ART LAW -- Final Draft

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


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


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


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


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).


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).


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 .


8/28

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.


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).


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).


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.


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.


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).


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.


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.


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).


17/28


18/28


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.


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


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).


22/28


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)


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).


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.


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


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


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.

ART LAW -- Final Draft

Documents

Transcript of ART LAW -- Final Draft