August 28, 1963

Jury rules against Donald Rosenberg

A jury found for the Plain Dealer and the Cleveland Orchestra’s governing body yesterday, rejecting all of reporter Donald Rosenberg’s legal claims arising out of the decision by the Plain Dealer to relieve him of his duties as the Orchestra’s reviewer and reassign him.

As anyone who has followed my speculations on this lawsuit knows, I have always been skeptical of the legal merits of Rosenberg’s claims. As the NY Times article linked to above explains, the lawsuit “became a cause célèbre among music critics, who charged that The Plain Dealer had caved in to complaints from a subject of its reviews, touching a raw nerve among those who review arts for a living.”

Nevertheless, I could not discern any contractual right Rosenberg had to the job reviewing the Orchestra, so the reassignment didn’t seem to constitute any breach of contract. The Orchestra’s representatives have every right to complain about negative reviews to the Plain Dealer’s management as long as they didn’t lie about him in expressing those complaints. And the addition of an age discrimination claim simply didn’t fit the gist of the complaint — how could it be that the Plain Dealer’s reassignment of Rosenberg under pressure from the Orchestra constituted age discrimination?

If I were Rosenberg’s lawyer, I’d advise him not to appeal. The Los Angeles Times reports, however, that he hasn’t ruled out that possibility. It’s not that I don’t care if the Plain Dealer did cave into pressure from the Orchestra (certainly not the only quarter from which complaints about Rosenberg were heard). It’s that I don’t think a lawsuit by an individual who is reassigned as a result of that kind of pressure is the means of ensuring journalistic integrity.

Harvey Pekar, R.I.P.

Anthony Bourdain says it as well as anyone:

. . . Harvey captured and chronicled every day what was–and will always be–beautiful about Cleveland: the still majestic gorgeousness of what once was–the uniquely quirky charm of what remains, the delightfully offbeat attitude of those who struggle to go on in a city they love and would never dream of leaving.

What a two minute overview might depict as a dying, post-industrial town, Harvey celebrated as a living, breathing, richly textured society.

A place so incongruously and uniquely…seductive that I often fantasize about making my home there. . . .

A few great artists come to “own” their territory.

As Joseph Mitchell once owned New York and Zola owned Paris, Harvey Pekar owned not just Cleveland but all those places in the American Heartland where people wake up every day, go to work, do the best they can–and in spite of the vast and overwhelming forces that conspire to disappoint them–go on, try as best as possible to do right by the people around them, to attain that most difficult of ideals: to be “good” people.

Donald Rosenberg’s lawsuit against the Cleveland Orchestra goes to trial, but stupidity is not an actionable offense.

Back in 2008 I wrote about Donald Rosenberg’s lawsuit against the Plain Dealer, the Cleveland Orchestra, its conductor Franz Welser-Möst, and members of both organizations. Rosenberg alleges that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to remove him as the Plain Dealer’s music critic. As the Plain Dealer reports, the trial of Rosenberg’s claims began this week. Apparently, Rosenberg has amended his complaint since he originally filed the lawsuit to add an age discrimination claim:

Rosenberg’s complaint against the newspaper is that his reassignment was an act of age discrimination and that the paper retaliated against him for filing the lawsuit by preventing him from even mentioning the orchestra in the course of his reporting.

My guess is that the age discrimination claim against the newspaper was added because there was no breach of contract that resulted from the newspaper’s reassignment of Rosenberg to a different beat. He might not have liked it, and, indeed, the move might have been monumentally stupid, but there is no legal right to recover damages for being treated stupidly. I really don’t see the connection, though, between the age discrimination claim and what Rosenberg alleges the newspaper did wrong in caving to pressure from the Cleveland Orchestra, which did not like Rosenberg’s scathing reviews of the orchestra under Welser-Möst’s direction. If they reassigned him because of the complaints, how does that constitute a reassignment based on Rosenberg’s age (57)?

As to the claims against Welser-Möst, the Cleveland Orchestra, and other Orchestra employees, I will assume that Rosenberg’s lawyer is telling the truth when he explained to the jury in his opening statement that the Orchestra “had waged a campaign to get Rosenberg removed from the orchestra beat, that the Plain Dealer “caved into that pressure,” and that the “case about powerful and influential people in the community trying to manipulate the news.”

Which confirms that — in the words of Baltimore Sun classical music critic Tim Smith, as reported in the Cleveland Scene — the Plain Dealer and the Cleveland Orchestra look “ridiculous” in their ham-handed efforts to influence the public’s opinion of the Orchestra:

“It looks ridiculous,” [Smith] says of the fracas. “You wouldn’t dream of doing this to your political commentator because he attacks the mayor week in and week out, or your local sports team. Who hasn’t been in a town with a sports columnist who is constantly knocking the hell out of the coach of the football team? And who then would take him off that beat?”

As Smith wrote in 2008, both the Plain Dealer and the Orchestra have had their credibility irrevocably damaged:

In the end, it may not matter too much who led the charge, who exerted influence, who gave in to pressure or doubt. The damage has been done. Zach Lewis, who has been told he will now cover the Cleveland Orchestra for the paper, is a good guy and good writer placed in an impossible situation. If he says positive things about Welser-Most, some people will think he’s just doing that to keep his job. If he says negative things, some people will think he’s under Don’s influence and will have to be replaced, too. As I said before, the Cleveland Orchestra and the Plain Dealer are worse off, not better off, as a result of this controversy. Music and journalism have taken a painful hit.

