art law -- final draft
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
1/28
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF LAW
PHOTOGRAPHS AND COPYRIGHT LAW: THE MODERN-DIGITAL
DILEMMA
Tyson Kyle Gobble
Professor Sherri Burr
11/15/2010
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
2/28
Page 2 of 28
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 3
II. COPYRIGHTS IN THE ARTS IN GENERAL ................................................. 5
A. HISTORY ...................................................................................................... 5
B. MODERN COPYRIGHT STATUTES .......................................................... 6
III. PHOTOGRAPHS AND COPYRIGHT LAW: THE MODERN DIGITAL
DILEMMA ...........................................................................................................10
A. THE DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD ................................................................11
B. DUAL-USE TECHNOLOGIES ....................................................................11
C. LENIENT LEGAL STANDARDS ...............................................................20
IV. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................26
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
3/28
Page 3 of 28
I. INTRODUCTION
Photographsarerapidlyplayingalargerroleineverydaylifein communities
around theglobe. Photographsarenow takenanddisseminated withrelativeease
by millions ofpeoplearound the world through the use of modern technology. The
modern-digitalagehasdrivenphotographs to an unimaginableaudienceand to an
unseenpopularity. Photographsalso serve many functionsinsociety. Because of
the wideimplicationsphotographshave on the modernglobalsociety,photographs
should be consideredandprotectedasavitalasset to the wholeglobal community.
The continued copyright protectionin the future forphotographsis bothvital
andproblematic. Theincreasingriseinsophistication of modern technology
morespecificallydual-use technologyand therelativelylenient legalstandards
createadelicateand unpredictable future. Therise of theglobaleconomyand
global communityallow morepeople thaneverto createandshareart through
photography. Yet, thisverysame technologyhas made copyright infringement
easierthanever. The courtsandlegislatureneed to moveswiftly to identify the
properpath forthe future of copyright protection forphotographs.
Overtime technologyhasadvanced beyondapoint that couldhave been
imaginable by the framers of the United States Constitution. However, one
constant hasremainedsteadfast overtime: innovationin theartsandsciences
should beencouraged only through thisgrowth can we continue to expand our
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
4/28
Page 4 of 28
minds to creativityin thought,production,andexpression. Photographs will
continue to provideanaccessibleplatform forboth technologicalinnovationand
creativeexpression.
Therise ofnew andinnovative technologyhasled to manynew-age
techniquesandhas createdentirelynew genres ofart. Theemergence of the
appropriationart movement in the modern-digitalagepresentsaverylargeriskto
copyrighted works ofart. Thispaperwill use two modern-Americanartistsasa
casestudy to illustrate thepresence ofillegal copyright infringement in the
modern-art community. Appropriationartists,like Jeff Koonsand Shepard Fairey,
rely onand borrow copyrightedaspects of others works ofart inattempting to
transform these objectsinto anew and original workofart. Althoughlegally
soundin theory, theseappropriationartists continue to exploit copyrighted
material. Theappropriation movement servesasagreat example of theinterplay
betweendual-use technologyand thelenient legalstandardsin thearea of
copyright law today.
Thispaperwill first lookto thehistory of copyright protectionand the
modernstatutoryprotectiongranted to photographs within the United States.
Second, thepaperwilllookat theinterplay between theemergence ofdual-use
technologyand copyright infringement. Next, thepaperwilldetermine whether
thelenient legalstandardsprotectingphotograph ownersactuallyserveasan
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
5/28
Page 5 of 28
incentive to prospective copyright infringers. Finally, thepossiblesolutions, that
can beapplied to protect photographsin the modern-digitalage, will beidentified
andassessed.
II. COPYRIGHTS IN THE ARTS IN GENERAL
A. HISTORY
Theprotectionsgranted to authors of original works can be traced backto
the Europeaninfluences on the United States. Therehaslong beenanestablished
history ofgranting creatorsprotection overtheirthoughtsandinnovations. More
advancedsocietieshaverecognizedsomekind of copyrights forcenturies.
