Copying is Copying: Homages, Tributes, and Fanboyism Are Dangerous For Artists

As far as the law is concerned, copying is copying, no matter how noble your intentions.

I'm an artist too, so I get it. We are constantly bombarded by stimuli, so it's hard not to be inspired by those images. And it's even harder to avoid relying on those images when we make our own work. My advice is to try even harder than that. Because, unfortunately, copyright holders (often, but not always, large corporations) are less inclined to care about why you copied them and more inclined to sue you into oblivion if that's what they feel is required to protect their work.

Case in point: last month, a Boston-based company called Autonomie was sued for trademark infringement by Converse for making a sneaker so similar to Converse's iconic Chuck Taylors that it's nearly impossible to tell the two apart (the shoe is actually manufactured by a British company called Ethletic). Here are the shoes side-by-side.

But this isn't just ripping off for the sake of ripping off. Autonomie is all about using eco-friendly materials and fair trade practices so as to produce "high-quality garments at competitive prices to consumers that wish to make purchases with a social and environmental impact without having to sacrifice their own personal style, or break their wallet."  That's a pretty good reason, right? Too bad. The law says this is trademark infringement because there's a high likelihood that the two shoes would be confused with each other, thus steering profits away from Converse. In trademark law, this is called "blurring." Autonomie's reasons may be noble, but noble doesn't go very far in court.

Remember the whole Robin Thicke/ Marvin Gaye copyright infringement situation that came up a few months ago? Thicke was so inspired by Gaye's work that he wanted to make a song that sounded like something Gaye himself might have written. The end result was that Thicke's fanboyism got him in a legal tussle with Gaye's family.

The reasons for copying rarely matter from a legal perspective. There are very few mechanisms in the law that allow it, and they only apply in certain situations. Fair use, is the most commonly used exception but the only way to find out if it protects you is to get sued, go through months of litigation and thousands of dollars in legal fees, and find out in court. As far as I'm concerned, getting sued and winning is the same as losing because the amount of time and money required to defend yourself would never be recouped.

Copyright holders don't care what your reasons are. They only care if your work will take money out of their pocket. So don't pay homage. Don't pay tribute. Don't use the copyrighted works of others unless they give you written permission. If they don't give you permission, be creative and find another way to express yourself. Be original always in all ways, because copying someone else, even if your intention is to honor them, is the quickest way to get legally smashed. And instead of making art, you'll be paying off copyright fines.

Legally Binding Contracts? There's An App For That

The future is now, and it's filled with apps that render most learned professions obsolete. On the docket for today: an app that replaces lawyers.  Hooray?

Shake is an app for your iPhone that allows you to "[c]reate, sign, and send legally binding agreements in seconds, all from your phone." The app contains a number of stock agreements, such as non-disclosures, buy and sells, personal loans, and freelancer contracts, with more types of agreements getting added in the near future. The app is simple to use as well. You answer several questions and then the app generates your contract, which both parties can sign right on the phone. Voila! Legally binding contracts without ever wasting a sheet of paper or paying for legal services!

A friend told me he thought this was really sketchy [although the signatures are digital, they are still legally binding], and several lawyer colleagues were horrified by the app. Being a lawyer myself, I understand why. No one wants to invest time and resources to learn a trade only to have that trade rendered obsolete by technology. Even if the technology is very pretty.

I spent a few days playing with Shake to see if my friend and colleagues were right, and despite some big problems with the app (see below), I've decided that I'm okay with it. Kind of. Shake does one thing really right, and for that reason, I can't hate it: contracts are hard; they're usually long and often boring to read and write. Shake makes them easy to make, easy to read and best of all, short. By doing this, it incentivizes people to use contracts in their work, and anything  that gets artists thinking about their work from a legal perspective is a good thing.

But there are several big caveats that prevent me from recommending the app outright.

1. Stock contracts offer no flexibility in their terms and are not tailored to the specific circumstances of your transaction. While this may not be a big deal for some of you, I strongly advise caution. Your work is unique to you, and only you know the terms that will make the transaction worthwhile.  Stock contracts, by their nature, cannot give you the flexibility to ensure that your best interests are being served.
2. Contract law isn't regulated by statute at the federal level, like trademark or copyright.  Contract law varies from state to state, and what may be legally permissible in one state may not be in another.
3. When you use language you didn’t draft yourself or authorize a lawyer to draft for you, you could end up consigning yourself to something in your own contract that you don't intend. For example, in Shake's stock freelancer agreement, it states that the freelancer's work is a "work for hire."  This is wrong because in most cases, a freelancer's work is only considered a "work for hire" in a very limited number of circumstances. To confuse matters, the agreement later uses language that directly contradicts what a "work for hire" actually is.  These types of drafting issues can certainly be fixed by a software update, but right now, the contract is  ambiguous and confusing at best, and unenforceable at worst.

