Collage is art, not theft

From Negativland:

No one much cared about the centuries old tradition of appropriation in classical music as long as it could only be heardwhen it was played live in front of your ears. But now all music exists as a mass produced, saleable object, electronically frozen for all time, and seen by its owners to be in continuous, simultaneous economic competition with all other music. The previously interesting idea that someone’s music might freely include some appropriated music of another has now been made into a criminal activity. This example is typical of how copyright laws now actually serve to inhibit or prevent the creative process, itself, from proceeding in certain interesting ways, both traditional and new.

This has become a pressing problem for creativity now because the creative technique of appropriation has jumped from the mediums in which it first appeared (principally in the visual fine arts of painting, printmaking, and sculpture) to popular, electronic mass distributed mediums such as photography, recorded music, and multimedia. The appearance of appropriation techniques in these more recent mass mediums have occasioned a huge increase in owner litigations of such appropriation based works because the commercial entrepenours who now own and operate mass culture are apparently intent on oblitering all distinctions between the needs of art and the needs of commerce.These owners of mass produced cultural material claim that similarly mass produced works of appropriation are a new and devastating threat to their total control over the exclusive profits which their properties might produce in the same mass marketplace. They claim that, art or not, an unauthorized appropriation of any kind can not be allowed to directly compete in the appropriated material’s avenue of commerce, as if they were equal in content, and equal in intent. The degree to which the unique nature and needs of art practice do not play any part in this thinking is more than slightly insane.

Consider the starkly stupid proposition that collage has now become illegal in music unless the artist can afford to pay for each and every fragment he or she might want to use, as well as gain permission from each and every owner. Consider how this puts a stop to all independent, non-corporate forms of collage in music, and how those corporately funded collage works which can afford the tolls had better be flattering to the owner intheir usage. . . .

Please consider the ungenerous and uncreative logic we are overlaying our culture with. Artists will always be interested in sampling from existing cultural icons and artifacts precisely because of how they express and symbolize something potently recognizable about the culture from which both they and this new work spring. The owners of such artifacts and icons are seldom happy to see their properties in unauthorized contexts which may be antithetical to the way they are spinning them. Their kneejerk use of copyright restrictions to crush this kind of work now amounts to corporate censorship of unwanted independent work.

Ronald Dworkin on Citizens United: a corporation is a legal fiction without opinions of its own.

Ronald Dworkin criticizes  the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision — ruling that corporations are entitled under the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech to an unlimited right to contribute money to political campaigns — for the same two reasons I have. First, the majority overturned precedent while hypocritically espousing their respect for the concept of adhering to precedent, and, second, because it is absurd to treat a corporation for First Amendment persons as the equivalent of a human being:

The opinion announces and perpetuates a shallow, simplistic understanding of the First Amendment, one that actually undermines one of the most basic purposes of free speech, which is to protect democracy. The nerve of his argument—that corporations must be treated like real people under the First Amendment—is in my view preposterous. Corporations are legal fictions. They have no opinions of their own to contribute and no rights to participate with equal voice or vote in politics.

Cuckoo Kookabura — Culture as the Language of Art

I wrote in November of the claim by the owners of the copyright in the Australian chestnut Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree that Men at Work had infringed Kookabura’s copyright in their 1981 #1 hit Men Down Under. The claim is ridiculous. As the Sydney Morning Herald reported at the time, “[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.”

But now, as Celebrity Justice (among others) reports, “[a]fter a 3 year fight, a federal court in Australia has ruled against favorite sons Men At Work saying they plagiarized one portion of the Kookaburra tune and will now owe some of their royalties to the publishing group who bought the rights to that song in 1990.”

As CNN reports, the judge in his decision wrote that “I would emphasise that the findings I have made do not amount to a finding that the flute riff is a substantial part of Down Under or that it is the ‘hook’ of that song.”

Whether the judge’s decision will withstand appeal under Australian copyright law is beyond my expertise, but the suggestion that the quotation of a copyrighted song in a new work constitutes copyright infringement would make a travesty of the notion of fair use under U.S. law. My zealousness on this question is not merely the result of the argument that I made in my November post — that the “transformative” nature of Men Down Under is proven by the way it alters the melody it takes from Kookabura and the failure of anyone to recognize the borrowing for 29 years. It is also because that being able to “quote” works that have resonance and meaning in our culture is fundamental to artistic creation. Kookabura is fundamental to Men Down Under as a song because Men Down Under, from its title to its performers to its lyric to its video is about Australia, and the use of a musical phrase from Kookabura is as resonant a way to convey Australia as there is.

Instead of recognizing what Lewis Hyde calls the “Cultural Commons,” many people have the knee-jerk impulse people have to identify cultural creations as “property” and thereby equate them to real estate or cars or something. Beside the rather large fact that property rights are limited in all sorts of ways in order to advance social goals (you can’t have a pig farm in the middle of a suburb, you can’t paint your house fuschia in most places, and the government can take your property if it pays you a fair (and rather low) price for it, etc.), that knee-jerk reaction entirely ignores how cultural creations draw (and must draw) on existing cultural creations, and how those creations then achieve meaning in the social sphere and are used to convey meaning in the social sphere. Copyright exists to feed, not hinder, creation, and the sooner we under what creativity really involves the more creative a culture we’ll have.

You be the judge: are Men at Work plagiarists or composers?

The South Butt Answer to the North Face

For a brilliant combination of technical perfection, persuasion, and humor of a sort I’ve never before seen in an answer to a complaint, you’ve got to see the answer filed by South Butt to the complaint filed by North Face alleging that South Butt’s name and its slogan, “Never Stop Relaxing,” infringe North Face’s trademarks in its name and its own slogan, “Never Stop Exploring.” I will be forever grateful to techdirt for bringing this document to my attention.
The South Butt Answer to the North Face

Corporations = individuals? Confusions in economic theory and First Amendment jurisprudence

Metaphors are tricky things. Corporations are “persons” under the law in many respects, just as you and I are. And we treat corporations as rational individuals in the market. These figurative equations of legal fictions with human beings certainly have their utility, but they easily can be pushed too far. Individuals at AIG were making individual fortunes based on the income they were bringing into AIG for selling credit default swaps. Those individuals were making and would retain those fortunes even if, as turned out to be the case, AIG might not have sufficient funds to pay off the obligations those credit default swaps imposed on AIG. In other words, if one treated AIG as a rational person, one would suppose AIG would never expose itself to a real risk of obligating itself to pay more than it had in reserve. But AIG is merely a corporation, and the individuals actually making the decisions on behalf of AIG had every incentive to get what they could, subject AIG to irrational risk, and be able to walk away with their tens of millions of dollars.

And now the Supreme Court has overturned over 100 years of precedent permitting limits on corporate contributions to political campaigns because such limits constrained free speech and, according to the truism announced by Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, ”Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people.” But corporations don’t make decisions about how to spend money on campaign contributions — the individuals who control the corporations do. So what the Supreme Court has done is to remove any limits we might put on corporate CEOs to spend corporate money to advance the interests that indubitably are intended to redound to the benefit of those individual CEOs. I wouldn’t limit the ability of CEOs and shareholders to make individual contributions to political campaigns, but why are we treating purely legal entities like they are made of flesh and blood?