In the United States, therightsandprotectionsgranted to the owneror
authorofa copyrightable workoriginate from the Constitution of the United States
of America. The text can be foundamongst theenumeratedpowers of Congress.1
The framersand founders of the Constitution found thisprotection to beso
important that the Copyright Clausereceived unanimousapproval whensubmitted
to the constituentsat the Constitutional Convention. Even more tellingis the fact
that very few itemsreceivedsuch widespreadapprovalat the convention.2
1 Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of Americaspecificallygrants Congress the
power[t]opromote theprogress ofscienceand the usefularts, bysecuring forlimited times to authorsandinventors theexclusiveright to theirrespective writingsanddiscoveries.2 See Irah Donner,The Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Framers Include it With
Unanimous Approval? 36 Am. J. of Legal Hist. 361, 361 (1992).
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
6/28
Page 6 of 28
Historically,photographshavenot always beenrecognizedasa
copyrightable workofart. Because of the mechanicalprocesses that areinvolved
and theperceivedlackofexpression by the creator,photographs werenot
originallygranted copyright protection. Howeverdue to the flexibleandever
changingglobal community,photographs were first recognizedasa copyrightable
workinBurrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony.3While the court inBurrow-
Gilesdidrecognizephotographsasa workofart, the court specifically tailored the
copyright protectionsgranted to photographs only to thoseelementsin whichan
artist attempts to usehis orhercreativeexpression.4
B. MODERN COPYRIGHT STATUTES
Modern copyright legislation can beseenin the Copyright Act, the Visual
Artists Rights Act (VARA),and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
These federalstatutesgovernall copyright and copyright infringement claims
involvingphotographsin the United States. These federalstatutesalso preempt
anylawsestablished by thestates that mayencroach upon thearea of copyright
protection.
3 SeeBurrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884).4 SeeBurrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884)(holding that theartist usedhis own
creativeexpressioninposing Wilde, theselectionandarrangement of the costumes,draperies,and other
variousaccessories,posing of thesubject,andarranging thelight andshade of thephotograph);Mannion
v. Coors Brewing Co., 377 F. Supp. 2d 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)(the court inMannionexpressed that theangle of the camera,exposure, timing,and the creation of thesubject andscene).
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
7/28
Page 7 of 28
The Copyright Act broadlygrants copyright protection to variousartistic and
creativeexpressions through manydifferent types of media. Copyright protection
isgranted only to those works that are original works ofauthorship fixedinany
tangible medium ofexpression. . . .5
Although copyright law has beendynamic in
nature overtime, the Copyright Act specificallystates: Inno casedoes copyright
protection foran original workofauthorshipextend to anyidea . . . .6
The
statutorylanguagepresent in the Copyright Act clearlyindicates that ideasalone
arenot copyrightable material; thus to be copyrightablea workofart,aphotograph
must possess therequisitelevel ofartistic expressionand creativityasstatutorily
mandated.
The Copyright Act, morespecifically 17 U.S.C. 106,dictates that the
creatorofa copyrightable workhas to theexclusivepower to enforce the following
rights: reproduction,adaption,publication,public performance,andpublic
display.7
At theheart of theserightsis the basic concern fortheeconomic and
ownershiprights of the creator. Although theserightsat times often overlap,a
violation ofeachindividualright is consideredanindependent violationand claim.
Thesesixenumeratedrightsare considered theexclusiverights of the ownerand
the ownercan thensell orassign theserightsat anytimeand to anyone.8
5 See17 U.S.C. 102(a).6 See 18 U.S.C. 102(b).7
Fora morein-depthlookat thestatutorylanguagesee 17 U.S.C. 106(1-6).8
Seestatutorynotes 17 U.S.C. 106 .
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
8/28
Page 8 of 28
Thespecific works that have beenafforded copyright protectionhave
graduallyexpanded overtime with therise ofdifferent techniquesand
technology. Asstatedearlier,photographs themselveshavenot always been
afforded copyright protectionin the United States. The current statutoryprotection
granted to photographs,as originaland copyrightable works ofart, can beseen
within the Copyright Act. First, 17 U.S.C. 102(a) specificallyenumerates the
types ofartistic works including pictorial,graphic,andsculptural works.9
Second, 17 U.S.C. 101 specificallydefinesapictorial,graphic,andsculptural
workasincludingaphotographasapictorial orgraphic image.10
Although
photographsarespecificallyrecognized bystatutein the modern-digitalage,
historyhasshown us that thislist isnot static. As technologydevelopsandartists
createinnovative techniques, theneed to protect otheroriginal works willarise.
