”) hoping to promote U2’s impending multi-million dollar Zoo TV Tour, which featured found sounds and live sampling from mass media outlets (things for which Negativland had been known for some time). Sirius, unbeknownst to Edge, decided to have his friends Joyce and Hosler of Negativland conduct the interview. Joyce and Hosler, fresh from Island’s lawsuit, peppered the Edge with questions regarding his ideas about the use of sampling in their new tour, and the legality of using copyrighted material without permission. Midway through the interview, Joyce and Hosler revealed their identities as members of Negativland. An embarrassed Edge reported that U2 were bothered by the sledgehammer legal approach Island Records took in their lawsuit, and furthermore that much of the legal wrangling took place without U2’s knowledge: “by the time we [U2] realized what was going on it was kinda too late, and we actually did approach the record company on your [Negativland's] behalf and said, ‘Look, c’mon, this is just, this is very heavy…’” Island Records reported to Negativland that U2 never authorized samples of their material; Evans response was, “that’s complete bollocks, there’s like, there’s at least six records out there that are direct samples from our stuff.”

The “U2″ single (along with other related material) was re-released in 2001 on a “bootleg” album entitled These Guys Are from England and Who Gives a Shit, released on “Seelard Records” (a parody of Negativland’s record label Seeland Records). It is thought likely that Negativland themselves were responsible for the re-release, and that U2 gave their blessing; although the Negativland website refers to this release as a bootleg, it is available from major retailers like Best Buy, Amazon, and Tower Records, as well as Negativland’s own mail-order business.

Negativland are interested in intellectual property rights, and argue that their use of U2’s and others’ material falls under the fair use clause. In 1995, they released a book, with accompanying CD, called Fair Use: The Story of the Letter U and the Numeral 2, about the whole U2 incident (from Island Records first suing Negativland for the release to Negativland gaining back control of their work four years later). The book ends with a large appendix of essays about fair use and copyright by Negativland and others, telling the story with newspaper clippings, court papers, faxes, press releases and other documents arranged in chronological order. An unfortunate side effect of the Negativland-Island lawsuit was another one brought on between Negativland and SST, which served to sever all remaining ties the two had. To get back at Negativland (while wryly circumventing their name), Ginn later released the Negativ(e)land: Live on Tour album on SST.

Here is Negativland’s interview with The Edge.

Blanch v. Koons, transformative appropriation art, and Fairey v. AP

It’s well worth revisiting the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit (the Circuit in which the court hearing Shepard Fairey’s lawsuit against AP and Manny Garcia is pending) in Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244 (2006). Andrea Blanch, “an accomplished professional fashion and portrait photographer,” unsuccessfully sued Jeff Koons for copyright infringement of a photograph she had shot entitled “‘Silk Sandals by Gucci’ (‘Silk Sandals’), [which] depicts a woman’s lower legs and feet, adorned with bronze nail polish and glittery Gucci sandals, resting on a man’s lap in what appears to be a first-class airplane cabin. The legs and feet are shot at close range and dominate the photograph. Allure published ‘Silk Sandals’as part of a six-page feature on metallic cosmetics entitled ‘Gilt Trip.’” The court explained how Koons appropriated and used ‘Silk Sandals’ as follows:

Koons scanned the image of “Silk Sandals” into his computer and incorporated a version of the scanned image into [his painting entitled] “Niagara.” He included in the painting [pictured at left] only the legs and feet from the photograph, discarding the background of the airplane cabin and the man’s lap on which the legs rest. Koons inverted the orientation of the legs so that they dangle vertically downward above the other elements of “Niagara” rather than slant upward at a 45-degree angle as they appear in the photograph. He added a heel to one of the feet and modified the photograph’s coloring. The legs from “Silk Sandals” are second from the left among the four pairs of legs that form the focal images of “Niagara.” Koons did not seek permission from Blanch or anyone else before using the image

Koons was paid $126,877 for “Niagra.” Allure had paid Blanch $750 for “Silk Sandals.” In addressing whether Koons’ appropriation of “Silk Sandals” was fair use or a copyright infringement, the court highlighted the fact that answering this question requires balancing the conflicting interests in protecting the “intellectual property” rights of creators and protecting the freedom of expression, including referencing the works of others in new works of creation:

Copyright law thus must address the inevitable tension between the property rights it establishes in creative works, which must be protected up to a point, and the ability of authors, artists, and the rest of us to express them — or ourselves by reference to the works of others, which must be protected up to a point. The fair-use doctrine mediates between the two sets of interests, determining where each set of interests ceases to control.

