Tag: fair use

DMCA HEARING IV – Contemplating Fair Use

With the first three DMCA review hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on IP, it was fairly easy to identify the salient matters most likely to survive beyond this inquiry period and become part of the substantive debate on possible legislative revision. For instance, the need to more clearly define constructive, or “red flag,” knowledge in Section 512 is a recurring theme, at least from the rightsholders, and it is a problem that is at least conceivable as a legislative fix.

But in regard to the most recent hearing, held on July 28, it is little tougher to make an educated guess as to what may come of it. And this is partly because the topic itself is a tricky one that inevitably spills over into matters not directly pertinent to the DMCA. The title of the panel is How does the DMCA contemplate limitations and exceptions like fair use? And although Professor Jane C. Ginsburg of Columbia Law School answered that question about as directly as one could—outlining the ways in which Section 512 “accommodates” fair use, and discussing the efficacy of same—my general takeaway from hearing overall was that it seems pretty difficult for any legislative fix to alleviate the tension between DMCA and fair use.

Keep in mind that the DMCA was a deal hammered out by very large, corporate interests. The online service providers (OSPs) at that time, mostly major telecoms, wanted immunity from civil suit for the copyright infringements users would inevitably commit. The notice-and-takedown provision of 512 was the compromise solution for rightsholders to remove those infringements, and the counter-notice provision was created in order to restore material taken down in error.

While it would be wrong, without supporting evidence, to assert that Congress never contemplated nuanced, “close calls” like fair uses in 1998, it is generally undisputed by all parties that Congress did not fully anticipate the scale and speed at which copyrighted works would be uploaded to online platforms over the past 22 years. Let alone uploaded repeatedly by multiple users, or the monetary value of all that infringing activity to a major platform owner. Consequently, it seems reasonable to conclude that Congress likewise could not quite have imagined a digital landscape in which tens of thousands, if not millions, of individual rightsholders and users would be expected to become literate in the fair use doctrine.

Whether this also means that Congress expected that there would more often be fact-based incidences of error in takedown notices (e.g. wrong party, wrong material, non-copyright complaints, etc.), we cannot say for certain, but these are the type of error that require no education in fair use, or any other subjective legal doctrine, in order to file a valid counter notice. Although 512 may not have been written with individual, lay users in mind, it is certainly the case that independent creators and users of works have long been left to fend for themselves, filing their own notices or counter-notices, and trying to understand fair use—a body of judge-made law about which judges disagree with some frequency.

Fair use, as I will soon discuss in greater detail with regard to Google v. Oracle, is a consideration of both fact and law, and if its principles can be slippery for courts and attorneys to hold onto, it can certainly be tricky for the average rightsholder or user. Meanwhile, amid the general chatter on this subject, OSPs, digital rights groups, and users tend to complain that fair uses are removed all the time, while rightsholders complain that users make erroneous fair use claims all the time. And without question, both groups are correct at least some of the time. Neither independent rightsholders nor users—and certainly no parties acting in bad faith—can be counted on to be “right” about fair use all of the time, least of all through the constrained mechanisms of the notice/counter-notice provisions of the DMCA.

Because the committee asked a difficult question, it was not surprising that the witnesses covered a lot familiar ground that, while important, is either not specific to fair use or not specific to the DMCA. For instance, lead counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, Mickey Osterricher, described various ways in which the “whack-a-mole” problem does almost immediate and lasting harm to the value of news photography and video. This is an archetypal failure of the DMCA’s takedown provision to protect individual authors, and while it is not directly connected the inquiry into the contemplation of fair use, it is a problem often exacerbated when users make overbroad or erroneous assertions of fair use in their counter notices.

For instance, Osterricher’s reference to the devaluation of photojournalism, through unlicensed copying and distribution online, is related to a fair use question that was raised in the hearing about the use of works by political campaigns or advocacy organizations. Although attorney Matthew Sanderson, in his testimony, referred to these examples as “paradigmatic fair uses,” that may be a bit overstated. If the owner of a photo sends a takedown notice targeting a campaign video that contains her image, this could be a wrongful takedown targeting the candidate rather than a copyright infringement, but it is more likely to be a proper takedown targeting an infringement, independent of the author’s feelings about the candidate. Or, if the work being used is strongly associated with its creator(s) identities, like a famous song, there is the added dimension of coerced speech, which is potentially more serious than copyright infringement alone.

