Is Richard Prince in a Jam?

We have often written on this blog about the appropriation artist Richard Prince, whose work was at the origin of several copyright infringement cases, including the Cariou v. Prince case (see here, here, here, and here). Copyright bloggers owe him a full bowl of da la jam gratitude. 

Prince is still embroiled in two copyright infringement suits following his New Portraits 2014 exhibition at Gagosian : a copyright infringement suit was filed by photographer Donald Graham (see here) and another by photographer Eric McNatt (see here), both in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). These two cases are Eric McNatt v. Richard Prince et al., 1:16-cv-08896 and Graham v. Prince et al., 1:15-cv-10160. Richard Prince filed last week his two memorandums of law in support of his motions for summary judgment in these two cases, see here and here.

Richard Prince is an appropriation artist. He explained in his motion to dismiss the McNatt case that the New Portraits “continue Prince over 40-year career of using found photos and objects in order to comment on society, through the use of text and recontextualisation.” The New Portraits, reproductions of Instagram posts complete with a Prince’s comment, are each approximatively 41 by 41 inches, as an homage to Andy Warhol who used this format for his portraits, as explained in the McNatt memo.

In the McNatt case, Prince used a photograph of Kim Gordon, taken by Eric McNatt, and which has been published on social media, to create one of his New Portraits works. In the Graham case, Prince used Graham’s photograph of a Rastafarian smoking a joint “which already existed pervasively on the Internet, largely through Donald Graham’s own actions” according to Prince’s memorandum, to create Portrait of Rastajay92. This is a rather odd argument, as Graham, as the copyright holder, has the exclusive right to publish his work as he wished to do, including on the web. This action does not give carte blanche to third parties to copy and use the work without permission.

Did Donald Graham grant an implied license?

Prince argued that Donald Graham had published his work on his Facebook page on a public setting, thus granting Facebook a non-exclusive, transferable license to use the photograph. Prince also argued that Graham did not use any embedded watermarks on his work, had not set any privacy settings for viewing the work, and that he understood that once published on the web, it was forever published on the web.  

Prince argued that he “reasonably interpreted Graham’s conduct as permission to use the [p]hotograph in a new way” and had a “non-exclusive implied license” to use the work, citing the Field v. Google case from the Nevada district court. In this case, the court had found that Google had an implied license to display works protected by copyright in cached links, even though the copyright owner did not explicitly authorize such use. However, the court noted that Field could have used a tag directing Google not to archive the pages, but did not do so and thus had implicitly given Google a license to display his works.

Prince claimed in the McNatt case memo that Eric McNatt and Kim Gordon had posted the original work on their Instagram accounts, and that McNatt still features the photograph on his website without embedded watermarks. The original Graham work had been republished on Instagram by a third party, user Rastajay92, and it is this social media post which was reproduced by Prince, complete with his own comment: “Canal Zinian da lam jam,” an allusion to his Canal Zone show, or, as Prince puts it, a “self-referential allusio[n] to his own artistic biography.” I wrote “da lam jam” on the Google translate box: it detected Arabic as a language, and offered “it did not g” as a translation. Curiouser and curiouser!

Prince’s memorandum in the Graham case argues that his New Portraits exhibition was a “social commentary” and thus a “core fair use principle… expressed through a novel technological and sociological medium and context” and that the forfeiture of the works, as asked by Plaintiff Donald Graham, “would have a chilling effect on the progress of the arts, to the detriment of the public.”

An ode to social media

Prince argued that his use of Graham’s work was highly transformative, because he used what he described as “an austere description of a Rastafarian” and turned it into “an ode to social media.” Prince further argued that the fact that he did not add anything to the original work, unlike in his works in the Cariou case, enhances his fair use claim, not weakens it, because he needed to “authentically replicate in the physical world the virtual world of social media.”

He used similar arguments in his motion to dismiss the McNatt case, that he “imbued what was once an austere depiction, documenting a female rocker in a defiant pose into part of an ode to social media.“

It may be an ode to social media, but it is also copyright infringement. The defense is fair use.

Is this ode to social media fair use?

Prince argued that his New Portraits were a parody of the social media posts as a whole. So it is an ode to social media which is also a parody. A parody is indeed highly transformative, and a highly transformative work is likely to be considered by courts as a fair use of a protected work, under the first fair use factor.

Prince argued that he used the Kim Gordon photograph to comment on social media, about “the whole idea of putting up images on a new platform that was available to anyone, to an entire population” and that artistic purpose was “a world-away from McNatt’s purpose in making the [p]hotograph.”