At the heart of the fair use analysis is the nature of the allegedly infringing work. As the 2d Circuit notes, it considers with respect to this factor whether the work is “transformative” — that is, whether it adds something new to the original work so that it stands on its own as an original work of creation. The court thus quoted the Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994):

The central purpose of this investigation is to see, in Justice Story’s words, whether the new work merely “supersedes the objects” of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message …, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is “transformative.” Although such transformative use is not absolutely necessary for a finding of fair use, the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered by the creation of transformative works. Such transformative works thus lie at the heart of the fair use doctrine’s guarantee of breathing space …. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579, 114 S.Ct. 1164(citations omitted).

The court’s conclusion that “Niagra” is genuinely transformative in its use of “Silk Stockings” is worth quoting almost in its entirety (citations omitted) because it is the very heart of the decision to find in favor of Koons:

Koons asserts — and Blanch does not deny — that his purposes in using Blanch’s image are sharply different from Blanch’s goals in creating it. Compare Koons Aff. at ¶ 4 (“I want the viewer to think about his/her personal experience with these objects, products, and images and at the same time gain new insight into how these affect our lives.”) with Blanch Dep. at 112-113 (“I wanted to show some sort of erotic sense[;] … to get … more of a sexuality to the photographs.”). The sharply different objectives that Koons had in using, and Blanch had in creating, “Silk Sandals” confirms the transformative nature of the use. 

Koons is, by his own undisputed description, using Blanch’s image as fodder for his commentary on the social and aesthetic consequences of mass media. His stated objective is thus not to repackage Blanch’s “Silk Sandals,” but to employ it “`in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings.’” When, as here, the copyrighted work is used as “raw material,” in the furtherance of distinct creative or communicative objectives, the use is transformative. 

The test for whether “Niagara’s” use of “Silk Sandals” is “transformative,” then, is whether it “merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message.”The test almost perfectly describes Koons’s adaptation of “Silk Sandals”: the use of a fashion photograph created for publication in a glossy American “lifestyles” magazine — with changes of its colors, the background against which it is portrayed, the medium, the size of the objects pictured, the objects details and, crucially, their entirely different purpose and meaning — as part of a massive painting commissioned for exhibition in a German art-gallery space. We therefore conclude that the use in question was transformative.

The court also noted that in Campbell the Supreme Court had rejected the notion that a”the commercial nature of [a] use could by itself be a dispositive consideration. The Campbell opinion observes that ‘nearly all of the illustrative uses listed in the preamble paragraph of § 107 [setting forth the fair use test], including news reporting, comment, criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research … “are generally conducted for profit.”‘” Thus, the “‘more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.’” (Quoting NXIVM Corp. v. Ross Inst., 364 F.3d 471 (2d Cir.2004)). Moreover, since “Niagra” is “’substantially transformative, the significance of other factors, [including] commercialism, are of [less significance],’ [w]e therefore ‘discount[] the secondary commercial nature of the use.’” (citations omitted.)

I by no means would suggest that Blanch is so obviously on point in all respects that it requires the court hearing the Fairey v. AP case to find in favor of Fairey. But it certainly is quite meaningful in that respect. If only because of the tremendous resonance the Obama Hope poster had in the course of the 2008 presidential, a resonance that would have been inconceivable had the poster substituted Garcia’s photo for Fairey’s reworking of that source material, it seems at the very least quite arguable that Fairey’s reworking of the photo meets the 2d Circuit’s test of a transformative work — one that “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message.”

