Tag: techdirt

“Monkey selfie” photographer reportedly broke. And for what?

Photo sources by mrbrainous & artush

This is a story about how people with self-righteous and futile agendas end up harming creators for absolutely no reason—and even end up harming society in the bargain. I’ve made light of the “monkey selfie” case in past articles because it’s hard not to. I mean, there’s a monkey in it.  But for U.K. wildlife photographer David Slater, it’s no laughing matter, especially after the organization PETA decided to sue him on the grounds that the copyright in the photograph belongs to the crested macaque depicted in the image.  The Guardian reports that Slater is now financially broke as a result of defending himself in this ridiculous case, and it’s impossible to fathom an upside to any aspect of this whole story. But let’s back up a little …

In 2011, Slater was working on the Indonesian Archipelago on the island of Sulawesi, studying a troupe of black crested macaques. These animals are endangered, hunted for meat, and it is only because of photographers like Slater than many of us even know a damn thing about black crested macaques.  According to his own statements, Slater spent three days learning to use the animals’ natural curiosities to his advantage and then purposely set up the conditions by which the macaque in the “selfie” (a female he refers to as Ella), ultimately snapped her own image while he braced the camera on a tripod.

There is nobody—other than the monkeys themselves—who can refute Slater’s description of the conditions by which the photo was made; and as this is the only evidence available, his account would seem to tilt in favor of his ownership of the so-called “monkey selfie.”  Based on American case law in photography, from the seminal case (Sarony v. Burrow Giles, 1884) to the present, I don’t believe it is farfetched to expect that a court would hold that Slater made enough creative choices in the production of this photograph to affirm his copyright.  But even if I’m wrong about that, it’s not for me or any party other than a court to really decide. As such, I personally would not use the image, even though I can get away with it.

But Wikimedia took it upon themselves to litigate that decision internally and then made the “monkey selfie” freely available to the world via Wikimedia Commons, refusing Slater’s request to have the photo taken down from the site. By the time the “monkey selfie” controversy hit social media, the dominant narrative seemed to be that Ella had randomly stolen Slater’s camera and inadvertently snapped an image of pure happenstance, which does not square with Slater’s own story.  If this were the case, however, then Slater’s claim of copyright in the image would be very weak.

But unless there is some evidence to contradict Slater’s own account of how the image was made, Wikimedia had no grounds, other than its own bully-sized weight, to assert that the photo lacked any copyright whatsoever. According to The Guardian, Techdirt followed in kind, also refusing to take down the photo, and Mike Masnick published a few articles asserting the absence of a copyright in the image as though it were a settled matter.  But it wasn’t a settled matter. Neither Masnick nor the Wikimedia Foundation had any right to declare that Slater’s claim of copyright in the image was invalid, which amounted to these parties—along with every other entity that used the image thanks to Wikimedia—essentially saying, “So, sue me.”

Many who rail against the enforcement of copyright in the digital age, suffer from the delusion that they are always defending the little guy against corporate or state power.  Sometimes, this is true, but not nearly so often as they like to think.  In fact, many self-appointed defenders of “digital rights” trample little guys all the time, and without in any way acknowledging that they’re doing so. The point I want to stress here is that Wikimedia, Masnick, and others were standing on their own notion of principle; and it would not occur to any of these parties to consider a) the standard of “originality” in copyright is subtle; b) there may be more nuance to the author’s claim than they think; or c) when in doubt, some basic respect for the presumptive author of a work might be accorded.

That last thought about respect seems entirely anathema to the opponents of copyright, which is part of what makes this story so egregious. Wikimedia and Masnick were both making a point that served no purpose other than to advance a maximalist (yeah, I said it) anti-copyright view. And society did not benefit from any of this nonsense.  Instead of Slater licensing the photo and using the revenue to pay his bills and then set off on another expedition, he’s now deprived of revenue, and society actually loses whatever photographs he is now not capturing.  “If everybody gave me a pound for every time they used [the photograph], I’d probably have £40m in my pocket. The proceeds from these photographs should have me comfortable now, and I’m not,” says Slater for The Guardian.

