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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Why the music industry won’t sue certain samplers such as Girl Talk and the producers of Copyright Criminals.

I’ve discussed extensively in the past (most prominently, perhaps, here) my view regarding the music industry’s view that considers any unlicensed sample of a copyrighted recording, no matter how small and how transformed, a copyright infringement. In short, I think it likely the case law on which that view is based would be overturned if it is challenged in any case in which the sampling is used in a way sufficiently transformative that the sampling work stands on its own as a creative work. In short, that’s why I don’ t think Girl Talk has been sued.

Transformative uses of copyrighted work are permitted under the fair use doctrine, and so are critical uses. That’s why I don’t think Kembrew McLeod needs to worry about a lawsuit in connection with the documentary film he co-produced “titled Copyright Criminals, which examines the messy three-way collision between digital technology, musical collage, and intellectual property law.” So why does McLeod worry? Because he’s right in explaining the following:

The music industry believed that the law didn’t distinguish between copying one second or half a minute of a sound recording. Therefore, record companies now insist that every fragment of sound needs to be cleared, something that fundamentally altered the aural evolution of hip-hop music. The more complex you make your sound collage, the more impossible it is to share with the world. And in the course of documenting the legal and cultural history of this art form, Ben [McLeod's co-producer] and I are risking being sued.

But if McLeod is willing to fight a lawsuit — and I think he is — the recording industry won’t sue him. The existing precedents requiring licensing of every single recorded sample would be overturned, and the record industry would lost the appearance created by these precedents, an appearance that makes the vast, vast majority of samplers pay license fees for their samples. It’s better business for the industry to let the occasional brave and creative soul feel as if he’s getting away with something than to have the industry’s precious — and ill-founded — legal precedents put at genuine risk.

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.

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.”

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.”

Girl Talk on Remix Culture

Gregg Gillis, a/k/a Girl Talk, spoke with fans online via the Globe and Mail on his work:

I believe in what I’m doing, so at this point, the fact that there has been no problems feels great.   Some of those national publications like to write stories and make it seem like me or Illegal Art are a bunch of idiots, like we just don’t give a fuck and that’s why we’re releasing the music.   Completely ignoring the whole idea of Fair Use. It’s definitely not under the radar any more.   That was the point I was trying to make. But times are changing. The way the general public views intellectual property in 2009 is much different than in 1999. Look around the internet.   So much content comes from pre-existing media. We’re used to it now. Christian Bale goes crazy on the set of T4.   That turns into a techno song, which then turns into a cartoon on YouTube, which will then turn into a T-shirt. Everyone is constantly exchanging ideas and building upon previously existing material.  So the idea of a remix being a real artform is being validated in our culture every day.

Lessig’s Conversation of Remix – fair use? Warner Music doesn’t think so.

Lawrence Lessig’s lecture on remix culture, posted to YouTube, was the subject of a DMCA takedown notice by Warner Music. As Lessig explains, “Apparently, YouTube’s content-ID algorithm had found music in the video that they claimed ownership to.” The uploader’s protest to the takedown notice was apparently successful, which reinstates the video while Google reviews the legitimacy of the fair use claim against Warner Music’s copyright infringement claim.  Lessig’s blog post, along with the entirety of his lecture, is here.  Below is the segement that was blocked and is, for now, restored:

Here’s more on DJ Danger Mouse’s Grey Album. And more on Girl Talk here, here, and here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is republication of Mark Cuban’s tweet on Twitter non-infringing? Almost certainly it is.

Mark Cuban asks:

Here is a question for all you legal scholars out there. Is a tweet copyrightable? Is a tweet copyrighted by default when its published ? Can there possibly be a fair use exception for something that is only 140 characters or less ?

Well, sure, a “tweet” might be protected by copyright. The more creative it is, the more powerful is the protection. Cuban wouldn’t be wondering whether a 140 character poem by William Carlos Williams could be protected by copyright.

The question would only come up, though, if the author of the tweet was claiming someone had infringed his copyright. If Cuban, for example, claimed ESPN were infringing the copyright in his tweet, I strongly suspect the use would be a non-infringing fair use. Nevertheless, my ultimate conclusion would require consideration of the specific message Cuban is talking about and application of the specific facts in dispute under the appicable analysis:

(1) What is the nature and character of the allegedly infringing use? The more creative it is in its own right or the more it is an instance of the type of expression protected by the First Amendment (journalism or political speech, for example), the more likely it is to be a non-infringing fair use. The fact ESPN, an outlet for sports journalism, would be transmitting the words of Mark Cuban, the owner of a sports franchise (the Dallas Mavericks of the NBA), makes it seem more likely ESPN is engaged in legitimate journalism . . . , but

(2) What is the nature of the copyrighted work? The more creative or journalistic or political the expression, the less likely use of it without permission will be fair use. And the fact the work is available anyway would cut in favor of ESPN’s use of it being a fair use. This factor is almost impossible to determine based on Cuban’s hypothetical question. There can be 140 words that are as creative and expressive as anything can be (think Shakespeare or William Carlos Williams), or the 140 words might be utterly an utterly generic report about facts Cuban is passing on, or the 140 words might be mostly lifted from someone else. So which way and how hard this factor would cut on this hypothetical is without examining the specific words difficult to tell. It is, nonetheless, difficult to believe much creativity would be produced by Mark Cuban in a tweet. Moreover, the fact Cuban has already transmitted it via Twitter to everyone that follows him indicates that he doesn’t have that strong an interest in controlling the use of the words.

(3) How much of the copyrighted work is taken? Assuming ESPN takes the entire 140 characters, I suppose this factor cuts against ESPN’s claim of fair use, but, of course, the brevity of the entirety (under factor 2) cuts in favor of fair use, so in the abstract the two factors nullify one another. This is one reason hypothetical questions are useful, but only of limited use, in answering legal questions. One can only take abstract hypotheticals so far. 140 characters written by Shakespeare in a play are probably very different than 140 characters written by Mark Cuban in a tweet, but they might not be.

(4) How much does the allegedly infringing work affect the market for the copyrighted work? Is there a market for Mark Cuban’s tweets? It’s hard to believe there might be.

In short, I’d advise Cuban to be very light-hearted and laid back about ESPN republishing his tweets. If he really thinks he’s got something so worthwhile he should have the exclusive right to its commercial value, he shouldn’t have put it out on Twitter in the first place.

Is Michael Murphy another Shepard Fairey?

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

Shepard Fairey, lightning rod

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Journalism is nothing but he says, she says

What has happened to journalism in this country?  All journalists do is quote one side of an issue and then quote the other side.  Rarely do they engage in meaningful analysis, and when it comes to legal matters they’re often just plain wrong.  In this Wall Street Journal article, the reporter quotes one law professor who says that Shepard Fairey has nothing to fear in his lawsuit against AP in connection with Fairey’s Obama Hope poster, while a lawyer thinks AP will prevail.

I’ve said before: I don’t even think it’s a close case.  Fairey will win. You can call me on it if it turns out I’m wrong.

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.”

One artist’s take on issues related to Shepard Fairey

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?

Copying or transforming?

Brian Sherwin of myartspace>blog is very upset with Shepard Fairey for creating the Obama poster (pictured on the left) because Fairey produced his image by, first, stenciling the original photograph pictured on the right. Fairey never attributed the image to the photographer and, of course, never compensated him. I don’t share Sherwin’s umbrage. The photo on the right is a generic image that is indistinguishable from photos seen constantly the world over these last several months. The image on the left became a resonant symbol. The photo could not begin to be considered a substitute for the poster. I think the poster is in fact “transformative” of the photo.