As Buzzflash pointed out recently, Thom Hartmann in his book Unequal Protection explains:

Prior to 1886, corporations were referred to in U.S. law as “artificial persons.” but in 1886, after a series of cases brought by lawyers representing the expanding railroad interests, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were “persons” and entitled to the same rights granted to people under the Bill of Rights. Since this ruling, America has lost the legal structures that allowed for people to control corporate behavior.

Painting people whose images are protected — Alabama football, Tiger Woods, and Obama

The Tuscaloosa News reports that a decision is expected soon in the University of Alabama’s lawsuit against sports artist Daniel Moore. As the newspaper explains, the university “sued Moore for trademark violations in March 2005, alleging he painted scenes of Crimson Tide football games [such as the one at right] without permission from the university and reissued previously licensed prints without paying royalties. The university is seeking back pay for more than 20 paintings and wants Moore to license any future paintings.”

Although the decision is by no means binding on the court deciding the Alabama case, a lawsuit filed in 2000 by Tiger Woods and ETW Corporation, Wood’s licensing agent, against the artist Rick Rush might be illuminating. The focus of the Woods lawsuit were a group of Rush’s prints depicting Woods’s victory at the 1997 Masters. Woods sued to protect “his name and his image under right-of-publicity and trademark laws.” Rush, like Moore, argued his prints are protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati (6th Cir.) agreed with Rush.

The Sixth Circuit’s decision is illuminating, not only with respect to the lawsuit between Alabama and Moore, but also with respect to the dispute between the AP, Manny Garcia, and Shepard Fairey. The court explained in reaching its decision that, like Andy Warhol’s paintings of celebrities, Rush’s paintings were sufficiently “transformative” to be entitled to First Amendment protection:

When artistic expression takes the form of a literal depiction or imitation of a celebrity for commercial gain, directly trespassing on the right of publicity without adding significant expression beyond that trespass, the state law interest in protecting the fruits of artistic labor outweighs the expressive interests of the imitative artist. On the other hand, when a work contains significant transformative elements, it is not only especially worthy of First Amendment protection, but it is also less likely to interfere with the economic interest protected by the right of publicity….

Accordingly, First Amendment protection of such works outweighs whatever interest the state may have in enforcing the right of publicity. . . . [I]n Comedy III Productions, Inc. v. Gary Saderup, Inc., 25 Cal.4th 387, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 126, 21 P.3d 797 (2001)] the California [Supreme] [C]ourt []stated the test as follows: “Another way of stating the inquiry is whether the celebrity likeness is one of the “raw materials” from which an original work is synthesized, or whether the depiction or imitation of the celebrity is the very sum and substance of the work in question.”

. . . citing the art of Andy Warhol, the court noted that even literal reproductions of celebrity portraits may be protected by the First Amendment.

“ Through distortion and the careful manipulation of context, Warhol was able to convey a message that went beyond the commercial exploitation of celebrity images and became a form of ironic social comment on the dehumanization of celebrity itself…. Although the distinction between protected and unprotected expression will sometimes be subtle, it is no more so than other distinctions triers of fact are called on to make in First Amendment jurisprudence.”  Id. at 408-409, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 126, 21 P.3d at 811 (citations and footnote omitted). . . .

The evidence in the record reveals that Rush’s work consists of much more than a mere literal likeness of Woods. It is a panorama of Woods’s victory at the 1997 Masters Tournament, with all of the trappings of that tournament in full view, including the Augusta clubhouse, the leader board, images of Woods’s caddy, and his final round partner’s caddy. These elements in themselves are sufficient to bring Rush’s work within the protection of the First Amendment. The Masters Tournament is probably the world’s most famous golf tournament and Woods’s victory in the 1997 tournament was a historic event in the world of sports. A piece of art that portrays a historic sporting event communicates and celebrates the value our culture attaches to such events. It would be ironic indeed if the presence of the image of the victorious athlete would deny the work First Amendment protection. Furthermore, Rush’s work includes not only images of Woods and the two caddies, but also carefully crafted likenesses of six past winners of the Masters Tournament: Arnold Palmer, Sam Snead, Ben Hogan, Walter Hagen, Bobby Jones, and Jack Nicklaus, a veritable pantheon of golf’s greats. Rush’s work conveys the message that Woods himself will someday join that revered group. . . .

We find, like the court in Rogers, that plaintiff’s survey evidence, even if its validity is assumed, indicates at most that some members of the public would draw the incorrect inference that Woods had some connection with Rush’s print. The risk of misunderstanding, not engendered by any explicit indication on the face of the print, is so outweighed by the interest in artistic expression as to preclude application of the Act. We disagree with the dissent’s suggestion that a jury must decide where the balance should be struck and where the boundaries should be drawn between the rights conferred by the Lanham Act and the protections of the First Amendment.

In regard to the Ohio law right of publicity claim, we conclude that Ohio would . . . [apply] a rule analogous to the rule of fair use in copyright law. Under this rule, the substantiality and market effect of the use of the celebrity’s image is analyzed in light of the informational and creative content of the defendant’s use. Applying this rule, we conclude that Rush’s work has substantial informational and creative content which outweighs any adverse effect on ETW’s market and that Rush’s work does not violate Woods’s right of publicity.

We further find that Rush’s work is expression which is entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment and not the more limited protection afforded to commercial speech. . . .

In balancing these interests against Woods’s right of publicity, we note that Woods, like most sports and entertainment celebrities with commercially valuable identities, engages in an activity, professional golf, that in itself generates a significant amount of income which is unrelated to his right of publicity. Even in the absence of his right of publicity, he would still be able to reap substantial financial rewards from authorized appearances and endorsements. It is not at all clear that the appearance of Woods’s likeness in artwork prints which display one of his major achievements will reduce the commercial value of his likeness. While the right of publicity allows celebrities like Woods to enjoy the fruits of their labors, here Rush has added a significant creative component of his own to Woods’s identity. Permitting Woods’s right of publicity to trump Rush’s right of freedom of expression would extinguish Rush’s right to profit from his creative enterprise.

The difference between Moore’s case and Rush’s principally seems to be that Moore’s painting’s are far more “realistic” than Rush’s (as the painting pictured above demonstrates). In contrast, Fairey’s Obama Hope poster is more like Warhol’s paintings of celebrities. The funny thing is that I have no doubt Moore’s paintings take more time and effort — but time and effort are not what is protected by the fair use test; rather, originality of expression is.

Let’s get straight the historically profound benefits of making information available online — Scribd this time.

Two days ago I wrote about the court decision holding that the video hosting service Veoh is protected by the ”safe harbor provisions” of the Digital Protection Millennium Act from liability if any of the service’s users upload videos that infringe existing copyrights. One of the reasons Veoh is entitled to those protections is that it uses adequate technological safeguards to police the content its users upload.