If the choice is between using Shake or nothing, I'd tell you to use Shake every day of the week and twice on Sundays. But if you want a contract done right and in a way that serves your legal interest, draft it yourself or, even better, hire a lawyer.  

Tortious Interference on Parks and Recreation: How Rent A Swag Can Fight Back Against Tommy's Closet

[Parks & Recreation is the best comedy on TV these days, so in honor of its new season, I've taken a look at one story issue that's been bugging me since last season's finale.  Enjoy!]

Tortious interference occurs when a person intentionally damages the  business relationships of another.  Parks & Recreation occurs at 8:00pm, Thursday nights on NBC.  The former is a type of civil liability imposed on one party who financially harms another party.  The latter is an exceptionally sweet and intelligent sitcom that none of you are watching.  What do the two have in common?  A lot, surprisingly.

Last season, Tom Haverford - played by Aziz Ansari as a pop-culture obsessed, clothes horse, mogul wannabe - started a business called Rent-a-Swag, a store where the "teens, tweens, and in-betweens" of Pawnee, Indiana could rent "the dopest shirts, the swankiest jackets, the slickest cardigans, the flashiest fedoras, the hottest ties, the snazziest canes and more!"  Per the store's fake website, "before you waste your money on something that won't fit in a month, or fight with your parents over that sick velvet blazer they won't buy for you - step into Rent-A-Swag."  It's a good idea, right?

Anyway, the business took off and Tom was thisclose to leaving his job at the Parks and Recreation Department.  Unfortunately, Tom discovered that a competitor opened a rival store directly across the street called Tommy's Closet.  The competitor (whose identity I won't reveal here) informed Tom that Tommy's Closet was designed specifically to drive Rent-a-Swag out of business.

I don't know how the Parks & Recreation writers intend to resolve the situation (it will likely be sweet and goofy), but if I was Tom's attorney, I would advise him to sue the pants off (hehe) the owner of Tommy's Closet.  In tort law, there's something called tortious interference with an expected economic advantage and it gives business owners a way to stop those who maliciously attempt to drive expected consumers away from their business.  To win, Tom would have to prove that:

1. Tom had a reasonable expectation of economic benefit from the operation of Rent-a-Swag,
2. The competitor had knowledge of that expectation,
3. The competitor intentional interfered with Tom's expected economic benefit, and
4. Tom suffered economic damage as a result of the interference.

It wouldn't be very entertaining to watch, but Tom would most assuredly win a lawsuit against his competitor.  First, Tom had a good reason to expect an economic benefit; he was already receiving it!  His business was booming during the tail end of Season 5.  Tom was even able to hire employees and pay dividends to his stockholders.  Second, the competitor told Tom (in front of other people, I might add... witnesses!) that he was aware of Rent-a-Swag's financial success.  In fact, during the Season 5 finale, he tried to buy Rent-a-Swag from Tom because it had become a known moneymaker.  Third, the competitor admitted his desire to drive Tom out of business out of a misplaced sense of revenge and was actively luring customers away with free pizza and prizes.  Finally, we see in the Season 6 opener that Tommy's Closet had succeeded in drawing customers away from Rent-a-Swag; the episode shows Tom alone in his store, all the customers having fled across the street.  Tom has clearly suffered an economic damage.

While these kinds of malicious actions are rare, they do happen.  Therefore it's important for all artists and small business owners to be aware that there are options available to them should they become victims of tortious interference.  As a rule, the law doesn't look kindly upon those who open a business solely to spite another business.  In the real world, Tom has options - and so do you.  Of course, this is TV and I'm sure that whatever the Parks & Recreation writers come up with, it will be a hell of a lot funnier than watching this play out in a courtroom.

[You can also make a credible argument that Tom has a trade dress claim - a form of trademark infringement that protects a store's interior design - against the competitor since we learn that the interior of Tommy's Closet looks exactly like the interior of Rent-a-Swag.]

Don't Throw Out The Baby With The Bathwater: Changing Laws, The "I Have A Dream" Speech, And Copyright Policy

This Wednesday is the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech. If you're like me, then you've probably seen snippets of that speech a hundred times, but never seen the full unedited version. That's because the speech is protected under copyright law until 2038, and anyone who copies, distributes, shares, or posts a video of the speech online will be violating copyright law and will legally owe restitution to the video's owner... Sony.* [Like when Sony ordered advocacy group Fight For The Future to remove the video from its website.]

