Latest Posts

Hacked Off at Facebook

Well, it finally happened. After criticizing the worst effects of social media for over 10 years, I was finally hacked, locked out of my Facebook account, and (I assume) will be unable to restore any of the material or connections going back to 2007. I’m sharing the details in this post because what I now believe to be a phishing-style attack had the appearance of Meta erroneously booting me for failure to comply with community standards. And frankly, Meta is so useless from a support standpoint that it hardly matters.

Whether Facebook moderators are in error, or the account was targeted by a hacker, there is no clear process for the average user to remedy either issue—just a Kafka-designed carousel of unhelpful articles and FAQs. And of course, beyond Facebook’s garden wall, one finds more scammers with offers to “help” because if you recently fell prey to a hacker, you’re bleeding in shark-infested waters.

Hacker or Facebook Moderators?

I say the attack was phishing-like because the initial communication did not come through email. Those are common enough and usually easy to spot. The email with the slightly blurry logo and wrong URL that claims to be your bank or insurance company or some other party with a message, invoice, or payment for you is trying to get you to click a link and download malware. As I say, these are easy enough to recognize and delete. But in this case, the communication came from within the Meta/Facebook environment—and not just as a DM in the Chat app.

Initially, I received messages from “Meta Business” in the Meta Business section of the platform. These were directed to me as the administrator of the Illusion of More page and not to me personally. I was told that IOM had been reported for (get this!) a copyright violation. As I do not engage in copyright violations, I responded to say that an error had been made, believing that I was writing to Meta since I was clearly on the Meta Business page and not some bogus URL. Unsurprisingly, there was no response, and a few days later, I was told in the same thread that my business page had been disabled. But the IOM page was not disabled, and I did not know what to make of the messages, especially when communication with Meta is not an option.

A few days later, I received a message directed to me personally, again within the Facebook platform, stating that an attempted login had occurred from an unusual location. I took the recommendation to change my password, and I do not believe I clicked on anything outside the Facebook universe such that I might provide the new password to a hacker. Nevertheless, several hours later, my personal account was disabled, and the relevant email and phone number were newly associated with an account called “Meta Copyright Infringement.”

I created a new personal account and did a search for “Meta Copyright Infringement” as People and found that many accounts have suffered this same fate. Some appear to still have pages intact, while others are blank:

Attacks of this nature have been reported since at least the start of 2023, but the articles I found all describe phishing via email, which is usually the vector. But unless I was truly distracted, all communication I received was within the Meta environment, and if hackers are spoofing Meta from within Meta, this implies a new and sophisticated campaign to acquire login credentials.

As for the rationale of the hacker(s), it is hard to say. In my case, as a copyright advocate, I can be a target for an anti-copyright hacker who just wants to mess with me. But so far, nothing inappropriate seems to have appeared on Facebook in my name. In fact, that account appears to have been deleted altogether. On the other hand, this just happened, so we’ll see. In the meantime, I no longer have control of two business pages, including Illusion of More on Facebook, because I was the sole administrator.

As mentioned above, this apparent hack is barely distinguishable from Meta disabling my account for an alleged violation of community standards, and the company offers zero remedies to address either issue. I mean, yeah, there’s a Help Center, but it makes the average DMV look like a hotel concierge. Meta provides a “review form” for disabled accounts, but this “form” only asks the customer to input a name, email, and a copy of ID to prove identity. But, of course, if the email entered is associated with a disabled account, you get a message saying that the account doesn’t exist, which indicates a hack, so…

Follow the instructions for recovering an account you think was hacked, and Meta will help you identify the account associated with the email…

Assuming that’s what FB thinks my account is now, I reluctantly click This is My Account, and…

And you can guess where that link “here” leads. Yup. Right back onto the carousel playing the calliope from Hell mocking you for getting on the ride in the first place.

I don’t know. Maybe I missed a clue somewhere in the attack, but the most compelling detail here is that it looked a lot like communication from Meta and within Meta. In fact, if Meta were to contact me at some point and confirm that they did kick me off for an alleged copyright violation, I would not be very surprised—except that it would still be an error. But apparently, this is what support looks like for a platform hosting three-billion people:  when we can’t quite tell the difference between a cyber-attack and half-assed moderation insulated from its users by layers of bullshit.

