Category: Art

Texas Church Allegedly Violates Copyright Law with “Hamilton” Performance

Copyright News

When copyright infringement to intersects religious zeal, things get weird fast. In 2014, the Westboro Baptists performed, recorded, and distributed an anti-Semitic version of “Hey Jude” they cleverly called “Hey Jews,” and although no legal action was taken,[1] I thought it was a pretty good example as to why “remix culture” is not always a positive thing and why copyright owners may enforce their rights for reasons other than financial harm.

This week it was reported that The Door Christian Fellowship Ministries of McAllen, Texas not only performed and livestreamed the musical Hamilton without a license, but the organization also took the liberty of revising some of the show’s lyrics to convey various religious messages and then ended the performance with a sermon that seems to equate homosexuality with alcoholism and drug addiction.

Allegations of homophobia notwithstanding, the copyright infringement is clear, and it is unknown whether the owners of Hamilton will take legal action beyond the Cease & Desist notice sent to The Door McAllen. For copyright watchers who may ask whether the church is entitled a religious exemption under the law, the relevant part of the statue (Section 110) states that the following is not an infringement of copyright:

(3) performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatico-musical work of a religious nature, or display of a work, in the course of ser­vices at a place of worship or other religious assembly.

So, this exemption does not apply. Hamilton is a Dramatic Musical Work and is not a work of a religious nature. A license to perform the show is required, whether in a church or anywhere else, and changing the expressive elements of the work can only be done by permission of the copyright owner(s). Also, it is notable that Door McAllen is not some small-town church hosting bake sales to fix its roof before Winter. It appears to be one of many God, Inc. enterprises with satellites around the world, a substantial media/entertainment production capacity, and a slick website.

If the owners of Hamilton choose to take further legal action, Door McAllen does not have a reasonable defense as a matter of law, but given the climate in which we live, legal merit would not necessarily stop a potential litigation from becoming a PR circus. Because the statutory exemption under Section 110 does not apply, Door McAllen would presumably assert a fair use defense, claiming that its changes to the Hamilton book were “transformative” under factor one. This defense would, naturally, be entangled with strenuous appeals to the speech and religious exercise rights under the First Amendment, which just might confound at least a district court.

I know I’m speculating here, which my attorney friends would never do, but Door McAllen has already infringed the copyright rights attached to one of the most famous works in the world, and it is too sophisticated an organization to claim ignorance about the nature of its conduct. Further, Hollywood Reporter writes that pastor Roman Gutierrez, in addition to stating that the church is “not anti-LGBTQ,” did falsely claim that license was obtained to perform the show. At the very least, this implies that the church was aware that a license is required, and according to a spokesman for Hamilton, the producers “[do] not grant amateur or professional licenses for any stage productions and did not grant one to The Door Church.” 

We don’t know what, if anything, will happen next, but The Door McAllen already reveals certain behaviors we have seen in other parties who willfully infringe copyrighted works, and given the way “religious exercise” warps the principles of law for many folks (and judges), this may not be over. Wouldn’t that be a show? A constitutional demolition derby involving the biography of a constitutional framer. Sounds about right these days.

[1] Though at some point, the video was removed from YouTube.

Ephemera and Other Fair Use Defenses

I understand pursuing a fair use defense in a copyright case when the user of a work does something new and creative and believes there is a plausible argument to be made. I also understand why copyright skeptics file amicus briefs seeking opinions that would change the fair use doctrine. But what I find astonishing is the professional, who makes an archetypal use of a work, for which permission was obviously required, and then believes they can prevail on fair use through costly litigation. Because this keeps happening.

In the Spring of 2019, fine art and landscape photographer Elliott McGucken captured a transitory natural phenomenon—the sudden appearance of a lake in the middle of Death Valley, CA, known to be one of the hottest and driest places on Earth.[1] Heavy rains that March formed the 10-mile-wide ephemeral lake, of which McGucken made a series of beautiful and rare photographs, and several publications used his images by permission to accompany articles about the unusual event.[2] But when UK-based, digital publisher Pub Ocean failed to obtain permission for a similar use, McGucken sued for copyright infringement.

Using a photograph for illustrative purposes in an article or book is a paradigmatic use that requires license from the copyright owner. Newspapers, periodicals et al. have had to obtain permission for this purpose for as long as photographs have been protected by copyright law. Yet, despite this longstanding practice, even large commercial entities, perhaps lost in digital-age habits, too often use images without permission. Then, rather than settling with the photographer upon notification of the alleged infringement, these parties compound the error by litigating fair use defenses that will evaporate as surely as a lake in Death Valley.

Granted, in McGucken v. PubOcean Ltd, the fair use defense did prevail on summary judgment in the California District Court, and we have seen lower courts deliver such opinions in a handful of cases of this nature. But I cannot think of one similar instance in recent years that has not been overturned on appeal, including this case. It’s not that the fair use defenses are close calls, but rather, it seems, that certain district courts are hasty in reviewing their own circuit precedents. And in circumstances like this one, defendants are unlikely to find opinions favoring fair use any circuit.