Am I the only who thinks this is terrible? What kind of policy allows a major corporation to sue someone who wants to share with others THE ICONIC CIVIL RIGHTS MOMENT OF OUR TIME? Who is this policy protecting?

You may have noticed that I'm pretty vocal when I think changes should be made to U.S. policy, specifically copyright law. As a result, I've been accused several times of pursuing a "throw out the baby with the bathwater" agenda. But that's not really accurate since I've never called for scrapping laws wholesale. I have, on the other hand, advocated for revising laws that don't work as intended. I personally see advocating for better and smarter laws as my duty, not just as a lawyer, but as an American citizen (which, not so ironically, was kind of the point of Dr. King's speech).

And what's wrong with supporting change anyway? Not to be overly dramatic here, but America was founded on this whole idea of "it's not working out, so let's do something better." We went to war with England because we didn't like the way they governed us. We constructed a republican system of government that permits us to remove and replace politicians we don't like. We gave Congress the power to revise, update, and repeal laws because we recognized that people are imperfect and they will pass imperfect laws. When a law doesn't achieve its goal, it should absolutely be amended. The U.S. Copyright Act alone has been amended at least 10 times since 1790.

I keep saying it, but it bears repeating: copyright law wasn't created solely for the purpose of rewarding the artist. It was also designed to foster originality and ingenuity for the betterment of society (the founding fathers didn't measure capitalist success purely through personal wealth. Community prosperity was also a driving factor) and to shield artists from theft. It wasn't intended to be used as a weapon to attack others. Which is why the problem isn't that Sony owns the copyright to Dr. King's speech; the problem is what it can do to harm individuals who wish to share it. Simply put, Sony has the muscle and will to litigate against anyone who posts the video, regardless of the intent of the individual or their ability to fight back. And I don't think that's right.

In that spirit, here are two ideas that I think will be effective in revamping copyright law to better serve the American people.

1. Shorten the term limits on copyrights. Yeah, I've talked about this a lot. That just shows you how much I care about this issue. Copyright law was not designed to allow copyright owners to make money off a work in perpetuity. In fact, under the Copyright Act of 1790, copyright terms were set by the founders for a mere 14 years, specifically to prevent perpetual ownership. By shortening copyright terms, major corporate copyright owners such as Sony won't be able to bully individuals when they share something as innocuous and educational as Dr. King's speech. You can read a more complete take on that here.
2. Create exemptions in our copyright laws for works that hold special historical significance. The "I Have A Dream" speech literally changed lives and shaped events in the 20th Century. Yet under our current copyright law, it's treated like every other work of artistic expression. A work of such historic stature shouldn't be owned by any one entity. It belongs to all Americans in the same way the Declaration of Independence and the Emancipation Proclamation do and it should be available to everyone, free of charge.

Change is in our national DNA. History has borne that out repeatedly, so why fight it? Dr. King believed that. Who are we to assume differently?

*****

* Dr. King himself owned the copyright and even sued to prevent unlawful reproductions of the speech so that he could distribute profits from it to civil rights causes. After his death, the copyright passed to his family, who sold the copyright to EMI in 2009. EMI was purchased by Sony in 2011.

When The Media Talks About Law School, They Only Tell Half The Story

[I'm biased, I admit it.  I loved law school, so if that means you want to call BS on everything I say after this sentence, I'll understand.]

Three weeks ago, The New Republic made a big splash in the legal community with this article examining the death of Big Law (huge multi-national firms with thousands of attorneys making over $150K per year).  The article describes how the old model of legal hiring is no longer applicable in a world of downsizing and economic uncertainty.  In the past decade, at least twelve major law firms have collapsed and the job market for lawyers has all but dried up.  And while the article never says the words "law school is a bad investment", it can't help but point out that

The odds are increasingly long that a recent law-school grad will find a job... In addition to the emotional toll unemployment exacts, it is often financially ruinous. The average law student graduates $100,000 in debt.

Even though the New Republic won't say it, every other mainstream media outlet already has.  Over the past three years, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Gawker Media and countless others have piled onto the "law school is a bad investment" bandwagon.  And whenever those stories get passed around between my friends and colleagues, I get annoyed.  "How can they paint with such a broad brush? Is what's good for the goose good for the gander?"

The premise is always the same: Law school is expensive  → since most people can't afford the tuition, they have to take out loans → the job market has shrunk for legal work, so there are fewer jobs for too many lawyers  → when lawyers can't get work, they drown in loan debt.  The New Republic article even quotes a lawyer who was let go from her Big Law job and believes she's facing bankruptcy as a result.

