Connecticut Town Takes Down Painting Including Image Of Mother Teresa Over Bogus Copyright Claim
from the paint-me-a-picture dept
At this point, we probably don't need any more evidence that the emergence of publicity rights and its conflation with other forms of intellectual property, such as copyright, is a festering cancer in our culture that we'd do well to excise post-haste. Still, necessity isn't the mother of these stories that keep on a-coming anyway. The most recent example of how stupid this all has become is a small Connecticut town taking down a donated painting that includes an image of Mother Teresa over intellectual property concerns. More frustrating is how neutered the press covering the issue is in competently discussing the validity of the issues being raised.
Trumbull officials have temporarily removed artwork displayed at the public library over concerns that the use of Mother Teresa's image in the painting infringes on copyright. The painting, which Dr. Richard Resnick donated to the library, shows Mother Teresa and other women marching, holding signs that say messages including "Planned Parenthood," "Mission of Charity," "Feed the Poor," "Remember The Ladies," "Hospital Reform" and "Right to Vote," among others.Let's get the easy stuff out of the way. Resnick had ownership of the painting when he donated it. There wouldn't be a valid copyright claim here even if the original artist was among those raising the issue, which doesn't appear to be the case. The library has every right to display the image. There aren't any copyright questions at all. All the reports this author has seen identify only "independent organizations" as claiming there is a copyright issue here at all. Should the actual claims center instead on publicity rights instead of copyright, that claim, too, would fail. First, there is no commercial use here. It is a painting rightfully owned and then donated to a municipality. Mother Teresa is a public and historical figure. And, again, there has been no indication that the estate of Anjeze Bojaxhiu, commonly known as Mother Teresa of Calcutta, is among those raising the issue. There is simply no applicable intellectual property concern here.
However, it seems that everyone involved (perhaps including the reporter) has no clue about any of this:
"Our initial research has shown that there is a doctorate of ‘Fair Use’ which allows a party to depict even someone of a public nature when it’s not designed for any commercial purpose," he explained.It would be nice to be able to get a "doctorate" in "fair use" but it's likely the guy means (or even said) "doctrine." And while "commercial purpose" may have an impact on a fair use analysis it's not the only factor. But, more importantly, fair use isn't even an issue here because there's no copyright issue at all.
Which, of course, hasn't precluded Trumbull from pulling the painting proactively.
The town opted to remove the painting because the library lacks a written agreement with Resnick to protect the town against "any potential liability" from the copyright violation allegation, Herbst said.And, so, until such a time as the town and the donor can formalize a written agreement protecting themselves against all of this stupidity, stupidity prevails. It's hard to fault Trumbull officials too much for getting their protective documentation in place, I suppose. This is America, after all, the land of the lawsuit. Still, it's a tough pill to swallow to see a public entity bow even temporarily to the pressure of outside parties that have no standing, or apparent familiarity with the actual legal statutes they're pushing. Because, while none of the reports are naming the "independent organizations", everyone pretty much knows what's going on here. Resnick's attorney explains it nicely.
“After learning that the Trumbull Library Board did not have the proper written indemnification for the display of privately-owned artwork in the Town’s library, and also being alerted to allegations of copyright infringement and unlawful use of Mother Teresa’s image, upon the advice of legal counsel, I can see no other respectful and responsible alternative than to temporarily suspend the display until the proper agreements and legal assurances are in place,” Herbst said in a written statement.
Elstein speculates that the controversy may have more to do with Catholic leaders' recent objections to Mother Teresa being depicted alongside a woman holding a "Planned Parenthood" sign.Ah, so again intellectual property gets used to silence speech. Anyone still want to pretend that copyright and publicity rights aren't the favored tools of censors everywhere?
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: connecticut, copyright, fair use, library, mother theresa, publicity rights, trumbull
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I blame the Board
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If an author isn't paid every time someone reads their books, then what's the point of writing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The infamous Velvet Elvis painting might serve as an example of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The issue that they seem to be concerned about is more along the lines of publicity rights. I don't know if Connecticut has such a law, but assuming they do then the risk would be about a long, drawn-out lawsuit regarding that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You only had ONE job...
"upon the advice of legal counsel"
What we have here is a lawyer that is giving advice to the city based on not having a clue about the law and apparently not willing to at least look it up first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By all means, do some reading....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: By all means, do some reading....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fr. Brian Gannon, pastor of one of the town's Catholic churches - and the one who started the controversy - was quoted as saying:
"She (Mother Theresa) would have never picked up a banner and walked with these women at all."
Odd his knowing that considering the only person who could confirm that is deceased.
The comes the usual I'm not advocating for censorship...but argument.
Again from Fr. Gannon:
"I really feel very strongly that out of respect for who Mother Theresa is, the painting should not go back up. This has nothing to do with censorship, but with using someone's image in a true depiction of who they are."
Of interest, it was Fr. Gannon who contacted the Order of the Missionaries of Charity regarding the painting - and it was allegedly they who informed the Town of Trumbull that the use of Mother Theresa's image represented a copyright violation. Unfortunately, the local press has been unable to get a confirmation from the Order that such a notice was ever given - by them - to the town.
Sorry. But this is total bullshit. Especially in a state that has been relatively free of this 'religious' nonsense so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Translation, I wish to make sure that people only see the person as I wish the the person to be seen. Which is the primary objective of censorship, control the information that people can see to match a predetermined viewpoint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't imagine someone with faith in what she represents taking that picture down as that would be a blatant hypocrisy.
