Chilling-Effects-Clearingho
sfmusictechsummit
eff
sfmm_logo1
hopeprogression

Sculptor Frank Gaylord wins copyright infringement appeal vs. US

In 1990, after having been selected by a national contest, Frank Gaylord began work on a sculpture that would become the Korean War Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C.  Know as ‘The Column’, the final design consists of 19 stainless steel statues representing a platoon of foot soldiers. From 1990-1995, Gaylord secured 5 copyrights on various iterations of the sculpture. Although he was amenable to suggestions during the creative process, including that from the sponsor of the Memorial, Cooper-Lecky Architects, P.C. (Cooper-Lecky), each registration lists Gaylord as the sole author of the work. The Memorial was dedicated in 1995.

In January 1996, photographer John Alli took a photograph of the memorial following a snowstorm. The photograph, titled ‘Real Life’ was intended as a retirement gift for his father, a veteran of the Korean War. Mr. Alli would go on to secure the ‘rights’ to publish prints of the photograph from Cooper-Lecky. Alli was eventually sued by Gaylord in 2006, settling for 10% of sales of the print.

In 2002, the Postal Service selected Mr. Alli’s photograph for a 37-cent stamp commemorating the 50th anniversary of the armistice of the Korean War. The Postal Service, without securing any rights from Gaylord,  produced approximately 86.8 million stamps (over $20 million in sales) before retiring it in 2005.

On July 25, 2006, Gaylord sued the United States for copyright infringement, however, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that the government’s use of The Column was fair use. Noting that the photograph “having a new and different character and expression than Mr. Gaylord’s,” the Court found that the stamp was a ‘transformative’ work.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit disagreed. Hearing the case de novo, the Court re-explored the following Fair Use factors:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In response to the finding of ‘transformative use’, the Court cited the Second Circuit’s decision in Blanch v. Koons [2006] the court reasoned’

[T]he stamp does not transform the character of The Column. Although the stamp altered the appearance of The Column by adding snow and muting the color, these alterations do not impart a different character to the work. To the extent that the stamp has a surreal character, The Column and its soldiers themselves contribute to that character. Indeed, the Penn State Team suggested that the Memorial have a “dream-like presence of ghostly figures.” Capturing The Column on a cold morning after a snowstorm—rather than on a warm sunny day—does not transform its character, meaning, or message. Nature’s decision to snow cannot deprive Mr. Gaylord of an otherwise valid right to exclude.

The Court of Appeals also found that the receipt of over $20 million from the sale of the stamp clearly constituted a commercial purpose. Further, the Court noted that the The Column “constitutes the focus—essentially the entire subject matter—of the stamp,” a fact not mitigated by the snow or muted coloring.

The Court of Appeals agreed only that “the stamp has not and will not adversely impact Mr. Gaylord’s efforts to market derivative works of The Column” before remanding the case for a hearing on damages.

The entire opinion is here and further commentary here.

Public Knowledge proposes to expand the breadth of Fair Use

In an effort to update copyright law for the digital age, Public Knowledge, in conjunction with the Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic and the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic, has proposed three reforms to the statutory Fair Use analysis. Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest group working to defend citizens’ rights in the emerging digital culture, stated its intent to effect the following copyright changes:

1) strengthen fair use, including reforming outrageously high statutory damages, which deter innovation and creativity; 2) reform the DMCA to permit circumvention of digital locks for lawful purposes; 3) update the limitations and exceptions to copyright protection to better conform with how digital technologies work; 4) provide recourse for people and companies who are recklessly accused of copyright infringement and who are recklessly sent improper DMCA take-down notices; and 5) streamline arcane music licensing laws to encourage new and better business models for selling music.

Updating Fair Use for Innovators and Creators in the Digital Age: Two Targeted Reforms proposes to augment the existing Fair Use factors by allowing for “incidental” or “noncommercial and personal” use of copyright material. Additional recommendations seek to change sections of the law dealing with fair use damage awards.

Further sections of The Copyright Reform Act (CRA) will be released in the coming weeks.

More from ars technica.

Janurary 12, 2010: World’s Fair Use Day (WFUD)

fairusedayToday is World’s Fair Use Day (WFUD), “a free, all-day celebration of the doctrine of fair use: the legal right that allows innovators and creators to make particular uses of copyrighted materials. WFUD will take place at the Newseum in Washington D.C. on Tuesday January 12, 2010.”

More here.