For Prince, Graham’s sales of his works have not suffered because of Prince’s use and Graham’s notoriety has even been greatly enhanced by Prince’s use, and that thus the fourth fair use factor, the effect on the market, should weigh in Prince’s favor.

Prince also argued that Graham did not have the right to exploit the photograph, as the right of publicity of its subject is governed by Jamaican law, and that therefore any harm done by Prince’s use of the work would harm an “illegitimate market.” Prince used a similar argument in his McNatt memo, arguing that the photographer did not obtain Kim Gordon’s written authorization to use her image, as required by the New York right of publicity statute, other than for their original use, a publication in Paper magazine.

Prince also argued that the second fair use factor, the nature of the copyrighted work, should be in his favor, as the original Graham work was “more factual than creative.” As for the third factor, the amount and substantiality of the work used, in relation to the protected work as a whole, Prince cited the Bill Graham case, in both of his memos, where the Second Circuit held that the third factor can weigh in favor of the defendant even if the work is reproduced in its entirety.

Prince argued that the original Graham work has been cropped and that the remaining work was necessary to serve Prince’s purpose, commenting about social media. He argued in the McNatt memo that Prince used an entire Instagram post, complete with “colorized emojis” and thus drew the viewer’s attention around the image, thus “reducing the artistic or intellectual importance of the photographic image relative to its physical portion of the painting.”

This is quite a fair use battle royal. Copyrights enthusiasts will keep watching, and possibly, cheering.

Image is courtesy of Flickr user (vincent desjardins) under a CC BY 2.0 license.

Donald Graham’s Copyright Infringement Suit against Richard Prince Allowed to Go Forward

People interested in the U.S. fair use doctrine owe appropriation artist Richard Prince gratitude for providing several interesting fair use cases to monitor and comment about.

Prince has been the defendant in several high profile cases in the Second Circuit (see here and here). He famously won the Second Circuit Cariou v. Prince case (see here), where the Court of Appeals found that Prince’s use of Patrick Cariou’s photographs to create his thirty paintings and collages featured in his Canal Zone exhibition was fair use, as it was transformative.

Photographer Donald Graham filed a copyright infringement suit against Prince in 2016 (see here and here), claiming that Prince’s use without permission of Graham’s Rastafarian Smoking a Joint photograph, to create an Untitled (Portrait) featured in Prince’s New Portraits exhibition, was copyright infringement. Prince claims it is fair use.

On July 18, U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein from the Southern District of New York allowed the case to go forward, as, while granting Prince’s request to dismiss Graham’s demand for punitive damages, he denied Prince’s motion to dismiss the case. The case is Graham v. Prince, 1:15-cv-10160.

Judge Stein noted that, because the fair use defense is fact-related, discovery will be necessary to conduct the fair use inquiry. Therefore, the case cannot be dismissed and will have to go forward. Judge Stein quoted the Second Circuit in Cariou v. Prince, which stated that finding whether a particular use is fair or not requires “an open-ended and context-sensitive inquiry.”

Is this a dead end? 

Prince used Graham’s work almost in its entirety, when he printed and exhibited the original work as originally cropped and posted on Instagram, without Graham’s permission, by another Instagram user, then reposted by yet another user and finally reposted by Prince on his own Instagram account. Prince added the nonsensical comment “ReCanal Zinian da lam jam,” followed by an emoji. Is this add-on enough to make Prince’s work transformative enough to be found fair use?

Prince argued that the use was transformative as it added new messages such as “a commentary on the power of social media to broadly disseminate others’ work,” an endorsement of social media’s ability to “generate[ ] discussion of art,” or a “condemnation of the vanity of social media.” 

Judge Stein was not convinced, finding “evident” that Prince’s work is not “so aesthetically different” from the original work and thus not transformative enough. Untitled (Portrait) does not manifest “an entirely different aesthetic” from the original work, as required under Cariou. Unlike the works featured in the Canal Zone exhibition, Untitled (Portrait) does not render the original work, according to Judge Stein, “barely recognizable” as Princes works did in Cariou.  Instead,

“[t]he primary image in both works is the photograph itself… Untitled simply reproduces the entirety of Graham’s photograph – with some de minimis cropping – in the frame of an Instagram post, along with a cryptic comment written by Prince… There is no question that, notwithstanding Prince’s additions, Graham’s unobstructed and unaltered photograph is the dominant image in Untitled.”