So I don’t expect there is much of a chance that a new lawsuit against Scribd, a web site that hosts documents uploaded by its users, will will succeed or even survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a procedural device that ends the lawsuit at its very beginning by means of a court determination that even if everything the plaintiff alleges is true she is not entitled to legal relief. As Geek.com reports, the lawsuit alleges copyright infringement by Scribd not because it hosts copyrighted materials but because the software it uses to detect copyrighted materials before they are published on the site allegedly uses copyrighted materials:

A children’s author in Texas has leveled a strange lawsuit against the company, claiming that the company infringes copyright, but not by hosting infringing works on its service.

No, her claim is even weirder: she maintains that Scribd prevents copyrighted material from being placed on the site by copying the text of copyrighted books and other publications into its copyright infringement detection software, which therefore infringes copyright itself!

The claim may not be as weird as Geek.com believes, though it is likely not to survive long. The original legal challenge to the Google Books Project by the Authors Guild and individual authors holding who were identified was premised largely on the contention not that Google was going to make those authors’ copyrighted works available. It wasn’t. It was only going to make those works searchable so that snippets could be brought up by researchers who could thereby identify and by library loan or purchase obtain relevant works they never otherwise would have found without traveling from Palo Alto, California to Ann Arbor, Michigan to Oxford, England. So what was the problem? The authors alleged that the fact Google was copying their works in their entirety to create the database that would yield the snippets constituted copyright infringement.

And in A.V. v. iParadigms, LLC, 544 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Va. 2008), aff’d in part and remanded, F.3d 630(4th Cir. 2009), plaintiffs were students who alleged that iParadigm’s Turnitin plagiarism detection system — used by schools throughout the country to detect plagiarism committed by students — constituted copyright infringement. Schools that use Turnitin require each student turning in a paper to submit it through Turnitin. Turnitin then compares the paper to its database and prepares a report that rates the similarities of the paper to papers in its database. In addition, Turnitin adds the paper it is rating to the database, thereby constantly growing and increasing the effectiveness of that database.

The students alleged that they owned the copyright in their papers and that IParadigms was infringing those copyrights by copying those papers and using them as part of the Turnitin database. But last March the federal court hearing the lawsuit dismissed it.

There are several interesting points to make about the decision. First, I read the trial court decision (that was later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit) on Scribd (here). Scribd is a tremendous resource for me — a lot of legal documents are not available online, and a lot of valuable ones that are available online are behind paywalls even though they cannot be copyrighted (including a lot of court decisions). Scribd is a solution to this problem, providing a central clearinghouse where lawyers can upload legal documents to make them available to the general public.

The value of resources like Scribd is one of the reasons I find criticisms like that Chris Castle directed at the decision in the Veoh case so maddeningly unhelpful. If one looks at sites like Veoh and Scribd as doing nothing but making available for free works that people would otherwise pay for, then it is much easier to rant and rave that those sites are nothing but distributors of stolen merchandise and to rationalize a stubborn refusal to admit that copyright must be balanced against strong competing interests in free speech and the exchange of ideas. But if you see these sites as profoundly gratifying resources that make the internet the greatest innovation in the history of information technology, the fact that media companies (and even independent writers, artists, and musicians) can readily identify infringing uses that do slip through detection programs does not seem so profoundly troubling. Those copyright owners can quickly employ the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown procedures, which many criticize as too friendly to the copyright holders.

Why would you use copyright to stifle marvelous new innovations? Copyright exists to encourage, not stifle, invention.

So a legal attack on Scribd, even if it is not as “weird” as it might seem on first blush, is something I will scrutinize carefully.

Second, it seems odd that Scribd would be attacked for committing copyright infringement resulting from a mechanism it is employing to minimize copyright infringement by its users and for which it is rewarded by the immunity conferred by the DMCA safe harbor provisions.

Third, a spokesperson for Scribd, as Wired reports, explains that Scribd does not copy works in their entirety as part of its copyright detection system; rather, it “creates a digital fingerprint, or a ‘hash,’ to identify infringing copies.”

Most importantly, even if Scribd did copy the entirety of the copyrighted works only to use those copies to prevent users from uploading and making available to readers those copyrighted works, the decision holding that Turnitin’s similar use of copies copyrighted materials to detect plagiarism is illuminating. The trial court, affirmed in this reasoning by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, explained that “iParadigms, through Turnitin, uses the papers for an entirely different purpose [than those the plaintiff did or could], namely, to prevent plagiarism and protect the students’ written works from plagiarism . . . by archiving the students’ works as digital code.” Thus, while the court recognized that iParadigms profits from its use of the student works, the court found that iParadigms’ use of plaintiffs’ works was “highly transformative” because it adds a “further purpose or different character” to the copyrighted works and “provides a substantial public benefit through the network of educational institutions using Turnitin.” Slip op. at 14.

In affirming the trial court’s decision, the 4th Circuit added to this reasoning and described as “clearly misguided” the argument that   Turnitin’s  use of the plaintiff’s copyrighted papers cannot be considered transformative “because the archiving process does not add anything to the work — Turnitin merely stores the work unaltered and in its entirety”:

The use of a copyrighted work need not alter or augment the work to be transformative in nature. Rather, it can be transformative in function or purpose without altering or actually adding to the original work. See, e.g., Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding that Google’s use of copyrighted images in thumbnail search index was “highly transformative” even though the images themselves were not altered, in that the use served a different function than the images served). [Turnitin's] use of plaintiffs’ works had an entirely different function and purpose than the original works; the fact that there was no substantive alteration to the works does not preclude the use from being transformative in nature.

562 F3d at 639.

So let’s get it straight: what Scribd is doing is of tremendous value to society as a whole. It’s use of copyrighted works to minimize the availability on its site of copyrighted works is entirely different than and in no way diminishes the value of the copyrighted works to the owners of the copyrights. A copyright is not ownership of property like title to a car is — it does not give the owner control over any use of that car the owner doesn’t approve. There are a lot of good reasons for these differences. First, if someone else uses your car, you can’t. If someone else uses your copyrighted work, you can still use it too. If they use it for a use you never would have, what’s your problem? And if that other person’s use is doing a lot of good, why should the law confer on you a power to stop it? (Even your ownership of physical property is limited by restrictions imposed for the social good.) Finally, copyrighted works are works of expression, and we have a constitutional right to free expression. The limitation on copyright imposed by fair use is precisely a means of balancing the copyright holder’s interests against this profound social interest in free expression.

It’s an amazing world. In the name of legal rights that exist to promote progress and innovation, people everywhere are trying to stop revolutionary innovations they plainly don’t realize the value of. One of these days I’ll have to talk about the Google Book Project settlement and the fights raging in connection with it. Some are more legitimate than others. But let’s be clear: Google is trying to make available online for research purposes (not in ways that would displace the markets for the works themselves) the contents of major research libraries from around the world. Doesn’t everyone realize what an amazing and unprecedented advance this is for the life of the mind, for anyone anywhere who ever has had an interest in doing research?

Preaching to the converted or trying to convince the unconvinced? They’re very different activities, and the former may well undermine the latter.

One does not persuade the undecided by means of name-calling and comparing oneself to the oppressed — one persuades the undecided with reasoned argument.

I’m not talking about healthcare — I’m talking about copyright and music again.

