The Cartoonist Has No Idea How Fair Use Works
from the wanna-try-that-again? dept
On Friday, we had a post about some political comic strips that were posted to the Tumblr blog A Good Cartoon. Whoever is behind that blog (on the blog the name used is "rorus raz," and the post asks people to credit rorus raz, but on Twitter it's "Alan Smithee" which is a popular pseudonym) first posted a bunch of political cartoons by syndicated political cartoonists that demonstrated a near total lack of understanding about net neutrality, and then posted a followup post that took many of those political cartoons and replaced the bubble text with the simple statement "the cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works." Well-known TV, book, podcast and internet personality John Hodgman then reblogged it on his site.I first saw it on Hodgman's site and set it aside to write about it. When I got around to it late on Friday afternoon, I noticed, oddly, that the original on A Good Cartoon was now gone. There was no note or anything. It was just gone. However, Hodgman's version was still up, so I wrote about it and posted some (but not all) of the comics and added some additional commentary.
Over the weekend, however, the version on Hodgman's site also disappeared, and Twitter user Michael at BU alerted me to the news that over at A Good Cartoon a DMCA takedown notice had been posted. It appears that the copyright holder representing the cartoonist Chip Bok sent Tumblr a takedown. What's posted to the blog is what Tumblr sent to A Good Cartoon, and not the original takedown notice -- so it's not clear if it was sent via Bok himself or Creators Syndicate, which syndicates Bok's strips. Bizarrely, the notice that's posted to A Good Cartoon is not text and not a single image, but rather each word is a separate image. I have no idea why, but here's the transcribed note:
Hi,It would appear that the cartoonist has no idea how fair use works (and the same may be true of Tumblr's "Trust & Safety" staff). Yes, fair use is often a judgment call, but it's difficult to see how this is not classic fair use. It was transformed (as the Tumblr letter even admits), and the transformation was done for the purpose of commentary and criticism of the original -- classic parody, which the courts have recognized as quintessential fair use. Finally, it was not done for commercial reasons and the impact on the market for the original is clearly none (other than the fact that it might make Chip Bok look foolish -- but the courts have been clear that it needs to be the copying, not the commentary that harms the market, and that's clearly not the case here -- i.e., the question is whether or not the copied work might substitute for the original in the market). To better understand this, we'll post both versions here (which again is fair use, should Bok or his syndicate suddenly wish to try to play this stupid game on us as well). Here's the original:
We've received a notification of alleged copyright infringement on one of your blogs. Here are the details of the content in question:
Copyright holder: Katie Ransom
Post URL(s): http://agoodcartoon.tumblr.com/post/112519623990/the-cartoonist-has-no-idea-how-net-neutrality
Description: The work is a copyrighted cartoon by artist Chip Bok. The caption of the cartoon was altered, but the copyright and signature remain, making it look like this work is by the artist, when it is not. You can find an original copy of the cartoon here: http://www.creators.com/editorialcartoons/chip-bok/31500.html
The content has since been removed, in accordance with U.S. law and Tumblr's own copyright policies.
It's important for all creators that our users respect copyright, and so we ask that you take greater care when posting other people's creations to your Tumblr blog. You can review Tumblr's Terms of Service (https://www.tumblr.com/policy/terms-of-service) and Community Guidelines (https://www.tumblr.com/policy/community) for more information on our copyright policies.
At Tumblr, we implement a strict three-strike policy against copyright infringers. The notice we received counts as one strike against your account. If you receive three uncontested strikes within 18 months, your account will be terminated. You can contest this notification by following the instructions for a DMCA Counter-Notification found here: https://www.tumblr.com/policy/terms-of-service#dmca. A successful counter-notification will remove the strike against your account.
Please note that if your account is terminated for repeat copyright infringement, any new accounts you create will also be terminated.
This is a good opportunity to learn more about U.S. copyright law (never a bad idea) and to make sure that none of your other posts are infringing on someone's copyright. Here are a few free resources you might want to look over:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/internet-resources/
http://www.teachingcopyright.org/
http://copyright.gov/
Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best,
Tumblr Trust & Safety
Update: Over at his own site Bok is insisting this is not fair use and tossing out all sorts of nonsense about how he's older than everyone and thus understands these things better:
Really, you people should stop hacking my cartoons to make a point. It’s not “fair use”. It’s illegal. Think the FCC will help me out here? You’re destroying my intellectual property and inserting your own stupid message. Are you Chinese? Come up with something on your own.This is especially funny since Bok's own site is called "Bokbluster" a clear play on the name of "Blockbuster." And, of course, that's a perfectly legitimate way to make use of something someone else created. But, Bok is so hypocritical that apparently he thinks that only he is allowed to build on another's work. Even worse, it appears he's racist, calling someone "Chinese" for criticizing him. That's incredible. And, on the copyright question, Bok is wrong. It is absolutely fair use, as described above. And his "intellectual property" is not being "destroyed" just because someone created a parody. That's not how it works. At all. His further comments show a complete lack of understanding about net neutrality as well. He mis-states the law in question, he mis-states what the FCC has done. Someone really ought to take him aside as suggest he just stop digging.
