MJ Bogatin (“Bo”) of Bogatin, Corman & Gold, is an Arts and Entertainment Attorney in San Francisco. He is also Co-President of California Lawyers for the Arts. www.calawyersforthearts.org www.calawyersforthearts.org Bo is available to answer some of your questions surrounding the business of Art Licensing. - THANKS BO!
Bo, can I license well known art works that I have morphed kaleidoscopically?
There is a short and long answer to this question. The short answer is that if the artworks that you are using are in the public domain (“PD”), you can. If they are not in the PD, you cannot without a license.
The long answer is that the issue raised is one that pertains to the fundamentals of copyright law, but at the same time has become a cutting edge issue. The fundamental right is that the Author of an original work of visual art is presumed to be the copyright holder with exclusive, theoretically inviolate, rights. The cutting edge issue is the extent to which a second artist can so fundamentally change the original copyrighted work that it is literally and legally “transformed,” and therefore not deemed to infringe!
The copyright holder has the exclusive interest in the following basic rights:
1. To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
2. To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
3. To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
4. To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
5. To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
6. In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
(See 17 USC 106: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102 )
The two of these that apply particularly to visual Art are numbers 2 and 5. In addition, Artist/Authors of works of visual fine art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the Copyright Act.
A “derivative work” is defined in Section 101 as: “A work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ‘derivative work’.” (emphasis added)
(See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102 )
Clearly, your “kaleidoscopic” treatment of a copyrighted artwork would be derivative as a “transformation” of the original, a right that typically must be obtained from the copyright holder if you intend to license to third parties.
However, there are exceptions to this exclusive right. The first, referenced above, is that the artwork you are altering is in the PD. While you can presently adapt or transform any artwork published before 1923 and legally license it for use here in the US, use of the same adapted artwork in other countries will be subject to the copyright laws of that country – which could protect works created and/or published before 1923.
The second exception depends upon whether or not your derivative use “is so transformative” as to constitute a Fair Use. I discussed Fair Use at length in my bLAWg this past March.
The essence of Fair Use boils down to whether or not the derivative use is a free speech right under the First Amendment to the US Constitution. If the copyrighted work is being “copied” in conjunction with news and reporting about it or its author, or as part of a critical review, these uses are fundamentally “speech-based” and the copyright work may be used for these purposes as long as the amount of use does not significantly damage the market for the original work.
This is the essence of the first of the four Fair Use factor: “The purpose and character of the use.” The US Supreme Court in recent years has begun to expand upon the traditional ‘news and critical comment’ purpose to apply Fair Use due to the extent that the second work is “transformative” of the copyrighted original. The seminal case was Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994), in which the Court deemed 2 Live Crew’s rap using a few lyrics and some music from the Roy Orbison song, “Pretty Woman” to be parody. Even under a traditional Free Speech analysis, this makes sense. Parody is a form of speech. Since you need to use the original work to make fun of it, the use has been deemed Fair. Obviously, the 2 Live Crew recording did not damage the market for the Orbison original.
Since 2 Live Crew, there have been other cases expanding upon the scope of transformative use so that it can be applied to visual art as well as music. The purpose of the transformation no longer is limited to “parody.” The Court now examine whether or not the derivative work “merely supersedes the objects of the original creation…or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character.” (Campbell) A work can be deemed transformative “if it adds value to the original; basically uses the original as a raw material which is then transformed “in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings.” (Castle Rock) When considering whether a work is transformative, the courts are now evaluating factors such as changes in aesthetics and meaning. (Cariou v. Prince).
Clearly, there is a legal argument to be made that your kaleidoscopic treatment of these copyrighted works is sufficiently transformative as to be deemed Fair Use. However, this in no way prevents you from being sued for copyright infringement. Fair Use is only a legal defense, not a bar to an infringement action. And, because each Fair Use case has to be considered upon its own merits, there is a good chance that you will not learn whether or not you are entitled to use the copyrighted work in this fashion or if it will be deemed an illegal infringement until the case is tried in court. And then the decision of the trial court is subject to appeal! Is this a risk you can afford?
I should also mention that a ‘creative’ litigation attorney could also make a Right of Publicity claim against you if you use the name of the artist of the underlying work in the promotion of your own transformative artworks. As discussed at length in my bLAWg from this past February, the essence of the Right of Publicity is that under these state statutes, a person who knowingly uses the name or image of a person for commercial purposes without their permission is liable to that party. (See http://annietroe.blogspot.com/2016/02/bos-blawg-right-of-publicity.html )
Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is not intended as legal advice. Because the law is not static, and one situation may differ from the next, we cannot assume responsibility for any actions taken based on information contained herein. Also, be aware that the law may vary from state. Therefore, this website cannot replace the advice of an experienced attorney. Receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. MJ Bogatin, Bogatin, Corman & Gold, www.bcgattorneys.com