Photomontageand

IntellectualPropertyLawOverviewofhistoricalandcontemporarydevelopments

by

KristofferJohanLassen

Aculminatingdocumentsubmittedinpartialfulfillment

oftherequirementsforthedegreeof

MasterofScienceinPhotography

BrooksInstituteofPhotography

08/2009

2

ABSTRACT

Thisdocumentwilllookatthehistoricaldevelopmentofphotomontageasameansofpublic

commentary,capableofavoidingcensorship.Havingestablishedahistoricalbasisforthistype

ofexpression,thepaperwilllookatthedevelopmentofIntellectualPropertylawanddiscuss

howitrelatestocontemporaryphotomontage.Itwillthengoontoreviewhowcertain“fair

use”provisionsofcopyrightlawserveasabalancebetweenpublicandprivaterights.Relevant

caselawwillillustratetheconflictbetween“freespeech”and“exclusiverights”grantedto

individualsauthors.Thedocumentwillconcludewithareviewonhowrecentcopyright

legislationunderminestheconceptof“fairuse”andsuggestacommercialalternativetosolve

legaluncertainty.

3

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Introduction pg4

SECTIONI

HistoricalBackgroundoftheBerlinDadaists pg8

ACuriousSelf‐PortraitandMechanicalIndividuals pg9

PhotomontageAsaWaytoAvoidCensorship pg14

RepressiveAuthorityandVisuallyParaphrasingWithPhotomontage pg16

ConcludingRemarksonSectionI pg20

SECTIONII

HistoricalbackgroundforCopyrightLaw pg22

ModernDevelopmentofCopyrightLawintheUnitedStates pg25

CopyrightInfringementandRemedies pg28

ContemporaryPhotomontageandDerivativeWorks pg30

CornellUniversityTableofCopyrightDuration pg35

NotestotheCornellUniversityTable pg39

SECTIONIII

PhotomontageandFairUse pg43

Campbellv.Acuff‐RoseMusic,Inc. pg45

Rogersvs.Koons pg46

Blanchvs.Koons pg48

Leibovitzv.ParamountPicturesCorp pg50

SunTrustBankv.HoughtonMifflinCo. pg51

Ty,Inc.,v.PublicationsInternationalLtd. pg53

DigitalMillenniumCopyrightActandImpactonFairUse pg54

Solution:CompulsoryLicensing pg56

Conclusion pg59

WorksCited pg62

4

Introduction

TheeventsfollowingSeptember11,2001stimulatedmetothinkaboutinvestigatingboththe

historicalandcontemporarydevelopmentswithinthefieldofphotomontage.

IwasworkinginPhiladelphiaatthetime,andoneeveningonmywaybackfromworkInoticed

anunusualposterondisplayinasubwaystation.Itwasacollageof9/11newscoverage,acut‐

and‐pastemixofBinLaden,GeorgeW.Bush,DickCheney,andDonaldRumsfeld.The

characterswerecombinedwiththevisualelementsofthetwintowers,fighterjets,helicopters,

andmushroomcloudssuperimposedwithaheadlinefromthelatesteditionofNewsweekthat

said,“Howscaredshouldyoube?”

AsIstoodtherecontemplatingthephotomontageafellowcommuterstoppedandalsobegan

viewingit.Afterafewsecondshesteppedforward,toretheposterdown,saidsome

profanities,andthrewitinthenearesttrashcan.

AtthetimeIwasworkingintheintellectualpropertydepartmentofDuaneMorrisLLP,oneof

Philadelphia’smajorlawfirms.Iwasfascinatedbytheimpactthecollagehadmadeonmy

fellowcommuter,andsoonIstartedtoreflectonvariousformsoffreedomofexpressionand

censorship.Ineversaweithertheposterormyfellowcommuteragainandassumethatthese

actionswerebothindividualinnature.

However,Iwonderedwhattheoutcomewouldhavebeenhadtheposterbeenmassproduced.

Specifically,Iwonderedwhattheintellectualpropertyimplicationsofsuchworkswouldbe,and

ifcopyrightedphotographscouldbeusedinphotomontagestocommentonaspectsofpopular

culture.Ifoneoftheoriginalcopyrightholders,saythephotographerwhotookthepictureof

GeorgeW.Bush,hadfeltlikemyfellowcommuter,Iwonderedifhecouldhavestoppedthe

publicationofthecollage.Thisraisedthequestionoftowhatextentpeoplecoulduse

intellectualpropertylawstocensorexpressionswithwhichtheydidnotpersonallyagree.

5

PhotomontagewasfirstintroducedbytheBerlinDadaistsduringandimmediatelyafterthe

FirstWorldWar.Aswiththeposterinmysubwaystation,theyusedtextandpicturesfrom

advertisementsandnewsstoriestoexpresscausalitybetweenwarmongersandill‐fated

politicians.Theymergedimagesandtextinordertoexpressalternativeperceptionsofwhat

themainstreammediahadpresented.Initially,theDadaistsusedphotomontageasawayto

commentvisuallyoncurrenteventsbecausecensorshiplawsfocusedmostlyonliterary

expressions.

Theearlyphotomonteursfoundmostoftheirmaterialinnewspapersandmagazines,whereas

digitaltechnologynowgivesaccesstoanewworldofvisualmaterialwiththetouchofa

button.Peoplemaycreateseamlesslyblendedimages,anditisoftendifficulttodetermine

whetheranimageisasinglephotographicmomentoracompositionofseparatephotographs.

Althoughtoday’stechnicaltoolsstandinstarkcontrasttothoseusedbytheoriginal

photomonteurs,sodoestheimportanceofintellectualpropertylaw.Itmaybetechnically

easiertocreatephotomontages,butatthesametimecopyrightlawhasbecomeafundamental

considerationforartistswhousethisformofexpression.

Thisthesiswilllookatwhattypesofsecondaryusesofcopyrightedworksareacceptable.More

tothepoint,itwillexaminewhenandhowcopyrightedphotographscanbeincludedin

photomontagesandusedtocommentonpopularculture.Thepropositionisthatthepractice

ofphotomontageoftenautomaticallytriggersintellectualpropertyclaims,andthatinorderto

guaranteefreedomofspeechandanunobstructedexchangeofideas,anewstandardforvisual

paraphrasingneedstobeimplemented.

Thefirstsectionofthisthesisoutlinesthehistoricalbasisforphotomontageandanalyzesits

origin,techniques,andmotivations.Next,ahistoricaloverviewoftheBerlinDadaistsexplains

howthisartisticgroupusedthehalf‐toneprintingprocesstocreatenewformsofexpression,

andspecificallyhowtheyusedmainstreamphotographsfromnewspapersandmagazinesto

6

paraphrasepopularculturevisually.

Afterthefirstsectionsetsupthebasisforphotomontage,thesecondsectionoutlinesthe

historicaldevelopmentofcopyrightlaws,whichwereoriginallyintroducedascensorshiptools

tocontroltheprintingofbooks.DuringtheEnlightenmentnationalauthoritiesreformedthem

topromotetheeffectivedistributionofknowledge,andtodaytheyworkascontractsbetween

individualcreatorsandsocietyingeneral.Thesectionexaminestheguidingprincipleof

intellectualpropertylaw,whichisthepromotionofscienceandtheusefularts,andconcludes

withhowrecentdevelopmentsincopyrightlawshaveaffectedthepracticeofphotomontage.

Thethirdandfinalsectionexplainsthesituationinwhichnewtechnologyhasmade

photomontageatechnicallyuncomplicatedexercisewhilemoderncopyrightlawshavehadthe

exactoppositeeffect.Photomonteursarelimitedbyvagueandunpredictableinterpretationsof

thelaw,specificallythedoctrineoffairuse,adefenseagainstcopyrightinfringementclaims.

Thesectionconcludeswithananalysisoftheimpactthatrecentdevelopmentsinthelaw,in

particulartheDigitalMillenniumCopyrightAct(DMCA),hashadonthefair‐usedefense.

Theconclusionarguesthatphotomontageisaformofvisualparaphrasingandthatsociety’s

publicdiscoursereliesonsuchreferencing.Itarguesfurtherthatcopyrightlawswere

historicallydraftedtodealwithwrittenexpressionsandthatcontemporaryculturecenters

mostlyonvisualexpressions.Itconcludesbysuggestingsomebasicguidelinesforusing

copyrightedworksinphotomontageswhilethelegalsystemstrugglestocatchupwiththenew

technologicaldevelopmentsandpopularculture.

Throughoutthisthesisthetermphotomontagereferstothetechniqueofassemblingindividual

photographstogetherinamontagetocreateanewphotographiccomposition.Photomontages

aresometimescombinedwithothertypesofgraphicmaterial;however,themainformof

expressionremainsphotographic,whichdistinguishesitfromcollage.Collagesarealso

assemblagesofvariousseparatematerialsintoanewcomposition,buttheirmainelements

7

consistofvariousforms,textures,andthree‐dimensionalobjects,notjustphotographs(Garver

227).

Themajorityofcommercialphotographsfallwithinthisdefinition.However,thisthesis’smain

purposeistodiscussworkscreatedforthepurposeofpublicdiscourse.Insomeinstances

photomontagesparticipatinginpublicdiscoursehavealsogeneratedcommercialgain,andthis

thesisanalyzestowhatextentthisaffectsitsanalysisofcopyrightinfringement.

Furthermore,thisthesisacknowledgescertaindifferencesbetweenverbalandvisual

paraphrasingthatarerelevanttothediscussionoffairuse.Paraphrasingtraditionallymeans

therestatementofatext,passage,orworktopresentitsmeaninginanotherform.Throughout

thisthesis,visualparaphrasingreferstotakinganexpressionformathird‐partyphotograph

andincorporatingitintoanewwork,aphotomontage.

8

Section1

HistoricalBackgroundoftheBerlinDadaists

PhotomontageemergedasaformofexpressionwhentheDadaconceptwasintroducedto

Berlinintheearlymonthsof1918.RichardHuelsenbeck(1892‐1974),aGerman‐bornartist,

introducedDadaismtoBerlinshortlyafterhisarrivalfromZurich,Switzerland(Richter108).At

theClubDada’sfirstsoiréeinBerlinonApril12,1918,Huelsenbeckproclaimedamanifestoin

whichhearticulatedtheprinciplesandmessagesthatsaidthatDadaismshouldstriveto

produceart:

whichhasbeenvisiblyshatteredbytheexplosionsoflastweek,whichisforevertryingtocollect

itslimbsafteryesterday’scrash.Thebestandmostextraordinaryartistswillbethosewhoevery

hoursnatchthetattersoftheirbodiesoutofthefrenziedcataractoflife,whowithbleeding

handsandhearts,holdfasttotheintelligenceoftheirtime.(Ades26)

PerhapsitisnecessaryonlytoconsidertheenvironmentofBerlin’sinhabitants,whohad

enduredthecataclysmiceventsofwar,starvation,andrevolution,tounderstandthe

motivationforthistypeofexpression.Berlinwasgoingthroughitsthirdwinteratwarin1918,

butculturalproductionwasbynomeansatrest.Asthecityexperiencedarevolution,the

Dadaiststookpartandformedanartisticresistancemovementagainsttheestablishment

(Richter101).

TheDadaistsperceivedthemselvestobeindirectconfrontationwiththeromantic,

impressionist,expressionist,cubist,andfuturistartidealsdominantatthetime.Theyexpressed

theirideasinafragmentaryformatandopposedanylinearmodelofcommunicationthat

assumedanunderstandingbuiltthroughachronologicalpresentationofsuchconceptsas

beginning,middle,andend.Instead,theDadaistspromotedananti‐artmovementthat

underlinedthesurrealandnonsensicalaspectsofhumanperception.Finally,theydenounced

allacademicarttheoryanddeclaredarttobedead(Richter123).

TheBerlinDadaistshavethecreditforcreatingphotomontagebecausetheywerethefirstto

9

appropriateimagerydistributedbythemassmediasystematically.Withthehalf‐toneprinting

press,newspapersandmagazinescouldmassproducephotographs,andtheBerlinDadaists

usedpicturesfromadvertisementsandnewsstoriestoexpressalternativeperceptionsof

popularculture(Richter116).

Morespecifically,theirphotomontagescommented,criticized,andquestionedthesubjects

portrayedinthenewscoverageandadvertisementsthatthemassmediadistributed.Atthe

timesuchcommentaryrepresentedanentirelynewwayofexpressionbecausepeoplethen

generallyconsideredphotographicimagerytobeindisputableproofandaccurate

representationsofreal‐worldevents(Richter116).