What Does the Valancourt Decision Mean for Most Creators?

As discussed in an earlier post, Valancourt Books, a small, on-demand publisher, filed suit against the Copyright Office and the Department of Justice and argued that the Office’s demand for physical copies of published books is unconstitutional. Valancourt alleged that the authority granted by §407 of the Copyright Act to demand the copies (or be fined) is a violation of both the First Amendment speech right and the Fifth Amendment prohibition against a government taking of private property without “just compensation.” This week, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Valancourt’s Fifth Amendment takings claim and declined to weigh the First Amendment claim.[1]

We agree with Valancourt that Section 407’s demand for physical copies of works, as applied by the Copyright Office here, represents an uncompensated taking of private property under the Takings Clause. We need not reach Valancourt’s First Amendment claim, as it seeks the same relief through that challenge.

Background (Summarized from Post of August 2021)

Valancourt produces books on-demand from old, rare, and hard-to-find manuscripts, including some dating back to the 18th century. Although many of the underlying works Valancourt republishes are long in the public domain, the companion material in their editions (e.g., scholarly introductions and footnotes) are subjects of copyright; and some of the manuscripts they print are still under copyright protection and used by permission of living authors or their estates. So, although the publisher does not register its books with the Copyright Office, it does place copyright notices in the front matter to alert readers that either the underlying manuscript and/or supporting materials are protected.

In 2018, Valancourt began receiving letters from the Copyright Acquisitions Division (CAD) of the Copyright Office demanding physical copies under the statutory deposit copy provisions of §407. The initial demand was for two copies of each of Valancourt’s 341 published titles. The publisher stated that this represented a significant financial and logistical burden and, finding no satisfactory relief in the Office’s compromise offers, they filed suit on the constitutional allegations. The district court ruled in favor of the government, and the DC Circuit has now reversed.

The Heart of the Decision

The most substantive aspect of the Valancourt decision is the court’s holding that the demand for physical copies is a taking because the publisher does not receive any benefit for supplying the copies. “A voluntary exchange for a benefit…does not exist if the purported ‘benefit’ is illusory,” the opinion states. Because copyright attaches automatically to any work fixed in a medium of expression, a party like Valancourt truly gets nothing in exchange for providing physical copies.

What the Valancourt decision means for most individual creators is not much, but it may be easy to confuse the issues here with the registration process (§408) in which deposit copies are a requirement of the registration application. Many creators are aware that in order to apply for copyright registration, they have to send in a copy of their work. That is governed by §408. In contrast, §407 allows the Library of Congress – through the Copyright Office – to demand a copy of any work published in the United States. Sending a copy for registration under §408 can satisfy the requirement under §407, but because Valancourt does not register the books it publishes, that was not relevant here. Consequently, the Office’s demand for physical copies (based solely on the act of publication) is acutely unjust in this instance because Valancourt gets absolutely nothing for providing free copies for the Library’s collection at its expense. This is distinctive from the deposit copies required for registration.

The deposit copy submitted for a registration application, whether electronic or physical, is less likely to be viewed as a taking because the applicant voluntarily obtains key enforcement advantages by complying with the registration requirements. Registration is not mandatory for copyright rights to subsist but is (among other things) a prerequisite to filing an infringement claim in federal court. Physical copies are required with a registration application if the work is published at the time of the application and if the work is first published in physical form, but again, because this is a condition of registration, and registration provides tangible benefits, this deposit condition is less likely to be found a taking.

That said, where the Office may exercise its right to demand copies based on publication (§407), the Valancourt decision may have some interesting implications. For example, if an author registers a final-edit manuscript in electronic form and later publishes that material, she (or the publisher) may receive a demand to provide physical copies or face a fine for failing to comply. But after Valancourt, the demand for physical copies solely at the threshold of publication, would seem to be a taking because, again, the author/publisher gets no additional value in exchange for providing the copies. The underlying registration (e.g., in the previously unpublished manuscript) is not invalidated by a failure to provide post-publication physical copies.

This is More About the Library of Congress than Copyright Law

In Valancourt, we see one example of the tension that can arise between the interests of the Library of Congress and the efficient administration of copyright protection for creators. As discussed in other posts, the often-confusing formalities in U.S. copyright law are largely due to the historic, but not always compatible, relationship between the two institutions. The Copyright Act of 1870 consolidated registration and deposit at the Library for the purpose of growing the collection, and in 1897, the Copyright Office was established within the Library as both the administrative and expert agency.