But if you could sue someone for doing something monumentally stupid that damaged their credibility and that you didn’t like, Northeast Ohio would have filed a class action lawsuit last week against LeBron James. As I stated above, I don’t see what legal duty the Plain Dealer violated in reassigning Rosenberg. And as long as what the Orchestra’s employees said about Rosenberg was truthful or a matter of opinion, there is no legal claim against them either. As the Orchestra’s lawyer put it to the jury:

“Don Rosenberg had a mighty bully pulpit to print whatever he thought of Franz Welser-Most and [the defendants] were only using the pulpit available to them” by contacting newspaper editors to complain about Rosenberg’s coverage of the orchestra.

Finally, even if Rosenberg can establish that employees of the Orchestra lied about him, he needs to prove that he has suffered damages — that is, he must establish that he has suffered some loss that can be compensated with money. He hasn’t lost any income as a result of his reassignment by the Plain Dealer. And, indeed, his prominence as a music critic — should he wish to engage in music criticism in places other than the Plain Dealer — only seems to have been increased.

Sunday afternoon music break: Paint it Black (Oil Spill Mix)

New force for the irreparable harm requirement in copyright preliminary injunction decisions? And might we see the Holden Caulfield sequel after all?

One week ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit issued a very interesting ruling (inserted below)  in the case in which J.D. Salinger sued Frederik Colting, alleging that Colting’s work, 60 Years Later Coming Through the Rye, infringes Salinger’s copyright in Catcher in the Rye. First, and perhaps most importantly, the 2d Circuit stated that “we conclude that the District Court properly determined that Salinger has a likelihood of success on the merits.” In other words, the 2d Circuit concluded that based on the evidence already presented to the trial court, it is likely Salinger (who, since his death, has been replaced as the plaintiff by Coleen Salinger and Matthew Salinger as trustees of the Salinger Literary Trust) it has concluded that 60 Years Later is likely an infringement of Catcher in the Rye.

Nevertheless, the 2d Circuit vacated the trial court’s preliminary injunction forbidding U.S. publication of 60 Years Later and instructed the trial court to reconsider whether a preliminary injunction should issue because, according to the 2d Circuit, the trial court did not apply the appropriate standard in determining whether a preliminary injunction should have been issued. Most importantly, the trial court had not considered whether, assuming it prevails in the end in the case, the Salinger Trust would suffer harm that it could not be compensated for at final judgment in the absence of the preliminary injunction.

It is important to note that a preliminary injunction is an order that someone should do or not do something that is in effect only until the final verdict is rendered in a case. A preliminary injunction is intended to preserve the status quo during trial of a case in situations in which the failure of the court to ensure the preservation of the status quo would somehow damage the party seeking the injunction in a way that would prevent him from being made whole by a final judgment.

Thus, the trial court in the Salinger case only determined that Salinger’s infringement claim had a likelihood of success on the merits. That means that the court leaves open the possibility that after the parties have had a chance to fully develop their evidence and the court has had the opportunity to see witnesses testify live (rather than just via the written affidavits the court earlier considered), it might change its mind on whether Salinger in fact has successfully established an infringement.

More importantly, perhaps, the 2d Circuit made clear that the trial court also needs to consider factors other than the likelihood of the success of the infringement claim. The 2d Circuit stated that the trial court must reconsider whether to grant the preliminary injunction under the standard the U.S. Supreme Court applied in determining the legitimacy of a permanent injunction (that is, an injunction issued at the end of a case as a final judgment) a patent infringement action in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006). That standard (the typical standard applied in most injunction cases) requires the court to consider four factors: “(1) that [the party seeking the injunction] has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.”

No single factor is dispositive, nor are the factors given equal weight and considered together in any easy formulaic way. All the factors are considered in a holistic evaluation. Interestingly, however, the right to non-monetary, injunctive relief typically requires that the availability of monetary relief be inadequate to make the party seeking the injunction whole. It may be possible for Colting to argue on remand that even should, his work be found to infringe the Salinger Trust’s copyright in Catcher in the Rye, should he be able to publish 60 Years On during the pendency of the case, the Salinger Trust can be made whole by recovering whatever profits have in the meantime been made on the book. The Salinger Trust, in the meantime, is likely to argue the mere publication of the book in the U.S. will harm the Trust in a way that cannot be remedied by money because the mere presence of the book will detract from the value of the Trust’s copyright in the character of Holden Caulfield.

William Patry, in his treatise on copyright, has noted that courts in copyright cases have in the past rarely given real consideration to the “irreparable harm” argument in issuing preliminary injunctions “The gutting is accomplished definitionally: rather than reject the requirement outright, courts define the adequacy of legal remedies in such a way that those remedies can never be considered a substitute for plaintiff’s alleged losses.” William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright, §22:12, citing Douglas Laycock, The Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 687, 692 (1990). Thus, Patry writes, “Preliminary injunctions are issued far more often than they should be, at least from a review of available decisions.”

