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.

AP doth protest too much, methinks.

It’s interesting how often the people who scream the loudest about a problem are the ones who in fact are vulnerable to precisely the criticism they are voicing.  I’m no psychologist, though you clearly need no professional degree to understand that zealotry apparent certainty can betray insecurity. AP has of late been rather extreme in its rush to protect its rights in copyrighted material. Now AP seems poised to take on Google’s contention that it is engaged in non-infringing fair use when it engages in its regular practice of displaying the headline and lead paragraph, along with credit and a direct link, of the news stories published by, among others, AP.

As Larry Dignan points out on ZDNet, AP regularly — a lot, every day — reports stories that are based purely on other public sources without either acknowledging or linking to those sources.  He concludes that “once folks figure out they can damn near replicate most of the AP just by finding source material things are going to get ugly quickly.”

Collage is art, not theft.

From Negativeland, whom I’ve previously mentioned as a precursor to Girl Talk:

[F]rom an artistic point of view, it is ponderously delusional to try to paint all these new forms of fragmentary sampling as economically motivated “theft”, “piracy”, or “bootlegging”. We reserve these terms for the unauthorized taking of whole works and reselling them for one’s own profit. Artists who routinely appropriate, on the other hand, are not attempting to profit from the marketability of their subjects at all. They are using elements, fragments, or pieces of someone else’s created artifact in the creation of a new one for artistic reasons. These elements may remain identifiable, or they may be transformed to varying degrees as they are incorporated into the new creation, where there may be many other fragments all in a new context, forming a new “whole”. This becomes a new “original”, neither reminiscent of nor competitive with any of the many “originals” it may draw from. This is also a brief description of collage techniques which have developed throughout this century, and which are universally celebrated as artistically valid, socially aware, and conceptually stimulating to all, it seems, except perhaps those who are “borrowed” from.

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

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

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

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

Now Shepard Fairey sues AP

The AP/Shepard  Fairey showdown continues.  The New York Times reports:

In a pre-emptive strike, the street artist Shepard Fairey filed a lawsuit on Monday against The Associated Press, asking a federal judge to declare that he is protected from copyright infringement claims in his use of a news photograph as the basis for a now ubiquitous campaign poster image of President Obama. . . .

Mr. Fairey’s lawyers, including Anthony T. Falzone, the executive director of the Fair Use Project and a law lecturer at Stanford University, contend in the suit that Mr. Fairey used the photograph only as a reference and transformed it into a “stunning, abstracted and idealized visual image that created powerful new meaning and conveys a radically different message” from that of the shot Mr. Garcia [the photographer] took.

Further complicating the matter is the fact that “Mr. Garcia contends that he, not the Associated Press, owns the copyright for the photo.” Mr. Garcia also states, “‘If you put all the legal stuff away, I’m so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it’s had.’”

Mr. Garcia might want to put the “legal stuff away,” but,  as I’ve written,  “the legal stuff” is precisely what Mr. Garcia is talking about when he talks about what  Mr. Fairey did artistically  with the photo and that the effect his artistic transformation of the photo had.  That Fairey so transformed the photo into something that changed the stencil of a generic wire service campaign photo into an iconic image is a huge part of why legally what he did is perfectly legitimate. So, while Mr. Garcia might “not condone people taking things, just because they can, off the Internet,” what Mr. Garcia condones or does not condone is really what is not the “legal stuff.”

When does appropriation serve creativity? Quite often, in fact.

A commenter to yesterday’s post on Shepard Fairey’s Obama poster has suggested that I don’t believe in copyright because I believe that, even though Fairey created his image by initially tracing a copyrighted photo, the changes he made to the image and its re-contextualization within the campaign poster might well be sufficiently transformative to make his work non-infringing fair use.  In fact, I’d go so far as to say I genuinely believe Fairey’s image is a creative work in its own right even though it derives from another work.

In that regard, it’s worth noting that Henry McKervey and Declan Long, in “Makers and Takers: Art and the Appropriation of Ideas, write::

[I]t is the expression of an idea which is subject to legal protection. While perhaps this has meant that an artist such as Gillian Wearing can be faced with difficulties over the unattributed re-application of her work, the law also could be said to give artists a relative amount of freedom to take and re-use material in any number of subtly different ways without the spectre of plagiarism remaining ever-present. In a work such as Douglas Gordon’s 24 Hour Psycho, for instance, there is in one sense very little of the artist’s ‘own’ work (Hitchcock’s classic thriller being merely re-played at a radically slowed-down pace) yet Gordon’s intervention makes for a powerful, transformative artistic statement. The question of “knowing originality when you see it” is almost beside the point in cases such as this: artists’ strategies of appropriation prompt questions of originality to become thematically intriguing on, one level, while also being critically irrelevant and, on occasion, inappropriate, on another.

Believing that genuinely transformative appropriation is legitimate does not imply I do not believe in copyright.  It means, rather, that I believe that copyright should serve the only purpose it constitutionally is meant to serve: increased invention and creativity.

And did anyone notice that the John Williams composition played at the inauguration, “Air and Simple Gifts,” borrowed heavily from Aaron Copland’s Appalachian Spring, which itself appropriated a Shaker hymn?

Colbert, remixed!

An appeal in the Harry Potter Lexicon case?

More on the Harry Potter Lexicon, which a few days ago was ruled to infringe J.K. Rowling’s copyright: the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University announced that its Citizen Media Law Project will “work closely” with a Right to Write, a new non-profit, to to help support creative artists faced with legal threats or lawsuits. Right to Write links to an article written by Anthony Falzone, the Executive Director of the Stanford Fair Use Project, in which Falzone writes, “Needless to say we’re disappointed [in the decision holding the Harry Potter Lexicon infringed Rowling's copyright], as is our client, RDR Books. Careful and thoughtful as the decision is, we think it’s wrong. So stay tuned to see where we go from here.”

Sounds to me like there will be an appeal.