But as the outcome in Valancourt highlights, the author/publisher’s copyright interests and the Library’s authority to demand copies are in conflict. With 1870 barely visible in the rearview mirror, the Library still wants free materials, but Valancourt shows that this mission is not wholly predicated on the author/publisher’s interest in obtaining the full advantages of copyright protection. And perhaps this is especially true in a modern, digital-age market.

Notwithstanding the unpublished manuscript scenario above, most publishers send physical deposit copies with registration applications for published—or about to be published—books.[2] But if the Valancourt decision stands, it is conceivable that many publishers, especially smaller presses, will argue that they are allowed to submit electronic copies or must be compensated for the cost of sending physical copies. We shall see whether the government appeals this decision to the Supreme Court, but in the meantime, most creators can file this case under the heading Conversation for Copyright Nerds and continue registering their works with electronic deposits. In any event, please remember to register immediately—before your work is published and before it can be infringed – to get the full protection of the Copyright Act.

[1] FWIW, I wonder whether Valancourt’s speech claim would have merit because it seems that Plaintiff would have to show that the demand for physical copies, though enforced inconsistently, is content based. City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC, 142 S. Ct. 1464 (2022).

[2] There are good reasons to do this, not the least being that the physical book is the final draft of all the material being registered.

Sedlik v. Kat von D After Warhol

On August 7, photographer Jeff Sedlik and tattoo artist Katherine Von Drachenberg (Kat Von D) filed motions for reconsideration of summary judgment, with both sides arguing that their allegations are favored by the Supreme Court’s decision in Goldsmith v. Warhol delivered on May 18, 2023, finding for plaintiff Lynn Goldsmith. The parties also filed oppositions on August 21. I’ll cut to the chase and assert that to the extent Warhol is instructive here, it is impossible to see how it helps Kat Von D’s fair use defense as a matter of law.

I have written about this case before, but to repeat the background, Kat Von D (owner and operator of High Voltage Tattoo) is a celebrity tattoo artist with millions of fans and followers. In April of 2018, she tattooed a copy of Jeff Sedlik’s portrait of Miles Davis onto the arm of Blake Farmer, a lighting tech, with whom she had worked on a film project. Kat Von D did not charge Farmer for the tattoo, but she did publicize its making through her social media accounts, and these promotional posts included the Davis photograph, as shown here:

Sedlik reached out to Kat Von D to discuss her unlicensed use of the Davis photograph, but receiving no reply, he filed suit against her and High Voltage for copyright infringement (both for the tattoo and the display of his photo in the promotional materials). Kat Von D contends that tattoo artists are not required to license the images they use. Notwithstanding the validity of that claim, however, she argues that the Davis tattoo was a fair use and, further, that the outcome in Warhol is “new law” that now supports her defense. Conversely, Sedlik argues that Warhol rejects Kat Von D’s fair use claim, stating that her argument is “very similar” to that of Andy Warhol Foundation.

Tattoos Are Not Unique Re. Licensing

First, let’s dispense with the proposal that tattoos are generally exempt from a requirement to license protected images. Although tattoos are a distinctive form of image rendering in that they are permanently fixed on a person’s body, there is no exception in copyright law to which Kat Von D et al. can point to justify avoiding a requirement to license protected visual works. Although Sedlik presents evidence that licensing images for tattoos is common practice, and that he has personally licensed his photos for many uses, including tattoos, the requirement to obtain a license is not predicated on these facts, but rather on a core principle of copyright law that it does not protect a use-it-or-lose-it bundle of rights.

Sedlik could have created the Davis portrait as a work of fine art, sold a few limited-edition prints, and declined to license the image for any other purpose, and the legal considerations in this case should be the same.[1] A copyright owner retains the exclusive right to permit or deny the use of a work for any reason, at any price, and at any time during the term of protection. In fact, perhaps the most prominent, relevant case in which a court held that a rightsholder needed to be in a market to show potential harm was Cariou v. Prince. But Cariou was not only decided in a different (i.e., non-controlling) circuit, it is arguably dead law after Warhol.

