Tag: Disney

Is a Tech Company Really Claiming Ownership of Marvel Characters?

You may have read recently that some of the major studios, most prominently Disney, are alleged to have infringed the patent rights in a certain motion-capture system used to make blockbuster films like the multi-billion-dollar Marvel movies.  Further, an article like this one in Hollywood Reporter by Eriq Gardner might give a reader the impression that a) the patent infringement allegations are indisputable; and b) that the plaintiff in this case Rearden LLC is claiming to “own” some of the famous CG characters featured in these movies. So what gives?

A lot. But not necessarily what the headlines imply. As for the patent infringement allegations, these are impossible to comment upon at the moment because 1) I know almost nothing about patent law; and 2) the entire backstory as to how Disney and other studios may be implicated is too complex to unravel in this forum. Suffice to say, we’ve got some former technology partners who are no longer friends, some dubious-sounding shenanigans involving the sale (or not) of shared (or not) intellectual property, and an inventor named Steve Perlman (Rearden’s CEO) who seems to have at least a few good reasons to be pissed off at somebody.

Time and the courts will sort all that out, but for the sake of addressing the copyright allegations in this story, we need to assume hypothetically that the studios are implicated in the patent infringement from which the copyright claims stem.  And let’s cut to the chase and clarify that Rearden cannot—and is not—claiming any ownership of the underlying pictorial or graphic works we know as Hulk, Deadpool, Iron Man, etc.  What Rearden does allege is that by making unlicensed use of its MOVA Contour technology, the studios simultaneously infringe Rearden’s copyright in the outputs of this technology.  Hence, cutting through the fog and high drama, the entire copyright claim appears to turn on whether Rearden’s outputs are in fact copyrightable at all.

MOVA Contour’s Outputs

As an example, Mark Ruffalo goes into a motion-capture studio where he grins, shouts, pouts, growls, and raises curiously adorable eyebrows in the mode of his inner Hulk.  He may be directed by the film’s director or some other member of the creative team, or he may self-direct to produce all the faces needed for every scene in which Hulk will appear. These performances, fixed in the computer drives during the process, are indisputably the property of Marvel Studios, which is owned by Disney.

The captured data, consisting primarily of multiple two-dimensional images is then input into the MOVA Contour system, where the software renders a pair of three-dimensional outputs:  what Rearden calls a “Captured Surface” and a “Tracking Mesh.”  These two assets then serve as a highly-detailed, digital armature onto which Marvel-employed animators then composite the CG Hulk, who will then grin, shout, pout, growl, and raise curiously adorable eyebrows in the movie, looking just enough like Mark Ruffalo to make the character transformation seem organic.

Rearden’s Claim

Rearden asserts that, although the Captured Surface and Tracking Mesh are never displayed in the final movies, these two outputs are, nevertheless copyrighted works and, therefore, every CG-composited element built upon these outputs is a “derivative work.” So, absent a licensing agreement to use the software and transfer ownership of the outputs to the licensee, the studios are alleged to have infringed Section 106(2) of the copyright act, which protects the derivative works right.  Indeed, if this claim has merit, it would be quite staggering to consider the number of infringements implicated.  One can almost hear the Hollywood-bashing copyright-haters chomping at the bit; but if that’s the case, they might want to belay the schadenfreude.

I imagine the studios’ motion to dismiss will be denied because the allegations seem to warrant further proceeding. But even if the copyright claim goes far enough to render an opinion by the court, I believe there is ample evidence in both scholarship and case law to conclude that Rearden’s outputs are not copyrightable and, therefore, cannot implicate the derivative works right.

Is MOVA Like Other Software Used to Make Creative Works?

At first blush, one might assume that the MOVA software is akin to using Word or Photoshop, which are used by authors all the time without any fear that Microsoft or Adobe can claim a copyright in the works made with these products—even if the author pirates the software!  But, Rearden counters this premise by saying that because their software produces a specific, repeatable output fixed in a medium, and because this output is produced almost entirely by the “labor” of the software, the analogy to Word isn’t quite right.