It makes me wonder whether the 2d Circuit is taking a stand here and insisting that the trial court give real consideration to the requirement that the Salinger Trust could not be made whole, even if it eventually prevails on its infringement claim, in the absence of a preliminary injunction. If so, we may yet see 60 Years On published in the U.S., even if for only a brief time.

Salinger v Colting 2d Circuit Appeal of Prelim Injunction Decision

40 years ago (4 dead in Ohio) and today.

40 years ago today (May 4) I was 10 years old, sitting at home, when I heard about something I thought unthinkable that had just happened about 40 miles away from my home. National guard troops had fired on unarmed students at Kent State protesting the Vietnam War, killing 4 and wounding another 9. Nine days later at Jackson State, police killed students and wounded another 12 who were protesting the war and the killings at Kent State.

It was inconceivable to me that unarmed students exercising their First Amendment rights had been shot to death in the United States,  but my childhood was filled with nightmares of that sort. In 1967 I remember driving through parts of Cleveland that were under military occupation as a result of just one U.S. city among hundreds that had had exploded that year and the previous one. And, of course, in 1968, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated in little more than 2 months, disappearing the 2 most prominent voices calling for the U.S. to pull its troops out of Vietnam.

And, of course, we were all at the time convinced of the inevitability of nuclear holocaust.

So I laugh when I hear earnest students of mine who insist that terrorism is the greatest threat this country has ever faced. And when conservatives express the fear that President Obama threatens us with fascism. We should not be fighting wars we can’t win in support of corrupt regimes. And we have huge problems at home:

In 2005, 21.2 percent of U.S. national income accrued to just 1 percent of earners. Contrast 1968, when the CEO of General Motors took home, in pay and benefits, about sixty-six times the amount paid to a typical GM worker. Today the CEO of Wal-Mart earns nine hundred times the wages of his average employee. Indeed, the wealth of the Wal-Mart founder’s family in 2005 was estimated at about the same ($90 billion) as that of the bottom 40 percent of the U.S. population: 120 million people.

But I remember vividly how sad I was on May 4, 1970.

Merry Christmas from an atheist Jew

My favorite religious story from childhood turns out, no surprise, to be a law story. I will tell it here from memory, without resort to sources or hyperlinks. Law and religion tend to get muddled in disputes over minutiae, and this is my story for today.

At the time Jesus was born, there were two leading “rabbis,” which may be a misleading term, but is meant to convey that they were both religious teachers and religious judges. Hillel was the one we would today call a liberal. Shammai was the strict constructionist. Two of their disagreements that I recall had to do with women and marriage. Shammai insisted that to call your bride beautiful on your wedding day if she was not in fact beautiful was a lie and therefore unacceptable. Hillel said instead that on her wedding day every bride is beautiful. Another point of contention was over the degree of evidence necessary to establish a husband had died in order that his widow could remarry. Shammai insisted that first-hand evidence of death had to be produced. Hillel held that circumstantial evidence would be sufficient.

But the story I remember best is of the non-Jew who came to Shammai and said that he would convert if, while he stood on one foot, the rabbi could explain to him the whole of the Torah. Shammai dismissed him in a huff, taking the question and the questioner as nothing but harassment. The man then went to Hillel and asked him the same question. Hillel responded:

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study.

And the man converted and devoted his life to study.

A cell phone really (not just abstractly) is different than an address book.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled yesterday (pdf) that police officers must obtain a search warrant before searching the contents of a suspect’s cell phone unless the officers’ safety is at stake. The specific data at issue were the records of the telephone calls made to and from the suspect’s cell phone.  As the court made clear, “[o]nce the cell phone is in police custody, the state has satisfied its immediate interest in collecting and preserving evidence and can take preventive steps to ensure that the data found on the phone is neither lost nor erased. But because a person has a high expectation of privacy in a cell phone’s contents, police must then obtain a warrant before intruding into the phone’s contents.” Slip op., ¶23.

In reaching its decision, the court first distinguished cell phones from “closed containers,” “physical objects capable of holding other physical objects.” Such objects on or in the vicinity of a suspect are subject to search without a warrant. ” Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has stated that in this situation, ‘container’ means ‘any object capable of holding another object.’  One such example is a cigarette package containing drugs found in a person’s pocket.” Id., ¶19 (citations omitted). The dissenin the Ohio case concluded that the cell phone is a “closed container” because “a cell phone’s digital address book is akin to traditional address books carried on the person. Courts have upheld police officers’ search of an address book found on an arrestee’s person during a search incident to a lawful arrest.  The phone’s call list is similar, showing a list of telephone numbers that called to or were called from the phone.” Id., ¶34.

The dissent’s reasoning seems odd. The phone’s call list is not “similar” to an “address book.” The call list is electronically generated by making and receiving telephone calls, and thus is the same kind of electronically generated information regularly produced by, among other devices, your laptop. Thus, the majority of the court were convinced that because modern cell phones “have the capacity for storing immense amounts of private information” they are thus are more like laptop computers, in which arrestees have significant privacy interests — in contrast to address books or pagers found on their persons, in which defendants have lesser privacy interests. Id., ¶18. The court did not equate cell phones precisely to laptops (though no doubt iPhone users might take exception to the court’s failure to do so), but the similarity, in combination with the fact the police have the means necessary by warrant to obtain information from a cell phone, compelled the court’s conclusion:

Although cell phones cannot be equated with laptop computers, their ability to store large amounts of private data gives their users a reasonable and justifiable expectation of a higher level of privacy in the information they contain. Once the cell phone is in police custody, the state has satisfied its immediate interest in collecting and preserving evidence and can take preventive steps to ensure that the data found on the phone is neither lost nor erased. But because a person has a high expectation of privacy in a cell phone’s contents, police must then obtain a warrant before intruding into the phone’s contents. Id., ¶24.