Ten days ago, a federal court granted Veoh’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Universal Music Group’s (”UMG”) lawsuit alleging that Veoh, which, like YouTube, allows users to share videos free of charge, for contributing to and inducing copyright infringement as a result of the uploading by Veoh users of copyrighted videos. A copy of the decision is available here.

The court concluded that Veoh’s efforts and policies to limit incidents of infringement and to work diligently to keep infringing works off its website satisfy the “safe harbor provisions” that shield it from liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the “DMCA”). I am no expert on the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions (an FAQ on those provisions is available here), but the decision strikes me as a rather thorough exploration of the legal issues and of the evidence. Moreover, some of UMG’s arguments are downright specious, including what the court characterizes as its “first.” Typically — in fact, universally among effective lawyers — a lawyer makes his client’s strongest argument first.

UMG’s first argument was that  Veoh is not entitled to the safe harbor protections of the DMCA because it had “actual knowledge” that Veoh knew there were copyrighted videos on its website. UMG “proof” Veoh’s actual knowledge was that Veoh “knew that it was hosting an entire category of content—music—that was subject to copyright protection.” Slip op. at 14. The proof was hardly sufficient to the court, for reasons that seem, to me, persuasive:

First, the mere fact that Veoh was hosting material contributed by users that could be infringing cannot be proof of “actual knowledge” that there are infringing materials on the service because otherwise there would be no purpose to the safe harbor Congress created in the DMCA. “[V]ast portions of content on the internet are eligible for copyright protection (including plenty of materials posted on this site). Id. If one held providers like mine liable for allowing the use of materials by its users that could, if used improperly, be infringing, the internet as we know it would end.

In addition, it is unreasonable to interpret the DMCA to permit such proof to establish “actual knowledge” of infringement because if one were to accept UMG’s theory the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown provisions would be “completely superfluous because any service provider that hosted copyrighted material would be disqualified from the section . . . safe harbor regardless of whether the copyright holder gave notice or whether the service provider otherwise acquired actual or constructive knowledge of specific infringements.” Courts will typically interpret statutes so that their interpretations will not make other parts of the statute meaningless. If Congress intended to create the notice-and-takedown procedures in one part of the statute, it wouldn’t be reasonable to interpret another part of the statute to make them meaningless.

Moreover, UMG made arguments that were refuted by the evidence, including the argument that “Veoh, of course, knew that it never had a license from any major music company to display music content and thus knew that all such content was unauthorized.” Id. (emphasis added) Unfortunately for UMG, its own evidence showed that “[a]mong the types of videos subject to copyright protection but lawfully available on Veoh’s system were videos with music created by users and videos that Veoh provided pursuant to arrangements it reached with major copyright holders, such as SonyBMG.”

Let me be clear — I have not researched the takedown-and-notice provisions of the DMCA to the degree that would make me feel reasonably certain that the court was correct in the decision it reached, but I am certainly persuaded by the reasoning it set forth in its opinion (and what I do know about those provisions) to be well along the way to that conclusion. I am, however, quite open to being convinced by those who would argue otherwise.

I am not convinced at all, however, by Chris Castle (a self-described journalist in the media and communications fields), who’s “first observations” about the decision consist entirely of name-calling, far-fetched analogies, and arguments I know are unfounded. He titles his post “Gideon’s Remix” and explains that he is comparing “independent artists and songwriters” hurt by the court’s decision to the defendant in Gideon v. Wainwright, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established the right of criminal defendants to legal representation in their criminal proceedings. The defendant in Gideon had been sentenced to five years in prison for allegedly stealing about $55 and a few bottles of beer from a pool room. He had been forced, due to his inability to afford a lawyer, to defend himself against the charges.

You better have some evidence of real hardship before you start comparing “independent artists and songwriters” to Clarence Earl Gideon, and you better realize that there is a world of difference between losing your freedom for 5 years and not being entitled to deny the opportunity for current technology to do the myriad of legitimate and enormously beneficial things it does.

Castle next writes that “[i]f the decision [is allowed] to stand, copyright becomes a Constitutional right without a remedy.” That’s odd. The law provides plenty of remedies for copyright infringement, including statutory awards that do not even require evidence that establishes any financial harm arising from the infringement.

I think Castle’s reasoning that Veoh’s activities allow infringement without a remedy might be illuminated by 2 other assertions he makes. First, he suggests that copyright infringement is no different than the theft of personal or real property:

And why limit the decision to the online world–why not extend the notice and shakedown concept to the physical world, too? Why not apply it to cars, or homes, or personal property generally? Why not make our offline economy into one big squat?

This argument is just plain silly. If someone steals a car, the damage is obvious — the owner no longer has the car to use or sell. If someone squats in an apartment you own, that’s property you cannot rent to someone else. But the fact that someone might have improperly posted a copyrighted song on Veoh doesn’t eliminate the fact that the vast majority of videos posted on Veoh are not infringing and are beneficial to Veoh’s users. Moreover, the “independent artists and songwriters” whose “property” is allegedly being misused have the legal power to stop the misuse, the right to sue the infringing Veoh user for damages (without showing harm), and the possession of the thing itself allegedly “stolen.”

Castle states too that leaving the recording companies (and the “independent artists and songwriters” he seems to equate to UMG) to find infringing materials is too great a burden to expect of them:

It seems an entirely unreasonable burden to force independent artists, songwriters, unions, directors, writers, record companies and film studios to search the Internet 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to find infringing copies of works that have not been licensed or approved for use.

I’m not convinced it is an unreasonable burden. It’s easy for me to find online any reference to me or my writings. And it may well be reasonable to impose that burden on me and all those “independent artists” (one might forget UMG was the plaintiff in the lawsuit) in exchange for the benefit of having sites like YouTube and Veoh and the like. Most importantly, the decision on whether, given the benefits provided to society by requiring copyright holders to send takedown notices to services like Veoh (rather than imposing on Veoh the burden of pre-clearing everything posted on its service) is a decision Congress made. If Castle thinks it was a bad judgment, his beef is with Congress, not the court that decided the Veoh case.

Castle also dismisses as a “canard” without any suggestion that there are merits to it the argument that the fair use of copyrighted materials on which a lot of the value on blogs, hosting sites, and search engines is grounded in the constitutional right to free speech. The plain fact is that copyright is a limitation on free speech — without the rights accorded for a limited time and for limited purposes to copyrighted materials, their use would be constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. Thus, the rights accorded by copyright necessarily must be balanced against free speech rights, and this principle is one that is no “canard” — it is well- and long-established as the basis of fair use.

Finally, Castle resorts to name calling. He calls Google “childish” for re-posting videos that it has removed the soundtrack from — something that as far as I can tell is a perfectly legitimate response to a legitimate takedown notice from the owner of the copyright in the soundtrack. He also calls Lawrence Lessig “creepy,” which I suppose is a step up from another post in which he calls Lessig “Lyndon Larouche.”

Again, though, you only gratify those who already believe Lessig is a creepy fascist by tossing around names like that, and anyone who does not already find glee in such ignorance will at best be unpersuaded; more likely, they’ll be turned off.

