Tag: fair use

Categories
Copyright

Artist Roundtable Presented by the Mason Sports & Entertainment Law Association and the Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic

The following post comes from Austin Shaffer, a 2L at Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.

the word "copyright" typed on a typewriterBy Austin Shaffer

On April 6th, the Mason Sports & Entertainment Law Association, in conjunction with the Arts & Entertainment Advocacy Clinic, hosted its Artist Roundtable event. Moderated by Professor Sandra Aistars of Scalia Law, the panel featured musician and producer David Lowery, filmmaker and photographer Stacey Marbrey, and author and director David Newhoff. To kick off the event, Prof. Aistars invited each of the panelists to introduce themselves and highlight any ongoing projects.

About the Panelists

Stacey Marbrey is an award-winning film director, producer, and internationally recognized editorial photographer and has programmed numerous film festivals. Previously, she acted as Program Director for an international film exchange under the auspices of the U.S. Department of State in concert with both the President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities and the American Film Institute.

David Lowery is an American guitarist, vocalist, songwriter, mathematician, and activist. He is the founder of alternative rock band Camper Van Beethoven and co-founder of the traditional rock band Cracker. Throughout his career in the music industry, Mr. Lowery has worked in nearly every role imaginable, from both the business and music perspectives. Recently, he worked on a small project with limited online CD sales to experiment with a new revenue stream and business model. Mr. Lowery frequently posts at the popular blog “The Trichordist.”

David Newhoff is a writer and copyright advocate. He recently finished his first book, Who Invented Oscar Wilde? The Photograph at the Center of Modern American Copyright. He lives in New York’s Hudson River Valley, where he is currently working on his next book. Mr. Newhoff also writes the popular copyright blog “The Illusion of More.”

How do creative roles intersect with legal issues? What can lawyers do a better job of understanding when engaging with creators?

Mr. Lowery highlighted the importance of the intersection between the arts and legal roles. Unfortunately, he noted, there is a stigma in the artistic community regarding the use of legal action. He commented that, while you should generally attempt to resolve disputes internally, you cannot be afraid to use the legal system to enforce your rights. Even the legally savvy artists can misjudge the scope of the rights to which they are entitled. Mr. Lowery emphasized the need to provide artists with an “intervention”: register your works with the Copyright Office, guarantee your revenue streams with the Mechanical Licensing Collective, and enforce your rights.

On a similar note, Mr. Newhoff echoed the notion that some artists do not fully appreciate the scope of their rights and––perhaps more importantly—their obligations. It is not uncommon, he explained, for creators to assume that their publisher will handle all the legal responsibilities that go into creating a work (i.e., clearing photographs, obtaining permission to publish interviews, etc.). That assumption, however, leaves the author subject to potential liability for copyright infringement. Rather than taking that risk, Mr. Newhoff argued, creators should be proactive in fulfilling their legal obligations. 

Commenting on Mr. Newhoff’s observations, Ms. Marbrey remarked that, in many cases, creators wear many different hats and serve in various roles throughout the course of creating a work. Particularly in the film industry, it can be difficult for creators to keep their various duties and obligations separated and organized. Ms. Marbrey argued that this is one problem that lawyers can help to solve. By taking the time to understand the numerous roles in which a single creator may serve, lawyers can help to ensure that creators are getting maximum value out of their efforts.

The Stigma Against Contracts

The panelists each made unique observations on the use of contracts and how their respective industries tend to perceive them. Prof. Aistars pointed out a concerning trend: creators tend to have a negative view towards contracts and consequently refrain from using them. She commented that, in general, no one wants to be the person to involve lawyers in otherwise “friendly deals.”

The panelists shared stories from their careers that demonstrated this stigma. Ms. Marbrey, for example, worked on a collaborative project involving multiple SAG actors. The parties declined to set up a contractual framework to properly address various SAG-AFTRA requirements for actors. Consequently, the production was later paused to renegotiate deals with the actors after the film was already completed. Due to this misstep, the release of the project was delayed.

The panelists concluded that, while it may force some uncomfortable conversations at the onset of a project, creators should become more liberal with their use of contracts. Doing so allows for a mutual understanding between all parties before any time is invested into the creative process.

Current Trends to Watch in Copyright Law

This portion of the discussion offered a unique insight into the development of copyright law from creators’ perspectives. While the conversation was wide-ranging, there were several common topics that the panelists found especially significant.

The panelists came to a consensus that the general agenda of weakening copyright law could cause devastating effects to the creative community. Mr. Newhoff pointed specifically to the ongoing work being done by the American Law Institute (ALI) on a potential Restatement of Copyright. He argued that broadly speaking, the academic world tends to take an anti-copyright law stance. The panelists agreed that this should generate concern from the creative community and that individual creators should strive to have their voices heard as this project continues.

In general, creators tend to have difficulties understanding the scope of fair use. Especially given the recent Supreme Court decision in Google v. Oracle, there is an element of amorphousness to the fair use doctrine. The panelists concurred that, without legal assistance, creators will likely continue to struggle in determining what constitutes fair use and what requires a license to use.

The event concluded with a discussion on how creators can adapt to and update with the digital age. As a threshold matter, Mr. Newhoff argued that it is hard to fit 20th-century copyright doctrine into the 21st-century landscape. Moving forward, some of the copyright laws may need to be updated (or at least monitored) to better facilitate the production of creative works. Optimistically, Ms. Marbrey noted that the “streaming takeover” is exciting for filmmakers. Although streaming can pose tricky and previously unconsidered issues surrounding copyright law, it offers a new way for creators to showcase their works and opens the door to innovative revenue streams.

Categories
Copyright Fair Use Supreme Court

Recap of the Supreme Court’s Google v. Oracle Opinion

a gavel lying on a desk in front of booksThe following post comes from Liz Velander, a recent graduate of Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.

By Liz Velander

The Supreme Court finally reached a determination in the decade-long dispute between two of the biggest technology companies in the world, Google and Oracle. Many have long-awaited the Court’s decision in this case, as it had the potential to provide market certainty in the software industry through its copyrightability analysis. The Court ultimately declines to give that certainty by bypassing the copyrightability issue and choosing to base its holding on a fact-intensive fair use analysis. The Court does this so as to “not answer more than is necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute,” “given the rapidly changing technological, economic, and business-related circumstances.” It emphasizes that its holding is narrow, only applies to declaring code, and does not modify its prior cases on fair use. However, by framing its opinion this way, the Court provides new arguments for infringers to use in a fair use defense in the software sphere and beyond. For this reason, the Court’s decision is not as narrow as it sets out to be. It may lead to lower court decisions that broaden the fair use doctrine and limit the copyright protection given to software.

The Court’s decision broadens fair use by using the doctrine to loosen copyright protection for certain types of code, allowing for a more expansive reading of a “transformative use,” and giving great weight to the public benefit of the use. Before it engages in its fair use analysis, the Court states that “fair use can play an important role in determining the lawful scope of a computer program copyright, such as the copyright at issue here.” Fair use “can distinguish between expressive and functional features of computer code where those features are mixed.” It can also “focus on the legitimate need to provide incentives to produce copyrighted material while examining the extent to which yet further protection creates unrelated or illegitimate harms in other markets or to the development of other products.” The Court describes fair use as a “context-based check that can help to keep a copyright monopoly within its lawful bounds.”

To highlight the ability of fair use to accomplish these goals, the Court begins its analysis with the second statutory factor, “the nature of the copyrighted work.” The Court uses this factor to discuss issues that would have come up if it analyzed the copyrightability of Oracle’s material, such as the applicability of the merger doctrine. It then moves to “the purpose and character of the use,” where it adopts an expansive reading of what constitutes a “transformative use.” The biggest impact of the Court’s fair use analysis, however, will likely come from the great weight it gives to the public benefit of the use under the market effect factor. By using fair use to determine “the lawful scope of a computer program copyright,” the Court’s holding may inadvertently broaden the fair use doctrine.

The Nature of the Copyrighted Work

The Court begins its analysis with describing “the nature of the copyrighted work.” The copyright at issue protects a portion of Oracle’s Java SE platform, called declaring code. Java SE has three essential parts: (1) implementing code, (2) method calls, and (3) declaring code. Implementing code tells the computer how to execute the particular task the programmer asks it to perform. Method calls are commands that help the computer carry out the task by choosing the correct programs written in implementing code. The declaring code is how the method call actually locates and invokes the particular implementing code that it needs to instruct the computer how to carry out a particular task.

For each task, the specific method call entered by the programmer matches up with a specific declaring code inside Java SE. That declaring code provides both the name for each task and organizes them within Java SE’s library. In this sense, the declaring code and the method call form a link, allowing the programmer to draw upon the thousands of prewritten tasks, written in implementing code. Without that declaring code, the method calls entered by the programmer would not call up the implementing code.

In this case, Google did not copy the implementing code from Oracle’s Java SE platform; it copied the declaring code. The Court draws a “critical line” between the uncopied implementing code and the copied declaring code under this factor. On one hand is the innovative implementing code and on the other, user-centered declaring code. The Court explains that the writing of implementing code requires balancing considerations as to how quickly a computer can execute a task or the likely size of a computer memory. The Court says that this balancing is “the very creativity that was needed to develop the Android software for use not in laptops or desktops but in the very different context of smartphones.”

Declaring code, the Court says, embodies a different kind of “creativity” because it is user facing. It must be designed and organized in a way that is intuitive and understandable to developers so they can invoke it. As part of a user interface, declaring code differs from most computer code because “its use is inherently bound together with uncopyrightable ideas (general task division and organization) and new creative expression (Android’s implementing code).” For these reasons, the Court concludes that “the declaring code is, if copyrightable at all, further than are most computer programs (such as the implementing code) from the core of copyright.” Therefore, the Court finds that the second factor, “nature of the copyrighted work,” points in the direction of fair use.

The Purpose and Character of the Use

The Court explains that the inquiry into “the purpose and character” of the use turns in a large measure on whether the copying at issue was “transformative,” that is, whether it “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character.” The Court finds that, even though Google copied Oracle’s declaring code verbatim, its use was “transformative” because it furthered the development of software programs.

The Court explains that what Google did is known as “‘reimplementation,’ defined as the ‘building of a system . . . that repurposes the same words and syntaxes’ of an existing system.” Google “reimplemented” Oracle’s declaring code to allow programmers expert in the Java programming language to use the “task calling” system that they had already learned. By using the same declaring code, programmers using the Android platform can rely on the method calls that they are already familiar with to call up particular tasks. Then Google’s own implementing code carries out those tasks.