Thedynamic nature of the modern copyright statutesproperlyallows forthe
flexiblenature of copyright law envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.
9 Fora completelist of copyrightable workssee 17 U.S.C. 102(a).10 17 U.S.C. 101 definesapictorial,graphic,andsculptural workas: two-dimensionaland three-dimensional works of fine,graphic,andappliedart,photographs,printsand
art reproductions, maps,globes, charts,diagrams, models,and technicaldrawings,
includingarchitecturalplans. Such worksshallinclude works ofartistic craftsmanshipinsofaras their form but not theirmechanical orutilitarianaspectsare concerned; the
design ofa usefularticle,asdefinedin thissection,shall be consideredapictorial,
graphic, orsculptural workonlyif,and only to theextent that,suchdesignincorporates
pictorial,graphic, orsculptural features that can beidentifiedseparately from,andarecapable ofexistingindependently of, the utilitarianaspects of thearticle. 17 U.S.C. 101.
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
9/28
Page 9 of 28
The Visual Artists Right Act, commonlyreferred to as VARA,also provides
alimitednumberofphotographsevengreaterprotection. Theseprotectionsapply
to averynarrow subset of Americanphotographs. VARA amends the Copyright
Revisionact byproviding to authors of certain types ofsingularorlimitededition
artworktherights ofattributionandintegrity.11
Therights ofattributionand
integrityare considered theartists moralrights, whicharedifferent from certain
economic rights that areaddressed by copyright protection. However, these moral
rights canplayalargeroleinprotectinganartists uniqueexpression througha
photograph.
UnderVARA,aphotographercan onlygain therights ofattributionand
integrityinlimited circumstances. Section 101 of the Copyright Act definesa
workofvisualart forphotographypurposesas:
astillphotographic imageproduced forexhibitionpurposes
only,existinginasingle copy that issigned by theauthor, orin
alimitededition of 200 copies orfewer that aresignedand
consecutivelynumbered by theauthor.12
Forpurposes of VARA and theimplication of moralrights to aphotograph, the
photograph must fit into theabovedefinition ofa workofvisualart. Only then can
a creatorenjoy both theeconomic rights provided by the Copyright Act and the
moralrights provided through VARA.
11 Leonard D. DuBoff, Sherri Burr, & Michael D. Murray,ART LAW Cases and Materials, 206 (rev. ed.,
Aspen 2010).12
See 17 U.S.C. 101 Works of Visual Art (2).
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
10/28
Page 10 of 28
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act also playsalargerolein the modern-
digitalage. The DMCA applies to theareas of copyrightsandphotographs that are
protected byelectronic measures.13
The DMCA makesit illegal to distribute
devices that could circumvent theelectronic protectionanddisseminateinfringing
workthroughelectronic means.14
Although the DMCA imposessevere
punishments meant to detertheexploitation of copyrightable material through
electronic means, thesedeterringeffectsaredoinglittle to many modern-day
infringers,like Koonsand Fairey.
Insum these modernstatutesdo provide theartist manydifferent avenues of
protection. Thesestatutesdo not provideabsoluteprotectionhowever. The
modern-digitalerapresents unprecedentedproblems forcopyright owners. Even
when copyright owners take thenecessary measures to protect theirphotographs,
theseprotections,deterrence measures,andpenalties meanlittle to apotential
infringer. Only when the courtsand federalprosecutors begin to enforce the
modern-day copyright statutesvigorously will theinfringers begin to thinktwice
beforeexploitingaphotograph throughelectronic measures.
III. PHOTOGRAPHS AND COPYRIGHT LAW: THE MODERN
DIGITAL DILEMMA
13 See 17 U.S.C. 1201.14
Leonard D. DuBoff, Sherri Burr, & Michael D. Murray,ART LAW Cases and Materials, 216 (rev. ed.,Aspen 2010).