ACuriousSelf‐PortraitandMechanicalIndividuals

WhileHuelsenbeckintroducedtheDadaconcepttoBerlin,RaoulHausmann(1887‐1971),was

themovement’smainfigure.HausmannwasamongtheBerlinDadaists,andwasknownas

beingextremelyversatileandpresentedhimselfonedayas“aphotomonteur,onthenexta

painter,onthethirdapamphleteer,onthefourthafashiondesigner,onthefifthapublisher

andpoet,onthesixthan‘optophonetician’,andontheseventhday–restingwithhisHannah”

(Richter108).

Duringthesummerof1918,whilevacationingontheBalticcoast,Hausmannandhisgirlfriend

HannahHöch(1889‐1978)discoveredthattheirlandlordhaddecoratedtheroominwhichthey

stayedwithamostpeculiarselfportrait.Thelandlord’sfacehadbeenpastedontothatofa

soldierstandinginfulluniform,surroundedbytheGermanKaiserandhisdescendantswithall

themedalsandbravuraonewouldexpect.Thepicturestruckthemasutterlybizarre,but

Hausmann,accordingtoHöch,immediatelysensedagreatpotentialinthetechniquebecauseit

wouldallowthemtoexpressideasinanewway(Ades20).Aftertheholidaythetwowenton

toexperimentwithinterchangingphotos,text,andotherimageryasanartisticformof

expression.

10

HausmannandHöch’smontagesoftendisplaydehumanizedandunthinkingindividuals

surroundingthemselveswithpre‐manufacturedandindustrialobjects.Ratherthandepicting

societythroughtheeyesofsubjectiveandinward‐lookingartists,theirphotomontagesreveal

thepre‐manufacturedandrepetitiverealitythatcharacterizesmodernlife.Afterall,Dadaists

describedexpressionistartistsasself‐absorbedandpossessedindividualswithimmense

emotionandego(Richter104).Furthermore,Hausmannlaterexplainedthatbychoosingthe

termphotomontage,theDadaistssoughttodistancethemselvesfrommovementsthatwere

traditionallyunderstoodtobeartisticinnature.Asphotomonteurstheycomparedthemselves

toengineers,assemblingproductsjustasanyotherworking‐classindividualwould(Richter

118).

Inhisphotomontages,Hausmannrepeatedlyemphasizedtherelationshipbetweenthe

machine‐likeappearanceofmodernhumansandasocietyincreasinglybuiltbyassemblylines.

ThisviewmaybeseeninDadaConquers,andagaininTatlinatHome,inwhichHausmann

portraysmodernhumansashalf‐human,half‐machine.InTatlinatHome,amanresembling

RussianartistVladimirTatlin1(1885‐1953)hashiscraniumpartiallyopenwithmodern

machinerypouringoutofit.ThetitleoftheworkindicatesafascinationwithRussian

productionartatthetime.However,asHausmannhimselfindicated,thisconnectionwas

moreaccidentalthanintentional(Ades27).

1 Tatlin was a Russian artist who was influenced by constructivism. He claimed that artists should become

technicians and merge with industry to communicate efficiently. He also claimed that only by making art utilitarian could artists bring it to life (Harrison 334).

11

DadaConquers(1920) TatlinatHome(1920)

Höch’sphotomontagescontinuedHausmann’smechanicaltheme,butfromdifferentspatial

andgenderperspectives.WhileHausmanncommonlyplacedhissubjectswithinaroom,Höch

sometimesworkedwithoutsuchconfinement.InPrettyMaiden,forexample,hersubjects

streamfromthecenteroftheworkwithoutmeetingaspecificrectangularborder.

InPrettyMaiden,humanelementsdiligentlyinteractwithmechanicaldevices,andatthe

centeroftheworkalightbulbthatseemsabouttoexplodereplacestheheadofawoman.A

wigabovethebulbappearstobepartofher,whileamechanicalcrankimmediatelytotheright

alsoindicatesadirectrelationshiptoher.Amanentersthescenethroughawheelontheleft,

butitissomewhatunclearwhetherhedesiresthemaidenorthesurroundingBMW

paraphernalia.Höchhasalsoincludedahandholdingawatch,andaboveitafemalehead,

literallydisplayingthemeaningofanemptyglance,whichislostintime.

12

PrettyMaiden(1920)

In1919’sCutWithaKitchenKnifeThoughthelastWeimarBeerBellyEpoch,Höchmontages

personswithlargeheadsontosmallbodiesandviceversa.Theeffectisoftenacomic

perceptionofgenderroles,particularlywhenappliedtothepoliticalleadersofthetime.The

juxtapositionofdisproportionateheadsandbodiescametocharacterizeHöch’sstylewithinthe

genreofphotomontage(Wescher173).

13

CutwithaKitchenKnife...(1919)

14

PhotomontageasaWaytoAvoidCensorship

GeorgeGrosz(1893‐1959)andJohnHeartfield(1891‐1968)representedadifferentfactionof

theBerlinDadagroup.GroszclaimedtohaveinventedphotomontagewithHeartfieldinhis

studioinSüdendeduringthespringof1916.Theirfirstprojectstooktheformofanti‐war

postcardsthattheyintendedtosendbacktofriendsstillfightinginthewar.Bothhadbeen

soldiersintheGermanarmyduringthewarandhadcommunicatedtheirantipathywiththe

ongoingwartotheirfamiliesbywayofcuttingandpastingimages.Thesevisualpostcards

escapedthecensors,astheywerefocusingonwrittencriticism(Wescher174).

Noneofthepostcardssurvived,butitispossibletoimaginefromobservingotherworksfrom

theperiodthatthepostcardsweremoreinthenatureofatypocollagethattheycontributedto

theleftistmagazineNewYouth,publishedbyHeartfield’sbrother,WielandsHerzfelde,in1917

(Ades20).Thesepiecesinvolvedifferenttypesoffacesandimages,suchasskullandbones,

balletdancers,andgramophones,butnotphotographs.Thefirstrecordedsuperimposed

photographsareonHeartfield’scoverforJederMannseineigenerFussball,orEachHisOwn

SoccerBall(February1919),whichwasasatiricalnewspaperpublishedbyWielandsHerzfelde

(Lavin87).

15

JederMannseineigenerFussball(1919)

TruetoHuelsenbeck’smanifesto,thetwocreatedchaoticandfragmentedmontagesandjointly

signedtheirworks.ExamplesoftheirworkareDada‐mericaandLifeandActivityinUniversal

Cityat12.05Midday.ThepiecesaresimilartoHöch’santi‐spatialcompositionstyleandalso

applythetechniqueofvisuallyparaphrasingmainstreamimagerytoalevelwheretheoriginal

meaningiscontradicted.RegardlessofwhetherGroszandHeartfieldorHausmannandHöch

discoveredphotomontage,“bothstress[ed]sourcesinpopularandcomicarrangementof

photographs”(Ades24).

16

Dada‐merika(1920) LifeandActivityinUniversalCity…”(1919)

RepressiveAuthorityandVisuallyParaphrasingWithPhotomontage

AftertheBerlinDadaistmovementleftthepublicspotlightinapproximately1923,Heartfield

continuedtoimprovethepracticeofphotomontagefortheremainderofhislife(Wescher

173).Incontrasttotheinitiallychaoticcompositionsthatreflectedanintenseandtumultuous

timeinBerlin,henarrowedhisfocustopoliticalsatireandcommentary.Throughthepublishing

househehadco‐foundedwithhisbrotheryearsearlier,hefoundhisaudienceinavarietyof

leftistmagazinesandnewspapers.

ThetopicofrepressiveauthoritycontinuedtodriveHeartfield’sworkinthetimeleadingupto

AdolfHitler’sseizureofpowerinGermanyin1933.APan‐Germansuperimposedtheimageof

JuliusStreicher,theleaderofthebrownshirts,onagrotesquephotographofamurderscene

takenfromtheStuttgartpolicearchives.Thephotomontageincludedthecaption,“Thewomb

isfruitfulyetfromwhichhecrept”,aquotationfromaBrechtpoemcalled‘Deranacronistische

ZugoderFreiheitundDemocracy’thatmorethanimpliedthatStreicherwasbornand

nourishedfromacultureofviolence(Ades45).Thepiecedemonstratestheuniquequalityof

17

politicalphotomontage.Viewersfirstperceiveitscomponentsasthemselves(dingansich);

onlyafterwardsdotheytakeontheappearanceofcommentaryandnewrepresentationsof

theoriginal.

Inanothermontageofthetime,HeartfieldaddressedtheburningoftheReichstagandthetrial

offouraccusedcommunistswhoweresupposedtohavesetitonfire.Amidwidespread

publicity,theaccusedwereacquittedofthecrime,whilemembersoftheNaziPartyremained

thechiefsuspects.Inresponsetothepoliticalfarce,HeartfieldcreatedGoeringtheExecutioner

forA‐I‐ZorArbeiter‐Illustrierte‐Zeitung(Workers'IllustratedPaper)withthecaption,“InLeipzig

on21Septemberfourinnocentmen–victimsofanatrociouscrime–willbeputontrial

togetherwiththeprovocateurLubbe.TherealReichstagfire‐raiser,Goering,willnotappear

beforethejury.”(AIZ)

GoeringtheExecutioner(1933) APan‐German(1933)

18

HeartfieldcommonlyusedthepoliticaljokeasatooltodisarmtherhetoricoftheNational

SocialistParty.In1935’sHurrah,theButterisFinished,heapplieddirectquotationsof

statementsmadebyGoeringandpairedthemwithmanipulatedimageryofafamilygathered

aroundthedinnertable,eagerlydevouringabicycleandotherheavyindustrialsteelproducts,

withthecaption,“Ironmakesacountrystrong,butterandlardonlymakespeoplefat”(Ades

57).AnotherexampleisMillionsStandBehindMe,inwhichHeartfieldexplainsthetrue

meaningoftheHitlersalute.

Hurrah,theButterisFinished!(1935) MillionsStandBehindMe(1932)

Duringthistimetheoppositesideofthepoliticalspectrumwasalsousingphotomontagefor

fascistpropaganda.However,itwastoHeartfield’sdistinctivecreditthathiscontentrarely

gaveroomformisinterpretation.XantiSchawinsky(1904‐1979),forexample,anartist

commissionedbytheItalianFascistparty,intendedtoproduceapoliticalphotomontagein

supportofMussolini.Heplacedtheheadofstateonacutoutphotographofnumerouspeople

gatheredforamassmeetingorsportsevent,presumablyinsinuatingthatMussoliniwasaman

ofandforthepeople.Still,asMussolinisternlylooksdownatthem,thereisampleroomfor

19

misinterpretation;anuncommittedviewercouldeasilyseehimasa“gloweringtyrant[and]

devourerofhispeople”(Ades50).

1934–YearXIIoftheFascistEraposter(1934)

Wheneverexhibitinghiswork,Heartfieldwouldmakesuretohavetheoriginalsourcesofhis

photomontagesavailable.Thisunderlinedhispositionthatthepieceswerenotunique,private,

norunrepeatableworksofart,butrather“politicalpropagandaaimedatawidepublic”(Ades

20

43).Ultimately,thislineofthinkingalsocorrespondswithHulesenbeck’soriginalDada

manifesto.Whilethemanifestodenouncedallart,andcertainlyabstractart,ithintedthata

newartshouldawakenpeoplefromthecommonplacewhilecallingattentiontotheirown

banality.

ConcludingRemarkstoSection1

Dadaemergedasareactiontotheestablishment,focusingontheproblemsofpostwar

Germanyandstrivingforsocioeconomicchangethroughconcreteaction.Photomontagewasa

newformofexpressionwhichcouldaddressthesocialissuesofthattime.Photoswere

objectiveandtrustworthyreferencestorealityandthetechniqueaccomplishedapowerful

effectbyplacingknowncharactersinnewsettings.

Todaytheviewofphotographyisdifferent,asphotographsmayeasilybeenhancedandaltered

bydigitalphoto‐editingtools.Itisnotalwaysclearwhenphotographsaredocumentaryworks

withasetofethicaljournalisticstandardsattachedtothemorwhentheyarepoliticalorartistic

formsofexpression.

Furthermore,lifeinthedevelopedworldhastransformedfromanindustrialtoaninformation

society:

InformationSocietyisatermforasocietyinwhichthecreation,distribution,andmanipulation

ofinformationhasbecomethemostsignificanteconomicandculturalactivity.AnInformation

Societymaybecontrastedwithsocietiesinwhichtheeconomicunderpinningisprimarily

IndustrialorAgrarian.ThemachinetoolsoftheInformationSocietyarecomputersand

telecommunications,ratherthanlathesorploughs.(TechTargetn.p.)

Thetransitionfromtheindustrialtotheinformationsocietyisimportantforthisthesisbecause

ithasgreatlyincreasedtheemphasisplacedontheprotectionofintellectualpropertyassets

fromthetimeofDada.AlthoughintellectualpropertyregulationsalsoexistedfortheDadaists,2

suchregulationswereatbestimmaterial,ifnotaltogetherunknowninatimeofwarandsocial

2 The Berne Convention of 1886 is the oldest multilateral copyright treaty (McCarthy 37).

21

unrest.

