If you break open a song, you’ll find the eggs of other songs. Misunderstandings are really kind of an epidemic and acceptable. I think it’s about one thing, but someone else will say, ‘That song is kind of a rhino in hot pants on a burnt rocking horse with a lariat shouting, “Repent, repent!” I think that’s great.

Why do I bring up Waits rejoicing in the fact someone might hear one of his songs as a “kind of rhino in hot pants on a burnt rocking horse with a lariat shouting, “repent, repent!” Because the lawyer for Patrick Cariou believes that a work of art appropriating another work can only be interpreted to be sufficiently “transformative” of that earlier work if the appropriator expresses in words a transformative purpose. Richard Prince, in appropriating Patrick Cariou’s photographs for his own artistic purposes, said he had no real interest in the meaning behind Cariou’s work, and that he used it strictly as “raw material,” that it was “taking for the sake of taking.”

Cariou’s lawyer thinks that Prince’s inability to state an artistic purpose is fatal to his case. In his eyes, the law requires a 2-step process: “First the defendant has to say” he was engaged in a transformative use of the work he was appropriating. “Only then does the court go on to say, ‘Well let’s see if this is reasonably perceivable.’”

As I made clear yesterday, and as I think Tom Waits makes clear far more vividly, it seems absurd to limit the meaning of a work of art to whatever the artist might state it is. Nor is this particular controversial. The phrase “intentional fallacy” was coined in the title of an influential scholarly article (Wimsatt and Beardsley 1946) claiming that artists’ intentions are neither available nor desirable as a standard for assessing art. As has been pointed out, “Intentionalists disagreed, arguing that any sense of the artist’s intention, however obscure, can be a useful resource in interpreting a work of art.”

But the point is, even “Intentionalists” acknowledge that judging, interpreting, and assessing art calls on attention to the art and all it evokes in the eyes of the viewer. Those judgments, interpretations, and assessments are never limited to what the artist wanted the viewer to see and think.

So Cariou’s lawyer is advancing nonsense when he suggests the court should be limited in that way. Nor is the precedent for court reliance in making fair use decisions on the expressed intent of the appropriating artist particularly compelling support for that nonsense. It is true that in Blanch v. Koons the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit relied on what Jeff Koons stated his purposes were in appropriating a photograph for use in one of his paintings. But there were no competing interpretations submitted to the court. As the court pointed out: “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.” Quite simply, the court was persuaded by Koons’ explanations. That the court was so persuaded does not mean, however, that the artist’s explanations are the only means by which the court could be persuaded.already stated their intent to parody. Nor, as Cariou’s lawyer contends, did a lower court find that 2 Live Crew’s re-working of Roy Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman” depended on 2 Live Crew’s assertion their song was a “parody.” In fact, the Court found that 2 Live Crew’s words parodied Orbison’s and remanded the case so a lower court might determine (a) whether there had been any negative economic impact on sales of Orbison’s song in the potential “derivative market” of rap cover versions, and (b) whether the quantity of musical elements taken from Orbison’s song were more than necessary to 2 Live Crew’s purposes. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 590-91. After remand, the case settled, and there were no further court hearings.

In fact, the first major “breakthrough” moment in any good legal education is that one when the student realizes law is not what she thought it is — the learning of rules that she then applies to facts — but is instead that legal reasoning involves the enormously creative and imaginative ability to relate legal rules, earlier applications of those rules, and the myriad of other considerations that go into our conceptions of justice. As importantly, legal practice is also a matter of being able to communicate that complex reasoning, and the ability to communicate it well is inextricably intertwined with the ability to imagine it in the first place. Creativity and imagination, of course, are required to find the law as well.

These are not controversial views. They are central, however, to my fascination with the interplay between law and art.

One enormous component of genuinely creative work is audacity, which, in an article entitled Audacity in Contemporary Art, Diogenes March 1969 vol. 17 no. 65 1-19, Eduardo Gonzalez Lanuza defines very aptly in this way:

Audacity is “an attitude which consists of ignoring what is expected of you and daring to do what no one else dares to do.”

And yet most everyone believes law is authority that determines what is expected of you and requires you do what everyone else does.

So it is with enormous pleasure that I note that Corporate Counsel magazine has awarded Google its “Best Legal Department” award because of, as the magazine’s editor explained, the group’s audacity:

Past years’ winners were often defined by sedate virtues like superior systems and organization, but this year I’d have to say the key quality was audacity.

I’ve long been a fan of Google (though not an unqualified one), and there’s no doubt that its daring has been no small part of my admiration. I can think of few things I would want more as a lawyer than to represent Google in connection with the Google Library Project. So here’s to Google, and if anyone there in the legal department is reading this, I’d love to become your colleague.

Addendum: Speaking of Google’s audacity, not more than a few minutes after posting the above, I came across this, via Plagiarism Today:

Google has signaled that the company is prepared to oppose the major film and music companies as well as Congress and the president of the United States on a controversial bill designed to thwart online piracy.

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said today in London that the company is prepared to go on fighting the bill should it become law, according to published reports. U.K. publication the Guardian is reporting that in a discussion with reporters during a London business conference, Schmidt said: “If there is a law that requires DNS [domain name systems, the protocol that allows users to connect to Web sites], to do x, and it’s passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States, and we disagree with it, then we would still fight it…If it’s a request, the answer is we wouldn’t do it; if it’s a discussion, we wouldn’t do it.”

A business consultant who wants to know who’s been anonymously disparaging and fixating on her online has gotten a court to force Google to tell her.