So is Veoh correctly decided? Castle has only made me feel more strongly that it was. But I remain open to reason.

Thank god I can ridicule Glenn Beck and Chiropractors.

I think it’s sad anyone can take seriously a Glenn Beck legal claim based on the allegedly defamatory nature of a domain named “glennbeckraped andmurdered- ayounggilrl.com,” but I’m grateful at least for a First Amendment that, I believe, makes it very unlikely any such claim by Beck would prevail and that allows me to title a blog post “I don’t think Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl, but why won’t he deny it?”

I could, after all, live in England, where, as Olivia Judson writes,

Several times this summer, science journalists in London have leaned over to me and said something along the lines of, “I was thinking of writing,” and gone on to describe an article that was going to be critical of someone. “But then,” the speaker would gloomily conclude, “I thought to myself, ‘Simon Singh,’ and I decided not to.”

In England, as the Guardian explains, not only will the legal costs of defending a libel action will be considerable, often running into hundreds of thousands of pounds,” but, unlike in the States, “the loser almost always has to pay the costs of the winner, plus any damages awarded to the claimant.” As Judson points out, in England not only do “[l]ibel cases cost little to bring — you can make a no-win-no-fee arrangement with your lawyer” — but, most importantly, the defendant has the burden of proving the allegedly defamatory statement is true. In contrast, in the States, a public figure must prove the defamatory statement not only was false but was made with a reckless disregard for the truth. And even a non-public figure has the burden of proving the falsity of the allegedly defamatory statement.

Why is Simon Singh the person potential critics of bad science are reluctant to become? Because Singh is being sued by the British Chirpractic Association for libel after he wrote the following:

The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.

At least in this country we can hear presentations like the following:

Conventional chiropractic [medicine] is a confused pseudoscience that attracts non-discerning customers and students just as surely do supermarket tabloids, astrologers, palm readers and psychics. Don Paulin, who directs the Victims of Chiropractic outreach and is a member of the National Council Against Health Fraud, will examine the status of chiropractic and illustrate his talk with videos.

You can feel the way you want to about chiropractors, but I’ve never seen any evidence that satisfies me its benefits are anything other than the result of a placebo effect, and I’m glad I can say so without any great fear of being hauled into a court on charges of libel. Though, as the Guardian article linked to above suggests, since my posts can be read anywhere, I suppose there’s some risk I could be sued by chiropractors in England.

I don’t think Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl, but why won’t he deny it?

Arts Technica reports that 2 days after the site glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com Beck’s media company “had contacted the domain registrar demanding that the “‘highly defamatory domain name’ glennbeckrapedandmurdered- ayounggirlin1990.com be deleted, that the WhoisGuard privacy protection service be revoked, and that the owner’s contact information be turned over to the lawyers.”

This is a classic case of an effort to “chill” speech you don’t like. Parody and political speech are protected by the First Amendment, but who wants to take on the costs of litigating against a media giant? One of my students asked the other day if there were any way for an individual to get funding to litigate against a large corporation. I explained that there really isn’t. If you’re really, really poor, you might get legal aid, but not likely even if you’re really, really poor to defend against a lawsuit like Beck’s. We have a brilliant legal system, but it’s been entirely distorted by inequalities of wealth and the expense that has become accepted as part of litigation. Someone with little legal merit to their claims or defenses can prevail merely by wearing down and exhausting the resources of their adversary.

I myself wouldn’t begin to conclude from seeing the domain name that there was any real evidence Glenn Beck had raped and murdered a young girl, but one expert in the article thought Beck’s lawsuit had enough merit that it can’t merely be brushed off:

“I don’t think ‘Ha ha it’s a joke’ at the end gets you off,” he says; if the parodic information is defamatory, it’s risky for the defendant in such cases. That’s complicated by the fact that the original domain name made the allegedly defamatory claim against Beck—and of course no one stumbling across the site in a search engine or elsewhere would see any disclaimer. In such cases, the domain name itself is a standalone piece of content; the disclaimer may help regarding the website content, but it won’t necessarily transfer a cone of protection to the domain name as well.

This is what we get when we take seriously allegations like the one that Obama wants to euthanize my mom (would she be so lucky! — sorry, that’s an entirely different and very personal topic).

ADDENDUM: Beck does want to beat Rep. Charles Rangel to death with a shovel, and he wants to kill other people, right?

ADDENDUM 2: This guy Beck may or may not be a rapist and murderer (but why won’t he just prove his innocence?), but he is definitely a first-rate parodist, pointing out the Communist propaganda hidden in New York City. Who knew John D. Rockefeller was really a communist, and that Isaiah’s timeless call to beat swords into plowshares is really an ancient “progressive” plot? He’s hilarious. Everyone does just laugh at this stuff, right?

Do we need to protect Exxon’s right to free speech?

There’s an interesting and largely ignored set of precedents at play in the campaign finance case the Supreme Court heard arguments in yesterday. The focus is on whether Chief Justice Roberts — after having emphasized during his confirmation hearings the importance of precedent and the extraordinary circumstances that would require it to be overturned — will vote to overturn over 100 years of limits on corporate donations to political campaigns on the grounds that limiting corporate contributions to political campaigns is an unconsitutional limitation on free speech. Here’s my bet (which I strongly recommend you don’t take): Roberts will overturn the precedent and vote to overturn the campaign finance restrictions.

But there’s an even older set of precedents that ought to be subject to review: the precedents that conclude that corporations are “persons” just like you and me; accordingly, corporations are entitled to free speech rights, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and all the other rights guaranteeed to individuals under the Constitution.

There’s nothing self-evident about concluding that a corporation is entitled to these protections. One reason is what the right wing of the Court identified years ago in concluding that limitations could be made on a union’s power to contribute money to political causes: an individual union member’s views might difffer from the union’s. Just so, an individual stockholder or director’s views might differ from that of the corporation’s.

More importantly, though, the idea of a corporation is a convenient legal “fiction” — really a metaphor — that courts employ because it is, well convenient for purposes of certain legal analysis. But when we confuse the metaphor for the reality we can get into trouble. As Buzzflash pointed out recently, Thom Hartmann in his book Unequal Protection explains:

Prior to 1886, corporations were referred to in U.S. law as “artificial persons.” but in 1886, after a series of cases brought by lawyers representing the expanding railroad interests, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were “persons” and entitled to the same rights granted to people under the Bill of Rights. Since this ruling, America has lost the legal structures that allowed for people to control corporate behavior.

So think twice before you conclude that the campaign finance case is all about overcoming restrictions on free speech, which is the position argued on the left by the ACLU and on the right by the Wall Street Journal:

Hillary Clinton may end up the accidental heroine in the battle to reassert First Amendment rights over restrictions on political speech. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard a historic reargument in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and the Justices have a chance to revisit two of their greatest offenses against the Constitution.

The case involves a political documentary made during last year’s Presidential primaries about then-Senator Clinton called “Hillary: The Movie.” It wasn’t what you’d call a glowing portrayal. Funded by a group called Citizens United, the film was intended to be shown on cable TV during the primary season, a profile that got it caught in the net of campaign finance reform laws that control political advertising.