Blanch also makes clear that it is of no moment that, Dan Heller’s assertions notwithstanding, Fairey’s work (1) was intended to convey a message, (2) was intended to “make a buck.”

It also makes plain that Heller is just plain misunderstanding the law when he states that “you cannot misappropriate someone’s likeness or their property without their consent.” (Emphasis in Heller’s original.) Koons neither sought nor received Blanch’s consent to use her photograph. Koons plainly made more than a buck in the transaction. And the fact that Koons’ message might have been a commentary on the world of “mass communication” does not seem any more worthy of fair use analysis even if we do assume, as does Heller, that Fairey’s poster was “merely” a piece of political advocacy. Finally, there is no applicable “right of publicity” that Fairey violated in appropriating Obama’s image (nor does the Associated Press or its photographer, Manny Garcia, have any right to assert any right of publicity Obama hypothetically could enjoy on his behalf).

ADDENDUM: J O’Shea on Shepard Fairey and the Art of Appropriation.

Andy Warhol was sued, but the cases were never decided.

After posting Campbell Soup’s letter to Andy Warhol expressing admiration for his Campbell Soup paintings 2 weeks ago, I’ve been asked by several people whether Warhol was ever sued for his appropriations of copyrighted photographs. He was indeed, though all of the cases settled out of court with Warhol “paying” by giving the plaintiffs pieces he had created. They therefore provide no guidance how courts would rule on those claims. Here’s the account from Patricia Search’s article, Electronic Art and the Law: Intellectual Property Rights in Cyberspace, Leonardo, Vol. 32, No. 3, 191, 193 (June 1999):

“Andy Warhol received legal complaints from photogra-phers Charles Moore, Fred Ward, and PatriciaCaulfield. Warhol used three of Charles Moore’s photographs of the Birmingham race riots in a 1964 painting called Race Riot. He also used a Life magazine cover photo of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, taken by Fred Ward after President Kennedy’s assassination, in several prints and paintings. Patricia Caulfield sued Warhol when she discovered that he had used one of her photographs in his1964 series of paintings and prints called Flowers.

“All of these cases were settled out of court. The photographers and their agents or attorneys received works of art from . . . Warhol . . . . Caulfield received a promise of royalties on future uses of her image by Warhol. Unfortunately, because these cases were settled out of court,no legal precedents were set concerning artistic appropriation of copyrighted material.”

Saturday Night Music: Glenn Gould — Goldberg Variations ## 29 & 30 (a “quodlibet,” look it up)

Friday Night Mashup: Evolution Control Committee — Rocked by Rape

Why Shepard Fairey’s deceit should not stop the court from finding that the Obama Hope poster did not infringe the copyright in the photo it was based on.

There has been a lot of discussion (here, for example) about whether Shepard Fairey’s deceit in the course of discovery in his lawsuit with the Associated Press and photographer Manny Garcia constitutes “bad faith” that will tilt the fair use analysis against him and compel the court to rule that his Obama Hope poster an infringement of the copyright in the photo that Garcia shot.

I don’t think so, and the discussion of the issue of an infringer’s bad faith in NXVIM Corp. v. The Ross Institute, 364 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2004) helps illuminate why. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals (whose decisions are binding on the court deciding Fairey v. AP) in NXVIM affirmed the lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction on the grounds that NXVIM, the producer of a “business training seminar,” had been unable to show it would likely prevail on its claim that the defendants had infringed NXVIM’s copyright in a training manual for one of their online courses. The defendants had posted to the internet quotations from the manual in support of their analyses and criticisms of NXVIM’s activities. NXVIM argued to the Second Circuit that the lower court had inadequately considered the defendants’ “bad faith” in obtaining the manual from a former participant in the seminar rather than by purchasing it, as anyone could do.

The majority did in fact state that “it was error for the district court not to have fully and explicitly considered” the defendant’s bad faith, which presumably included inducing the former course participant to breach a confidentiality agreement by disclosing the course materials to them. The court did not reverse the district court’s decision, however, because the bad faith did not alter the conclusions that the use was a non-infringing one. In short, according to the majority, a defendant’s bad faith is not “dispositive” on the fair use question and consideration of all of the factors — and in particular the first, the “purpose and character” of the defendants’ use of the copyrighted material — was so great: “the first factor still favors defendants in light of the transformative nature of the secondary use.”

