Cuckoo Kookabura Continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Princeton values money-grubbing over open contribution to current political debate.

Whether or not it is merited, there is considerable political import being attributed to Elena Kagan’s college thesis, a study of the collapse of Socialism as a political movement in the U.S. in the early decades of the 20th Century. On the far right, the thesis is being touted as proof that “Elena Kagan is an open and avowed socialist.” Slightly less conclusory, the Weekly Standard acknowledges that “[o]bviously, one imagines that Kagan’s views have evolved significantly over the last three decades” since her work as an undergraduate, but asserts that “it’s certainly worth noting the radical roots of the nation’s top lawyer.”

What is this evidence of the “radical roots” of Elena Kagan’s thinking? In the conclusion of the 130 page undergraduate paper that describes the political dissolution of the organized socialist political movement in New York City during the first couple of decades of the 1900s — largely due to the conflicts the Socialists came into with the Communists —  she wrote:

In our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States. Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness. Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation. Why, in a society by no means perfect, has a radical party never attained the status of a major political force? Why, in particular, did the socialist movement never become an alternative to the nation’s established parties? . . .

Through its own internal feuding, then, the [Socialist Party] exhausted itself forever and further reduced labor radicalism in New York to the position of marginality and insignificance from which it has never recovered. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America. Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe. Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.

Ben Smith of Politico concludes that the thesis is written “from a general sympathetic position,” but that really what it all adds up to is her “practical minded conclusion” that “for those who . . . still wish to change America” the lesson is “[i]n unity lies their only hope.”  Smith concludes that “if there is a takeaway for the Kagan of today, I think it’s that practical-minded conclusion, and the sense that she is, in the end — and like Obama — a very practical pol.”

Andrew Leonard takes an even more pro-Kagan view of the thesis, concluding that it proves her “a superb writer who grounds her argument in scrupulous attention to historical detail.” Leonard, while he may be over-inflating the importance of undergraduate work, at least recognizes that the thesis cannot be viewed as propaganda but, instead, involves a complicated history completely ignored by those who would reduce political debate to simplistic labels like “socialist” or “fascist” or “conservative” or “liberal.” The history Kagan addressed in her thesis involved the fight against the truly atrocious labor standards faced by U.S. factory workers, and to ignore that context and how far we’ve come would be to engage in stupidity. Leonard writes:

Kagan makes a pretty good case that sectarian bickering and factionalism doomed the Socialist Party to irrelevance. The leaders of the New York Socialist Party embraced a moderate, accommodationist approach to improving worker conditions that put them at odds with rank-and-file workers who tended to be more militant. This made it easy for Communist Party organizers to infiltrate the garment worker unions and challenge the Socialist Party leadership’s control. Ultimately, a disastrously mishandled strike destroyed the credibility of both the Socialist and Communist factions, and worker demands for better conditions were sublimated into Roosevelt’s New Deal.

It would be stupid to infer what I believe now from what I wrote as an Ivy League senior in 1981. Yes, I’m Kagan’s precise contemporary. It is also stupid to run fearfully under the cover of words like “socialism” and “radicalism” without understanding that the history of a century ago that Kagan did write about nearly 30 years ago involved fights against injustice in which almost everyone in this country today would side with the “socialists” and “radicals.” I don’t think we want to return to the days when labor in this country was treated the way labor is in, say, China today.

But perhaps the stupidest thing of all is this: as Techdirt reports, Princeton has asserted that distribution of the thesis infringes the university’s copyright in it and has demanded that it be taken down from sites that have posted it.  ”The University is selling copies of her thesis, and apparently the commercial value just shot up:

It has been brought to my attention that you have posted Elena Kagan’s senior thesis online…. Copies provided by the Princeton University Archives are governed by U.S. Copyright Law and are for private individual use only. Any electronic distribution is prohibited, as noted on the first page of the copy that is on your website. Therefore I request that you remove it immediately before further action is taken.

Even assuming the newsworthiness of the thesis, its age, the youth and inexperience of its author and other factors do not make posting the thesis a non-infringing fair use, Princeton’s move is just stupid. One year ago, Princeton’s endowment was nearly $13 billion. Money-grubbing over a few bucks to be made on a new-found asset in the undergraduate work of a student from 30 years ago hardly seems a worthy of an institution that prides itself on conferring true genuine education to its student body and wisdom to the world.