The difference they claim relies heavily on the case TorahSoft v. Drosnin (2001) in which defendant Michael Drosnin published a book based on outputs (effectively search results) that were exclusively the products of plaintiff ToraSoft’s algorithm. Rearden appears to be clinging to language in this opinion that supports the possibility that the output from computer software could be copyrightable; but the lion’s share of the opinion actually provides reasons why TorahSoft’s output was not copyrightable. And because much of the court’s reasoning in that case seems applicable to Rearden’s claim, it may be a risky citation.

In response to the assertion that MOVA is comparable to Word or Photoshop, Rearden states,“…in neither case does their work provide input to software that synthesizes an original expression that is distinct from the author’s or artist’s input.”  I wonder if that is, or should be, the standard. After all, between my writing these words and you’re reading them, there are several software authors whose work renders my expression into intermediary “works” that, if they were indeed copyrightable, would mean that everything created with digital tools is a derivative work of underlying works belonging to the tech companies of the world.  I don’t think the courts would view this outcome as compatible with the purpose of copyright.

Are MOVA’s Outputs Expressions or Copies?

Curiously enough, the “sub-millimeter precision” with which MOVA Capture does its job may be the evidence which most disfavors a finding that its outputs are copyrightable.  The standards for protection are “originality” and a “modicum of creativity.”  Originality literally means that the work is not a copy, and so far, “creativity” has been limited to works produced by humans. We may yet address copyright protection for works that are substantially produced by AIs, etc., but in this case, it seems Rearden is arguing that the human expression embodied in the software is tantamount to authorship of the software’s output, which it claims is separately “creative.”

While this may be possible in some circumstance, as TorahSoft seems to imply, I suspect Rearden’s argument will find slippery ground because the courts will view the purpose of MOVA software as one of making copies of performances that are the property of the defendants.  In this context, I believe Rearden’s software, especially as a component of the entire system, may be compared to patented devices that capture images which would strain to meet the standards for protection.

Copyright scholar Justin Hughes, whose paper on photography I have cited in other posts, asserts that a vast quantity of images—security camera footage, satellite photos, Google Street captures, even photos of public-domain paintings sold as postcards—should not stand up to claims of copyright because they lack the modicum of human creativity required for protection.  Assuming Hughes is correct, Rearden’s claim of copyright in its outputs would seem to fail under the same analysis.

More specifically, the case that comes to mind in answer to Rearden’s claim is Meshwerks v Toyota, decided in 2008 by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. In that situation, Meshwerks asserted copyright protection in the outputs from its capture technology used to produce 2D, digital models of Toyota cars for advertising purposes. Supplier Meshwerks actually performed a considerable amount of creative labor—in collaboration with software—to produce the outputs. This stands in contrast to Rearden, whose claim relies solely on the products of the software.  Nevertheless, and with stated respect for the amount of work involved, the court held that Meshwerks outputs were not copyrightable because their purpose was to create the best copies possible of designs belonging to Toyota.  From the opinion, which partly quotes Nimmer on Copyright:

It is certainly true that what Meshwerks accomplished was a peculiar kind of copying.   It did not seek to recreate Toyota vehicles outright-steel, rubber, and all;  instead, it sought to depict Toyota’s three-dimensional physical objects in a two-dimensional digital medium.   But we hold, as many before us have already suggested, that, standing alone, “[t]he fact that a work in one medium has been copied from a work in another medium does not render it any the less a ‘copy.’ ”

So, if we compare this to Rearden’s claim and the Hulk example, Disney certainly did not design Mark Ruffalo, but they do employ him to perform the only creative work in this entire process—that of making faces as Hulk.  And I would argue that, akin to Meshwerks, the function of MOVA software is to copy that performance (in this case, from 2D to 3D). In fact, it is the triumph of the system’s capacity to deliver such precise copies which disfavors a conclusion that its outputs are “original” expressions of “creativity.” The process is no more creative than a CAT scan—far less creative, it seems, than the work performed by Meshwerks, which was held not to meet the standard of protection under copyright.