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
11/28
Page 11 of 28
A. THE DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD
As wehaveseen,photographshavenot always beenafforded copyright
protection. As technologyand creativitydevelops, thedynamic nature of
copyright law allows forthe flexibilityandadaptability that isneeded to encourage
the creativeprocess. However, thisverysame technologyand creativity can work
to thedetriment of the creatorofa copyrightablephotograph. The modern-digital
agehas createda two-folddilemma. Theeaseandaccessibility to photographyhas
neverbeengreater, but theeaseandaccessibility to technology to pirateandalter
copyrightablephotographshasalso neverbeengreater.
B. DUAL-USE TECHNOLOGIES
The concept ofdual-use technologyadds to theproblematic interplay
between copyright law and technologyin thedigitalage. In the context of
photographsand copyrights,dual-use technology can bedescribedas technology
that is capable of being usedin bothinfringingandnon-infringing methods.15
Modernexamples ofdual-use technologies that relate to theexploitation of
photographsarelittered throughout society: modern-cellphones withdigital
camerasand Internet capabilities,image-enhancement software,peer-to-peerfile-
15 See Brett M. Frischman,Review of the Innovation for the 21stCentury: Harnessing the Power of
Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law, 61 Ala. L. Rev. 579, 580 (2010). Thearticlealso expressesan
argument for thedesirability of maintaining theSonyshieldagainst secondaryliability to creators ofdual-use technology.
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
12/28
Page 12 of 28
sharingsoftware,socialnetworks,andeven the Internet.16
Even though these
innovative technologiesare creative,identifynew markets,and createnew
opportunities, thesedual-use technologiespose what somehavedubbed the
digitaldilemma.17
Thedual-use technologiespresent into todayssociety createan unlimited
array ofpossible opportunities forinfringement upon copyright protectionin
America. Artistslike Koonsand Faireyhave capitalized onsuch technologyinan
attempt to circumvent modern copyright law. However, theseverysame
technologies can be usedin ways that protect the copyrightable material foundin
digital media today.18
Theadvent of the computer, Internet,digitalphotograph,
andphotograph manipulationsoftwarehas changed the methodsin whicha
photograph can beexploited. The methodsand technology that are currently
availablehave madeillegalexploitation ofphotographs much moreprevalent,
sophisticated,andefficient.
Aspreviouslynoted, copyright law isdynamic and capable of changing with
technologicalinnovation, but historically copyright law has beenslow to react to
dual-use technologies.19
Theability ofapotentialinfringerto use the technology
to makeperfect copiesanddisseminate them overthe Internet isnow avery
16Frischman, 61 Ala. L. Rev.at 580.17 See Raymond Shih Ray Ku,The Creative Destruction of Copyright: Napster and the New Economics
of Digital Technology, 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. 263, 263 (2002).18
Shih Ray Ku, 69 U. Chi. L. Rev. at 264.19
Frischman, 61 Ala. L. Rev.at 580.
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
13/28
Page 13 of 28
realistic andactual consequence of the moderndigitalage. Thisdilemmaposes
seriousrisks to theprotections that authors of originalphotographshave
historicallyenjoyed. Although therehas beensomediscussion ofpossible
solutions to theseproblems, therehas beenlittle to no recent reaction by thepolicy
makers to ensure copyright protection to photographsin the future.
Thereare many modernexamples of copyright exploitation through the
implementation ofdual-use technology. One of the most recent andprominent
examples can beseeninFairey v. The Associated Press.20
Faireyinvolvesa
copyright infringement claim brought by the AssociatedPress (AP) involvinga
2006 photograph ofnow President BarrackObama, which the AP claims was
illegally usedand obtained by Shepard Faireyin creatingpostersandstickers
during the 2008 Presidential Election. The Hope postersandstickers began to
bedistributed onagrass-rootslevel, but eventually becameaniconic,
recognizable,andnationalsymbol of theelection. Although the court hasnot
come to a finaldecisionin the case, this caseinparticularisdemonstrative of the
problems occurringin thedigitalage.