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: a good cartoon, chip bok, commentary, copyright, criticism, dmca, fair use, john hodgman, net neutrality, parody, rorus raz, takedown
Companies: creators syndicate, tumblr
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That being said:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I knew there was a good reason to not be on either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See people? Copyright enforcement WORKS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Updated
The Cartoonist has no idea how many things work, apparently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Updated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Updated
meh dont get htis trash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Updated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Updated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not Fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No incentives to do so
Demanding someone take something down, even if it might be clearly fair use, has no legal negative consequences 99% of the time.
Refusing to take something down, believing that it's fair use, opens you up to a lawsuit, and hefty legal costs, and even if your use is rules to be fair use, it is still incredibly expensive to fight the matter, with no chance of recouping spent costs.
The law is incredibly one-sided, so of course most companies and individuals have no idea what constitutes fair use, or even care to learn, because they have no reason to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No incentives to do so
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No incentives to do so
They consider it to be an unimportant detail that they don't need to be bothered with since there there effectively are no incentives to do so and no real consequences for not doing so - which was his point entirely.
The threat of opening up to 512(f) is milder that the threat of being subjected to a French taunting a second time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No incentives to do so
'Consider' doesn't mean that they have to accept that it exists, all they have to do is say 'Yes we considered it, and decided fair use didn't apply', and they're good, no matter how clearly something would fall under fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No incentives to do so
Just remembered something else about case just before posting, was a patent case, guy pledged $1 million to go to in fighting it, based purely on principle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No incentives to do so
Oh Noes!
The horror!
What a crippling and discriminatory verdict, how dare that court do such a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No incentives to do so
They just have to consider fair use, not make a correct assessment of whether it actually is fair use.
"Is this fair use? Nope! Job done."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Destroying his work...
And this guy who uses a drawing style that is so bland that there is probably 2000 artists on the internet that you wouldn't be able to separate from his, an agenda he seemingly took directly from big broadband and a mood he copied from an angry pitbull with a sore tooth, should not state that people can't come up with anything on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not to defend Chip Bok...
They are copying his cartoons, so they must be Chinese...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not to defend Chip Bok...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not to defend Chip Bok...
Maybe we should make a comic that says "Blogger doesn't understand how racism works"?
Or would the irony take things full circle and cause some sort if internet implosion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not to defend Chip Bok...
The Chinese did (and are still doing) the same thing, but now that it's our IP being taken, we get all upset about it. It's like watching a kid cry about how the toy he stole from his sister was taken by bullies.
Boo hoo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not to defend Chip Bok...
WRT to China, what are largely being ignored are patents issued within China to foreign nationals. The converse is not true within the U.S.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not to defend Chip Bok...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google image Chip Bok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google image Chip Bok
I don't know if I care as much about the targets of Chip Bok's opinions than about how well-informed those opinions are. Ignorant junk is ignorant junk no matter what the subject, and we seem to have plenty of ignorant junk in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google image Chip Bok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google image Chip Bok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The next question...
I've got a strange feeling he doesn't but is about to find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The next question...
Chip Bok has no idea how the Streisand Effect works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chinese
In this context, 'Chinese' means 'having no concept of IP ownership'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chinese
It's still a racist remark.
But, after glancing through your blog, I can see why an bigoted asshole like you would think it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chinese
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chinese
Islam is not a race, it's a religion. Are you saying religion should be free from criticism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chinese
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chinese
Assuming he's not referring to all people of Chinese descent, but instead to people that are citizens of China.
It's not racism when you're directing it at a national stereotype, instead of an ethnic stereotype. By the literal definition of racism, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Chinese
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chinese
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The original edits were posted by user Rorus Raz to the Something Awful Political Cartoons thread:
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3691509&pagenumber=269&perpa ge=40#post442165505
(If you can't view the content without registering at the moment... that's unfortunate, but that too shall pass)
Everything else is a repost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://i.imgur.com/qQ3Eb0y.png
http://i.imgur.com/8LHLe8B.png
http://i.imgur.com/GdESYJP.p ng
http://i.imgur.com/YWoKNRq.png
http://i.imgur.com/v35Gad3.png
http://i.imgur.com/IahDbuT.png
http://i .imgur.com/i6ZHqV3.png
http://i.imgur.com/WXYym3r.png
http://i.imgur.com/vd7P5k9.png
http://i.imgur.com /LU21Mbq.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chip Bok
Chip has the right to have the words he speaks and the images he draws to be presented as he intended them. In fact, he has an internationally recognized legal and moral right to protect the integrity of his work. Replacing his words with someone else's isn't just criticism, it supplants and therefore silences his speech. And because of the way the internet works, it is quite possible that some might mistake the parody of his work, as his work.
