Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules Photo of Memorial Violates Copyright
WhatDoIKnow sends in a story about an appeals court ruling in a singular case that might have the effect of narrowing "fair use" rights for transformative uses of artworks. "The sculptor who designed the Korean War memorial [in Washington DC] brought suit against the Postal Service after a photograph of his work was used on a postage stamp. Though first ruled protected by 'fair use,' on appeal the court ruled in favor (PDF) of the sculptor, Frank Gaylord, now 85."
he's more obnoxious than a Reserved Gaylord.
Silly me... I thought the point of a memorial was for it to be placed in the trust of (or outright given to) the public... That being the case, how does this decision affect other images of public art?
Knock down his statue, break it into a million pieces, and send them all to his house using the infringing stamps.
Is this one of those... monumental rulings?
from TFA:
"she went over all of the available documents and found that they expressly kept those [IP] rights with Gaylord"
So no the idiots at the Army Corps of Engineers who signed the contract for this didn't in fact get ownership of anything other than the physical sculpture.
Fair use of a copyrighted work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
17 U.S.C. 107
This is the law. This is not how the Postal Service used his copyrighted work. As an aside, this is also not what Tenenbaum et al. did when they downloaded music.
We shouldn't complain when judges use restraint and don't bastardize statutes.
The underlying problem is that copyrights were improperly assigned to Gaylord in the first place. Being under contract to the govt, those copyrights should have been assigned to the govt. In fact the contracting officer has been and still is demanding that those improperly assigned copyrights be turned over. The court wasn't allowed to challenge the validity of those copyrights and had to take them at face value.
From the court decision, Mr. Gaylord was paid $775k by the United States for his part of the work, and the primary contractor (who hired Mr. Gaylord directly) was paid over $5M (p. 5 of dissent).
Personally, I'm rather confused as to how this case turned out this way. The dissent offers a very strong argument for why the government already has a license to use the artwork however it sees fit, and it also notes a federal law which should disqualify a claim against the government in this case. The US should at least try to get the CAFC to hear this case en banc, because it seems that the majority in this case overlooked some important details.
This is nothing more than a huge slap in the face to all American veterans, of any conflict.
My grandfather was in Korea, and he made what's perhaps the most ultimate sacrifice short of his life: his genitals. Thankfully, he had three kids by the time he was sent over, one of them being my mother. But it still apparently left him a very changed man, more so than most veterans.
I am glad that he is no longer around, to spare him from having to hear of this disgraceful ruling. Many of his friends' names were on that monument.
Scary, or perhaps stupid, or even ridiculous. This was commissioned by Congress and occupies space in a public park. It belongs to the United States, so we should be able to use images of it just as we do with the other public buildings and monuments we own.
And the Corps of Engineers should be able to take the damn thing to a safe place and blow it up. I'd rather see it destroyed than stand in mockery of the men it commemorates.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
It's hardly the first time copyright law has been called stupid.
IANAL, but I can see where fair use would be an appealing technique here, but the public trust might actually be the right way to argue this one. The argument to make would be that whoever signed the contract, and perhaps even the Congress, does not have the power to grant the artist a copyright good against the public in a case where, as in a monument, the work is commissioned for display at the seat of the federal government and for the public good. The monument is something created for and held in the public trust and as such, control over its use cannot be restricted to a single individual or corporation.
The idea of the public trust overriding corporate ownership came up about a hundred years ago when a Railroad Company was arguing an older (1869, IIRC) act of the (corrupt) Illinois legislature had successfully given the railroad company title to a square mile of the lakebed of Lake Michigan. The court held that if the title had been valid, it certainly didn't survive a repeal of the original act, and in any event the State couldn't really give up control of its harbor to a private entity because that would violate the public trust.
The environmental law folks pulled the public trust doctrine out of a drawer about 40 years ago, now, and it might have been useful here.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
How about all of the Korean vets sue Frank Gaylord for intruding on their IP. After all, they FOUGHT the war.
USPS WAS operating in the green actually for most of the decade, up til 2007 when the increased gas prices really started to impact the bottom line. When you operate the largest vehicle fleet in the world, even a penny increase is going to be massively damaging..
http://www.usps.com/history/anrpt07/summary.htm
So yeah, it's fun to mock USPS, but it's not often warranted.
"One of the best -- and most annoying -- examples is wedding photos, which the photographer usually retains rights to, even if he sells you prints."
As long as you surrender your rights as a consumer it's no wonder others will abuse of that.
I married two years ago and I made damn clear I was contracting a service and that all byproducts and associated rights from that service were my own. There were two phographers that didn't see it that way... well, they didn't get neither the copyright nor the money for the service.