The Court concludes that Google’s copying was a transformative use. “Google’s purpose was to create a different task-related system for a different computing environment (smartphones) and to create a platform—the Android platform—that would help achieve and popularize that objective.” Such use is “consistent with the creative ‘progress’ that is the basic constitutional objective of copyright itself.” Therefore, the purpose and character of Google’s copying was transformative to the point at which this factor also weighs in favor of fair use.

The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used

 The Court says that the question here is whether the over 11,000 lines of code Google copied should be viewed in isolation or as one part of a considerably greater whole. On one hand, those lines of code amount to virtually all the declaring code needed to call up hundreds of different tasks. On the other hand, if one considers the entire set of software material in the Java SE platform, the quantitative amount copied was small (only 0.4 percent).

The Court decides to view Google’s copying as one part of a greater whole because the amount of copying was “tethered to a valid, and transformative, purpose.” It explains that Google did not copy the lines because of their creativity but because programmers had already learned to work with the Java SE platform, and it would have been difficult to attract programmers to build its Android smartphone system without them. It describes the portion of the declaring code used at “the key that [Google] needed to unlock the programmers’ creative energies. And it needed those energies to create and improve its own innovative Android systems.” For these reasons, the Court holds that this factor weighs in favor of fair use.

Market Effects

The fourth statutory factor focuses upon the “effect” of the copying in the “market for or value of the copyrighted work.” The Court explains that this requires a court to consider the copyright owner’s potential loss of revenue, the source of the loss, and the public benefits the copying will likely produce. As to the likely amount of loss, the Court states that Oracle was ill-positioned to enter the smartphone market, so the jury could have found that Android did not harm the actual or potential markets for Java SE. As to the source of the loss, the Court finds Android’s profitability has much to do with third parties’ (programmers’) investment in the Java programs and less to do with Oracle’s investment in creating the Java SE platform. It says that the Copyright Act does not protect third parties’ investment in learning how to operate a created work.

Finally, given programmers’ investments in learning the Java SE platform, to allow enforcement of Oracle’s copyright here would risk harm to the public by operating as a lock on innovation. “The result could well prove highly profitable to Oracle (or other firms holding a copyright in computer interfaces). But those profits could well flow from creative improvements, new applications, and new uses developed by users who have learned to work with that interface. To that extent, the lock would interfere with, not further, copyright’s basic creativity objectives.” The Court concludes that the uncertain nature of Oracle’s “ability to compete in Android’s market place, the sources of its lost revenue, and the risk of creativity-related harms to the public, when taken together, convince that this fourth factor—market effects—also weighs in favor of fair use.”

The Court ends its opinion by noting that “the fact that computer programs are primarily functional makes it difficult to apply traditional copyright concepts in that technical world.” While that is certainly true, the Court made its work more difficult by basing its opinion in fair use instead of analyzing the copyrightability of Oracle’s code in the first place.

Categories
Copyright

Ninth Circuit Confirms: Fair Use Is an Affirmative Defense to Copyright Infringement

the word "copyright" written on a typewriterThe Ninth Circuit’s recent decision clarifying transformative fair use in Dr. Seuss v. ComicMix gives much to admire (see my deep dive into the opinion here). The court held that a mash-up of plaintiff Seuss’ Oh, the Places You’ll Go! (Go!) with a Star Trek theme—entitled Oh, the Places You’ll Boldly Go (Boldly)—by defendant ComicMix was not fair use since it merely repackaged the original work without new purpose, meaning, message, expression, or character—in other words, it utterly failed to be transformative. That holding should be welcome news for those who are concerned that the rule of the derivative right is being swallowed by the exception of transformativeness.

The Ninth Circuit also addressed another issue of central importance in the fair use doctrine, namely, whether fair use is an affirmative defense such that the burden is on the defendant to demonstrate the absence of likely market harm. That the burden issue even came up is itself remarkable, given the Supreme Court pronouncements and Ninth Circuit precedents on the matter. Nevertheless, this case presented a good vehicle for the Ninth Circuit to confirm that the burden of proving fair use remains with its proponent on each of the factors, including market harm. In this post, I’ll discuss the positions of the parties and the holdings of the courts on this important procedural aspect of fair use.

District Court Holds that Burden Is on Plaintiff to Show Likely Market Harm

One of the issues before the district court was whether Seuss had to show likely market harm under the fourth fair use factor. In its memorandum supporting its summary judgment motion, ComicMix acknowledged that it had the burden of proving fair use: “The proponent of fair use has the burden to show that it applies, because it is an affirmative defense.” However, it argued that, since Boldly is transformative, there is no presumption of market harm, and the “burdens on the fourth factor shift to the plaintiff” to “demonstrate a likelihood of potential harm.” Thus, while acknowledging that it ultimately held the burden of persuasion on market harm, ComicMix argued that Seuss had to produce evidence in order to win on this factor.

The Supreme Court discussed the presumptions and burdens of proof for market harm in Sony and Campbell. In Sony, the Court stated that “every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively . . . unfair,” such that, “[i]f the intended use is for commercial gain,” the “likelihood may be presumed” for market harm. And when the use is “for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated” with “a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists.” ComicMix latched onto this statement that likely market harm must be demonstrated, despite its use being commercial, to argue that Seuss was required to make a showing on market harm. But that position is inconsistent with what the Court held later in Campbell.

The Supreme Court in Campbell walked things back significantly, explaining that the presumption from Sony only applies in the context of “verbatim copying of the original in its entirety for commercial purposes,” not in “a case involving something beyond mere duplication for commercial purposes.” When “the second use is transformative,” the Court continued, “market substitution is at least less certain, and market harm may not be so readily inferred.” The Court in Campbell thus distinguished verbatim, commercial copies (market harm presumed) and transformative, yet commercial, uses (no such presumption). Importantly, even though there was no presumption of market harm for the transformative use at issue, the Court placed the burden on the defendant to demonstrate an absence of market harm in order to succeed on that factor because “fair use is an affirmative defense.”

This understanding of who has the burden of proof on market harm must be understood in the context of the procedural posture. Fair use is only relevant once the plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of copyright infringement. If both Seuss and ComicMix were to fail in producing evidence on market harm, the factor might be neutral. But that neutrality would only hurt ComicMix—and not Seuss—since ComicMix is trying to overcome Seuss’ prima facie showing of infringement. The Supreme Court in Campbell drove this point home, holding that, in the absence of evidence, “it is impossible to deal with the fourth factor except by recognizing that a silent record on an important factor bearing on fair use disentitled the proponent of the defense . . . to summary judgment.” That “evidentiary hole,” the Court concluded, would need to “be plugged on remand” for the defendant to prevail.

In its opposition memorandum, Seuss started with the premise that ComicMix had the burden of proof on market harm: “As with all affirmative defenses,” ComicMix “bear[s] the burden of proof.” Suess argued that ComicMix could not carry its burden because it did “not offer a shred of admissible evidence about the relevant markets for Go!, derivatives of the [Seuss] Works, and Boldly.” Thus, both parties agreed that fair use is an affirmative defense, with ComicMix bearing the ultimate burden of persuasion on whether its use was fair. The only difference was whether, and to what extent, either party could or should have to demonstrate evidence of likely market harm or its absence.

Despite arguing in its memorandum that the burden of proof was on ComicMix, counsel for Seuss told a different story at the hearing on the motion. The court asked, “What burden, if any, does [Seuss] carry in establishing a likelihood of market harm in this case?” Seuss’ counsel responded that, assuming the use is transformative, there would be no presumption and that Seuss would then have to show market harm. The district court ultimately concluded that Boldly is “highly transformative,” and with Seuss’ concession during oral argument in hand, the court held that Seuss had the burden of introducing “[e]vidence of substantial harm to it . . . by a preponderance of the evidence.” After finding that Seuss “failed to introduce evidence tending to demonstrate that the challenged work will substantially harm the market for its Copyrighted Works,” the court held that the fourth fair use factor was neutral since “the harm to Plaintiff’s market remains speculative.”

Ninth Circuit Holds that Burden Is on Defendant to Show Absence of Market Harm

On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the parties changed their tune somewhat. In its opening brief, Seuss argued that the district court erred by placing the burden on it to show likely market harm: “fair use is an affirmative defense, and its proponent must show absence of market harm even if the challenged use is transformative.” Moreover, Seuss claimed that since Boldly is nontransformative and commercial, there should be a presumption of market harm. But even if there is no such presumption, Seuss argued that ComicMix had the burden of “offering convincing proof that the plaintiff’s markets will not be harmed by the challenged work.” And, in a footnote, Seuss argued that any concession by its counsel during oral argument before the district court “would not control this Court’s resolution of a purely legal issue: who bears the burden of proof on the fourth factor.”

In its answering brief, ComicMix argued that Seuss’ “failure to present evidence of any negative market effect weighs in favor of fair use.” It contended that there is no presumption of market harm, even though Boldly is commercial, because that presumption does not apply when a work is transformative. As to which party held the burden of proof, ComicMix argued that fair use is not in fact an affirmative defense—a remarkable claim given the holding of Campbell and ComicMix’s contrary position in the district court. To support its argument, ComicMix cited the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lenz as well as a pair of law review articles to conclude that, “while the proponent of a true affirmative defense generally bears the burden of proof as to all elements, for a standard defense like fair use, it suffices to show that the plaintiff failed to overcome it.”

The citation to Lenz is a puzzling one. The issue there was whether a copyright owner must consider fair use before sending a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The copyright owner argued that fair use is not “authorized by the law” under the DMCA since it is an affirmative defense excusing conduct that would otherwise infringe. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that this view conflates “an affirmative defense that is labeled as such due to the procedural posture of the case, and an affirmative defense that excuses impermissible conduct.” The court ultimately decided that fair use is “authorized by the law” as a statutory matter, even if it’s an affirmative defense as a procedural one. However, the court said nothing to the contrary about who bears the burden of proof on likely market harm in a context outside of the DMCA—like in overcoming a prima facie case of infringement in litigation over whether a use is fair.

The cites to the law review articles are equally perplexing as they both explicitly acknowledge that the burden of proof rests with the party claiming fair use. The first, Proving Fair Use: Burden of Proof as Burden of Speech by Ned Snow, acknowledges that, “[a]s an affirmative defense, fair use places the burden of proof on its proponent.” The thrust of the article is that, while “the defendant bears the burden of proof” for fair use, it would be better to shift that burden to the copyright owner because of free speech concerns. The second article, Fair Use: An Affirmative Defense? by Lydia Loren, likewise concedes that Campbell “[c]learly . . . placed the burden of producing evidence to support fair use on the defendant.” The article then argues that, as a normative matter, we should put that burden on the copyright owner. Neither of these articles provides any support for the point ComicMix sought to establish, i.e., that the burden of proof is on Seuss.

