Recently in fair use Category

February 26, 2010

We Can Use Clip Art, Right?

Thumbnail image for Cat.pngDear Rich: Our company offers a website directory service for advertisers. The advertisers can supply a photo but some of them now want to supply artwork. As long as the image came from clip-art, or some other publicly "royalty-free" stock photo site, it can be used without permission, correct? We wish that were true. 
Our own sad story. A few months ago, the Dear Rich Staff modified (perhaps 'transformed' would be a better verb) a clip art image and used it at our blog. A few weeks later, we got a letter from a lawyer representing the clip art owner demanding a bunch of money (at least enough to buy a couple of kayaks) or face a lawsuit. Fortunately, we made enough noise about fair use to keep the lawyers away (although of course, the statute of limitations hasn't run on that one). But the message is clear -- don't assume that clip art is free to use or modify. 
Understanding the Terminology. The terms clip art, public domain art, royalty-free art, and copyright-free art are often used interchangeably (and confusingly). So here's a primer:
Clip art is a general term used to refer to any artwork that is available in a collection, either in a book or on a computer disk. Clip art may be in the public domain or royalty-free. 
Public domain art is not protected by copyright. Many publishers, such as Dover Books, specialize in offering collections of public domain art. You are free to copy and use the individual artwork in a public domain collection without permission. However, you are not free to copy and sell the collection. 
Royalty-free art is protected under copyright law and cannot be used for free. However, once you buy the CD-ROM or pay for access to a website that contains royalty-free artwork, your license to use the images is largely unlimited, so you can usually use the works numerous times for a broad range of uses. Use for merchandising -- putting the image on a t-shirt -- or some commercial endorsements -- using the image in a magazine ad -- may not be allowed -- a major exception to the rule that you can use royalty-free images any way you like. 
Copyright-free art is the most confusing terminology. Some people use it to refer to public domain artwork; others use it to refer to royalty-free artwork. Often, it's used to describe artwork that websites offer for free to the public -- whether the works are public domain works or royalty-free works. We think it's a meaningless term.
Creative Commons artwork.To be on the safe side, clip art users might want to consider filtering their image search by using the Creative Commons image search filter (that's how we found "Sad Cat" by Peter M., above). And check the license to see if it fits your purposes.
Long story short. The other day we were at Cafe Trieste on their very long line and the guy in front of us was telling an acquaintance a very long story and at least three times, he said, 'Long story short,' and had we had less frontal lobe control, we might have said, "Dude, how can it be 'long story short,' you've already gone on for, like, ten minutes?" Ennyway, if an advertiser is providing you with artwork, you might want to get a warranty or indemnity in your agreement and if necessary, have them furnish you with evidence (terms of use, license, etc.) that they have permission to use the art. 

January 7, 2010

Using One Liners from Email List

iStock_000004357115XSmall.jpgDear Rich: I edit an annual photography book, sold to raise money for charity, which accepts photos from members of an email list. We have a "click-wrap" agreement for the photo upload system. But the book also includes a few pages featuring a compilation of the wittiest quips that have appeared on the mailing list over the past year. I get the quotations either directly from the emails that go out on the list server or through third-party web sites that archive all the content that appears on the mailing list. Are there any copyright issues I should be aware of in taking one-line quotations like this? The short answer is that you're probably fine. Most short statements are hard to protect under copyright for various reasons we've mentioned before in our blog. So you're generally good to go when you take a one-liner from an online source. Issues are more likely to arise if you take several one-liners from a single source, or if your one-liners are actually three or four-liners. 
What about attribution? The Dear Rich Staff could go either way on this one so you can make the call. For many people attribution is a validating experience; others may prefer anonymity. Also, we probably don't need to say it -- but we can't help ourselves since we're in the legal business -- you probably want to avoid defamatory or privacy-invading one-liners. In the future, you can consider adding a "permission statement" to your mailing list terms and conditions, indicating that some statements may be included in the annual photo book. 