Enter PETA

It is at least likely—though we probably can never know—that it was Wikimedia’s initial refusal to consider Slater’s copyright that ultimately brought the “monkey selfie” to the attention of PETA. In a certain sense, this might have been like PETA’s too-good-to-pass-up “Dancing Baby” moment.  A monkey took a selfie, and the story went viral?  How could they not seize such a golden opportunity for anthropomorphic evangelism and fundraising? Of course they had to assert that the monkey owns the copyright.  All they had to do was sue the photographer.  Sure, he might go broke defending himself, but screw him because PETA is opposed to humans “exploiting” animals by taking pictures of them in the first place.  (Spoiler: I don’t have any love for PETA).

Now, don’t get me wrong, I think the humane treatment of animals is important.  But if this organization is going to spend federal-lawsuit money arguing that an animal can own a copyright, this only proves that they neither understand copyright law nor really give a damn about the welfare of the animals themselves. In fact, if they just spent the litigation money on the macaques’ behalf, they’d do more good; but that isn’t what PETA seems to care about. What they seem to care about is evangelizing a maximalist view of animal rights and bringing attention to themselves. David Slater is just collateral damage in their agenda, never mind that he’s the only party in this whole fiasco who has actually done anything positive for this endangered species.

Some of the reporting about this story, like this article in The New Yorker by Jay Caspian Kang, places too much emphasis on button-pushing with regard to copyright in photography.  Even the photograph that affirmed the copyrightability of photographic works in the U.S. in 1884 was not captured by the owner pushing the proverbial button. The standard for consideration begins with the question of who made the creative choices—and this can be quite minimal—to produce the resulting image.  So, without much deliberation, the courts ought to be able to glance at precedent and conclude that unless a monkey, or any other fauna, can minimally express the choices or steps she took to produce the image created, there are no grounds for her owning a copyright.  Unsurprisingly, intellectual property is not available to creatures that have not developed a capacity for communicating complex concepts through language.

Still, as the PETA lawsuit now burns time and money at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, what social interest can anyone say has been served by either the digital rights or the animal rights activists deciding that David Slater is not the owner of this photograph?  Slater is now looking for work other than photography to pay his legal fees; the macaques get nothing out of all this grandstanding; and zero progress is made in copyright law in any useful context.  I guess people can feel free to make Ella-the-Macaque memes on Facebook?  Right, they’ll do that anyway.

Yeah, this whole story is a joke. But it isn’t actually funny.

Masnick Makes a Hash of Fair Use & Censorship

Photo by Pond5
Photo by Pond5

In an effort to conflate president-elect Trump’s rhetoric on censoring the press with copyright protection, Mike Masnick at Techdirt accuses the News Media Alliance of seeking to “whittle down” fair use. He further says this will only leave journalists vulnerable to the kind of censorship Trump has threatened by amending libel laws.  There are too many holes in Masnick’s post to address efficiently, so I’ll stick with the main point about fair use doctrine. The Newspaper Association writes the following:

“Fair use” should be reoriented toward its original meaning. Under current copyright law, a person that does not own a copyright may still use a copyrighted work if it is consistent with the “fair use” factors, which assess: (1) the purpose and character of the use, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and (4) the effect upon the potential market. The courts, unfortunately, have dramatically weakened this test by finding a fair use any time a new use could be seen as “transformative.” This test has undermined the integrity of the long-established fair use factors. As part of any Copyright Act rewrite, we support refocusing the fair-use test on its original purpose to prevent courts from undermining the Constitution’s encouragement of compensation to entities that generate creativity and productivity.”

For starters, this statement isn’t asking anyone to “whittle down” fair use. Instead, the News Media Alliance is simply asserting what many copyright experts and rights holders have observed, which is that the “transformative” standard is in fact a relatively new and often-vague principle that has become something of a vestigial fifth factor not codified in the 1976 Copyright Act.  In fact, “transformativeness” began as a measurement of creative transformation in the landmark case Campbell v Acuff-Rose but has since been applied in broad contexts in which uses are “transformative” of something other than the original work to create a new expression.  

So, “transformativeness” can exceed the original free-speech motivations for codifying fair use into the federal law in the first place.  And that in itself is not inherently bad; we want law to be elastic to a certain extent, otherwise copyright itself could not have adapted to changing market and technological conditions. 