In assessing the fourth fair use factor, the unanimous Ninth Circuit panel sided with Seuss: “Having found that Boldly was transformative—a conclusion with which we disagree—the district court . . . erred in shifting the burden to Seuss with respect to market harm. That shifting, which is contrary to Campbell and our precedent, led to a skewed analysis of the fourth factor.” The court declined to hold that ComicMix’s nontransformative, commercial use raised a presumption of market harm, though it did recognize that market harm could be inferred from the circumstances. The court made quick work of ComicMix’s argument that fair use is not an affirmative defense and that the burden is on Seuss to show likely market harm: “Not much about the fair use doctrine lends itself to absolute statements, but the Supreme Court and our circuit have unequivocally placed the burden of proof on the proponent of the affirmative defense of fair use.” ComicMix’s argument went nowhere because “Campbell squarely forecloses” it.

To ComicMix’s argument that Lenz compels placing the burden of proving market harm on Seuss, the Ninth Circuit pointed out that Lenz “involved fair use in a different corner of the copyright law,” namely, the safe harbors under the DMCA. The question there was of statutory interpretation under the DMCA, and the analysis was explicitly limited to “that context.” Lenz changed nothing about the procedural burdens in other contexts: “In no way did we deviate from our characterization of fair use as an affirmative defense under § 107. To the contrary, in addition to clarifying that, unlike copyright misuse and laches, fair use is not an excuse to copyright infringement, we reiterated that ‘the burden of proving fair use is always on the putative infringer.’”

Turning to the merits, the Ninth Circuit held that it was ComicMix, “as the proponent of the affirmative defense of fair use,” that “must bring forward favorable evidence about relevant markets.” Given that ComicMix chose to argue instead that it didn’t have the burden of proof, there was only “scant evidence” to consider. ComicMix’s principal evidence was an expert report, but the court found that the “entire report is premised on Boldly being transformative, which it is not, and on the expert’s misunderstanding about fair use and U.S. copyright law.” But even accepting the report’s “methodology and conclusions,” the court found that it still “fails to account for key fourth-factor considerations,” including the fact that Boldly was “intentionally targeted and aimed to capitalize on the same graduation market as Go!” and that “Boldly would curtail Go!’s potential market for derivative works.” Having found that ComicMix failed to carry its burden, the court held that ComicMix’s fair use defense failed as a matter of law.

Conclusion

In Dr. Seuss v. ComicMix, the Ninth Circuit addressed important aspects of the fair use doctrine—and some novel arguments that flew in the face of settled precedent. Not only did the court rein in various overly broad notions of transformative use urged by ComicMix and its amici that would have further eroded a copyright owner’s exclusive right to make derivative works, but it also confirmed the fundamental holding of Campbell that fair use is an affirmative defense, with the burden of proof to show an absence of market harm falling squarely on the party claiming fair use. ComicMix attempted to sidestep its duty by claiming that there was none; it wanted the benefit of fair use without its burden. Thankfully, the Ninth Circuit emphatically rejected this approach as one that would “‘create incentives to pirate intellectual property’ and disincentivize the creation of illustrated books,” contrary to copyright’s constitutional goals.

Categories
Copyright

Ninth Circuit Clarifies Transformative Fair Use in Dr. Seuss v. ComicMix

a gavel lying on a desk in front of booksThis past Friday, the Ninth Circuit handed down its opinion in Dr. Seuss v. ComicMix, a closely watched transformative fair use case. The decision marks an important milestone in the development of the fair use doctrine, especially as applied to mash-ups—where two or more preexisting works are blended together to create a new work. However, the court’s careful explanation of what constitutes transformativeness is not limited to mash-ups, and it will surely be influential for years to come. In this post, I’ll look at the various views expressed by the parties, amici, and courts as to what it means for a use to be transformative, and I’ll explain how the Ninth Circuit’s new guidance on transformativeness reins in some of the overly broad positions that have been urged. This decision should be welcome news for those who worry that a copyright owner’s right to make derivative works has been excessively narrowed by ever-expanding notions of transformative use.

In Dr. Seuss v. ComicMix, the plaintiff, Dr. Seuss Enterprises L.P. (Seuss), was the assignee of the copyrights to the works by Theodor S. Geisel, the late author who wrote under the pseudonym “Dr. Seuss.” Seuss sued the defendants, ComicMix LLC and three individuals (collectively, ComicMix), for copyright infringement over, inter alia, ComicMix’s mash-up of Seuss’ iconic Oh, the Places You’ll Go! (Go!) with a Star Trek theme, entitled Oh, the Places You’ll Boldly Go! (Boldly). The Boldly mash-up featured slavish copies of the images and overall look and feel of Go!, but with the Seussian characters replaced with the crew of the Enterprise from Star Trek and the text and imagery reinterpreted for Trekkies.

ComicMix admitted that it copied Go! to create Boldly, and the issue on appeal was whether its use was fair. The district court held that it was fair use, finding in particular that ComicMix’s mash-up was “highly transformative.” After the decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, there were amicus briefs filed for both sides. Some argued that Boldly was transformative, and others argued that it was not. In the opinion for the unanimous Ninth Circuit panel by Judge McKeown, the court held that Boldly wasn’t transformative at all. This decision gives us what is perhaps the clearest explanation of what it means to be a transformative use to date by an appellate court. And the fact that it comes from the Ninth Circuit—the “Hollywood Circuit” as Judge Kozinski once called it—makes it all the more interesting and important.

The issue of transformativeness is primarily analyzed under the first fair use factor, i.e., the purpose and character of the use, but it also weighs heavily on the other three factors. If the use is transformative, courts often ignore the creativeness of the original work, give the copyist more leeway when assessing the amount and substantiality of the use, and overlook the copyist’s effect on the potential market for the original work. As some have observed, in a transformative use case, the fair use analysis tends to collapse into a single factor: Is the use transformative? Indeed, Jiarui Liu published a study last year showing that “transformative use appears to be nearly sufficient for a finding of fair use.” Once the dispositive decisions included in the study found transformative use, they eventually held that there was fair use 94% of the time.

District Court Finds Boldly Is “Highly Transformative”

In the district court, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with ComicMix claiming fair use. The court had assessed fair use earlier in the litigation when denying ComicMix’s motion to dismiss. There, the court rejected ComicMix’s contention that Boldly was a parody, reasoning that it did not comment on or criticize the original work. Parodies juxtapose the original work for comedic effect, and the necessity of referencing the original justifies the copying. However, the court found that there was no such juxtaposition here, instead noting that Boldly merely used the “illustration style and story format as a means of conveying particular adventures and tropes from the Star Trek canon.” Nevertheless, the court found that Boldly was “no doubt transformative” since it “combine[d] into a completely unique work the two disparate worlds of Dr. Seuss and Star Trek.” Even though many elements were copied, the court reasoned that Go! had been “repurposed” because ComicMix added “original writing and illustrations” that transformed its Seussian pages into “Star-Trek-centric ones.”

The district court ultimately denied the motion to dismiss as it had to take Seuss’ allegations of market harm in the complaint as true and there was no evidence to the contrary in the record. Lacking evidence of market harm, the court found a “near-perfect balancing of the factors” and held that ComicMix’s “fair use defense currently fails as a matter of law.” However, once the court turned to the summary judgment motions, it had a developed record from which to work. On market harm, the court placed the burden on Seuss—despite fair use being an affirmative defense—and found that it failed to demonstrate likely harm to Go! or its licensed derivatives. On the issue of transformativeness, the court adopted and then expanded on its reasoning when addressing the motion to dismiss.

Suess had asked the district court to reassess its fair use analysis given the intervening Federal Circuit decision in Oracle v. Google. In that case, it was not fair use when Google copied computer code verbatim and then added its own code. The court here distinguished Oracle, reasoning that ComicMix did not copy the text or illustrations of Go! verbatim. While ComicMix “certainly borrowed from Go!—at times liberally—the elements borrowed were always adapted or transformed,” and that made Boldly “highly transformative.” Furthermore, the court found that Go! and Boldly served different purposes, with the former aimed at graduates and the latter tailored towards Trekkies. And to Seuss’ argument that Boldly was a derivative work, the court responded that derivative works can be transformative and constitute fair use.

Strangely, when addressing the motion to dismiss and the summary judgment motions, the district court failed to cite the holding of Dr. Seuss v. Penguin Books—even though that binding precedent involved the same plaintiff making similar arguments about a similar mash-up (there, Dr. Seuss and the O.J. Simpson murder trial). In Penguin Books, the Ninth Circuit held that the accused mash-up, The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice, was neither parody nor fair use. Rather than ridiculing the Seussian style itself, the court held that it merely copied that style “to get attention” or perhaps “to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh”—as the Supreme Court put it in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. Indeed, because the mash-up failed to conjure up the substance of the original work by focusing readers instead to the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the court held that there was “no effort to create a transformative work with ‘new expression, meaning, or message’” as required by Campbell.

Amicus Briefs Offer Differing Views on Transformativeness

Once the case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, amicus briefs were filed on both sides addressing the transformativeness issue. Some argued that Boldly epitomized transformative fair use, and others argued that it was the antithesis. It is difficult to exaggerate the doctrinal gulf between the views of these amici.

The Motion Picture Association (MPA) amicus brief, by Jacqueline Charlesworth, argued that ComicMix’s use was not transformative since it failed to comment on or add new meaning to Go! and instead merely used it as a vehicle to achieve the same purpose—entertaining and inspiring readers. Moreover, ComicMix admitted that it could have used a different book on which to base its mash-up, thus defeating any claim of necessity. The MPA brief explained that Boldly was indeed a derivative work (the district court had expressively reserved the point) as defined by the Copyright Act since it transformed or adapted a preexisting work. The district court had dismissed Suess’ argument that Boldly was a derivative work by pointing out that it transformed and adapted Go!, but the MPA brief called this “troubling logic” since it conflated derivativeness with transformativeness and presumably would make every derivative work a transformative fair use.

Peter Menell filed an amicus brief, joined by Shyam Balganesh and David Nimmer, taking issue with the district court’s “categorical determination” that mash-ups generally are “highly transformative” as it would “undermine[] the Copyright Act’s right to prepare derivative works.” The Menell brief argued that Boldly “might well strike a lay observer as clever, engaging, and even transformative in a common parlance sense of the term,” but this misunderstands the transformativeness inquiry, which turns on whether it “serves a different privileged purpose” such that it survives the “justificatory gauntlet.” The question was whether Boldly “merely supersede[d] the objects of the original” or instead used the copied material “in a different manner or for a different purpose.” Here, the Menell brief concluded, Boldly drew on Go!’s popularity to follow its same general entertaining purpose while adding little “new insight and understanding.”