Judge Stein concluded that “[b]ecause Prince’s Untitled is not transformative as a matter of law, the Court cannot determine on a motion to dismiss that a “reasonable viewer” would conclude that Prince’s alterations imbued the original work “with new expression, meaning, or message,” quoting the U.S. Supreme Court Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music 1994 case.

“Given Prince’s use of essentially the entirety of Graham’s photograph, defendants will not be able to establish that Untitled is a transformative work without substantial evidentiary support.  This evidence may include art criticism, such as the articles accompanying defendants’ briefing, which the Court may not consider in the context of this motion.”

Judge Stein called Cariou v. Prince a “prequel to this action.” However, his fair use analysis does not bode well for Prince, who may this time be found to have appropriated a bit too much. To be continued…

The CopyKat

There is yet another copyright lawsuit against the appropriation artist Richard Prince, after Dennis Morris LLC, the London-based photographer’s corporation, filed a complaint on the 3rd June in a Californian federal court seeking unspecified damages and any profits the artist and his dealer Gagosian Gallery made from Prince’s alleged use of three photographs of the 1970s punk rock band the Sex Pistols. According to the complaint, Prince used the images in work included in the 2011 exhibition Untitled (Covering Pollock) at Guild Hall in East Hampton. The claim says that Prince made "derivative works” and accuses the defendants of “producing and distributing large scale reproductions incorporating those derivative works” based on Morris’s photos of Sex Pistols bass player Sid Vicious. Morris is seeking a jury trial and demanding, among other damages, all of Prince and Gagosian’s profits from sales of the disputed works. The complaint also alleges that Prince used Instagram to promote the work for sale and includes a screenshot of a post (since deleted but pictured, left) on Prince’s Instagram account, featuring one of Morris’s best known photos of Vicious who died in 1979 from a drugs overdose.

Arts Technica reports that the lawyers behind the Prenda Law "copyright trolling" enterprise have lost their key appeal and will have to pay more than $230,000 in sanctions. The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued a 12-page ruling upholding the sanction order that began Prenda's downfall, issued by US District Judge Otis Wright in 2013. The ruling wholly supports Wright's sanction and dismisses John Steele and Paul Hansmeier claims that due process rights were violated: "These consolidated cases began as minor copyright infringement suits, until courts nationwide started catching on to the plaintiffs' real business of copyright trolling," the ruling states. "Prenda Principals were found contradicting themselves, evading questioning, and possibly committing identity theft and fraud on the courts" and "The Prenda Principals have engaged in abusive litigation, fraud on courts across the country, and willful violation of court orders," the opinion states. "They have lied to other courts about their ability to pay sanctions. They also failed to pay their own attorney’s fees in this case." The third appellant, Paul Duffy, died last year.

All three major record labels, along with 50 other rights owners and platforms, including Spotify, Pandora, SACEM and YouTube, have committed to creating a new system to “dramatically simplify the way that music creators and rights owners are identified and compensated”. The new initiative will hopefully replace and surpass the stalled Global Repertoire Database - and provide a 'one stop' centre for users who want to use songs and sound recordings. The Open Music Initiative (OMI) has been founded by Berklee College of Music’s Institute for Creative Entrepreneurship (BerkleeICE), and has been publicly backed by Universal, Sony, Warner and many more – although as MBW points out - despite Google's YouTube being on board, Apple’s name is conspicuous by its absence.

The European Commission's public consultation on "neighbouring rights" for publishers  - otherwise known as the 'Google tax on snippets' CLOSES TODAY.  The right could potentially allow publishers to demand payment from search engines and content aggregators where they include short snippets that link to the original text. You must use the questionnaire on the EU website to respond. 

And the latest battle in what the difference is between 'inspiration' and what is 'appropriation' has kicked off in Los Angeles, where Led Zeppelin stand accused of copying of a song called “Taurus,” written by Randy Wolfe and performed with his band Spirit, into their epic "Stairway to Heaven". Those who have listened to recordings of each of the songs might think there is a strong similarity, but the legal team attorney for Zeppelin’s front man, Robert Plant, and lead guitarist, Jimmy Page, said any similarities were because the two songs both relied on “basic musical devices that are completely commonplace” and found in songs dating back centuries.  "Taurus" was released three years before “Stairway to Heaven” surfaced on Zeppelin’s untitled fourth album, commonly referred to as “Led Zeppelin IV.” In the wake of the jury decision in the "Blurred Lines" case, its unsurprising Plant and Page cancelled sows to attend the trial.   