Having said that, however, the “transformative” standard has come dangerously close to asserting that simply using a work in a new context—like posting it on social media—is “transformative” enough to make the use fair.  So, the Alliance is not attacking fair use doctrine at all, as Masnick asserts, but is rather seeking to mitigate what many rights holders view as an irrational expansion of the doctrine until it ceases to be an exception at all.  

The part where Masnick accuses the Alliance of playing into Trump’s censorship hands is just a malarky cocktail well spun.  He writes the following:

“While [Trump] was specifically talking about libel laws, as we’ve seen over and over again, copyright is an amazing tool for censorship as well. In fact, the Supreme Court itself has noted that fair use is the necessary “safety valve” on copyright’s free speech stifling powers. So for newspapers to basically gift wrap to Trump a way in which he can pull back a tool that protects their free speech — just as he’s been promising to attack their free speech — is ludicrous.”

Masnick is mashing up unrelated topics to argue the interests of OSPs like Google and taking the opportunity to use the words copyright and censorship in the same sentence. As a general statement, it is true that fair use is a free-speech-based exception to copyright, but most speech-related, or press-related, uses almost always relate to other forms of expression, including journalism, and they rarely implicate the “transformative” standard being referred to by the News Media Alliance. 

For instance, I noted in a past post that a FOX Network initially sought to argue that its use of another news agency’s photograph was “transformative” simply because it was posted on their Facebook feed.  That argument didn’t get very far, but it’s the kind of argument rights holders are nervous about arriving in the courts; and it has nothing at all to do with legitimate concerns about a president threatening to use libel laws to silence the press. For another perspective on how the “transformativeness” standard can come very close to effectively obliterating copyright, see this post about TVEyes v FOX News.  

As usual, the internet industry and its advocates behave as though their platforms, which make unlicensed uses of all manner of works, are synonymous with free speech or freedom of the press.  From that premise, they argue that a desire to maintain boundaries and contours around the fair use doctrine is synonymous with trying to kill the doctrine outright.  That is ludicrous.

The DOJ & Songwriters Simplified (mostly)

The performing rights organization (PRO) called ASCAP was formed on February 13, 1914 when a group of about 100 American composers met at the Hotel Claridge in New York City to create a mechanism for collecting “public performance” royalties.  The 1909 Copyright Act had extended the performance right to this class of copyright holders, but it did not define exactly what “public performance” actually meant.  Part of that definition came with the Supreme Court case Herbert v Shanley Co. (1917), in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes offered the opinion that music played in a venue like a restaurant constitutes a “public performance” even if the customers are not charged a fee for the music itself.  The premise was, and continues to be, that the venue relies on music just like other products it needs to run the establishment, and so the music plays a key role in the profit interest of the venue.

In a 1923 case, radio broadcasts were determined also to be “public performances,” but the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) was critical of ASCAP’s monopoly control over the music and its ability to set licensing rates at will.  In response, NAB formed the competitor BMI, and when this failed to have a mitigating effect on ASCAP’s rates, the broadcasters banned ASCAP music from the airwaves.  That’s when the DOJ showed up and told everybody to get out of the pool.  Justice sued ASCAP and BMI, and both national radio networks at the time, for violation of the Sherman Anti Trust Act.  The result of this action was a rate-setting system known as consent decrees—compulsory licenses the two PROs must grant for “public performances” of their music according to rates set by a “rate court” established at the federal court for the Southern District of New York.

Cathedral RadioFor the next 70 years, the PRO licensing system under the consent decrees generally served all parties—the composer/songwriters, venues and broadcasters, and the general public.  Yes, there are anecdotes describing various ways in which the system has failed or overreached to the detriment of a venue or even a member songwriter; and these stories naturally provide grist for the anti-copyright mill that loves to portray all rights-enforcement regimes as universally extortionist.  But many of these stories cited by critics like Mike Masnick pertain to collecting organizations outside the US, and even those associated with ASCAP and BMI are either old enough or nuanced enough to require deeper consideration in context to the overall cost/benefit of the organizations over many decades.