Sesame Workshop filed an amicus brief by Dean Marks distinguishing transformativeness for derivative works from transformative use under the first fair use factor and arguing that the district court conflated the two. The Sesame brief explained that Boldly was only transformative in the fair use sense if it, per Campbell, added “something new, with a further purpose or different character” as “commentary” and provided “social benefit, by shedding light on an earlier work.” While Boldly did add new material, it did not add “any new meaning or message” or “provide any new insight or commentary on Go!.” It instead delivered “the exact same inspirational message” to appeal to Seuss’ “existing market.” The danger of the district court’s logic, the Sesame brief concluded, is that it “could stand for the proposition that all mash-ups constitute fair use, a holding that would greatly diminish the derivative work right.”

An amicus brief by Erik Stallman on behalf of a group of IP professors, including Mark Lemley, Jessica Litman, Lydia Loren, Pam Samuelson, and Rebecca Tushnet, took a broad view of transformative fair use, arguing that the district court properly did not require Boldly to criticize, comment on, or parody Go! itself. It also claimed that fair use is not an affirmative defense such that the district court properly put the burden on Seuss to show market harm. The crux of the IP professor brief was that, even though on a high level of abstraction both works had the same entertainment purpose, there were nonetheless “differences in expressive meaning or message” that made Boldly transformative. As there were such differences at a lower level of abstraction—e.g., Go! had a “hyper-individualistic character” while Boldly focused on “institutional structures that promote discovery through” combined “efforts”—the IP professor brief concluded that it was transformative in the fair use sense.

Finally, an amicus brief by Mason Kortz on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Organization for Transformative Works, Public Knowledge, and others concluded that “Boldly is a significantly transformative work” that “recasts, recontextualizes, and adds new expression or meaning to Go! in order to create a new, significant work of creative expression.” The EFF brief argued that uses can be transformative even if “they fail to comment on or parody the original” so long as they have different “expressive content and message.” Here, Boldly was transformative because it “adapt[ed] the stylistic, visual, and rhyming elements from Go! to create new expression” and added “new meanings that speak with particularity to the themes of Star Trek beloved by its community of fans.”

Ninth Circuit Holds that Boldly Is Not Transformative

Turning back to the parties, Seuss argued on appeal that ComicMix’s “use was exploitative and intended to grab the attention of potential buyers, not transformative,” since it added no “new purpose or meaning.” ComicMix answered that its use was “highly transformative,” with a “radically distinct purpose and effect,” that crafted “new meanings from the interplay between Star Trek’s and Seuss’s creative worlds.” Judge McKeown, writing for the unanimous Ninth Circuit panel, sided completely with Seuss: While the “fair use analysis can be elusive,” if not metaphysical, “[n]ot so with this case.” The court held that “Boldly is not transformative” and that all of the fair use “factors decisively weigh against ComicMix.”

Quoting Campbell, the court started with the premise that a transformative work “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message,” and a work that “merely supersedes the objects of the original creation” is not transformative. It also noted Campbell’s explanation that commentary with “no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original” and which is used “to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh” has less—if any—claim to fair use. The court then cited to its previous holding in Dr. Seuss v. Penguin Books (mentioned above as having been ignored by the district court below despite the glaring similarities) that the mash-up at issue there merely copied the Seussian style without critiquing it. The court there held that the defendant was only trying “to get attention,” and the court here found that the same result holds true. ComicMix’s “post-hoc characterization” that it was “criticizing the theme of banal narcissism of Go!” or “mocking the purported self-importance of its characters falls flat.”

The court then turned to ComicMix’s argument that, even if Boldly was not a parody or a critique, it was nonetheless transformative since it substituted Seussian characters and elements with Star Trek themes. The court rejected this framing as foreclosed by Penguin Books, noting that it “leverage[s] Dr. Seuss’s characters without having a new purpose or giving Dr. Seuss’s works new meaning.” And without “new expression, meaning or message” that alters Go!, ComicMix merely added “Star Trek material on top of what it meticulously copied” and failed to engage in transformative use. Helpfully, the court laid out three “benchmarks of transformative use,” which it gleaned from Campbell and Ninth Circuit precedent, to explain why Boldly was not transformative: “Boldly possesses none of these qualities; it merely repackaged Go!.”

First, the “telltale signs of transformative use” include a “‘further purpose or different character’ in the defendant’s work, i.e., ‘the creation of new information, new aesthetic, new insights and understanding.’” The court found that Boldly had neither a further purpose nor a different character since it paralleled the purpose of Go! and propounded its same message. Without a “new purpose or character” that would make it transformative, the court found that Boldly “merely recontextualized the original expression by ‘plucking the most visually arresting excerpt[s].”

The second of the “telltale signs” looks for “‘new expression, meaning, or message’ in the original work, i.e., the addition of ‘value to the original.’” The court found that ComicMix likewise failed to do this: “While Boldly may have altered Star Trek by sending Captain Kirk and his crew to a strange new world, that world, the world of Go!, remains intact.” The court’s focus was on whether Boldly changed Go! itself or merely repackaged it into a new format. Here, “Boldly does not change Go!,” and ComicMix’s admission that it could have used another work as the basis of its mash-up indicated that “Go! was selected ‘to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh,’ and not for a transformative purpose.”

The last of the “telltale signs” considers “the use of quoted matter as ‘raw material,’ instead of repackaging it and ‘merely supersed[ing] the objects of the original creation.’” The court, embedding several side-by-side images into the opinion to demonstrate the point, found that Boldly merely repackaged Go!. For the illustrations, the “Star Trek characters step into the shoes of Seussian characters in a Seussian world that is otherwise unchanged.” And for the text, rather than “using the Go! story as a starting point for a different artistic or aesthetic expression,” ComicMix instead matched its structure in a way that “did not result in the Go! story taking on a new expression, meaning, or message.” Since Boldly “left the inherent character of the [book] unchanged, it was not a transformative use of Go!.”

The court concluded that, “[a]lthough ComicMix’s work need not boldly go where no one has gone before, its repackaging, copying, and lack of critique of Seuss, coupled with its commercial use of Go!, does not result in a transformative use.” The first fair use factor thus “weigh[ed] definitively against fair use,” and the court went on to find that the other three factors favored Suess as well—without transformativeness to drive the analysis, ComicMix could not get the court to put its thumb on the scale in favor of fair use. Importantly, the court also rejected the holding below that the burden of proving likely market harm rested on Seuss: “the Supreme Court and our circuit have unequivocally placed the burden of proof on the proponent of the affirmative defense of fair use.” Additionally, the court chastised ComicMix for failing to address the “crucial right” of “the derivative works market,” noting that Boldly would likely “curtail Go!’s potential market for derivative works,” especially given that Seuss had “engaged extensively for decades” in this area.

Conclusion

All-in-all, the Ninth Circuit’s decision is a welcome development to the doctrine of fair use. Since Campbell was handed down over one-quarter of a century ago, the notion of transformativeness has taken on a central role—one that appears to be shrinking the exclusive right to prepare derivative works while expanding what it means to be transformative fair use. The accused work at issue here—Boldly—used the original work to create new expression, but lacking was any justification for the taking. ComicMix could have used any number of works for its mash-up, and the same nontransformative repackaging would have occurred because ComicMix’s purpose would not be tied to the particular work onto which it transposed the Star Trek universe. Thankfully, the Ninth Circuit was able to distinguish the transformative nature of a derivative work from the transformativeness that constitutes fair use. And given the prevalence of mash-ups in today’s culture, one suspects that this opinion will be cited and expanded upon for many years.

Categories
Copyright

Professor Shyam Balganesh on Understanding Privative Copyright Claims

The following post comes from Liz Velander, a recent graduate of Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.

the word "copyright" typed on a typewriterBy Liz Velander

Some argue that modern copyright law is decidedly market-oriented, almost entirely justified in utilitarian terms. By promising authors a set of marketable exclusive rights in their works, copyright is believed to incentivize the production of works of authorship. In his new paper, Privative Copyright, Professor Shyamkrishna Balganesh of the University of Pennsylvania Law School explains that this view produces a clear mismatch when using copyright law to remedy noneconomic harms. This paper was work-shopped at CPIP’s Philosophical Approaches to Intellectual Property research colloquium in 2019 and subsequently published in the Vanderbilt Law Review.

“Privative” copyright claims are infringement actions brought by authors for the unauthorized public dissemination of works that are private, unpublished, and revelatory of an author’s personal identity. They are driven by considerations of authorial autonomy, dignity, and personality rather than monetary value, seeking to redress a particular form of copyright harm that Prof. Balganesh refers to as “disseminative harm.” An example of a privative copyright claim is found in the recent Ninth Circuit case, Monge v. Maya Magazines.

The plaintiffs in the case were a well-known pop music star and her manager, who got married in secret. To maintain the secrecy of the wedding, the couple limited the number of witnesses and took a very limited number of photographs that were intended for the couple’s private use. Through unscrupulous means, the photographs fell into the hands of an individual who sold them to the defendant, a gossip magazine that published them. The district court found for the defendant, concluding that the publisher’s use of the photographs constituted fair use. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed in a rare denial of fair use for a privative claim.

To gain a full understanding of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in this case, the nature of privative copyright claims in general, and why courts find them troublesome, Prof. Balganesh believes that one must trace the historic evolution of privative copyright claims in Anglo-American copyright law. Modern copyright scholarship is deeply critical of privative copyright claims, believing that the dignitary interests and harms that underlie such claims are best dealt with through privacy law. Prof. Balganesh’s article challenges this dominant view, arguing that privative copyright claims form a legitimate part of the copyright landscape. He demonstrates that protecting an author’s dignitary interest and the underlying commitment to authorial autonomy that motivates these claims have remained important normative goals of copyright law despite the multiple doctrinal variations and updates that the law has gone through over the last three centuries.

Prof. Balganesh explains that in its most basic form, copyright law functions by rendering forms of expressive harm privately actionable. He identifies three types of expressive harm protected by copyright law: (1) appropriative harm, (2) in situ reputational harm, and (3) disseminative harm. Appropriative harm is the primary form of expressive harm that copyright ordinarily centers around, typically resulting from instances of copying. In situ reputational harm originates from the U.S. copyright system’s limited recognition of moral rights protection in the form of the rights of integrity and attribution. A common feature of both rights is they derive from the need to protect an author’s reputation as manifested in the work. The integrity right focuses on protecting against a mutilation or distortion of the work in the recognition that this would impact authorial reputation directly. The attribution right focuses on ensuring that a work is not wrongly attributed to an author, again with the recognition that attributions contrary to the author’s actions and intent to do harm to authorial reputation.

