Updates

A couple of nuggets:

This blog piece highlights the most famous newspaper in Hollywood, used for years in Hollywood as a prop.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/06/04/lol-the-reoccurring-prop-newspaper/

If you are an ethics fan, like many journalists are, this video, about “The Prisoner’s Dilemma.” It’s an extraordinary piece of journalism, as well as a fascinating look at the legal system.

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/06/04/nyregion/1247467961918/the-innocent-prisoner-s-dilemma.html

Digital Economy Bill passes in UK- without orphan works provision

Busy day. The controversial Digital Economy Bill has apparently passed in the UK. The good news is that the controversial orphan works provisions in the bill were removed, due primarily to the efforts of photographers. YEAH photogs.

Read about it here.

My previous post on the controversy, and photographers efforts is here.

Photo groups file suit against Google

Well, several photo groups, along with some photographers, have filed suit against Google regarding their google books project.

I won’t repeat what has been said in the various articles. You can read about it:

In the New York Times;

On the ASMP website;

Read the complaint itself.

One thing I will say is that the recent Supreme Court ruling of Reed Elsevier v. Muchnik has paved the way for this case.

Here is why.

Many of the photographers covered  in the Google Books photographers class action suit have likely not registered their copyrights. This means that they could not bring suit themselves and still get statutory damages. But in the Muchnik case, the Supreme Court ruled that the court can still have jurisdiction over a copyright case in a class action, even if the members of the class covered by the settlement have not all registered their copyrights. Of course the google suit asks for statutory damages for each infringement, and a court is not likely to award statutory damages for infringements where the copyright is not registered. But getting a judgment and getting a settlement are two entirely different things. The way is now clear for a settlement.

Photographers should be aware of the danger of class actions suits. Google may get hit in the pocket book, but there is always a risk that photographers who aren’t in the original suit will not see much of the money. Here’s hoping that the photo groups don’t let that happen.

Photographers Respond to British Orphan Works bill

There has been some gnashing of the teeth regarding the proposed Digital Economy Bill which is being proposed in the United Kingdom. A British photography group has responded and recently posted their briefing paper. This is a great argument for the problems with an orphan works bill.

My understanding from congress is that there is no Orphan Works proposal at this time, but I have a feeling that it will be dropped on us with little warning when it is introduced, so it is great to have these arguments sorted out. The British comments are well thought out and useful for any OW debate.

Find them here: http://copyrightaction.com/blog/epuk-lords-briefing-paper

Thanks to those in GB who are fighting for rights that photographers throughout the globe value.

-A

New IP Czar seeking comments

The new Intellectual Property Czar is seeking comments on intellectual property enforcement and infringement. You don’t have to be a big fancy lawyer to give your comments.

Here is the request:

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-3539.htm

The comment opportunity breaks down into three parts:

Part 1: Comments on the harm and the threats caused by intellectual property violations. This includes economic threats and harms as well as the harm to public health and safety. Discussion of emerging or future threats is encouraged.

Part 2: Specific recommendations for accomplishing objectives and enforcement efforts. This can include “legislative changes, regulations, executive
orders, other executive action, guidelines, or changes in policies,
practices or methods.”

Part 3: In addition, the office is seeking supplemental comments in a broad range of categories. Got something to say? Chances are it fits into one of these.

As photographers, our voice is seldom heard above the din of massive corporate interests in the recording, publishing and entertainment industries. But photographers represent an essential segment of the U.S. Economy as small business owners.

Your organizations are out there advocating on your behalf, but there is no reason why you can’t advocate for yourself.

Who owns video feed of Congress- You Do!

So, I am studying for finals, which means my mind often goes on short stream-of-consciousness vacations and sometimes leads to eureka moments. But usually, it just leads to semi-eureka moments. Like this one.

I have been researching the efforts to restrict coverage of high school sports by the state associations (state actors). If you take their argument to the extreme you would be accepting the notion that a city council could have an “official” photographer or videographer, and restrict other media in the manner and amount that the media broadcasts what it covers. That would be absurd, right?