Faireyisan Americannew-ageartist, who isprimarilyknown forhis
guerilla-art styleand techniques ofillegallyplacingpropaganda-like-posterart and
20Foralookat thepreliminaryissuespresented to the Court seeFairey v. The Associated Press, 09-CV-
01123 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
14/28
Page 14 of 28
stickers throughout American urbanareas.21
Faireys most prominent and most
publicizedpiece ofso-calledart is by far the Obama Hope poster. Because the
posterandstickersreceivedsuch widespreadrecognitionduring the 2008 election,
Fairey beganselling the Hope postercommercially onhis own official website
to fund theeverdevelopingnationalproject.22
The AP claims that Faireyillegallyrelied upona copyrightedphotograph of
Obama taken by Mannie Garcia, while onassignment forthe APin 2006. The AP
also maintains that the Hope postercontains copyrightableelementspresent in
Garciasphotographand owned by the AP. Fairey originally claimed that hedid
not rely on thephotograph, theposterwashis originalexpression of creativity,and
raised theaffirmativedefense of the fair-usedoctrine. Faireyslegalposition
becameeven more troublesome whenhelateradmitted that hehadillegally copied
thephotograph from theinternet andeventuallyhislegal team distance themselves
from him.23
24
The final twist in thestory came when Mr. Garcia, thephotographer,
came forwardandstated that he believed that he was the ownerof the original
photographerbecause ofhis contractualarrangement with the APat the time the
photograph was taken.
21Randy Kennedy,Artist Sues The A.P. Over Obama Image, The New YorkTimes (February 10, 2009).
22 Foralookat the website used to sell the Hope postersand other2008 election memorabiliasee thewebsiteaddress: http://obeygiant.com/headlines/obama.23Leonard D. DuBoff, Sherri Burr, & Michael D. Murray,ART LAW Cases and Materials, 124 (rev. ed.,
Aspen 2010).24
Foralookat what Faireys team oflawyerssaid when withdrawing from Faireysrepresentationsee thewebpage: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/case/fairey-v-associated-press.
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
15/28
Page 15 of 28
Thesituation of Shepard Faireyisavery clearexample ofhow dual-use
technology canposeaseriousriskto the traditional copyright protections. The AP
used the Internet asa forum to sell theircopyrightedphotograph, whichisanon-
infringing use. Fairey used theverysame technology, the Internet, to illegally
obtain the copyrightedphotographand ultimatelydisseminatehis finalproduct
globally throughhis own official website foraprofit. Although thereare
restrictionsagainst theillegaldisseminationand copying of copyrighted material
through the Internet, theenforcement andpotentialpenaltiesdidlittle to deter
Faireyin thissituation.
The modern-digitaldilemmais full of otherexamples ofhow dual-use
technologyis being used to infringe upon theprotections of copyright law. There
have been many cases were copyrightedphotographshave beendisplayed,sold,
and copied on otherwebsites.25
Thesheernumberof Internet websitesand Internet
usershas changed thephotographand copyright landscape throughout the world.
In the modern-digitalage,photographsarelike trading cards. People caneasily
post,view,andexchangephotographs withpeopleall overtheglobe through the
Internet,specializedphotograph websites,andsocialnetworks. Koonsand Fairey
25 SeeALS Scan Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002). Althoughdecided
on jurisdictionalissues, the casepresentsanexample ofdual-use technology being used to exploitcopyrightedphotographs.
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
16/28
Page 16 of 28
are just a coupleexamples of modern-day-digitalpirates using thisdual-use
technology to captureandaltercopyrightedimages.26
Therise ofphoto-enhancement softwarealso poses one of thelargest threats
to copyrightedphotographsin thedigitalage. Infringers caneasily findapicture
on the Internet that is copyrightedand use this technology to isolateandalter the
image. Koonsis wellknown forusingsuch tactics. Theinfringerisalso able to
createan unlimitedamount ofperfect copies of thephotographduring thisprocess
as well. During theenhancement process theinfringercanisolateand changeany
of the copyrightedand/orcopyrightableportions of thephotograph. Even though
changing oraltering thephotographisadirect violation of theartists moralright
ofintegrity, manyphotographsandartistsdo not have thisright because of the
limitedandnarrow subset ofphotographs that VARAprotects.