However,intheinformationsociety,intellectualpropertylawsarecentrallyimportantbecause

competitorsincreasinglychallengeoneanothertodistinguishotherwiseuniformandmass‐

producedproducts.Corporationsarewaryofthesecondaryuseofimagesassociatedwiththeir

brandsbecausethismaycompromisethemessagescommunicatedabouttheirproductsand

services.Becausephotomontagefrequentlyusematerialsfromadvertisingcampaigns,news

coverage,orboth,allegationsaboutcopyrightinfringementcanbeusedasadeterrentto

unwanteduse,includingimpliedcriticism.

WhereastheDadaistswereabletousephotomontagepartlyasaninstrumenttogetaround

textualcensorship,thenextsectionwillanalyzehowintellectualpropertylawsaffectthe

practiceofphotomontagetoday.Itwillfirstgothroughthehistoricaldevelopmentofcopyright

lawandthenaddresshowrecentdevelopmentslimittheabilitytoparaphrasevisuallyfrom

pre‐existingworks.

22

Section2

HistoricalBackgroundofCopyrightLaw

CopyrightlawisbyandlargeanAnglo‐Americantraditionandconcept.Thecatalystfor

developingcopyrightlawswastheinventionoftheGutenbergpressin1452,whichmadebook

publicationconsistentandeliminatedthepossibilityofinterpretation,censorship,orplain

inaccuracythathadpreviouslyexistedbecausetextshadbeenreproducedbyindividualswho

copiedthembyhand(Norman24).

In1557atradegroupcalledtheCompanyofStationersofLondonreceivedexclusiverightsto

publishanddistributetextsthrougharoyalcharter(Patterson42).TheStationers’unbroken

historydatedbackto1403anddivideddifferenttypesofwork,suchasbookbinding,printing,

anddistribution,amongthem.Italsodesignatedwhowouldpublishwhatsothemembersof

thetradegroupcouldavoidcompetingwitheachother(Patterson29).

Previouslawshadalsoregulatedtheartofprinting,buttheroyalcharterof1557wasthefirst

tograntexclusiverightstoaspecifictradegroup(Patterson21‐27).TheCrown’smotivationfor

givingtheStationersexclusiverightstopublishingwasundoubtedlytocontrolthepress;the

Crownreliedoncensorshipasatooltogoverntheworldofideasamidstthereligiousstruggles

oftheera.QueenMary,whowasCatholic,firstestablishedthechartertoassurethatpublic

writingsdidnotcontradictherbeliefs.QueenElizabeth,aProtestant,reaffirmedtheStationers’

exclusiverightstopublishbooksin1559,therebydesignatingthemasthepolicemen,butnot

judges,ofanygivenpublicpolicy(Patterson,29).

TheStationersrealizedthatenforcinggovernmentpolicyguaranteedcontinuedsupportfor

theirmonopolyofthebooktrade.Thegovernment’spolicymatteredlittletothemaslongas

theyretainedtheexclusiverightstoprintandpublishbooks.“Theirbusinesswastoliveand

makemoney;andkeenenoughtheywereaboutit”(IIArber11,Introduction,Patterson37).

23

TheStationers’royalcharterwasoneoftwoexclusiverightstopublishinginEnglandatthe

time.Asecondsystemcalledtheprintingpatentwasalsoineffect.Printingpatentswere

establishedbythe“sovereigninexerciseofhisroyalprerogative”3andfavoredthefew,mostof

whomweremembersoftheStationers(Patterson78).Theprintingpatentwasmoredesirable

becauseitallowedsubstantialprestige,includedthemostpublishedworks,andwasconsidered

tohavethemostprotectionundertheking’spower.

PatentseventuallyledtomonopoliesamongtheStationersthemselves,andbypassingthe

StatuteofMonopoliesin1623,Parliamentarticulateditseffortstolimittheking’spower.The

patentsystemhadbeen“abusedbyElizabeth,whomademanygrantsforpurelymercenary

reasonstoenrichtheroyalpurse”(Patterson83).TheStatuteofMonopolieslimitedpatentsto

newinventionsandcouldnotbegrantedforwritingsassuch.

However,giventheCrown’sdesiretocontrolthetypeofcontentbeingpublished,itpushedfor

theenactmentof“AnactforpreventingAbusesinPrintingSeditious,Treasonableand

UnlicensedBooksandPamphlets,andforRegulatingofPrintingandPrintingPresses”.Itwas

calledtheLicensingActandwaspassedintolawin1662.ItallowedtheStationerstoretain

theirexclusiverightstopublishbooks,butforalimitedtime(Patterson135).

TheLicensingActexpiredin1694andtheStationersthenfacedunwantedcompetitionfrom

Scottishpublishers.TheScotsexportedcheapbookstoEnglandthatundercuttheStationers’

profits.Unsuccessfullypetitioningforabill“RegulatingofPrinting,andPrinting‐Presses”the

Stationerslosttheirprintingmonopoly.TheexpirationoftheLicensingActdidnotremovethe

questionofpresscontrol,“butmark[ed]thebeginningoftheshiftofemphasisfromcensorship

toproperty”(Patterson141).

AftertheLicensingActhadexpired,thepublishingindustrybecameunpredictable,andinorder

toremedythissituationParliamentpassedtheStatuteofAnnein1710.Itlimitedthepowerof

3 The royal prerogative was “the power of the King [or Queen] to do things that no one else could do, and his

power to do them in a way in that no one else could do them” (Adams 78).

24

publishersbymakingcopyrightavailabletoallpersons,notonlypublishers,andabolished

perpetualcopyright(Patterson145).Atthistime,Enlightenmentidealsheldthattheeffective

spreadofknowledgeandinformationbenefitedsocietyasawhole.Accordingly,inadditionto

bringingordertothepublishingindustry,thenewlegislationputadefinitiveendtothe

Stationers’monopoly(Patterson143).

Specifically,theStatuteofAnnegrantedcopyrightprotectiontonewlypublishedworksfora

periodof14years,renewableforoneadditionaltermof14yearswhentheauthorwasstill

alive.Worksthatwerealreadypublished,suchasworksbyShakespeare,Milton,andBacon,

receivedasingletermof21years.Bytheendofthetermanyonewouldbefreetopublishthe

book.Thus,undertheStatuteofAnne,thecopyrightstoworksbyShakespeare,Milton,and

Baconwouldexpirein1731,or1710plus21years.

Notsurprisingly,Englishpublisherswereagainfightingtokeepperpetualcopyrightsaliveby

1731.TheyarguedthatthestatutegaveauthorscertainprotectionthroughtheStatuteof

Anne,butitdidnotreplacethepublishers’common‐lawrights(Patterson147‐149).From1731

aseriesofcourtcasesthereforeaddressedtheissueoftheperpetualcopyright.

ThecasesculminatedwithDonaldsonv.Beckettin1774,establishingthefoundationof

copyrightlawasweknowittoday.DonaldsonwasaScottishbookpublisherwhospecializedin

literaryworksthathadexpiredundertheStatuteofAnne.Becketthadacquiredrightshe

thoughttobeperpetualandsoughttoenforcethemagainstDonaldson.

Theissueforthecourttodecidewaswhetherpositivelaw,theStatuteofAnne,orcommonlaw

shouldprevail.Lawenactedbylegislationispositivelaw,whilecommonlawisbasedon

decisionsmadeinpreviouscases.UndertheStatuteofAnne,Beckett’sworkswerenolonger

protectedbecausethelimitedcopyrighttermhadexpired(Patterson158‐179).Accordingly,the

courtheldforDonaldson,statingthathewasfreetopublishworkswhosecopyrighthad

expiredundertheStatuteofAnne.

25

Donaldsonv.Beckettbecameoneoftheearlyintellectual‐propertycasestoattractwidespread

publicattention.TheEdinburghAdvertiserreportedgreat“rejoicinginEdinburghuponvictory

overliteraryproperty:bonfiresandilluminations”(Lessig93).Perpetualcopyrightshad

unequivocallybeenreplacedbyasystemthatwouldprotectcopyrightedworksforonlya

limitedtime.

ModernDevelopmentofCopyrightLawintheUnitedStates

ModerncopyrightlawintheUSmaybethoughtofasacontractbetweenindividualauthors

andsocietyasawhole.Inexchangeforsharingtheircreationswithsociety,authorsreceivethe

specificbenefitoftheexclusiverighttopublish,distribute,andotherwisecontrolusageoftheir

workforalimitedtime(McCarthy93).Therightsareintruthexclusivebecauseunderthe

principleoffreespeechauthorsmaintain“boththerighttospeakfreelyandtherighttorefrain

fromspeakingatall”(Wooleyv.Maynard,430U.S.705,714[1977]).Criticswhoarguethat

copyrightlawsimposespeechrestrictionssometimesoverlookthatfreedomofexpressionalso

entailsafreedomnottospeak.

CongressionalauthoritytoregulatecopyrightrestsintheprogressclauseoftheUnitedStates

Constitution,orArticleI,Section8,Clause8,whichstatesthat“Congressshallhavethepower

[…]topromotetheprogressofscienceandusefularts,bysecuringforlimitedtimestoauthors

andinventorstheexclusiverightstotheirrespectivewritingsanddiscoveries.”Underthis

constitutionalmandate,Congresshastherighttodefinewhatcontentistobeprotectedby

copyrightandtodeterminehowlongtherightswillremainineffect.Bygivingcreators

exclusiverightstopublish,distribute,andotherwisecontroltheuseoftheirwork,societygains

immediateaccesstocreators’expressions.

Oncetheyexpire,however,thecreatorslosetheirexclusiverightsandtheirworksthen

becomeapartofsociety’sunregulatedpoolofculturefromwhichanyonecandrawinspiration

withoutinfringingonindividualrights.Incopyrightterms,thispoolofunregulatedcultureis

calledthepublicdomain(McCarthy354).

26

CongressextensivelymodeledthefirstUSCopyrightActin1790aftertheStatuteofAnne.It

limitedthetypeofworkstobeprotectedbycopyrightto“maps,chartsandbooks”andthe

exclusiverightsrelatedtopublishinganddistribution(Patterson197).

Incontrast,thecurrentcopyrightact,passedin1976(17U.S.C.§102[a]),grantscopyright

protectiontoallworksthat(a)havean“author”orahumantowhichtheworkowesitsorigin,

(b)reachalevelof“individualformofexpression”,and(c)are“fixed”inatangiblemedia.The

CopyrightActof1976alsograntsownersorauthorsfiveexclusiverightstocontroltheirworks.

Thesearetherightsofreproduction,adaptation,distribution,performance,anddisplayofthe

workinpublic(17U.S.C.§106).

Furthermore,theCopyrightActof1978stipulatesthedurationoftheexclusiverightsand

definesthescopeofexpressionsprotectedasliteraryworks,musicalworks,includingany

accompanyingwords,dramaticworks,includinganyaccompanyingmusic,pantomimesand

choreographicworks,pictorial,graphic,andsculpturalworks,motionpicturesandother

audiovisualworks,soundrecordings,andarchitecturalworks.

Thetwovariablesofscopeanddurationhavebeenincontinuousdevelopmentthroughoutthe

twentiethcentury.Therehasbeenaconstantefforttostrikeabalancebetweenpublicinterest

andindividualinterestsand,atthesametime,toadapttothedevelopmentofnew

technologies(Lessig172).

Anexampleofthebalancebetweenpublicandindividualinterestsinregardtophotographs

andphotomontagemaybefoundintheUSSupremeCourt’sdecisioninBurrow‐Giles

LithographicCompanyv.Sarony(188U.S.,251,[1884]).Thisdecisionheldthatphotographsare

protectedbycopyright,andthatalthoughthephotographsthemselveswerenotconsidered

writings,theyshouldbeconsideredtheworkofanauthor.ThecaseexemplifieshowtheCourt

hasadaptedthescopeofcopyrightfollowingthedevelopmentofanewtechnology.

Specifically,theCourtheldthatcopyrightprotectionwasnotlimitedtowritersorotherauthors

27

inthetraditionalsense,buttothecreatorsofallformsofvisualart.

Individualformofexpressionreferstotheoriginalityrequirementthatisapre‐requisitefor

copyright.Theoriginalitythresholdforcopyrightis,however,notablylow,andsimplymeans

thataworkmustbeindependentlycreated,asopposedtobeingadirectcopyofsomeone

else’swork.Onlyaminimaldegreeofcreativityisnecessary,theamountoflaborinvolvedto

createaworkisirrelevant(FeistPublicationsInc.v.RuralTelephoneServiceCo.Inc.,499U.S.

345[1991]).