To learn more about the permissions process, check out my book Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off.
November 20, 2009

Reach Out and Infringe Someone: Using Ad Slogans as Chapter Headings

feature_sausage.jpgDear Rich: I work for a publisher and recently ran across a manuscript for a fiction book that used advertising slogans for chapter headings. For example, the authors used Hebrew National's, "We Answer to a Higher Authority." The authors thought it was fair use but since it's an advertising slogan is that also considered fair use? I told them to check with an attorney but they decided to just remove them.  The Dear Rich Staff gets so sad when someone's creativity is stifled by legal uncertainties. The short answer is that you're okay to use slogans in fiction. However, avoid using the slogans in the book's title or advertising (that is, stay away from commercial uses versus editorial uses). The Supreme Court has defined "commercial speech" as "speech which ... propose[s] a commercial transaction."
Copyright law and fair use.  As for using advertising slogans under copyright law, there isn't a problem. Copyright does not protect short phrases and even if it did, the use you described appears to be a fair use
Trademark law and fair use. You can use a trademark (including slogans) for editorial or informational purposes without permission. That's because readers who stumble on a trademark within the text of a novel aren't likely to be confused into thinking that Hebrew National or Apple are sponsors of the book. There is a concept known as 'trademark fair use' that is distinguishable from the fair use defense applied in copyright law -- it's used as a defense to a claim of trademark infringement. In other words, it's sometimes asserted when a competitor uses another company's trademark to describe the goods (for example, the maker of an electric dishwasher may describe the "joy" of clean dishes without infringing the trademark JOY for dishwashing liquid). Some noncommercial uses of trademarked terms (such as described in your letter) -- though not technically trademark fair use -- are often lumped in the same category.

Want to learn more about fair use? Check out my book Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off.
November 18, 2009

Will Wayne Dyer Love You If You Infringe?

WayneDyer.gifDear Rich: I wrote a study guide for my church for The Power of Intention by Wayne Dyer. It was given to people for free. In the study guide we quoted brief sections from Dyer's book, giving him credit, and then I wrote questions about each chapter. I want to start a little business developing study guides of existing books for churches to use. Is it fair use? The short answer is that we don't know. Issues of fair use can only really be decided by a judge who weighs several factors and does some hocus-pocus. Many literary guides survive without any hassle but there are also a few copyright cases in which copyright owners have halted "guide" books (Take a look at the Seinfeld and Twin Peaks cases here.) 
What would Wayne do? Even if you infringe, we'd like to believe that Wayne Dyer has enough love in his heart to forgive you for any copyright transgressions. Like Wayne says, "Anything you really want, you can attain, if you really go after it." So if you really want to borrow from his books and sell study guides, you should really go after it. Actually, we're not sure about that last part, we just got caught up reading lots of Wayne Dyer quotes.
Why you can probably get away with it ... The Dear Rich Staff, victims of lifelong self-defeating thinking, think that you can probably get away with selling your guides without any problem. To keep things on the safe side, don't sign a publishing deal, avoid extensive use of quotes, avoid any indicators that might imply that Wayne endorses your book -- don't put his picture on the cover (or pictures of his book covers), and it wouldn't hurt to include a prominent disclaimer on the cover to the effect that "Wayne Dyer does not endorse and is not associated with this publication." Don't let copyright get in the way of sharing your ideas -- Go for it now, because like Wayne says, the future is promised to no one.

Curious about copyright law? Check out Stephen Fishman's The Copyright Handbook: What Every Writer Needs to Know.