Fast-forward to the digital-age, when “public performance” is a whole new animal.  Streaming services, which are unquestionably a benefit to consumers, simultaneously reduce demand for sales of physical media and digital downloads, and they reduce demand for traditional broadcast radio, which was the distribution format that led to the consent decrees in the first place.  Plus, streaming affects the worldwide music market almost overnight. Unfortunately, for the songwriters and composers, the rates set for a pre-streaming market were suddenly worth doodley-squat in a streaming market.  This is why you hear about a songwriter making about $30 for a million plays of a song.

So, the songwriters and composers campaigned the DOJ to amend the consent decrees in order to allow more flexibility and more efficiency in licensing—a regime that would better reflect the dramatically changed, digital market. In response, the internet industry and its network of pundits complained that the PROs would then be free to capriciously raise rates, which would “stifle innovation” and harm consumers. For copyright watchers, this is a funny one because this same crowd usually argues that existing laws are doing all the stifling, but in this special case, it’s the WWII-era regime that is actually fostering innovation. Gotta hand it to the DOJ of 1941 for anticipating Spotify like that!

By now, consumers should understand that innovation often means money—money in the pockets of OSP shareholders made on the backs of rights holders who are getting hosed.  But last month, DOJ Deputy Director Renata Hesse not only affirmed the consent decrees, but she went a step further by rejecting the practice of “fractional licensing” for works made through collaborations.  When songwriters or composers represented by different PROs collaborate on a musical work, a user has had to obtain licenses from both organizations.  Hesse ruled that either PRO may license 100% of any work in either catalogue—a decision so deaf and blind to understanding the nature of music licensing that observers like music attorney Chris Castle can only conclude that Hesse’s former role as a Google attorney provides the only rational explanation.

Meanwhile, in an August 8th post on Techdirt, Mike Masnick ‘splains how the DOJ decision was not only the right decision, but one that will be “good for songwriters,” even if the songwriters are too naive to realize it yet.  I’ll let that hubris hang there for a moment, and then quote this refrain of one of Mike’s favorite saws:

“It’s kind of insane that we have to point this out over and over again, but the legacy industry always fights against new innovations in the false belief that it will harm revenue — yet when they learn how to embrace the opportunities, it turns out that a larger audience has been created and there are even more ways to make money.” 

I can’t decide which is more arrogant, the unwavering faith that he knows better than all the songwriters what’s best for them, the feigned exasperation at having to explain it again to these dumb songwriters, or the use of the royal we in this statement.  Or was that a revealing slip?  Which we is he speaking for here?

Of course, it may not matter what the pundits think because the DOJ may have opened up Pandora’s Box to let the music fly away.

As David Lowery explains—and David has written like way more songs than Mike Masnick—the DOJ may have spawned an unenforceable clusterfuck, the result of which could be tracks disappearing from streaming and other services.  In a recent blog post, Lowery states that it could cost him thousands of dollars in legal fees to revise the contracts between him and collaborators on a portion of his catalog.  In fact, some of those collaborators have passed away, so he would have to negotiate with their estates, making the process even more complicated. Can the DOJ constitutionally compel Lowery and thousands of other songwriters and composers to incur these legal fees to rewrite these contracts? We should hope not.

So, what will songwriters in this circumstance do?  The most cost-effective thing for them to do would be to pull the tracks from ASCAP & BMI that are more trouble than they’re worth.  That will reduce the music available on streaming services and also create a thorny problem for venues currently paying PRO licenses.  Right now, the coffee house where I’m sitting has all three licenses—ASCAP, BMI, & SESAC—and can play any song without worrying about it.  What happens if portions of the ASCAP and BMI catalogs are no longer covered by their licenses?  This is just a glimpse of the “chaos” the Copyright Office and others warned the DOJ would ensue as a result of their ruling this way on consent decrees.

The entire history of American copyright is one in which the contours of the law have been reshaped to conform to changing market conditions in order to protect artists and maintain the incentive to create and distribute.  As is so often the case today, the DOJ seems to be taking the narrow, Googley-eyed view that artists will continue to create and distribute no matter what happens.  Consumers are free to decide whether the songwriters know what they’re talking about or the copyright antagonists are correct.  But if they choose to ignore the former, I really hope they like the musical stylings of the latter.