The dissent, on the other hand, unable to distinguish a cell phone from an address book, accused the majority of “needlessly embark[ing] upon a review of cell phone capabilities in the abstract.” Id., ¶30.

Funny, I didn’t know that the review of differences between cell phones and address books in 2009 required “abstract” thinking.

Don’t let your clients send you emails from their employers’ email systems.

Mike Masnick at techdirt has an interesting item about a court decision that “personal emails sent from work computers can still be considered privileged and confidential as an attorney-client communication.” Masnick notes, however, that “[w]e’ve seen plenty of cases where courts have said that an individual has no expectation of privacy on emails sent from work.” And he realizes that the case he’s discussing isn’t the typical employee e-mail case; instead, “it dealt with a federal prosecutor who was fired, and is trying to claim that the firing was for his whistle-blowing. He was trying to access the emails of a US Attorney that he believes will reveal why he was fired. So it wasn’t a case of a company trying to review the email (which is normally the case in these types of lawsuits). And, as such, it makes sense.”

But Masnick has a more interesting question: suppose you e-mail your lawyer from your employer’s e-mail system — is your e-mail protected by the attorney-client privilege from disclosure to your employer? As Masnick wonders:

[W]hat would happen in a lawsuit where it was the employer looking at the material? If a company has a regular program of recording and examining employee email (as many do), then how would the issue be resolved? It would seem that, in such circumstances, it would make a lot less sense to consider the content protected, since the employer is not asking for it, but already has access to it.

I think Masnick is right that your e-mail to your attorney, sent from an e-mail system you know your employer has access to (pursuant to typical employee e-mail policies), is not subject to the attorney-client privilege. And if it’s not protected by the privilege, anyone who has a right to it as relevant evidence in a lawsuit will be able to get it, not merely the author’s employer.

Why? The mere communication between client and lawyer does not establish the existence of an attomey·client relationship ”It is of the essence of the privilege that it is limited to those communications which the client either expressly made confidential or which he could reasonably assume under the circumstances would be understood by the attorney as so intended.” McCormick on Evidence § 91 (4th ed. 1972).

Thus, to establish confidentiality, (1) “[t]he client must intend his communications with his attorney to be confidential, (2) [t]he client’s subjective intention of confidentiality must be reasonable under the circumstances, and (3) the confidentiality must have been subsequently maintained. A subjective expectation of privacy can sometimes be ascertained from the client’s express intentions.” Those intentions must be determined from the circumstances surrounding the communication. William P. Matthews, Encoded Confidences: Electronic Mail the Intemet, and the Attorney-Giant Privilege, 45 U. Kan. L. Rev. 273, 283 (1996).

In short, in considering whether the privilege applies, the courts focus on the precautions taken to preserve confidentiality and the parties’ “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Wendy R. leibowitz, Communication in the E·Mail Era: Deciphering the Risks and Fears, Nat’l LJ., Aug. 4, 1997, at B9.

Lawyers are like priests or doctors — you learn early on that your client’s confidence’s are sacred and that your knowledge of them will go to the grave with you. You learn too that disclosure of those confidences to third parties destroys them. So you don’t discuss client business on elevators, in subways, in taxis, on planes, in restaurants, in coffee shops, on crowded sidewalks . . . . You know a client’s “friend” who is along for moral support but not part of the case should not be present for discussions that should be kept confidential.

In short, you know that if there’s a reasonable likelihood someone else may be in on the communication (whether by listening in or by opening the letter or e-mail), the communication is not confidential. And it doesn’t seem to me that an employee has a reasonable expectation that someone else may not be “in on” the communications he makes via e-mail from work. As the Privacy Rights Clearing House puts it:

Is electronic mail private? What about voice mail?

In most cases, no. If an electronic mail (e-mail) system is used at a company, the employer owns it and is allowed to review its contents. Messages sent within the company as well as those that are sent from your terminal to another company or from another company to you can be subject to monitoring by your employer. This includes web-based email accounts such as Yahoo and Hotmail as well as instant messages. The same holds true for voice mail systems. In general, employees should not assume that these activities are not being monitored and are private. Several workplace privacy court cases have been decided in the employer’s favor. See for example: Bourke v. Nissan, Smyth v. Pillsbury, Shoars v. Epson.

In short, if you’re communicating with your lawyer in the course of what you consider a lawyer-client communication, don’t use your employer’s email system. You might just as well be speaking with your lawyer in the back seat of a taxi with the cabbie listening in.

The inexorable trend toward free access to court documents

I mentioned last week that Google Scholar can now be used to find case law. It’s real progress.Court documents, after all, are public documents, so it sometimes seems a bit frustrating that the only reliable way to do legal research is through private systems. As Wired’s Threat Level explains, “West [Publishing], and its competitor, Lexis Nexis, buy court data in bulk, reformat it and add proprietary citation codes. They then license the database of public documents at high rates to libraries, law firms and government agencies. Even the U.S. Court system pays West’s high license fees to access public court documents that West purchased from it.”