November 9, 2009

Film Distributors, Indemnity and Struggling Artists

double-indemnity.jpgDear Rich: Struggling Artist makes an anti-establishment film, which is mostly original material. In one segment, with a satirical intent, he deliberately shows McDonalds' "golden arches" and uses a Hannah Montana song on the soundtrack. Struggling Artist knows the material is copyrighted and trademarked, but he believes that he has a fair use defense and that it's OK to use it. Distributor picks up Struggling Artist's film for DVD distribution. In the contract he signs with Distributor, Struggling Artist guarantees that he owns all the copyrights to the material he supplies. Distributor takes the masters Struggling Artist gives him and sends them to a third party to be duplicated onto DVD. A month later, McDonalds and Hannah Montana file lawsuits against Distributor for trademark and copyright infringement (as Struggling Artist has no money). Is Distributor liable for any judgment in favor of the plaintiffs? Does the contract clause where Struggling Artist assures Distributor he owned the rights to the material help him? The short answer is that the distributor will be liable for infringement and the contract clause will only help if the distributor can obtain some payment from the artist. By the way, we're not sure where you fit in - as distributor or artist - so as Joni Mitchell says, we'll look at this from both sides now. 
Indemnity. The Dear Rich Staff  believes that the clause you're referring to is either a warranty - in which the artist promises the film does not infringe -- or an indemnity clause - in which the artist agrees to pay for any damages resulting from any claim of infringement. Either way the distributor can likely go after the artist for reimbursement if someone sues. Some distributors don't just rely on these contractual promises; they ask to see the documentation verifying the licenses and permissions. 
Fair Use and Other Defenses. The concept of "fair use" is primarily for copyrighted works - the Hannah Montana song -- and not for trademarks (the golden arches). Trademark fair use applies to a different type of defense. As noted above, even if the distributor prevailed, the distributor would most likely have to pay its own attorney fees. So being right doesn't mean that the artist and distributor are free of financial liabilities. Also, you didn't mention if the anti-establishment film is a documentary or feature film. A documentary is likely to provide stronger defenses. (BTW, in today's completely co-opted world does the term "anti-establishment" have any meaning anymore?) 
Insurance and Other Odds and Ends. Does the distributor have insurance? If so, you can be sure that the insurer will proceed after the artist and obtain a judgment (and the distributor may do the same on its own). The artist may not have anything of value right now but a judgment will last for many years should the artist earn or inherit anything in the future.
Struggling Artist? We're not sure why the term "struggling artist" bugs us. But really, everyone's struggling to some extent -- even Lindsay Lohan -- and the artist in your question just got a distribution deal which means he or she is way ahead of the game, at least in the struggle-reduction department. Ennyway, just a thought ... and we'll try and get over ourselves.

For more information about copyright and trademark infringement, see my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
October 23, 2009

Animal Mascots, Therapy, and Fair Use

Thumbnail image for TrixMagnets1979-Front.jpg
Dear Rich: I am an artist studying the use of corporate mascots such as the Trix rabbit. One of the main points in my thesis is the lack of freedom in discussing the mascots  used to sell products to children (and the danger that poses). As part of my exploration of the topic I am creating artworks made out of these mascots, cutting up toys and making sculpture from the pieces. I am doing this for my Masters degree and may continue onto a Ph.D. I have some questions. Am I infringing copyright if I: (1) show the work at my degree show? (2) show the work in a commercial gallery? (3) publish images of the work in a commercial book (4) make drawings or paintings of the works and publish these commercially? or (5) were to claim they were produced in art therapy sessions would they count as informational? I understand that I would be allowed to reproduce these animal mascots for informational purposes, for example in a textbook or news article. (6) Does the exception only apply to reproductions of the mascots as they are? I noticed, for example, that someone had been prosecuted for putting Barbie and Ken dolls in lewd positions and photographing them. (7) Is there any way around this problem such as publishing in a country with no laws on copyright or publishing anonymously? I feel very passionately about this topic and would be willing to consider creating the artworks as anonymous graffiti if necessary. 
NIMBY Please. The Dear Rich Staff feels your passion but prefaces this response with one request - if you are going to take the graffiti route, could you please avoid tagging our street. (We live in the outer Richmond District in San Francisco, a few blocks from the Walgreens). We've got this law in the city that requires the residents to remove graffiti within 30 days and frankly we're tired of using toxic cleaning products and paint. 
You Have Quesitons. Your letter included seven questions and to avoid exceeding the short attention span of our loyal readership, we're going to try and keep our answers brief. As for questions 1 and 2, yes you are infringing, but you have a powerful fair use argument and are not likely to be discovered by anyone who might care. Re: question 3 and 4, yes, you are infringing and commercial uses make the fair use arguments a tougher sell. Still, the trend is to permit this type of use and we think you will likely qualify under a fair use defense (which by the way means you may have to defend yourself in court). 
You're in Art Therapy. As for question 5, you got us with this one. We understand art therapy and its implications and we're fascinated by the argument that copying someone's work is a transformative use (as required for a fair use defense). Alas, we believe that while you are being transformed by the therapy, the underlying work is not. On that basis (and with no caselaw to support our position), we don't think the art-therapy-as-fair-use argument will fly. 
Informational Uses and Trademarks. In question 6, you ask about informational uses. Here you're confusing copyrights and trademarks, a common error since mascots function as both. The "informational" issue relates to use as a trademark. All of your potential uses appear to be informational since you are using these images to make editorial statements. As for making Barbi and Ken do lewd things, that's a whole other issue we'll address in another blog. In any case, we understand that everyone can go through an I-hate-my-Barbie phase.  
The Land of No Copyright. As for question 7, we think you're imagining an off-shore world where you can infringe to your heart's content. The reality is that if your work is sold or distributed in the U.S., you can be sued for infringement here, as can any retailer offering your work. If you're a U.S. citizen that makes it even easier to go after you. So unless you're planning to move somewhere where the residents have set up servers with infringing or illegal content (often a country that ends with the suffix, "stan"), then you will be a target for lawsuits. 
Some Random Thoughts. In a surprising cross-species mascot switcheroo, we were surprised to learn that Trix was once promoted by stick figures and Mickey Mouse. 