Of the 27-page opinion delivered last week by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, six of those pages cite a litany of precedent denying Pub Ocean any footing on factor one of the fair use analysis (purpose of the use, including commerciality). And here, as in other instances, losing on factor one is fatal to the rest of the fair use defense. In fact, commercial users of photographs (and their counsel for that matter) could read this opinion as a primer about typical uses of works that are not “transformative” under prong one.

As if wandering in a desert with a divining rod, Pub Ocean tried to exploit the seemingly vague semantics of the “transformativeness” doctrine, hoping to escape a sound reading of case law. It tried to argue, as others have done before, that merely placing McGucken’s photographs in the context of a news article, surrounded by text and captions, imbues the photographs with “new meaning and purpose” sufficient to find “transformativeness.” But the court writes …

Practically speaking, it is hard to imagine what would not be a fair use, or what could not be readily turned into a fair use, under Pub Ocean’s theory. Any copyrighted work, when placed in a compilation that expands its context, would be a fair use. Any song would become a fair use when part of a playlist. Any book a fair use if published in a collection of an author’s complete works. It would make little sense to treat this kind of “recontextualizing” or “repackaging” of one work into another as transformative.

More specifically, the court reaffirms what it means to make fair use of a work for the purpose of
“news reporting,” often a subject of confusion because it is one of the statutory examples cited as a purpose that may favor fair use. But here, the court clarifies, “We have recognized that ‘where the content of the [copyrighted] work is the story. . ., news reporters would have a better claim of transformation.’… ‘[C]ourts should be chary of deciding what is and what is not news,’ that label alone does not get Pub Ocean very far.” (Citations omitted).

Users of works are often puzzled by this distinction, but the courts are generally clear-eyed on the principle that the work used must be the subject of the commentary, criticism, or news reporting in order to favor a finding of fair use.[3] By contrast, when a work is used to illustrate, enhance, decorate, etc., especially by a commercial user, then use of the work requires permission of the copyright owner because it is unlikely to fall under the fair use exception.

Further, the court in McGucken adds a footnote stating that even if Pub Ocean had raised the argument that some portion of its article comments upon the photographs, this minimal commentary, in context to the rest of the article, would be unlikely to “help Pub Ocean establish fair use.” Again, this is instructive. Far too many users of visual works believe that adding a bit of text on top of an image (e.g., in a meme) or a caption below it automatically makes the use a fair use, and this belief persists despite guidance from many legal experts that fair use can be tricky and is always a case-by-case consideration.

But there is nothing complicated in McGucken. A commercial publisher used a photograph in the most common manner for which publications have long had to license photographs. The defendant has no foundation for establishing a purpose that would favor a finding of fair use, and absent such a purpose, the other factors fail almost by default. For instance, the court clearly states, under the factor four consideration (potential market harm to the original work), that McGucken’s interest in licensing his photographs would be substantially harmed if Pub Ocean’s use were allowed and became rampant among other users.

I skipped over factors two and three on purpose because a) factor two (the nature of the work) almost always goes to the plaintiff owner of a photograph and is rarely determinative of fair use outcomes; and b) I wanted to highlight the factor three consideration (amount of the work used) because it appears the defendant made another typical blunder. “Pub Ocean argues that this factor favors fair use because the article used twenty-eight photos from other sources, making McGucken’s photos only a small part of the article as a whole,” the opinion summarizes.

That is wrong as a matter of law. The third fair use factor does not consider the weight or role of the used work relative to the scope of the work in which it is used. Here, the court rejects Pub Ocean’s claim stating, “this approach runs contrary to the text of the statute, which plainly calls for a comparison of ‘the portion used’ to ‘the copyrighted work as a whole’ and not the infringing work.” Further, the court reaffirms the interaction between factors one and three, stating, “Pub Ocean failed to point to a transformative purpose that would justify reproducing any of McGucken’s photos—much less the entirety of twelve of them.”

As I say, I don’t get why certain commercial entities so flagrantly infringe photographers’ copyright rights but am even more baffled when they spend tens of thousands of dollars on a doomed fair use adventure. I imagine Mr. McGucken would have settled for a fraction of Pub Ocean’s legal fees to resolve the matter, but it seems as if something in the air whispers “fair use,” and even defendants who should know better chase that vision only to discover that it isn’t even an ephemeral lake but is just a mirage.

[1] This post was drafted while unprecedented rains were flooding Death Valley National Park, trapping tourists and staff.

[2] SF Gate, the Daily Mail, the National Parks Conservation Association, PetaPixel, Smithsonian Magazine, AccuWeather, Atlas Obscura, and Live Science.

[3] Educational use is a bit different, and different conditions apply—namely that works used must be in a traditional classroom setting.