These arguments are all correct, and it seems like these stories are having the desired effect.  Law school enrollments in 2013 were down 13% from 2012 which were already down 7% from 2011.  I can't argue that law school is for everyone.  Law school is worth it for one group of people only: those who want to practice law.  No one else should consider it.

The media isn't wrong to point out these facts.  The media also isn't wrong to question the current model and to search for better options for long term sustainability.  The media IS wrong, however, to paint the choice to go to law school as a purely societal issue.  Yes, there are too many lawyers.  Yes there aren't enough jobs for them.  Yes it's contributing to the education loan debt crisis.  But you can't look at this issue solely through a macro lens.  These are individual people making a monumentally personal decision.  How will I pay my tuition?  How will I pay my bills for the next three years?  What are my job prospects after law school as opposed to now?  I can say from personal experience that my long-term job prospects in the entertainment industry weren't promising, so incurring all that law school debt seemed like a worthwhile gamble if there was a chance I could get a stable job after school.

By leaving out the human element, the issue turns into a binary Law School Is For Everyone vs. Law School Is For No One battle royal.  Even the articles defending law school education like this one build their case on the fact that lawyers will earn more money over their lifetimes than those without law degrees.  I understand that tactic.  As a lawyer, you want to use credible, citable evidence to prove your case - figures from the American Bar Association on enrollments, or a Seton Hall study on the economic value of a law degree.  Anecdotal evidence is less compelling if you're trying to convince an entire generation of people that something is or isn't for them.  If you want to justify something at the aggregate level, you need hard data.  That's how policy is made.

I lament the absence of the human element because I think we lose a real teaching moment.  People are drawn to law school for a variety of complex reasons (we weren't all wooed by promises of big paydays at firm jobs).  Reducing the entire argument to a numbers game diminishes the legitimacy of an entire profession.

There are certainly a lot of problems with the current law school educational system, but this isn't just a social issue.  It's a deeply personal one.  And the media hasn't done a good enough job telling THAT story.

Robin Thicke Sues Marvin Gaye's Family To Prevent Being Sued By Marvin Gaye's Family

John F. Kennedy once said that "victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan."  This is never more true than in the entertainment world, which is why Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams, and T.I. (aka Clifford Harris Jr.) have decided to sue Marvin Gaye's family and Bridgeport Music in order to deny their parental rights to Blurred Lines.

The Gaye family claims that Blurred Lines ripped off Marvin Gaye's Got To Give It Up, and they're demanding a substantial monetary payout.  If they don't get it, they'll sue for copyright infringement.  In response to the threat of legal action, Thicke preemptively sued them and is seeking a declaration from the court that Blurred Lines doesn't infringe Got To Give It Up.

Before we go any further, listen to both songs and compare for yourself.

Here's the SFW version of Blurred Lines:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyDUC1LUXSU&w=560&h=315]

And here's Got To Give It Up:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp7Q1OAzITM&w=420&h=315]

The lawsuit also contains allegations by Bridgeport Music that Blurred Lines plagiarized Funkadelic's Sexy Ways:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxKOQ3SfGhg&w=560&h=315]

Now I consider myself something of a musical ignoramus, but even I can tell when one thing sounds like another thing.  While there are some similarities between the songs, primarily because of the up-tempo beat, I think it's pretty clear that Blurred Lines is a wholly separate entity.  Which means no infringement took place because copyright law doesn't protect individual elements of a work when those elements are commonly used in an industry or genre (known in the legal biz as "scènes à faire").   So in the hip-hop/R&B world, where uptempo bass-heavy beats are the norm, that similarity by itself would not be enough to constitute copyright infringement.  There would have to be greater similarities between the songs in the lyrics and melody for a court to find some form of plagiarism.

So, if Thicke isn't in danger of losing an infringement case, then why did he sue the Gaye family in such an aggressive fashion, especially after stating in his complaint that he has the "utmost respect for and admiration of Marvin Gaye, Funkadelic and their musical legacies"?  Certainly Thicke and his partners aren't content to share the glory with 997 other fathers.  Blurred Lines is THE most talked about song of the summer.  It's a legitimate phenomenon.  Why should they share the substantial revenues they'll accrue with another artist?  Even if that artist inspired them to begin with?

But I actually think this lawsuit is less about money than about sending a message.  See, Blurred Lines is a real winner, and if Thicke can be bullied into settling out of court for several hundred thousand dollars in order to avoid a long and costly trial... well that's a pretty easy way to make a few bucks.  Sadly, this type of thing isn't uncommon in the entertainment world.  In fact, it's downright mundane.

