#FairUse

Reel Rights: Copyright’s Collision With Documentaries

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo by Ryutaro Tsukata on Pexels.com

By: Alexander Tranquill

The Rise of Tiger King

Remember the start of the Covid-19 pandemic? Like myself, many Americans turned to TV to find comfort, and, in those first few surreal weeks, many found themselves watching one particularly enthralling, peculiar, and utterly outlandish story: Tiger King. Tiger King is a Netflix documentary series released in March 2020, which details the increasing tensions between rival big cat eccentrics, eventually culminating in Joe Exotic’s arrest in a murder-for-hire plot of rival Carole Baskin. While Tiger King initially generated massive media attention, it has more recently been the subject of intense copyright litigation.

If you are unfamiliar with this story, Joe Exotic was an internet personality long before Tiger King. With a substantial presence on YouTube, the Netflix documentary heavily relied on video footage originally created by Exotic and his employees. The suit now at issue, Whyte Monkee v. Netflix, centers on Netflix’s use of a video that shows Exotic giving an eulogy at his late husband’s funeral. The video was originally shot by Timothy Sepi, an employee and videographer at Exotic’s Gerald Wayne Zoo. However, Sepi now claims he never gave Netflix permission to use his footage, thus forming the basis for his copyright infringement claim.

During litigation, the district court originally found that Netflix’s use of the footage fell under the fair use exception to copyright infringement. This decision was later reversed by the Tenth Circuit, but, after a great deal of consternation and a flurry of amicus briefs, the Tenth Circuit later vacated its ruling and granted a petition for rehearing. Though the final decision is still pending, this case is significant because the decision has  major implications for documentary filmmakers, while also raising important questions about the rights of content creators in our age of smartphones and social media––where personal footage is often reused by others.

Copyright Protections and Fair Use

To understand the legal questions raised in Whyte Monkee, we must explore the interaction between copyright protections and the doctrine of fair use. Overall, copyright is a type of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship (i.e. paintings, photos, writings, movies) against use by others. However, authorship is a fairly low bar, requiring only a minimal level of creativity. If any creativity can be shown, copyright protections immediately attach when the work is fixed (published) in a tangible medium. As a result, recordings, much like Sepi’s home-video, are often considered copyrightable.

The fair use exception to copyright infringement allows a party to use a work without the permission of the creator if the copying is done for a limited or “transformative” purpose. While there are no hard and fast rules, courts will consider four factors in determining fair use: (1) the purpose and character of the use, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and (4) the effect of the use on the market for the copyrighted work. Recently, courts have taken particular interest in the first factor, considering the significance of any changes made to the original while also assessing the purpose of the work.  

The Supreme Court’s Warhol Decision

Recently, the Supreme Court issued a detailed analysis of this first factor in Warhol v. Goldsmith. Here, Warhol was sued for a series of silkscreen prints he created of Prince, which he based on a copyrighted image captured by Goldsmith. Considering the purpose and character of Warhol’s silkscreens, the Court clarified that it is no longer sufficient for a work to simply add “new expression” to the original; the key question is whether the work serves “a purpose distinct from the original.” While purpose is not necessarily limited, derivative works should comment on, criticize, or provide otherwise unavailable information to the original. Therefore, although Warhol added new artistic expression to the original, his work did not constitute fair use because its purpose and character aligned with Goldsmith’s––both works were licensed to media companies, merely being used “to illustrate a magazine about Prince with a portrait of Prince.” Thus, because Warhol’s work simply used Goldsmith’s image as a template for the same commercial purpose, it failed to seriously comment on, criticize, or add information to the copyrighted image. 

Applying the Warhol Precedent

Following in the footsteps of Warhol, the Tenth Circuit overturned the district court’s decision in Whyte Monkee, relying on the purpose and character of the use. While the district court found Netflix’s use transformative as it incorporated the funeral clip into a broader narrative, the Tenth Circuit, citing Warhol, concluded that fair use requires the derivative work to serve a distinct purpose. Specifically, the court required the derivative work to critically comment “on the substance or style of the original composition.” With this backdrop, the court found that Netflix only used the funeral footage to show Exotic’s purported megalomania and showmanship. Accordingly, Netflix failed to seriously comment on the style of the video clip itself, instead using the video to “target[] a character in the composition.” Therefore, because Netflix used the funeral footage to detail Exotic’s life and not to comment on the style of the footage, the Tenth Circuit found that the first factor weighed against fair use. 