Photo-enhancement softwarealso has manylegitimate uses,aprominent
example ofdual-use technologyat work. The creatororauthorof thephotographs
can use thisverysamesoftware to touch upand/oraddeven moreartistic
expression to thephotographitself. Theprocess of using thisdual-use technology
photo-enhancement software to add theartists ownexpressionand creative
26 Forotherexamples ofdual-use technology being used to infringe uponphotographsseeFragranceNet.com, Inc. v. FragranceX.com, Inc., 679 F.Supp.2d 312 (denyingdefendants motion to
dismiss that theplaintiffsimages on companys website werenot entitled to copyright protection);
Oriental Art Printing, Inc. v. GoldstarPrinting Corp., 175 F.Supp.2d 542 (holding that theplaintiffs
menu containinggeneric photographs wasnot able to garnercopyright protection, but also hinting thatmaybe theindividualphotographs might be copyrightable).
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
17/28
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
18/28
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
19/28
Page 19 of 28
necessary to accessall the factsand circumstancesineachindividual case before
coming to an ultimate conclusion.
Byexpanding VARA, the owners ofphotographic copyrights would beable
to acquire therights ofintegrityandattribution. These two rights collectively
wouldeffectively countersome of the threats that dual-use technologyposes. In
addition to theprotections that the DMCA applies to digitalphotographs, this
legislation wouldeffectively makeit illegal to alterand changea copyrighted-
digitalphotograph. This change wouldalso makeit illegal foraninfringerto copy
thephotographand then claim it as theirown.
Opponents of theexpansion of VARA willargue that thestatutorygranted
protectionsarenot meant to protect theeverydayphotograph. Thispoint is well
taken. However, thedynamic natureandhistory of the copyright law clearly
indicates that copyright law is meant to expand overtimeas technologyadvances.
Technologyhasincreased to thepoint whereit isvital that modernphotographs be
accompanied by therights ofattributionandintegrity. The current digital
environment has madeit possible to essentially breakdownphotographsinto
individualpieces that can be usedinanotherworkofart. Therights ofintegrity
andattribution would clearlyprotect photographs from thisintrusion. More
importantlyit would makeit easierforthe ownerof the copyrightedphotograph to
filesuit andprotect his orherexpression.
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
20/28
Page 20 of 28
Thedual-use technology canalso beapplied to protect the copyrighted
photographs. In todayshigh-tech world thereare many forms ofdigitalprotection
that could beapplied to protect therights of the ownerofa copyrighted
photograph. The most obvious form ofdigitalprotection would beencryption.
Encryption could be usedsimplylikea code. This wouldallow only theauthoror
ownerto gainaccess to digitalphotograph.
Therearedownsides to theencryptionargument. First, thephotographeror
ownerof thephotograph wouldneed to haveaccess to thenecessary technology to
includeencryption withinaphotograph. The technologynecessary to apply
encryption to aphotograph wouldincrease the cost of thephotographic process.
This type of technologyis currentlypresent in computersoftwareand motion
picture DVDs. Althoughpresent, theseprotectionsare continually circumvented
by thedetermined. Forthesereasons, VARA expansion would bepreferable.
Although theprecedingsolutionsareveryrealistic, thelegislature would
first have to enact changes to the current statutoryscheme. Congress must first act
to expand VARA orto mandate that adigitalphotograph must beprotected by
some form ofencryption. The flexibility of the copyright law and theincreased
sophistication of technology bothallow for thesesolutions to becomereality.
C. LENIENT LEGAL STANDARDS
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
21/28
Page 21 of 28
Thelenient legalstandards that areemployedin theadjudication of
copyright cases createlittle to no deterringeffect in todays modern-digitalage.
Artists,like Koonsand Fairey,andinfringersalike todayarguablysee theselegal
standardsasincentivesandrely on the moderndual-use technology to exploit an
authors originaland copyrighted work. Thestandardsappliedin cases of
acquiring copyright protectionandin copyright infringement areeasily met in most
cases. Although theprimarypurpose of traditional copyright law is to encourage
creativity, thisarguablyencouragesillegal creativityin thedigitalage furthering
thedigitaldilemma.