And finally and this time from Canada, a federal court has ruled that that a number of companies must temporarily stop selling TV boxes that allow consumers to access content via streaming sites as they face a court battle over alleged copyright infringement. The plaintiffs, who include Bell and Groupe TVA, allege the TV boxes come with pre-loaded software that allows consumers to view copyrighted programming from illegal streaming sites . MTLFreeTV, one of the defendants, argued the boxes are similar to a tablet or computer, and the company does not develop, produce, service or maintain the software that comes with the boxes. Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer ruled that the companies must stop selling pre-loaded products until a the result of a trail in the matter.

The CopyKat

The YouTube channel of the state-run Vietnam Television (VTV) has been suspended with the national broadcaster later admitting that the termination was due to copyright infringement regarding its content. The channel, titled VTV - Đài Truyền hình Việt Nam, remained inaccessible, with a message saying it has been terminated because YouTube had “received multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement regarding material the user posted.” More here. However it should be noted that YouTube has set up a new team dedicated to improving the quality of policy enforcement and subsequent erroneous takedowns, responding to community criticism.

Indeed last month Google reported that it had received more than 75 million requests to remove from search results URLs that point to infringing content. That's more than double the number of requests it received in the same period last year, or around 34 million, according to the search giant's updated transparency report.

Controversial 'appropriation artist' Richard Prince has responded to a recently-filed copyright infringement lawsuit, claiming he should be shielded from infringement charges because his use of others’ copyright-protected images amounts to fair use. Prince has recently released a new series, entitled, New Portraits, which consists of blown-up photos from several Instagram accounts, including those of Pamela Anderson, Kate Moss, and Cara Stricker. Prince has added comments under the photos. For example, under one photo, Prince adds, “No Cure, No Pay” with an emoji. The case was brought by Los Angeles-based photographer Donald Graham against Prince, the Gagosian Gallery and Larry Gagosian, alleging that the defendants infringed the federally registered copyright in his photo, Rastafarian Smoking a Joint. Prince has asked the Southern District of New York court to dismiss the case as  attempt to ‘essentially re-litigate’ his controversial fair use victory against another photographer Patrick Cariou.

More than £200,000 has been spent by the Welsh government defending claims for copyright infringement over its use of photographs of Dylan Thomas, figures obtained by BBC Wales have shown. Over the last 18 months, £205,417 was spent defending claims brought by Pablo Star Media Ltd. The claims relate to two 1930s images of Thomas and his wife Caitlin. The Welsh government said it was seeking to recoup the costs. A judge in Dublin threw out one of the claims last month, but Pablo Star Media - which claims it owns the copyright - has launched an appeal.

The Hong Kong copyright amendment bill has failed to pass before the government-imposed deadline. The government plans to reshuffle the items on the agenda, meaning that the bill will not be discussed again in this legislature’s term. “We have decided to change the order of the bills to be discussed and move the copyright bill to the end of the agenda,” said the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory So Kam-leung at a press conference.

The U.S. Supreme Court is staying out of a copyright dispute involving a Mark Towle, the California man who produced $90,000 replicas of the Batmobile for car-collecting fans of the caped crusader. SCOTUS has let stand the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that said the Batmobile's bat-like appearance and high-tech gadgets make it a character that can't be duplicated without permission from DC Comics, the copyright holder.

There's an interesting article from Tucker Arensberg on the JDSupra website that looks at the recent case, Dryer v. Nat’l Football League, No. 14-3428, 2016 WL 761178 (8th Cir. Feb. 26, 2016) - where former National Football League players sued the NFL over the use of their name, image, voice, and likeness in films and promotional videos released by NFL Films. The Players did not dispute the NFL’s right to record their performance in live sporting events, or the NFL’s valid copyright in the footage.  Rather, the Players challenged the NFL’s right to further use this footage by incorporating it into other films and promotional videos. The question before the Court was whether or not the district court erred in finding that the Copyright Act preempts the Players right-of-publicity claims.  The appellate court said no error - the Copyright Act prevails.

And finally - this one could be fun: Author Erick DeBanff, a self help guru who promotes living your life "to the max", has filed a lawsuit is against Google for copyright infringement, because it appears that Google (as TechDirt puts it) used a 'kind of trite message' in a commercial about making every moment matter - in the same way that Debanff subtitled his book. DeBanff's book is called "Vie Max" which also seems to be the name of the movement/fad/concept/something that he's selling. But the subtitle is "How to live the next 2 billion heartbeats of your life to the max." The claim says the wording in Google's ad "are essentially a direct copy of the words and philosophy in Mr. DeBanff's book and is a violation of the U.S. Copyright Act.". We shall see!