To make matters worse, the court system’s database, PACER, doesn’t work well: “the search function is intricate and inflexible, and lacks a way for users to be notified when a case is updated. And in the age of Google, it is absurd to charge citizens to search for the name of a person in a lawsuit. Even looking at the docket sheet — a short form list of all actions in a given case — costs $.08 a page.”

The ability to copy and disseminate documents instantaneously, of course, is breaking this system down.  In addition to Google Scholar, a “Firefox plug-in called RECAP, created by Princeton students, uploads court documents to a public archive any time a user goes into th e system, while programmer Aaron Swartz took advantage of a pilot program offering free access to download 18 million court documents (that earned him an FBI investigation).”

I’ve got mixed feelings about court dockets in their entirety being freely available via the internet (as opposed to, say, the documents courts themselves produce). Dissemination of documents produced without thought to a worldwide audience can cause serious misunderstandings. But technology and economics seem to be inexorable forces — just ask the music industry: try as it might, it isn’t going to recreate a world in which it held a monopoly on the ability to produce and distribute recorded music. And it’s probably better after all that the public gets for free the court documents it produces.

Fair Use, Fairy Tales, and Collage: more proof Girl Talk won’t be stopped

Professor Eric Faden of Bucknell University created this brilliant account of copyright principles delivered through the words of the very folks we can thank for nearly endless copyright terms. The fact it has never been forced down is to me proof positive that legitimate, non-infringing fair use can consist entirely of copied and pasted copyrighted works. Which is proof positive to me that I am right in believing that Greg Gillis/Girl Talk  need not worry should he ever be sued for infringement of the copyright of any of the samples he uses.

I do think this video is deficient in one respect: it doesn’t sufficiently discuss the importance in the fair use analysis of the originality of the allegedly infringing work — it suggests parody, journalism, and criticism are legitimate, non-infringing uses of small parts of copyrighted works, but it doesn’t connect these individual examples of transformative work to the larger point: if the allegedly infringing work stands on its own — if it uses the copyrighted work to express something the copyrighted work doesn’t express to reach an audience for a different purpose than the copyrighted work’s audience comes to the copyrighted work for — then it is “transformative” and very, very likely not to be infringing. (If it is tranformative, it’s not going to have an impact on the market for the original or any of the original’s reasonably anticipated derivative uses.)

The funny thing is that the video doesn’t discuss the larger issues relating to the nature of the allegedly infringing work and how tranformative it is, but the video itself is entirely transformative:

The source of innovation — as a lawyer, as a business person, or as a designer — is creative thinking.

One of the reasons I was willing and remain committed to writing about law and creativity here at Geniocity is the purpose of this site as Carolyn Jack, its founder, has made clear to me from the beginning: it’s intended to show how innovation works across professions and disciplines normally segregated from one another so that people in those disciplines and fields can learn from one another. Innovation requires a remarkably agile mind — a creative mind — and so anyone wanting to innovate should look to the thinking of creative people no matter where they find them. Businesses should look to artists. Artists should look to game designers. Game designers should look to lawyers. Lawyers should look to fiction writers . . .

Again: no matter what you do — law, business, education, etc. — you should pursue innovation by seeking ideas from people whose job it is to innovate. As Fast Company reports, that’s also precisely the advice Roger Martin gives to businesses:

[T]he dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto is traveling the country, throwing down the gauntlet to companies who hope to analyze and strategize their way out of a recession by bringing in armies of management consultants. You’ll get what you pay for, he warns, and it won’t be innovation. “The business world is tired of having armies of analysts descend on their companies,” he says. “You can’t send a 28-year-old with a calculator to solve your problems.”

The problem, says Martin, author of a new book, The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage, is that corporations have pushed analytical thinking so far that it’s unproductive. “No idea in the world has been proved in advance with inductive or deductive reasoning,” he says.

The answer? Bring in the folks whose job it is to imagine the future, and who are experts in intuitive thinking.

As Martin points out, even scientific progress starts with hypotheses; it doesn’t merely apply the known. Which, interestingly, is precisely the point evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson made in the New York Times this week:

One of my favorite things to do is to take a set of facts and use them to imagine how the world might work. In writing about some of these ideas, my aim is not to be correct — how can I be, when the answer isn’t known? — but to be thought-provoking, to ask questions, to make people wonder.

[S]cience is usually presented as a body of knowledge — facts to be memorized, equations to be solved, concepts to be understood, discoveries to be applauded. But this approach can give students two misleading impressions.

One is that science is about what we know. One colleague told me that when he was studying science at school, the relentless focus on the known gave him the impression that almost everything had already been discovered. But in fact, science — as the physicist Richard Feynman once wrote — creates an “expanding frontier of ignorance,” where most discoveries lead to more questions. (This frontier — this peering into the unknown — is what I especially like to write about.) Moreover, insofar as science is a body of knowledge, that body is provisional: much of what we thought we knew in the past has turned out to be incomplete, or plain wrong.