Art builds on art, be it Shepard Fairey’s Obama Hope poster or the re-tellings of myths and legends.

I have made clear, at length, my view that Shepard Fairey’s Obama Hope poster is a legitimate, non-infringing fair use of the photo Fairey appropriated as its source material. But I think Fairey himself expresses well in this interview from The Knowledge the basis of that belief, that the very nature of a lot of art (and, I might argue, all art) is to build on and refer to pieces of the culture in which we live and that without the freedom to appropriate pieces of that culture in ways that don’t merely exploit the value the creators of those pieces themselves have built we will diminish our culture. Fairey explains:

“I do think that copyrights and intellectual property are important—it’s important to be able to keep people from making verbatim copies of a particular creation that could somehow hurt the creator. If I spend time conceiving and making a piece of art and somebody else sees that it has market value and replicates it in order to steal part of my market, then that’s not cool. But the way I make art—the way a lot of people make art—is as an extension of language and communication, where references are incredibly important. It’s about making a work that is inspired by something preexisting but changes it to have a new value and meaning that doesn’t in any way take away from the original—and, in fact, might provide the original with a second life or a new audience.”

He goes on to explain, in terms that are very personal to me, the implications of an alternative view, often referred to as a position in favor of “strong” copyright protection”:

“The problem with copyright enforcement is that when the parameters aren’t incredibly well defined, it means big corporations, who have deeper pockets and better lawyers, can bully people. I don’t want to start making enemies in the corporate world, but there are plenty of cases. For example, there is a tradition of certain fairy tales being reinterpreted, and now, all of a sudden, a big corporation that has a mouse on its logo decides it’s going to copyright these fairy tales, which ends the cycle of these things being reinterpreted. What happens with these big entertainment companies is that they start to get a monopoly on the creation of culture. But I think that the more people participate in the creation of culture, the richer the culture becomes. In the case of the Obama poster, I was just exercising my First Amendment rights—and my free speech is exercised visually. People who want to talk or write in order to share an opinion about Obama can do that, but when I want to say what I think about him, I need to make a portrait. And if I can’t make a picture based on a reference because all references are copyrighted, then my only options are to pay a licensing fee—and possibly be turned down because the person licensing the image doesn’t agree with my political viewpoint—or to try to get a personal sitting with Barack Obama to make a portrait of him, which presents its own obstacles. So I don’t think all this is good for free speech.”

This is a personal matter because my sister, Amy Friedman, writer and teacher extordinaire, has for twenty years written on a weekly basis versions of fairy tales, folk tales, and legends from around the world and throughout history, an enormous corpus of work that is syndicated by Universal Press Syndicates under the name Tell me a Story (entire archive available). Needless to say, copyright concerns throughout this decades long endeavor, only one of many in which she engages, have been foremost in her mind, but there has never been any doubt either that her stories, while based on pre-existing creations from as many cultures and as many times as are virtually conceivable, are legitimate art in their own right and, therefore, enjoy their own copyright protection.

Amy’s story is important in another way. Not only would the Disney’s of the world co-opt the subject matter she makes her own, but she also is an artist in the truest sense. She is not a best-selling author. No one I’ve ever known works harder, and working at making a living as a writer, as she always has, is as difficult a task as one would wish upon a sister. She doesn’t depend on her copyrights to make her living — she depends on delivering a product that consumers want, whether they be students or parents who want wonderful audio stories for their kids. People like Mark Halperin, rich best-selling author and conservative pundit, , who bitch about copyright protection don’t know what they’re talking about. They live in an age in which digital information can be remixed and distributed worldwide by anyone with a laptop and an internet connection, an age in which their views of authorship and artistic production are, in a word, outmoded. The real artists are people like Amy, who eke out a living (one whose comfort level she expresses no complaints about).

Will the film, music, and publishing industries oppose Kagan’s nomination?