"Your hit song/TV show/movie has something vaguely in common with my lesser known song/TV show/movie and if you don't pay me, I'll tie you up in litigation for years."

It's a very common tale.  My guess is that Thicke decided to take the fight to the Gaye family to show that he can't be bullied.  Will this type of preemptive lawsuit work or will a judge dismiss it and basically tell Thicke to wait until he gets sued?  I have no reason to believe it won't have the desired effect.  If it does, I think you'll see a lot more of these preemptive lawsuits.  If it doesn't, the moral of the story will remain the same: you can't be a hit without people bleeding you for everything you're worth.

"My God! It's Full of Stars!" - The [Legal] Artist Turns One

Happy Birthday friends!  The [Legal] Artist turns one year old today!

I fully expect to continue providing content that is informative, interesting, and fun.  In fact, I have some really interesting stuff coming up this year that I think you guys will really enjoy.  But today is a day for retrospection, which is why I'd like to take a look back at some of my favorite posts from the past year (Although I generally despise clip shows.  They seem like such a lazy way to generate more content).  Some of these were about having fun and mixing it up, while others were about imparting what I felt to be critical information about how the law can impact artists and their work.  So, without further stalling for time, here are my thirteen favorite posts in no particular order.  Taken together, these articles epitomize my entire philosophy on art, law, and life.  When you get a chance, I hope you'll take some time to re-read these.

1. The Legal Implausibility of Crimson Tide, or How To Find Drama Within The Constraints of Reality.  This was one of my first blog posts and I think it represents the high-water mark of what this blog can be.  It was fun to research, fun to write, and the first time I responded to something newsworthy (the suicide of director Tony Scott).
2. Suing The Avengers.  The idea behind this post is what prompted me to start this blog.  While I don't think it's one of my better written articles, and I get a little too into the weeds with the legal stuff, it still holds a special place in my heart.
3. Why Movie Theaters Suck and How To Fix Them.  This is a topic that's near and dear to my heart, despite very little legal stuff in this piece.
4. You Have The Right To Be Paid: Death of the Unpaid Internship.  I hate unpaid internships.  HATE THEM.  I didn't realize how much I hated them until I wrote this piece, so I will be railing about this topic for a long time.  Hold on to your butts.
5. Filmmaker-2-Filmmaker: Tip 3 – Sweat The Business Stuff.  If you're trying to make your living as an artist, I think this is a must read.  This article represents my entire belief structure for artrepreneurs.
6. “Caveat Emptor” or Why It’s [Kind of] Okay For Facebook and Instagram To Steal From You.  Remember that whole "Facebook is stealing your copyright" debacle?  This was my response to that huge (if brief) intellectual meltdown this country went through when it thought Facebook and Instagram was stealing everyone's stuff.  Incidentally, this is probably the only time I've ever come to the defense of a giant multi-national corporation instead of an individual.
7. When The Movies Get It Right: Probable Cause and David Fincher’s Zodiac.  I started a recurring series called "When The Movies Get It Right" and this is probably my favorite entry from that series.  To me, this is one of my best written articles, and the fact that I got to defend one of my favorite films (which has since been largely forgotten) made it even sweeter.
8. Paper Equals Proof, Why You Should Get Everything In Writing.  I don't think is one of my best pieces, but probably one of my more important ones.
9. Robin Hood And The Much Needed Change In Copyright Policy.  Another article that I'd been wanting to write since the inception of this blog.  It states exactly how I feel about the way our copyright laws sometimes fail authors.
10. Sherlock Holmes and the Case of Copyright Duration.  This is tied with the Crimson Tide post as my favorite.  I think this is one of my best written pieces and it discusses what I think is a big problem with copyright law.
11. The Work For Hire Doctrine – A Primer For Freelancers.  Super important stuff if you're a freelancer.
12. Fairly Useful: Why Fair Use Is A Simple, But Dangerous Legal Doctrine and Fairly Useful, Part Deux: Why It’s Always Better To Ask Permission Than Beg Forgiveness are probably the two most crucial things I've written on this blog.  Fair Use is an extremely misunderstood legal doctrine and I've seen many an artist get bit in the ass for ignoring it.
13. Sony Wins “Midnight in Paris” Lawsuit, Inadvertently Proves My Case About Copyright Duration.  I just had a lot of fun writing this one.

I hope you've enjoyed reading this blog as much as I've enjoyed writing it.  While I endeavor to improve my skills as a writer, I plan to stay the course from a subject matter standpoint.  So if you have ideas for blog topics or you need some legal advice, feel free to write to me in the comments section or by email (if you need legal advice, email is more appropriate forum).  Stay tuned!