Farewell Sir George Martin. A wonderful and inspiring musician and producer - and a true gentleman.

Plus Ça Change… Prince, Rastafarians, and Fair Use

You may remember that Richard Prince, the Gagosian Gallery, and Larry Gagosian have been sued by photographer Donald Graham for copyright infringement in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). Plaintiffs moved to dismiss on February 22, asserting a fair use defense (motion).

Appropriation artists and copyright

Prince used Graham’s Untitled (Portrait) to create one of the works presented at his New Portraits exhibition (see here). The original image had been cropped and posted on Instagram, without Graham’s permission, by another Instagram user, then reposted by yet another user. Prince reposted it again from his own Instagram account, adding the comment “ReCanal Zinian da lam jam,” followed by an emoji (see p. 11 of the motion).

Prince stands at the corner of fair use and copyright infringement

In his motion, Prince placed himself in “a long line of [appropriation] artists” such as Marcel Duchamp, Jasper Johns and Jeff Koons. The latter has been involved in several copyright infringement suits over his work, for instance Rogers v. Koons where the Second Circuit found no fair use. But in Blanch v. Koons, the Second Circuit found that Koon’s appropriation of a photograph reproduced, at a different angle, in a painting was protected by fair use. Following this Second Circuit decision, Judge Stanton from the SDNY denied plaintiff Blanch’s motion for sanctions, which gave him an opportunity to explain the dynamic between appropriation artists and copyright:

“Appropriation artists take other artists' work and use it in their own art, appropriating it and incorporating it in their own product with or without changes. Because of this appropriation, often (as in this case) done without giving credit to the original artist, the appropriation artists can expect that their work may attract lawsuits. They must accept the risks of defense, including the time, effort, and expenses involved. While that does not remove the appropriation artist from the protection of the statute, litigation is a risk he knowingly incurs when he copies the other's work.”

Is this case the same as Cariou?

In his motion, Prince argued that, in Cariou v. Prince, “the Second Circuit held that “appropriation art” created by Prince that is substantially similar to the artwork at issue here constituted fair use as a matter of law” and argues that the Graham lawsuit “reflects an attempt to essentially re-litigate Cariou and should be dismissed with prejudice”(p. 2).

However, every fair use case is different since fair use is a mixed question of law and fact, as acknowledged by Prince on p. 12 of his motion. In Cariou, the Second Circuit set aside five artworks, remanding to the SDNY to consider whether the use of Cariou’s work was fair. Because the case settled, the SDNY did not have an opportunity to rule on that point on remand. Whether a court will find this Prince work to be fair use is an open question.

Is Prince’s character of the use of Graham’s photograph the same than his use of Cariou’s photographs? The Second Circuit noted in Cariou that “[t]he portions of the [Cariou photographs] used, and the amount of each artwork that they constitute, vary significantly from piece to piece” (at 699). As the affirmative defense of fair use is a matter of both law and fact, Cariou cannot be interpreted as the Second Circuit having given carte blanche to Prince to create any derivative works based on Rastafarian photographs “as a matter of law.” Indeed, in Cariou, the Second Circuit took care to note that its conclusion that twenty-five of Prince’s works were protected by fair use “should not be taken to suggest… that any cosmetic changes to the photographs would necessarily constitute fair use“ (at 708).

Fair use or not?

The Graham photograph is somewhat similar to the Cariou photographs, as they are classic black and white portraits of a Rastafarian. However, if the nature of the original work is one of the four fair use factors used by courts to determine whether a particular use of a work protected by copyright is fair, the first factor, the purpose and the character of the use, is “[t]he heart of the fair use inquiry” (Blanch at 251).

A work is transformative, as explained by the Supreme Court in 1994, if it does not merely supersede the original work, but instead “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with a new expression, meaning or message… in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is transformative”, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., at 577-578.  

What is determining is whether the new work is transformative, and Prince recognizes this in his motion (p.1). He argued that, by incorporating Plaintiff’s photograph into a social media post, and adding “Instagram visuals and text,” the derivative work has become “a commentary on the power of social media to broadly disseminate others’ work” (p.3).

To create his Canal Zone series, Prince had torn multiple photographs from the Cariou book, enlarged them using inkjet printing, pinned them to plywood, then altered them by painting or collaging over them, sometimes using only parts of the original photographs, sometimes tinting them, sometimes adding photographs from other artists. The result was declared fair use by the Second Circuit. In our case, Prince inkjet printed his original Instagram repost of the Graham picture, complete with his comment, with no further change, except for the change in format and size.