As she joined a growing number of people who have persuaded courts to unmask troublesome cyber ciphers, Carla Franklin said Wednesday she hoped her case would help others combat similar problems.

As Bennet Kelley makes clear, you do have a right to speak anonymously, but that right doesn’t mean you have the right to use your words to harm someone without justification:

“There’s a tension there – there’s a First Amendment right to be able to speak anonymously, but there’s no First Amendment right to violate the law,” said Bennet G. Kelley, a Santa Monica, Calif., attorney who specializes in Internet law.

“People think: ‘It’s the Internet. I can do whatever I want,’” he said, but “the law applies, online and offline.”

Moreover, history teaches that you should view with extreme skepticism the cries of alarm from the entertainment industry. In doing so, you likely would be doing them a favor.

As I wrote the other day in connection with the decision dismissing Viacom’s lawsuit against Google alleging copyright infringement for the posting on YouTube of videos infringing Viacom’s copyrights, As I wrote above, the existing regime makes sense to me and, as I wrote in that recent post,  ”[t]he decision is a straightforward application of the DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision, which insulates service providers from liability for activities by their users that infringe copyrights.” Viacom, of course, disagrees, stating in its press release:

We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the intent of Congress, and the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in its most recent decisions. We intend to seek to have these issues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible.

And those who represent the interests of large corporate copyright holders such as Viacom, like the Washington Legal Foundation (whose mission is to “champion free market principles [and] limited and accountable government”) argue that the decision allows Google “to exploit the statute’s safe harbors by designing an entire business model based on improperly profiting from copyrighted content.” Ronald Cass writes in Forbes that the decision is “broad enough to sink the protection copyright holders had enjoyed under the law.” And the Directors Guild of America claims its members’ very livelihoods are at stake:

We fear that the precedent established in this ruling, if not overturned by the appeals court, could result in a drastic rising tide of Internet theft that could decimate our members’ livelihoods, their pension and health plans, and their ability to continue creating the content that is beloved by people all over the world.

Reading these dire warnings you might not realize that as the judge stated in his decision Google took down the offending videos the day after Viacom delivered a mass takedown notice identifying the ones it claimed a copyright in. Nor would you realize that Viacom recognized the value of YouTube to its business by employing people to post its videos to YouTube to promote its productions while at the same time other Viacom employees were adding those same videos to the list for the takedown notice:

For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately “roughed up” the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko’s to upload clips from computers that couldn’t be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt “very strongly” that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.

Viacom’s efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.

Fear that directors will have their livelihoods decimated and that the decision sinks copyright protection is of course, nothing new for an entertainment industry that can profit enormously from new technologies they demonize, so Viacom’s schizophrenia is, perhaps, progress over Hollywood’s reaction to the VCR, which was 100% self-destructive. In 1982, Jack Valenti, in sworn testimony before Congress , stated “that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone.” But, as Digital America explains, Valenti was not merely crying wolf — he was describing the greatest benefit to the movie industry in the last 40 years as a serial killer:

As the VCR became more important to the consuming public, the Hollywood establishment that fought it bowed to its inevitable benefits. In January 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded 5-4 that VCRs were legal products and that home taping of copyrighted works fell under the “fair use” exception to copyright. While Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA), legislative attempts to codify the Betamax decision and fair video recording rights are still pending before Congress. CEA (at that time known as the Consumer Electronics Group of the Electronic Industries Association), in cooperation with the Home Recording Rights Coalition, protected the legality of home recording and promoted the acceptance of the new technology.

Additionally Hollywood studios established home video divisions to reap the profits from a technology it once considered a threat. Blay’s idea sparked a retail revolution as hundreds of mom-and-pop video rental and sales stores popped up in every community in America. In 1987, video rental income reached $5.25 billion for the year, surpassing movie theater ticket sales for the first time. Today, movie studios regularly make more money on a film from home video sales and rentals than from the theatrical box office.

The decision is a straightforward application of the DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision, which insulates service providers from liability for activities by their users that infringe copyrights. The judge acknowledged that Viacom was right about its central contention: Google was “not only aware of, but welcomed, copyright-infringing material being placed on their website.” (Opinion and Order at 6) Nonetheless, he also noted that Google designates an agent who, when he receives a takedown notice, “swiftly” removes infringing videos. (Id.)

The judge concluded that for Google to be liable under the DMCA Viacom would have to show more than that Google knew that infringing activity “in general” was occurring on YouTube because the DMCA does not require that degree of responsibility on service providers for the actions of its users:

To let knowledge of a generalized practice of infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to discover which of their users’ postings infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA.

By insulating service providers from liability for infringements by their users, the Judge Stanton concluded, the DMCA makes perfect sense because it would be far too burdensome for the service provider to make individual judgments on each of its user’s activities to determine whether those activities were infringing:

The infringing works . . . may be a small fraction of millions of works posted [on the service provider’s] platform, [and the service provider] cannot by inspection whether the use has been licensed by the owner, or whether its posting is a “fair use” of the material, or even whether its copyright owner or licensee objects to its posting. The DMCA is explicit: it shall not be construed to condition “safe harbor” protection on a “service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity . . . .”  (citations omitted)

Moreover, the fact Google took down over 100,000 videos within one business day in response to a single, mass take-down notice sent by Viacom was proof to Judge Stanton that the existing regime works perfectly well:

Indeed, the present case shows that the DMCA notification regime works efficiently: when Viacom over a period ov months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007, by the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them.

Viacom v YouTube Summary Judgment