The Prince~Google Fair Use conversation continues….

The Prince decision is a good Fair Use case to deconstruct because it posits Fair Use into a contextual analysis which applies equally to digital uses of works.  The Google Amicus Brief in Prince expands the conversation by pointing out that even large-scale copying of works when used to achieve a socially useful goal can qualify as a transformative use.  And as Google points out, observers must realize that the issue in Prince, whether his work transforms Carious’ photographs and therefore passes the first prong under a Fair Use analysis, is not an issue that must be met in every case where Fair Use is in issue.  One’s use of another’s content does not need to be transformative by transforming the original expression in the original work in order to be fair.  As Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 448-50 (1984) made clear, a different use or purpose can be a fair use even without a transformation of the aesthetic expression.  Looking at the first factor in Section 107 of the US Copyright Act and on the Columbia University Copyright Advisory Checklist, the purpose of the use, the focus in a digital context may arise by seeing how the digital context transforms the original work so that its purpose changes –for example, a work is no longer a piece of fine art displayed on a static wall but rather as it is scanned and digitized, its very nature is changed so that it can be employed, engaged, and used for a purpose other than aesthetic enjoyment or entertainment.  And while the context of the Prince factual circumstances is not about a digital format of the work, it is about using another’s content as “raw material,” as a means to expression of “new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings.”  In this way, Prince and Google are aligned, as demonstrated in the Google Brief, which argues that “productive recontextualization” (with or without commentary on the existing works) is one type of transformative use – the placement of images into a new context which gives them new meaning and a new purpose, which is true even if there is an overlap with the original purpose of the existing content.

The 9th Circuit’s holding in Perfect 10, Inc. v., Inc., 508 F. 3d 1146 (9th Cir.2007) used the term “pointer” to describe how Google, as a search engine which copies content as small thumbnail images stored on Google’s servers, transforms the images “into a pointer directing a user to a source of information.”  “In other words, a search engine puts images in a different context so that they are transformed into a new creation.” Id. at 1165.  Indeed, this is what the contextual approach to finding Fair Use is all about.  If  case law supports the rule that nonexpressive uses of expressive works adds to the body of Fair Use as transformative in the function or purpose even when the altering or adding to the original work does not occur, then clearly recontextualizing an expressive work by using such work as raw material does the same.  Google seems to think so and its Amicus Brief is thoughtful support for a finding that Prince’s use of Carious’ photos as raw material which catapults the Rasta images into a different context is indeed a Fair Use.

I think we can also learn something about Fair Use by visiting the Annenberg  Space for Photography current exhibit Digital Darkroom (through May 28) and its featured video which provides an interesting look at digital photography ala Photoshop, and how artists who engage in digital photo manipulation are artists using their rich and creative imaginations to both create raw material as composition, and then using that composition to create expression in digital images.  Selection and collage is a big piece of their craft – but their ultimate art expands initially and originally in their imagination.  This type of digital creativity is a new addition to the copyrightability of photographs and in some new ways challenges copyright law as related to photographs, a topic I am pondering a lot these days as I also ponder the use of AutoCAD to articulate 3D sculptures and copyrighted works.  So while few of the artists in the Digital Darkroom exhibit use imagery for which the raw material is not entirely one’s own raw material, in all cases the creative talent and artistry is that of the featured artist.  So it is easy to see that Richard Prince’s transformation of the Rasta images may be the natural flow of his imagination turning existing raw data into new expression, for a new purpose.  Even so, this satisfies only the first prong of the Fair Use test – so that the Court may still find the use unfair on balance – if it infringes the existing work without any social benefit and with countervailing detrimental costs to Carious’ limited statutory monopoly.  This should be the overarching test for Fair Use in an evolving world where raw content gets recycled, and its many uses are limited only by one’s imagination.  Because there are three additional factors which must be looked at and balanced in the Fair Use alchemy, as a matter of copyright and social policy, copying of works as raw material into a new context when used to achieve a socially useful purpose (like furthering the progress of the arts) may be a goal we wish to support – particularly when looking at the first prong of Fair Use.

This entry was posted in Fair Use. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Prince~Google Fair Use conversation continues….

  1. Nicole Davidson says:

    I recently visited the Digital Darkroom exhibit — I loved it and think your discussion of how it satisfies the first prong of the Fair Use test is very interesting!

    • Mary says:

      The Annenberg is an amazing venue and so cool that we have it here in LA…. and yes, transformative or productive use of the new work satisfies the first prong – the purpose – and then we still must look at the three other prongs – the nature of the original work, the amount used, and the market effect. The Digital Darkroom exhibit hosts work which covers various styles and techniques. One of the lecturers describes his computer screen as his lens since he captures work from the internet as his raw material. But most of the exhibited work is created from the artist’s own content which means there is no dispute that the artist owns all of the copyrightable content as the author, a situation different from Richard’s Prince use of another’s raw material. The coolest thing I observed through the current exhibit is that most of these digital artists are not simply capturing images, they are composing them – going in front of the camera to create composition they capture, then going behind the camera on their computer to create further composition in working with their own raw material. It is really brilliant work!

  2. Ernest says:

    Very interesting. Another interesting IP case is the recent ruling in Nike v. Reebok, the Tim Tebow jersey case. Check it out.

    • Mary says:

      Thanks Ernest for visiting – yeah, the Nike case is interesting as a licensing infringement. The dates and timing of the alleged violations are important. Interesting that Tebow as a player assigned his Right of Publicity to Nike and that Reebok went ahead and apparently released product when it may have to hand over the proceeds to Nike. There must be more to the facts. Hard to tell when all that we have so far is Nike’s Complaint, here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>