So, what is all the uproar about? The amicus briefs suggest that this decision will have a chilling effect on the documentary industry, confining filmmakers to commenting on the composition of footage itself (i.e. lighting, angles, editing). In the en banc rehearing, the court re-examined Netflix’s intent behind including the funeral clip in the documentary, focusing on Netflix’s use of the video to detail Exotic’s callous attitude. Thus, the court’s review likely reflects an effort to broaden the meaning of transformative purpose.

In its initial decision, the Tenth Circuit severely narrowed Warhol’s definition of distinctive purpose, requiring a derivative work to critically comment “on the substance or style of the original composition.” While this was an important factor in Warhol, it is not the only relevant factor in examining the purpose and character of a new work. First, the Court in Warhol explicitly looks to purposes outside critical commentary to determine fair use. For example, the Court found that Warhol and Goldsmith’s works shared the same commercial purpose—both were used to “illustrate a magazine about Prince with a portrait of Prince.” Furthermore, the Court in Warhol notes that the “degree of difference” between the works is relevant in the fair use analysis, being weighed together with purpose to determine whether the derivative work is transformative. Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit seems poised to consider other factors in its analysis of the purpose and character of the use. Such a decision would better support filmmakers by providing them greater access to material as they attempt to capture many of the compelling narratives in our world today. As a result, Netflix should continue to assert that its use of the video serves to illustrate Exotic’s personality—distinct from Sepi’s purpose of simply commemorating the funeral. Further, Netflix should revive its district court arguments, claiming the documentary is substantially different from Sepi’s video because it continually interrupts this video with comments from the deceased’s mother and ties the video into the broader story arc to highlight Exotic’s character. Ultimately, these arguments mirror the Supreme Court’s focus in Warhol, offering the Tenth Circuit a precedential foundation to recognize a broader interpretation of transformative use.

Virtual Experiences in the Art World: Potential for Copyright Issues

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo by Erik Mclean on Pexels.com

By: Lauren Liu

Since the COVID pandemic hit, the world has been facing continuous health and economic issues. The art world, in particular, has been facing hardships that require art institutions to adjust their mode of operations. Since the year 2020, the world’s effort to contain the spread of COVID forced art galleries and museums around the world to close their doors and look for new forms of operation and exhibition. Such adaptations include increasing online marketing platforms, organizing virtual panels, and even creating online art exhibitions. In particular, these virtual exhibitions use high-resolution images of artworks, and provide them with contextual introductions of the artists’ background and inspiration. Some galleries include artworks that are available for sale, and thus further providing financial benefits for the galleries and their artists. The most fascinating part of these virtual platforms is the galleries’ implementation of virtual reality and augmented reality tools to produce virtual tours and remote immersive experiences. In other words, they are virtual exhibitions that mimic the audience’s experience when they are physically in an art gallery.

Virtual reality, also known as augmented reality (AR), usually displays an original or scanned work of art in a digital setting, thus creating a “total immersion” experience for the audience. As amazing and creative as it is for the audience, legal issues can arise for the gallery. For example, AR can invite “guerilla hacking” of a virtual exhibit. Hackers can copy and post unsanctioned works on the digital digital platform, and thus infringe upon the copyright of the original artists and take away the gallery’s potential revenue. Furthermore, the gallery also faces potential lawsuits from their artists alleging that the unauthorized use of their works was approved by the gallery.

As museums and galleries started implementing these virtual methods, they also had to start considering potential copyright issues. When museums use virtual reality or displaying art works online, they must keep in mind the intellectual property rights in the images and the text. Furthermore, they need to consider the rights of the artist, especially for a primary-market sale offer. For most artists, museums generally can clear the rights to use high-resolution images through the artist or her licensing agency. As for the photographer, if he or she is not employed by the artist or the museum, the museum should consider obtaining a broad license or require the photographer to execute a work-made-for-hire agreement with the customary in-the-alternative assignment language. Museums should also obtain the necessary rights from the author of the essays featured in the viewing room.

Museums and galleries may have available to them, the Fair Use defense against copyright infringement claims. For example, for secondary-market sales, such as resales of artworks, museums and galleries may not have a relationship with the artist or the artist’s estate. In such a case, the Fair Use Doctrine may allow the use of small, low-resolution images. The Copyright Act of 1976 provides that “the fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright.” To determine whether an allegedly infringing use is “fair use,” courts need to consider four factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial or for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Whether or not the doctrine allows the display of large-scale, high resolution images without permission is less clear. There is also no specific definition of large versus small scale, and high versus low resolution. Courts usually analyze each situation according to a totality of circumstances.