At stake are two major precedents in the campaign-finance canon, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and a portion of McConnell v. FEC (2003). In Austin, the Court ruled the government may ban corporations from engaging in what’s known as “express advocacy” directly from corporate treasury funds, requiring the funds to be channeled through a separate political action committee. In McConnell, the Court built on that decision to uphold most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, a.k.a.

the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, including a section that banned “electioneering communications.”

. . . The First Amendment was designed specifically to protect speech in just the kind of scenario “Hillary: The Movie” presents—the right to engage in the political process and to challenge and comment on candidates. Citizens United is the ideal opportunity to overturn a major swath of bad law.

No, the First Amendment was not “designed to specifically protect speech” by business organizations — it was intended to protect speech by individuals. It’s an amazing argument from those who would normally argue that we need to stick to the Original Intent of the Framers, but it shows too that Original Intent is merely a means to a political end, not a reasoned position.

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?

Is Holden Caulfield still only J.D. Salinger’s character?

J.D. Salinger recently filed a lawsuit (complaint (pdf)) seeking to block the publication of 60 Years Later: Coming through the Rye, an unathorized sequel to Catcher in the Rye, on the grounds it infringes Salinger’s copyright in the novel and in Holden Caulfield, the “narrator and essence of that novel.”

It’s an interesting case.  In SunTrust Bank v Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257, 60 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1225, 14 F.L.W. Fed. C, 1391 (2001, 11th Cir.), rehearing denied en ban, 275 F3d 58 (11th Cir. 2001), the owners of the copyright to Gone With the Wind sued the publisher that owned the rights toThe Wind Done Gone, a critique of the depiction of slavery and the Civil-War era American South and that used and drew upon the characters and story line from Gone with the Wind.  The court ordered the lawsuit dismissed because The Wind Done Gone’s use of the characters and story line from Gone with the Wind constituted fair use.  The court’s conclusion was that TWDG was a protected parody of GWTW because one of its principal purposes was to critique the worldview advanced  by GWTW:

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. In the world of GWTW, the white characters comprise a noble aristocracy whose idyllic existence is upset only by the intrusion of Yankee soldiers, and, eventually, by the liberation of the black slaves. Through her characters as well as through direct narration, Mitchell describes how both blacks and whites were purportedly better off in the days of slavery: “The more I see of emancipation the more criminal I think it is. It’s just ruined the darkies,” says Scarlett O’Hara.GWTW at 639. Free blacks are described as “creatures of small intelligence . . . [l]ike monkeys or small children turned loose among treasured objects whose value is beyond their comprehension, they ran wild – either from perverse pleasure in destruction or simply because of their ignorance.” Id. at 654. Blacks elected to the legislature are described as spending “most of their time eating goobers and easing their unaccustomed feet into and out of new shoes.” Id. at 904.

It seems that any sequel is bound to comment on the original in one way or another. Does that mean any sequel is a non-infringing fair use of the original work? I doubt it, but where would the line go between a sequel sufficiently critical of the original and a sequel that merely exploits the value the author created in the original?

Woody Allen settles for $5 million for commercial use of his image.

New York State is unusual in giving people a right to deny the use of their image (or voice or name) for commercial purposes). Under Section 51 of New York’s Civil Rights Law, anyone “whose name, portrait, picture or voice is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purpose of trade without the written consent first obtained” may sue to enjoin the use and for damages.

Thus, the only real legal issue in Woody Allen’s lawsuit against a clothing company that used an image of him from “Annie Hall” without on billboards without permission was the amount of damages Allen would be able to provehe had suffered. Thus, though Allen’s complaint sought $10 million, he settled today for $5 million. There were, however, other issues that would have come up. As the New York Times reports,  ”a trial that could have dredged up potentially salacious details about him and his wife, Soon-Yi Previn.” Nonethless, the parties continued their dispute in the court of public opinion after the settlement:

“Threats and press leaks by American Apparel designed to smear me did not work, and a scheme to call a long list of witnesses who had absolutely nothing to do with the case was also disallowed by the court,” Mr. Allen said outside the federal courthouse, reading from a statement.

“I suspect this dose of legal reality led to their 11th-hour settlement,” he added.

Mr. Charney [founder and CEO of the defendant], who spoke to reporters afterward, said he did not regret using the image of Mr. Allen dressed as a Hasidic Jew, and that his insurance company had forced him to settle.

“I’m not sorry for expressing myself,” he said. “I wish him the best with his career, and I am looking forward to his next film.”

Mr. Charney seemed to argue that his First Amendment rights to free speech justified his conduct, and he’s right that if he has a constitutional right to do what he did the state statute could not prevent him from doing so. But it seems likely to me the state has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens against the commercial exploitation of their own identities, and therefore the free speech rights in connection with commercial use of one’s identity are likely  similar to the fair use rights of copyrighted works. Since the image is unmistakeably Mr. Allen’s, since the use is as commercial as they come, and since Allen likely could have proven some financial harm, it seems to me unlikely any First Amendment argument could have helped the defendant in this case.

Wikipedia should know better/Addendum: it does, and the problem is solved, though Wikipedia really didn’t have to be quite so heavy-handed.

Determining whether the use of someone else’s trademark is a non-infringing fair use does not involve an analysis identical to determining whether the use of someone’s copyrighted work is a fair use, but there are significant similarities.  One is that the absence of any exploitation of the commercial value of the intellectual property is a significant reason to find that use of the trademark is not infringing.  Another is that the property interest one has in the intellectual property has to be balanced against the constitutional right to free speech. Thus, owning a trademark no more gives you total control over use of the trademark than owning a copyright gives you total control over the copyrighted work.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation therefore is disturbed that Wikipedia, whom the EFF has represented, is trying to stop a group of artists from using the name “wikipediaart.org” as the domain for a site that documents  a Wikepedia article they had established last year.  The article “was intended to comment on the nature of art and Wikipedia. But Wikipedia editors did not take kindly to the project, and it was shut down within fifteen hours for being insufficiently ‘encyclopaedic.’”

But since the site is non-commercial and is a critical commentary on Wikipedia, Wikipedia has no right to shut it down.  The artists are not attracting paying customers who stumble upon the site because they are looking for Wikipedia.  And you can’t shut someone down just because they are criticizing you.  As the EFF cogently sums up the issues:

Wikipedia should know better. There is no trademark or cybersquatting issue here. First, the site is entirely noncommercial, which puts it beyond the reach of U.S. trademark law. . . . Moreover, even if U.S. trademark laws somehow reached this noncommercial activity, the artists’ use of the mark is an obvious fair use. Wikipedia Art uses the “Wikipedia” mark to refer to the project: a critical comment on Wikipedia and creativity. The disputed site describes the project, provides links to media coverage of the project, and so on. It does not use any more of the Wikipedia mark than need be; for example, it doesn’t even use the Wikipedia logo. Simply put, the site does not purport to be, nor does it look anything like, Wikipedia and the artists have done nothing to suggest Wikipedia endorses their work. Finally, the creators are engaging in precisely the kind of critical speech sheltered by the First Amendment.