But whether a particular work is transformative does not depend on the amount of sweat of the brow, and a derivative work can be created by a mere stroke of the pen, such as Marcel Duchamp’s L.H.O.O.Q. Nevertheless, the more detailed the process to create a derivate work is, the more likely it is transformative.

It remains to be seen if the SDNY will find this new Prince appropriation work to be fair use. The court is becoming somewhat an expert on appropriation art. Jeff Koons has recently been sued in the SDNY for copyright infringement over the use of a photograph by a commercial photographer, Mitchel Gray. Gray claims that his photograph of a couple on a beach, which he had licensed in 1986 to Gordon’s Gin for the company to create an ad, was reproduced the same year by Koons as part of his “Luxury and Degradation” series. Koons reproduced the whole ad, with no change. Mr. Gray only discovered this use in July 2015 and filed his suit.

We’ll see how this case and the Koons case will proceed. ReCanal Zinian da lam jam.

Image is courtesy of Flickr user Joseph Teegardin under a CC BY-ND 2.0 license.

 

The CopyKat

Marie-Andree tells us that photographer Donald Graham has filed a copyright infringement suit against notorious 'appropriation artist' Richard Prince, the Gagosian Gallery, and its owner Larry Gagosian. Graham claims that Prince used the “Rastafarian Smoking a Joint” photograph without permission in the New Portraits exhibition. Prince presented inkjet prints on canvases of images he had found on Instagram, complete with his own comments as @richardprince4nd. This did not fare well with several authors of the photographs, but so far Donald Graham is the only one who has taken legal action - despite the earlier mostly unsuccessful attempts by Patrick Cariou to claim infringement on a similar basis. TechDirt have a robust examination of the issues here including the view "The next we heard of Richard Prince -- who, it should be admitted, sounds like a real jerk -- he had set up an exhibit where he had printed out people's Instagram photos along with some fake "comment" text added by Prince himself, and was charging obscene amounts of money for them" ........

PETA, the not for profit organisation that campaigns to for animals' rights, has failed in its attempt to get copyright in the infamous monkey selfie transferred to the black macaque monkey Naruto, who too the snap.  US District Judge William Orrick ruled that the monkey, who borrowed British photographer David Slater's camera and took the selfies, cannot own the copyright in the pictures. During a brief hearing the judge, dismissing the suit, stated: "I'm not the person to weigh into this. This is an issue for Congress and the president. If they think animals should have the right of copyright they're free, I think, under the Constitution, to do that."  Works "produced by nature, animals, or plants" cannot be granted copyright protection, the US Copyright Office said in 2014. Slater's Motion to Dismiss said "A monkey, an animal rights organization and a primatologist walk into federal court to sue for infringement of the monkey's claimed copyright." .... "What seems like the setup for a punch line is really happening" adding "monkey see monkey sue is not good law".

BoingBoing tells us that Tommy Funderburk, who was previously was known as a "copyright troll" and whose company, Payartists, sent legal threats to people accused of copyright infringement, has ditched that business model and his new startup, Muzit, uses the same Bittorrent surveillance software and DMCA process to send letters on behalf of musicians, but these letters don't demand money - instead, they invite fans to collaborate with musicians, offering them membership in fan clubs and asking them to sign up for mailing lists. "Fans not Foes." is the new company's mantra it seems.

A group of German publishers has filed a civil complaint against Google. The group, constituted as VG Media, claims to be enforcing Germany’s “Ancillary Copyright” Law, passed in 2013. This is the latest episode in an ongoing dispute between German news publishers and Google.

And finally, a private company in China has been found to be unlawfully acting as a collecting society. The Jiangsu High People’s Court has ruled that Shenzhen Shengying Internet Technology Ltd had, since 2013, wrongfully collected license fees from karaoke bars and had filed lawsuits across the country to enforce its 'rights'. The company acted on behalf of record companies but was also alleged to have fraudulently obtained copyright certificates for other works. The Court reiterated that only the five collective management societies designated by the National Copyright Administration of China (NCAC) have legitimate authority to carry out collective rights management. More here (in Chinese).

Only Thing That Counts is… Fair Use?

Andy wrote a while ago on this blog about Richard Prince ‘repurposing’ once more photographs taken by third parties to create this time art presented in his New Portraits exhibition, and a rather lucrative art that is, both for him and for the gallery representing him.