It will be interesting to see whether the film, music, and publishing industries generate or fund any opposition to Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. As the Hollywood Reporter states, the entertainment industry’s “worry about Kagan might be her philosophy on intellectual property matters. As dean of Harvard Law School from 2003 to 2009, she was instrumental in beefing up the school’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society by recruiting Lawrence Lessig and others who take a strongly liberal position on ‘fair use’ in copyright disputes.” Later, as Obama’s Solicitor General, she successfully argued against Supreme Court review of a 2d Circuit decision, opposed by the entertainment industry, that allowed Cablevision subscribers to store television programs they had recorded on the cable providers servers rather than on the subscribers’ own, in-home boxes. In the brief she filed in the Supreme Court opposing review, she emphasized the importance to the decision of fair use principles. The parties to the lawsuit had decided that fair use should not be considered in the case. Kagan therefore therefore argued that the case was not an appropriate vehicle for Supreme Court review of the issues raised by Cablevision’s actions:

When a subscriber engages in time shifting, recording the program and playing it back are two sides of the same coin. If fair-use principles would excuse a cable company from liability for unauthorized reproduction when an RS-DVR system copies and stores a program on a hard disk at a subscriber’s behest, the same principles might excuse the company from liability for unauthorized public performance when the system transmits the program to the subscriber for playback. Here too, the parties’ agreement to litigate the case without reference to fair-use principles has elevated to great importance a question that otherwise might have been insignificant. Brief for the U.S. in Cable News Network, Inc. v. C.S.C. Holdings at 14 (footnote omitted).

Challenging automated YouTube takedowns (and don’t forget to think through the ramifications)

Chris Walters at The Consumerist provides an excellent account of the whys and wherefores of takedowns of YouTube videos.  In addition to explaining why YouTube’s automated Content ID tracking system results in the kind of baseless deletions I referred to the other day, Walters also explains that “[Y]ou can dispute any Content ID claim. If you have a clip that’s been targeted, you’ll see a notice about it on your YouTube account page. From there you can access a dispute page where you can affirm that you believe your clip falls under fair use, and the clip will immediately become public again. The copyright holder will receive notice that you’ve disputed the clip, and must then decide to leave you alone, send a DMCA takedown notice, or sue.”

Importantly, too, he explains that you want to give some thought to the ramifications of disputing an automated takedown: “There are legal ramifications to this, which YouTube hints at and the EFF explains very clearly. If you decide to fight copyright abuse by a large company, you should make sure that you’re on the right side of the fight, that you have a sensible chance of winning a possible lawsuit, and that you’re willing to assume the financial risk. All three of those determinations probably require some serious meetings with a lawyer.”

On the other hand, any copyright owner sending a takedown notice ought to consider the legal ramifications of doing so, since a baseless one relying on the power to outspend an individual fair use claimant might have its own legal downside.

The Copyright Police find out there are Hitler Parodies.

From PC World:

YouTube has recently begun removing videos that feature content from Constantin Films’ 2004 film, “Der Untergang” (“Downfall”), despite the fact that many of these videos are parodies and thus constitute fair use of the material.

This video says it all:

I’m sorry to report to lawyers and law students this version has been taken down:

Why has Girl Talk not been sued? You won’t find the answer at SXSW.

You might think that the expert-filled session at the SXSW Festival on “Why the Recording Industry Hasn’t Sued Girl Talk?” and the Texas Observer’s reporting on the session might come up with more profound (and unfounded) statements than the Observer’s unqualified declaration that ‘[T]he totally fascinating upshot of all this is that it turns out that what Girl Talk is doing is definitely NOT legal.”

But why should a bunch of critics and experts who feel they’re at the center of the music universe down in Austin Texas put more thought into the issue than that? Any regular reader of this blog (and many less-than-regular readers) know that I have written extensively on why I believe Girl Talk has not been sued. And it’s not because what Girl Talk is doing “is definitely NOT legal.” One might wonder too why the legal and music experts at SXSW think the legal regime that requires a license for any recorded sample, no matter now brief, is as well-founded in the actual law as they seem to assume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photographing public art: a persistent fair use problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Archers Daniel Midland abuses copyright law to censor criticism — corporations have the right to free speech, but not the people who criticize them?