ADDENDUM: asdfghjk in the comments states that the “EFF’s description of events is somewhat incomplete at best,” and points to a post by Mike Godwin, General Counsel of Wikimedia Foundation, that explains that Wikipedia’s only concern was that wikipediaart.org would be mistaken by visitors as a site affiliated with Wikipedia and that, once the creators of wikipediaart.org have posted the prominent disclaimer now visible on the site, Wikipedia considered the matter resolved, and amicably so. I’m glad to hear it.  It’s dispute resolution, folks, and when people get upset and have disputes all you need to do is resolve them.  It’s just not so easy all the time.  Here’s to wikipediaart.org for responding with the disclaimer and to Wikipedia for backing off once its legitimate concern had been addressed. And thank you, asdfghjk, whoever you are and wherever you may be. But I’ll take exception to one point you made — I do not believe the EFF was “played” by a bunch of performance artists.  Even without the disclaimer, their non-affiliation with Wikipedia seemed clear.  And it does not seem far-fetched for EFF (or me) to have mistaken the meaning of communications, in which, Mr. Godwin now claims,  “no litigation [against wikepediaart.org] was threatened or commenced.”  On April 9, Doug Isenberg, a lawyer for Wikimedia, wrote Wikipedia Art a letter that sure sounds like it threatened litigation:

Wikimedia appreciates your offer to “explore an amicable resolution to this matter.” Accordingly, I think it would be helpful to draw your attention to a recent domain name dispute between Wikimedia and the registrant of the domain name <visualwikipedia.com>. The registrant of that domain name was using it in connection with a website that described itself as “a visual, intuitive, and interactive web interface to encyclopedic knowledge/information.” The registrant of that domain name refused to cooperate with Wikimedia, after which Wikimedia filed a complaint pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (”UDRP”), resulting in a published decision ordering the domain name transferred to Wikimedia. See WIPO Case No. D2009-0139, available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0139.html. . .

In light of the above, Wikimedia suggests that Mr. Kildall select a domain name that does not include any of Wikimedia’s trademarks and that Mr. Kildall transfer the <wikipediaart.org> domain name to Wikimedia. Doing so would allow Mr. Kildall to continue to freely express himself without raising the same concerns that Wikimedia has asked me to investigate. If Mr. Kildall is willing to do so, please let me know by April 16, 2009.

But all is well that ends well.  The disclaimer removes any possible claim of visitors to wikipediaart.org would believe the site is affiliated with Wikipedia, and Wikipedia Art, despite Mr. Isenberg’s “suggestion,” keeps its domain name. Perhaps next time Mr. Godwin should not delegate to outside lawyers the writing of letters he does not intend to contain threats of litigation.

Free Speech, Copyright, and Fair Use: We can express ourselves any way we want, even in ways that “steal” your own forms of expression, unless there’s a good reason to stop us.

Calling the right a creator has in his or her work intellectual property is misleading. It conveys the imipression thatthe work is property in the same way a television of a piece of land is property. You can fence in land. You can stop anyone from using your television. But intellectual property is not personal property the way things are and it is not real property the way land and the buildings attached to land are. Artists often think otherwise. In an interview on myartspace.com, for example, Steven Bogart, asked about his position on copyright, says simply, “Artists have a right to control their images and the right to be credited. ”

He might wish it so, but it isn’t so. Plainly, the lawsuits that result in findings that the use of copyrighted works are non-infringing fair use of copyrighted works all involve uses over which the artists have no control. If they had control, there’d be no lawsuits. Nor does fair use require crediting the artist whose work is used without consent.

There are many, many reasons underlying the fact U.S. law does not treat the product of creative expression like it treats personal or real property. Among them may be some comprehension that creativity is not the individual act of divine inspiration that Romantic poets believed and that in fact resulted in the rise of copyright as we know it.

But another, and very American reason U.S. law does not treat the products of creative expression the same ways it treats land holdings or the products of manufacturing is that the use of creative expression, authorized or not, is itself expression, and the freedom of expression is at the very core of what it means to be American. The fair use doctrine, which allows the use of copyrighted materials in certain circumstances without the consent of the owner of the copyright, is based squarely on the First Amendement’s guarantee of the freedom of expression.

Accordingly, in determining whether the unauthorized use of copyrighted work is non-infringing fair use, courts look at, among other things, whether the challenged use has a negative impact on the commercial market for the copyrighted work. While the commercial damage to the copyrighted work is a significant factor, Christina Bohannon, a law professor at the University of Iowa, believes that the importance of the right to free speech should require that it should be required in order for a court to find infringment. As she explains in the abstract to her paper, “Copyright Harm and First Amendment,” a showing of harm is required in every single other constitutional restriction on free speech and there is no justification for treating copyright differently:

Copyright law is a glaring and unjustified exception to the general rule that the government may not prohibit speech without a showing that the speech causes harm. While the First Amendment sometimes protects even harmful speech, it virtually never allows the prohibition of harmless speech. Yet, while other speech-burdening laws, such as defamation and right of publicity laws, require demonstrable evidence that the defendant’s speech causes actual harm, copyright law does not make harm a requirement of infringement. Although copyright law considers harm to the market for the copyrighted work as a factor in fair use analysis, harm is not always required and is so poorly defined that the concept has become circular. Moreover, the defendant ordinarily bears the burden of proof to show the absence of harm. As a result, courts often find liability for infringement (and therefore burden speech) where harm is purely speculative.

Potential explanations for copyright’s anomalous treatment are unpersuasive. Copying involves speech as well as conduct, and the fact that copyrights are in some sense property does not come close to justifying its aberrant treatment. Moreover, copyright’s role in encouraging creative expression does not obviate First Amendment concerns. Rather, it provides a way to reconcile copyright law and free speech. Drawing substantially from First Amendment cases holding that speech restrictions must be justified by a governmental interest, this article argues that the First Amendment requires real proof of harm to the copyright holder’s incentives in order to impose liability for copyright infringement. It also explores the types of harm that might arise in copyright infringement cases and considers whether the First Amendment permits recognition of these types of harm. The article concludes that although demonstrable market harm is cognizable under First Amendment principles, recognition of harm to the reputation of copyrighted works, the author’s right not to speak or associate, or the copyright holder’s privacy interests is generally not compatible with the values of free speech.

Of course, I could say in response to Professor Bohannon the same thing I say to those who say artists do have the right to control their work and to attribution for any use of their work. You may wish it were so, and there may even be reasons to believe your position merits my sympathy, but that assertion isn’t the law and doesn’t make it the law.

Is Michael Murphy another Shepard Fairey?

Do you think that if we ever discover the photo from which Michael Murphy derived the image for this “shadow portrait” of Obama in urethane Murphy will be accused of copyright infringement?  I do, but I don’t think it’s infringement.

The ACLU on the Nazis’ right to march in Skokie, Illinois

Shepard Fairey, lightning rod

I’ve pointed out both that I believe strongly that Shepard Fairey’s use of an AP photograph to create his Obama Hope poster does not infringe the pohotograph’s copyright and that Fairey has been the target of frequent criticism in the art community regarding his “originality” and regarding his apparent hypocrisy in asserting infringement claims against artists who had appropriated his images.