In the case of copyright protection, theauthormust onlyprove that the work
isan original workofart that contains therequisite minimallevel of theartists
own creativity orexpression. As one canimagine,aphotographarguablyalways
containssome uniqueand creativeexpression. Thus,arguablyaphotograph will
always containsome original copyrightableelement asstatutorilyrequired by the
Copyright Act. The courtshave continuallyreiterated:
To besure, therequisitelevel of creativityisextremelylow;
evenaslight amount willsuffice. Thevast majority of works
make thegradequiteeasily,as theypossesssome creative
spark, no matterhow crude,humble orobviousit might be.28
28SeeFeist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 345,
111 S.Ct. 1282, 1287 (1991).
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
22/28
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
23/28
Page 23 of 28
encouragement ofartistic creativityandexpression. Thisarguablyencourages the
wrongkind of creativity.
Modernartistic techniquesand modern technologyhave createdavery
difficult dilemma within theart world. New-ageartistsare becoming moreand
moredependent on material that they copy from the Internet orotherplaces
consisting ofintentional copyright exploitation. Forexample,artistslike Shepard
Faireyand Jeff Koonshave continuallyrelied upon others workin creating their
own. Theseso-calledappropriationartists continue to test the outerboundaries of
thelaw, while onlygaininginnotoriety through theprocess.
Jeff Koonsisanew-age Americanartist. His workhas beendisplayedin
manygalleriesacross the world,has beensold forextravagant sums of money,and
hasgathered much criticism overtime. Koonsis wellknown forincorporating
modern mediaandadvertising gatheredand taken from others into his own
work.31
Koons oftenrelies onisolatingindividualaspects of copyrighted work,
throughphoto-enhancement software,inarranginghisimagesinaprovocative
manner. Koonsand otherappropriationartists oftenrely on theaffirmative
defense of the fair-usedoctrine to overcome claims of copyright infringement.
Morespecifically, opponents of Koons might chargehim with fabricating
31SeeBlanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244 (2
ndCir. 2006)
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
24/28
Page 24 of 28
arguments to indicate that the workofart was createdasaparody orsatire of the
originalimage.
Thevery fact that Koonshashadseveral copyright infringement casesin
recent times onlyservesasa buttress to theargument that thepresent legal
standardsandpunishment do little to deterthedetermined.32
Koons, Fairey,and
otherneo-popartistsareincorporating copyrighted materialin theirworkbecause
of theease ofaccessibility. In the unlikelyevent that theydo get caught these
artists findalaw suit to bevery cheappublicityandpress. Inarecent discussion
witha formerKoonsemployee,it seems that Koons finds that alaw suit orany
othernegativepublicityaddsvalueand curiosity to hispieces. Artists who break
thelaw shouldnot beable to gain from theirillegalexploitations ofsomeoneelses
art work.
Modernartistslike Koonsand Faireyarearguablyrelying on theirown
creativity to composea workofart. However, the type of creativity that theyare
expressingisillegal. Theseartistsarerelying on theineffectiveness of the modern
copyright law and the failure of federalprosecutors to prosecute cybercriminals to
32 SeeRogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2nd Cir. 1992)(upholdinga copyright infringement claim againstKoonsand finding that Koons String ofPuppies wasnot entitled toprotection under the fair-use
doctrine); Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244 (2nd Cir. 2006)(denyinganinfringement claim andholding thatKoonsappropriationand use ofPlaintiffsphotographin Koons workNiagra wasentitled toprotectionunder the fair-usedoctrineasasatire); Campbell v. Koons, No. 91 Civ. 6055, 1993 WL 97381, 1993 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 3957 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 1993)(holding that Koonsillegally copiedprotectedimagesand
denying use of fair-usedoctrine); United Feature Syndicate v. Koons, 817 F. Supp. 370 (S.D.N.Y.
1993)(also holding that Koonsillegallyrelied on copyrightedimagesanddenying Koons theaffirmativedefense of the fair-usedoctrine).
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
25/28
Page 25 of 28
essentiallyget away with theft. The copyright lawsandpenalties that areinplace
todayare obviouslynot deterring modernartistsagainst theinfringement of
copyrights.