If you want to parody his cartoons, then at least take as much time and skill as he did. Cutting and pasting your own words on top of his, is not clever or creative. It used to be done with crayons and lots of exclamation points - every cartoonist I know has stacks of them. One proudly exhibited a photo of a re-captioned cartoon done in excrement, which took at least some original output.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chip Bok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chip Bok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chip Bok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chip Bok
That's your take as a lawyer?! Yikes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chip Bok
this guy is an 'expert' ? ? ?
*AND* he is some kind of adviser to a (whatever else you might think of it, and i generally think of sat night live parodies) mainstream, prominent, major media outlet ? ? ?
we are fucked...
if orgs that have the resources and public profile to have competent legal advice are relying on the likes of this parasite, er, lawyer who espouses both wrongheaded 'legal advice', AND evinces an innate bias towards copy maximalism, what chance does your average joe have against such an onslaught of ignorance and FUD ? ? ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chip Bok
He almost certainly does not have any moral rights in this situation, in the US, and even if he did, such rights would still be subject to fair use.
Replacing his words with someone else's isn't just criticism, it supplants and therefore silences his speech.
Not at all. The original cartoons are unaffected. He is speaking at least as much as he would have had no parodies of his cartoons been made at all.
If you want to parody his cartoons, then at least take as much time and skill as he did. Cutting and pasting your own words on top of his, is not clever or creative.
This is not obligatory of course. And to be honest, I find it to be a rather lame request. Am I unqualified to say that a movie is bad and to support my review with excerpts thanks to fair use, if I am nevertheless not as skilled a filmmaker as the person I'm criticizing? Of course not. Fair use doesn't have to be clever or creative. Parody doesn't have to be particularly funny or well executed. And copyright even protects bad artists. Subjective judgements based on artistic skill or merit have no place in the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chip Bok
In fact, while a lot of parody is intended to be humorous, being funny isn't even part of the definition of parody at all.
Parody is when you are modify a work in order to comment on the work itself. The modified cartoons are clearly and unambiguously parody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chip Bok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chip Bok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chip Bok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chip Bok
besides, the context of this redirection of his work is in the larger scope of the whole debate. the work done is not the graphical/textual overdub but is the background research (something Mr Bok quite clearly failed in) and the expression of intelligence behind the clean and simple subversion of the original meaning.
not using the original image would defeat the point. the source of the parody was perhaps not a cartoonist. should that have stopped them from being able to skewer the aggressive misunderstanding of the original in an intelligent, topical and biting fashion?
there is no denying Mr Bk's profile has no doubt been raised by all this. he's now a more famous twit than he was before. he should be happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chip Bok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chip Bok
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that he does indeed get his words and pictures presented as he intended them, so this right is not being infringed.
"Replacing his words with someone else's isn't just criticism, it supplants and therefore silences his speech."
Really? So the creation of a parody work somehow causes the work that he originally produced and published to cease to exist? I had no idea that parody was quite that powerful.
"Cutting and pasting your own words on top of his, is not clever or creative."
You're stating a personal preference, and I'm not going to say that anyone's personal preference is incorrect. However, from a legal standpoint, neither cleverness nor creativity are required in order for a work to be parody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chip Bok
You must be a terrible lawyer.
Chip has the right to have the words he speaks and the images he draws to be presented as he intended them.
Nope. If I buy a painting, and then draw beards on all the women and put it upside down on my wall, I am not using or presenting it as the artist intended...and there isn't a shred of legal protection that prevents me from doing so.
In fact, he has an internationally recognized legal and moral right to protect the integrity of his work.
Nope. Copyright is not a moral right, and there is no right protecting the integrity of a work. He only has the right to be the sole distributor of his original work and derivatives thereof, if the derivatives are not covered under fair use. He has zero rights to this clear parody.
Replacing his words with someone else's isn't just criticism, it supplants and therefore silences his speech.
Not even close. His original work is still available and we can all laugh at his ignorance together. Honestly, if it did somehow silence his speech, it would probably be better...at least he wouldn't have his idiocy broadcasted for the world to see. Alas, his speech is still available, and we can all ridicule it to our heart's content.
And because of the way the internet works, it is quite possible that some might mistake the parody of his work, as his work.
Someone would mistake "The cartoonist has no idea how net neutrality works" as his own work? I'm sure people make cartoons that refer to themselves in third person and insult themselves, while not commenting on the actual image shown, all the time.
Nothing you mentioned is covered by law, and would not even be entertained by a court, let alone successfully prosecuted. If you're his lawyer and/or consultant no wonder he has no idea how copyright law works.