It’ll be interesting to see if any of the usual anti-copyright suspects come out to play on this one.  Presumably, they should disfavor Rearden’s claim of copyright for many of the reasons cited here, but siding with Hollywood studios may be more than they can bear.

Image by kentoh.

When Copyright Criticism Is Something Else

Photo by Tamagocha

A couple weeks ago, a comment on the Illusion of More Facebook page proposed that the Walt Disney Company was able to get its start in the 1930s because the story for the studio’s first animated feature film Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was “in the public domain.”  I don’t mean to pick on one particular comment or its author, but there is a lot in this statement that reflects widespread misunderstanding about copyright law and how it works.

First, of course, is that most references to Disney are inspired by the almost universally-believed narrative that the Disney Company was directly responsible for extending the U.S. copyright term in 1998 to its present duration.  Hence, I assume the comment was meant to reveal a hypocrisy—namely that Disney needed access to the public domain that today’s creators don’t have—and they don’t have it because of Disney!  Indeed, that could be reason for outrage, if only it were true.

Disney Did Not Write the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act 

Although, Representative Sonny Bono would eventually become a co-sponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 2589, the legislation did not begin with him. The law bears his name as a posthumous honor bestowed after Bono died in a skiing accident, which occurred two months before the bill was first debated by the House Judiciary Committee.

Nevertheless, the internet loves a scandal and so helps keep alive the myth that Bono personally walked the halls of Congress with pockets full of Disney’s cash charged with the task of extending the copyright term to protect the Mouse. Disney was certainly among the rights holders who lobbied for the term extension, but they were one of many and do not appear to have played any special role or to have spent extraordinary campaign sums relative to typical expenditures of other rights-holding petitioners.

When the U.S. finally joined the Berne Convention Treaty in 1989 (a treaty that began in 1886), this mandated the change in our copyright terms from a fixed 56-year duration to life-of-the-author plus 50 years.  Then, as Europe moved toward formation of the EU (1992), that alliance mandated that all partner nations amend their copyright terms to life plus 70 years. In response, the U.S. Congress proposed the same terms in order to maintain parity in trade. And that was the main impetus for the term extension.* It’s not as dramatic a story as Mickey Mouse button-holing Members of Congress in the Rayburn Building, but it’s a digest version of how things actually happened. The SBCTEA passed with solid, bi-partisan, bi-cameral support and was signed into law by president Clinton in 1998.

Was Disney Relying on the Public Domain with Snow White?

Sorta, but not really.  Because the Brothers Grimm were collectors of tales that were part of an oral tradition, it’s a little difficult to view their works through a modern copyright lens and know which elements might arguably have been part of the commons at the time. Regardless, a hypothetical copyright could be granted for their unique telling of a particular tale, and this would apply to the story entitled Snow Drop, which is the underlying work that became Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.  But even if we were to imagine a copyright in that work under current terms, then it would have expired 70 years after Jacob Grimm’s death, which brings us to 1933—four years before Disney made the movie.

So, yes, the story of Snow Drop was in the public domain at the time, but not in the way the commenter—or indeed most copyright critics—mean when they seek to argue that contemporary terms are onerously long.  The general assumption is that in 1937, Disney had a richer and deeper well of material to build upon than contemporary creators have at their disposal, and that Disney then used copyright law to close the proverbial door behind them to keep everyone else out.  While it may seem intuitive that copyright’s current terms would stifle the growth in works since 1998 (or some think since 1790), that belief is not supported either by statistical or anecdotal evidence.

Disney May “own” Snow White, but They Don’t Own Snow White

Feeding this false narrative is the idea that copyright “locks up” works for long periods, keeping them out of reach of new creators.  Although nearly every author will confirm that building upon existing works, ideas, tropes, themes is part of the creative process, this fact is not so greatly in conflict with copyright’s boundaries as many a non-creator pundit would have us believe. And Snow White is as good an example as any.