Now, photographer Donald Graham has filed a copyright infringement suit against Prince, the Gagosian Gallery, and its owner Larry Gagosian (Thank you Mark Jaffe for posting the complaint!) Graham claims that Prince used the “Rastafarian Smoking a Joint” photograph without permission in the New Portraits exhibition. Prince presented inkjet prints on canvases of images he had found on Instagram, complete with his own comments as @richardprince4nd. This did not fare well with several authors of the photographs, but so far Donald Graham is the only one who has taken legal action.

It is not the first time that Richard Prince is been sued for copyright infringement. Patrick Cariou, the author of the Yes Rasta photography book, sued Prince after he had used some of the Yes Rasta photographs to create his Canal Zone series, also presented at the Gagosian Gallery. The Second Circuit found this use to be fair. Just like Cariou, Graham had traveled to Jamaica and taken black and white pictures of Rastafarians after gaining their trust. Does that insure that a court will find Prince’s use of Graham’s work to be fair?

This Time, It May Not Be Fair Use

Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, but it is not fool-proof or automatic. Instead, judges use four non-exclusives factors to determine if a particular use of a work protected by copyright is fair: (1) purpose and character of the use, (2) nature of the copyrighted work, (3) amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and (4) effect of the use on the potential market.

Is Fair Use Once More Coming to Town? 

The second and the third factor are likely to favor Graham, as the work reproduced is artistic, and has been reproduced in its entirety. Therefore, the first and the fourth factor will probably decide whether the use is fair or not.

Graham had not posted himself a reproduction of his work on Instagram, but a third party did, without Graham’s authorization. Under the post, Prince added the comment ““Canal Zinian da lam jam”, which may allude to his Canal Zone series, deemed to be fair use, and printed the page featuring the Graham photograph and his comments.

In Cariou v. Prince, the Second Circuit noted that “Prince altered [the Cariou] photographs significantly” (at 699). Adding a nonsensical comment under a photograph, even if one chooses to describe it as poetry, is not a significant alteration of the original work. This point is likely to be debated by the parties, as the Supreme Court stared in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, when explaining the first fair use factor, that “the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that weigh against a finding of fair use" (at 579).

In Cariou, the Second Circuit explained:

“These twenty-five of Prince's artworks manifest an entirely different aesthetic from Cariou's photographs. Where Cariou's serene and deliberately composed portraits and landscape photographs depict the natural beauty of Rastafarians and their surrounding environs, Prince's crude and jarring works, on the other hand, are hectic and provocative.”

In our case, one would be at pain to describe Prince’s use of Graham’s photography as being “hectic and provocative. “ It may be considered a provocation, but this does still not make the work “provocative” for fair use purposes.

Prince knows how to provoke: he posted a comment about the Graham suit on Twitter: “U want fame? Take mine. Only thing that counts is good art. All the everything else is bullshit.” Interestingly, fair use protects art whether it is good or not, without the judges having to concern themselves about whether fair use is good art or not, or even if it is art at all, or whether the author of the work is famous or not .

As for the fourth factor, the effect on the use on the market, Graham does license his work, including the work at stake, which was not the case in Cariou, and so Prince’s use may be deemed to have an effect on the market.

A Lucrative Business, Thanks to Copyright

Graham posted on Instagram a view of the New Portraits exhibition, including the print reproducing his own work, and added the hashtag #PrinceofAppropriation. The complaint argues that Prince “has achieved notoriety in the “appropriation art” industry for his blatant disregard of copyright law” (at 23).

All the prints forming the New Portraits exhibition have been sold. The Gagosian Gallery has published a catalog of the exhibition, and, according to the Complaint (at 35) “a gigantic photograph of the Exhibition prominently featuring the Infringing Work on a billboard at 50th Street and West Side Highway in New York City for several months, until at least July 2015.”

As noted in the complaint (at 28), the Gagosian Gallery is aware that copyright law prevents a third party to reproduce its inventory without permission (“All images are subject to copyright. Gallery approval must be granted prior to reproduction.” Therefore, Graham himself would have to ask permission to reproduce the unauthorized reproduction of this work by Prince reproducing the original unauthorized post on Instagram by a third party (dizzy yet?).

This case is on the watch list of every IP attorney in the US. Happy New Year!

Image is courtesy of Flickr user jpmueller99 under a CC BY 2.0 license.

The CopyKat - A spliffing new case for Mr Prince!