The third category of copyright harm forms the basis of privative copyright claims. It emerges from the mere dissemination or use of a protected work without the creator’s authorization, regardless of the objective utility or value of such actions. The dissemination is harmful not for its economic effects, but instead because of its interference with the author’s unique dignitary interests. In various situations, such as in the Monge case, individuals produce original expression that they intend to keep private or limit to very particular recipients. When fixed in a tangible medium of expression, such as a photograph, the communications become eligible for copyright protection. When such expression is made public, it amounts to a direct infraction of its creator’s personal autonomy.

Prof. Balganesh sees this infraction as two-layered. First, it repudiates the creator’s choice to control whether, how, and when the work is to be shared. Second, it forces the creator to admit to being the author of the work, since elements of the creator’s persona and identity are often apparent on the face of the work. The publication thus forces authorship on the creator, with all its social, legal, and moral implications. Central to disseminative harm is the recognition that the work is personal to its author in a rather distinctive way.

Modern copyright scholarship believes that disseminative harm is best dealt with through privacy law, not copyright law. Prof. Balganesh argues that this approach misunderstands the nature of privative claims in copyright law and the centrality of authorial autonomy that underlies them. He sees it as being drive by three primary concerns: (1) copyright utilitarianism, (2) free speech concerns, and (3) perception that privacy torts are better suited to address dignitary harms.

Prof. Balganesh addresses each of these concerns in turn. First, while copyright law today is often justified exclusively in utilitarian terms, this was not always the case. Privative copyright claims actually predate the utilitarian turn in copyright law. Prof. Balganesh argues that the overt utilitarian turn in copyright law is far from a principled reason to critique the legitimacy of privative copyright claims. To the contrary, normative pluralism has remained a hallmark of the copyright landscape, much like it has for a variety of legal institutions. The logic underlying the functioning of privative copyright claims began to take shape shortly after the passage of the Statute of Anne in 1710. In the three centuries since, they have mutated and adapted to society’s changing concepts of privacy, personal autonomy, and copyright’s coverage of new subject matter.

Second, Prof. Balganesh dismisses the concern that copyright protection for dignitary or privacy interests risks converting authorship into censorship. He explains that copyright has various devices protective of free speech that can come into play in privative claims, the most notable being fair use. Courts use fair use as a stand-in for free speech concerns and balance the fair use factors against the plaintiff’s claims. Given the robustness of these mechanisms, Prof. Balganesh sees no credible free speech concerns with privative copyright claims.

Third, Prof. Balganesh argues that privacy torts are not better suited to protect dignitary interests because the dignitary interests underlying privative copyright claims entail more than just a concern with privacy. They implicate considerations of personality and personal autonomy, in the way of authorial autonomy. Privacy torts, most notably the tort of public disclosure of private facts, focus on representational autonomy and an individual’s ability to control public representations of her persona. They view the denial of such autonomy as emanating from the subject’s choice to keep certain facets of her persona private, and then scrutinize the existence and parameters of that choice rather carefully. The nonconsensual public disclosure of such facts is seen to cast the subject into the public and in turn produce potentially emotional and reputational harm. Privative copyright claims, on the other hand, involve a combination of representational and authorial concerns that an incapable of disaggregation.

With this understanding of privative copyright claims, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Monge v. Maya Magazines can be seen in a new light. Recall that the plaintiffs were a celebrity couple who had taken photographs of their secret wedding and the defendant magazine somehow obtained copies of those photographs and published them. The Ninth Circuit’s finding for the plaintiffs demonstrates the difficulty courts have with privative copyright claims and why it is tempting to place them in another legal realm.

The court’s decision was predicated on an analysis of the four fair use factors. Since the fair use doctrine was codified in 1976, courts have grown to place significant reliance on the fourth factor—the potential market harm for the copyrighted work. However, examining the existence (or absence) of market harm for privative copyright claims is an obvious mismatch considering the plaintiff’s work was intended to be kept private. In Monge, the Ninth Circuit refused to acknowledge this mismatch, instead presuming an actual market for the plaintiffs’ photographs because the couple was “in the business of selling images of themselves and had done so in the past.”

The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning is puzzling because, by its own admission, the plaintiffs’ primary (if not exclusive) motivation in retaining the photographs was for their own private use. The photographs were not for sale, they were intended to remain secret. Prof. Balganesh acknowledges that such secrecy has a potential price in that the scarcity renders the information more valuable. But he finds it to be a stretch to presume an actual market for the work.

Prof. Balganesh recommends an alternative approach for courts to use when applying the fair use defense to privative claims. He argues that courts should consider the “dignitary” nature of the work under the second factor, a combination of its being (1) unpublished, (2) private, and (3) embodying expression directly implicating the author’s persona and identity. While this classification should not be dispositive in the overall fair use analysis, it should weigh heavily and influence the interpretation and application of the other factors. The fourth factor, relating to market effect, should be understood as receding in importance once the work is classified as “dignitary” in nature.

Prof. Balganesh’s article makes a strong case for courts to adopt this approach through tracing the historic evolution of privative copyright claims in Anglo-American copyright law. He teases apart the theories behind copyright law and develops a theoretical basis for understanding the workings of privative copyright claims. Privative Copyright is an essential read for a deeper understanding of copyright law.

Categories
Copyright

Google v. Oracle at the Supreme Court: Copyrightability, Fair Use, and Standard of Review

The following post comes from Chris Wolfsen, a recent graduate of Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.

U.S. Supreme Court buildingBy Chris Wolfsen

Grocery store shelves, QWERTY keyboards, and restaurant menus. These are just three of the analogies that Supreme Court justices used to grapple with the complex issues in the long-awaited Google v. Oracle oral argument that was heard last Wednesday, October 7. The case between the two tech companies that has been brewing for over a decade comes down to 11,000 lines of Oracle’s Java code that Google copied, without permission, for use in its well-known Android smartphone platform—a competing product.

Oracle originally filed suit in 2010 against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for both patent and copyright infringement. In 2014, the Federal Circuit ruled that Oracle’s code was copyrightable, and Google appealed to the Supreme Court, only to be denied review. On remand, again in the district court, Google claimed that its use of the Oracle code was fair use—meaning that even if it were an infringing use it should still be allowed by law. In 2016, a jury sided with Google, and Oracle filed a motion to challenge the jury verdict, which was denied. So instead, Oracle appealed the case back up to the Federal Circuit where the court reversed the lower court’s judgment and held that Google’s copying of the code was not fair use and that the copyrightability issue that was resolved in its 2014 decision still applied. In 2019, Google filed its petition for Supreme Court review once again, and finally the time for oral argument arrived.

The main issues for the Court to decide are a review of the Federal Circuit decisions—whether Oracle’s code was copyrightable to begin with and whether Google made fair use of the code. But also, and perhaps most importantly, the Court must decide what standard of review should be used to make a fair use determination. This last question will have a lasting impact far beyond this particular dispute.

Copyrightability

Under the Section 102 of the Copyright Act, software is considered a “literary work” and is afforded legal protection. Oracle would therefore have the right to prevent others from using its code or, as was the case, license the use of its software for others to use. But Google makes an argument under the merger doctrine that the code was never subject to copyright protection. The merger doctrine states that when an idea and its expression are inextricably merged there cannot be any copyright protection for the idea. This doctrine gets right to the heart of copyright law: original expression is protectable; an idea—a method, a system, a way to explain something—is not. Google’s argument is that there is only one way to express Oracle’s code, and therefore the code itself cannot be copyrightable at all. Google repeatedly suggests that to rule otherwise would be imparting protection over a method, which is something reserved for patent law.

The Court, and perhaps the rest of us not well-versed in computer science, struggled with this concept in the context of a very technical set of facts. Google’s counsel, Thomas Goldstein, drew comparisons to the Baker v. Selden Supreme Court case where Selden created a new method of bookkeeping and attempted to assert copyright protection over his ledger forms. Goldstein likened Oracle’s code to those ledgers—innovative and hugely successful, but merely a methodology that does not warrant copyright protection. The justices took turns proposing different hypotheticals to challenge this argument. First was Chief Justice Roberts, “cracking the safe may be the only way to get the money that you want, but that doesn’t mean you can do it,” followed by Justice Thomas’s analogy to a football team’s playbook that Google swiped for its own win. Mr. Goldstein argued back that copyrighting the knowledge itself of how to crack a safe would not be allowed and that Google is not “trying to take someone’s fan base or their football players or anything else.” The justices did not seem convinced by Google’s assertion that Oracle’s method of writing code was the only way to create the function Google wanted for its Android platform.

It is easy to get lost in the technical language of the case, between declaring code and implementing code and shortcut programs. Oracle’s counsel, Joshua Rosenkranz, cut through all those distinctions saying, “code is code,” and he pointed out that no circuit court drew a distinction between the types of code. Congress could have carved out different types of code in its consideration of the Copyright Act, but it expressly chose otherwise. Mr. Rosenkranz also circled back to distinguish Oracle’s code from the accounting ledgers in the Baker v. Selden case, highlighting that Oracle is not trying to prevent others from creating their own programs. “Others are free to write and organize their own prewritten programs however they see fit, as long as they don’t copy ours.” Mr. Rosenkranz underscored, and multiple justices acknowledged, that other competitors like Apple and Microsoft did not resort to pure copying to create their products, and that companies like IBM and SAP paid Oracle to properly license the code. Just because Oracle’s method was the most elegant, and therefore popular, way of expressing the code does not make it the only method of doing so. Mr. Rosenkranz summarized this issue well, saying, “the Copyright Act does not give Google a pass just because it would be expensive to recreate our expression.” 

Fair Use

Even if the code were copyrightable in the first place, Google argues, fair use still justifies its copying of the code. Fair use is an affirmative defense to an accusation of copyright infringement. A person or entity who has plainly copied another’s protected work can argue fair use to justify their taking and subsequent use of the copyrighted material. Congress has enumerated a four-factor test within the Copyright Act for courts to follow when evaluating a fair use claim—a test that the Supreme Court last used 26 years ago in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music—weighing the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the original work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use on the market value of the original work.

Modern courts, when evaluating the first factor of purpose and character of the infringing use, often focus on whether the use was transformative. Google has used this argument successfully in the past, in Authors Guild v. Google, defending its copying of millions of books for use in its Google Books search engine. The court in that case found that digitizing books for use in an online search database was highly transformative. In this case, Mr. Goldstein tried to make a similar argument that Google wrote an improved version of Oracle’s Java code to be more suitable for use in a smartphone. Mr. Goldstein said that this is “what Congress would want, that is to be able to take the functionality of a computer program, [and] someone else comes along and does it better.” He then stated that computer code only performs one function and therefore can still be considered transformative even if it does nothing different than the original work, only to later argue that the word “transformative” is not used in the Copyright Act and might not even be the correct standard of evaluation in this case.