A creator—whether Disney or anyone else—may only protect a unique telling of this classic tale.  Ditto The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Pinnochio, and many other titles in the traditional Disney oeuvre. The studio may only enforce copyrights for its versions of these stories; and for Disney, the most valuable aspect of their work is often the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural (PSG) interpretations of the classic characters (see Disney merch).  But the relevance of the idea/expression distinction here is, I suspect, overshadowed by a different phenomenon, which is really a complaint about market dominance.

One could argue that the “Disneyfication” of classic tales can have a homogenizing cultural effect because the company’s vast resources enable, for instance, a single interpretation of Snow White to dominate popular imagination for generations. This is a valid criticism or conversation to have, but it’s one about American culture, business, and marketing that isn’t really influenced by copyright terms as much as people may assume. Nevertheless, I suspect responses to these cultural or aesthetic criticisms tends to color the copyright narrative, particularly when invoking Disney.

If anything, copyright only helps to mitigate creative homogenization by disallowing unlicensed copying of what some may view as corporatized versions of stories and characters. As Harvard scholar Joseph P. Fishman pointed out in his study in 2014, boundaries like copyright tend to be generative for creators, while too much freedom to copy can actually stifle originality. Creators don’t really need a study to know this is true; they can tell you this from experience.

What About the Comics?

Moving on to a different part of the Disney organization, we have the Marvel franchise.  These more contemporary works comprise characters and narratives that many people believe belong in the public domain because they are so ingrained in common culture that it feels like these classic heroes and villains belong to all of us.  But one aspect of this idea that is often overlooked is that these characters attained that place in our hearts and minds because they were controlled franchises.

If you were a Daredevil fan growing up, you didn’t wait with anticipation to hear what your friends thought should happen next, you waited for the next issue to see what really happened next.  Without this common experience shared by fans, Daredevil would not have become a staple of the Marvel universe—and neither would any other character.

The assumption promoted by copyright critics is that when Daredevil falls into the public domain, this will spawn new, innovative ways to build upon the character for more creators.  Perhaps, but not necessarily.  As noted in an earlier post, even with PD works, we tend to see that one version at a time emerges for a period because the market only sustains so many variations at a time.  The example I cited previously is that it would be tough to compete right now with the Sherlock Holmes TV series starring Benedict Cumberbatch; and this is true for reasons having nothing to do with copyright.

So, it seems that a lot of copyright criticism, in certain contexts, is tangled up with aesthetic or emotional sentiments associated with popular and famous stories and characters.  There will always be consumers who don’t like the way a popular work is treated, even by its original creator. Just look at Star Wars. For every ten million fans, there are a hundred million opinions about what George Lucas did, or should have done, with his franchise.  But it was his franchise. If you want to decide the fate of a new multi-billion-dollar franchise, you’ll just have to invent your own.  And as many readers know, that’s exactly what Lucas did when he couldn’t get the rights to make Flash Gordon. 

*As a colleague noted since publication, there was more to this than trade harmonization; but without enumerating the various terms of copyright for different works, suffice to say that it still wasn’t about Disney and Mickey Mouse.

Fair Use Isn’t “Dare Use”

LTG YT

Don’t fall for fair-use daredevil tactics. You might get hurt.

I know Fair Use Week is technically over, but when I saw this video produced by Public Knowledge, I couldn’t, y’know…let it go.

Remember how I’ve argued a few times that organizations have a habit of promoting fair use messages that can confuse people and potentially get well-meaning creators into legal trouble? Well, kids, with regard to the snarky video Public Knowledge released last week, all I can say is, don’t try this at home. Because their fair use argument is technically pretty weak, and I wouldn’t follow their lead unless you feel like poking a phalanx of lawyers with a stick.

So, what Public Knowledge did was have a guy named Charles Duan write anti-copyright lyrics on the theme “Let ‘em Go” set to the tune “Let It Go” from Disney’s movie Frozen. Vocalist Courtney Duffy, with all the earnestness she could muster, sings lyrics like “But companies with cash and greed, Choke the public domain these artists need.” Ouch.