All of that is by way of saying that a review of DMCA’s mechanisms cannot easily hope to reconcile a lot of complex (often fraught) fair use questions, which will always be a case-by-case consideration. In the meantime, though, GRAMMY-winning, gospel singer/songwriter Yolanda Adams, in her testimony, did offer an old-fashioned, low-tech solution to many of the conflicts that arise between artists and political groups:  ask permission. “Musicians run the spectrum of political views,” she says. “If candidates want to use music in their campaigns, work with us – the artists and songwriters – to find the right match.” This is solid advice that users other than political operatives should strongly consider.

In fact, the low-tech (i.e. human) solution would probably alleviate a lot of the tension that exists between rightsholders and users, and perhaps loosen some of the tension between the DMCA and fair use. If I had to guess, I would say that rightsholders have two major problems when it comes to this part of the discussion. They suffer most acutely when professional users—be they political campaigns or ice cream companies—make use of works without license; and they suffer broadly when the major internet companies, through their advocacy networks, promote an expansive rhetoric about the fair use doctrine, resulting in even well-intended users making erroneous fair use assumptions. This also happens to get users needlessly sued, by the way.

If we return to Osterricher’s advocacy of visual journalists, appropriations of these works will invariably comprise at least some users—both professional and non-professional—who assume that because they are engaged in helping to disseminate “news,” their uses of unlicensed images are naturally fair uses. Many different types of users chronically fail to recognize that those exemplary terms named in Section 107 of the law (e.g. “news reporting, teaching, parody”) are all subject to conditions and considerations that further refine the terms within the intent of fair use.

At what is arguably the opposite end of the spectrum, it was easy to be sympathetic to musician Rick Beato’s testimony when he described his music education videos on YouTube. For instance, he mentions performing ten seconds of a Beatles song in order to teach viewers how the piece is constructed, and he cites this as a typical example of a video that may be targeted by a large rightsholder using automated systems to identify unlicensed uses of their musical works.

Beato’s description strikes me as fitting well within the spirit of fair use, if not the application of the exception to date. Historically, a fair use for teaching applies to physical classroom settings. But as recent events have underlined, we may need to broaden our definition of “classroom” to the virtual learning environment, and it does seem plausible that fair use could embrace the kind of teaching Beato does on his YouTube channel.

Having said that, though, once we expand the “learning environment” to the internet, we likewise expand the aforementioned confusion that already exists among even well-intended users of works. The word teaching will be defined too broadly in the mind of many users. In 2015, I wrote about a friend who made this very mistake, presuming a fair use of some photographs because she thought of her blog as “educational.”

It seems to me that there may be solutions to the Beato example that could exist parallel to the DMCA. For instance, a registry of channels that intend to consistently use works in a fair use manner so that the major rightsholders can whitelist these channels? And this would not prevent auditing the channels for compliance. The copyright critics may gasp, of course. A user should not have to seek permission for fair uses! In principle, that’s true, but in reality, for every channel like Rick Beato’s, there are thousands of YouTubers who are merely infringing, full stop. And we need Google-scale solutions for Google-scale problems.  

Relatedly, Professor Ginsburg endorsed, or at least alluded to, the possibility of an alternative dispute resolution function within the mechanisms of 512, designed solely to resolve fair use questions. This echoes the USCO in its report on Section 512, published this May, though is not clear whether an ADR provision specific to DMCA would be seen as redundant to the provisions of the CASE Act, if it is ever passes.

Regardless of the CASE question, it seems that Ginsburg and others are looking for solutions to address the conflict inherent to the time period after a counter-notice has been filed to restore allegedly infringing material. At that point the rightsholder must either prove he is taking legal action against the respondent, or the material will be restored within 10-14 days. “That is a tight deadline for rightholders, but potentially a devastatingly long one for fair users,” Ginsburg stated.

So, it is understandable why one might wish for an ADR mechanism to at least provide guidance on the probability that a use is either a fair use or not as a step prior to issuing a takedown. How exactly one harmonizes this persnickety area of U.S. law with global platforms is a question I cannot answer, though again, Ginsburg recommended that Congress monitor the efficacy of newly-passed provisions in the EU, where some of the largest platforms will be required to preclear rights before hosting user-generated works. Although labeled the “censorship machine” by European critics, the provision, Article 17 of the Single Market Directive, passed into law in 2019, but not yet into practice. And the likes of Google are far from done fighting compliance. So, we’ll see what happens there.

In case you can’t tell, I’m pretty skeptical that there is much Congress can do to better harmonize fair use and the DMCA, though I do believe there is much that can be done to both tweak the mechanisms in DMCA and mitigate bewilderment about fair use, and this may result in better balancing the two. Above all, the major platforms that have reaped billions in ad dollars while hosting infringing material, as it ebbs and flows across their platforms, have often camouflaged their pecuniary interests by claiming to defend fair uses on behalf of their users. 