To learn more about trademark and copyright law, take a look at my book Patent, Copyright & Trademark Law: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference.
October 5, 2009

Brown Bagging Banned Books

catcher.jpgDear Rich: My nonprofit foundation wants to create and sell a calendar of bookmarks with photos of books that have been challenged or banned. The photos show the cover in a scene or "still life" that relates to the title. In all cases, the title can be seen, even when much of the book cover is otherwise obscured (at least 10% is obscured). Some book covers also have artwork by artists who illustrated the book. Only one of the books is in the public domain. The Foundation is planning to sell about 2000 editions of this 16-month calendar bookmark. Do we need permission from each publisher if we use the jacket or cover of the book in a composed "scene" where the jackets are obscured by at least 10%? What if we photographed the books wrapped in brown paper with the title handwritten? Sorry, we wanted to answer your question during "Banned Books Week," but time just got away from us. Hey, we like your brown-bag idea (it works for some) and no permission would be required. 
Still Lifes. As for your "still life" concept, the safest course is to get permission for the book cover art. At the same time, if someone says no, or you can't locate the owner, you can probably get by without permission. You have a strong argument that your work is transformative and constitutes fair use. BTW, the Dear Rich Staff isn't sure what you mean when you write of using "artwork by artists who illustrated the book(s)." If you have their permission for the  additional art, great. Otherwise, you might be pushing the fair use boundaries by reproducing non-cover illustrations.
Trademark and titles. Single book titles are rarely protected -- that's why your brown bag approach is okay. However, Harry Potter, because it's a series, is federally registered and Warner Brothers owns the rights for calendars (Reg. No.3419797). For that reason, you might not want to use Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix on your cover, packaging or advertising. That also puts you in a better position to argue that your internal use of Harry Potter is editorial and non-infringing ... should the issue arise.

To find out more about permissions of all types, check out my book Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off.
September 17, 2009

Punjabi iPhone Dictionary App

Thumbnail image for PJDict.JPGDear Rich: I recently found myself working on a project that involved an iPhone application that would function as a Punjabi language dictionary. I retrieved this dictionary by re-typing it into a database without the permission of the university that holds the copyright. The dictionary is also available online, however the copyright footer only mentions the software company that made the dictionary front-end, not the actual university. What is the law regarding international copyright of dictionaries? Can you really copyright a list of facts? Can I submit my iPhone Application to the App Store without any troubles? Would it make a difference if my app went out to the Dictionary's website and searched for a word rather than keeping a local database in my app? Will I have to retrieve a license from the university and pay them a certain share? Wow, that's a lot of questions. Let's just summarize by saying that if the university has a copyright in the content of the  Punjabi dictionary, your work is infringing. With the exception of GNU licensable dictionaries such as Wiktionary, dictionaries are typically protected by two types of copyright: a copyright for the original text expression in the definitions, and a compilation copyright for the collection of definitions. 
Facts. Facts. It's true that copyright doesn't protect facts but dictionary publishers would argue that writing dictionary definitions requires skill and unique phrasing. Even in those cases, when a definition is too short, or doesn't involve sufficient creativity, or is in the public domain, such definitions can still be protected as a group under the compilation copyright (and we assume that "compiling" a dictionary is different than having it "complied" -- see our cover above). As for linking to the online dictionary, that's a tough call. Like inlining or framing, it may be considered a copyright infringement. The university may also have a claim against you for unfair competition or similar statutes which make it illegal to pass off your work as that of someone else's. The real problem is more of a practical one -- whether you want a self contained app (that can also run on an iPod Touch without wifi) or one that is link-dependent.  As for international copyright rules, if the copyright is valid in a country that is a party to an international treaty, it can be enforced against you in the U.S. 
iPhones and Database Retrieval. According to the Dear Rich Staff If you don't have the rights to your content and you post it as an iPhone app, then Apple -- assuming it learns of the infringement --  would likely remove it and it would be buried in the iPhone App Graveyard.