It is difficult to get a handle on how much weight, if any, the majority would therefore give to bad faith in the fair use analysis. It would have some weight, the majority seems to indicate, but not that much. Judge Dennis Jacobs‘ concurring decision is even more illuminating, however, and gives good reason to believe that the true weight to be given bad faith as a factor independent of the rest of the fair use analysis should be zero. After reviewing the rather recent history of the role of a defendant’s bad faith in fair use analysis, Judge Jacobs states rather bluntly:

I think that the secondary user’s good or bad faith in gaining access to the original copyrighted material ought to have no bearing on the availability of a fair use defense. Fair use defines the outer boundary of copyright protection, and that perimeter should be drawn by reference to the central objectives of copyright. Copyright itself would be distorted if its contours were made to depend on the morality and good behavior of secondary users.

To support his reasoning, Judge Jacobs pointed out first that the use of bad faith in fair use analysis had its origins in the Supreme Court’s 1985 decision in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, in which the Court held that the Nation magazine had infringed Harper & Row’s copyright in the memoirs of former President Gerald Ford when it published a chapter from the memoir in the magazine in advance of the publication of the memoir. As Judge Jacobs makes clear in NXVIM, the fact the Nation obtained the manuscript illicitly tipped what was generally considered a close case in favor of the publisher.

One might question in retrospect precisely how close a case Harper & Row really was. The chapter the Nation published was the chapter Ford wrote about his pardon of the disgraced Richard Nixon. It seems quite likely that many people who would have purchased the book for that chapter alone (it was clearly the most noteworthy event of Ford’s political career) would have purchased the magazine and therefore not bothered with the book. In other words, the infringement very directly robbed the copyright holder of a significant amount of value that the copyright holder had every reasonable expectation it would derive from the sale of the book.

But Judge Jacobs points out too that in its post-Harper & Row decision in Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), the Supreme Court backed off the suggestion that bad faith was part of the fair use analysis, stating that the core of the fair use analysis must remain on (1) the transformative purpose of the appropriating work and (2) whether the appropriating market “usurps a market” that belongs to the copyright holder:

Campbell’s footnoted discussion questioning the pertinence of good faith reinforces the entire thrust of the decision, which requires that fair use be assessed primarily in light of whether the secondary work quotes the original with a transformative purpose and whether it usurps a market that properly belongs to the original author — issues as to which the defendant’s good faith in accessing the plaintiff’s original work does not matter.

In other words, according to Judge Dennis, “the fair use defense exists to encourage the creation of original works that do not ’supersede the objects’ — and thus the market value — of the original. Nor is fair use a doctrine a privilege we confer on people we like. It is not ‘earned by good works and clean morals; it is a right — codified in § 107 and recognized since shortly after the Statute of Anne — that is ‘necessary to fulfill copyright’s very purpose, “[t]o promote the Progress of science and the useful arts….”‘ Campbell, 510 U.S. at 575, 114 S.Ct. 1164 (quoting U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8).”

Thus, while someone’s bad acts may subject him to criminal or civil prosecution on a number of grounds, they should not bear on the fair use analysis:

A person who acquires the original work by crooked or unsavory means may expose himself to all sorts of civil claims and criminal charges; but the question of fair use itself should be decided on the basis of the transformative character and commercial effects of the secondary use. If the use satisfies the criteria of § 107 [of the Copyright Act], it is fair because it advances the utilitarian goals of copyright.

Shepard Fairey’s deceit in the course of discovery in the lawsuit has been uncovered, and it can be punished through civil sanctions or even criminal prosecution. But it should not affect the court’s determination of the artistic legitimacy of the Obama Hope poster. “[C]opyright is not about virtue; it is about the encouragement of creative output, including the output of transformative quotation. Its goals are not advanced if bad faith can defeat a fair use defense.” Nor is “good faith” a factor in fair use determinations. Willing as you may be to pay a license fee, if the copyright holder refuses to sell you a license and your subsequent unauthorized use is infringing, your willingness to pay is of no credit to you in the fair use analysis.