Please, go for your lawsuit, let as all know how it works out. We need some more laughs around here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chip Bok
The cartoonist's lawyer has no idea how moral rights work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After reading this, I'm convinced net neutrality and fair use aren't the only things the artist doesn't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, but to be fair, he has been an idiot for 30 years longer than anyone else according to his comments.
[ 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 ]
Transformation? Not. Parody? Insufficient.
So my position is that this was theft of artwork to support an almost invisible parody; and that's not enough to avoid infringement.
It would have been quite easy to transform it sufficiently. The simplest concept that occurred to me was showing a TV on the wall containing the comic to be parodied, and having a different pair of watchers comment on the cartoon on the TV. That would have been as effective and, I think, would have avoided any copyright conflict.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transformation? Not. Parody? Insufficient.
Commentary is covered under fair use and does not require any transformation of the original work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transformation? Not. Parody? Insufficient.
there's something in that; I was thinking the same. but what if the subverter is not a cartoonish/artist and could not do this sufficiently well as to be acceptable?
the graphical transformation of the images is not the work. the ability and will to transform the originals in the context of the debate is what is being done. the originals were presented as a "wtf?" and the lampooning images appeared pretty much alongside; that's the work/transformation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Transformation? Not. Parody? Insufficient.
http://garfieldminusgarfield.net/page/858
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Transformation? Not. Parody? Insufficient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Transformation? Not. Parody? Insufficient.
Imagine I took the original comic and changed one pixel to black, then claimed all the other pixels were mine. Should that be considered "transformation"? If I change one word of a 10,000 word book in "parody", shall I then be able to call the rest of the 9,999 words mine?
It's not a matter of whether transformation or parody occurred, but how much as a proportion of the work. If I were the judge in this case, I would rule it was not enough; therefore that infringement occurred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Transformation? Not. Parody? Insufficient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Transformation? Not. Parody? Insufficient.
The captions thus represents a far greater portion of the works than do the actual cartoon images, and in fact, in both cases - before and after - defines and explains the images.
Without the captions, the images have no meanings at all.
No infringement was perpetrated here.
One version says:
"FCC is bad! Will hurt you. Beware!"
The other says:
"Artist is a moron. Ignore his message."
The change in the caption alters the entire meaning of the image, almost diametrically.
That is transformational enough to be parody and commentary and thus is fair use.
In my opinion anyways. :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Transformation? Not. Parody? Insufficient.
Of course not, and nobody would. But I don't see how this question relates to the subject at hand. We aren't talking about whether the use was "transformative" (although it is), but whether it is parody.
That said, there is no objective amount of change required to count as a "transformative". It might be possible to contrive of an example where changing a single pixel would count, but it seems unlikely.
"If I change one word of a 10,000 word book in "parody", shall I then be able to call the rest of the 9,999 words mine?"
Again, while it's hard to come up with how this could possibly happen, if you do manage to actually develop a parody of a 10,000 word work by changing a single word, then I'd answer yes. Remember, a work isn't parody just because the author says it is. "Parody" has a specific meaning.
"It's not a matter of whether transformation or parody occurred, but how much as a proportion of the work."
The law doesn't agree with this. While the amount of change can (and often is) part of the consideration of the parody or transformative status of the derivative work, it's a relatively small consideration. There is no "minimum change" requirement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Transformation? Not. Parody? Insufficient.
This is all protected under fair use and parody. And it's vitally important that this right is protected, as being unable to comment on the speech of others (in whatever form that speech takes) not only violates the First Amendment but is a sign of living in a oppressed state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's important for all creators that others respect copyright laws, and so I ask that you take greater care when passing on Cease and Desist notices over perfectly legal and non-infringing fair uses of copyrighted content.
Yours, a supporter of roruz ras.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ahem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use? Piffle
If you make it, you're morally obligated to share it for free.
If that's what's meant, it's complete bilge. Creators of art have a right to be fairly reimbursed for the use of their creations - exactly as house builders have a lawful and moral right to be paid for their work. "You built it. It's there. I can use it." It's an infantile argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair use? Piffle
If you build a shitty house, however, I have every right to criticize it, using pictures, diagrams, or any other representations of the house to make my point. That is what parody is. It isn't "using" the actual art for its original intended purpose, it is using the art as a representation of itself to comment upon it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair use? Piffle
If so, you succeeded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair use? Piffle
True. It's a good thing that's not what is meant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bok's rant: Are you Chinese? Come up with something on your own.
Personally, I don't believe what Bok said was racist, I think it's based on the fact that China has a reputation for producing the most counterfeit goods in the world. I formed this opinion after carefully reading the above line from the rant in context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
great i think this is a very great sustainable and reliable website
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i dont like the name anonymous coward i prefer bts lover
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
th time has came up wrong shit website
[ link to this | view in chronology ]