To find out more about licensing, check out my book Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off.
September 8, 2009

Singing Along to Audiobooks

laborday.jpgDear Rich: I am an audiobook producer and I've had several instances lately (and it's a longstanding tradition with audiobooks) where a brief excerpt of song lyrics is quoted in a book, and the reader is asked to scrupulously avoid singing the lyrics, or at least to ad-lib some unreal melody. Usually the ad-lib melody is hideous, especially since the song is so familiar to everybody who hears the book. In one case, a mega-famous writer had to remove lyric snippets he quoted from some old blues songs because he couldn't get explicit written permission to use them. Now, as I understand it, that's a much higher standard than the actual law. According to other producers I've worked with whose audiobooks do use the original melody breifly, fair use makes it okay. One producer told me that there was no justification for avoiding using the melody. So, I'd like to know - who's right? Claiming fair use may succeed, but as you probably know, audiobook publishers need an assurance that they will stay out of court, not simply an assurance that they will succeed if sued. That's a tricky proposition when it comes to music publishers (not known for being litigation-shy). What's needed is a legal precedent that specifically deals with this issue. For example, it would have been great if that mega-famous writer went ahead with the use regardless of the permission requirements. 
Why Fair Use May Work
This recent case demonstrates why fair use claims may succeed ... and goes further than the activities in your question. In this case, an actual snippet of the song (an alleged infringement of the song copyright and the sound recording copyright) was used without permission of the Lennon estate. Of course, past performance is no indication of future results and the fair use argument will be weaker, the more of the song that is used. One or two lines is probably okay but use of a complete verse and chorus, or repetitious use of a song's lyrical hook, or a narrative built around the song lyrics (for example, a mystery based on Yellow Submarine) are less likely to succeed. The outcome will also be affected by the context in which the lyric is placed and most importantly, the transformative nature of the use. 
Singing a Different Tune
As for singing a different melody, it's not clear how that limits the producer's liability. It might even make matters worse and tick off the copyright owner, unhappy to see the work mangled and unwilling to permit creation of a derivative work. Also, we have not addressed issues that might arise when there's a written agreement permitting the lyrics in the print book but not addressing the use on audio.
Hey ... We've Produced a Few Audiobooks, too
The Dear Rich staff takes special interest in audiobooks. (Warning! Tireless self-promotion coming up!) Besides Nolo's podcast series we've produced some exciting audiobooks on legal and non-legal subjects, and we host an informative Elmore Leonard audiobook podcast series. BTW, is anybody interested in acquiring the world's most extensive Elmore Leonard audiobook collection (described in this article)? We love talking about audiobooks. Hey why don't we make this Audiobook Week at the Dear Rich Blog? DONE! 
September 1, 2009

Deja Vu All Over Again: Using Movie Stills in Thesis

dejavuposter.jpgDear Rich: I am a graduate student working in computer vision research. As part of my thesis I would like to explain certain points by making reference to a few movies including: Deja Vu, Batman, Wall-E, and The Italian Job. I'd like to use one or two stills from each movie. My thesis will be published and stored only at the university graduate students library and only one copy will be produced. Do I need permission to publish these movie stills? It sounds like a classic example of fair use -- you're making limited use for purposes of academic commentary. Nobody can guarantee you will win on a fair use defense, but if you look at the four factors, you'll see that they weigh heavily in your favor, especially since there's only one copy of your work. (If you seek to republish on a bigger scale, your publisher will likely require  permission.) PS. The Dear Rich staff supports your work on computer vision research.

Want to find out more about licensing? Check out my book Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off.
August 26, 2009

Publish or Perishable: When is a commercial product published?