In short, as Judge Dennis so cogently puts it, fair use is central to the copyright regime; it is not a tolerated exception to the copyright holder’s domain:

Fair use is not a permitted infringement; it lies wholly outside the domain protected by the author’s copyright.

Judge refuses to sanction Shepard Fairey.

The common wisdom seems to be that the judge in Shepard Fairey’s lawsuit with AP and Manny Garcia over the use Fairey made of Garcia’s photo in creating the Obama Hope poster would be sanctioned for having lied during the course of the lawsuit about knowing he used the photo that was identified in February 2009 as his source. The sanctions could range from monetary “fines” all the way up to ruling against Fairey without ever having determined the legitimacy of his legal claims. But earlier this week the judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein, issued an order in which he denied AP’s pending motion for sanctions. The order states that AP has engaged in an “endless quest” for information from Fairey in an effort to pin him down. At the same time, the judge acknowledged that Fairey’s carefully phrased answers to questions and his earlier dishonesty would be left to be judged for themselves during trial: ”The Associated Press, in its effort to pin down Fairey, has engaged in an endless quest for discovery. If there has been willfulness, it will be proved at trial through Fairey’s evasiveness.”

California Gurls quotes California Girls. Can you imagine the nerve?

It’s sad when artists mistake the nature of their creations, when they somehow think they exist apart from culture as lone innovators. It’s especially pathetic when they believe their work is something like the real property they buy with whatever they’re lucky enough to earn from those works, something they can fence off from the rest of the world and keep trespassers off of. Techdirt points out an exceedingly outrageous instance of this:

[T]he Beach Boys are threatening to sue Katy Perry and/or her label if they’re not given songwriting credits for her song California Gurls. The Beach Boys, of course, did have a famous song back in 1965, called California Girls, with the classic line “I wish they all could be California Girls…” In the Katy Perry song, which is very different than the Beach Boys song, at the very, very, very end, Snoop Dogg says “I really wish you all could be California girls,” so the quote isn’t even a direct one.

I share techdirt’s hope that Katy Perry and her label stick to their guns. It’s tough to imagine a more obvious non-infringing use. Quite plainly, Perry was paying homage to the Beach Boys. Could you imagine requiring permission every time an artist riffs on an earlier work of art? We’d have no culture. Mike Love says, “I think [Perry's song] brings the Beach Boys’ 1965 classic to mind, that’s for sure.” You think? Would that mean the producers of the Dukes of Hazzard have their own claim?

Campbell Soup’s response to Andy Warhol’s appropriation

You can’t own facts — Tremé belongs to all of us.

Tremé is a neighborhood in New Orleans. Treme is an HBO series about New Orleans residents rebuilding their lives after Hurricane Katrina. The Chicory opines correctly that the t-shirt pictured to the left does not infringe any rights anyone holds in the television series. There cannot be a copyright in a fact, so there can be no copyright in the name “Treme.” And while trademark is a distinctive sign or symbol (a “mark”), the t-shirt bears no font or insignia distinctive to the television show. So get your Treme t-shirts and show your support for my friends in New Orleans.

Hat tip to Ray Ward.

Old School Mashup — Tape-beatles: “The Grand Delusion, Part 3″

Legal decisions based on what the law is not — the “permission culture” and copyright overclaiming

One thing law students don’t get at all is the ways lawyers negotiate a world in which legal decisions are based on what the law is not.

Mike Masnick over at techdirt, , writing about the “Permission Culture” (that is, the culture that insists that sampling and quoting should only be done with permission), puts his finger directly on one of the biggest problems — the fear of even frivolous lawsuits, even by big publishing concerns, prevents writers, musicians, and artists from quoting, sampling, and appropriating parts of copyrighted works they don’t need permission to take:

The unfortunate reality these days is that publishers won’t touch such quotes without permission being granted. It’s almost impossible to find a publisher these days that would sign off on even that snippet of eight words, claiming that they don’t want the liability of a lawsuit. I’ve had this discussion a few times with authors and publishers, and they all say the same thing: due to the potential liability of a lawsuit, even if it clearly does appear to be fair use, it’s just not worth using the quote. In fact, we discussed this point here last year, where we wrote about an author who had to drop an entire section of a book, because of a few short quotes. Clear fair use… but his publisher wouldn’t touch it.