Licensing Getty: A Cautionary Tale For Artists Using Stock Photos In Their Portfolios

[Yesterday I got an email from a reader telling me a pretty scary story.  She's permitted me to share it, but for the sake of confidentiality I'll change her name to "Jean".]  

Five years ago, Jean was hired to design an ad for a local business.  As part of the design process, she incorporated a stock photo from Getty Images, an online stock photo library.  Jean's client liked the work and paid Getty a licensing fee to use that photo in the ad.  The terms of the licensing agreement stated that the image could be used in print ads only.  Jean put the ad on her personal portfolio website.

Last July, Getty's netbots discovered the ad w/image on Jean's website.  Because the terms of the licensing did not include website use, Getty sent her a letter accusing her of breaching the license agreement and demanding $8,000 in usage fees.  The netbots also found two images that she had used in mock-ups for other clients, but those mock-ups were never approved by the clients and the images never licensed.

Faced with a pretty scary situation, Jean did what a lot of people would do: she took down the images.  This seems to have placated Getty because no more demand letters were sent.  But did she really have to take them down?

Well, there are two issues determining whether Jean should fear Getty's wrath.  1) Did Jean's use of the image constitute copyright infringement?  2) Did Jean's use of the image constitute a breach of contract?

Regarding Copyright Infringement

Most IP lawyers agree that displaying your work in a portfolio, even when the copyright is owned by someone else, is permitted under fair use.  That's because portfolios are non-commercial in nature, and don't generally compete with the copyright owner's financial interest.  Jean's case is slightly different because the artist and the client aren't the only parties involved.  There's a third-party copyright owner (Getty) who is laying claim to the image.

But even with that wrinkle, Jean is okay leaving the ad featuring the licensed image on her site.  It doesn't conflict with Getty's market and she's not profiting from its display.  She's using it as an example of her prior design work.  No copyright infringement here.

Regarding the unlicensed images, I think removing them was the right decision.  On the face of it, fair use applies to these images just as they would to the licensed image.  But fair use is a squishy doctrine and in the absence of a license agreement, a judge could look at Jean's website and reasonably believe that she's not an innocent infringer (using images without permission from a website whose sole business is to license those images could indicate intent to pirate).

Regarding Breach of Contract

According to Jean, Getty placed very specific conditions on the use of the licensed image - print ads only, no web.  Any violation of those terms constitutes a breach of contract, which is why Getty sent her an $8,000 bill.

Getty is fiercely protective of its copyrights.  Their licensing agreements regulate every possible use of their images: the size of the image, number of times the image can be used, what mediums the image can be used in, and even placement of the image in the final artwork.  When I was a producer, I would license stock photos from Getty all the time and they negotiate like Iranian hardliners.  One time, I was trying to get their permission to use a single stock photo for a fifteen-year term in a documentary.  No matter how hard I pleaded, I couldn't get them to budge from a ten-year commitment.

That said, standard agreements like these don't usually make third-parties liable for breaches of contract.  Meaning that since the agreement was between Getty and the client, the terms of the contract likely didn't apply to Jean.  Therefore, Jean is not liable for breach of contract.

So What Can Jean (And You) Do?

Realistically, Jean had no legal liability for displaying her work on her website.  But to prove this, sadly, Jean would have to risk being sued by Getty.  And as I've discussed before, going to court and winning, especially on a fair use case, is still a loss because of the time, money, and effort she would have to invest in defending herself.  So the trick is to minimize liability before Getty can even send you a letter.

So, for all you designers who use stock photos in your work to stay (legally) safe, here are a few things you should always do:

1. All photos should be properly licensed by you or your client
2. Web use and/or portfolio use should be explicitly permitted in the license agreement
3. Even if the licensing is done by the client, read and understand the terms of the licensing agreement to understand your liability to the other parties (i.e. if the client pays the license fee, are you as the artist liable to Getty as well for a breach of the contract?)

Remember, as an artist, your portfolio is the face of your business.  The less work you can show, the less successful your business is.  But because Getty's first instinct is to throw lawyers at you, each of you has to determine for yourself whether fighting back is a viable option.  Following these three tips will help minimize that possibility.

[Author's Note: I'd be interested to hear from other lawyers out there if you've had different experiences working with Getty.  Ditto for artists.  Hit me back in the comments section below.]