Google also maintained a policy argument that “reusing software interfaces is critical to modern interoperable computer software,” and that to rule in Oracle’s favor would “upend that world” and make computer programming so inefficient as to have fewer creative computer programs. Justice Kavanaugh pointed out that despite Google and its amici claiming a dire result if the Court should rule for Oracle, in the years since the Supreme Court first denied certiorari, “I’m not aware that the sky has fallen.”

Oracle made a more direct argument based on legal precedent, noting that the Supreme Court had already held in Harper & Row and in Stewart v. Abend that no court had found or upheld a fair use verdict where an infringer copied so much of an original work for use in a competing commercial product, all while retaining the same meaning and purpose as the original work. Mr. Rosenkranz pointed out that Google conceded that every line of code copied serves the same purpose in Google’s Android platform as it did in the original software—there was no alteration or transformation of the original code—and Malcolm Stewart, arguing on behalf of the United States in support of Oracle, echoed that point. Mr. Rosenkranz then cited the Court’s own decision in Campbell, saying that what Google did is the “epitome of commercial superseding use: using a work ‘to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh.’”

Standard of Review

The discussion quickly turned to the standard of review that the Court should use to evaluate fair use—whether the determination must be left up to a jury, like the jury that ruled in Google’s favor previously, or whether it can be made by a court, such as the Federal Circuit that overturned the jury verdict to side with Oracle. Google argued that fair use is determined by “whether the jury could reasonably find fair use,” and that “no previous court ever held that only a court may decide fair use.” Mr. Goldstein argued that giving the decision to a jury is the better choice due to the numerous factors involved in a fair use verdict and that jury instructions exist to give appropriate legal certainty and guidance to the jurors.

Oracle disagreed and argued that de novo, meaning “anew,” is the correct standard to resolve this question. This would allow for a court to make a fair use determination without being bound by the decision of a previous court or verdict. Mr. Rosenkranz again cited Harper & Row: “an appellate court may conclude, as a matter of law, that the challenged use does not qualify as fair use once it has the factual record and resolves all subsidiary factual questions in favor of the fact-finder.” Judicial review provides certainty to a fair use determination that would be lost if left to a lay jury. Mr. Rosenkranz also noted that making fair use a fact-finding mission that only a jury may evaluate would all but preclude summary judgment determinations, which are exclusively judge-made decisions and currently comprise the vast majority of fair use cases.

Conclusion

The stakes in this case are extremely high—if it was not made clear by the number of times the justices and attorneys referenced the sky falling—not only for Oracle and Google and the computer science world at large, but also for any copyright creator or user who will eventually face a fair use determination. Joshua Simmons, co-counsel for Oracle and partner at Kirkland & Ellis, looks forward to the Court’s decision, writing:

Given that Google’s copyrightability argument would make it difficult for any code to be protectable, I am hopeful that the Court will follow the text of the Copyright Act and the intent of Congress that code, like Oracle’s, is protectable. Likewise, I hope that the Court will follow a century of precedent allowing courts to decide as a matter of law that, when the defendant creates a substitute that competes with the original, it simply is not fair use.

 

People of all industries, from professionals to hobbyists, should take note of last week’s oral argument and what will be an historic decision from the Court.

Categories
Copyright

Nicola Searle on Business Models and Copyright: The Legal Business Model

The following post comes from Dr. Nicola Searle, an economist who specializes in the economics of intellectual property and the creative industries. This post is derived from a paper that Dr. Searle prepared for CPIP’s Sixth Annual Fall Conference.

the word "copyright" typed on a typewriterBy Nicola Searle

The last two decades have made for interesting times in the media business. With rapidly changing technology, the digital era released content from the confines of physical formats and introduced a dazzling array of formats, channels, and other key elements of business models.

Business models describe how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value; business models have become increasingly important for companies to adapt to, and harness the opportunity arising from, the digital ear. In digital media, this transformation has been coupled with changing consumer preferences and delivery mechanisms, leading to increased copyright infringement. Unsurprisingly, copyright is a focal point of regulatory discourses in the digital media industry. A key theme has been the interaction of copyright and business models.

Thanks to support from CPIP, I have developed an in-depth analysis of the copyright-business models narrative in the digital media industry. My research uncovered different viewpoints, types of business models, and the existence of an unacknowledged theme in these debates: the legal business model.

Nicola Searle
Copyright: WIPO. Photo: Pierre Albouy. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 IGO License.

Two contrasting perspectives on copyright policy-business models emerge from the research: the first, as in the quote below, where copyright is a fundamental legal tool to support the industry’s business models and the fight against infringement. This view argues that without copyright protection, digital media business models will fail. For example:

Our business is based on a robust copyright framework which allows us to reinvest in the works we produce and licence, anything that could jeopardise it, such as a reduced copyright term or a fair-use system would result in our business model becoming redundant and therefore obsolete.[1]

 

A second view suggests copyright law restricts business model innovation. This take often cites the wild-west of the early Google business model, and its relatively liberal approach to copyright in the United States, in contrast to more restrictive jurisdictions, such as the UK, where business model innovation has been relatively tame. It is demonstrated by this quote:

Fair use [a copyright exception] may offer benefits for businesses which rely on the reproduction of creative content. To the extent that it offers a broader range of exceptions, it may encourage investment in new business models if firms believe they will neither infringe copyright nor incur licensing costs.[2]

 

The question then is, does copyright hinder or enable business models in digital media? The answer is that is not the question. This debate is not about business models—it is about the legal business model.

My analysis of over 300 documents from the UK digital media industry identifies a latent concept in these discourses: the legal business model. The discussion is not about business models as such, but as business models viewed via copyright—which I term “the legal business model.”

In a traditional concept of business models, the focus is on value creation through goods or services. In the copyright-business model narrative, the “business model” is actually the legal model shaped and sustained by external legal structures (copyright), where regulations (copyright) create and protect value. It is a subtle difference, but it explains why UK copyright regulations to encourage business model innovation have not been successful and why copyright does not actually feature heavily in the descriptions of business models.

The research identifies various, yet inconsistent, labels for business models, as listed in the table below. The most cited is that of the “traditional model,” namely a model where content is sold directly to the consumer. The “digital model” is very similar—perhaps a digital equivalent of the sales of physical products. Other models talk about delivery and price mechanisms; however, only one business model is directly related to copyright—the licensing model. Only 16% of the business models mentioned in the sample are based on copyright; all the rest are framed instead around elements of the traditional concept of the business model.

Name of business model with frequency and notes. Traditional model, 31. Digital model, 26. Licensing model, 24. Ad-funded model, 20. Subscription model, 14. Streaming model, 13 (overlaps with subscription). Freemium model, 10 (includes free-to-play). Miscellaneous, 11 (includes crowd-funding).

In contrast to the drama and dynamism of the digital era and its copyright narratives, business models in digital media are surprisingly stagnant or resilient, depending on the perspective. The core model has not changed. For example, the CEO of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), a sound recording collective society in the UK, stated in 2017:

We have a strong and steadfast business model that forms the foundation for our future progress, and positions PPL well to deal with today’s ever-changing, competitive and complex market.[3]

 

Other authors, such as Feng Li, have also found relative stability in business models in the sector.[4]

Coupled with a further analysis of the discourse, details available in the paper here, a paradox emerges. While copyright-business models insist on a strong link between the two, in practice the industry’s own framing and use of business models downplay copyright. The legal business model offers an explanation: the narrative is copyright-legal business models, not copyright-business models.

Yet, the stability of the existing business models and structure of the industry are not given. Market power has shifted to large technology platforms and gateways, and tensions have emerged. As streaming services that license-in content, such as Spotify, grow, they become increasingly dependent on external content owners. Services such as Netflix and Prime are now content creators, and content creators themselves are launching their own services, such as Disney+. Platforms have also been criticized, as described in the following quote from UK Music CEO Michael Dugher:

Google’s YouTube is the world’s most popular music platform, yet it deliberately chooses to return a pittance to those whose creativity it has built its multi-billion pound business model on. Google remain the vultures that feed off music creators.[5]

 

Business models and copyright continue to play a part in both regulatory narratives in the industry and the future of the industry itself. However, discussions thus far have not been a true engagement with copyright and business models in the traditional sense—only with debates over the legal business model. Perhaps the correct question is, should business models adapt to copyright, or should copyright adapt to business models?

To read the paper, please click here.

[1] Alliance for Intellectual Property, Trading Places: The UK’s IP Future, at 60 (2017).

[2] PricewaterhouseCoopers, An Economic Analysis of Copyright, Secondary Copyright and Collective Licensing, at 51 (2011).

[3] Phonographic Performance Limited, Annual Review, at 6 (2017).

[4] See Feng Li, The Digital Transformation of Business Models in the Creative Industries: A Holistic Framework and Emerging Trends, Technovation 92-93 (2020).

[5] See Chris Cooke, Music Industry Comments on Copyright Directive Ruling, Music Business Worldwide (July 5, 2018).

Categories
Copyright

CPIP’s Sandra Aistars Joins Artomatic Panel on Copyright Protection for Visual Artists

The following post comes from Liz Velander, a recent graduate of Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.

the word "copyright" written on a typewriterBy Liz Velander

As part of its ongoing series about the copyright licensing process, Artomatic hosted a virtual panel for visual artists last week to discuss how to protect their creative works. The panel focused on explaining key concepts of copyright law pertinent to visual artists and sharing resources that they can use to learn more about the basics of copyright protection. It also touched on common pitfalls among visual artists when it comes to protecting their creative works, including those that befall joint authors, and common misconceptions about fair use.

The panelists included CPIP Director of Copyright Research and Policy Sandra Aistars and Jaylen Johnson, Attorney Advisor at the U.S. Copyright Office, and it was moderated by Kim Tignor, Executive Director at the Institute for Intellectual Property & Social Justice.

Prof. Aistars explained that there are three important things visual artists should know about copyright law. First, the requirements for copyright protection. Copyright law protects original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium. An “original” work means that it was created independently and not copied from somebody else. Prof. Aistars noted that “this doesn’t mean the work has to be absolutely novel—if you have two artists who independently create something that is substantially similar, without copying from each other, both of those works are protected by copyright.”