But this gets ahead of the narrative, jumping into factor four considerations, so let’s return to factor one (the purpose of the use) and the effect of Warhol on Kat Von D’s fair use defense. Because to put it bluntly, her post-Warhol motions make a hash of the relevant aspects of that decision—even implying that the commercial consideration weighs more heavily than the transformative consideration. This inverts the analysis, but in any order of consideration, her use is clearly commercial and even more clearly not transformative.

The Tattoo is Commercial

Citing Warhol, Kat Von D alleges that Sedlik and the district court erroneously conflated the commercial nature of the social media posts with the allegedly non-commercial making of the tattoo itself. “Under the new rule set forth in Warhol, each of those challenged uses must be analyzed separately and assessed on their own terms,” the KVD motion states. In seeking to separate the tattoo’s production from promoting herself, Kat Von D then argues that the tattoo was made for a non-commercial purpose because she did not charge Mr. Farmer for the work. This legerdemain is aided by the misdirection in asking the court to look at commerciality first and transformativeness second,[2] but even if the promotional uses are separately analyzed for alleged infringement, this does not mean they cannot serve as factual evidence of a commercial purpose in the initial making of the tattoo.

Advertising or promoting an enterprise or a brand (Kat Von D is a brand) with the use of a protected work is sufficient to find that the user gained some “advantage,” and this is generally held to be a commercial use as a matter of law. Both for-profit and not-for-profit entities give away goods and services all the time and usually obtain some PR value by making these donations. In this same light, Kat Von D cannot escape the commercial nature of the Davis tattoo simply because it was a “gift” to Mr. Farmer.[3]

The widespread and sophisticated promotion of the tattoo, reaching millions of followers, can only be viewed as adding value to the Kat Von D brand. So, even if the promotional images were found, under separate analysis, to be non-infringing, they nevertheless demonstrate that the production of the tattoo served a commercial purpose. But more importantly, even if Kat Von D’s use of the Davis photo were found to be non-commercial, the lack of transformativeness must still find that factor one favors Sedlik. And Warhol makes this abundantly clear.

The Tattoo is Not Transformative (Before or After Warhol)

Kat Von D misreads the meaning of “purpose” under factor one and overlooks the most significant aspect of the holding in the Warhol decision. Because the Supreme Court found that the Warhol screen and the Goldsmith photo served the same “illustrative purpose” (in context to the facts at issue), Kat Von D argues that this means Sedlik’s original job to photograph Davis to illustrate a jazz magazine is distinguishable from her non-illustrative, “transformative” intent to make a tattoo. This strains the Court’s discussion in Warhol and tries to revive the argument that using a work in a different medium or context is transformative. This was an error even before Warhol.

The purpose of Sedlik’s photograph is to be a portrait of Miles Davis. It does not matter whether the first use of that portrait was to illustrate a magazine article, to hang in a fine art gallery, to be printed in a book about Miles Davis, etc. If Kat Von D’s premise were the foundation for transformativeness, it would be tantamount to finding that nearly any adaptation of a work to a new medium or context (e.g., book to movie, movie to video game) is transformative favoring fair use.

Because this would swallow the author’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works, the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of the boundary between transformative use and derivative works was arguably the most important aspect of the Warhol opinion. Specifically, the Court restated the principle (citing Campbell) that to find transformativeness, the purpose in using a protected work must include some “critical bearing” on the work used. “Critical bearing” means some element of comment upon the used work—a claim that Kat Von D cannot make, which may be why her briefs omit this critical result in the Warhol decision.[4]  From the Opinion:

The asserted commentary [by Warhol] is at Campbell’s lowest ebb. Because it “has no critical bearing on” Goldsmith’s photograph, the commentary’s “claim to fairness in borrowing from” her work “diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish).”

Some Difference in Expression is Not Transformative

Kat Von D also overstates the significance of alleged expressive distinctions between her tattoo and Sedlik’s photograph, noting that at summary judgment, “The Court found that Defendants carried their burden of showing that the Tattoo ‘has a purpose or meaning distinct from the Portrait by virtue of the way Kat Von D changed its appearance to create what she characterizes as adding movement and a more melancholy aesthetic.’” [5] In my view, the district court erred in its finding here, but even if the question was determined to be a triable issue of fact before Warhol, the question should evaporate after Warhol because the essential element of “critical bearing” is clearly absent from the Kat Von D tattoo just as it is absent from the Warhol screen(s).