The second misconception that comes from this “facts, facts, facts” method of teaching science is the impression that scientific discovery progresses as an orderly, logical “creep”; that each new discovery points more or less unambiguously to the next. But in reality, while some scientific work does involve the plodding, brick-by-brick accumulation of evidence, much of it requires leaps of imagination and daring speculation. (This raises the interesting question of when speculation is more likely to generate productive lines of enquiry than deductive creep. I don’t know the answer — I’d have to speculate.)

Being effective at anything requires innovation to address an ever changing world. It’s true in law. My students arrive in law school wanting to be told the answers law provides. I hope by the time they leave that what they’ve learned are not answers but, rather, ways to creatively reach answers to questions no one can anticipate they will face.

In other words, the qualities required by effective lawyers are the same qualities  – as Hartmut Esslinger, the founder of frog design, tells Guy Kawasaki — required by effective designers.  Both great designers and great lawyers lawyers have an enormous depth and breadth of knowledge, an ability to connect that knowledge to human lives and human hearts, desire, and persistence:

The artistic talent required is more of an enabler at the end of rational and emotional analysis as well as strategic conceptualization. Therefore, it is vital to learn and study as much as possible especially about business, technology and human nature. In the end, there are flavors in design which are more esthetic—see New York Times “Style Magazine”—but design is only relevant when it improves human lives by appealing both to the mind and the heart. Finally, a young person with the right talents needs to have infinite desire and never give up. I apply a simple test with young students: smash a teapot into pieces and then hand out the glue. Those who rebuild the teapot won’t make it, those who create phantasy animals and spaceships will.

So next time you are looking to innovate (and you always should be), look to creative people to help you do it.

Excellent acount of fair use in educational setting.

The American University Center for Social Media has published a Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for OpenCourseWare. As the site explains, “a code of best practices designed to help those preparing OpenCourseWare (OCW) to interpret and apply fair use under United States copyright law. ” While the document is limited in application (to educational settings), its nuance and sophistication makes it stand out among online discussions of fair use.

Why are you working harder for less? Scientific Management, management consulting, and leveraged buyouts – a century of being conned.

I described leveraged buyouts the other day — in connection with the demise of the maker of the Simmons Beauty Rest Mattress — as a symptom of why we don’t trust Wall Street. You might wonder why, if I’m right, we allow people again and again to “buy” companies by borrowing enormous sums of money — in essence, we allow the buyers to suck money out of successful companies for their own benefit in the same way we allowed home owners in a rising housing market to suck money out of their homes by means of home equity loans.

It’s perfectly clear why we allowed homeowners to do that — all involved figured the market would continue to rise at least until they could make their money and get out. But why do we let this keep happening on a much larger scale on Wall Street?

I hadn’t considered the question specifically at the moment I wrote that post about Simmons. It was enough for me that throughout the 25 years of my career both practicing (in connection with, among many things, leveraged buyouts) and teaching I’ve seen the phenomenon again and again. But this week I came across Jill Lepore’s article “Not So Fast” in the New Yorker, an article which asks the question, “Scientific management started as a way to work. How did it become a way of life?” Lepore’s article is about the rise in the early 20th Century of “Scientific Management,” the foundation of modern “Management Consulting.” Scientific Management was created by Fredrick Winslow Taylor, who, as Lepore writes, sold himself as someone able to make businesses more efficient:

Speedy Taylor, as he was called, had invented a new way to make money. He would get himself hired by some business; spend a while watching people work, stopwatch and slide rule in hand; write a report telling them how to do their work faster; and then submit an astronomical bill for his services. He is the “Father of Scientific Management” (it says so on his tombstone), and, by any rational calculation, the grandfather of management consulting.

The problem, as Lepore notes, is that Taylor was a fraud, and Taylorism’s grandchild, management consulting, is as well.

What does all this have to do with leveraged buyouts? Plenty. The entire rationale of the leveraged buyout is that the buyers can take a company with a lot of unrealized value and realize it. How? By making the company more “efficient.” The debt taken on to buy the company (and to reward the “buyers” with profits along the way) will, the argument goes, easily be paid off given the as yet unrealized efficiencies. Thus, we’ve had decades of “downsizing” (massive layoffs), “consolidations” (elimination of competing businesses), and arguments that advances in productivity brought about by our new technologies would redound to the benefit of all (when the only benefit would redound to whoever could pull the money out quickest).

We’ve been had.

At least we have one consolation — none of us have been alone in being conned. The focus of Lepore’s work is Louis Brandeis, someone I’ve always thought was a very bright guy and who against all evidence remained convinced his entire life that Scientific Management would benefit the working person:

Neither unions nor businesses have lived up to Brandeis’s optimism. “If the fruits of Scientific Management are directed into the proper channels,” he wrote, “the workingman will get not only a fair share, but a very large share, of the industrial profits arising from improved industry.” Lately, that share has been going to shareholders and C.E.O.s. Home and work, separated since the first stirrings of the Industrial Revolution, have been growing back together again: BlackBerry on the nightstand, toaster in the photocopy room. Efficiency was meant to lead to a shorter workday, but, in the final two decades of the twentieth century, the average American added a hundred and sixty-four hours of work in the course of a year; that’s a whole extra month’s time, but not, typically, a month’s worth of either happiness minutes or civic participation. Eating dinner standing up while nursing a baby, making a phone call to the office, and supervising a third grader’s homework is not, I don’t think, the hope of democracy.

