Tag: transformativeness

Incoherent Copyright Ruling Should Anger Photographers

My colleague Stephen Carlisle at Nova Southeastern University already made short work of the aberration of copyright law and fair use analysis that occurred recently in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. But I wanted to expand on a few elements that caught my attention. In the case Brammer v. Violent Hues Productions, LLC, the court’s deference to the defendant’s appeals to good faith and fair use resulted in an opinion that so dramatically flies in the face of legal doctrine that (as Carlisle notes) it would obliterate copyright in photography altogether.

At issue is a time-lapse photograph of Washington D.C.’s Adams Morgan neighborhood taken by Russell Brammer in 2011 and registered for copyright in 2016. Also in 2016, a cropped version of the image was used without license on a website suggesting “things to do” in Washington as ancillary promotion of the Northern Virginia Film Festival, which is organized by Violent Hues Productions.

Brammer sent a Cease & Desist letter in 2017, and Violent Hues immediately removed the image; but Brammer then sued for copyright infringement, and Violent Hues moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had made a fair use of the photograph. Before we get to that defense, though, we have to note this statement of facts from the opinion:

“Violent Hues’ owner, Fernando Mico, found the photo online. He alleges that he saw no indication that the photo was copyrighted and believed he was making use of a publicly available photograph.”

So, even prior to the court’s fair use analysis, it allows two substantial errors to be dispositive in this case. The first is overlooking the fact that an “indication” of copyright is not required. All works are automatically protected, if they were produced after January 1, 1978; and it’s hard to fathom how any judge would not know this. Hence, Mico’s assumption that a work is “publicly available” because it was found online is plainly invalid as a matter of black-letter law.

Second, even where a court might consider leniency for an unintended infringement made in good faith, then it seems this court did not consider it relevant that Fernando Mico is a professional filmmaker. Violent Hues is a production company offering “Script to Screen” services, and Mico even signed a distribution contract for his indie feature film in 2014. This is not some teenager who might be confused about the use of images in the digital age. This is a professional image-maker and copyright owner, who cannot reasonably claim to be so naive about images he “finds online.”

Transformativeness is Still a Doctrine Without Definition

The truly staggering aspects of this opinion are found in the court’s rationale for finding fair use. The fact that the interpretation of “transformativeness” here negates more than a century of copyright law related to photography should serve as compelling evidence that the doctrine remains incoherent and meddlesome at best. The opinion states:

“Here, Violent Hues’ use of the photograph was transformative in function and purpose. While Brammer’s purpose in capturing and publishing the photograph was promotional and expressive, Violent Hues’ purpose in using the photograph was informational: to provide festival attendees with information regarding the local area.” [Emphasis added]

This confluence of vagueness undermines copyright in photography at its core. By the logic of this opinion, if the makers of a pregnancy test want to make unlicensed use of Annie Leibovitz’s famous portrait of pregnant Demi Moore in a print ad, they’re free to do so because their “purpose” is different from Leibovitz’s original “purpose.”* And we could keep conjuring such examples ad infinitum. Based on this holding, any photograph may be used by any party as long as it can be argued that observers will interpret a meaning that is distinct from the photographer’s original intent.

That reasoning does not even square with the history of creative expression itself—let alone copyright law. It is widely understood in the world of art that the creator’s intent may vary considerably from the viewer’s interpretation, and neither understanding is necessarily “incorrect.” What are we to make, then, of photographs that are simultaneously expressive and informative—images that may be considered both journalism and fine art by one set of viewers, but perhaps scorned for various reasons by a different set of viewers? Unless a court is required to compare and contrast two expressive works (i.e. in a real fair use case), it has no basis for wandering into this semantic and subjective minefield.

Ordinarily, the courts are not expected to concern themselves with the metaphysics of art when straightforward, unlicensed copying of a work occurs, as it did in this case. The court contends that by placing an “expressive” work on an “informational” website, the use was “transformative,” thus tilting toward fair use. As Carlisle notes, however, the broadly-informational nature of the site itself has nothing to do with the fact that Mico selected Brammer’s photograph because it’s a “cool” image. In other words, it was chosen because of its expressive qualities, regardless of the context in which it was used.