Theminimaldegreeofcreativityconceptisknownasthedoctrineofnon‐discrimination.It

recognizesthatit“wouldbeadangerousundertakingforpeopleonlytrainedtothelawto

constitutethemselvesfinaljudgeoftheworthofpictorialillustrations,outsidethenarrowest

andmostobviouslimits”(Bleisteinv.DonaldsonLithographing,188U.S.,251,[1884]).

Specifically,thedoctrineofnon‐discriminationstatesthatanyoriginalworkofauthorshipfixed

inatangiblemedium,beityesterday’semailtoyourmom,yourlatestto‐dolist,oracollection

ofphonedoodles,isentitledtocopyrightprotection.

Aspreviouslymentioned,worksthatareinthepublicdomainarefreeforanyonetouse.Under

the1790act,copyrightedworkswouldpassintothepublicdomainafter14yearsunlesstheir

authorsrenewedthemforanadditional14‐yearterm,resultinginamaximumof28yearsof

copyrightprotection.Theinitialtermwasincreasedto28yearsin1831whilethesecondterm

remainedthesame(14years),leavingapotentialmaximumtermof42years.IntheCopyright

Actof1909,thesecondtermwasextendedfrom14to28years,whichincreasedthemaximum

durationofcopyrightprotectionto56years.

ThecurrentCopyrightActof1976extendedthedurationofcopyrightstothelifeoftheauthor

plus50years.Inadditiontoextendingthecopyrightterm,Congressalsoabandonedthe

renewalrequirement.Priortothe1976act,manyworksfellintothepublicdomainbecause

authorsfailedtoregister,renew,orproperlyaffixacopyrightnotice.Initially,the1976act

28

requiredworkscreatedpriorto1978tocomplywiththoserenewalrequirements.In1998,

however,undertheCopyrightTermExtensionAct(CTEA),allcopyrightsreceivedthemaximum

termthenavailable(Lessig135).TheCTEAextendedthecopyrighttermtothelifeoftheauthor

plus70yearsandto95yearsfromthetimeofcreationforcorporateworksandworksmadefor

hire,whichincludeworkspreparedbyemployeeswithinthescopeoftheiremploymentand

commissionedworksthatfallwithinspecifiedcategoriesofworksandwhichthepartiesagree

inwritingtotreatasworksmadeforhire(McCarthy485).

TheconstitutionalityofCongress’senactmentoftheCTEAwaschallengedinEldridgev.

Ashcroft(537US186,123,S.Ct.769[2003]).LikeDonaldsoninhistime,Eldridgewasinthe

businessofpublishingworksthathadpassedintothepublicdomain.Hehadorganizedan

onlinelibrarywherehemadeworks,oftenoutofprintandhardtogetbooks,accessibletothe

public.EldridgedisputedCongress’srighttoextendthecopyrightdurationforworksthatwere

abouttoexpire.TheSupremeCourtrejectedMr.Eldridge’sclaim,holdingthe20‐yearcopyright

extensiontobewithinCongress’sconstitutionalgrantofauthority.

ThedecisioneffectivelypreventedEldridgefrompublishingworksthatotherwisewouldhave

passedintothepublicdomain.Photomonteursarealsoaffectedbythedecision,asitprevents

themfromusingimagesthatotherwisewouldhavebeenunequivocallyinthepublicdomain.

CopyrightInfringementandRemedies

Acomparisonto“trespass”maybeappropriateinhelpingtounderstandtheconceptof

infringement.Itistheuseofsomeoneelse’spropertywithoutpermission,andcanbeeither

intentionalorunintentional.

Todeterminewhetheracopyrightinfringementhasoccurred,onemustfirstestablishavalid

copyrightandthenprove“substantialsimilarity”betweentheoriginalandnewworks.Next,

onemustfindause,ortrespass,ofoneoftheoriginalcreators’exclusiverightsto

reproduction,adaptation,distribution,performance,ordisplay.Accordingly,whenaperson

29

invadesthescopeofacopyrightowner’sexclusiverights,andthereissubstantialsimilarity,

copyrightinfringementtakesplace(McCarthy212).TheCopyrightActdoesnotattemptto

definethedegreeofsimilarityrequired;itmerelydefinesaninfringerasanyonewhoviolates

anyoftheexclusiverightsofcopyright(17U.S.C.§501[a]),butUSfederalcourtshave

developedwhatisknownasthesubstantialsimilaritytest(McCarthy420).

Copyrightlawmakesadistinctionbetweenexpressionandidea.Generally,appropriating

someoneelse’sideaisacceptable,whileusingothers’expressivematerialisnot.Forexample,

thegeneralideaoftakingapictureofacowboydoesnotreceivecopyrightprotection.In

contrast,a“photographer’sselectionofbackground,lights,shading,positioningandtiming”of

aparticularcowboyareexpressivetoolseligibleforprotectionundercopyrightlaw(Gentieuv.

JohnMuller&Co.,712F.Supp.740,742[W.D.Mo.1989]).

Infringementdoesnotnecessarilyrequirethatalargeportionoftheworkbesimilartothe

original;thestandardisthatasubstantialpartbesimilar.It“isenoughthatsubstantialparts

werelifted;noplagiaristcanexcusethewrongbyshowinghowmuchofhisworkhedidnot

pirate”(Sheldonv.Metro‐GoldwynPicturesCorp.81F.2d49,56).Creditingthesourceor

author,orimprovingtheoriginalisirrelevantwhenassessinginfringement.

Ownerslosevaluefromtheircopyrightswheninfringementsoccur,andaccordinglyfrequently

seekreliefbyfilingsuitinafederalcourt,whichcangrantpreliminaryandpermanent

injunctionsifinfringementsareestablishedandmayorderoffendingpartiestoceasetoinfringe

onthecopyrights.Courtscanalsoawardmonetarydamages.Acopyrightownercanrecoverfor

financiallossesendured,includinganyadditionalprofitsearnedbytheinfringingparty.The

copyrightownermayalsochoosetoreceivestatutorydamages.Thebasicdamagesrangefrom

$750to$30,000,andareawardedatthediscretionofthecourt.Thelimitsmaybeadjusted

basedontheinnocenceorwillfulnessoftheinfringer.Ifthedefendantprovesthatthe

infringementwasinnocentandingoodfaith,damagesmaybereducedtoaslittleas$200per

work.Willfulinfringementmaytriggerdamagesofupto$150,000perwork.Courtsmay,

30

furthermore,destroyorimpoundillicitreproductionsofcopyrightedworks.

ContemporaryPhotomontageandDerivativeWorks

Theexclusiverightofadaptationisauthors’exclusiverighttocreateorauthorizewhatunder

copyrightlawisknownasderivativeworks.Aderivativeworkis“basedonapreexistingwork

[…]inwhichthepreexistingworkischanged,condensed,orembellishedinsomeway”

(McCarthy114).Aphotomontageisnaturallyderivative,sinceitrecyclesindividualpre‐existing

photographsintoanewcomposition.

Derivativeworksmaybecreatedfromworkscurrentlyundercopyrightprotectionorfrom

worksinthepublicdomain.Asoutlinedabove,aworkentersthepublicdomainwhenthe

copyrighttermexpiresandcanthenbeadaptedwithoutrestriction.However,duetothemany

recentchangesincopyrightlaw,itisoftencomplicatedtoassesswhichworksareinthepublic

domainandwhicharestillunderprotection.

Forexample,inHoepkerv.Kruger(200F.Supp.2d340),acopyrightinfringementsuitwasfiled

againstBarbaraKrugerandotherdefendantsin2001.Krugerhadcreatedaphotomontagein

1990byradicallycroppinganimageandaddingnewtextualelements.

31

BarbaraKruger(1988)

TheoriginalimagewascreatedbyThomasHoepker,aGermanphotographer,andhadbeen

publishedinthemagazineFotoPrismain1960.AtthetimeKrugercreatedtheworkin1988its

copyrighthadexpiredandHopekerhadfailedtorenewit.Still,hesoughtdamagesandthe

destructionofallcopiesofKruger’swork,basinghisclaimonthe1994restorationofcopyright

protectiontoallUSandforeignworks.IthadthencompliedwiththeGeneralAgreementon

TariffsandTrade,andcopyrightprotectionwasgrantedtoallworksforaperiodof95years

fromthetimeofproduction.

Accordingly,thelawhadretroactivelyreinstatedHoepker'scopyrightandextendedituntil

2055.Nonetheless,Hoepkercouldonlysuccessfullypresentaninfringementclaimhadhe

notifiedKrugerofhisreinstatedcopyright,andifuseofhisimagehadnotceasedwithinone

yearofthenotification.ThecourtfoundthatHoepkerhadfailedtofollowthisprocedureand

heldthatnoinfringementhadtakenplace.

32

Sincephotomontagesbasethemselvesontheunderlyingphotographs,theyareallderivative

worksandsubjecttodebateaboutwhethertheyviolatetherighttoadaptanoriginal.Nimmer

(Copyright§3.01[1994rev]),statedthatinordertobeaderivativeworkanewworkmustbe

sosubstantiallysimilartotheunderlyingworkthatintheabsenceofalicenseitwouldbea

copyrightinfringement.Thisviewharmonizestheconceptsofaderivativeworkandacopyright

infringement.

Basedontheabove,itisclearthatwhencommentingonpopularculturethroughtheuseof

photographsprotectedbycopyright,photomonteursfaceconcreteintellectual‐property

challenges.Thenumerouscopyright‐termextensionsandtheabandonmentofcopyright

registrationandrenewalprocedureshavemadethepublicdomainconsiderablysmaller.Still,

registeringacopyrightwiththeCopyrightOfficedoeshavedistinctbenefits.Underparagraph

504,aregisteredcopyrightisentitledtostatutorycompensationforupto$150,000per

incidentofwillfulinfringement.Moreimportantly,acopyrightownercannotsuefor

infringementunlesstheworkhasbeenregisteredinatimelymanner.Also,attorneys’fees

cannotberecoveredunlesstheworkisregistered.

Theseextensiontocopyrightcoveragearegoodnewsforownerswhohavelittleinterestin

keepingupwithrenewaldates,butunfortunateforphotomonteursbecauseitmakesthe

numberofunprotectedworksavailableconsiderablysmaller.Inextremecases,thismayleadto

situationsinwhichcopyrightlawagainbecomesusedasacensorshiptoolforunwanted

expressions.Oneexampleofthissurfacedinconnectionwiththerun‐uptothepresidential

electionof2004.Severalconservativenewsorganizations,suchasFoxNews,aswellasmore

liberalpublishers,includingtheWashingtonPostandtheNewYorkTimes,publishedstories

linkingJohnKerrytoJaneFondaandun‐Americanactivitiesatananti‐warrallyprotestingthe

VietnamWarin1972.AccompanyingthestorieswasaphotographthatshowedKerryand

Fondaspeakingtogetheratanantiwarrally.

33

Anonymous(2004)

However,thephotographhadbeendigitallyalteredtoresembleanewspaperclippingthat

containedanAssociatedPressphotographshowingKerryandFondatogether(Marinuccin.p.).

Inreality,however,theimagewasthemergeroftwoindividualpicturestakenbytwoseparate

photographersoneyearapart,thepictureofKerrybeingtakenbyKenLightinMineola,N.Y.,on

June13,1971,whiletheoneofFondahadbeenshotbyOwenFrankenin1972inMiamiBeach,

Florida.

Therewasnolicensefortheuseoftheimages,andthereforetheuseoftheunderlyingworkin

thederivativeworkwasillegalundercopyrightlaw.TheimageswereregisteredwiththeU.S.

CopyrightOffice,andCorbis,theonlinestockagencyresponsibleforlicensingtherightstothe

images,launchedaninvestigationtodeterminewhetheritsdigitalwatermarksandfingerprints

werecapableoftrackingthesourceoftheunauthorizeduse.

34

OwenFranken(1972) KenLight(1971)

Apartfromtheobviouslackofappropriateduediligenceonthepartofthenewsorganizations,

theincidentalsoillustrateshowcopyrightsmaybeusedtocensorexpressionsbuiltonprevious

works.Althoughthemotivationfortakinglegalactionagainsttheunauthorizeduseofthe

imagesmaybetocorrectthehistoricalrecordoftheKerry‐Fondaassociation,onecanalso

imaginepoliticalandideologicalreasonsfordoingso.

Thispointisthesameastheonemadeintheintroduction,and,keepingwiththetopicof

GeorgeW.Bush,itcanbeillustratedagaininthephotomontagebelow,whichisacommenton

Bushsenior’sinfluenceonjunior’spresidency.Shouldthecopyrightownersofeitherofthe

individualphotographsdisagreewiththecommentary,theycouldchoosetofileaclaimbased

ontheNimmerdefinitionofaderivativework.

.