Which made me think- what about C-SPAN? I have been to Congress, and there are not gaggles of live television crews there. Is the high school sports association just following the C-SPAN model? The short answer is no.

C-SPAN broadcasts the video feed of Congress, but they do not own it or assert any rights over it. The U.S. government produces the feed of Congress (which is somewhat problematic- but a different argument), and since there is no copyright in material produced by the federal government, the video feed is public domain. Neither CNN or anyone else has to pay a licensing fee to Congress, or to C-SPAN to use or broadcast the video.

To read about the video from Congress, C-SPAN and copyright, check this link.

Being specific- and the definition of “public relations use”

I don’t know if I have mentioned it before, but a contract can’t conceivably have all of the possible terms available in the universe (although some try). So if a term is missing from a contract, or if it is ambiguous, the court will try to fill in the blanks. In other words, the court will interpret any part of your contract that is unclear. For that reason, you should be clear about the important parts- like usage.

In my research, I came upon a  case which is a good example of how clear usage terms can make all the difference in a lawsuit. The case is Steve Altman Photography v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 267 (Cl. Ct. 1989)

Basically what happened was that the photographer and his client, a government agency, had an ongoing relationship and a subsequent dispute over a couple of different uses. Two parts of the case interested me. The photographer claimed that the agency violated his copyright twice, once by releasing an image to a magazine and again by using a (separate) photo in an annual report. Both allegations combine to make a good lesson.

“PR Use” and Release to a Magazine

I simply hate pages with lots of text and no photos. So here. Enjoy. © 2008 Alicia Wagner Calzada

For the first allegation, the photographer had granted “public relations use” for an assignment. The agency gave a copy of a photo from the assignment to a magazine. Was the copyright violated?

First, the court, without more specific indications of the intentions of the parties (at the time of the contract), interpreted “public relations” based on the dictionary definition:

“”Public relations” refers to the “business of inducing the public to have understanding for and goodwill toward an . . . . institution.” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 932 (1975).” Id.

Second, because the photographer came up with the terms, the court construed the contract most favorably to the other party- basically, as the person drafting the terms, you have a responsibility to be clear, and you don’t get to benefit from being vague. Thus the court found that releasing the photos to the magazine fell under “public relations” use.

More Specific Usage Terms– “1982 annual report”

In the same case the same photographer had also licensed some photos for an annual report, specifically “to be used in 1982 annual report and for P.R. release.”

Because these terms were more specific, when the agency use the images in the annual report for a different year (1983), the court ruled that there was a copyright infringement.

So you see how being specific made all of the difference. Imagine if the client had used one of the photos from the first instance in an annual report. The court could have used the second contract as proof that annual report use was not included in public relations use. Or it could have decided that the absence of a specific limitation meant that there was no limitation.

Moral of the story, be specific, lest someone else is left to read your mind. After all, if you end up having a judge interpret your contract, you have lost the client.

If you use a general license, list the possible uses. If you need help filling in the blanks, a great resource is PLUS (Picture Licensing Universal System). They have an awesome feature called the “License Generator” which you can use to fill in the usage section of your contract. Try It!

Happy Shooting.

-A

Shepard Fairey Drama Twist

Sometimes a lawsuit is just a lawsuit.

But sometimes it is a soap opera. Sometimes, a lawsuit is an attempt to shape the laws, an attempt to get the public to wake up and take sides. And sometimes there is a cliff hanging twist and turn every time you think it is safe to turn off the internet. Fairey v. Associated Press, is all of the above, and the case has all of the elements of a good drama (except sex): politics, money, theft, lies, and art.

In the latest twist, Fairey has admitted that he falsified evidence and attempted to destroy other evidence. AP has also issued a statement, stating that the Fairey’s lawyers are attempting to withdraw from representation of Fairey. To them, I say: “what did you expect from a thief.”

Bad news for the copyleft- their “poster-child” for fair use has almost certainly ruined his case. There is nothing like lying to the court and violating discovery to remove all sympathy a judge might have for your case. Furthermore, he could be sanctioned to the point that he looses his primary defense. No matter what happens, he looks very guilty.