International group of experts starts Copyright Watch

copyrightwatchA group of international organizations, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Electronic Information for Libraries (eIFL) have banded together to form Copyright Watch. A database of national copyright laws, the organization seeks to,

raise awareness of the importance of balanced copyright law in the information society, and draw attention to points of commonality and of difference in countries’ laws and legal traditions. We also wanted to create an information sharing resource, where copyright watchers could post information about proposed amendments to their own copyright laws, and understand the changes in others.

Press release from EFF.

From hopeful to skeptical, the Matrix authorship myth continues

motherofthematrixYou take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.”

A recent post appearing in the Celebrity and News section of Lipstick Alley rekindled a debate over the true origins of the Matrix trilogy. In 1999 an author named Sophia Stewart filed suit in Federal Court claiming that the Matrix and Terminator film franchises infringed upon her 1983 sci-fi novel, The Third Eye.

Fast forward to November 2009. Titled Black Author wins The Matrix Copyright Infringement Case, the post quotes at length from ‘Mother of the Matrix’ Victorious which appeared in the Salt Lake Community College’s Globe in October…2004. The Globe article was replete with inaccuracies, claiming among other things, “She [Stewart] will soon receive one of the biggest payoffs in the history of Hollywood, as the gross receipts of both films and their sequels total over 2.5 billion dollars.”

In fact, the original copyright claim was dismissed for failure to present evidence of substantial similarity. See Stewart v. Wachowski, 574 F.Supp.2d 1074, 1103 (C. D. Cali. 2004). On July 31, 2005 the Los Angeles Times ran a story debunking the whole tale titled The Billion-Dollar Myth. According to the LA Times,

In 1986, she says, she saw an advertisement posted in a national magazine by the Wachowski brothers soliciting science fiction manuscripts to make into comic books and she sent them all of her materials for “The Third Eye,” including a copy of her original manuscript…Stewart says she never heard from the Wachowskis, and never had her materials returned. Morrow’s ruling notes, however, that Stewart did not produce the ad as evidence. In denying that they ever placed such an ad, the Wachowskis said that, in 1986, Andy was just 18 and brother Larry was a 21-year-old college student.

Below is an extended interview with Sophia Stewart as heard on RealBlackTalk.com. Hear Stewart describe in her own words: the case, her frustrations with Hollywood and on-going legal battle with her own attorneys.

Part 1:

Pars 2-5 after the jump. [Read More]

Brian De Palma reacts to redaction of his film Redacted (2007)

A look back at an argument that erupted at the Independent Film Channel’s (IFC) 2007 New York Film Festival Press Conference for the Brian De Palma film Redacted. De Palma bashes Magnolia Pictures owner Mark Cuban for redacting a photo montage at the close of the film that  “disturbed” Cuban.

The film itself is a montage of sorts, pulling from a variety stories about U.S. soldiers involved in the Mahmudiyah killings while fighting in Iraq.

Magnolia President Eamonn Bowles interrupts a perturbed De Palma to argue that the company feared the photos would violate the privacy, publicity and copyrights of the soldiers; to which the director quips, “how do you get releases from war photographs…” Interestingly, De Palma claims that all the images used were freely available on the internet at the time the film was made.

Magnolia, having pointed the finger at copyright holders, ineffective fair use rules and the high price of Errors and Omissions (E&O) Insurance for films, erred on the side of avoiding legal hassles. Mark Cuban subsequently stated that he gave De Palma the opportunity to reacquire the rights to the film and distribute it himself, but he was unresponsive.

Rupert Murdoch vows to challenge fair use

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch sat down with Australia’s Sky News to discuss the future of internet publishing. Frustrated with the free movement of information on the web, Murdoch criticized news outlets, including the BBC, stating, “if you look at them, most of their stuff is stolen from the newspapers now, and we’ll be suing them for copyright.”

In a reference to sites which gather, link and post excerpts of news headlines, Murdoch states, “there’s a doctrine called fair use — which we believe can challenged in the courts and be barred altogether.” He later went on to applaud Google for its yielding to DMCA takedown notices stating, “they don’t even argue — one telephone call and they take it off.”

Extended interview below.

Independent Lens: Copyright Criminals Trailer

Set to premiere on PBS in January 2010, Copyright Criminals explores the relationship between hip-hop and copyright law and the complicated legal issues brought on by music sampling. From the website,

Years before people started downloading and remixing music, hip-hop sampling sparked a debate about copyright, creativity and technological change that still rages today.

Independent Television Service (ITVS) has been screening the film through its Community Cinema program. More here. Extended trailer here.