35

UnknownArtist(takeoverworld)

InobservingArticleI,Section8,Clause8,oftheConstitution,onemaywonderhowextending

thecopyrighttermtobenefittheestatesandheirsofdeceasedauthorscontributestothe

spreadofscienceandtheusefularts.Moreover,ifCongresshasthepowertoextendthe

copyrightterm,theConstitution’srequirementthattheybelimitedhasnopracticaleffect.“If

everytimeacopyrightisabouttoexpire,Congresshasthepowertoextenditsterm,then

CongresscanachievewhattheConstitutionplainlyforbids,perpetualterms”(Lessig216).

Inordertoavoidthepossibilityofaninfringementclaimaltogether,thegeneralruleissimply

touseworkswherethephotographerhasbeendeadfor70years.ThebelowtablefromCornell

Universityfurtherexplainstheexceptionsandtheexceptionstotheexceptions.

36

37

38

39

NotestotheCornellUniversityTable

1.ThischartwasfirstpublishedinHirtle,"RecentChangesToTheCopyrightLaw:

CopyrightTermExtension,"ArchivalOutlook,January/February1999.Thisversioniscurrentas

of1January2008.Themostrecentversionmaybefoundathttp://www.copyright.cornell.edu/

public_domain/.ThechartisbasedinpartonGasaway'schart,"WhenWorksPassIntothe

PublicDomain,"whichmaybefoundathttp://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public‐d.htm,and

similarchartsfoundinMalaro‘sALegalPrimerOnManagingMuseumCollections(Washington,

DC:SmithsonianInstitutionPress,1998,pp.155‐156).Ausefulcopyright‐durationchartby

Minow,organizedbyyear,maybefoundathttp://www.librarylaw.com/DigitizationTable.htm.

Aflowchartforcopyrightdurationislocatedathttp://www.bromsun.com/practices/copyright‐

portfolio‐development/flowchart.htm.SeealsotheLibraryofCongressCopyrightOffice’s

Circular15a,DurationofCopyright:ProvisionsoftheLawDealingwiththeLengthofCopyright

Protection(Washington,DC:LibraryofCongress,2004),whichmaybefoundat

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf.

2.Thelawtreatsunpublishedworksregisteredforcopyrightpriorto1978asiftheyhad

beenpublishedintheUS,thoughnotethattheonlyformalitythatappliesistherequirementto

renewtheircopyrightsafter28years.Unpublishedworksregisteredforcopyrightsince1978

canbeconsideredasiftheywerean"Unpublished,UnregisteredWork."

3.Alltermsofcopyrightrunthroughtheendofthecalendaryearinwhichtheywould

otherwiseexpire,soaworkentersthepublicdomainonthefirstoftheyearfollowingthe

expirationofitscopyrightterm.Forexample,abookpublishedon15March1923willenterthe

publicdomainon1January2019,not16March2018.

4.Unpublishedworkswhenthedeathdateoftheauthorisnotknownmaystillbe

copyrightedafter120years,butcertificationfromtheCopyrightOfficethatithasnorecordto

indicatewhetherthepersonislivingordiedlessthan70yearsbeforeisacompletedefenseto

anyactionforinfringement(17U.S.C.§302[e]).

5.Presumptionofanauthor'sdeathrequiresacertifiedreportfromtheCopyrightOffice

thatitsrecordsdisclosenothingtoindicatethattheauthoroftheworkisliving,orthatheor

shediedlessthan70yearsbefore.

40

6.Copyrightlawdidnotexplicitlydefinethetermpublicationbefore1976,althoughthe

1909actindirectlyindicatedthatitoccurredwhencopiesofthefirstauthorizededitionwere

placedonsale,sold,orpubliclydistributedbytheproprietorofthecopyright,orunderhisor

herauthority.

7.Notallpublishedworksarecopyrighted.Workspreparedbyanofficeroremployeeof

theUSgovernmentaspartofthatperson'sofficialdutiesreceivenocopyrightprotectioninthe

US.Formuchofthetwentiethcentury,certainformalitieshadtobefollowedtosecure

copyrightprotection.Forexample,somebookshadtobeprintedintheUStoreceivecopyright

protection,andfailuretodepositcopiesofworkswiththeRegisterofCopyrightcouldresultin

thelossofcopyright.Therequirementsthatcopiesincludeaformalnoticeofcopyrightand

thatthecopyrightberenewedafter28yearswerethemostcommonconditions,andare

specifiedinthechart.

8.A1961CopyrightOfficestudyfoundthatfewerthan15%ofallregisteredcopyrights

wererenewed.Forbooks,thefigurewasevenlowerat7%.SeeRinger,"StudyNo.31:Renewal

ofCopyright"(1960),reprintedinLibraryofCongressCopyrightOffice‘sCopyrightlawrevision:

StudiespreparedfortheSubcommitteeonPatents,Trademarks,andCopyrightsofthe

CommitteeontheJudiciary,UnitedStatesSenate,Eighty‐sixthCongress,first[‐second]session.

(Washington:USGovt.Print.Off,1961,p.220).Agoodguidetoinvestigatingthecopyrightand

renewalstatusofpublishedworkisDemasandBrogdon,"DeterminingCopyrightStatusfor

PreservationandAccess:DefiningReasonableEffort,"LibraryResourcesandTechnicalServices

41:4(October,1997):323‐334.SeealsoLibraryofCongressCopyrightOffice,Howtoinvestigate

thecopyrightstatusofawork.Circular22.(Washington,DC:LibraryofCongress,Copyright

Office,2004).Theonlinebookspage’sFAQ,especially"HowCanITellWhetheraBookCanGo

Online?"and"HowCanITellWhetheraCopyrightWasRenewed?"isalsoparticularlyhelpful.

9.ThefollowingsectiononforeignpublicationsdrawsextensivelyonFishman,The

PublicDomain:HowtoFindCopyright‐freeWritings,Music,Art&More.(Berkeley:Nolo.com,

2004).ItappliestoworksfirstpublishedabroadandnotsubsequentlypublishedintheUS

within30daysoftheoriginalforeignpublication.Worksthatweresimultaneouslypublished

abroadandintheUSaretreatedasiftheyareAmericanpublications.

41

10.Foreignworkspublishedafter1923arelikelytobestillundercopyrightintheUS

becauseoftheUruguayRoundAgreementsAct(URAA),whichmodifiedtheGeneralAgreement

onTariffsandTrade.TheURAArestoredcopyrighttoforeignworksthatasof1January1996

hadfallenintothepublicdomainintheUSbecauseofafailuretocomplywithUSformalities.

Oneoftheauthorsoftheworkhastobeanon‐UScitizenorresident,theworkcannothave

beenpublishedintheUSwithin30daysafteritspublicationabroad,andtheworkneedstobe

stillincopyrightinthecountryofpublication.Suchworkshaveacopyrighttermequivalentto

thatofanAmericanworkthathasfollowedalloftheformalities.Formoreinformation,see

LibraryofCongressCopyrightOffice,HighlightsofCopyrightAmendmentsContainedinthe

UruguayRoundAgreementsAct(URAA),Circular38b.(Washington,D.C.:LibraryofCongress,

CopyrightOffice,2004).

11.USformalitiesincludetherequirementthataformalnoticeofcopyrightbeincluded

inthework,thatitberegisteredandrenewed,thatcopiesbedepositedintheCopyrightOffice,

andthatitbemanufacturedintheUS.

12.ThedifferenceindatesisaproductofthequestioninthecontroversialTwinBooks

v.WaltDisneyCo.decisionbythe9thCircuitCourtofAppealsin1996.Thequestionatissue

wasthecopyrightstatusofaworkpublishedonlyinaforeignlanguageoutsideoftheUSand

withoutacopyrightnotice.IthadlongbeenassumedthatfailuretocomplywithUSformalities

placedtheseworksinthepublicdomainintheUS,andassuchweresubjecttothecopyright

restorationunderURAA(seenote10).ThecourtinTwinBooks,however,concludedthat

"publicationwithoutacopyrightnoticeinaforeigncountrydidnotputtheworkinthepublic

domainintheUnitedStates."Accordingtothecourt,theseforeignpublicationswereineffect

unpublishedintheUS,andhencehavethesamecopyrighttermasunpublishedworks.The

decisionhasbeenharshlycriticizedinNimmeronCopyright,theleadingtreatiseoncopyright,

asbeingincompatiblewithpreviousdecisionsandtheintentofCongresswhenitrestored

foreigncopyrights.TheCopyrightOfficeaswellignorestheTwinBooksdecisioninitscircular

onrestoredcopyrights.Nevertheless,thedecisioniscurrentlyapplicableinallofthe9th

JudicialCircuit(Alaska,Arizona,California,Hawaii,Idaho,Montana,Nevada,Oregon,

42

Washington,andGuamandtheNorthernMarianaIslands),anditmayapplyintherestofthe

country.

13.SeeLibraryofCongressCopyrightOffice,InternationalCopyrightRelationsofthe

UnitedStates.Circular38a.(Washington,D.C.:LibraryofCongress,CopyrightOffice,2004).

14.See63Fed.Reg.19,287(1998),LibraryofCongressCopyrightOffice,Copyright

RestorationofWorksinAccordanceWiththeUruguayRoundAgreementsAct;ListIdentifying

CopyrightsRestoredUndertheUruguayRoundAgreementsActforWhichNoticesofIntentTo

EnforceRestoredCopyrightsWereFiledintheCopyrightOffice.

15.CopyrightnoticerequirementsforsoundrecordingsarespelledoutintheCopyright

Office’sCircular3,“CopyrightNotice,”availableathttp://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.html.

43

Section3

PhotomontageandFairUse

Althoughmoderntechnologymakesiteasytocommentonpopularculturewith

photomontages,itisincreasinglydifficulttodeterminewhetherandunderwhatcircumstances

suchusemaybepermissibleundercopyrightlaw.Theuseofcopyrightedimagesmay,of

course,triggerinfringementclaims.However,dependingonthetypeofuse,photomontage

maybeeligibleforaparticularcopyrightinfringementdefensecalledfairuse.Theexception

recognizesthatasystemallowingforthesharingandreferencingofideasstimulatespublic

discourseandbenefitssocietyasawhole.

Paragraph107oftheCopyrightActstatesthatfairuse,“forpurposessuchascriticism,

comment,newsreporting,teaching(includingmultiplecopiesforclassroomuse),scholarship,

orresearch”limitstheexclusiverightsforwardedtoownersofacopyright,asdefinedinthe

act’sparagraph106.

Theparaphrasingandquotingofliteraryworkshaslongbeenacceptableasamatterofpublic

policybecause,accordingtoJusticeBrennan’sdissentingopinioninHarper&RowPublishers,

Inc.v.NationEnterprises(471U.S.539[1985]),it“assuresauthorstherighttotheiroriginal

expression[and]encouragesotherstobuildfreelyupontheideasandinformationconveyedby

awork.”Itisthispaper’spropositionisthatphotomontageshouldbecharacterizedasawayof

visuallyparaphrasingandquotingfromthemainstreammedia.

Theact’sparagraph107outlinesfourfactorstoconsiderwhendeterminingwhetherafair‐use

exceptionapplies.Theseare(a)thepurposeandcharacteroftheuse,includingwhetheruseis

ofacommercialnature,(b)thenatureofthecopyrightedwork,(c)theamountand

substantialityoftheportionused,and(d)theeffectonthepotentialmarketoftheoriginal.

Thefirstfactor,thepurposeandcharacteroftheuse,determineswhethertheuseinquestion

contributestothepurposeofcopyrightlaw.Theusemuststimulatecreativityforgeneralpublic

44

enrichmentand,consistentwiththeprogressclause,advanceknowledgeandprogressinthe

arts.Itshouldnotsupersedeorreplacetheneedfortheoriginal,and,accordingly,animportant

considerationiswhetherthenewuseistransformative,asopposedtobeingmerelyderivative.

Anancillaryconsiderationiswhethertheuseisofacommercialnatureorforanonprofit

educationalpurpose.Generally,morespaceisallowedfornon‐commercialuses.

Thesecondfactor,thenatureofthecopyrightedwork,considerscertainaspectsofthework,in

particularwhetheritisbasedonhistoricalfactsorispurelyfictional.Asmentionedabove,facts

andideasarenotcopyrightable;onlytheindividualexpressionsusedtoconveythemare.More

protectionisawardedtofictionalworksthatapplycreativeexpressionthantonon‐fictional

worksthatdocumenthistoricalfacts.

Thethirdfactor,theamountandsubstantialityoftheportionused,evaluateshowmuchofthe

copyrightedworkhasbeenimportedintothenewwork.Ifonlyalittlehasbeenusedinrelation

tothewholework,forexampleafewsentencesofatextforabookreview,thereisagreater

likelihoodthattheusewillbeconsideredfair.

Thefourthfactordeterminestheeffectasecondaryusehasontheoriginalowner'sabilityto

exploithisorherwork.Inevaluatingthis,thecourtsconsidertwokindsofharm.Theseare

whethertheuseisadirectmarketsubstitutefortheoriginal,andwhethermarketharmgoes

beyonddirectsubstitution,affectingpotentiallicensingmarkets.