Further, any claim to expressive distinctions between the tattoo and the photograph that may find shaky purchase on factor one would be doomed to fall under analysis of factor three, which considers the amount of the original work used. Any court should hold that the tattoo copies the “heart” of Sedlik’s photograph and that many of the distinctions between the two works are largely the result of adaptation from one medium to another.[6] Adaptation from one medium to another is typically evidence that a derivative work has been made, and in this case, it is an unlicensed derivative that is not allowed by fair use.

Threat to the Potential Market

On the fourth factor analysis, regardless of whether Sedlik has previously licensed his photos for making tattoos, Kat Von D’s failure to obtain a license constitutes a threat to the “potential” market for the photograph. Here, Kat Von D argues that the tattoo cannot serve as a substitute for, say, photographic reproductions of the image, and this is true but irrelevant. The threat is to potential licensing opportunities for the image, and unless there is a foundation for finding that tattoo artists are exempt from copyright obligations, the tattoo market remains a licensing avenue for Sedlik and all other visual artists.

Further, because Kat Von D is a celebrity, other tattoo artists will follow her example and, likely, view the outcome of this case as instructive. Thus, under Ninth Circuit precedent in (among other cases) McGucken v. Pub Ocean, the district court should recognize the factor four holding that if tattoo artists “carried out in a widespread and unrestricted fashion” the same conduct with other visual works, this would “destroy” a “licensing market.”

Freehand Drawing, Bodily Integrity, and Other Distractions

Kat Von D directs the court’s attention (and that of a putative jury) to her testimony that she inked the image of Miles Davis freehand, but this is irrelevant. She admits to first tracing Sedlik’s photograph (and there is video evidence of same) and then doing the inking freehand, and she will presumably want to make a show of all this process to a jury. But none of it matters.

Facts related to the process of making a copy of a protected work are only relevant to the alleged infringer’s intent and may be evidence of access to the work used. The method of copying, no matter how impressive or mundane, has no bearing on the questions of infringement or fair use. Here, the tattoo is clearly a copy of the photograph, and to the extent Kat Von D’s process matters at all, it only serves as evidence that her copying was intentional.

There has also been some discussion among legal pundits and in the blogosphere about bodily integrity and the nature of tattoos, and this is another distraction from the salient issues. In addition to the fact that Sedlik has not filed suit against Farmer nor sought any form of injunctive relief whereby the tattoo might be ordered removed from his arm, this case is not an attack on the tattoo industry or on tattoo wearers. This case is about the need to obtain a license to copy protected works (in any medium), and if a celebrity like Kat Von D fails to honor that principle with a high-profile image, this sets a poor example for less well-known parties appropriating other works.

From my reading, this litigation contains a lot of unnecessary discussion about artistic process and subjective meaning (e.g., Farmer’s feelings about Miles Davis) that would likely be immaterial even in a more complex case. But this isn’t a complex case. A child can recognize that the tattoo is a very faithful copy of the heart of the photograph, and the Supreme Court in Warhol has affirmed that the tattoo is not a fair use. I fail to see how this case is more difficult than that.

Disclosure: The copyright advocacy world is quite small. I know Jeff Sedlik and have spoken to him about copyright matters in general and about the publicly available record in this case. In addition to his work as a photographer, he has served as an expert witness in over 450 copyright cases, including for Lynn Goldsmith. He is the founder of PLUS Coalition and is a board member of Copyright Alliance.

[1] e.g., The Beastie Boys sued GoldieBlox in 2013 for use of one of its songs because the band had never allowed commercial/advertising uses of its music.

[2] As Campbell makes clear, transformativeness is more determinative of fair use than commercial use, and the factor one analysis in Warhol rests substantially on Campbell.

[3] Also, although Sedlik does not allege barter, it is notable that Farmer worked for Kat Von D and then received what would be a rather expensive tattoo as a “gift.”

[4] To clarify, any claim to “comment” about Davis, about Farmer, about jazz, etc. is outside the standard for “critical bearing.” The comment must be about the work used, e.g., to critique the photograph.

[5] Notably, Warhol’s claim to “new expression” is stronger than Kat Von D’s.

[6] For instance, Sedlik’s solid black background is likely not achievable nor desirable on human skin.