Sony Wins "Midnight in Paris" Lawsuit, Inadvertently Proves My Case About Copyright Duration

"The court has viewed Woody Allen’s movie, 'Midnight in Paris,' read the book, 'Requiem for a Nun,' and is thankful that the parties did not ask the court to compare 'The Sound and The Fury' with 'Sharknado.'" - District Court Judge Michael P. Mills

*****

Last October, William Faulkner's estate sued Sony Pictures Classics, the distributor of the hit Woody Allen film Midnight in Paris, claiming that a line used by Owen Wilson's character in the film was pulled straight from Faulkner's 1950 novel Requiem for a Nun without permission from the estate.  Such a use, the estate argued, constituted both copyright and trademark infringement.

Just for comparison's sake, here's the line from the book: "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

And here's the line from the film, said by Owen Wilson's character Gil Pender: "The past is not dead! Actually, it's not even past.  You know who said that? Faulkner. And he was right. And I met him, too. I ran into him at a dinner party."

When I heard about the lawsuit, I rolled my eyes.  "This is exactly the kind of frivolous lawsuit that makes people hate lawyers," I groused to my wife.  The line was so minimal and seemed like a clear-cut case of fair use.  The suit didn't seem like a credible attempt to protect Faulkner's legacy; it looked like a cynical ploy designed to cash in on a box-office hit.  Judge Mills, as evidenced by the above quote, agreed.  In an opinion issued yesterday, he dismissed the Faulkner case against Sony, finding that film's use of the Faulkner quote fell within the fair use exception to copyright infringement.

But the content of the opinion interests me less than what this case means to copyright policy.  Because whether Judge Mills intended it or not, the dismissal speaks volumes about a problem with the way this country shields copyright holders from piracy.  Namely, that copyrights are allowed to live for too long and that results in too many lawsuits.

Back in April, I wrote this Sherlock Holmes piece discussing why the current scheme of copyright duration should be changed to better serve the current copyright landscape. Right now, any work of art fixed in a tangible medium is protected by U.S. Copyright Law for the life of the author plus 70 years.  I argued that allowing copyrights to last for so long actually stifles creativity and innovation in the following ways:

1. Artists are less incentivized to create new works because of the looming spectre of legal action
2. Owners of profitable copyrights like Sherlock are less incentivized to create new works of art as long as they can continue to profit from those copyrights
3. Copyright owners like the Faulkner estate are incentivized to pursue legal action against even the most minimal use of their copyright because the length of the copyright's life acts as a mandate to keep the work protected at all costs

And that's exactly what happened here.  Under our current copyright law, Requiem for a Nun is still protected 62 years after publishing and 50 years after the death of the novel's author.  It will continue to be protected until 2032.  This permits the descendants of the author to pursue all uses of that work anytime they see green and to concoct unreasonable arguments in defense of that green (the Faulkner estate, as part of its now dismissed trademark claim, argued that the use of William Faulkner's name in the film is likely to deceive the audience into believing that an affiliation exists between Faulkner and Sony).  And while the verdict in this case was proper, it won't be the last time this happens.

A shorter copyright duration is better because it allows the author and his immediate family to profit from his creation, but it also devalues the property after the author's death by coming into the public domain sooner.  And that's a good thing.  If Faulkner is no longer profitable, then that frees up people to use his characters in new and interesting ways, while also incentivizing the estate to create something new.  Someone argued with me once, claiming that letting the work into the public domain would open it to bastardization, copying, and retread.   But I fail to see how that's a bad thing.  If a filmmaker wants to stage a remake of Sherlock Holmes starring Justin Bieber as Sherlock and Chester Cheetah as Watson, well sure that will probably suck big time, but that doesn't diminish Conan Doyle's original writings.  Those remain untouched and intact.  And anyway, the integrity and profitability of a work are not often related.  If they were, the Broccolis would never have greenlit a James Bond movie where Denise Richards played a nuclear scientist.

The purpose of copyright protection isn't to provide a golden parachute for the author and his beneficiaries until the end of time.  It's mean to foster originality and ingenuity for the betterment of society.  Hell, even the head of the Copyright Office, Maria Pallante, suggests shortening the duration of copyright to life of the author plus 50 years.

The point is, until we revamp our copyright law to stop favoring the corporate copyright holders, we're going to continue seeing lawsuits like Faulkner v. Sony any time a large copyright owner sees a potential conflict with its interest.  When I look at Judge Mills' decision, I don't see a single judge smacking a plaintiff for filing a frivolous lawsuit.  I see an indictment of a system that allows the suit to be brought in the first place.

Fairly Useful, Part Deux: Why It's Always Better To Ask Permission Than Beg Forgiveness

[It's the summer!  Which means all the movies in theaters are sequels, so why should this blog be any different?  Last week I wrote a follow-up to my Death of the Unpaid Internship article and it was a colossal hit.  Can lightning strike twice?  I shall endeavor to find out.]