CandyPackage.jpgDear Rich: I work in a museum and have a question regarding the definition of "publication." Would the date of production for commercially-available products, such as a candy tin, jewelry, or silverware, constitute a publication date as it would for printed materials, such as greeting cards? For example, the item was created in 1955 for mass-distribution and does not have a copyright symbol. I would like to use an image of the work on our non-commercial website as a part of our online collection. PS. The product does not have any visible trademarks. The short answer is that (1) distribution of packaging materials does constitute publication, and (2) you are not likely to run into problems posting 1955 packaging at your museum website. 
Publication of Packaging
Product packaging, like any other copyrighted material, is considered to be published when copies are distributed to the public or offered for sale. You are correct that material published before March 1, 1989 must contain a notice and the failure to do so places the material in the public domain. (The so-called "savings clause" of the 1909 Copyright Act -- which would apply for works without notice published in 1955 -- would not save the packaging from falling into the public domain.) Even if notice were included, it's unlikely the copyright in this work was renewed and even if it was, you have a strong fair use argument. 
Lack of Visible Trademarks
We are confused about your statement that the products contain no visible trademarks. Except for the spate of "generic" products in the late 1970s, all products contain trademarks in some form -- that's what distinguishes them. In some cases, the product's appearance, itself (referred to as trade dress) may be its trademark. Nevertheless, informational (non-competing uses) such as your museum website would not infringe.
Are We Going to Get in Trouble for Publishing Your Question? 
Speaking of 'publication,' are you aware that your email contained a notice at the bottom, that says:
This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or legally protected.
Just so you know, the Dear Rich staff has disregarded this warning and ignored the tautological errors contained therein. (We already have plenty to worry about here at Dear Rich headquarters.)

August 17, 2009

AP to Public: Don't rewrite!

ap.jpgDear Rich: I am working on a book presentation and was researching an article on MSNBC. At the bottom of the article, it read: "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed." What do they mean when they say it can't be rewritten? Actually, that's not the position of MSNBC that you're quoting, the tagline is specifically for Associated Press articles posted at MSNBC (MSNBC's policy is here.) 
What's the AP's POV?
The AP's claim is based on: (1) copyright law -- you cannot rewrite the article in a manner that creates an infringing derivative work, (2) state misappropriation law -- there's 90-year old case involving the AP that says you can't compete unfairly by stealing "hot news," and (3) wishful thinking -- copyright permits free use of facts
Beyond Copyright
There is a legal theory that goes beyond copyright which prohibits the theft of "hot news." It's based on the 1918 case of International News Service v. Associated Press in which a rival news agency 'stole' and 'rewrote' AP news articles. Some states still uphold this approach; others consider it invalid. (The AP settled its most recent hot news case) It's unlikely that the "hot news" principle will apply in your case because the publication of your book would not trigger the "time-sensitive" aspect of the hot news doctrine.
Just the Facts
Aside from the "hot news" doctrine, the AP cannot stop you from taking the facts of an article and writing a new article using those facts. Consider this recent AP article about the death of Les Paul. You can certainly "rewrite" the first few paragraphs in your book as follows without infringing."Les Paul, 94, credited by many as the inventor of the solid-body electric guitar, died Thursday at White Plains Hospital from complications from pneumonia. Paul is also credited as one of the pioneers of multitrack recording, a process that permits musicians to record different parts at different times and then mix the tracks together." (Copyright aside, we urge every musician with a home studio to observe a few a moments of silence for the man who created modern recording!) Finally, the Dear Rich Staff wants to report that if there are a limited number of ways to say something, you are permitted to express yourself in the same way as others without infringing (known as the "merger doctrine").
The Trouble With Freedom
The trouble with all these "freedoms" --  the merger doctrine, the right to use facts, and even fair use -- is that there are no clear lines. Since the AP is not afraid to file lawsuits you may want to proceed with caution especially if your work may be perceived as competing. If you're particularly paranoid about lawsuits, just take the facts. By the way, speaking of copyright justice, William Patry (the hardest working man in copyright) has a new book and new blog

August 14, 2009

Video Fair Use: Two year rule?