I would suggest too that one reason publishers won’t publish books without permission for the use of quotations is that they perceive it to be in their interests not to do so. That way, other publishers will ask and pay for permission to use quotations from their own books. That is why, I am convinced, the music industry never has seriously challenged lower court decisions requiring permission (and, presumably, payment) for the use of any recorded sample — the practice makes each company’s record vault’s sources of income.

The problem, of course is exacerbated considerably because the wealth and of the corporate conglomerates that own so much of our intellectual property. Who is going to fight Disney, even if he’s right? Another problem is the widespread ignorance in the media about copyright. As Richard Posner has written, the fear of litigating against rich copyright holders who place a premium on their fear of losing something of value leads to behavior based on law that isn’t at all what the law is supposed to be:

Look at the copyright page in virtually any book, or the copyright notice at the beginning of a DVD or VHS film recording. The notice will almost always state that no part of the work can be reproduced without the publisher’s (or movie studio’s) permission. This is a flat denial of fair use. The reader or viewer who thumbs his nose at the copyright notice risks receiving a threatening letter from the copyright owner. He doesn’t know whether he will be sued, and because the fair use doctrine is vague, he may not be altogether confident about the outcome of the suit. The would-be fair user is likely to be an author, movie director, etc. and he will find that his publisher or studio is a strict copyright policeman. That is, since a publisher worries about expansive fair uses of the books he publishes, he doesn’t want to encourage such uses by permitting his own authors to copy from other publishers’ works. So you have a whole “law in action” law invented by publishers, including ridiculous rules such as that any quotation of more than two lines of a poem requires a copyright license.

Fairey’s Obama Hope poster copied nothing from Garcia’s photo that could be copyrighted.

I’ve made clear my view that Shepard Fairey’s Obama Hope poster does not infringe the copyright in the photograph that Fairey used as the source of the image because it is so “transformative” of the image — imagine the impact a poster of the original photograph with the word “Hope” emblazoned on it might have had and then consider the question. Remember, too, that Manny Garcia, who took the photograph, did not recognize that his photo was the source of the poster’s image for months after the poster rose to prominence; in fact, someone else made the identification.

I’ve also, however, contended that the poster is not infringing because it did not appropriate elements of the photograph that can be considered sufficiently original to even be protected by copyright. And now I’ve come across a case that applies precisely this thinking to a very similar dispute.

In Reece v. Island Treasures Art Gallery, Inc., 468 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (D. Hawaii 2006), the court ruled that a stained glass artwork entitled Nohe did not infringe the copyright in a photograph entitled “Makanani” despite the fact both works depict, from the same angle, a woman kneeling on Oahu’s Kailua beach performing an ‘ike motion from the hula noho (sitting) position. The two images are pictured above.

The court recognized that some parts of the photograph could be copyrighted, but only those that are the result of the photographer’s creative decision-making:

“[T]he creative decisions involved in producing a photograph may render it sufficiently original to be copyrightable and [courts] have carefully delineated selection of subject, posture, background, lighting, and perhaps even perspective alone as protectible elements of a photographer’s work.” Los Angeles News Serv. v. Tullo, 973 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir.1992) (citation and quotation signals omitted). The court concludes, for the purposes of the instant motion, that [the] photograph is copyrightable, although elements derived from the public domain or otherwise unprotected by copyright cannot serve as the basis of [an infringement] claim.