This reasoning is supported by the fact that, as a professional image-maker, Mico can be presumed to have judged the difference between Brammer’s expressive work and a more pedestrian, informative, photo of the same neighborhood. In fact, the more expressive a work is, the less we can generally consider it to be informative, and a time-lapse photo of Adams Morgan is hardly a literal representation of the experience the visitor is likely to have (at least while sober). Then, because the photograph was chosen to promote tourism as a feature of attending the film festival, the court erred in finding the use to be non-commercial under the first factor.

Still, even if Brammer’s photo were less “cool,” (i.e. more informative), it should not matter; and the court has no legal grounds for even weighing the amount of expressiveness in this particular case. Exploitation of a copyrighted photograph — even a “pedestrian” image — without a license is an infringement. End of discussion.

Regardless of anyone’s opinion of the original work, the grounds for fair use analysis under the “transformativeness” test are a) if the user alters the original work in a way that creates a truly new expression; or b) if use of the work is essential to the functioning of a new technology or service that is itself transformative to society—and this includes the case (Vanderhye v. iParadigms) cited by the Court to support its application of “transformativeness.”

In Brammer, Violent Hues makes no claim of fair use to create a new expression, and there is nothing transformative—based on either case law or common sense—about using a photograph to boost tourist attractions while promoting an event. Since Violent Hues’s use meets neither standard, “transformativeness” should not have received much consideration, let alone a finding in the defendant’s favor.

Undermining Copyright in Photography

The real hazard in this ruling—the one that should make photographers apoplectic—is that the court contends that Brammer’s photograph is expressive but that Violent Hues made a fair use because Mico somehow used only the informative aspects of the image based on the factual nature of the subject matter. The opinion states…

“The photograph in question contained creative elements (such as lighting and shutter speed choices) but was also a factual depiction of a real-world location: the Adams Morgan neighborhood in Washington, D.C. Violent Hues’ [sic] used the photo purely for its factual content, to provide festival attendees a depiction of the Adams Morgan neighborhood.”

This metaphysical parsing of the expression from the information in Brammer’s photograph inverts 124 years of legal doctrine. Since the mid-19th century, it is well- established law that ideas and facts are not protectable while creative expressions are protectable; and this principle collided with photography near the end of the century because it was plainly understood that a camera always captures whatever “facts” are placed before the lens. Thus, the copyrightability of photographs was challenged in 1882 in Burrow-Giles v. Sarony, and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1884.

Since then, both copyright law and our understanding of photography have evolved. And in both cases, it is sufficient that a human actor create the photograph, whether he painstakingly arranges every element in front of the lens or makes snap decisions to capture ephemeral chaos on a city street. In neither case do we apportion incremental authorship of a photo relative to the “amount of factual information” it contains. The whole work—expressive and informative together—is protected and the bundle of rights are vested in its creator. Such subtle distinctions are only made when a court must consider whether a subsequent work infringes a prior work, but that is not the circumstance in Brammer.

This may be confused with the doctrine of independent creation, which allows for the fact that two photographers are likely to capture nearly identical images of a given subject (e.g. of Niagara Falls). But this only means that Photographer A may not sue Photographer B for infringement since neither can copyright Niagara Falls itself. But apropos this particular case, both photographers would have copyrights in their individual images, and neither photo may be used to promote a Niagara Falls hotel without license.

To underscore how absurd this ruling is, if it is truly the Virginia Court’s opinion that Brammer’s “expressive” photograph is separately an “informative” photograph, then Brammer should not only appeal, but he should also sue for infringement of his right to prepare derivative works. This is preposterous, of course, because a copy of a work cannot be a “derivative” work; but somehow, by virtue of internet magic and the fog of the transformativeness doctrine, the court here sees a separate image fixed in an identical copy.  Expect this ruling to be appealed and overturned.
______

* I purposely cited the Moore photograph because Leibovitz lost an important fair use case when this image was parodied by Paramount studios in 1998 for the promotion of the film Naked Gun 33 1/3. The distinction is essential to illustrate how far the idea of “transformativeness” has strayed from finding fair use that supports new forms of expression.