Some corporations apparently believe in free speech for themselves but not for individuals. The first video below is a deadly dull piece of propagandistic pap in which Patricia A. Woertz, Chairman, President and CEO of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), USA drones on (someone get her better training for dealing with the media!) about ADM’s profound importance to feeding the world. The piece was produced in advance of the recent Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

ADM has, top it mildly, been the subject of considerable ire, criticism, and even criminal prosecution for price fixing (the subject of Matt Damon’s recent film The Informant and Fair Fight in the Marketplace, an excerpt of which appears below’s Woertz’s blathering), political corruption, destruction of the rainforests, and the forced labor of children.

A couple of days ago I posted on my Facebook page what I thought was a hilarious edit of the Woertz video in which some of her original words were retained and many were dubbed over to make it appear as if she were speaking openly on behalf of an evil multinational bent on the gross and horrific exploitation of the world and especially of multinational food markets. I thought it was hilarious piece of political critique. No one could have mistaken it as an “official” ADM production, but plainly it hit a nerve at ADM.

Today I noticed that when I click on the video on my Facebook profile a message appears that it is “no longer available due to a copyright claim by Archers Daniel Midland Company” and that if I click through to YouTube there’s no page for the video at all, not even a page with the same empty video box and takedown message.

This is outright copyright abuse. Criticism is fair use. When anyone asks whether in fact fair use is grounded in the Constitution’s guarantee of free speech, all you need is to think of a situation like this — one can appropriate copyrighted works to criticize and parody the copyright holder. And to use the copyright laws to silence that critique has nothing to do with protecting intellectual property and the rights of a creator to profit from his, her, or its creation: it’s unconstitutional censorship! (Peter Bouchard wrote a good summary yesterday on ” The Battle against Bogus Takedowns, a topic I’ve touched on in the past.”

AP shoots itself (twice) in the Copyright Wars.

The Associated Press occupies a controversial place in the so-called “Copyright Wars,” and it certainly isn’t making many friends anywhere in recent news. First, on December 31 of last year, AP filed its Amended Answer to Complaints, Crossclaim, Counterclaim., and a cross claim against Mannie Garcia. In that document, AP contends that it, not Garcia, owns the copyright in the photograph Garcia took of then candidate Obama that Shepard Fairey subsequently used as the source material for the (in)famous Hope poster. AP’s contention rests on the assertion that Garcia was acting within his the scope of his duties as a staff photographer for AP when he shot the photo and that it therefore constituted a “work for hire.”

There are, I think, two sets of allegations in AP’s latest filing that are interesting in terms of whether Fairey’s use of the photograph as source material for the poster constituted a non-infringing fair use. First, AP states that Garcia was sent to the event at which he shot the photo by AP in order to take photos such as the disputed one. Second, AP states that Garcia sent “several” of those photos to AP and that AP chose the photo it decided ultimately to publish. One might think these allegations reduce the extent to which Garcia can claim the shot was one so much of his own choosing. He was assigned to take the shots he took, he took a lot of them, and AP, not Garcia, chose the one that fit its purposes best.

AP also goes right after Garcia, accusing him in its counter-claim of committing fraud in registering his own copyright in the photo on the grounds that AP’s ownership of that copyright under the work for hire doctrine was so plain that Garcia knew he at the time he filed the copyright registration that he wasn’t entitled to do so. It might not be the only accusation of dishonesty hurled at Garcia in this case.

Meanwhile, AP, of course, has been quite vocal about voicing its contention that “news aggregators” infringe AP’s copyrights on a regular basis. No matter your view on the legitimacy of the infringement claim, there’s lots of reason to believe that AP’s stance is bad business. Google seems to have been a principal target of AP’s complaints, and yet shutting Google off (something, incidentally, AP could do at any time) would seem likely to drive traffic away from AP’s stories.

Well, Google seems to have called AP’s bluff. The Guardian reports that “it has become apparent that new Associated Press stories are no longer appearing on the site, which has hosted them since 2007. Google hasn’t added new AP content since December 24.“

DJ Earworm – United State of Pop 2009 (Blame It on the Pop) – Mashup of Top 25 Billboard Hits

Is a music video with no original content “transformative” if I like it better  than any of the top 25 hits of the year it samples and it explains partly why that is? I think so.