ThefourfactorsoriginallyappearedinFolsomv.Marsh(9F.Cas.342[1841]).Thecourt

analyzedthedefendant’scopyingof353pagesfromtheplaintiff's12‐volumebiographyof

GeorgeWashington.Thecopyinghadtakenplaceinordertocreateanewbutsignificantly

smallerwork.Inthedecision,thecourtrejectedthedefendant'spleaforafair‐usedefense,

notingthat:

[One]mayfairlycitelargelyfromtheoriginalwork,ifhisdesignbereallyandtrulytousethe

passagesforthepurposesoffairandreasonablecriticism.Ontheotherhand,itisasclear,thatif

hethuscitesthemostimportantpartsofthework,withaview,nottocriticize,buttosupersede

45

theuseoftheoriginalwork,andsubstitutethereviewforit,suchausewillbedeemedinlawa

piracy[…]

[Weshould]looktothenatureandobjectsoftheselectionsmade,thequantityand

valueofthematerialsused,andthedegreeinwhichtheusemayprejudicethesale,ordiminish

theprofits,orsupersedetheobjects,oftheoriginalwork.(9F.Cas.342[1841])

Thefair‐usedefensecallsforacase‐by‐caseanalysisanddoesnotprovideabright‐lineruleto

determinewhetheraparticularuseisfair.Thenextsixsectionswillreviewrecentcases

discussingtheapplicationofthefair‐usefactors.

Campbellv.Acuff‐RoseMusic,Inc.

Photomontagesoftentakehumorousandsarcasticapproachesandfrequentlyapplyelements

ofparodyinordertoconveymeaningabouttheirsubjects.Alandmarkfair‐usecase

exemplifyingthefair‐usedefenseinregardtoparodyisCampbellv.Acuff‐RoseMusic,Inc.(114

S.Ct.1164[1994]).Ahip‐hopgroupcalled2LiveCrewhadusedsignificantportionsofRoy

Orbison’s1962hitsong“PrettyWoman”inareleasecalled“HairyWoman”.TheSupreme

Courtacknowledgedparodyasaformofsocialcriticismwithsignificantsocialvalueunderthe

principleoffreespeech.

Startingwiththepurposeandcharacterof2LiveCrew'suse,theCourtfoundthatthemore

transformativetheparody,thelesssignificancewouldbegiventotheotherthreefactors.

Accordingly,thegreaterdegreeofcreativetransformation,themorelikelyonewouldbethe

haveasuccessfulfair‐usedefense.TheCourtheldthat:

Thegoalofcopyright,topromotescienceandthearts,isgenerallyfurtheredbythecreationof

transformativeworks.Suchworksthuslieattheheartofthefairusedoctrine’sbreathingspace

withintheconfinesofcopyright[…]themoretransformativethenewwork,thelesswillbethe

significanceofotherfactors,likecommercialism,thatmayweighagainstafindingoffairuse.

(Campbellv.AcuffRoseMusic,Inc.,114S.Ct.1164,1171)

TheCourtfoundthatsecondfactor,thenatureofthecopyrightedwork,hadlittlemeritin

resolvingparodycases.Theartisticvalueofsuchworksisfoundintheirabilitytocopypopular

46

worksofthepast,eitherfictionalornon‐fictional.Todeterminethelegitimacyofthesecondary

usetheCourtalsohadtoreviewtheamountandsubstantialityoftheportionused.Itapplieda

conjureuptest,whichstatesthataparodistmayusetheamountofcopyrightedmaterial

necessarytoconjureup,orrecall,theoriginalofwhichfunisbeingmade.“Whenaparody

takesaimataparticularoriginalwork,theparodymustbeableto‘conjureup’atleastenough

ofthatoriginaltomaketheobjectofitscriticalwitrecognizable”(Campbellv.Acuff‐Rose

Music,Inc.,114S.Ct.1164,1176[1994]).TheCourtthenlookedatthenewworkasawholeand

foundthatitdepartedsignificantlyfromtheOrbisonsong’schoiceofwordsandotherwise

produceddistinctivemusic.

Reviewingthefinalfactor,theCourtfoundthatparodiesingeneralarerarelysubstitutesfor

originalworksbecausetheyservedifferentmarketfunctions.Acuff‐Rosearguedthatithada

potentialderivativerapmarket,buttheCourtfoundnoevidencethat2LiveCrew'sparody

harmedanysuchpotential.TheCourtalsofounditunlikelythatartistswouldfindtheparody‐

derivativemarketparticularlylucrative.

Rogersv.Koons

Koons,amajorartistappropriatingtheworksofothersinhispieces,preparedashowin1987

calledtheBanalityShow,consistingentirelyofsculptures.AccordingtoKoonsthesubjectfor

theshowwasbanality,butthatitalsocontainedaspiritualmessage,arguingthat“whilebeing

uplifting,theworkwouldbecriticalcommentaryonconspicuousconsumption,greedandself‐

indulgence”(Rogersv.Koons,715F.Supp.476[S.D.N.Y.1988]).

Incollectingmaterialwhichinspiredthecreationofhisartpieces,Koonspurchasedtwo

postcardscontainingphotographsbyArtRogers.Oneofthephotographsshowedamale‐

femalecoupleholdinganarmfulofpuppies.Koonsthencreatedasculpturebasedontheblack‐

and‐whitephotographcalled“AStringofPuppies”withoutcontactingRogers.Intheprocess,

Koonsmadespecificchoicesrelatedtotheuseofcolorsandaddedcertainridiculouselements

tothecouple’sheadsandthepuppies’noses.

47

“Puppies”byArtRogers(1980) “StringofPuppies”byJeffKoons(1988)

Koonsraisedtwodefensesagainstthecopyrightinfringementclaim:First,thathehadused

non‐copyrightableideasfromRogers’sphotograph.Hethereforearguedthathehadnotmade

useofRogers’screativeexpression,buttheUSCourtofAppealsfortheSecondCircuit

disagreed.Specifically,itfoundthatthesculpturewasderivativeandthatRogershadtheright

toexercisecontroloverthecreationofsuchworks.

Next,Koonsallegedfairusebasedonfreespeechandtherighttomakeaparodyoftheoriginal

image.HerethecourtalsosidedwithRogers,statingthataparodydefensecouldonlybe

invokedwherethesubjectbeingparodiedwaslikelytoberecognizedbytheaudienceviewing

thesculpture.Whatthecourtdidnotrecognize,however,wasthatKoonscouldbeseentobe

makingacommentonpopularcultureingeneralandpostcardbuyers,andnotonRogers’s

image,thecopyrightedproperty,inparticular.

OneissuewhichmayhaveinfluencedthecourtinsidingwithRogerswasKoons’scommercial

successasanartist.TheBanalityShowsoldthreeoutoffourexistingsculpturestothetuneof

$367,000.Koonskeptthefourthsculpturehimself.

48

Blanchv.Koons

Inamorerecentdecision,Blanchv.Koons(U.S.DistrictCourt,SouthernDistrictofNewYork,

03‐Civ‐8026[November1,2005]),thecourtheldinKoons’sfavor.ThistimeKoonshaduseda

fashionphotographer'sphotoaspartofacollageassembledforapainting.Blanchclaimedthat

theuseofherdepictionofapairofwoman'sfeetinaGucciadvertisementforsilksandals

constitutedaninfringementofhercopyright.

Asintheabovecase,Koonsadmittedappropriatingandalteringtheplaintiff’simage.Koons’s

workwascalled"Niagara",andtheimagewascomprisedoffoursetsofwomen’sfeethanging

fromthetopofthecanvas,juxtaposedwithimagesofpastriesandothertreats,presumably

withNiagaraFallsasabackground.

“Niagara”byKoons(2000) “SilkSandals”byBlanch(2000)

Inregardtothefirstfair‐usefactor,purposeandcharacter,Koonsexplainedthatthewomen’s

legswereplacedagainstabackdropoffoodandlandscapeinorderto:

commentonthewaysinwhichsomeofourmostbasicappetites–forfood,play,andsex–are

mediatedbypopularimages.[…]Byre‐contextualizingthesefragmentsasIdo,Itrytocompel

theviewertobreakoutoftheconventionalwayofexperiencingaparticularappetiteas

mediatedbymassmedia.(3)

49

InBlanch'sphotograph,aswellasintheotheronesheused,Koonsfound“aparticulartypeof

womanfrequentlypresentedinadvertising.”Inthedecision,thecourtemphasizedthatKoons’s

purposesforusingBlanch'simagewereverydifferentfromBlanch'soriginalgoalsincreatingit.

Blanchwanted“toshowsomesortoferoticsense”andtoget“moreofasexualitytothe

photographs”,whereasKoonswasusingitasawaytocommentonthe“socialandaesthetic

consequencesofmassmedia”(18).

Ofkeyimportanceforthecase,ofcourse,waswhethertheusewastransformativeand

whetherit,accordingtoCampbellv.Acuff‐RoseMusic,Inc.(510U.S.569),added“something

new,withafurtherpurposeordifferentcharacter,alteringthefirstwithnewexpression,

meaningormessage.”ThecourtfoundthatitdidandnotedthatKoonshadmadevarious

alterationstoBlanch’spicture.IntheoriginalworkBlanchdepictedthewomen’slegsrestingon

aman’slapinafirst‐classairplanecabin,whereasKoonsonlyappropriatedthelegsfromthe

photograph,omittingtheairplanereferenceandtheman'slap.Inaddition,Koonsinvertedthe

orientationofthelegs,lettingthemhangverticallyinsteadofslantingupwardata45‐degree

angle.Finally,Koonsmodifiedthephotograph’scolorandaddedaheel.

Thejudgefoundthatthe:

painting’susedoesnotsupersedeorduplicatetheobjectiveoftheoriginal,butusesitasraw

materialinanovelcontexttocreatenewinformation,newaesthetics,andnewinsights.Such

use,whethersuccessfulornotartistically,istransformative.(8)

IntheRogerscase,ontheotherhand,Koonshad“slavishlyrecreatedacopyrightedworkina

differentmediumwithoutanyobjectiveindiciaoftransformingitorcommentingonthe

copyrightedwork”,andultimatelyfailedtoshowaclearargumentforhowartisticcommentary

wastakingplace(960F.2d301[2dCir.1992]).

HavingfoundthatKoons’susewastransformative,thecourtsawtheotherfactorsasless

important.Furthermore,inregardtoanypotentialcommercialdetriment,Blanchtestifiedthat

Koons’susedidnotharmhercareer,upsetanyplansshehadfortheuseoftheimage,nor

50

decreaseitsvalue.Basedontheseadmissionsthecourtconcludedthat”Niagara”didnot

adverselyaffectthepotentialmarketorvalueofthecopyrightedwork.

Leibovitzv.ParamountPicturesCorp

InLeibovitzv.ParamountPicturesCorp.(948F.Supp.1214[S.D.N.Y.1996]),afamous

photographerclaimedthatParamountPictureshadunfairlycopiedoneofherportraits.

LeibovitzhadphotographedtheactressDemiMoorefortheAugustissueofVanityFairin1991.

ThephotographdepictedapregnantMooreinthenude,inprofile,andcomposedinaclassical

VenusPudicapose.

InanadvertisementforthefilmNakedGun331/3:TheFinalInsult,ParamountusedLeslie

Neilsen’ssmirkingheadsuperimposedontoanothermodel’sbodyinthesamearrangementas

Leibovitz’soriginalwork.Leibovitzclaimedthatthepostershouldfalloutsideofafair‐use

defensebecauseitwasusedforacommercialpurpose.Thecourt,however,foundthatthe

advertisementwasaparodyandthatitwasentitledtoafair‐usedefense.

QuotingtheCampbellopinion,itstatedthat“thequalityoftheparodyisnottobeevaluated

[…]therelevantinquiryiswhetheraparodiccharactermayreasonablybeperceived”(Section

III).Initsanalysis,thecourtnotedthatalthoughtheposingofthemodelsisthesame,other

elementsaredifferent.ThelightingintheParamountphotoisharsherandhasmorecontrast

andbrightercolors,whereasLeibovitz’sphotoappliesawarmerandmoresubduedlighting

technique.Inaddition,theringusedonthemodel'srighthandintheParamountphotoismuch

largerthantheringMooreiswearingonherrighthand.Themodels'facialexpressionsarealso

significant.Moore'sseriousexpressionmimicsherclassicalpose,whereasNielsen'sfacebearsa

smirkandcontradictsanyseriousadmiration.Together,theseartisticchoicesestablisha

parodiceffectinParamount'sphotograph.