Important Win for Rights Holders in TVEyes v. Fox

In Monday’s post (and quite a few others) I stated that certain parties have worked very hard to distort the character of the fair use doctrine until it no longer has any boundaries or meaning, and simply nullifies copyright’s protections. For the last two years, every time I’ve made that accusation, the case foremost in mind has been TVEyes v. Fox News. But yesterday, on Day Two of Fair Use Week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals handed down an opinion that draws some freshly sharp lines around the traditional limits of fair use in an age when tech ventures consistently try to describe mass copyright infringement as innovation. Rights holders of every flavor should feel relieved by this decision, especially as it upholds the conditional and narrow finding of fair use in the Google Books case.

The court rejected all  the defenses presented by TVEyes, but the most significant part of this story involves the relatively novel doctrine of “transformativeness,” which is weighed when considering the first of the four fair use factors, and has split into two main interpretations. The first interpretation, applied in Campbell (1994), describes the transformation of one expressive work into a new expressive work (i.e. the kind of fair use most creators care about). The second interpretation, most prominently applied in Google Books (2016), describes a much more broad transformation of a useful technology, which necessitates copying protected works in order to function. (See today’s Copyhype post on transformativeness.)

The latter interpretation has made rights holders rather anxious as several tech companies have tried to assert that the “transformative” doctrine—and especially the holding in Google Books—provides a rationale for just about any new tech venture to commit mass infringement on the grounds that the novelty of the enterprise alone can be described as “transformative.” TVEyes, which stored, organized, and made available nearly all of Fox’s programming to its institutional and corporate customers (see a more detailed discussion here), relied substantially on this interpretation of “transformativeness” in its defense. But yesterday, the same court that wrote the opinion in Google Books made a clear distinction between that case and this one, holding that the TVEyes model is not a fair use.

The majority of the panel held that TVEyes’s “Watch” function, which enabled viewing whole programs in 10-minute segments, was “slightly transformative,” but so modest as to be outweighed by the rest of the fair use analysis. In particular, the third and fourth factors were short work for the court because TVEyes made nearly all of Fox’s content available (weighing against them under the third factor) and “usurped a market that properly belongs to the copyright-holder” (weighing against them under the fourth factor) by creating a means of distribution that a creator has the exclusive right to develop for itself.

Interestingly, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan wrote a concurring opinion, dissenting solely on the majority’s analysis of “transformativeness,” holding that the consideration itself was not necessary; that a finding of “slightly transformative” adds further ambiguity to an already ambiguous doctrine; and that, if he were to consider the matter, he sees no evidence that TVEyes is the least bit “transformative” under a fair use analysis. In fact, Kaplan’s opinion may prove especially significant in drawing a distinction between Google Books and other tech ventures hoping to exploit the ambiguity of “transformativeness.” Kaplan writes…

“The facts here…differ from Google Books quite substantially. The snippet function considered there delivered much less copyrighted content than the Watch function at issue here. Nevertheless, we there concluded that the snippet function only ‘adds’ to the transformative purpose of the Search function. Our conclusion with respect to the Google Books snippet feature therefore does not control the proper characterization of the Watch function at issue here. Moreover, we cautioned in Google Books that the case ‘test[ed] the boundaries of fair use.’”

TVEyes may appeal this ruling since it does put an end to their business model; but it’s hard to imagine the Supreme Court granting cert, unless it were exclusively to further clarify the “transformativeness” doctrine. There doesn’t appear to be anything else for the Court to resolve. And given the rationales applied by the Second Circuit here—especially drawing such clear distinctions between its own precedent opinion and this one—it seems like a big stretch for TVEyes to expect an appeal to go their way, even if the Supreme Court did hear the case.