Thumbnail image for iStock_000000113356XSmall.jpgDear Rich. Would it generally be considered "fair use" to make videos using short (less than 30 seconds) clips of different movies along with original audio to talk about historical times, places or themes? These videos would be put online for people to watch (not download). Also, I read somewhere that educational "fair use" of multimedia projects only allows them a life of two years. Does that mean if I create an educational video  --  say, about WWII history) using my own historical "reporting" audio over a few images and 30 second clips from different movies about WWII -- and put it online for people to watch (not download) and learn from, that after two years it has to be retired? According to the Dear Rich staff, the rule to which you refer is part of the Conference on Fair Use (CONFU) Guidelines (Sec. 4.1, Time Limitations). These guidelines for multimedia use -- and we emphasize they are only guidelines, not law -- apply if you are an "educator" and your multimedia use is "for curriculum-based multimedia projects and used as a teaching tool in support of curriculum-based instructional activities." In other words, your use should be part of a course that is taught -- usually in a series of episodes or classes. It is not enough to claim your work is "educational" to seek protection under the guidelines. 
Streaming ... But No Download
In addition, you are infringing by copying and displaying the clips, regardless of whether people can download the material. (By the way, modern software products make it possible to capture any streaming video.) You may be able to successfully claim fair use -- courts have considered clips of  15 seconds and 41 seconds to be fair use (scroll down this page to the audiovisual cases) and in addition, your use seems transformative. By the way, there is also a code of "best practices" for creating online videos and you may want to take a look at that, as well as the Yes, You Can! manifesto.
August 13, 2009

Exploding Head Coloring Book Lawsuit?


Thumbnail image for Exploding head.jpgDear Rich: I am planning to release an album on iTunes. For the cover I was planning on using a drawing that I traced from a coloring book, I'm assuming its copyrighted but have no clue where it is from. I traced the face but I altered it by having the head explode with rainbow colored popcorn and blood. I also colored the original black and white image. I was wondering if this will become a potential lawsuit or if it will be ok. First, of all, thanks for the warning. Second, you probably don't need to worry about being chased for your exploding coloring-book popcorn head (wow, what a great name for a band). Yes, it's true that the coloring book company owns the copyright for the images, and yes they could sue you for infringement. But it's unlikely that they would litigate against someone for reproducing a single colored-in image. (From a public relations point of view, that seems like a major sales turn off.) You may get some guidance if there are any restrictions listed in the coloring book. And you may be able to determine who owns the image by using this search engine. In addition, you may have a solid fair use claim -- your modification sounds sufficiently transformative. Okay, well it's time for the Dear Rich staff to get back to our coloring book.
August 10, 2009

Using Disney Photos in Travel Book

iStock_000000390892XSmall.jpgDear Rich: I am writing a travel book. I would like to include photographs of items that are subject to a Disney trademark, such as the Disneyland castle.  If I own the copyright to the photograph, would I need to get a license to include it in my book?  Are there any issues with discussing these items, but without including photographs? What about other places in the Disney parks that are on Disney property, but probably not subject to any trademarks, such as a building on Main Street or a trash can? First, we're not sure that the Disney World trash cans lack trademarks. (And in any case, even if they don't contain trademarks, trash cans can be arranged to create famous Disney marks -- as our blog photo demonstrates). As for the remainder of your questions, Disney creates some hurdles for travel publishers. 
We Appreciate Your Understanding  
A member of the Walt Disney staff wrote to the Dear Rich staff (if only our staffs could meet!) and explained that 
"All requests to use materials which are copyrighted by The Walt Disney Company (e.g. photos, logos, characters, etc.) must be directed, in writing, to the following address: Walt Disney World Legal Department Attn: Requests Post Office Box 10000 Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830-1000 Due to the volume of third-party requests that we receive and in view of the consideration process that these requests are subject to, please know that it may take up to eight weeks for a response to be provided. As such, any requests that are received indicating the need for an immediate response are automatically declined and returned to the sender. We appreciate your understanding." 
In short, if you are asking for assistance, whatever you do, don't tick off the WDW staff by asking that they expedite your request. (That only works here at Dear Rich headquarters) You can learn more about Disney photo rules at the Disney photography site and its forum, the Disney photo forum (and maybe at the DIS site, too). We've never been to WDW or Disneyland so we're not sure if the purchase of a ticket incorporates photo rules as well, but a visit to Disney property is a visit to private property so you may have signed away your rights on this one, just by purchasing a ticket. You can discuss the parks (in textual form) without worrying about trademark issues. And arguably, under first amendment principles (and possibly trademark fair use principles), you can reproduce those trademarks for editorial purposes. (We recommend you consult other travel books and see how they've handled it since Disney is not considered the friendliest IP owner.  (PS Here's an interesting new fair use case to throw into the mix.)