To properlydetertheseindividuals the courtsandprosecutorsneed to takea
firm andproactivestanceagainst modern-daypirates. While the DMCA does offer
severesanctions, the DMCA isnot deterring Koons, Fairey, orotherartists from
copying others works ofart. Theprosecutors on the federallevelneed to attack
suchartistsand bring casesagainst theseindividuals to make the DMCAssevere
sanctionspossible. Inaddition to the DMCA sanctions, the courts could mandatea
bad faithinquiryinto the copyright analysis.
Aninquisitioninto the bad faith ofapotentialinfringercouldserve two
purposes. First, theinquiry will beable to isolate the motive fortheinfringement
by theartist. Second,it can be used to helpattacktheaffirmativedefense of the
fair-usedoctrine. Essentiallyif the bad faithintent to copy the workforillegal
purposesand commercialgainispresent then theartist wouldhaveno claim of fair
use of theimage. If theelement of bad faithispresent then theinfringerwillnot
beallowed to use the copyrightedelements ofaphotographinany way. Thisalso
holds true to the traditionalnotion that not allelements ofaphotographare
copyrightable. Thus, theartist wouldstill be free to employany of the unprotected
elements.
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
26/28
Page 26 of 28
Applying the bad faithelement to eitherartist that has beenstudiedin this
paperwouldindicate the obvious. Bothartistssought to capitalize commercially
on the copyrighted work. Koonsis wellknown forintentionally takingand using
copyrightedimagesinhis own work. Fairey on the otherhandpossessed the
necessary bad-faithelement, but isnot as wellknown forusing others work.
Undera bad-faithanalysis,neitherartist would beable to commerciallygain from
exploitinganothers copyrighted work.
Theimposition ofharsherpenalties to artists who chose to use copyrighted
workwouldeffectively terminateanylikelihood that infringers would continue to
rely onanothers copyrightedportionsin theirown work. The DMCA does
specifically mandatestrict andseverepunishments. The DMCA also makesit
illegal to distributeaproduct that circumventsanydigitalprotectionsadded to the
photograph. This two-prongedattackon copyright infringement has workedin
some ways. However, the DMCA hasalso added to the undergroundnetworkof
infringers. Federalprosecutorsneed to apply the DMCA whereverpossible to
sendastrong message to theinfringers that this type of behaviorwillnot be
toleratedin thedigitalera.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
27/28
Page 27 of 28
The continued copyright protection ofphotographsin the modern-digitalage
isvital. Although technologicalinnovation will create both opportunityand threats
to owners of copyrightedphotographs, thisisno reason fortheprotection to be
totallyabandoned. Thedual-use technology that isemployed throughout the world
canserveas bothaswordandashield. For the futureprotection of copyrighted
photographs to beaviableavenue forartists theproperprotectionsneed to be
implementednow.
Although thepurpose of copyright law is to promote creativity, the modern
statutoryschemeispromoting the wrong type of creativity. Koons, Fairey,and
othermodernartistsarerelying on copyrighted workand circumventing the
copyright law to thedetriment of the true owner. Activelypursuing changein the
current copyright frameworkis the only way to helpsolve theproblem andeducate
societyas to thenecessity of upholding traditionalpurpose of copyright law.
Broadening theprotectiongranted to photographs underVARA wouldserve
to betterprotect authors of originalphotographs from the threats of thedigitalera.
Granting therights ofattributionandintegrity to alargersubset ofphotographs,
including thoseessentially commercialinnature, wouldhelp meet theever
increasingneed to protect photographs from illegalexploitation byartistslike
Koonsand Fairey. Inaddition, this change willleave theauthororownerofa
-
8/7/2019 ART LAW -- Final Draft
28/28
copyrightablephotograph with thenecessaryandproperrecourse to combat the
problems that accompany thedigitaldilemma.
Mandatinga bad-faithinquiryinto the copyright infringement analysis will
help to isolate the motive ordesire ofapotentialinfringer. Thisinquiry willalso
help to lessen theeffective ofapost hoc parody orsatire justification. Effectively
applying the DMCA to copyright infringers willlead to lessinfringement overthe
Internet. Although federalprosecutors might not find thisissueaspressingand
imminent as others,it isnecessary that theystart implementing thestrict and
severepenaltiesincludedin the DMCA wheneverand whereverpossible.