Rights holders should be very pleased with this outcome, as should anyone who believes that legal systems have contours. Fair use is an important exception to copyright’s exclusive protections. But it is simply common-sense to conclude that every tech company that develops another method for exploiting someone else’s work—TVEyes, ReDigi, VidAngel, etc.—cannot call itself “transformative” and get away with it. One can show great ingenuity in hacking, embezzlement, or counterfeiting, too, but that doesn’t make these enterprises legal. Thankfully, the Second Circuit agrees.

Google Books & The Semantic Maze of Fair Use

Photo by author.

This week the Supreme Court declined to consider the Authors Guild v Google case, which lets stand the Second Circuit Court ruling that Google’s use of scanned published works for its search tool Google Books constitutes a fair use.  Various pundits and advocates have hailed this as a victory for the fair use principle.  In fact, I saw a headline the other day on Facebook that began with the words “Fair Use Wins …”, and although the decision is unquestionably a win for Google, the fair use principle actually remains mired in a semantic confusion about which the high court might have at least provided some clarity.  It’s all about the word transformativeness.

The fair use doctrine was added to the Copyright Law as part of the 1976 Act, and its original intent was to protect various types of expressions—commentary, parody, education, artistic remixes, reportage, etc.—that by necessity made limited and conditional uses of copyrighted works.  I’ve written longer posts about fair use doctrine in general, and won’t repeat all that here, but readers will remember that there are four interrelated factors to be considered* in assessing whether a use constitutes a fair use.  But in 1994, in a landmark case that was heard by the Supreme Court called Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music, the fair use doctrine grew a new appendage called “transformativeness” that has, in the age of the internet, not only become something of a fifth factor that seems to override consideration of the other four, but also has not been clearly defined as a term of art in legal practice.

As I continue to learn from my attorney friends, some of the words we use in everyday language become terms of art in the legal world, which generally means that court rulings have shaped, narrowed, or expanded the dictionary definition of key terms.  For instance, based on the current ruling by a federal court, the word articles can only mean “physical objects” with regard to the International Trade Commission’s authority to prohibit the importation of illegal goods.  So, if Congress wants to grant that body the authority to restrict the importation of digital data for illegal purposes, they’re probably going to have to rewrite the law.  (More about that another time, perhaps.)

The concept of “transformativeness” in fair use parlance was introduced by Judge Pierre Leval in his paper “Toward a Fair Use Standard” published in the Harvard Law Review in 1990, and coincidentally it was Leval who wrote the decision in the Second Circuit’s ruling in Authors Guild v Google.  But even though the “father of transformativeness” himself has ruled in this case, there is still much confusion about the term and what it means when considering fair use. As Thomas Sydnor of the Center for Internet, Communications and Technology Policy at the American Enterprise Institute writes about the situation:

“As cases applying this judge-made “transformativeness”-based approach to fair use accumulate, that term becomes increasingly incoherent, inconsistent, and counterintuitive. Collectively, its incoherence(s) now threaten to turn what was once a productively flexible multi-factor balancing test into little more than a perfunctory recitation of factors ending in judicial ipsa dixit – “because I said so.” Under such circumstances, rule of law cannot persist.”

Sydnor further points out that the word transform already exists in the 1976 Copyright Act in reference to the preparation of “derivative works,” which is another term of art to describe works such as spin-offs or adaptations into other media. These rights belong exclusively to the copyright owner of the original work and should not be confused with the more casual way we might use the word derivative to describe, or even criticize, a work that is mimicking some other work.  For instance, the above-mentioned Campbell case involves a work of parody that we might describe in common language as derivative, but not so in the context of copyright law.

Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music involved a new, expressive work, specifically 2 Live Crew’s raunchy parody of the song “Oh, Pretty Woman” co-written and originally performed by Roy Orbison.  The court held in Campbell that “the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors.”  In this case, the court is referring to the extent to which 2 Live Crew “transformed” the original song to make a new song.  By contrast, though, Google does not “transform” any of the original works to create new expressions but instead uses the contents of the works to create a new search service called Google Books.