But fair use cannot be so easily generalized. And if a platform like YouTube cannot, under the terms of the DMCA, be held responsible for monitoring its site for infringements, how can it possibly quantify the number of fair uses on the same platform? Hence, it seems that fixing the gaps in 512 where platforms have managed to slip through congressional intent to impose some burden (like constructive knowledge) may have the added benefit that these same companies will devote less energy toward expanding the fair use doctrine until it swallows copyright entirely.

Things Creators Can Learn From Seuss v. ComicMix

I listened yesterday morning to oral arguments presented (via video conference) on Monday before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. ComicMix LLC. As a quick recap, in 2016, Dr. Seuss Enterprises (DSE) filed a copyright claim against publisher ComicMix over a mash-up book called Oh, the Places You’ll Boldly Go!. The author/illustrator team who created the work used iconic illustrations from various titles in the Seuss portfolio, and combined the images with themes and characters from the Start Trek series. In 2019, a California District Court found that “Boldly” was fair use, applying first and fourth factor analyses that many creators found troubling. 

For deeper dives into the legal particulars, see my post from last August and/or posts here and here by Stephen Carlisle of NOVA Southeastern University. But suffice to say, I think most copyright watchers would agree that the appellate panel also found the District Court’s fair use analysis disconcerting and will at least remand, if it does not overturn the decision. Already quoted on social media by copyright advocates is this riposte by Judge M. Margaret McKeown:

“The district court seemed to take the position that if you take existing expression and then you interspersed it with new expression, you have a transformative work. That is a definition of transformative use that I haven’t seen before. It would seem to sting the notion of copyright protection, and almost everything would be a fair use.”

While it can be folly to read too much into judges’ comments at oral arguments, the panel did seem to express concern with three key points in this case:  1) that the lower court may have erred in finding “Boldly” a transformative work under the first fair use factor; 2) that the lower court applied the wrong analysis in considering the potential market harm to DSE under the fourth fair use factor; and 3) as a procedural matter intertwining the two factors, that even a correct finding of transformativeness does not shift the burden from the defendant to the plaintiff to disprove (or prove) potential market harm under the fourth factor. 

Now, I could break down what that all means, but would frankly rather wait until the court renders its decision, and, in the meantime, note that the complexity implied by these considerations leads to a different proposal I would make to most creators out there:  Don’t do this to yourselves. There are way better places you could go.

If you have talent and a desire to express something to the world—and you would rather spend your time creating works than fighting legal battles—the decisions made by “Boldly’s” authors in this instance provide a pretty good guide (Things 1-5, if you will) for avoiding legal complications, even if you want to parody classic material.  

Thing One – Learn What Parody Is

Thanks, in large part, to the volume of works used in funny YouTube videos and such, the word parody is too often invoked to describe every use of a work for the purpose of comic effect. This is an error, both as a literary and legal definition of parody. As discussed in more detail in this post in 2014, a true parody must comment on the original work being used. When ComicMix attorney Dan Booth was asked about this distinction on Monday, he averred that “Boldly” parodies the original work because Seuss’s character is “individualistic and narcissistic,” while Star Trek conveys themes of “teamwork” and “universalism.” 

While I am in no position to judge evidence I cannot fully review, that sounds like a very slippery (i.e. loose) grasp on any claim to parody. Merely using protected works in a new context does not favor a finding of fair use. If “Boldly” is indeed a parody, it should directly lampoon the values or ideas expressed in “Go” by mocking or critiquing Seuss’s original themes of individual empowerment through imagining possibilities. (And even then, we get into some murky waters with regard to copying visual works for the purpose of commenting on textual expression. But let’s not go there, boldly or otherwise, right now.)

I would further argue that the authors’ use of illustrations from multiple Seuss books militates against a finding that “Boldly” is directly commenting upon “Go.” In fact, one illustration from “Boldly,” shown on this ComicMix post from 2017, depicts two Spocks in the manner of Seuss’s The Zax, and the text actually reinforces a theme of individuality. So, maybe there is real parody in “Boldly” somewhere, but it doesn’t sound like there is.  

Thing Two – A Mashup is Not Automatically Fair Use

At oral argument, Booth described the mashup as an “innovative form that takes different sources and puts them in dialogue with one another.” Okay. But even if that were a universally applied description of the mashup aesthetic, it does nothing to place the form in any special category of consideration under a fair use analysis. 