Prof. Aistars also clarified the distinction between ideas and expression, noting that copyright law only protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Visual artists cannot “copyright the idea of painting a field of sunflowers,” but they can protect “the precise rendering of that work, the nuances of brushstroke, the layering of the paint on the canvas” because those are all elements of expression. A work must also be fixed in a tangible medium of expression, Prof. Aistars continued, which could include paper, canvas, or a digital medium. If a work meets all these elements, it is protected by copyright and the visual artist obtains a variety of exclusive rights that allow her to make a living from her creative pursuits.

The second important thing to know about copyright law, according to Prof. Aistars, is that copyright protection is automatic. A visual artist does not need to register a work with the Copyright Office to receive protection. Instead, copyright protection exists from the moment the artist sets a work down in a tangible medium of expression. However, Prof. Aistars noted that it is a good practice for visual artists to register their works with the Copyright Office. Registration gives copyright owners additional benefits and makes it easier for people to find the copyright owner to license her works.

Finally, Prof. Aistars explained that it is important to understand that a visual artist retains the copyright in a work when she sells a copy of it, even if it is the only copy she has ever created. Selling a copy does not transfer the underlying rights the artist enjoys as a copyright owner. Prof. Aistars pointed out that “you’re not transferring the rights to make copies of the work, print them up on t-shirts and postcards, and sell them on the internet to whoever buys the copy of your work—unless you enter into a separate agreement with that person.”

Ms. Johnson noted that the Copyright Office is an excellent resource for visual artists who want to learn more about copyright protection. As the primary agency in charge of administering copyright law, the Office advises Congress, facilitates rulemaking, assists in litigation efforts, serves on international delegations, and administers the nation’s registration and recordation system. In celebration of its 150th anniversary, the Office recently launched a new initiative called Engage Your Creativity that pulls together a variety of resources for creators. Ms. Johnson stated that the initiative is a great way to become familiar with the many resources available to the public through the Office’s website.

The panelists also identified common pitfalls visual artists encounter during the creative process. Many occur because artists are not sure what qualifies as fair use of a copyrighted work. Prof. Aistars explained that “fair use exists so artists can build and comment on existing works in their own work, and in so doing add to our cultural dialogue and engage with one another in artistic conversations.” She advised artists to treat fair use as the Golden Rule: “Think about the way you would feel if someone uses your work the way you’re proposing to use someone else’s work, and then be very honest.”

The courts have four factors that they evaluate together to determine whether a use is fair or not. Codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act, the four factors are: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is commercial or educational; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. However, since these factors are neither dispositive nor exhaustive, courts typically explore fair use claims in an open-ended, case-by-case manner. This is an area where artists run into trouble, Prof. Aistars explained, because “there are no bright lines. There’s not a set rule that you can use this much, but no more. Artists are trying to make the best decisions they can, and sometimes that isn’t the decision the court would’ve made.”

The panelists noted that another common pitfall arises with jointly created works. Under the Copyright Act, the authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in a work. Each author can do whatever she wants with the work, as long as she accounts to the other. This is a problem when a collaborative relationship goes south, or if one author wants to use the work in a way that the other author disagrees with. Prof. Aistars advised visual artists to put an agreement in writing prior to starting a collaborative relationship.

Copyright law may seem like daunting subject to visual artists, but it can be easily understood with the right information. In closing, Ms. Johnson emphasized the importance of making resources accessible and engaging in public outreach because “copyright is for everybody.”

Categories
Copyright

Senate IP Subcommittee Hearing Addresses Intersection of DMCA and Fair Use

The following post comes from Yumi Oda, an LLM Candidate at Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.

U.S. Capitol buildingBy Yumi Oda

As part of its year-long review of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property tackled yet another contentious issue in our copyright system—fair use. A virtual online hearing, held on July 28 and entitled How Does the DMCA Contemplate Limitations and Exceptions Like Fair Use?, focused on the role of fair use for digital platforms. Calling fair use “a bit of a touchy subject,” Chairman Thom Tillis (R-NC) specifically requested the witnesses’ input on how the original DMCA envisioned fair use and how the reform bill should address it. Ranking Member Chris Coons (D-DE) likewise emphasized the importance of striking a balance to “safeguard free speech and fair use, while also combating digital piracy and ensuring creators are fairly compensated.”

The panelists included: Sherwin Siy, Lead Public Policy Manager of Wikimedia Foundation; Mickey H. Osterreicher, General Counsel of National Press Photographers Association; Jane C. Ginsburg, Morton L. Janklow Professor of Literary and Artistic Property Law at Columbia University School of Law; Christopher Mohr, Vice President for Intellectual Property and General Counsel of Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA); Rick Beato, Songwriter, Producer, Engineer, and Educator; Yolanda Adams, GRAMMY Award-winning artist and Recording Academy Trustee; Joseph C. Gratz, Partner of Durie Tangri LLP; Matthew Sanderson, Co-lead, Political Law Group of Caplin & Drysdale; and Jacqueline Charlesworth, Partner of Alter, Kendrick & Baron LLP. These panelists represented industry and scholarly experts, as well as creators, users, and intermediaries of copyrighted works.

As a limitation to the exclusive rights in creative works, fair use is intended to simultaneously promote free speech and foster authorship and creativity. Taking a hint from case law, Congress codified Section 107 of the Copyright Act, enumerating four factors to be considered in a fair use analysis, namely: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is commercial or educational; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. However, since these factors are neither dispositive nor exhaustive, courts typically explore fair use claims in an open-ended, case-by-case manner.

On the first panel, Mr. Siy, representing the host of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, testified that his Foundation heavily relies on fair use and the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions. Mr. Siy asserted that his Foundation receives approximately 30 DMCA takedown notices annually as risk-averse volunteers remove seemingly infringing content according to its volunteer-created standards, which are stricter than what the law requires. Of those notices, Mr. Siy explained, two-thirds are usually found to be noninfringing uses, such as fair use, thus demonstrating the ease of attacking harmless fair uses under the DMCA.

On the other hand, Mr. Osterreicher, representing visual journalists, pleaded with the Subcommittee to change the current lop-sided, whack-a-mole situation, which places an “insurmountable” burden on photographers, but “little to no responsibility” on online service providers (OSPs) for online infringement. As he pointed out, “the more amorphous the fair use interpretation the better” for OSPs to draw more visitors and advertisers. He argued that copyright infringement, sometimes disguised as fair use, reduces economic incentives, discourages participation in visual journalism, and “devalues photography as both a news medium and art form.”

Next, Prof. Ginsburg explained how Sections 512 and 1201 accommodate copyright limitations and exceptions. She noted that Section 512 has not worked as intended, largely due to the vastly higher number of postings than Congress originally anticipated. Conversely, the seemingly low number of counternotices, she continued, could suggest that “many fair uses are being suppressed,” “the vast majority of postings are in fact infringing,” or “fear or ignorance [are causing] some fair users to decline to send a counternotification.” As a potential solution to the timely counternotification procedure, Prof. Ginsburg proposed an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism. Moreover, she explained that “by design, [Section] 1201 does not provide a general fair use defense,” and that the triennial rulemakings to identify exempted classes of works have been largely effective.

Mr. Mohr, representing the software industry, provided the last testimony on this panel. He stated that Sections 512 and 1201 have been successful mainly because Congress left fair use out of both. Rather, he considered fair use as “a built-in safety valve” to preclude overly broad assertions of rights.

Senators Tillis and Coons then raised a series of specific questions. In response to a question regarding the extent to which OSPs should consider fair use, Prof. Ginsburg testified that OSPs have no duty to consider fair use and that they can remain mere conduits as long as they comply with the DMCA safe harbor provisions. Moreover, in response to a question regarding the misunderstanding surrounding fair use and newsworthiness, Mr. Osterreicher answered that there is a common misconception that newsworthy materials can be used more freely, which in turn deprives visual journalists of licensing opportunities due to the time-sensitive nature of such materials. Furthermore, in response to a question regarding the recent evolution of fair use, Prof. Ginsburg testified that broader fair use claims wrongly recognized in lower courts have been corrected by the higher courts, thereby demonstrating that courts are better equipped to analyze the inherently malleable fair use doctrine.

Lastly, each panelist was asked to specify which area of the DMCA Congress should look at in drafting a reform bill. Mr. Siy simply called for a holistic review. Mr. Osterreicher recommended clarifying the red flag knowledge standard for OSPs, and he pledged to continue advocating for the ADR system and the currently blocked Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act. Neither Prof. Ginsburg nor Mr. Mohr advocated for a legislative change, but Prof. Ginsburg did recommend that Congress closely monitor the development of the European Union’s approach to see if requiring OSPs to filter and block infringing content could reach a better balance.

On the second panel, witnesses testified how fair use has been applied in practice in their specific areas, many touching on the hot subject of political misappropriation. First to testify was Mr. Beato, a musician and popular YouTube music instructor who uses excerpts from famous songs in his videos. He explained that he never sought fair use claims in response to DMCA notices because it would be a waste of time and money, although he believed a good case could be made considering the new educational role YouTube has been playing. Although he himself successfully stood up against DMCA notices by a major label thanks to his large viewership, he warned that “frivolous” DMCA notices can be used to harass small content creators. Ultimately, he proposed a “Fair Use Registry,” similar to Twitter’s blue check mark, to certify and notate a good actor and to whitelist his or her use.

Another musician’s input came from Ms. Adams, a renowned gospel singer and songwriter who is also known as the “First Lady of Modern Gospel.” She maintained that “if someone’s claim of fair use reduces the artists’ ability to earn a living, it should be treated as infringement, plain and simple.” In addition to this monetization aspect of fair use, Ms. Adams also focused on its moral aspect, stating that “fair use can be very unfair to the artist if it takes our control away.” Reiterating the importance of the long-standing radio performance right issue, Ms. Adams concluded that seeking “permission” is the key when it comes to working with musicians, including use in political campaigns.

In contrast, Mr. Gratz, representing internet intermediaries, defended free speech and fair use, stating “nobody likes to be criticized or have their music used in ways they can’t control, but . . . even more so where the copyright holder does not like the use, fair use is needed to make sure that free expression can thrive even in the presence of copyrighted material.” Additionally, he made the following three points: (1) Section 512 has provided no practical remedy to the serious DMCA abuse; (2) automated filtering including any “staydown” systems should not be mandated; and (3) the current “reasonableness” standard for terminating repeat infringers is the right standard.

Similarly, Mr. Sanderson, who consults election and advocacy organizations, explained that political campaigns receive increasingly more takedown notices from artists who do not wish to be associated with the campaigns’ messages, even when the uses are permitted under performance rights organizations’ blanket licenses.