Anyway, the video itself is a montage of clips from Disney animated films, home-movie footage of people dressed as Disney characters, and a variety of creative expressions both directly and indirectly trying to make a point about copyright. The message, as usual, is muddled. PK is provoking Disney because of the trope that the company is directly responsible for the last extension of copyright terms—not actually true—but the video is also trying to be a lesson in fair use, presuming to prove its point by brazenly making use of works belonging to one of the most famously protective companies in the world. (Oh, and a shot of Holden, the “dancing baby” in Lenz is thrown in for good measure.)

Never mind that any number of the depicted “uses” would not implicate copyright (or consequently fair use), but on the subject of copyright terms, the message is weakened by the fact that PK depicts a number of works, like clips from Frozen, whose copyrights would not have expired even if terms were dramatically shorter. Of course, the folks at PK never let pesky details get in the way of a well-entrenched conceit.

Personally, I don’t get everyone’s obsession with the Mouse, and it would be nearly impossible to count all of the creative works that have been produced concurrent with Mickey’s long tenure as an IP-protected icon, but whatever. No doubt there’s an artist somewhere, languishing in a lonely garrett, rendered mute because he cannot fulfill his Mickey Mouse vision.

The Song Is Not Fair Use

The big thing that jumped out at me about this video, though, is that PK’s use of the song in this case would likely not do very well under a fair use test if Disney were to sue the organization. The song may be covered by a blanket license for use on YouTube,* which would be an amusing irony, given the posture of “civil disobedience” PK presumes to be striking here. But if that were not the case, and if Disney wanted to take action, I think Public Knowledge would fail in a fair use defense for its use of “Let It Go” in this video.

As mentioned in an older post, a fair use of a song in the way PK used it here protects parody, meaning that the new use must in some way comment on the original work. Fair use as parody does not protect the use of a song with new lyrics written to express something that is entirely separate from the meaning or spirit of the original work. As noted in this post about the Westboro Baptists writing and recording anti-semitic lyrics to McCartney’s “Hey Jude,” such uses can have very negative effects and even infringe the speech rights of the authors. As we saw in regard to the settlement in GoldieBlox’s use of a Beastie Boys song, the fair use defense does not generally support a use like the one PK made for this video.

The song “Let It Go” is about a young woman breaking out of her frozen shell to become her true self, so I think PK would receive a pretty frosty, judicial response if they tried to argue that their anti-copyright lyrics meet the definition of parody. If Disney were to sue Public Knowledge, I believe the use of the song in this case would fail on the first, second, and third factors of the fair use test. Specifically, PK’s desire to comment upon The Disney Company via its use of “Let It Go” would likely invoke a citation of the 2009 case Salinger v Colting in which the defendant’s authorship of an unauthorized sequel to The Catcher in the Rye was not held to be a fair use on the basis that it was expressing a comment upon J.D. Salinger himself. From the opinion:

“While the addition of Salinger as a character in 60 Years is indeed novel, the Court is unconvinced by Defendants’ attempts to shoehorn Defendants’ commentary and criticism of Salinger into the parodic framework of Campbell,** which requires critique or commentary of the work.”

For all their smugness, Public Knowledge is more likely protected either by license between Disney and YouTube or by PR (i.e. Disney may decide it isn’t worth the press fight); but the fair use defense here kinda blows. And that’s why I say these organizations are not doing the public any favors when they produce this kind of propaganda. They can get well-intentioned creators into trouble by evangelizing a general understanding of a legal doctrine that demands a more nuanced consideration. Maybe, Public Knowledge should heed an apropos line by comedian Ron White: “The next time you have a thought, let it go.”

*ADDENDUM:  Thanks to the comment from artandcreativesite, which reminds us that even with such a license to use a song, complete revision of the original lyrics still infringes the rights holder’s exclusive right to create derivative works.

**Campbell v Acuff-Rose, a landmark case in which 2 Live Crew’s use of Roy Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman” was held to be  fair use as a parody.