You’ll also find worthwhile on this topic the New York Times video series entitled “Flipped: How Private Equity Dealmakers Can Win While Their Companies Lose“

A corporation is not a “person” (unless it buys the right to be treated that way).

There’s an interesting addendum to add to my post yesterday about the fact the Supreme Court in the campaign finance case it heard arguments on two days ago seems to be assuming without question that corporations are just like individuals when it comes to constitutional rights. In other words, the Court is assuming, if a limitation on campaign contributions is a limitation on First Amendment free speech rights, then a limitation on campaign contributions by corporations is unconstitutional.

The case on which everyone founds the concept that a corporation is a person entitled to constitutional protections afforded to individuals did not even decide that question. Rather, in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886), “[a]ccording to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County . . . that:

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.

The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court’s findings that

The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Thus it was that a two-sentence assertion by a single judge elevated corporations to the status of persons under the law, prepared the way for the rise of global corporate rule, and thereby changed the course of history.”

Moreover, the decision did not even rest on the constitutional assumption but, rather, on statutory grounds. Thus, Santa Clara County does not in any way stand for the proposition it is always relied on for — that corporations are persons for purposes of the individual rights protected by the Constitution.

It should be no great surprise that in 1886 the Court simply asserted without any consideration that a railroad was a legal person for constitutional purposes. It was a time when railroad companies owned the country. Who owns it now?

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

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

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

Donn -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

peter

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

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

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

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

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

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

Easy Case: Postage Stamp is Fair Use of Korean War Veterans Memorial

Over at the Art Law Blog, Donn Zaretsky points to Gaylord v. U.S. (pdf), in which the court held that a postage stamp (pictured at right) that reproduces a photograph of many of the 19 stainless steel soldier sculptures that are part of the Korean War Veterans Memorial (pictured at left below) located n Washington, D.C. did not infringe the copyright in the sculptures.

The court found that the stamp was transformative enough to merit fair use protection because the photograph it used “transformed [the sculpture's] expressionand message, creating a surrealistic environment with snow and subdued lighting.” Zaretsky writes that this is “[n]ot a particularly tough standardto meet.” The first problem with the post is that regardless of whetherZaretsky believes the standard is “tough” enough, it is the standard courts apply in determining the “originality” of an allegedly infringing work.

Worse, though, Zaretsky states that the case is “another good example of how you can make the traditional four-factor fair use analysis do whatever you want it to do.” He cites as authority for this damnation of the law Judge Kozinski of the 7th Circuit Court of appeals, who has said that the 4-factor test applied to fair use “can always go in either direction.”

I think Zaretsky’s be;ief that the 4-factor test can support any position is ridiculous. Granted, determinations on the edge are difficult and plainly depend on a case by case judgment, but judgments as to whether (a) the new work is sufficiently transformative to stand on its own without exploiting the market created by the original work and (2) whether the new work has or threatens an adverse impact on the market for the original work are not the arbitrary decisions you assert they are. That’s the way much of law works — it’s a function of better and worse arguments, not bright lines that offer easy predictability. To accept Kozinski’s statement as the truth is to dismiss an enormous amount of law as the utterly rudderless and arbitrary imposition of power. I’ve practiced and taught law too long to believe that’s what it is.

Moreover, the sculpture allegedly infringed by the stamp, called “The Column,” is not, as Zaretsky asserts, a “good example” of the 4-factor test’s arbitrary nature. In fact, it’s an excellent example of a situation in which the 4-factor test leads pretty easily to the conclusion reached by the court. The court’s conclusion that the stamp significantly reworks the sculpture is pretty convincing. Looking at the stamp you can’t tell you’re looking at figures that originate in a sculpture, and other than the figures themselves the entire image set forth on the stamp is not present in the sculpture. Moreover, it’s laughable to suggest the stamp adversely affects the value of the sculpture. And if you want to look at the other factors, those too are pretty convincingly on the side of fair use: the sculpture is public art and therefore is constantly viewed for free. Moreover, it was done for the government, which, last I heard, is one of the people, by the people, and for the people. Finally, the stamp itself is a governmental product — in other words, it’s a non-profit product.

In making the accusation that the fair use analysis employed by the courts is entirely arbitrary without having engaged in any analysis of his own to suggest the ways in which the analysis might support the sculptor Zaretsky may be acting in a disingenuous fashion. But I suspect what he is really bemoaning is that the fair use test is so case specific it is difficult for artists to know exactly whether, in appropriating copyrighted works, they are acting in legitimate or infringing ways. It is a very fair common complaint. I have yet to see, however, any test that would better draw the line. More importantly, the test is one developed by our courts on a case by case basis for over one hundred years. While it is now embodied as a statute in the 1976 Copyright Act, the legislative history of that act makes clear that the statutory language is meant to incorporate that court-made common law, not supplant it, and courts are not limited to considering those 4 factors in making their fair use determinations.

Applying the law to the facts — where empathy must be part of judging.

There’s been a lot of argument recently about President Obama’s rather innocuous statement that “empathy” is a big part of judging. Thus, I wasn’t surprised that Sonia Sotomayor insisted that all she does is apply the law to the facts in acting as a judge. And, in fact, one of the things I’ve been impressed by in her decisions and statements is her emphasis on facts. Too many law professors and commentators focus on the law as a set of abstract principles and theories rather than what it is — the judgment of how the laws apply to the specific circumstances of the specific case they happen to be judging.