"oh that picture is promoting helping people and being kind to others, I must order that taken down to preserve helping others and being kind"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Helping people. PPPFFFFFTTTT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright mother theresa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyright mother theresa
Margaret Sanger wasn't about "helping people and being kind to others" as one commenter above put it. She aimed to create a "race of thoroughbreds," b***hed a lot about the money being spent caring for poor and intellectually disabled people, and suggested coercive sterilization. (This is easily found in her writings.) Any protestations aside, her views would have sat comfortably in the Third Reich. It is exactly as offensive to many people as putting Goebbels in one of those "Great Minds" pieces.
I would not have pursued having it taken down like they did, I do not believe that is the solution, but think about that before you mock them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not the library board...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not the library board...
If the painting was removed to protect the town from litigation, why weren't all the paintings in the collection removed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not the library board...
Let's keep the facts straight here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not the library board...
The fact is he has lied throughout this entire episode by saying first it was a copyright issue, then a liability issue and when email come out showing he lied, blames the librarian for the fiasco!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(I tried to find a photo of it, but the Street View photos are a couple years out of date)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pushman v. New York Graphic Society
Pushman gave the painting to Grand Central Art Galleries to arrange a sale of the work, who sold the painting to a University, who sold reproduction rights to the defendant, New York Graphic Society. Pushman sued for an injunction against reproduction of the painting. The court held that Pushman's sale was unconditional because he did not expressly reserve any rights at the time of the transfer.
The holding in Pushman created what was subsequently termed the Pushman presumption, which required an author to expressly reserve rights when transferring the chattel that embodied a work or risk transferring the rights as well.
Pushman was abrogated by § 202 of the Copyright Act of 1976, which establishes that the transfer of a tangible embodiment of a copyrighted work does not of itself transfer the copyright.
17 U.S. Code § 202 - Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object
Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.
Copyright Registration
for Pictorial, Graphic,
and Sculptural Works
Copyright protects original “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,” which include two- and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art.
Copyright Office - Pre-72 Study Reply Comments
April 12, 2011
Pushman doctrine was itself preempted by Section 202 of
the Copyright Act of 1976, although it remains in effect for transfers completed before the provision's effective date of January 1, 1978.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pushman v. New York Graphic Society
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stopp Plannede Parenthood of Southern New England Representative
PPFA is the largest abortion provider in the nation paid for by your taxpayer dollars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stopp Plannede Parenthood of Southern New England Representative
Not only that, but she would have objected to every other sign on the list. On the "Mission of Charity" sign:So Agnes Gonxha was very much against the idea of charity work, preferring to pocket millions with no accountability.
On the "Feed the Poor" and "Hospital Reform" signs:So Agnes Gonxha expected the poor to accept starvation and lack of medical care to accept their station and suffer and be thankful for it.
On the "Remember the Ladies" and "Right to Vote", in her own words:So Agnes Gonxha was clear that women were to be treated differently from men and should not be afforded the same rights, only meant to raise families and serve men.
[Quote sources:
* Press release summarizing University of Montreal study of 502 documents on the life and work of Mother Teresa "Mother Teresa: Anything but a saint..."
** Interview with Mother Teresa conducted by Edward W. Desmond in 1989 for Time magazine]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stopp Plannede Parenthood of Southern New England Representative
"In their article, Serge Larivée and his colleagues also cite a number of problems not take into account by the Vatican in Mother Teresa's beatification process, such as "her rather dubious way of caring for the sick, her questionable political contacts, her suspicious management of the enormous sums of money she received, and her overly dogmatic views regarding, in particular, abortion, contraception, and divorce."
The last line there gives you the clue how credible this 'study' is. The Church declares "every procured abortion" mortally sinful. Likewise artificial contraception. Civil divorce permissible in some circumstances, but a valid sacramental marriage is considered indissoluble. Whether you agree with that or not, the Vatican can hardly be blamed for being consistent with itself. Christopher Hitchens an unbiased source? Pfft. Please.
If you can explain to me how dismembering or poisoning a baby in utero un-rapes a woman, I've got a cool million with your name on it.
As far as "serving," you added the word "men." You don't get to attack people with words they didn't say.
Debunking nonsense about Mother Teresa is not the primary reason I came here, so I won't be revisiting this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless the artist saw Mother Teresa live, he copied her image from some other fixed medium, be it a photograph or video. This is thus akin to the Shepard Fairey "Hope" issue, where Mr. Fairey's work may have infringed on the copyright of an AP photo (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/shephard-fairey-is-fined-and-sentenced-to-probation-in -hope-poster-case/?_r=0) .
Here, the artist's depiction is likely a derivative work; the only questions are whether the original work was protected by copyright (and whether those asserting it are the copyright holders) or whether the derivative work is permissible through fair use or another defense.
People use copyright to restrict undesired content regularly (e.g. DMCA takedown requests for revenge porn posting of nude selfies). This might be an extension of that use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anybody remember when Tom Petty ordered Michele Bachmann to stop using 'American Girl'? I never saw anyone offer proof that her campaign had not gotten the requisite license. The entire substance of the allegation seemed to be that Tom Petty just did not like her. Bachmann haters (I didn't really care about her one way or the other) could not eat that up fast enough.
Copyright is complicated. I know enough to know I don't know everything, and I do not try to pretend otherwise. Non-expert opinions are just that...non-expert opinions, but suddenly everybody and their grandma has one. It's so ridiculous I can't even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright or liability issue?
We all know a lawsuit would fall apart before it got very far, but I'm sure someone figured out that they library would still have to pay a lot of money just to get the case thrown out... and this is money the library probably doesn't have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Painting ©
Displaying a painting is not "making a copy", is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cheap logo design services
[ link to this | view in chronology ]