As a general statement, one can assume that, for instance, two sources “in dialogue with one another” will create a third voice, and that this would be consistent with the purpose of fair use, but any given mashup will be subject to the same case-by-case analysis that will be applied to any other type of use. Moreover, because mashups generally involve works owned by more than one copyright owner, they can invite more than one legal complaint.

Thing Three – Apply an Inverse Rule When Creating Parody

One of the errors I find most troubling in this case, even to hear it presented, is the implication that ComicMix needed to create imitations of Seuss’s visual works in order to convey the parodic nature of “Boldly” (assuming parody is even present). This argument is anathema to what I would describe as an inverse proportion rule that says:  The more widely recognized the original work, the less the parodist needs to copy in order to express a commentary about the work.

Seuss’s illustrations are so iconic and so universally recognized that one need not copy every tittle and jot with the precision of a Talmudic scribe in order to lampoon the work—if indeed parody is the real goal. On the contrary, a true parodist would seek to mock an artist’s visual language by selecting certain characteristics to overstate or understate, rather than create a work that so slavishly mimics the original that an ordinary observer would fail to perceive that any visual parody exists at all.

This is one of the weakest aspects of ComicMix’s appeal to parody in my view—that an average consumer, seeing “Boldly” on a store shelf, might easily think that DSE had produced the mashup. Never mind the trademark implications, but a sendup of Dr. Seuss should be almost immediately recognizable as not Seuss and yet Seuss-like enough to know that a joke is being conveyed. We see examples of effective parody through limited copying all the time. Hence the general fair use guideline, to take only as much of the work as necessary is, in fact, easier to apply when parodying the most recognizable works.

Thing Four – Be More Creative

Let’s be honest. A great deal of the time, making substantial use of existing works—especially works as famous as the Geisel oeuvre—is motivated by marketing more than a burning need to express something new. Again, I won’t judge “Boldly” as a work without being able to read the whole thing—and its creators are experienced professionals—but Seuss is such an obvious source for this kind of appropriation that it is difficult to see such uses as more than gimmicks, seeking to profit off the notoriety of the original. 

My oldest kid and I used to riff on the idea of famous Nazis reading Seuss-like works to children, including the book Oh, Zee Places You Vill Invade (and let’s not get started on the Sneetches with the stars.) But if we had developed that inside joke into a book a la “Boldly,” would it imply transformativeness under a fair use analysis? 

The target of the mockery isn’t Seuss, it’s Nazis. Seuss is merely an obvious context in which to place Nazis for satirical effect, but that would not make this hypothetical use a fair use. More specifically, if we did produce such a book, would we need to slavishly copy Seuss’s illustrations to make the joke work? Nope. Readers would get it through the use of illustrations that evoke Seussness without copying Seuss. 

Thing 5 – Work Around Copyright

Finally, if the goal is to produce new creative works—rather than spend years in copyright disputes—it is worth remembering the many, many stories in which creators start out intending to use existing works and then, by navigating around copyrights, discover new and better ideas that would not have occurred otherwise. Happens all the time. 

I wrote about this process in 2013, and that post was later cited in a paper by scholar Joseph Fishman called Working Around Copyright, in which he describes, in legal-scholar terms, what millions of creators already know: that overcoming obstacles to initial creative instincts tends to produce better results. And when that first instinct is to copy protected works, there’s a good chance that the still-untapped idea is probably much better.  

Google v. Oracle IV: Fair use & the difference between new and transformative.

Although it has been my intention to write about Google v. Oracle serially, addressing the legal questions in more or less in the order they are presented and weighed in a court opinion, it turns out today marks the end of Fair Use Week.  (How I could have missed that in this otherwise sleepy news cycle is a mystery, I know.) But as Fair Use Week is still officially live, I am going to jump ahead in this post to respond to Google’s claim that its use of Oracle’s Java SE code in the development of the Android platform was a fair use.

We will assume for the sake of discussion that Google’s challenge to the copyrightability of Oracle’s code will not succeed because, absent an infringement, there is no reason to consider a fair use defense. On that note, it is worth mentioning that while it may be good legal strategy to present a fair use argument as a Plan B in a litigation, some fair use assertions are more demonstrably hail-Mary plays than others.  And in this case, Google’s argument seems like a pretty wild pass all the way down the gridiron that should be knocked down by the fair use test.

Above all, Google’s fair use assertion under the first factor—arguing that its use of Oracle’s code was transformative—is yet another example of this tech giant in particular seeking to conflate the novelty of a product with the nature and purpose of transformativeness in fair use. 