Several months ago I wrote a post called Fairly Useful: Why Fair Use Is A Simple, But Dangerous Legal Doctrine.  The purpose of that post was to provide a bird's eye view of Fair Use, a concept that many artists know about but don't generally understand.  In that article, I said that Fair Use is "extraordinarily dangerous" when misunderstood and that if you're going to use someone else's copyrighted work, you're better off asking for permission.  Whereas that article was all about discussing the elements that make up a fair use claim, this article will elaborate on why asking permission is better than begging forgiveness.  And, as I often do, I will illustrate why with a story from my early producing career.

*****

I was on the second week of a location shoot somewhere near Bowdoin, Maine and I was looking for an eye-catching outdoor backdrop in front of which to film a conversation between our on-air personalities.  We drove around for what felt like hours looking for a suitable location and discovered that if there's anything  Maine lacks in multitudes, it's eye-popping outdoor backdrops.  Fortunately, we found our way to a quasi-civilized area and parked in front of a deli with a colorful and swirly logo.  Since we weren't going to film inside the deli, I decided not to ask for permission to film the logo.  Here's why:

1. We weren't bothering the deli owner or his customers.
2. We weren't on the deli owner's property.
3. The logo, while conspicuous, was in the background.
4. We would be there for a total of five minutes and the scene, when edited, would last ten seconds.
5. The show's format required a lot of driving, which meant that much of the filming took place inside a car... I was desperate to break up that monotony.

These were all bad reasons.  It didn't matter that we weren't in anyone's way, that we weren't on private property, or even that we'd be gone before the traffic light changed from yellow to red.  On the off-chance the owner saw his logo on TV, we would be, in the words of our in-house counsel, "royally buttf***ed."  He could sue us for copyright infringement, and while the issue was in dispute, we wouldn't be able to use the scene.  Either the show would be pulled from all future time slots - causing a significant problem for the network since ads are sold weeks and months in advance - or we would have to reshoot the scene and cut it into the show, which is the kind of expense that can only be made after firing an unwitting associate producer and using his salary to cover the cost of the reshoot.

Which isn't to say we would lose a lawsuit if the owner decided to sue.  This was a straightforward a case of fair use because it met all the requirements under the law.

1. The use was transformative because it didn't comment on the logo or the deli.  It was simply a tacit acknowledgment that the deli existed.
2. The use was non-commercial (even though the show was made for commercial reasons, that profit didn't arise due to use of the logo).
3. The use was minimal since it was in the background of a scene lasting no more than ten seconds.
4. The use did not negatively affect the market for the deli - if anything, I figured it was a bit of free advertising.

But that didn't matter.  As our lawyer explained to me when I returned from the shoot, getting sued and then winning (by successfully defending on a fair use defense) was still a loss because the amount of time and money required to defend ourselves would never be recouped.  If I had asked for permission, the best case scenario was that we would be allowed to film the logo.  The worst case scenario: the owner would either charge us a licensing fee, or say no outright and we would have to film somewhere else.  Either way would have been easier and cheaper than plodding through arbitration hearings or waiting to see if a judge would buy our fair use argument.

Lucky for me, history didn't pan out that way.  The owner was alerted to the sight of several video cameras milling around near his property and came to investigate the hubbub.  Even though I was a lowly associate producer, I was the only one in charge at that moment, so I took full responsibility (which mostly looked like groveling and blaming the cameraman).  Ultimately, the owner approved of what we were doing and signed a release for the logo.

*****

For artists, it's tempting to throw the dice and assume that you won't be sued.  Suing for copyright infringement is damn hard, and requires registration with the Copyright Office.  And many of those that threaten to sue are either bluffing or have dramatically underestimated the cost of following that threat all the way through.  But as a lawyer, I can tell you that despite all that stuff being true, taking the risk is still not worth it.  For every empty threat that gets made, I can point you towards a legitimate copyright lawsuit.   And when the time comes for you to actually beg forgiveness, it never works - especially with corporations.

You should always always always ask for permission because even if the copyright owner says no, that loss is nothing compared to what you'll lose if you wind up defending yourself in court.  Because even if you successfully make a fair use argument, it's still a loss.  As an artrepreneur, your money is time - and that should be spent making and selling your work, not defending yourself in federal court.

So the next time you find yourself wanting to use someone else's copyright work in your own art, ask them for permission.  The worst thing they will say is "no."  Compared to a years-long legal battle, that's not such a bad thing.