Breathlessly waiting for Murdoch to be sued . . . or wither on the web?

The Kwika Entertainment Blog (reprinting a piece from the Huffington Post) breathlessly announces that “if Microsoft and [Rupert Murdoch's] News Corp. go forward with a deal whereby News Corp. demands that Google stop indexing its websites, don’t be surprised if it leads to one of the most important copyright lawsuits in history.”

Don’t bet on it.

Google’s display of snippets from News Corp’s web pages for search engine purposes is almost certainly fair use. Can you imagine a Google snippet ever serving as a substitute for the original? If not, then the snippet is fair use. And copying the entire site for the sake of creating the snippet is fair use too.

The idiotic part of Murdoch’s move would be that, assuming Google allows Murdoch’s publications to “opt-out” of Google (as Google does for any site — all you have to do is insert some code into your site to exclude your site from Google’s indexing), the result will be that Murdoch’s publications will lose all that traffic Google generates. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Murdoch has always had the option to opt out of Google. The other stupid player here might be Microsoft — why pay to index something that will only be losing readership?

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:

Cukoo Kookaburra copyright claim

In 1980, Men at Work released Down Under, and in 1981 it was a #1 song in Australia, Britain, and the U.S. In 2007, 26 years later, a game show contestant identified Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree as the nursery rhyme the song’s riff was based on. The contestant needed prompting. It’s no surprise he had trouble thinking about where the tune had come from. As the Sydney Morning Herald reports, “[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 that didn’t stop the copyright holder from suing Men at Work, despite the fact it had bought the rights to Kookaburra in the 1980s “when it bought them for $6100 from the family of its late composer, Toorak School teacher Marion Sinclair.” In fact, one of its managing director’s jobs was to track down unauthorized uses — it’s a wonder he hasn’t yet gotten to the school chorus version below.

The mere fact the use went unnoticed for so long is itself, I think, evidence that its use in Down Under is fair use. If something is so transformed that it isn’t noticed even in a #1 hit, it must be transformative, right? I think Shepard Fairey’s Obama Hope poster is fair use for a similar reason — the photographer himself didn’t realize the poster was based on his own photograph. Copyright claims like the one against Men at Work pervert the very basis of so much we call creative. As the Morning Herald states, “The reuse of riffs is as old as rock’n'roll. And it’s a good thing, according to Martin Armiger, former member of the Sports and composer of music for The Secret Life of Us and Young Einstein. The 1955 hit Louie Louie by Richard Berry became the template for hundreds of songs including the Troggs’ Wild Thing and the Beatles’ Twist and Shout, he pointed out in his expert evidence for Men at Work and EMI.”

Or, as the KLF puts it, “Every Number One song ever written is only made up from bits from other songs.”

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.

RiP! A Remix Manifesto

Filmmaker Brett Gaylor’s RiP! A Remix Manifesto, now available on Hulu.

In an interview conducted by Rebecca Harper, Gaylor, among many other things, discussed the inspiration he drew from Brazilian culture, which apparently suffers no anxiety from the recognition that creativity is inherently built on earlier creation:

[A]s I made the film, I had to amass a lot of knowledge about copyright law. Maybe not what surprised me, but certainly what inspired me was the history of appropriation in Brazil, and how going back to the very beginning of Brazilian culture, there was this history of fair use and appropriation. And you know, we have that in North American culture, as well, with things like the Blues and obviously hip-hop. But what really struck me about Brazilian culture was how recognized it was, and how there was this culture that seemed to be built on taking influences of Europe, of North America, of their native cultures, and sort of putting them in this big pot and making a stew. That was really inspiring, and I read the works of a Brazilian poet and modernist called Oswald de Andrade. He wrote this thing called The Cannibalist Manifesto, which was basically saying that Brazilian culture needed to eat and ingest the cultures of the world to regurgitate and create something new. I just thought that was a really great metaphor for the digital age and postmodernism. That’s why I decided to go to Brazil and spend a good amount of time there.

Aural Collage and the Law

Click on the picture below to see my PowerPoint presentation from last week’s COSE Arts Forum on Intellectual Property and the Arts.

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?