Examiningthefairusedefensefurther,thecourtfoundthatalthoughParamountreliedheavily

onLeibovitz'scomposition,marketharmcouldnotbeestablished.Leibovitzarguedthatshe

51

wasentitledtolicensingrevenue,butthecourtfoundthat“parodyandtheoriginalusually

servedifferentmarketfunctions.”Thecourtfoundfurtherthat“harmresultingfromthe’lethal’

natureoftheparody,isnotaharmcognizableundertheCopyrightAct.”

Inregardtophotomontage,thecasesuggeststhatsimplytakingNielsen’sheadand

superimposingitonLeibovitz’sworkwouldhavefallenshortoffairuseinthiscontext.The

courtalsogavegreatemphasistotheconsiderationParamountshowedbyre‐creatingthe

compositionwithslightlydifferentartisticchoices.

AssumingthatanindividualartistwantedtodoacommentaryonLeibovitz’sself‐important

self‐associationwithgreatclassicalmasters,superimposingNielsen’sheadinthephotograph

mightalsohavebeenfair.However,incommercialadvertisingthetakingofaprofessional

portraittofurtherone’sownproductwouldstronglyweighagainstafindingoffairuse.

Leibovitz(1991) MovieposterforNakedGun331/3

SunTrustBankv.HoughtonMifflinCo.

TheSunTrustBankv.HoughtonMifflinCo.(252F.3d1165[11thCir.2001])caseconcernedthe

publicationofabookcalledTheWindDoneGone,writtenbyAliceRandall,whichwasa

commentaryonandparodyoftheclassicnovelGoneWithTheWindbyMargaretMitchell.The

casehighlightstheongoingtensionbetweentheFirstAmendmentandcopyrightlaw.

52

Randall’sinitialmotivationforcreatingtheworkwasthatshethoughtGoneWithTheWindwas

aninaccurateportrayalofSouthernhistory.Shefoundittodepictamyththatneverexisted,

andaccordinglywroteTheWindDoneGonetoattacksuchmythsasthenotionofthehappy

slaveandthecompassionateslaveowner.

Specifically,TheWindDoneGonenarratesthestoryofawomancalledCynara,theillegitimate

childofPlanter,theplantationowner,andMammy,theslavecaringforhischildren.Manyof

thescenesandcharactersaresimilar,butthroughthenewworkreaderscanseethestoryfrom

anewperspective.

SunTrustBank,trusteeforMargaretMitchell’sheirsandtheownerofthecopyrighttoGone

WithTheWind,suedforcopyrightinfringement.Theyhadauthorizedseveralsequelsto

Mitchell’sbookandclaimedthattheworkcompetedinthesamemarketasthese.However,

thisargumentignoredtherealitythatTheWindDoneGonecouldeasilybeunderstoodas

ridiculingGoneWithTheWind.HoughtonMifflinmarketedtheworkasparody,displayingthe

phrase“TheUnauthorizedParody”onitsjacketspineand“Aprovocativeliteraryparodythat

explodesthemythologyperpetratedbyasouthernclassic”onthetopofitsfrontcover.

Still,thedistrictcourtwasconvincedthatRandall’sbookliftedwholepassagesfromtheoriginal

andinfringeditscopyright.ItissuedapreliminaryinjunctionrestrainingHoughton‐Mifflinfrom

theproduction,display,distribution,advertising,andsaleofthebook.

The11thUSCircuitCourtofAppealsliftedtheinjunction,rulingthatitviolatedtheFirst

Amendment.Itfoundthattheworkqualifiedforafair‐usedefensebecauseitwasacriticismof

howslaveryandracerelationsweredepictedinGoneWithTheWind.Italsoruled,moreover,

thatTheWindDoneGoneachievedasignificanttransformativeeffectwhichovershadowedthe

unlikelyharmtoSunTrust’slicensingrevenue.Thecourtfurtherfoundnodirectevidenceof

marketharmandconcludedthatthetwobookscateredtodifferentmarkets.

53

Ineffect,thecourtusedtheFirstAmendmenttoimposealimitationonSunTrust’scopyright,

givingthepublicaccesstoideasandviewpointswhichotherwisewouldhavebeencensored.

Thecourtalsostressedthatcopyrightsshouldnotbeusedtopreventworksfrombeing

criticized.

Wecouldimagineasimilarargumentbeingmadefortheuseofcopyrightedimagesin

photomontages.Artistsfrequentlyusephotomontagetocommentonwell‐documentedevents

tooffercriticismoranewperspective.However,weshouldnotethatSunTrustlostonlyinthe

sensethattheyfailedexplicitlytoenjoinpublicationofthework.Basedonthefindingsofboth

thedistrictcourtandtheappealscourt,HoughtonMifflinpaidasubstantialsettlement

reflectingcompensation,whichcould“adequatelyberemediedthroughanawardofmonetary

damages.”

Ty,Inc.,v.PublicationsInternationalLtd.

Ty,Inc.,v.PublicationsInternationalLtd.(292F.3d512[7thCir.2002])concernedadefendant

whopublishedacollector'sguideforBeanieBabystuffedanimals.TheBeanieBabies

themselvesweremanufacturedanddistributedbyTyInc.whichownedsculpturalcopyrights

ontheproducts.

ThedefendantmarketedavarietyofBeanieBabiesbooksrangingfromonesaimedatchildren,

suchaspicturebookswithsomeaccompanyingchildishtext,todevoted‐collectorguidebooks

containingawealthofinformationusefulforbuying,selling,orotherwisedealingwith

aftermarketBeanieBabyitems.TyInc.claimedthatthedefendantinfringedonitscopyrights

bycopyingtoomuchoftheirworkstocreatetheguide.

Findingacopyrightinfringementbasedonthecreationofderivativeworks,thedistrictcourt

grantedsummaryjudgmentagainstthedefendant.Itdismissedafair‐usedefense,aseach

bookcontainedasetofcolorphotographsofalloftheBeanieBabiesthenproduced.

54

Theappellatecourt,however,disagreed.Itruledthatwhilethephotographsthemselvesshould

beconsideredderivativeworks,theyhadbecomeimbeddedwiththetextinavarietyofbooks.

Likeningthecollectors’guidetoabookreview,thecourtdidnotfinditbyitselftobea

derivativework:“Boththebookreviewandthecollectors'guidearecriticalandevaluativeas

wellaspurelyinformational;andownershipofacopyrightdoesnotconferalegalrightto

controlpublicevaluationofthecopyrightedwork.”Incomingtothisconclusion,thecourt

notedthatTyalreadylicensedthepublicationofothercollectors'guidesbyreservingthe“right

tovetoanytextinthepublishers'guides.”

Accordingly,itisclearthatalthoughPublicationsInternationalLtd.madeacompletecopyof

theBeanieBabycollection,itwasnotperseanunfairuse,andthatinordertocompeteinthe

marketplaceforcollectors'guidesithadtobecomprehensive.

Thiscaseisrelevantforphotomontagebecauseitillustratesthatsubstantialuseofa

copyrightedusemayalsobefair.Whenmakingreferencestovisualworksitisdifficultnotto

uselargeandsubstantialpartsoftheoriginal.Furthermore,thiscasecountersthecopyright

owner’sargumentthatanunlicensedphotomontageharmsitspotentialmarket.

TheDigitalMillenniumCopyrightActandItsImpactonFairUse

Animportantconsiderationinevaluatingafair‐usedefenseistheDMCA,whichCongress

passedin1998inresponseto“concernsofCopyrightownersthattheirworkswouldbe[…]

piratedinthenetworkeddigitalworld”(ElectronicFrontierFoundationn.p.).

Whiletheenforcementofcopyrightlawtraditionallyfocusedonsuchcommerciallymotivated

copyrightviolationsasthemassproductionofcounterfeitCDs,theDMCAfacilitatesthe

prosecutionofindividualperpetrators.Specifically,itauthorizestechnologieswhichmonitor

thereplicationanddistributionofcopyrightedmaterial,enablingcopyrightownerstoidentify

theunlicensedconsumptionofmusic,movies,pictures,andsoftwareprograms.Thisalso

appliestophotomonteurswhousepicturescontainingembeddedwatermarksandsignatures.

55

(Lessig161)

Sofar,theDMCAhasmainlybeeninvokedbythemusicindustry,inwhichmostofthe

copyrightownersarerepresentedbytheRecordingIndustryAssociationofAmerica(RIAA).In

thepast,theRIAAprimarilyensuredthatradiostationspaidappropriateroyaltiesforbroadcast

musicalpiecesandthatcopiesofmusicrecordingsforsalewereappropriatelylicensed.More

recently,andparticularlyaftertheimplementationoftheDMCA,theRIAAhasfocusedits

attentionontheusersanddevelopersofsuchpeer‐to‐peerfile‐sharingsystemsasNapsterand

Kazaa,whichallowdigitalfilestobeswappeddirectlybetweenusers'computerswithout

havingtobestoredfirstonanintermediateserver(BleepingComputern.p.).

Intermsoftargetingtheusersofsuchsystems,theRIAAstrategyhasbeenrelativelysimple.It

allegescopyrightinfringementofeachmusicaltitleandclaimsthestatutorydamagefeefor

eachoccurrence.Evenwithamodestmusicalcatalogof,forexample,100titles,asuitwould

amount,at$150.000pertitle,toaclaim$15,000,000indamages.Lessigestimatedthecostof

defendingsuchclaimstobeapproximately$250,000(51).Keepinglitigationcostsinmind,the

RIAAsuesbutoffersasettlementforwhateverthedefendanthasinherorhissavingsaccount.

“InSeptember2003,theRIAAsued261individuals–includinga12yearoldgirllivinginpublic

housing[…]whopaidherlifesavingsof$2000tosettlethecase”(Lessig200).

Photomonteursmayalsoruntheriskofbeingsubjecttostatutorydamages,forexampleby

usingimagesfromtheCorbisdatabase.However,“iftheinfringerprovesthatitwasnotaware

andhadnoreasontobelieveitsactsconstitutedcopyrightinfringement,thecourtcanaward

statutorydamagesaslowas$200”.Furthermore,thecourtmay“refusestatutorydamagesif

aninfringerhadareasonablebeliefthattheusemadewasafairuse[…]butonlyiftheinfringer

wasanemployeeofanonprofitinstitutionsuchasaschooloralibrary”(McCarthy414).

Beyonddevicesthatmonitorunauthorizeduseofcopyrightedmaterial,theDMCAalsotargets

behaviorthatcircumventscopyrightencryption.Encryptioncanbeusedforavarietyof

56

purposes,suchastopreventusersfromcopyingDVDsontotheircomputerharddrives.

Softwarewhichcircumventssuchencryptionexistsinoverabundance.However,theDMCA

prohibits“atechnologicalmeasurethateffectivelycontrolsaccess”toacopyrightedwork.In

effect,thelawmakesitillegaltodefeattheaccesscontrolsinplaceonDVDs,althoughitsend

usemayfallundercopyrightlaw’sfair‐useexception.InUniversalCityStudios,Inc.v.Reimerdes

(111F.Supp.2d294[S.D.N.Y.2000])thecourtheldthattheDeCCSsoftware,enabling

decryptionofDVDsandcopyingthemontoPCs,wasinviolationoftheDMCA.

Regardlessofsuchpotentialfairusesarisingfromitsenduseascreatingafilmmontagewithin

therealmofpubliccommentary,theactofcircumventionmakesallusersviolatorsofthe

DMCA.“Thequestionisnotwhetheruseofthecopyrightedmaterialisacopyrightviolation,

[but]whethercopyrightprotectionwascircumvented”(Lessig158).Accordingly,if

photomonteurswishtouseimagesfromDVDsorinternetdatabases,theyshouldfirstconsider

whetherdoingsocircumventsencryptiontechnologiespriortoassessinganypossiblefair‐use

measures.

Solution:CompulsoryLicensing

Unfortunately,theprovisionsforfairusesometimesonlymeantherighttohireanattorneyto

defendfreedomofexpression.Inthisregard,whenfacedwithunwanteduseoftheir

intellectualproperty,corporationshaveasignificantadvantageoverindividualsduetothe

significanttimeandresourcesassociatedwiththistypeoflitigation.Evenasuccessfulfair‐use

defenseprovidesnoguaranteeofrecoveringthesignificantlitigationcosts.Accordingly,amere

possibilityofacopyrightinfringementclaimundoubtedlysendsachillingmessageandmaybe

sufficientforanewgenerationofdigitalauthorstomodify,orentirelyomit,particularformsof

expression.

Thesamplingofmusicrecordingsisinmanywayssimilartothetechniquesappliedin

photomontage.Ratherthanaddressingatraditionaldistinctionbetweenanideaorexpression

andapplicablefair‐useprovisions,answerscouldbefoundincommercialandcompulsory

57

licensingschemes.