Another way of putting it is that “[t]he protectable elements of a photograph generally include lighting, selection of film and camera, angle of photograph, and determination of the precise time when the photograph is to be taken.” (citation omitted). But the stained glass window of the dancer in the identical position did not appropriate a sufficient amount of the original elements of the photograph because the stained glass image has none of the detail of the person or of the background of the photographer and the sepia tone of the photograph is so very different than the “”vibrant colors” of the stained glass:

Although the position of the dancer in the ‘ike motion is common to both artworks and both are set on Kailua beach, they cannot be described as substantially or virtually identical. The appearance of the dancers is different; notably, the absence of detail in the stained glass. The dancer represented in [the stained glass image] has no facial features, hand details, or muscular differentiation, but simply shows the outline of the body. The mountains and ocean dominate the upper half of the stained glass, but not the photograph. The dancers’ hairstyles are notably different lengths and shapes. Finally, the sepia tone of the photograph is markedly contrasted by the vibrant colors of the stained glass.

One can easily see, I think, how this reasoning is applicable to the comparison between Garcia’s photograph and Fairey’s poster. While the position of Obama’s face is virtually identical in both, Fairey’s image has none of the detail the photograph shows from the face, Obama’s suit or the background shown in the photograph. In fact, the poster entirely changes these details by transforming them into a stylized combination of red, white, and blue. Moreover, it is plain the colors of the photograph are in marked contrast to the colors of the poster.

Plagiarizing about Plagiarism

You could write a column entitled “When it comes to songwriting, there’s a fine line between inspiration and plagiarism” any day of the week, and I believe I have, though I only stole the idea from the KLF (or Negativland or Bob Dylan, or Jim Jarmusch or Jonathan Lethem or David Shields or  David Markson or Shepard Fairey or . . . )

Cuckoo Kookabura Continues

The travesty continues — first, there was the court decision in Australia finding Men at Work liable for copyright infringement for appropriating a riff from the Australian chestnut Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree in their 1981 #1 hit Down Under. Now the judge has ordered the group to pay 5 percent of the royalties it earned from the song. I suppose it’s better than the 60% the publishing company that owns the copyright sought. Kookaburra, incidentally, was composed over 70 years ago, and its composer died 22 years ago. It doesn’t appear, in short, that the copyright here is serving to motivate creation; rather, it’s serving as a disincentive – Down Under stood on its own as an Australian anthem. As Wikipedia reports:

The song is a perennial favourite on Australian radio and television, and topped the charts in the U.S. and U.K. simultaneously in early 1983. It was later used as a theme song by the crew of Australia II in their successful bid to win the America’s Cup in 1983.[citation needed] Men at Work played this song in the closing ceremony of the 2000 Sydney Olympics, alongside other Australian artists. It was also often played after Australian athletes had received medals during competition, as they walked around the venue on a parade lap after the medal ceremony.

In May 2001, Australasian Performing Rights Association (APRA) celebrated its 75th anniversary by naming the Best Australian Songs of all time, as decided by a 100 strong industry panel, “Down Under” was ranked as the fourth song on the list.[5]

In October 2006, Triple M had the Essential 2006 Countdown of the most popular songs of all time, voted by the listeners. “Down Under” was the number 3 voted/ranked song.[citation needed]

The song was voted #96 on VH1’s 100 Greatest Songs of the 80s.[when?]

The song has been used as the entrance music for various professional Australian sportsmen, including darts player Simon Whitlock, cruiserweight boxer Danny Green (for his fight against Roy Jones, Jr. on 2 December 2009) and snooker player Neil Robertson.

The song was played extensively during the September 2009 One-Day International cricket series between England and Australia, which Australia took by six matches to one.

Moreover, as I’ve previously noted, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that “[t]he key, harmony, structure and rhythm of Down Under’s famous riff changed the sound of it so much that nobody – not the band, [the managing director of the company that owned the copyright to Kookaburra], or even five out of six [of the game show] panellists . . . noticed it until someone turned it into a quiz show question.”

And to the extent the riff is recognizable it is doing what a quotation does in a piece of art — using a culturally resonant symbol to sound that resonance.

At least Men at Work is going to appeal the decision.

If Girl Talk does get sued, I’d love to represent him.

Greg Gillis and I see things very similarly, and I”m a big fan too:

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.