Court: It's Fair Use To Use Exec Photos In A Griper's Wanted Poster
from the fair-use-it-is dept
We've had some interesting discussions around here concerning "fair use" lately -- especially in talking about the Shepard Fairey case. Some have suggested that because Fairey didn't do "enough" to change the look of the photo, it's not fair use. But, of course, that's now how fair use works. As an example of this, here's a recent lawsuit involving an angry blogger who set up some "gripes" sites against a certain company. He also created "WANTED" posters/postcards, using photos of execs that he pulled off the corporate internet page. Among other things, the company sued the griper, claiming copyright infringement for the use of the photos, but the court ruled in favor of fair use, even though the guy used the photos as they were. The company had tried to argue that since the guy didn't really change the images, there was no fair use, but the court dismissed that:Sedgwick argues that there can be no fair use [as to the unaltered photos on the postcards] where, as here, Defendant did not alter the photographs of North and Posey.... [But] the salient inquiry is whether the use of the photos, in the specific context used, was transformative.... "[M]aking an exact copy of a work may be transformative so long as the copy serves a different function than the original work[.]"Apply that same reasoning to the Shepard Fairey case, and you've got a clear transformation as well. The use was quite different than the original (news vs. political campaigning). Once again, a good reminder that "fair use" goes a bit further than what some people think. Separately, in the original link above, Eric Goldman points out that the other parts of the lawsuit against this guy were smartly tossed out as an anti-SLAPP violation.
Here, there can be no legitimate dispute that Defendant's use of North and Posey's photographs was transformative. Both images originally were used by Defendant for promotional reasons. Defendant, however, used the photographs as a vehicle for criticizing the Company. Specifically, both photographs are superimposed on postcards that mimic "WANTED" posters. Above each picture is the heading, in a large font, which states: "WANTED FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS." The copy accompanying the photographs criticizes Sedgwick and its management's alleged mistreatment of claimants and questionable practices, and urges the public to report any misdeeds to the U.S. Department of Justice and state Attorney Generals. When viewed in context, it is clear that Defendant used North and Posey's photographs for a fundamentally different purpose than they were originally intended by transforming them into a vehicle for publicizing and criticizing Sedgwick's alleged business practices. In view of the above, the Court finds that the first fair use factor weighs strongly in favor of fair use.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, fair use, gripes site, shepard fairey
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
name-use schemes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmmm
Flickr automatically defaults to The Creative Commons License. You seem to not know what that means, you should read it.
Also all rights can be reserved.
So outright use for a commercial endeavor is not allowed without the rights holders acquiescence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anonymous Crowd
At first blush, the court's decision seems to support the notion that Shepard Fairey's poster falls within "fair use."
Unfortunately, due to the publicity and exceptionalism surrounding the Fairey case, I don't foresee the Court disposing of the infringement claims as quickly and easily as the Judge did here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
citation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge
Back to Shepard Fairey, what Mike didn't post was the section fo the ruling that could be, almost word for word, why Shepard Fairey's poster is fair use:
The fourth and final statutory factor is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." ... [Sedgwick] argues that "the fourth factor weighs in [its] favor because Delsman's alteration, public display of altered photographs and public distribution of the same have injured Sedgwick's potential ability to continue to use the photos of its CEO and CFO (sic) for future marketing purposes." However, the relevant question is not whether the work itself has lost value, but rather, whether the secondary use has usurped the commercial demand for the original. Here, there is no such demand, since there is no commercial market for them. And even if there were, Defendant's use of the photographs is sufficiently transformative that it would not be a "substitute" for the original.
Moreover, the possibility that Defendant's use of the photographs has undermined Sedgwick's ability to use them in the future is not remediable under the Copyright Act. As the Supreme Court explained ..., "when a lethal parody, like a scathing theater review, kills demand for the original, it does not produce a harm cognizable under the Copyright Act." The Court finds that the fourth fair use factor favors Defendant.
Sedgwick = Associated Press
Delsman = Shepard Fairy
CEO/CFO photos = Obama photo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge
The above coupled with the photo's transformation is why its fair use. Not just one or the other, but both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge
Since the image was already sold to AP, and potentially AP could sell the image again in the future, it still has commercial value. Obviously, if the "transformed" image has sold for even more, than it is clear this isn't "fair use", but rather a standard commercial use.
God knows what you guys are reading into this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Judge
Love how you stopped just short of the last part of this. I would argue that Fairey's use of the photograph made the original more valuable not less. It can also be said that the original is still the same as before it's use and can be resold by AP as is or even for a profit if they were to market it correctly since Fairey's work has made the original more famous than it was to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Judge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
citation?'
Public reports all seem to indicate as such and I've heard no denial. E.g, http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2008/june/faireys-400k-for-obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your statement implies that it was a personal monitary gain. The link states that the amount was raised in support of the presidential campaign. This is very different.
from the link you provided;
"Not only is Obama now assured of the Democratic nomination but, we can reveal, sales of Fairey's posters (shown above) raised over $400,000 to help him get there..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a difference?
I think that might be a stretch, especially since the news is reporting on the political campaign; and that these news media events are set up specifically for the purpose of their campaign.
And if you want to get really right-wing paranoid, you could also claim that the liberal media was campaigning for Obama as well... ;)
Just another random thought, I wonder how Obama feels about this. He might not give it a second thought, since he's a public figure and has pictures of him taken all the time. I just know I wouldn't be too comfortable with the idea of someone taking my picture and then attempting to claim ownership of my image. :?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"But, of course, that's now how fair use works"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OT Question for Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]