Finally, Ms. Charlesworth, an attorney representing songwriters and artists, reminded the Subcommittee that “creators, too, [as well as politicians,] are intended beneficiaries of the First Amendment.” She noted that creators’ messages can be appropriated and altered in political campaigns in ways that alienate fans and cause economic damages. Particularly, she argued that a fair use claim in a political campaign should also be analyzed under the regular four-factor test, with the emphasis on the first factor’s focus on whether the use is “transformative.” On this point, she explained that simply attaching a song to a political campaign video would not amount to a “transformative” use. Citing her clients’ experience, Ms. Charlesworth argued that “the current system imposes unjust burdens on creators and small copyright owners . . . without adequate tools or resources at hand when a political ad containing their song suddenly appears” online.

The second panel did not receive as many questions as the first one because the hearing was cut short by a live vote, but Senator Tillis concluded the hearing by thanking each panelist and acknowledging that some issues probably can be addressed without any legislative fix, while others may require congressional action.

Categories
Copyright

Copyright Office Questions Legality of Internet Archive’s National Emergency Library

the word "copyright" typed on a typewriterOn March 24, the Internet Archive (Archive) unveiled what it called the “National Emergency Library” (NEL) in order to “address our unprecedented global and immediate need for access to reading and research materials.” The announcement specified that Archive would suspend the waitlist for 1.4 million books in its unlicensed “lending library” until at least June 30, thus allowing an unlimited number of people to download electronic copies of the same book at the same time. Archive had previously employed a controlled digital lending (CDL) model where the number of downloads was tied to the number of physical copies Archive or its partners possessed. With the waitlist suspended, Archive temporarily abandoned the CDL model that it had relied on since 2011.

Archive’s release of 1.4 million copyrighted works without a license certainly caught people’s attention. The Authors Guild quickly condemned the move, claiming that Archive “has no rights whatsoever to these books, much less to give them away indiscriminately without consent of the publisher or author.” Maria Pallante, President and CEO of the Association of American Publishers, likewise denounced Archive’s announcement: “We are stunned by the Internet Archive’s aggressive, unlawful, and opportunistic attack on the rights of authors and publishers in the midst of the novel coronavirus pandemic.” Archive then responded in a blog post explaining that it had suspended its waitlist due to the “tremendous and historic outage” in the nation’s libraries caused by the pandemic and arguing that fair use is the “legal doctrine underlying” its CDL model “during normal times.”

A couple of weeks later, on April 16, Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) sent a letter to Acting Register of Copyrights Maria Strong asking the Office “to examine the National Emergency Library that has been organized by the Internet Archive which is operating without typical library licenses and is causing authors in New Mexico concern about the integrity of their copyrights.” In particular, Sen. Udall asked the Office to “include a legal analysis of the Internet Archive’s National Emergency Library” under Section 107 and to “recommend any corrective action that you deem necessary to comply with copyright law and protect authors.”

On May 15, Acting Register Strong submitted a detailed response to Sen. Udall, noting that “it is not the Office’s general practice to provide legal advice about specific factual scenarios” and that the “Office is particularly cautious about weighing in on circumstances or disputes between private parties.” Nevertheless, the Office provided a general analysis of how copyright law applies to libraries and then looked at how that analysis applies to “the Internet Archive’s recent activities.” Notably, the Office ultimately concluded that it “would have been beneficial for the Internet Archive to engage with writers and publishers prior to launching the National Emergency Library to discuss the contemplated parameters for the project and determine their willingness to participate.”

On June 1, a couple of weeks after the Office submitted its response to Sen. Udall, four major publishers, including Hachette, HarperCollins, Penguin Random House, and Wiley, filed suit against Archive for copyright infringement in the Southern District of New York. The complaint, which includes 127 works-in-suit, alleges that Archive’s CDL and NEL models infringe on their works, both directly and indirectly. This blog post does not address that dispute, though the publishers do raise many of the same issues in their complaint that the Office raised in its response to Sen. Udall. This blog post merely summarizes the Office’s reasoning on the fair use analysis of Archive’s National Emergency Library. It is worth noting that, even though Archive announced on June 10 that it was shutting down its NEL, the legality of the NEL is still a live issue in the publishers’ lawsuit.

Fair Use Under Section 107

Looking at the first fair use factor under Section 107 generally, the Copyright Office notes that while the “goals of promoting scholarship and education are explicitly identified in the statute as favored purposes,” it “is generally understood that many uses of copyrighted works by schools and universities must be licensed.” Citing Oracle v. Google and Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, the Office points out that “reproducing the text of physical books in digital format is not transformative unless the change in format results in new uses for the work.” Moreover, it explains that using educational materials for educational purposes “would not serve a different purpose than the original.”

Turning to the NEL specifically, the Office takes issue with Archive’s claim that “the vast majority” of the books it makes available “do not have a commercially available ebook” that would be publicly available given that libraries are closed. On the contrary, the Office states that “Archive does not appear to have verified if any of the works in its collection were available to the public in digital formats prior to including those books in its collection or removing its waiting lists” and that the NEL “includes many books for which ebooks are available commercially” at local libraries. Thus, the argument that Archive was making available works that were otherwise unavailable “does not apply to any books that were available in digital formats at the time of the copying.”

The Office notes that the NEL is available to the public for free such that Archive’s use is noncommercial. However, it emphasizes that Archive’s stated purpose of promoting scholarship and education “alone does not establish fair use.” Indeed, the Office points out that “at least some” of the 1.4 million works, such as “Stephen King thrillers and joke books,” are “likely to be accessed for entertainment rather than educational purposes.” Even for the educational books that are not available in digital formats, the Office explains that the noncommercial purpose must be weighed against “the non-transformative nature of the use.” Given that educational works are “originally intended to educate,” Archive’s use of these works “is not transformative.” And given that Archive does not provide “search functionality,” it does not fit within the “digitization cases” that were “deemed transformative,” such as Google Books and HathiTrust.

On the second factor, the Office cites Campbell v. Acuff-Rose for the proposition that “some works are closer to the core of intended copyright protection than others” and Harper & Row v. Nation for the point that the “law generally recognizes a greater need to disseminate factual works than works of fiction or fantasy.” The Office also notes that there may be “more justification” for reproducing previously published works that are “currently unavailable in the marketplace.” Nevertheless, it explains that the existence of organizations to provide copies of such works is relevant to this factor, and it mentions that the case law on a “work’s print status under the second factor is mixed.”

Applying this to the NEL, the Office clarifies that the analysis of the second factor is necessarily “fact-specific” and that each work or category of works “would need to be evaluated independently.” For example, “creative works” would be analyzed differently than “factual or informational works.” And while the unavailability of certain works might favor fair use “in some circumstances,” the Office notes that this does not appear to have been Archive’s focus. Archive instead focused on whether the books were available in digital form, making no “mention of the works’ overall availability.”

The key to the third factor, the Office explains, is “whether the secondary use employs more of the copyrighted work than is necessary, and whether the copying was excessive in relation to any valid purposes asserted under the first factor.” Moreover, while “copying an entire work often weighs against a finding of fair use,” the factor “would not weigh against a finding of fair use” if “it were necessary to copy the entire copyrighted work to achieve the purpose of the secondary use.”

The Office notes that the CDL White Paper, upon which Archive relies, “argues that it is necessary to copy the entire book to achieve the purpose of providing digital access to the work, such that the copying is not excessive in relation to the library’s purpose.” The CDL White Paper also argues that “the library prevents users from making additional copies of or further distributing the book and limits the duration for which a user can access a book.” In response, the Office points out that the courts in Google Books and HathiTrust “emphasized that the defendants had not made the full text of the copied works visible to the public” and how the Office itself (see here, here, and here) has “consistently expressed doubt that providing digital access to complete works can be considered a fair use.”

Quoting Harper & Row, the Office notes that the fourth factor, which is “undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use,” turns on “whether widespread conduct similar to the conduct of the alleged infringer ‘would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.’” The Office explains that, under Google Books and HathiTrust, the third and fourth factors are linked: “the risk that the digitized version will serve as a market substitute for the original work increases as the amount of the work that is made accessible to the public increases.” In both of those cases, the copying of entire works was permissible because it enabled transformative search functionality without serving as a market substitute by making the entire works available.

Turning to the NEL, the Office acknowledges a “disagreement among stakeholders over whether the analysis of market harm under the fourth fair use factor should consider the Internet Archive’s activities as roughly analogous to physical lending by libraries, or whether the markets for physical lending and ebook licensing to libraries are distinct.” The Office points out that no court has embraced the former approach and that “the Second Circuit squarely rejected it” in Capitol Records v. ReDigi. Moreover, the Office cites its own report noting that there are “significant differences” between lending physical copies and digital ones. And it points out that the NEL “lacks the controls cited by the CDL White Paper as necessary to mitigating market harm” since it allows “an unlimited number of users to borrow any given title simultaneously.”

On the latter approach, which holds that the market for ebook licensing is distinct from that of physical lending, the Office states that there is already “an established market” where “publishers and authors license their works to libraries for the purpose of digitally ‘lending’ them to patrons.” The fourth factor analysis here “might focus on whether the creation and distribution of digital versions of these works would affect this market, and also how, if such conduct became widespread, it would affect this market.” If digital versions of some works were not available in the marketplace, the Office concludes, “this factor might favor fair use for some, but not necessarily all, of the works contained in the National Emergency Library.”

The Office also examines how “exigent circumstances” related to the pandemic may factor into a fair use analysis. The Office notes that there “is undoubtedly a strong public interest in ensuring continued access to educational materials in this unprecedented time, which could weigh in favor of fair use.” However, while Archive’s goal “may be laudable, so is respect for copyright.” The Office states that it “would be imprudent to excuse widespread copying due to a national emergency without considering the possible repercussions on copyright law and copyright owners” since there “is also a strong public interest in ensuring that authors are able to financially survive the coronavirus crisis to be able to continue to produce creative works.” And it concludes by noting that a “court would almost certainly also take into account” Archive’s effect “on writers and publishers.”

Conclusion

The Copyright Office ultimately suggests that Archive may wish to “explore opportunities for collaboration with writers and publishers” such as by “allowing them to opt into making digital versions of their works publicly available.” While the Office never explicitly says that any particular work is being infringed, its analysis does indicate that, in its opinion, Archive cannot claim that it is engaging in fair use for all of the works made available with its National Emergency Library. Furthermore, the Office explains why other statutory limitations, such as the first sale doctrine under Section 109, would not apply to Archive’s activities. All in all, it seems clear that the Office is quite skeptical of the NEL’s legality under the fair use doctrine. Though, it remains to be seen whether the Southern District of New York will agree with the Office’s analysis.