Lastly, galleries should be aware of whether or not the displayed artwork incorporates third-party content. If so, the owner of that content can potentially have a claim against the display. Possible solutions to mitigate this risk include obtaining an opinion from attorneys regarding potential Fair Use defense, working with the artist in advance of an exhibition to reach an agreement about the use,  and potentially having liability or omissions insurance in place. 

The online presence of museums and art galleries has grown due to COVID. Even now, after all venues have nearly reopened to the public, many virtual options still remain available. Although there are many uncertainties in potential copyright cases, museums and galleries that are using or considering virtual arts should conduct more thorough legal research, seek legal advice from counsel, and implement prevention mechanisms to mitigate risks.

Fair Use at the U.S. Supreme Court? The Andy Warhol Case

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
The Supreme Court Building on 1 First Street, NE. Original image from Carol M. Highsmith’s America, Library of Congress collection. Digitally enhanced by rawpixel. by Carol M Highsmith is licensed under CC-CC0 1.0

By: Lauren Liu

In our modern society where information is exchanged at lightspeed and entertainment choices are abundant, copyright infringement has become a more widespread issue than ever. The 1976 Copyright Act harmonized copyright law with free-expression principles, and for the first time, incorporated the concept of “fair use.” If the use of a copyrighted work is “fair use,” then it does not infringe on the original author’s copyright. However, the Fair Use Doctrine, and even copyright as a whole, can seem very conflicting in terms of its purposes. On one hand, copyright offers exclusive rights to copyright owners to protect their work and profitability. On the other hand, the exception of fair use allows others to use and alter the original work without permission from the copyright owner. In 2022, the case alleging the Andy Warhol Foundation of copyright infringement was the center of copyright law. The case raises questions surrounding copyright law and the Fair Use Doctrine. How are we supposed to define the line between fair use and copyright infringement? How can we protect copyright without jeopardizing freedom of expression?

The Copyright Act of 1976 provides that “the fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement of copyright.” 17 U.S.C.A. § 107. To determine whether an allegedly infringing use is “fair use,” courts need to consider four factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial or for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The case of Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, INC., v. Lynn Goldsmith involves the commercial licensing of a silkscreen image that Andy Warhol had created based on respondent Lynn Goldsmith’s copyrighted photograph. The Supreme Court of the United States recently granted this case certiorari. The question mainly focuses on the first element of fair use, and examines whether or not the petitioner, Andy Warhol Foundation (the Foundation), has established that its licensing of the silkscreen image was a “transformative” use, and that this factor should weigh in its favor. The Court will likely look closely at whether or not the transformative use can be established simply by showing that the image conveys a meaning or message different from that of respondent’s original photograph.

The Appellate Court’s decision focused on the first and most important statutory factor: the purpose and character of the use. The purpose of this factor is to distinguish the original creator’s use and the second author’s use of the original work. Although some copying of the original will often be necessary or at least useful in making the second author’s expression clearer and more effective, the second author has to demonstrate that the second work is unlikely to supersede the original. In this case, the Supreme Court will possibly find that the Foundation’s allegedly infringing use served the same purpose—depicting Prince in an article published by a popular magazine—for which Goldsmith’s photographs have frequently been used. Furthermore, although the Foundation argued that the Prince Series was intended for communicating a message about celebrity, the Foundation has not attempted to establish that it needed to reproduce the creative elements of the Goldsmith Photograph in order to communicate that message. The Supreme Court might find that when examining this factor and all other factors, the Foundation’s use of the original work does not meet the requirements for “fair use”, and will likely rule in favor of Goldsmith.

As the legal and artistic worlds wait for a final judgment from the Supreme Court, it is worth noting that the Appellate Court’s ruling and many other “fair use” cases have already created a balance between protecting copyrighted works and allowing other creative expressions. As one of the most popular and well-regarded modern artists, Andy Warhol’s works not only bring aesthetic values to the art world, but also inspire so much creativity. However, it is obvious that many of his works contain elements drawn from public figures and other existing works. Thus, his works can become quite controversial in terms of copyright law. More broadly speaking, in the artistic world, permitting secondary users to copy protected works to a certain degree will facilitate new and creative artistic expressions. However, when such copying becomes unnecessary for the secondary user’s work, the use risks jeopardizing the original author’s rights over the original art. Such unnecessary copying also risks diminishing artists’ incentive to create future original works. Although the fair use of copyrighted works has to be determined on a case-by-case basis, the doctrine helps avoid extreme exclusions or permissions in copyright infringement cases. Creative endeavors should not be deterred by a system that categorically precludes all unauthorized uses of copyrighted works, nor should they be protected by allowing indiscriminate copying.