Photographer Donald Graham has sent cease-and-desist letters to the 'appropriation' artist Richard Prince and the Gagosian Gallery, requesting that they stop displaying or disseminating any artworks or other materials that include Mr. Graham’s images. 1709 readers will remember Mr Prince from the 2013 U.S. case of Cariou v Prince where Mr Prince largely succeeded with his fair use defence after 'transforming' Mr Cariou's photographs of Rastafarians in Jamaica. The new complaint, which was first reported by the website Hyperallergic, stems from a work shown last Autumn at Gagosian in the exhibit “New Portraits” (see image) which featured ink jet prints of images that Mr. Prince had taken from Instagram. The work shows Mr. Graham’s photograph “Rastafarian Smoking a Joint, Jamaica” as it appeared on the Instagram feed of a third party, with the comment “Canal Zinian da lam jam” added by Mr. Prince as a caption. Yes, he added a caption to an Instagram grab. In Prince's earlier case, the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit broadly supported Mr Prince's transformations, saying "Here, our observation of Prince's artworks themselves convinces us of the transformative nature of all but five, which we discuss separately below. These twenty-five of Prince's artworks manifest an entirely different aesthetic from Cariou's photographs. Where Cariou's serene and deliberately composed portraits and landscape photographs depict the natural beauty of Rastafarians and their surrounding environs, Prince's crude and jarring works, on the other hand, are hectic and provocative." Could the same apply on these facts? The CopyKat thinks not - but it's all good publicity! More on Artsbeat here. 

PPL, the UK collection society which licenses use of recorded music on behalf of performers and record companies, brought 230 High Court cases against operators of leisure establishments for alleged copyright infringements in 2014, an increase of 10% on last year, according to analysis by the City law firm RPC. As this Blog has previously noted, The Football Association Premier League also increased the number of High Court cases it launched in 2014. It brought 36 cases, compared with five in 2013, as FAPL and Sky focussed pubs allegedly infringing copyright by broadcasting matches without an appropriate licence. More here.

BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries accounted for only 5% of global copyright license revenue for authors and composers in 2013, according to a report from the International Confederation of Societies of Authors & Composers (CISAC). The CISAC Global Collections Report also quotes industry data estimating the Chinese advertising market as one of the fastest growing in the world. Advertising revenue is a key reference indicator in determining collective licensing tariffs. Much of the growth in advertising revenue comes from online advertising, with the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) separately reporting that China now has 649 million Internet subscribers.

Swedish songwriters have joined their UK counterparts in criticising the way in which the digital streaming pie is currently shared out, pointing out the unfair and unsustainable way in which royalties stemming from streaming services are being shared between different stakeholders - in particular the large share taken by record labels on their own behalf, and on behalf of recording artistes. Earlier this month Marty Bandier, head of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, used the Grammy's to argue that songwriters and publishers have been given an unpalatably small portion of the digital music pie, and the British Academy Of Songwriters, Composers And Authors (BASCA) launched a campaign called The Day The Music Died which stated that as the recorded music industry has shifted from CDs to downloads to streams, "songwriters and composers are now finding their livelihoods under dire threat". This view is now echoed by 133 Swedish writers who say the returns from the likes of Spotify and Deezer mean ""very few songwriters will be able to afford to create music other than as a hobby". CMU Daily estimated that in a typical business model, 30% of the income from subscription and advertising revenues are taken by the streaming service to cover non royalty costs, overheads and its own profit, record labels take 55-60% of gross revenues, leaving at the most 10-15% for songwriters and publishers - if that - with one report backed by CISAC saying the songwriting share can be as little as 3% and recommending upping the revenues shared by rights holders to 80% and rebalancing the shares taken for recorded music and the songs to an equal footing. More on the Guardian Blog by songwriter Helienne Lindvall and on potential US reforms here.

So what to do? Well here's a solution (maybe .......): Qtrax, which at one time looked like being a leader in the digital music market only to see its much lauded bubble, launched at the MIDEM conference in 2008, well and truly burst as the major labels refused to deal, is back!  Qtrax is an advert-supported music player that "for the first time allows the users to download, stream and create a personalised radio channel all from one place" - and, crucially, all for free - that is relaunching at the end of the quarter with the twin aims of cracking down on music piracy and - yes, here's the twist - ensuring artists get paid for their work.  The all new Qtrax will launch the Artist Manifesto and 30% of equity in the company will be set aside for an 'Artists Trust', while  an additional 10% of royalties will be paid directly to artists and songwriters whose content is available on the service with Qtrax boss Allan Klepfisz telling The Telegraph: "There is something very wrong with the current model. The current economic structure is not likely to ever compensate the artist... But it's not that difficult for a paradigm shift to occur. Traditionally the record companies get equity in digital services, but no one has asked on behalf of the artists. This could become a de facto way of doing business".