It has come to my attention that some criticize the Fair Use Project’s decision to take up Fairey’s cause in the case of the Obama Hope poster and think Fairey should be taken down because of his apparent hypocrisy.

As a lawyer, I strongly disagree with this position.  If, as I zealously believe, the Obama Hope poster is fair use, it would be self-defeating to those of us who support the explicit application of the fair use doctrine to transformative appropriation art and various other methods of “remixing” pre-existing works, regardless of our view of Fairey himself,  if we failed to support Fairey’s position in connection with the Obama Hope poster.

I cannot help but recall last year’s lawsuit brought by Yoko Ono, Sean Ono, and Julian Lennon seeking to require the makers of the documentary “Expelled” from using a 15 second excerpt of John Lennon’s song “Imagine” in their documentary.  As I wrote at the time, I believed the lawsuit was misbegotten and that the film’s use of the excerpt constituted fair use despite my love of John Lennon and my contempt for the film, which purports that “theorists” of “Intelligent Design” have unjustifiably been expelled from the conversation regarding evolution and the development of life.  The court hearing the case agreed with my position and dismissed the case. Not coincidentally, the Fair Use Project represented the producers of “Expelled” in that case.

Fair use is fair use, and if we believe in it we should support it wherever it exists, even if we despise the people asserting fair use.  I supported the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, a community full of Holocaust survivors, because I believe that the right to demonstrate in public is protected by the First Amendment regardless of how vile the message being conveyed may be.  The Supreme Court agreed.

That doesn’t mean we can’t criticize Fairey when he seems to want his cake and eat it too.  (Though it may be that Fairey’s thoughts have evolved on these issues — while he sent a cease-and-desist letter to Baxter Orr for Orr’s appropriation of one of Fairey’s images, Fairey never followed that letter up with any other action despite Orr’s continued use of the image.)

You may not like Fairey.  But that does not mean we shouldn’t support his position when he happens to be right.  To fail to do so would be to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

Why AP has little chance of success against Shepard Fairey

 Let me explain in greater detail why I not only think Shepard Fairey will prevail in the lawsuit AP has brought against him for copyright infringement, but also why I think it isn’t even a close case. The case, of course, involves Fairey’s poster (pictured on the left), which Fairey created by first stenciling the AP photo wire photo pictured on the right.

As the Stanford Copyright & Fair Use site explains, determining whether a work that appropriates all or part of a copyrighted work is no easy thing:

The only guidance is provided by a set of fair use factors outlined in the copyright law. These factors are weighed in each case to determine whether a use qualifies as a fair use. For example, one important factor is whether your use will deprive the copyright owner of income. Unfortunately, weighing the fair use factors is often quite subjective. For this reason, the fair use road map is often tricky to navigate.

The four factors and my evaluation of their significances in this case are as follows:

(1) The Purpose and Character of Your Use: As the Stanford Fair Use & Copyright site makes clear, this factor turns to s large degree on the following two questions:

(a) Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?(b) Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?

As I’ve already made clear, I am convinced of that Fairey’s image sufficiently transforms the image of the AP photograph to be considered genuinely tranformative. Except for the fact that both are plainly images of Obama and that in both his expression and the tilt of his head are the same, the two images are entirely different. They are so different, in fact, that for many, many months no one, much less AP, was even able to identify the image from which Fairey started from. The physical changes Fairey has rendered to the image are plain. He has changed elements, and, through his painting style, simplified the elements significantly. In one image, you have all the complex information of a photo; in the other you have three colors arranged in a small number of blocks and lines. Finally, the photo could not possibly have become an iconic image of the presidential campaign. The Fairey poster did.

(2) The Nature of the Copyrighted Work: The AP photo is a generic wire service photo. While photography is, of course, a creative endeavor, some images are more creative than others, and the AP photo of Obama is about as generic as they come. First, it’s an image of the most recognizable face in the world. Second, there is nothing special about it. This generic nature of the work is emphasized by the fact, as I pointed out above, that it took months before someone (not from AP), after scouring the internet on a search for the source of Fairey’s image, finally found the right one. AP had not even known its copyright image was part of a poster that was visible all over the country and in all the media.

(3) The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken: In fact, this might be the factor that counts most seriously against Fairey, but even this factor is, I believe, a close call. As i explained above, about all Fairey’s image ultimately uses is the expression and the tilt of Obama’s head. The very nature of the image is changed from that of a photograph to that of a semi-abstract painting. The background is changed. The color of the tie (a generic tie on a generic suit) is changed. The circular Obama symbol on the suit’s lapel is added. And, of course, the word “HOPE” is added.

(4) The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market. This factor, which in the past has been referred to as the most important factor, isn’t even close. Fairey’s image has obviously had NO negative impact on the market for the AP photo. The only possible effect, a likely one, is that it has substantially increased the value of AP’s copyrighted image.

The Stanford Copyright & Fair Use site also points out that “Fair use involves subjective judgments and are often affected by factors such as a judge or jury ’s personal sense of right or wrong.” The fact that Fairey’s image was produced as his contribution to a political campaign would, I believe, weight the case even more heavily in his favor. The courts give great leeway to political speech, which is at the very core of the First Amendment’s values.

ADDENDUM: Brian Ledbetter kindly quotes substantially all of this post and expresses agreement with most of it, but also expresses two reservations: (1) cross-media copying like Fairey’s — whether it be from photograph to painting, painting to statue, photo to Hallmark card-does not necessarily fall under “fair use” exceptions of Copyright law and (2) modern technology makes alterations to photos like the ones Fairey made to the AP photo so easy that we’ll have to begin to believe that “anyone” can create art.

My response, reproduced from the comments to his post:

Cross-media copying is not fair use only to the extent that the result is a “derivative” use. What constitutes a “derivative” use may be as obscure as any other matter on this topic, but it cannot possibly mean any work that is “derived” from a copyrighted work. Every fair use is derived from a copyrighted work.

So what is a “derivative” work? I would submit it is something that exploits at least in part the market created by the original work. Thus, for example, a Snoopy mug would be a derivative work, as would a cover song. I would submit that this mashup, though quite entertaining, is a derivative work in that all it does is exploit the market created by Charles Schulz and OutKast:

The trivia book based on Seinfeld was a derivative use because its targeted market was the audience created by the sitcom. The bio of Salinger that was enjoined was a derivative use because it used such large portions of unpublished Salinger letters that it at least in part was intended to exploit the market for people hungry for anything new by Salinger (he hadn’t published in decades).

But [Brian's} Tom Daschle photo.isn't exploiting any market created by the original. And you know what? The more and more such things get turned out, the less and less they'll have an impact. There's no denying that Fairey's image, while simple, is a powerful one, or at the very least that it resonated as one with a huge portion of the public. I don't think [Brian's] Daschle workup would. And if so, so what? Does that hurt the original photographer? Are we to stifle your creativity to protect some right of the photographer not to have his photograph used in ways he doesn’t want it used? There is no such right. Instead, there’s the First Amendment, which, in the absence of copyright (created to PROMOTE creation) would allow us to use anything.