On Another Note:

When researching this news, I noticed an interesting article from the EFF that explains how as a part of the countersuit, the AP is also making a claim under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act for stripping the metadata from the photograph (see item 137 and 182 of the counterclaim document). I was not aware of this, but this will be another interesting element of the case to follow closely if this does not settle. Removing metadata is a violation of the DMCA. And yet nearly every newspaper website in America removes metadata from photos that it publishes. I have long criticized this practice- it creates orphans. But if AP wins on the issue of removing the metadata, media lawyers will have to wake up about the practices of news organizations relating to preserving metadata.

On Yet Another Note:

As I mentioned, this case has many twists and turns. Few legal posts I have seen evaluate the Mannie Garcia claim that he is the rightful copyright holder of the photograph. Here is one great article about it, though.

I have chart on work for hire that I created earlier this year. Without knowing more facts about Garcia and his arrangement with AP, it is hard to work through it, but you might find it useful.

Interesting Related Documents:

Fairey’s Initial Complaint

AP’s Answer and Countersuit

Fairey’s motion to amend the claim (with the details about Shepard Fairey’s change in story)

Mannie Garcia’s Motion for intervention.

More documents from the case.

It’s photo week at the Supreme Court of the United States

Photographers should be paying attention to the Supreme Court this week…

Tasini continued…

Oral arguments were heard today in Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick. This case is connected to our old friend Tasini v. New York Times, which some say started the whole rights grabbing trends of the modern day newspaper contract. While this case won’t really have as much of an impact on photographers, it is interesting because of the connection. It involves the authority of the court over copyright cases and settlements when the rights holders haven’t registered their copyright. It also involves an enormous class of journalists. Here is a summary of the oral arguments (note to self: research why people keep hyphenating “freelancer”) and here is a transcript of the oral arguments.

If the court rules that a federal court cannot approve a settlement involving rights-holders who have not registered, it seems inevitable that this will affect the Google Books settlement.

The Dog-fight Video Case

In another case that is important to photographers, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday about whether or not a law that bans visual depictions of cruelty to animals is a violation of the First Amendment.

U.S. v. Stevens is the first case ever to be prosecuted under a federal law that bans any “depiction of animal cruelty” if such cruelty is illegal in the place where the depiction is created, sold or possessed.

It has been many years since the Court found that the government interest in preventing child pornography was so great that it overrode any First Amendment rights of the child pornographer, a rather appropriate finding. By making the expressive act illegal, the motive for the abuse is diminished. Child pornography involves abuse of a child and the photography itself is abusive. The law is clearly narrowly tailored and serves a compelling government interest.

This law is not so well orchestrated. For example, the defedant, Stevens, was not involved in any animal abuse, he merely edited together footage that he obtained from others.

While well intentioned (many attacks on the First Amendment are), I think this law is certain to be struck down. First of all, I don’t believe that our government truly has a compelling interest in preventing cruelty to animals. If it did, much of the way our nation produces meat would be illegal (yes, I am a vegetarian). Second, the law is in no way narrowly tailored. There are many possibilities of perfectly legal activity that could get a person caught up in this law. And there are loopholes that would make illegal a video or photograph of something that was legal where it occurred (say bullfighting in Spain). I once photographed a ritual sacrifice of a sea turtle in a Fijian village. It was gross. It was brutal and cruel. But it was important to document. Those pictures could get me in trouble with the feds under this law.

If you don’t believe me, just take a look at the list of hypotheticals the justices posed to the attorneys in this case. The article in the New York Times says it all.

The transcript, full of hypotheticals, is here.

An article about the NPPA signing an amicus brief urging the court to hold the law unconstitutional is here.

One of my favorite things to listen to is a Nina Totenberg report on Supreme Court arguments. Her review of this weeks oral arguments is available here.

Copyright Petition to Obama

The Copyright Alliance, a group that promotes copyrights (good guess, right), has launched a campaign to collect petition signatures asking the Obama Administration to promote policies that respect and advance copyrights. It does not ask for anything specific, so there is little room for excuse or debate on this one. Step up.

http://www.copyrightalliance.org/letter

It takes about 20 seconds.