Thesystemofcompulsorylicensingisanexceptiontotraditionalcopyright,asit“forcesan

intellectualpropertyownertoallowotherstousethatpropertyatafeesetbythe

government”(McCarthy66).Underthismodel,useofanother’sintellectualpropertybecomes

legalsimplybynotifyingthattheusehasoccurredandthatrevenuewillbeforthcoming,as

stipulatedbycurrentcompulsorylicensingrates.

Compulsorylicensingpracticesareinplaceforcertainworksprotectedbycopyrightlaw,such

asformusicalworksbypublicbroadcasting(McCarthy,68).Forthemusicindustryinparticular,

theCopyrightAct’sparagraph115statesthatonceacomposerhasauthorizedandpublisheda

recordingofacomposition,othermusiciansandrecordcompaniesmaycreateso‐calledcover

versions.

Implementingasimilarcompulsorylicensingsystemforthevisualartscouldcreateamore

effectiveandlessbureaucraticwayofdistributingintellectualpropertyandrewardingoriginal

copyrightholders.Thesystemwoulddoawaywithsubjectiveactsofcensorshipbasedon

personallikesordislikesofthewayanewworkcommentedontheoriginal.Asiscasefor

musicalcompositions,onceaworkispublishedotherscouldfreelyuse,comment,andcreate

derivativeworksfromit,whiletherightoffirstpublicationwouldremainanimportant

exclusiverightofcopyrightholders(Harper&Rowv.NationEnterprises[U.S.S.C.1985],471

U.S.539).

Theprocessofdeterminingwhethersomethingiscommercialornon‐profitcouldbediscarded

altogether.Theuseofanyvisualworkcouldinitiallybefreeofchargeandsubjecttoaroyalty‐

sharingagreementinregardtofuturerevenue.Thelargertheportionusedfromanoriginal

worktocreateasecondaryexpression,thehighertheroyaltyratewouldbe.

Suchacommercializedsystemwouldpartlyruncontrarytothenoblemotivationsofthe

58

copyrightlaw’sfairuseprovisionsforpurposesofcriticism,comment,newsreporting,

teaching,scholarship,orresearch.However,asopposedtothecurrentenvironment,itwould

createabright‐lineruleforthecreatorsofphotomontage.

59

Conclusion

ThefirstsectionofthisthesisshowedhowtheDadamovementintroducedphotomontageasa

waytoaddressthesocialissuesofitstime.Themovementwasareactionagainstthe

establishmentingeneral,andusedphotomontageasawaytoparaphraseandcommenton

currenteventsandpopularculture.Atthetime,literalexpressionswerefrequentlycensored

andthisnewartistictechniquewasinitiallyusedtocircumventcensorshiplaws.

Thesecondsectionofthisthesistracedtherootsofcopyrightlawsbacktocensorshippractices

insixteenth‐centuryEngland,wheretheauthoritiesusedthemasatooltocontroltheprinting

ofbooksduringaneraofreligiousstruggles.AsEnlightenmentidealsprogressed,thelawswere

reformedtopromotetheeffectivedistributionofknowledge.IntheUS,theseidealsliveon

today,andtheConstitutiondefinestheguidingprincipleofintellectualpropertylawtobethe

promotionofscienceandtheusefularts.

AsWesterncivilizationhasevolvedfromanindustrialtoaninformationsociety,thevalueof

intellectualpropertyassetshasincreased,creatinganinherentconflictbetweenthestated

purposeandprivatepropertyrights.Therighttolicensesecondaryuseofimagesis,for

example,animportantsourceofrevenueforphotographers.Althoughtheunsoliciteduseof

imagescompromisesphotographs’marketvalue,thepossibilityofacopyrightinfringement

claimmayserveasasignificantdeterrentagainsttheuseofphotomontageasanartistic

technique.

Thedoctrineoffairusetriestobalancetheinterestsofprivatepropertyandfreedomof

expression.Asthisthesishasexplained,itallowsforacertainamountofparaphrasingand

quotingforpurposesofpubliccommentaryandcriticism.However,whilethedoctrineis

acceptedasamatterofpublicpolicyforliteraryworks,visualparaphrasingisnottreatedwith

thesamelegalclarity.

Thedifferencebetweentherelativeclarityprovidedforthequotingandparaphrasingof

60

literaryworksandthecontrastingambiguityforvisualworksisduetothestructureofthelaw

andthenatureoftheexpressionsthemselves.Copyrightlawwasoriginallywrittenspecifically

withliteraryworksinmind,anditslegalframeworkandanalysisstillreflectsthisheritage.

Whereaspeoplemayusequotesandparaphrasingtoreferenceliteraryworks,thesame

practicecan,asthisthesishasshown,leadtocomplicatedlegalanalysiswhenvisualworksare

involved.Atitscore,thisisbecauseitisdifficulttomakereferencestooriginalvisualworks

withoutincludinglargeamountsofthem.

Despitethelongstandingimportanceofphotomontageasaformofpubliccommentaryand

criticism,nointuitiveruleexistsfordeterminingwhetherandhowsuchworksmaymeetthe

applicablerequirementsofcopyrightlaw.Thiscreatesaproblemforsocietyasawhole,

becausefacedwiththepossibleconsequencesofintellectualpropertylitigation,certainideas

aresimplynotexpressed.

Thefreedomofexpressionandpublicdiscourseisclearlyamoreimportantandbasicrightthan

thebenefitsallowedtoprivateintellectual‐propertyowners.Ratherthanbeingconcernedwith

thepossiblelegalimplicationsoftheirwork,artistsshouldbeabletoquestionworksfrom

popularcultureaswellascreatederivativeworksfromthem.

Inthedigitalmillenniumwewillundoubtedlyseemorereformsofcopyrightlaw.Thelackof

consistencyinthefair‐usedoctrineandcopyrightlawingeneralrepresentsasignificant

obstacleformanyotherthancontemporaryphotomonteurs.Itisadauntingtaskforasingle

individualtodeterminewhetheraparticularworkisundercopyrightprotectionand,assuming

itis,tocleartherightstoitbylocatingtheowner.Also,thefair‐useanalysisisanextremely

complicatedexerciseforlegalprofessionals,letaloneforordinarypeoplewhowishtoshare

andcommunicatewithfamilyandfriendsbymeansofmoderndigitaltechnology.Thepenalties

fortheperceivedwrongs,asstipulatedbycopyrightlawandtheDMCA,aredisproportionate.

Acompulsorylicensingschemeforthevisualartscouldfacilitateatemporarysolutionto

61

creatingaclear,legal,andefficientwayforartiststousepreviouslypublishedworks.By

recordingtheuseofapreviouslypublishedwork,apersonwouldbeabletopredicta

reasonableroyaltyrateintheeventofcommercialsuccess.Suchasystemwouldcreateaclear

lineforthosewhowishtoincorporatetheworksofothersandeliminatethecurrentself‐

censorshipresultingfromcomplexcopyrightconsiderations.

Theanswertothequestionposedattheoutsetofthisthesisofwhethertheuseofthe

Newsweek9/11coverageinthePhiladelphiasubwayphotomontagecouldhavetriggeredlegal

actionhaditbeenmassproducedisabsolutelyyes.AccordingtoNimmer'sdefinition,itclearly

violatedtheexclusiverighttocreatederivativeworksfromthephotographs.Astowhetherthe

workwouldfallundertheexceptionofthefair‐usedoctrine,theanswerisprobablyalsoyes.

Thepracticalquestion,however,iswhetheranartistwouldtaketheeconomicriskofdefending

thispositionincourt.

Onemaysimplyposetherhetoricalquestionofwhetheritwoulditbepossibletocreatethe

photomontageandcommentarywithoutmakinguseoftheNewsweek9/11coverage,suchas

byfirstrecreatingtheeventandthenvisitingBinLaden,GeorgeW.Bush,DickCheney,and

DonaldRumsfeldandaskingthemtoposeinsimilarway.

Itremainstobeseenwhetheranynewguidelineswillservetopromotetheprogressclauseand

persuadecreativetalentstosharetheirworkswiththepublic.Oneshouldinanyeventnote

thatthe“constantemphasisonprotectionofexclusiverights[…]oftenobscuresthebasic

principleofU.S.lawthattheprincipleoffreecopyingofthingsinthepublicdomainisthe

generalrule”andthatitisintellectualpropertythatshouldbetheexception(McCarthy354).

62

WorksCited:

Adams,GeorgeBurton.ConstitutionalHistoryofEngland.NewYork:HenryHolt&Co.,1921

Ades,Dawn.Photomontage.NewYork:ThamesandHudson,Inc.,1986

AIZ12,#36,14Sept.1933,1933.

Barrett,Terry.CriticizingPhotographs.MountainViewCalifornia,London,Toronto:Mayfield

PublishingCompany,1990

BleepingComputer.Peer‐to‐peer.2008.TheComputerGlossary.25March2008.

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/glossary/definition125.html

Craig,GordonA.TheGermans.NewYork:Putnam,1982

Crockett,Dennis.GermanPost‐expressionism:TheArtoftheGreatDisorder,1918‐1924.

UniversityPark,PA:PennStatePress,1999.

DeFoore,Jay.“PhotoManipulationHighlightsInternalFeudatSI.”PhotoDistrictNews2Oct.

2003:20‐22.

DeFoore,Jay.PhotographersSeekAccountabilityForInfringedKerryPhotos.2003.Photo

DistrictNews.1April2005

http://pdnonline.com/photodistrictnews/search/search_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=20

96115

Egbert,DonaldD.Socialradicalismandthearts,WesternEurope.NewYork:Knopf,1970

Elger,DietmarandUtaGrosenick.Dadaism.Koln:Taschen2004.

Fahimian,Giselle.“HowtheIPGuerrillasWon:®TMark,Adbusters,Negativland,andthe

‘BullyingBack’ofCreativeFreedomandSocialCommentary.”StanfordTechnologyLaw

Review.2004.StanfordUniversity.3February2007.

http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/04_STLR_1.

Graver,David.TheAestheticsofDisturbance:Anti‐ArtinAvant‐GardeDrama.AnnArbor,MI:

UniversityofMichiganPress,1995.

Ginsburg,JaneC.,JessicaLitman,andMaryL.Kevlin.Trademark&UnfairCompetitionLaw:

Cases&Materials.Charlottesville,Virginia:TheMichieCompany,2001.

Gorman,RobertA.andJaneC.Ginsburg.Copyright:Cases&Materials;Charlottesville,Virginia:

TheMichieCompany,2001.

63

Harrison,CharlesandPaulWood.ArtinTheory,1900‐2000:AnAnthologyofChangingIdeas.

Malden,Mass:BlackwellPublishing,2003.

Hill,Jonathan.ActionsofArchitecture:ArchitectsandCreativeUsers.London:Routledge,2003.

Hughes,Robert.TheShockoftheNew.NewYork:RandomHouse,1981.

Klein,Naomi.NoLogo.London:Flamingo,2001.

Lavin,Maud.“HeartfieldinContext”ArtinAmericaFeb.1965:85‐91

Marien,MaryW.Photography:ACulturalHistory.London:LaurenceKingPublishing,2006.

Marinucci,Carla.“DoctoredKerryphotobringsanger,threatofsuit.”SanFranciscoChronicle.

20Feb.2004.HearstCommunicationsInc.21March2004.http://sfgate.com/cgi‐

bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/20/MNG4S54RGO1.DTL.

McCarron,Carolyn“AmericaTheGreedy.”CommunicationArtsMagazineJan.‐Feb.2004:21‐

28.

McCarthy,J.T.DeskEncyclopediaofIntellectualProperty,2nded.WashingtonDC:BNABooks,

1995.

Norman,JeremyM.FromGutenbergtotheInternet.Novato,CA:NormanPublishing,2005.

Richter,Hans.DadaArtandAnti‐Art.NewYork:ThamesandHudson,Inc.,1965.

―――DadaArtandAnti‐Art.NewYork:ThamesandHudson,Inc.,1997.

Rosenblum,Naomi.AWorldHistoryofPhotography,3rded.NewYork:AbbevillePress,1997.

TheSamuelsonLaw,Technology&PublicPolicyClinic,etal.UnintendedConsequences:Seven

YearsundertheDMCA.April2006.ElectronicFrontierFoundation.7January2007.

http://www.eff.org/wp/unintended‐consequences‐seven‐years‐under‐dmca.

Sayre,HenryM.AWorldofArt.PrenticeHall,1999.

Sheffield,Gary.“TheOriginofWorldWarOne.”WorldWars:WorldWarOne.3January2002.

BBCHome.17May2005.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/origins_01.shtml.

Takeoverworld.Bush+ClintonFamilies.2008.Takeoverworld.29June2008.

http://www.takeoverworld.info/clinton‐bush.html.

TechTarget.InformationSociety.2008.Whatis.com.1February2008.

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci213588,00.html.

64

Wescher,Herta.DieGeschichtederCollage.Koln:VerlagM.DuMontSchauberg,1974.