Comments by the federal judge overseeing the copyright dispute arising out of the Google Books project could portend a lasting effect on reproductions of visual arts. Elevating the question of social benefit in a fair use analysis, Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York posed a question that, applied broadly (which is no theoretical proposition where Google is involved) could turn fair use analysis on its head. Time will tell if the comments were oral argument musings or something more lasting.
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Topics: Google Books, 17 U.S.C. § 107, Copyright, The Authors Guild, Judge Denny Chin, Fair Use
News media have started to pick up on the lawsuit filed in August by Lawrence Lessig, which challenges takedown notice practices by Liberation Music under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (the “DMCA”) in relation to Lessig's lecture series later posted on YouTube, which featured third party content creators and the song "Lisztomania" by the French band Phoenix, whose copyrights Liberation apparently claims it enforces.
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Topics: Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, Lawrence Lessig, Lisztomania, Copyright, Liberation Music Pty Ltd
One of the lurking issues in the murky waters of copyright fair use is the takedown notice provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (the “DMCA”). The DMCA, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 512, implements two 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization treaties and absolves internet service providers (“ISPs”) who disable allegedly infringing content when notified by the copyright holder. In practice, this is known as a “takedown notice,” and serves to protect ISPs like YouTube from secondary infringement if a user posts something with infringing content (the easiest example being an unedited clip of a copyrighted movie). Copyright holders patrol the internet to various degrees, but § 512 gives the holders a tool to encourage compliance, and ISPs a way not to be sued out of existence.
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Topics: World Intellectual Property Organization, ISPs, Copyright Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA, Viacom, YouTube, Eldred v. Ashcroft, Lawrence Lessig, Copyright, 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, Liberation Party Music Ltd., 17 U.S.C. § 512, Fair Use, Harvard Law School
The Ninth Circuit has ruled in favor of the band Green Day in a copyright case that gives much better guidance on fair use and transformativeness than this year’s earlier Prince v. Cariou Second Circuit case. Despite copying an entire image, in the backdrop of a video that showed onstage at a multi-million dollar concert tour, the appeals court upheld judgment in Green Day’s favor because the use added new meaning and purpose, and thus was transformative. It is a victory for expressiveness, but more importantly, a useful set of instructions that Prince failed to give.
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Topics: Cariou v. Prince, Derek Seltzer, Roger Staub, Graffiti Art, Green Day, 21st Century Breakdown, East Jesus Nowhere, Copyright, Ninth Circuit, Jesus Christ, Performance Environmental Design, Scream Icon, Fair Use
The Velvet Underground and the Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts have settled their lawsuit over the right to control iconic “banana” image from the cover of the 1967 legendary The Velvet Underground and Nico album. An earlier September 7, 2012 ruling for the Warhol Foundation finding that that the Velvet Underground had agreed not to sue on any copyright theories left unanswered questions of whether the band had claim to a superseding trademark in the image that would allow it, and not the Warhol Foundation, to control the image’s reproduction. The dispute is now over, and those questions will not be judicially resolved.
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Topics: The Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Copyright, The Velvet Underground and Nico, the Velvet Underground
The United States Copyright Office solicited public comment last year on possible droite de suite, or resale royalty legislation. As addressed previously, state law attempts to regulate artists’ rights to resale royalties have been struck down as unconstitutional. Among the issues that the Copyright Office grappled with is the basic question of incentive: if a copyright royalty were paid on sales subsequent to the first sale, what effect does that have on the economic incentive to create art? Who benefits? Who is harmed?
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Topics: Resale Royalties, Copyright Act, Resale Royalty, Copyright, Copyright Office, Calinfornia Resale Royalty Act
Two years after a U.S. District Court decision that sent shock waves through the contemporary art world, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed that earlier finding that Richard Prince infringed the copyright of Patrick Cariou. Instead, the appeals court ruled that all but five Prince works at issue were fair use under the Copyright Act, remanding the case to re-analyze those five works. It is as dramatic a win for appropriation art as the lower court decision was a chill on that art.
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Topics: Andy Warhol Foundation, Richard Prince, Copyright Act, Graduation, Second Circuit, Canal Zone, Patrick Cariou, Charlie Company, appropriation art, Meditation, Yes Rasta, Clifford Wallace, Warhol, Cézanne, Copyright, Canal Zone (2008), de Kooning, Picasso, Fair Use, Google, Canal Zone (2007)
The Sullivan & Worcester LLP Art and Museum Law Group has issued a new client advisory about the Supreme Court’s decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. As analyzed in the advisory, the Court has extended the “first sale” doctrine of the U.S. Copyright Act to copies of protected works that were lawfully manufactured and first sold abroad and later re-sold in the United States, in a result strongly advocated by United States museums. The decision abrogates the earlier view that the “first sale” doctrine applied to copies manufactured outside the United States only if an authorized first sale occurred within the United States. The implications are significant for museums and anyone engaged in visual arts commerce who otherwise might have had to search for permission to import or display works made overseas.
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Topics: Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons Inc., first sale doctrine, Sullivan & Worcester LLP, Copyright, Art and Museum Law Group
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has decided a copyright case that addresses the important elements of what constitutes an expressive work capable of protection. The lines of what can be protected in news photography may not be as simple as the First Circuit opinion suggests.
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Topics: Harney v. Sony Pictures Television, Barack Obama, Eric McCormack, Clark Rockefeller, Shepard Fairey, Christian Gerhartsreiter, Copyright, Hope, Who is Clark Rockefeller
For those of us trying to follow art law developments in Germany, particularly to get access to original source and court documents in German, Peter Bert’s Dispute Resolution in Germany Blog is a terrific source. Between the Hans Sachs collection case and the contuing fallout from the Wolfgang Beltracchi forgery scandal and the fictional “Jägers Collection,” Germany has had a busy year of art law prominence, particularly with regard to forgery issues. Two recent posts bear reading, both of which attach the original court opinions in German, for their interesting analysis.
0 Comments Click here to read/write comments
Topics: Forgery, Lempertz, Peter Bert, Germany, Hans Sachs, Wolfgang Beltracchi, Dispute Resolution in Germany, Copyright