But I think it’s precisely in the importance of facts that empathy does play a part. One judge will consider a given fact crucial, while another judge won’t, and that difference will make a difference in judicial outcomes. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s requirement of a government-issued identification card to vote. The majority opinion, written by Justice Stevens and joined by Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts (he who told the Senate in his confirmation hearings that he judges by merely “calling balls and strikes”), stated that “the fact that public transportation is not available in some Indiana counties tells us nothing about how often elderly and indigent citizens have an opportunity to obtain a photo identification at the BMV, either during a routine outing with family or friends or during a special visit to the BMV arranged by a civic or political group such as the League of Women Voters or a political party.” In his concurring opinion, Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, wrote that “[t]he burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not “‘even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.’”

In contrast, in one of the dissenting opinions in the case, Justice Breyer considered the burden imposed by the voter i.d. requirement far more significant, seeming to perhaps even “emphasize” with specific types of voters:

For one thing, an Indiana nondriver, most likely to be poor, elderly, or disabled, will find it difficult and expensive to travel to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, particularly if he or she resides in one of the many Indiana counties lacking a public transportation system. See ante, at 6-7 (Souter, J., dissenting) (noting that out of Indiana’s 92 counties, 21 have no public transportation system at all and 32 others restrict public transportation to regional county service). For another, many of these individuals may be uncertain about how to obtain the underlying documentation, usually a passport or a birth certificate, upon which the statute insists. And some may find the costs associated with these documents unduly burdensome (up to $12 for a copy of a birth certificate; up to $100 for a passport). By way of comparison, this Court previously found unconstitutionally burdensome a poll tax of $1.50 (less than $10 today, inflation-adjusted). See Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 664 n. 1, 666 (1966); ante, at 30 (Souter, J., dissenting). Further, Indiana’s exception for voters who cannot afford this cost imposes its own burden: a postelection trip to the county clerk or county election board to sign an indigency affidavit after each election. See ante, at 8-10 (same).

Both sides are looking at facts. Both sides are applying the same rules (which require, among other things, looking at the burden imposed by the state by its requirements for voters). They are coming to very different views of the matter. Is empathy at work? Of course it is, but it is inescapable too.

Manny Garcia’s own words betray the weakness of his case.

Manny Garcia, who actually shot the photo at issue in the lawsuit between Shepard Fairey and the Associated Press — the photo that allegedly was the source of Shepard Fairey’s Obama Hope poster — is intervening in that lawsuit on the grounds that he, not AP, owns the copyright in the photo. On page 5 of the brief in support of his motion he makes clear he is arguing too that Fairey infringed his alleged copyright in the photo he shot.

I’ve said it before — one of the best ways to defeat an adversary in litigation is to use his own words against him. Garcia now seems to think there’s a principle he has to defend in arguing that Fairey’s poster infringed his copyright in his photograph. AP also thinks Fairey’s work was an infringement but that it owns the copyright in the photograph on the grounds that it was a “work for hire.” Be that as it may, if Garcia thinks Fairey’s work is sufficiently transformative that it stands on its own as an original work, that would be pretty harmful to his and AP’s arguments, wouldn’t it?

Well, for a long time Garcia himself didn’t realize Fairey’s poster might’ve been made from his photograph. As Scene on the Road reported last January, Garcia, after learning that many thought his photo was the original source said, “I’ve been on the campaign for twenty something months, so I would see the artwork, I would photograph it, and think what is with this image? But it didn’t snap. It never occurred to me it was my picture.” (emphasis added)

Moreover, he said he wasn’t interested in a lawsuit because he understood that artists create by remixing the “things” around them:

[Garcia] was quick to add he is not mad at Fairey, and he’s not looking at any lawsuits. “I know artists like to look at things; they see things and they make stuff. It’s a really cool piece of work. I wouldn’t mind getting a signed litho or something from the artist to put up on my wall.”

So let’s see: Garcia didn’t recognize his own photo was the source of Fairey’s work even after regularly seeing and photographing Fairey’s poster. In fact, it took someone else to point out that Garcia’s work might have been the source. And Garcia himself thinks Fairey’s poster is “a really cool piece of work” and knows “artists” work by doing what Fairey allegedly did with his photo. I don’t know how better to identify and define a work that stands on its own as an original piece of art.

But later, in an interview with NPR’s Terry Gross at the end of February, Garcia seemed to be singing a different tune, saying that Fairey had taken something “that didn’t belong to him”:

Initially when I found out, I was disappointed in the fact that, you know, someone had – was able to go onto the Internet and take something that doesn’t belong to them and then use it. I think that that part of this whole story is crucial for people to understand that simply because it’s on the Internet doesn’t mean it’s free for the taking, and just because you can take it, doesn’t mean it belongs to you.

So which was it Manny — your first take that what Fairey did was “cool,” that you’d like to have a “signed litho,” and that Fairey had merely done what artists do in taking and reworking the photo, or your second take that he had taken something that didn’t belong to him and used it? And why was it you didn’t recognize the poster was taken from your photo?