Photo source by: Makaule

Book Bans Should Remind Library Groups that Authors’ Rights Matter

If I believed in Hell and a “special place” reserved for certain villains, I would say that one of those suites in the stygian underworld is the destiny of all book burners. And lately, it seems that room is getting overcrowded. According to a recent story in The Guardian, “the ALA has been tracking bans for two decades and reported that 2021 was the worst year for attempted censorship yet, with 1,597 books challenged,” writes Maeve Higgins.

Higgins reports that certain conservative groups in the U.S. are targeting libraries through a variety of political mechanisms with the purpose of banning books that include or address LGBTQ+ rights, race, sexuality, and the usual catalog of verboten lit among the mouth-breathers. Meanwhile, the Neo Nazis and Proud Boys are simply showing up at library events with the purpose of intimidating staff and visitors.

Book bans are nothing new, of course, but if librarians are sentinels defying those forces, I would remind the leadership of the American Library Association (ALA) et al. that the authors are not only on the same side but are often directly in the crosshairs of censors. And what protects the author best is the market. When copies of Maus sold out after a Tennessee school board banned the book, the response was more than satisfying—it was important. Because that’s how the market protects the voice of Art Spiegelman and the voice of the next author who writes the next book some idiot wants to destroy.

I mention this because when it comes to copyright law, it’s almost as if the ALA and other library associations forget that behind that book about race or gender or the Holocaust—or whatever topic frightens the snowflakes on the far right—is an author. Maybe the author is gay or Black or trans or Jewish, or some combination of these and other experiences that are as worthy of expression through storytelling as any other. But the author’s financial reward for her labor is precarious at best.

The median income made from writing alone is $20,300 per year, and those who say that this is due to capitalism and the greed of publishers have no idea what they’re talking about. Even with its myriad imperfections, only a free market can produce the kind of diversity in literature and cultural works we enjoy in the U.S., and foundational to that market is the bundle of authorial rights protected by copyright law. It should be obvious that library organizations are the author’s natural ally on these matters, just as they stand shoulder-to-shoulder to oppose censorship. But sadly, the connection seems to elude the ALA and many of its cohorts.

To be clear, I do not believe that individual librarians tend to forget the authors. In fact, I am certain this is not the case. The individual librarian is often the author’s best friend and strongest advocate. But your local librarian is also not the person who decides which policies the ALA et al. pursue, and in the area of copyright law, these groups have wasted extraordinary time, energy, and money on efforts to weaken copyright rights in ways that would not only harm authors, but which would obviate the need for most libraries before long.

To be absolutely blunt about it, the library associations have been duped on copyright issues. Not because they are fools, but because they mean well. Their best intentions have been used against them by parties whose motives—whether ideological, financial, or both—demand opposition to the copyright rights of authors. For instance, the ALA has recently expended vast resources pursuing state legislation to undermine ebook licensing models, despite the fact that these bills are unconstitutional on their face and, when we look at the numbers, appear unnecessary to the purpose of serving library communities.

The library associations have also backed commercial ventures seeking to distort the fair use and first sale doctrines in copyright law, revealing a shortsightedness that is hard to fathom—both because it turns allies into antagonists, and because some of those commercial ventures would swallow the role of many libraries. Equally naïve is the tacit endorsement library groups have given to the Internet Archive’s invented theory of “Controlled Digital Lending,” which would aggravate the economic precarity of authors and would be hazardous to libraries everywhere.

If IA’s founder Brewster Kahle achieved his stated ambition to build a free repository for “every work ever created,” what do the library associations imagine happens next? While the number of professional writers would be decimated, libraries across the country would be shuttered as obsolete relics. After all, if one segment of a community will vote to defund the local library for hosting Drag Queen Story Time, and the readers in that same community can get everything from a central database on the web, who will pay to keep a library’s doors open and why?

And before long, which entity is really going to own and control that universal repository of everything? Google? Amazon? Meta? If you think localized book bans are bad, imagine Meta and its invisible star chamber influencing books the way they currently moderate comments on Facebook. I would think most librarians are wise enough students of history and current events to see where weakening authors’ rights can lead, which brings us to the question of who convinced these associations to pursue copyright boondoggles and make unnatural adversaries of authors?

Ivory tower academics and lobbyists who receive substantial funding from the tech industry are at the forefront of all efforts to weaken authors’ rights, including initiatives alleged to be in the interest of libraries. Just review the names of the amici who filed for the defendant in Hachette et al v. Internet Archive, and it will not take long to see the intersection of Big Tech money and advocacy of IA’s false claim to be a surrogate for “all libraries.” Such proximity to Silicon Valley should be a bright yellow flag for the ALA, but like the frog carrying the scorpion, they remain willfully blind to the true nature of that industry and its utopian promises.

Librarians on the front lines in the contemporary assault on literature should keep in mind that there is more than one way to prevent a book from being read; and censorship, infuriating as it is, has often been defeated by the market. A far more effective means to silence a multitude of writers would be to ensure that their books are never written in the first place, and one way to achieve that end is to weaken the copyright rights of authors and further limit their power to change the world.