So, with these two rulings, we are looking at two significantly distinct definitions of the word transformativeness.  The first refers to modification of an expressive work in order to make a new expressive work.  The second implicitly refers to transformation of the external world (society) by the introduction of some new capacity (i.e. function) it did not have before.  This is particularly relevant because the language used by SCOTUS, asserting that “transformativeness” should “lessen the significance of the other factors,” can only rationally be applied—if the spirit of fair use doctrine is to be kept intact—to the first definition in which an original work is “transformed” to create a new, expressive work.  In the second usage of the word, in which the external world is assumed to be transformed by some new functional use, then “transformativeness” becomes too heavily weighted against the other factors, thus giving (for instance) a giant, wealthy service provider extraordinary latitude to define just about anything it does as socially “transformative.”

If the courts are going to apply this second definition of “transformativeness,” then it seems the consideration ought not to carry any more weight than the other factors because the second definition provides a basis for large-scale, corporate-funded uses of millions of works in a way that the first definition does not.  In other words Google Books may be deemed a fair use in the end, but it is not sensible that the application of “transformativeness” in Campbell be applied.  As it stands, the courts appear to be giving the same weight to “transformativeness” while using two very different definitions of the word.

Semantically speaking, I would argue that transformative is not exactly the right word to use when one specifically wants to describe some measure of modification to an existing thing like a creative expression.  The term is problematic because it begs exactly the confusion we now have in the courts—because transformative more properly describes the effects of an invention or expression to the external world (e.g. electricity was transformative in that it made modern society). While it would not be wrong in common parlance to describe, for instance, Jeff Buckley’s rendition of Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” as “transformative,” even this usage would generally tend to convey that both song and listener are in some way transformed.  But in law, this is too vague.  This is why the attorneys refer to a term of art –a definition that is established within the language of the law that may or may not conform to everyday usage.  Sydnor points out that Leval himself provides little guidance in this regard when he quotes the judge thus:

“The word “transformative” cannot be taken too literally as a sufficient key to understanding the elements of fair use. It is rather a suggestive symbol for a complex thought….”

 “[T]he word “transformative,” if interpreted too broadly, can also seem to authorize copying that should fall within the scope of an author’s derivative rights. Attempts to find a circumspect shorthand for a complex concept are best understood as suggestive of a general direction, rather than as definitive descriptions.”

Right. I’m no legal scholar, but I think the concept “transformative” is a troublemaker.

Because the precedent SCOTUS ruling in Campbell is based on the use of “transformativeness” to describe the modification of an expressive work, it would make sense to settle upon this definition and to seek another term for considering functional uses akin to Google Books. As CEO of Copyright Alliance Keith Kupferschmid writes in a post on the organization’s website:

“The fair use doctrine is an equitable doctrine, but in functional use cases it hasn’t worked that way because the transformative use test is ill equipped to effectively balance the competing interests at stake in these cases.  Fair use analysis should take into account not only the interests of owners and users but also the underlying policy objectives of the copyright law.  To account for these factors in a reasonable and balanced way, it is time for the courts to begin using a functional use test.”

Unfortunately for rights holders, the confusion about “transformativeness” that leaks into general consciousness results in a casual logic, which assumes that simply changing the context of a work, like placing a photograph on one’s Facebook page, is “transformative” enough to make a use fair.  Google Books is a misstep in that direction, and if this becomes the application of fair use, then that’s the ballgame.  There are no copyrights left. I can take your songs or images, put them on this blog, call it “transformative”, and get away with it.  That may be an attractive proposal to the internet industry, but it is far from the original intent of fair use doctrine in the copyright law, which was to protect expression, and it would have disastrous effects on the professional creative industry as we know it.

*Changed from original publication, which stated that the factors are considered by a three-judge panel.  As pointed out by Anonymous commenter, this is only true in an appellate court. A mistake I made in haste owing to the fact that many famous fair use cases are famous because they’ve gone to higher courts.