For quick review, transformativeness, in its earliest application, tilts toward a finding of fair use when a new creative expression is derived from the specific use at issue.  Hence, the seminal case Campbell  v. Acuff-Rose (1994), in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that 2 Live Crew’s use of the heart of the song “Oh, Pretty Woman” produced a new expression—a parody of the original. Campbell upholds the purpose of copyright to promote new forms of expression such that society gains both the original work and the parodic comment upon the original work. 

By contrast, in considering Google Books, a search tool that relies on the use of digitized copies of millions of published works, the courts in 2015  broadened the doctrine to encompass uses that are transformative because they “expand the utility” of the original material. The Google Books interface offers an unprecedented and highly-useful research tool that does not provide a substitute for the works used—namely it does not make full books under copyright available.

Nevertheless, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals cautioned that its holding in Google Books “tested the boundaries of fair use.”  In other words, the “utility” aspect of the transformative test is meant to be scrutinized very carefully, as the same court later affirmed in its (2018) consideration of the service ReDigi, which asserted that an online exchange trading in “used” digital music files was transformative …

“Even if ReDigi is credited with some faint showing of a transformative purpose, that purpose is overwhelmed by the substantial harm ReDigi inflicts on the value of Plaintiff’s copyrights through its direct competition in the rights holders’ legitimate market, offering consumers a substitute for purchasing from the rights holders.”

Translation:  not everything “new” is transformative under a fair use analysis. Google’s claim that its use was transformative in its defense against Oracle breaks the boundaries the Second Circuit drew in Google Books because Google did nothing to “expand the utility” of Oracle’s code.  On the contrary, Google used Oracle’s code for the exact purpose for which it had been developed—and for which other mobile developers had licensed the work.

Further, Google’s claim is not markedly distinguishable from the holding in ReDigi; Google’s use of Oracle’s code put the search giant in “direct competition” with the party whose work it appropriated, usurping opportunities in the mobile market that Oracle was already exploiting by licensing its products.

Google and supporting amici assert that the roll-out of Android itself is sufficient to render its use of Oracle’s code transformative. But if mere “newness” of a product (or even a creative work) were the shibboleth required to pass the transformative test, this standard would swallow copyright in its entirety and nullify the purpose of a fair use exception.  “… the more amorphous and unreasonably expansive the analysis and application of the fair use doctrine, the harder it becomes to establish the value of the copyrighted work during licensing negotiations that are the lifeblood of the creative ecosystem,” states the brief filed by songwriters in support of Oracle.

Any use of a prior work will always result in something new; but this novelty alone has never relieved the user of the responsibility to either license the prior work or to demonstrate how the use narrowly qualifies for a fair use exception. In this case, Google makes the familiar (though thankfully still unsuccessful) argument whereby the infringing user asserts that migrating a work from one medium to another is transformative. Not only is this not transformative, but in Google’s case, using Java SE in mobile platforms is not even novel. In the absence of transformativeness the first factor consideration of commercial v. non-commercial use will weigh heavily against Google given that Android is a multi-billion-dollar commercial use.

On the third and fourth fair use factors, Google should also fail, while it may end up a draw on the second.  The second factor considers the nature of the work used, and although neither party denies creativity in the declaring code at issue, the inherent functionality of software may point towards a tie in the analysis of the Court. The third factor considers the amount of the original work used, and although Google emphasizes that it copied only a fraction of Java SE, Oracle states in its brief that, “Google admits it copied the packages most valuable to create a derivative version of Java SE for mobile devices.” Further, fair use is not sustained by showing how much they did not copy.

The fourth factor should be especially prejudicial against Google’s fair use claim, as it addresses the harm, and potential harm, to the creator’s market for the work used.  Here, as in ReDigi, the analysis militates against fair use.  As Oracle states in its brief, describing prior licensees of Java…

“If what Google did was permissible, IBM, Danger, and others would not have licensed Sun’s declaring code or complied with [the interoperability standard] ‘write once, run anywhere.’ If everyone could copy the declaring code without a license, Java SE would lose value, as anyone could ‘reimplement’ a knock-off. This undisputed evidence negates Google’s defense as a matter of law.”

More broadly, if Google’s unprecedented assertion of fair use in this case were the new standard, this would only empower the wealthiest corporations to poach any creative works they choose, as long as whatever they use them for has not already been put on the market. That predicate offends the purpose of copyright and is anathema to the interests of all creators in all media. Google enjoys enough advantages when it comes to squashing competitors and making a business out of infringement, without the courts also rewriting decades of copyright doctrine at their behest.